{"id":256222,"date":"2026-08-19T14:08:14","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T14:08:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/256222\/"},"modified":"2026-08-19T14:08:14","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T14:08:14","slug":"putin-and-iran-are-both-threatening-to-hit-uk-targets-this-is-why-their-threats-might-not-be-empty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/256222\/","title":{"rendered":"Putin and Iran are both threatening to hit UK targets \u2013 this is why their threats might not be empty"},"content":{"rendered":"

The deeper the support for Ukraine, the \u201chigher the price [the UK] will pay\u201d. Those are the words of the Russian embassy<\/a> as it reacted to reports that Ukrainian forces had used drones built by the UK in the ongoing war<\/a>. <\/p>\n

To his credit, prime minister Andy Burnham has said Britain will continue to fully support<\/a> Ukraine in the wake of such threats from Putin<\/a>. But if the Kremlin were ever to see through such a plan, things might not be so triumphant. <\/p>\n

Imagine, just before first light, a re-flagged shadow fleet cargo ship<\/a> sailing up the North Sea launches a dozen Shahed drones against London. As the UK has no air defence radar looking in this direction, the first notification of this strike comes from Dutch radar. But even at the Shahed<\/a>\u2019s low speed (175 km\/h), the RAF Quick Reaction Alert Typhoons at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire are unable to intercept the drones before they slam into a range of targets<\/a>, including Liverpool Street station in the morning rush hour, a hospital, and some electricity infrastructure. Casualties<\/a> at the station are in the dozens. A dozen drones costing less than $50,000 (\u00a337,000) each bring London to a panicked halt<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"PutinPutin has warned of \u2018serious consequences\u2019 due to the UK\u2019s continued support of Ukraine (Sputnik)<\/p>\n

Unrealistic? A few years back, you would rightly have scoffed at me for suggesting this. Even the techno-thriller master Tom Clancy wouldn\u2019t have come up with such a scenario (although it is worth recalling that in 1994, he did write a novel in which a commercial aircraft crashed into the Congress building, killing the US president, foreshadowing 9\/11).<\/p>\n

There is growing disbelief at the blas\u00e9 attitude of the UK to its defence. The last of former prime minister Keir Starmer\u2019s troubles was John Healey, his defence secretary, resigning over what he perceived as a failure to fund the defence investment plan. But, even with his firm pushback against Putin the other day, prime minister Burnham has declined to commit<\/a> to the UK increasing its defence spending <\/a>to 3 per cent of GDP<\/a> by 2030. Even Starmer\u2019s commitments were bigger than that.<\/p>\n

This is not just a Putin problem, and should also be seen in the context of new threats from Iran amid the ongoing conflict with the US and Israel<\/a>, as a deal between the country\u2019s slips away once again. If US president Donald Trump looks to ramp up attacks in the region, they could launch strikes on targets in Europe. Sources close to Iran\u2019s government told the Financial Times<\/a> that potential targets included a British air base in Cyprus that was targeted by a drone in March.<\/p>\n

Arguably, the most worrying hint of our unpreparedness was best put by the undersecretary for defence, former Royal Marine Al Carns<\/a>, who was asked about ballistic missile defence of London at the start of February: \u201cThe UK has a suite of capabilities to tackle the missile threat which is advancing, proliferating and converging. The UK has announced an investment of up to \u00a31bn to enhance our integrated air and missile defence with a focus on homeland defence. The UK\u2019s nuclear deterrent exists to deter the most extreme threats to the UK and our allies. Its purpose is to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression.\u201d<\/p>\n

The direct suggestion here is that, were a missile to be fired at London, the UK would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Really? It\u2019s far from certain that the UK\u2019s Nato allies would support this form of escalation, rather seeing any missile or drone strikes on UK soil from an unidentified hostile actor as a result of underinvestment in crucial home defences. <\/p>\n

And the \u201cup to \u00a31bn\u201d is less than that \u2013 this spend is spread across six to seven years and covers more than \u201cjust\u201d air defence systems. The real spend, if it ever comes, is set for the mid-2030s. And if our Nato allies are correct, any threat to the UK will be this decade.<\/p>\n

Although the headline sum is impressive \u2013 \u00a362bn \u2013 the outputs look weak outside of the nuclear deterrent. The harsh truth is that within Nato the UK is increasingly an outlier regarding defence spending and is, in effect, defenceless against air\/missile\/drone attacks. And while these might have seemed unlikely five years ago, they are now a \u201cwhen, not if\u201d. <\/p>\n

European Nato is spending tens of billions every year to ensure that it is less at risk of seeing critical national infrastructure destroyed in drone or sabotage attacks, but the same is simply not true of the UK.<\/p>\n

\"AA police investigator works on the tarmac with a robot capable of defusing explosives (Getty)<\/p>\n

Late last year there were large numbers of drone incursions around European airports (especially Copenhagen) and military airbases in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands. Although no one could confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that these were Russian, many have pointed their fingers at Moscow.<\/p>\n

These drones weren\u2019t armed, but the one this month was. An explosive-laden drone was found near a Ukrainian plane at the Leipzig\/Halle airport<\/a> in east Germany<\/a> in early August, prompting a counterterrorism investigation and fears of another hybrid attack<\/a> on European soil. This sort of activity has not been limited to continental European countries either. <\/p>\n

