Starmer warns of ‘risk of escalation' following US strikes against Iran

The Prime Minister urged all sides to return to negotiations but said he had taken 'all necessary measures' to protect British interests in the region if the conflict escalates.
There was no British involvement in the action but the Government was informed before the US strikes.
US President Donald Trump pushed ahead with military action despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's calls for de-escalation (Suzanne Plunkett/PA)
Tehran has threatened to retaliate and Mr Trump has warned of further US action if necessary, saying: 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran.'
Speaking at his Chequers country retreat, the Prime Minister said there was a 'risk of escalation' adding: 'That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme.
'In relation to the UK, we were not involved in the attack. We were given due notice, as we would expect, as close allies to the US, and we have been moving assets to the region to make sure we're in a position to protect our own interests, our personnel and our assets, and, of course, those of our allies.'
The US action comes just days after Sir Keir, who attended the G7 summit in Canada with Mr Trump, said on Tuesday there was 'nothing' from the president to suggest he was about to get involved in the conflict.
Mr Trump pushed ahead with the action anyway, which he claimed had 'completely and fully obliterated' key nuclear facilities.
Asked if he had been left looking foolish by the UK's closest ally ignoring his calls for de-escalation and pushing ahead with military strikes, the Prime Minister said: 'It's clearly a fast-moving situation and there's been a huge amount of discussion in the days since the G7 ended.'
The Prime Minister sought to dodge questions about whether the UK could get dragged into the conflict if Iran targeted the bases of the US, a Nato ally.
'I'm not going to speculate about what may happen, because all of my focus is on de-escalation,' he said.
'But I do want to reassure the public we have taken all necessary measures to protect UK interests, UK personnel and to work with our allies to protect their interests as well.'
The US has taken action to alleviate the grave threat that Iran poses to global security.
The UK did not participate in these strikes.
The safety of UK personnel and bases is my top priority. Force protection is at its highest level and we deployed additional jets this week.
— John Healey (@JohnHealey_MP) June 22, 2025
Extra RAF Typhoon jets have already been moved to the region and Defence Secretary John Healey said 'force protection is at its highest level' following the US strikes.
Sir Keir will chair a meeting of the Government's Cobra crisis committee on Sunday afternoon and has held a series of calls with world leaders.
The US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme.
The Tehran regime has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful but its uranium enrichment process has gone far beyond what is required for power stations.
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 these strikes.
The attack on Iran also involved US submarines, which launched around 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'By targeting Iran's nuclear sites, the US has taken decisive action against a regime that fuels global terror and directly threatens the UK.
'Iranian operatives have plotted murders and attacks on British soil. We should stand firmly with the US and Israel.'
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also backed Mr Trump's decision to strike Iran.
He said: 'Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the future of Israel depends on it.'
Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey said 'robust diplomacy' was now needed to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, adding: 'Following the US strikes, it is essential that we work to de-escalate the conflict and achieve that diplomatic solution.'
Scotland's First Minister John Swinney called for diplomacy, saying the Middle East conflict has reached 'an alarmingly greater level of danger after the US attacks on Iran'.
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.'
Mr Trump said any retaliation would be met with 'force far greater' than that used in the initial strikes.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

BBC News

37 minutes ago

• BBC News

Diplomatic tightrope on Iran just got more precarious for Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer has been treading a delicate diplomatic tightrope all week on the issue of night's airstrikes by the US mean the challenges facing the prime minister could now continue for Keir's repeated calls for de-escalation have clearly not been heeded by the White he has avoided direct UK involvement in military action and has sought to maintain what British diplomats claim is a solid and valuable relationship with US president Donald Trump. The response from ministers appears to be it was not the means they wanted, but they supported the UK has not explicitly endorsed the method, but the result - a delay in Iran getting nuclear weapons - is, they argue, in the UK's national Keir's position has shifted since Tuesday, when he seemed confident Trump would not intervene, after sitting next to him at a G7 dinner in Canada."I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was," he four days later the president intervened. Did the prime minister misread Trump? Or did the president - whose unpredictability is central to his foreign policy approach - just change his mind? No 10 has told us it was given advanced warning of the US action, but the UK was not asked to take part. We do not know had been speculation that US B-2 stealth bombers could have used the UK's Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean as a waypoint en route to "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved B-2s flying non-stop for 18 hours to reach their targets, according to the latest on US strikes on IranIran's secretive nuclear site that only a US bomb could hitWhat we know about US strikes on IranIt is possible the UK was not asked for assistance because it would have been a difficult request to have been debates at the top of government in recent days about the legality of any UK involvement, with the attorney general, Lord Hermer, providing advice on a range of the next steps in the conflict unclear, the US could end up requesting military support from the UK in the coming weeks - prompting further difficult decisions for the prime minister. So, what next? US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has responded to concerns the US attacks could prompt the start of a long conflict by insisting: "This is most certainly not open-ended".Yet the actions of both the The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) suggest they fear retaliation from is why British diplomats have been planning a flight early next week to help "vulnerable British nationals and their dependents wanting to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories".Defence sources have told me measures to protect British armed forces in the Middle East have been strengthened in the past few hours, with additional fighter jets already in the region and at "high readiness".One UK diplomat told me UK-US relations remain strong, as demonstrated by Foreign Secretary David Lammy's long meeting with secretary of state Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on we do not know if - or how - Iran might respond, or whether the UK or its military could be targeted. Starmer's high-wire act has just become even more dangerous.

Telegraph

43 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed

I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.

Reuters

an hour ago

• Reuters

Spain agrees with NATO to skip 5% defence spending target

MADRID, June 22 (Reuters) - Spain agreed with the NATO military alliance to be excluded from spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defence, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Sunday. "A 5% spending would be disproportionate and unnecessary," Sanchez said in an address on national television. "We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defence investment, but we are not going to do it," he said, adding Spain could meet all its commitments to NATO, in terms of staff or equipment, by spending only 2.1% of its GDP. Diplomats had said earlier on Sunday the 32 countries comprising NATO had agreed on a statement for the upcoming summit setting a goal of 5% of GDP for annual defence and security related by 2035 overcoming Spain's objection. In a letter sent on Thursday, Sanchez had told NATO chief Mark Rutte his country wanted to opt out of a new 5% spending target. The letter raised concerns that Spain would derail the whole summit. At an estimated 1.28% of GDP, Spain had the lowest proportion of expenditure on defence in the alliance last year, according to NATO estimates. Sanchez agreed in April to accelerate efforts to meet NATO's current target of 2% this year.