Iran's Missile Threat Reaches London, Exposing UK Defence Gaps
Iran's attempted missile strike on the UK-linked base at Diego Garcia has starkly revealed a new and alarming reality: Tehran's missile reach now potentially extends far beyond the Middle East, directly threatening European capitals, including London. As Europe fortifies its air defences, Britain finds itself in a perilously vulnerable position against long-range missile attacks, according to defence expert Francis Tusa.
A Wake-Up Call from Diego Garcia
The recent Iranian missile attack targeting the UK-owned base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean should serve as a massive wake-up call for British policymakers. Fortunately, one missile disintegrated during flight, and another was intercepted by a US Navy destroyer shortly after launch. However, the incident unequivocally demonstrates that Tehran likely possesses missiles capable of reaching nearly every capital city across Europe. While some nations have robust defences to counter such threats, the United Kingdom currently has none.
This revelation may surprise those who heard government ministers over the weekend asserting that the UK has all necessary resources to defend the nation. Regrettably, with only a few nuanced exceptions, this claim is simply not accurate. The UK's limited anti-ballistic missile capability resides primarily with its Type 45 destroyers, whose Sampson radar and Aster missiles proved they can intercept certain ballistic missiles during an engagement by HMS Diamond in the Red Sea in April 2024.
Inadequate Protection for Critical Sites
To provide even remotely effective missile defence for a major city like London, a Type 45 destroyer would need to be stationed permanently in the Thames Estuary, operating around the clock—not docked at Portsmouth Naval Base. Moreover, such a ship would only protect the South East of England, leaving numerous other critical sites across the country vulnerable. This includes the Naval Base at the Clyde, home to the Royal Navy's ballistic missile submarines.
With only six Type 45 destroyers in total, the Royal Navy lacks sufficient vessels to establish a coherent air defence network for the entire UK. Deploying them for homeland defence would also be an inefficient use of resources, as these ships might be urgently needed elsewhere. For serious protection against ballistic and cruise missiles, the UK requires ground-based air defence systems, including surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft guns.
The Dual Threat from Iran and Russia
Even if one disregards the ballistic missile threat from Iran, a more immediate danger persists from Russia, which has repeatedly issued chilling threats against the UK. British territory lies well within the range of Russia's extensive ballistic missile arsenal, and again, there is little the UK could do to defend against such an assault.
The UAE government recently released an infographic indicating that the country had been targeted by nearly 1,800 drones and 352 ballistic missiles since the onset of the Iran War. Alarmingly, the UK does not even possess 352 Aster surface-to-air missiles in its entire arsenal, highlighting the nation's extreme exposure to this type of attack. To put this into perspective, 352 ballistic missiles represent 25 percent of the number of German V-2 rockets fired at London and South East England over eight months in 1944-45, yet these were launched within a mere two-week period.
Reliance on NATO Allies Questioned
Another common assertion from the UK government is that, in the event of a missile attack on Europe or even the UK, NATO allies would handle the situation. However, conversations with European militaries operating systems like Patriot or Aster reveal a different story. No formal agreements or arrangements exist that would automatically see, for instance, Germany intercepting a ballistic missile headed for the UK. With missile stocks critically low, most European nations have stated they would prioritise protecting their own territory.
There is growing frustration that the UK appears content to freeload off European NATO defences. Regarding missile defence, several European NATO militaries have reportedly labelled the UK as "scroungers." In 2024 and 2025, European NATO countries announced procurement of over $15 billion worth of new surface-to-air missiles, while the UK is not expected to see significant spending on ground-based air defence until the 2030s.
US Systems and Limited Capacity
The United States deployed "Aegis Ashore" in Romania in 2016, installing the radar and command system from the US Navy's Aegis platform into a fixed facility rather than on a ship. Paired with 24 Standard SM-3 anti-missile surface-to-air missiles, it aims to protect against missile threats from NATO's south-eastern flank, with Iran being the primary concern. A similar facility exists in Poland. However, in the event of a massive Russian missile launch against NATO, these magazines would be depleted rapidly, forcing countries to rely on their own defence systems—an area where the UK offers little.
A Shift in Defence Priorities Needed
It is challenging to convey that what many have considered "normal"—the absence of direct threats to the UK—may no longer hold true. This realisation is both frightening and disconcerting. Yet, the critical question remains: is it worse to accept new defence priorities or to face a future scenario where the UK suffers severe damage and destruction from an enemy attack utilising missiles and drones?
Across Europe, there is a solid acceptance that the era of the peace dividend is over, and it is no longer "business as usual." This understanding has not taken root in the UK, where ministers recently propagated the message that no threats exist to the nation and that home soil remains entirely safe. It is increasingly difficult to reconcile the starkly different approaches of European governments towards homeland defence compared to the UK. Either dozens of European states are entirely mistaken about the threats they face, or they are correct. Currently, the UK appears to be an outlier and an anomaly in terms of homeland defence, population protection, and safeguarding critical infrastructure.
