Keir Starmer responds after US attacks Iran's nuclear sites
The Prime Minister said Iran's nuclear programme is a 'grave threat' which the US military action would 'alleviate'.
There is understood to have been no UK involvement in the action, which comes after Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy had pushed for a diplomatic solution rather than US action which could further destabilise the region.
The Prime Minister said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security.
READ MORE: US enters war with Iran after Donald Trump orders bombing of key nuclear sites
'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.
'The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority.
'We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.'
The US attacked three sites in Iran including the Fordo facility, which is buried deep underground.
US President Trump said the key nuclear sites had been 'completely and fully obliterated'.
In an address to the nation from the White House, he warned there could be further strikes if Iran retaliates: 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran.'
Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi warned the attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate.
The strikes followed a build-up of US military equipment, with B-2 stealth bombers – which are the only aircraft to carry a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb – reportedly used to target the underground facilities.
The aircraft have previously used the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands, but it is understood that was not involved in the strikes which hit Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz.
Trump's move towards military action came despite Starmer's pleas for diplomacy and his repeated calls for de-escalation.
On Thursday the Prime Minister warned of a 'real risk of escalation' in the conflict, adding there had previously been 'several rounds of discussions' with Washington and 'that, to me, is the way to resolve this issue'.
The Foreign Secretary urged the US to pull back from the brink on a visit to Washington for talks with counterpart Marco Rubio before heading to talks with Iran on Friday alongside European allies.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, meanwhile, has backed Trump's decision to strike Iran.
He said: 'Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the future of Israel depends on it.'
Iran launched a ballistic missile barrage against Israel in retaliation to the US action.
The foreign ministry in Tehran issued a statement condemning 'the United States' brutal military aggression against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities'.
It added: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran's territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States' criminal aggression.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
NATO countries approve Hague summit statement with 5% defence spending goal, diplomats say
BRUSSELS, June 22 (Reuters) - NATO countries agreed a statement on Sunday for their upcoming summit that sets a goal of 5% of GDP for annual defence and security-related spending by 2035, overcoming objections from Spain, diplomats said. The statement has the green light from all 32 NATO members, diplomats said, but will only become official when it is approved by leaders including U.S. President Donald Trump at their summit in The Hague on Wednesday.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ban on Palestine Action as ‘terrorists' is shameful
I am a former chief constable, and once attempted to become a Labour police and crime commissioner. I'm not therefore someone easily categorised as a supporter of terrorism or criminal activity. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group is beyond satire (Report, 20 June). I suspect that embarrassment over hilarious security failures at an RAF base may be clouding judgment and good sense. Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace. It is nearly as disgraceful as the continued UK support for the apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Israeli state. If the home secretary is so keen to proscribe an organisation, why not proscribe the terror group known as the Israel Defense Forces? They kill innocent people daily, and yet my voted-for government does absolutely nothing. Words mean nothing. Israel's leadership ignores them, yet our government persists in arming it. The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law – one here being used to suppress support for Palestinians. The home secretary appears to have left reason Hughes Bradwell, Derbyshire The plan to proscribe Palestine Action represents a failure of this government to engage in meaningful discussion with all those who deplore Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and our government's support of those actions. The protest group has made it clear that their reason for using spray paint on two planes was to draw public attention towards RAF logistical support for Israeli actions. That logistical support has taken many forms, and the public is only aware of some. At the same time, the government has often condemned Israel's genocidal policies. It should not be surprised when its support for Israel leads to alarming reactions. I recently joined a large, friendly and peaceful march in London in support of the Palestinian cause. I dearly hope the home secretary will consider the British history of tolerance of protest in her future BarberUttoxeter, Staffordshire The government responds to a few people spraying paint and breaking windows by declaring them 'terrorists'. If that is terrorism, then the word loses all meaning. Banning them – and their supporters – could be justified if they have carried out, or advocate, a campaign of murder and/or bodily harm. But unless the government can provide evidence of the latter, then proscribing a group that is protesting against a war is ludicrous, and sets a very dangerous precedent. Are the anti-frackers terrorists? Hunt saboteurs? Even last year's rioters weren't called terrorists, yet they caused mayhem in many towns and cities. No one is safe if proscription becomes the Loschi Chadderton, Greater Manchester So now you're a terrorist if you protest against the government supporting genocidal acts on innocent people? A small act of vandalism is hardly blowing people up, but this government is supporting murderous behaviour in Gaza in all our names, no matter how many times we take to the streets or write to our MPs. The suffragettes would have been branded terrorists if we used this criterion. I'm not a member of Palestine Action, but they sound just like my kind of people. Mary Gildea Charlton, London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Diversity policies improve the civil service
As a retired civil servant, I read your article with interest (Civil service is 'too remote' from people's lives across UK, says minister, 14 June). I am in favour of moving roles out of London, but simply moving locations is not enough without culture change. Civil servants come from a range of communities. Most are passionate about public service. But the hierarchy means that only those who are able and willing to play by unwritten rules (created by white, middle-class, non-disabled men for their own benefit) can climb the ladder; civil servants are encouraged to focus more on what will please senior leaders than on what will benefit communities; and the civil service often values grade and seniority over knowledge, experience and expertise. To provide the best public services the civil service needs to reflect, at all levels, the communities it serves. At present it doesn't, and diversity diminishes with seniority. The 'back-office function' of experienced equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) specialists is essential: to identify barriers to under-represented groups; to ensure a working environment where everyone can thrive; and to rewrite the hidden rules so that they work for everyone. Senior leaders (including ministers) need to value the experience and expertise of specialists at more junior grades. In 2008 I joined the Crown Prosecution Service as an equality, diversity and community engagement manager. As well as EDI issues, my role involved engaging with local communities to understand their needs and build confidence in the criminal justice system. Engaging with communities improves the service provided and encourages those from under-represented groups to consider joining the civil service. In this country, we have always referred to EDI. Those who advocate doing away with 'DEI' betray their slavish Trump AirsNewcastle upon Tyne Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
