The Business Secretary told Sky News: “This is not hypothetical. There is not a week goes by without some sort of Iranian cyber attack on a key part of UK critical national infrastructure. There is Iranian activity on the streets of the UK, which is wholly unacceptable.”
He added: “It’s already at a significant level. I think it would be naive to say that that wouldn’t potentially increase.
“But again, there’s a choice here for Iran: Do they want to continue being an agent of instability in the region and the wider world? Where has that got them? Where has it got the Iranian people?
“There’s a better course of action for Iran to take here, and I think they should consider that.”
Former UK national security adviser Lord Ricketts said it is a “dangerous and very unpredictable moment”, adding Iranian retaliation of some kind is “likely”.
Discussing Iran, the former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee told BBC News: “This is a major strike against their key strategic assets and so I think we have to expect that they will try and get back at American bases, American economic installations, possibly even America’s allies in the Gulf.”
Lord Ricketts said the UK Government will be “relieved” the US did not ask to use the UK-US Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean to launch the attack.
He added: “That would have meant that the UK would have had to take a view on the legality of this – that they avoided doing.”
Matthew Savill, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) director of military sciences, said publicly available data is “consistent” with the UK not being involved in the US strikes, adding B-2 bombers were able to “fly from the US mainland, being refuelled in the air”.
Mr Savill added: “If the Iranians choose a broader military response against US forces, there are targets across the Middle East, especially in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but all would risk widening the conflict at a time of extreme vulnerability for the Iranian regime and some US forces already appear to have been dispersed from locations such as Qatar.
“Their (Iran’s) ballistic missile forces have been firing salvoes at Israel of decreasing size, though they have not yet used much, if any, of their cruise missile stockpiles.
“The UK is present at many of these locations, and would need protection from ballistic missiles provided by US Patriot batteries, while UK Typhoon jets at Cyprus could provide some air defences against drones and cruise missiles.”
Leslie Vinjamuri said Mr Trump’s move to bomb Iran was an “extraordinary and bold decision” for a leader who “staked his presidency on being the ‘peacemaker and a unifier’.”
The director of Chatham House’s US and Americas programme said the risks of Mr Trump’s strategy are “incalculably high”.
Dr Vinjamuri said: “If Iran attacks US assets and especially US personnel in the region, if the US is dragged further into direct conflict, if this launches a new era of terrorism, if this leads to more rather than less stability, then the cost to a president who has staked his success on staying out of war and delivering peace will be high.”
She added it is “essential now that US attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites be leveraged to drive further negotiation”.
Meanwhile, Sanam Vakil said Mr Trump appears to view the strikes “as a one-off”.
The director of Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa programme said: “I think he wants this to end with a negotiation, with a deal and one that he can show is a victory in setting back Iran’s nuclear programme – one where he is personally responsible for neutering the Iranian nuclear threat and establishing broader stability in and across the Middle East.
Dr Vakil said it is “hard to see the Iranians immediately returning to the negotiating table”.
She added: “We’ll have to wait and see what Iran’s supreme leader, who is in hiding effectively, says. He will guide the direction of what Iran does next. The lack of trust in President Trump personally will drive his decision-making.”
Burcu Ozcelik said Iran’s credibility had received an “unprecedented blow” from the strikes.
The RUSI senior research fellow for Middle East security said Tehran faces a dilemma of whether to “retaliate and risk a wider war or pause to consolidate at home”.
Dr Ozcelik added: “De-escalation may allow the regime to focus inwards to deter political instability, reinforce elite command and control, and manage the political fallout from 10 days of war with Israel. But inaction carries its own cost – undermining Tehran’s credibility after years of vows to protect its nuclear programme at all costs.
“Iran’s options are both limited and incredibly risky.”
Dr Ozcelik said attempting to disrupt or shut the Strait of Hormuz could trigger “global economic shockwaves and runs counter to Iran’s own interests”.
She added that continued Israeli military action “risks reinforcing Tehran’s belief that the endgame is not deterrence, but regime change”.
Dr Ozcelik said: “This could entrench Iran’s resolve and push the conflict into a far more dangerous phase.”