Gatwick had numerous drone incursions between 2019 and 2023, costing millions in disruption. Police have investigated multiple suspects, but no prosecution successfully identified the operator, and while the incursions were security breaches with unclear origins, some analysts have speculated about testing by hostile actors or \u201cshadow fleet\u201d activity.<\/p>\n

Faced with this sort of threat, what can the UK do? At the moment, next to nothing. Ground-based air defence, both missiles and guns, has been run down massively. Air defence has simply not been a priority for over two decades. Quantities of SAMs are ridiculously small, and we have no anti-air artillery. Having guns firing at air targets will undoubtedly sound very Second World War \u2013 flak, the Blitz \u2013 but it is a very cost-effective solution to what could, in theory, be a devastating homeland attack.<\/p>\n

Iran\u2019s renewed threats against Cyprus come after the base was hit in March. What is of note is that a small drone attack against the base today stands a good chance of destroying 10 per cent or more of the RAF\u2019s fighter strength in one hit, making the base defenceless.<\/p>\n

\"AA fighter jet takes off from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus on 2 March after reported drone attacks on the island (AFP\/Getty)<\/p>\n

This is not the case in most of Europe, where billions of euros are being invested in upgrading and expanding ground-based air defences across the continent. In January, Sweden signed contracts worth over \u20ac1.5bn (\u00a31.3bn) for air defence weaponry and radar to counter threats ranging from drones to cruise missiles, and this is just one part of a broader investment package. In line with rising anxieties over renewed Russian aggression, the direct focus of this spending is earmarked for critical national infrastructure and population centres.<\/p>\n

Late last year, Germany placed framework contracts to buy up to 600 Skyranger anti-air cannon systems, an order worth as much as \u20ac8bn in total. Most of these weapons will be used for airport and airbase defence, as well as for protecting key industrial and infrastructure sites against a wide range of air threats from drones upwards.<\/p>\n

These contracts are now the norm in Europe, not the exception. Checking contracts for air defence systems in 2025 points to more than \u20ac15bn being spent on anti-air defences, with an emphasis on the defence of critical national infrastructure \u2013 and there were more contracts in 2024. In the UK, ask about whether there will be investment in more systems to protect the country, and a worrying range of what can only be described as \u201cexcuses\u201d are trotted out.<\/p>\n

Waiting for the Defence Investment Plan<\/a> (DIP) for a steer on where to spend the defence money is one familiar response to questions being raised about underinvestment. The DIP is now at least three months late, and apparently is stuck inside a Treasury that is having to weigh up Britain\u2019s benefit spending against how much is needed to be spent on defence. <\/p>\n

What doesn\u2019t seem to be understood by our so-called leaders is that there isn\u2019t a \u201csurface-to-air missile supermarket\u201d where you can push your trolley down, selecting whatever missiles you want. Even with the best money spent, there will be a two-year-plus gap between ordering new SAMs and receiving them.<\/p>\n

High demand for air defence systems has made lead times rise, and some European customers for the US Patriot SAM have now been told that they do not know when they will receive their missiles, production being under such stress.<\/p>\n

The reliance on Nato for our collective defence is also often emphasised by those tasked with keeping us safe, who regularly point out that our allies would intercept any missiles coming towards the UK.<\/p>\n

But would our allies act straight away? Most missile defence systems have computer systems that look at the trajectory of a missile and calculate where it is set to hit. If it is set, say, to hit unpopulated areas or the sea, the computer calculation will be to not waste a missile on it. So a Dutch Patriot SAM, seeing a ballistic missile passing over the Netherlands towards the UK, would in effect say, \u201cnothing to worry about \u2013 not a threat to us\u201d. To my certain knowledge, after numerous conversations over the past year, there have been no explicit talks between the UK and Nato partners about them defending UK airspace with their SAMs. Actually, there is more astonishment that the UK is not doing more to defend itself.<\/p>\n

\"PrimePrime minister Andy Burnham has declined to commit to the UK increasing its defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 (AFP\/Getty)<\/p>\n

Burnham, when asked directly about defence spending commitments, suggested that other policy changes would clear a path to meeting targets further down the line, pulling his focus towards the NHS\u2019s ailing social care and his plans to tackle young people out of work. <\/p>\n

All valiant missions, but the stark reality is that the UK\u2019s lack of investment in air and missile defences leaves our nation increasingly vulnerable. While Europe acts decisively to protect critical infrastructure, the UK emerges as the exposed man of the continent \u2013 with limited options should a coordinated drone or missile strike occur. Without urgent strategic action, the scenario that once seemed implausible \u2013 dozens of inexpensive drones bringing the UK to a halt \u2013 could move from fiction to fact. As war escalates in the Middle East and tensions grow across the Baltic regions, the time for complacency is over.<\/p>\n

Francis Tusa is editor of \u2018Defence Analysis\u2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The deeper the support for Ukraine, the \u201chigher the price [the UK] will pay\u201d. Those are the words…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":256223,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[3],"tags":[18580,2328,70722,5084,34,179,81,1546],"class_list":["post-256222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-iran","tag-business-finance-and-industry","tag-defence","tag-employment-issues","tag-horizontal","tag-iran","tag-military","tag-politics","tag-training"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@iran\/117122571298322595","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256222\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/256223"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}