World leaders call for deescalation after US bombs Iran
World capitals reacted to the surprise US attack on Iranian nuclear sites with a mix of calls for restraint and statements of condemnation.
Trump had indicated on Friday he would make a decision in the next two weeks as to whether the US would bomb Iran in support of Israel, but the suddenness of the weekend strikes suggested that deadline was a red herring, with The Atlantic reporting that the president had already made up his mind last week.
As the impact of the strikes was still being assessed Sunday, European and Gulf leaders appeared united in calls for diplomacy and restraint, while Iran's longtime allies, China and Russia, criticized the aerial assault as a gross escalation that could lead to further war.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose foreign minister met with Iran's top diplomat last week as part of European efforts to avert the strikes, in a post on X urged Iran 'to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.'
The plea for diplomacy was echoed by French President Emmanuel Macron, who in his own social media post Sunday called for restraint from Tehran and a return to 'dialogue,' as well as a commitment by Iran to renounce nuclear weapons.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called on Iran to 'immediately begin negotiations with the US and Israel' to find a diplomatic resolution. The German government believes 'significant parts' of Tehran's nuclear program were impacted in the strikes, but a precise assessment was not immediately possible.
The European Union also echoed bloc leaders' calls for restraint, with the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas writing on social media that she urged 'all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation.'
European Council President Antonio Costa said the bloc would work with allies to find a 'peaceful solution' to the conflict, and stressed the human toll of further possible attacks: 'Too many civilians will once again be the victims of a further escalation,' he said.
United Nations chief António Guterres said in a statement that he was 'gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran,' adding that the strikes represented a 'dangerous escalation' for the region.
'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace,' Guterres said, calling on UN members to deescalate the conflict.
The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Sunday that it found no increase in off-site radiation levels after the strikes on the nuclear facilities, and that it would continue to monitor the situation.
The UN Security Council was expected to meet later on Sunday to discuss the situation.
China's foreign ministry said Sunday that Beijing 'strongly condemns' the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, accusing Washington of violating international law and escalating regional tensions.
'China calls on all parties to the conflict, especially Israel, to cease fire as soon as possible,' the ministry said in a statement, adding that Beijing was 'willing to work with the international community to uphold justice and restore peace and stability in the Middle East.'
Russia's Foreign Ministry said Moscow 'strongly condemned' the strikes, echoing China's accusation that they represented 'a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.'
Senior Kremlin official and former president Dmitry Medvedev went further, suggesting Trump's decision to strike Iran had 'started a new war for the U.S.,' and that the Iranian regime would likely be strengthened by Washington's involvement.
In a post on X, Medvedev, who is the deputy chair of Russian President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, indicated that a 'number of countries' could also decide to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons following the US strikes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the US strikes, saying they were carried out 'in full coordination' with Israel. He said US President Donald Trump's leadership 'created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.'
Netanyahu's main political opponents also praised the operation: Opposition party leader Yair Lapid dismissed critics of the strikes as 'useful idiots.'
Saudi Arabia — a longtime rival of Iran's which has in recent months seen slightly improved ties with Tehran — voiced 'deep concern' over the targeting of the Iranian nuclear sites, and reiterated prior remarks which 'condemned and denounced the violation of the sovereignty' of Iran. It urged restraint and de-escalation.
Qatar — the globe's third largest exporter of LNG — regretted the 'deterioration of the situation' in its 'sisterly' nation of Iran and called for an immediate cease in hostilities. However, a statement from its foreign ministry notably did not mention who conducted the attacks.
Abu Dhabi said the strikes threatened to pull the region 'into deeper levels of instability' and stressed the need for immediate de-escalation. The foreign ministry called on members of the United Nations' Security Council to 'uphold their responsibilities' in response to the hostilities.
Oman, which sits across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran and has hosted talks between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program, said it 'deplores' the US strikes, which it characterized as an 'illegal aggression,' adding that the attack contravened international agreements allowing Iran to develop a 'peaceful' nuclear program.
The Kingdom of Bahrain called for negotiations to restart between the US and Iran, adding that a diplomatic approach 'is essential to restoring regional peace and security and to protecting the peoples of the region from the consequences of war,' according to the state news agency.
The country, which is home to a US military base, urged civilian drivers to avoid main roads Sunday as a precaution: Tehran has previously indicated it would consider attacking regional US military bases if Washington decided to strike the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Alarm grows after the US inserts itself into Israel's war against Iran. Follow live updates.
UN nuclear agency says significant damage expected at Iranian underground site — 5:09 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog said Monday that 'very significant damage' is expected at Iran's underground facility at Fordo after a U.S. airstrike there this weekend with sophisticated bunker-buster bombs. Advertisement Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made the statement in Vienna. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Given the explosive payload utilized and the extreme vibration sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred,' Grossi said. UK's Lammy says US not going after Iran's 'civilian leadership' — 4:02 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press Britain's foreign minister says he is confident the US is not seeking to overthrow Iran's government despite a social media post from President Trump suggesting it might be a good idea. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Monday that 'it's clear from Israel and the United States that they're not going after the civilian leadership' in Tehran. He said 'that's not what's under consideration at this time.' Lammy said he spoke to Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday, and the UK is pushing to 'get the Iranians back to serious diplomacy.' Advertisement Lammy told the BBC he has 'not seen an assessment yet' of whether the strikes 'seriously degraded Iran's ability to come up with a nuclear program.' He added that 'ultimately this has to be dealt with by diplomacy.' Iran has a 'free hand' to act against US interests, top general says — 3:52 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press Iranian Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, the chief of joint staff of armed forces, warned the US on Monday that its strikes gave a 'free hand' to Iranian armed forces to 'act against US interests and its army.' Mousavi stressed Iran would not hesitate to do so after the US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday. He described the American attack as violating Iran's sovereignty, entering the Israeli war on the country and being tantamount to invading the country. The state-run IRNA news agency reported Mousavi's remarks. North Korea condemns US strikes on Iran — 2:55 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press North Korea says it 'strongly condemns' the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling it an egregious violation of Iran's territorial integrity and security interests. North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday that the United States and Israel were escalating tensions in the Middle East through the use of military force, and called on the 'just-minded international community' to raise a unified voice against their 'confrontational behavior.' During his first term, President Trump met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018 and 2019, but their diplomacy collapsed over disagreements in exchanging the release of US-led sanctions against North Korea and the North's steps to wind down its nuclear and missile program. Kim has since accelerated his arms development while ignoring talk offers by Washington and Seoul. Advertisement He has shifted the priority of his foreign policy to Russia, sending thousands of troops and huge shipments of military equipment to fuel Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize — 1:15 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By the Associated Press Pakistan condemned President Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the US, resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the US for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
