Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1587908353-scaled

To be a ‘force for good,’ the UK must end support for the Saudi war in Yemen

Boris Johnson should follow Joe Biden’s lead on Yemen if he wants his ‘Global Britain’ agenda to have any credibility.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

In an address to the Munich Security Conference on February 19, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a claim we have heard before: the U.K. should be a “force for good” in the world. Johnson, alongside Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, sees this as a key component of the “Global Britain” agenda post-Brexit, and the phrase has been a frequent refrain in their speeches over the past two years.

In practice, however, the government is not living up to this ideal. Just three days after the speech, the director of policy for the major U.K. non-profit Oxfam, Sam Nadel, accused the government of prolonging the war in Yemen through its arms sales to Saudi Arabia. In particular, sales of air-to-air refueling equipment, which allows Saudi planes to fly for longer and conduct so-called “dynamic” strikes on newly acquired targets, have led to an escalation of the destruction, and the war has now displaced 3.6 million people.

Put simply, the U.K. government’s refusal this month to cease sales of offensive weapons is incompatible with its goal to be a force for good. Unless Johnson wants to continue to aid and abet the perpetrators of what many call the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, he must end U.K. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.

The refusal highlights a tension at the heart of the Global Britain project. On the one hand, the government has demonstrated that a robust international defense of human rights is a core element of its desire to be a force for good. In his Munich speech, Johnson highlighted actions to combat Chinese repression of the Uighurs in Xinjiang to ensure British businesses are not implicated, and to provide a refuge in Britain for Hong Kongers fleeing political repression.

Moreover, last summer’s announcement of a U.K. Magnitsky-style sanctions regime against human rights abusers brought the Saudi royal family and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman into the government’s crosshairs, specifically over the 2018 murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The release of a U.S. intelligence report into the Crown Prince’s role in the murder will confirm publicly what most suspected, and also represents a potential shift in Washington toward a tougher approach on Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, the U.K. is the world’s second biggest arms exporter after the United States, with over £11 billion ($15.5 billion) in sales in 2019. Johnson has used a fig leaf of legality to justify ongoing exports to Saudi Arabia. Lifting a previous ban on exporting technologies like air-to-air refueling last July has enabled the government to export £1.36 billion ($1.9 billion) in arms to Saudi Arabia since then.

Taken together, this incoherent set of policies shines the spotlight on a country still figuring out what its global role should be outside the European Union. The current piecemeal approach makes Britain a less credible partner on human rights issues, and opposition Members of Parliament have rightly criticized the government for its recent actions. A new Chatham House report highlights the problem the U.K. now faces in finding a credible path forward to work with Saudi Arabia on the regional challenge posed by Iran, but while working with allies to rein in the Crown Prince’s excesses. 

As the Khashoggi intelligence report only further demonstrates, London is increasingly an outlier on this issue among its allies. In the United States, the Biden administration announced an end to support for Saudi offensive operations — including arms sales — soon after taking office, although its overall approach on the details of the U.S.-Saudi relationship remains unclear. Moreover, the European Parliament passed a “wide-ranging” resolution on February 11 calling on member states to end arms sales too. Even with the supposed flexibility that leaving the European Union provides for the U.K.’s international strategy, this is the wrong time (and the wrong issue) for Johnson to pursue his own agenda and diverge from the U.K.'s most important partners.

Johnson should take three steps to change course and develop a coherent, humane policy. After hearing at the U.N. Security Council last week that the war has pushed 5 million Yemenis to the brink of famine, the United Kingdom should step up as the current president of the Security Council and end its support for air-to-air refueling.

Second, the government must use its role as penholder on Yemen at the Security Council to coordinate members to provide aid to the northern Yemeni city of Marib, where there are now an estimated 850,000 displaced persons. Finally, over the longer term, Johnson should seek reform to the country’s legal process on arms sales to ensure that future governments fully comply with all aspects of international humanitarian law.

Exactly a decade since the people of Yemen rose up in a cry for self-governance, they must now experience — and not just hear — the United Kingdom's efforts to be a force for good in the world. 


Photo: Cubankite via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London
Top image credit: London, UK - 3rd May 2025: Protestors gather outside the Royal Mint to demonstrate against plans to relocate China's embassy to the site. (Monkey Butler Images/Shutterstock)

Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London

Europe

A group of Russian nuns were recently sighted selling holy trinkets in Swedish churches. Soon, Swedish newspapers were awash with headlines about pro-Putin spies engaged in “funding the Putin war machine.” Russian Orthodox priests had also allegedly infiltrated Swedish churches located suspiciously close to military bases and airports.

Michael Ojermo, the rector of Täby, a suburb of Stockholm, tried to quell the alarm. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical espionage, he said, and “a few trinkets cannot fund a war.”

keep readingShow less
world powers
Top photo credit: (Ben_Je/Shutterstock)

US-China symposium: Spheres of influence for me, not for thee?

Asia-Pacific

In the new National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, the Trump team charges that the Monroe Doctrine has been "ignored" by previous administrations and that the primary goal now is to reassert control over its economic and security interests in the Western Hemisphere.

"We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland," states the NDS. The U.S. will work with neighbors to protect "our shared interests," but "where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.