According to a report by The Guardian, a British official stated just two days before a potential US attack on Iran that such an action would be deemed illegal and premature. This statement comes in light of discussions held in Geneva between the US and Iran, where Jonathan Powell, Chief Advisor to Prime Minister Keir Starmer on national security, represented the UK. Powell, a key player in past negotiations, evaluated the threat posed by Iran based on the negotiations' context.

During these talks, Iran reportedly offered a proposal without deadlines or escape clauses resembling the 2015 nuclear agreement, which included commitments to convert highly enriched uranium to low-enriched formats and a future promise to not maintain stockpiles. As a result, British officials concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify treating Iran as a current threat to Europe or its nuclear ambitions, suggesting that a negotiated solution remains viable. This assessment played a significant role when the UK declined a request from the US to participate in potential military actions against Iran.

The discourse around the potential military engagement underscores the delicate balance of international relations and the ongoing efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the nuclear discussions. The UK’s position may reflect a broader hesitance to engage militarily without stronger justification, emphasizing diplomacy as the preferred route to address concerns regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities and to maintain stability in the region.