On 2 March 2026, a suspected Iranian-made drone was shot down over the British military base of Akrotiri in Cyprus.
The incident pushed the island’s long-overlooked bases into the international spotlight, as security alerts and fears of escalation drew renewed attention to facilities that have historically operated with limited public scrutiny.
Amid regional escalation, the potential activation of the European Union’s mutual defence clause and the deployment of European naval assets in the eastern Mediterranean signal a sharp escalation.
Recently, the British government granted the US army use of its bases - excluding Cyprus - while reinforcing Akrotiri with advanced satellite monitoring and additional personnel, marking a significant boost in operational capacity.
These bases attracted little scrutiny during Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, despite evidence that British aircraft operating from Cyprus had conducted hundreds of surveillance flights over the Palestinian territory since October 2023.
As the US-Israel war on Iran evolves into a multifront campaign that could reshape the Middle East, these bases underscore the legacy of Britain’s empire in projecting force across the region, and now serve as central logistical and surveillance hubs for Western operations. Cyprus as a strategic military hub Safeguarded in 1960 after Cyprus’ independence, the British “sovereign base areas” of Akrotiri and Dhekelia cover 3% of the island and remain a cornerstone of Western military infrastructure.
Compared to most military bases, these enclaves constitute sovereign British territory, permitting operations with minimal external control.
This provides “a degree of legal and operational autonomy that is rare in the region and far less vulnerable to the day-to-day access politics that can constrain operations elsewhere”, Andreas Krieg, associate professor in security studies at King’s College London, told The New Arab .
"This permanence also offers a significant operational advantage: land-based infrastructure enables sustained missions, large-scale intelligence coordination, and logistical continuity beyond what maritime platforms can match,” he added.
Since 2023, escalating tensions in the Middle East have posed a growing risk of drawing Cyprus into regional conflicts. In June 2024, Hassan Nasrallah , then secretary general of Hezbollah, warned that the island could face reprisals due to the logistical support its territory provides.
Since 2017, the Israeli army has regularly used the island’s terrain to simulate ground operations in southern Lebanon.
Matthew Stavrinides, from the activist group Genocide Free Cyprus, told TNA that the danger for Cyprus exists because the island has been turned into a “launchpad for terror,” referring to military operations in Gaza and the Middle East.
The group is formed of a coalition of organisations and activists that have lobbied the Cypriot government to cease involvement in the Gaza war and campaigned against British bases on the island. Surveillance flights and support for Israeli operations From these bases, the British state has played a direct but opaque role in supporting Israeli operations. In October 2025, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese identified this as part of third-state involvement through intelligence-sharing, logistics, and diplomatic support.
British aircraft have conducted hundreds of surveillance flights over Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory. While initially framed as supporting hostage rescues, this justification has been widely contested.
Martin Shaw, emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, argues that the British government “supported the Israeli campaign as a whole”, with the hostage narrative emerging only after the flights were publicly exposed.
Public debate, however, remains limited. In October 2023, the British government reportedly instructed media outlets not to report on the activities on these bases .
According to Michael Lynk, former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, this reflects a deeper alignment between governments and corporate and state media over the boundaries of acceptable criticism.
In this framework, Israel is largely seen as a strategic ally - despite sometimes being seen as problematic or even paranoid - while Western states are portrayed as defending democratic values, limiting critical scrutiny.
The absence of transparency remains glaring. British authorities have not clarified how intelligence was ultimately used, and Israel has not disclosed this information either.
This raises “serious questions” about the United Kingdom’s potential liability for complicity, Michael Lynk told TNA . Legal and political responsibilities This ambiguity exposes a gap between strategic alignment and legal obligations. Mounting evidence suggests British support extends beyond surveillance, embedding the British state into a large network of logistical and military assistance to Israel.
“In case reports about surveillance flights from British bases in Cyprus assisting Israeli operations are accurate - and those seem credible - this raises serious questions about the United Kingdom’s potential liability for complicity,” Lynk says.
The only purpose was to give military intelligence to Israel for continuing its genocidal war on Gaza, the former UN Special Rapporteur says.
“The United Kingdom did the exact opposite of what it's compelled to do under the Genocide Convention, which it is a signatory to: instead of working individually and collectively to bring it to an end, it was working to evade genocide by assisting the genocidal party in the conduct of its war.” The case for complicity The United Kingdom could face scrutiny before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). As Michael Lynk notes, Nicaragua has brought a case against Germany over alleged complicity through continued arms exports to Israel.
In such cases, a central question is knowledge and intent. While existing jurisprudence sets a high threshold, Palestine’s context may reduce it, argues Luigi Daniele, associate professor of international law from the University of Molise.
Public statements by Israeli officials since October 2023, widely interpreted as expressing genocidal intent, make it more difficult for third states to profess ignorance.
As Luigi Daniele notes, the ICJ’s 2007 Bosnia v. Serbia ruling requires that a complicit state has knowledge of the principal perpetrator’s genocidal intent and sharing the intent is not necessary. In Gaza, however, this threshold could differ given the quantity and explicit nature of such statements.
In the war on Iran, the Labour government’s reluctance to get further involved reflects a mix of historical memory, legal awareness, and domestic political pressures. As Martin Shaw notes, the legacy of the Iraq war continues to shape internal debates, while concerns over legality and political fallout limit deeper involvement.
By framing its actions as defensive, the British government seeks to distance itself from direct participation, an argument Shaw sees as largely artificial when operations are enabled from British territory.
Simultaneously, Western governments have intensified repression of movements in solidarity with Palestine since October 2023, tightening the space for public dissent.
Palestine has become both a focal point of public anger and an impetus for political realignment across the spectrum, from the far right to social democratic parties, siding with Israel. What future for British bases? Beyond legal responsibility, the British bases in Cyprus raise pressing strategic questions. As Michael Lynk warns, the use of these facilities in unlawful operations could expose the British state and the bases themselves to retaliation as lawful targets.
“The United Kingdom then becomes involved on the wrong side of international law by joining in a war of aggression on Iran.
Therefore, its bases, to the degree of involvement in aiding and abetting in the United States and Israel, become lawful targets by Iran.”
But recent incidents have nevertheless sparked unexpected debates. President Nikos Christodoulides has called for an “open and frank debate”, describing the bases as a “colonial consequence”.
Denouncing the continued presence of the British bases, the European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDHR) and the Cyprus Democratic Lawyers Association (CDLA) stated: “This was not self-determination. It was imperialism in a new legal form.”
As Andreas Krieg notes, closing or significantly downgrading the bases would carry consequences beyond symbolism. While it might reduce direct targeting, it would also limit the United Kingdom’s ability to project power and manage crises in the Middle East. Recalibration - tightening use constraints while preserving strategic leverage - is the more likely path.
But civil society mobilisation is growing. The “Bases Off Cyprus” campaign frames them as central hubs for military operations, while exposing locals to conflict without democratic accountability.
As highlighted by its coordinator, Nuvpreet Kalra, the movement demands the full closure of facilities hosting “a critical launchpad and location that has been essential for regional operations” and highlights international solidarity across Cyprus, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The group has also called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to demand an intelligence handover as part of concerns over potential crimes.
These demands echo a wider push for accountability. Following the British government’s refusal of an inquiry proposed by the British MP Jeremy Corbyn, civil society actors launched the Gaza Tribunal to investigate the British state’s role in Israel’s military operations and issued its final report in March.
Central to the campaign is the public’s right to know how territory and information are used - and at what cost.
“Power often works against justice. From its origins after the Second World War, international law was designed with an off-ramp, letting dominant powers evade responsibility,” Michael Lynk says.
“The struggle remains: law in the service of justice, or law in the service of power.” Sylvain Henry is a writer based in Samos, Greece and holds a master's degree in sociology and political philosophy. He recently worked with the Cyprus Refugee Council Follow him on X: @SylvainHenry_ and on Instagram: sylvainhenry_ Edited by Charlie Hoyle