Lammy to meet Iranian foreign minister as Trump steps back from military action
The Foreign Secretary is set to meet Abbas Araghchi alongside his counterparts from France, Germany and the EU as he seeks to negotiate a settlement before US President Donald Trump decides on whether to take military action against Tehran.
In a statement read by his press secretary on Thursday, Mr Trump said there was still 'a substantial chance of negotiations' and said he would make a decision on deploying US forces 'within the next two weeks'.
Mr Trump had previously said he 'may' join Israeli strikes against Iran and its nuclear programme, but added: 'I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.'
Friday's meeting with the so-called E3 countries follows Mr Lammy's visit to Washington, where he met US secretary of state Marco Rubio in the White House on Thursday evening to discuss 'how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict'.
The Foreign Secretary said: 'The situation in the Middle East remains perilous. We are determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.'
The situation in the Middle East remains perilous. We are determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. Meeting with @SecRubio and @SteveWitkoff in the White House today, we discussed how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict. A window now exists within the next two… pic.twitter.com/UKAOsnDAm8
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) June 19, 2025
Adding that a 'window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution', Mr Lammy said: 'Now is the time to put a stop to the grave scenes in the Middle East and prevent a regional escalation that would benefit no one.'
Earlier on Thursday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had urged the US to step back from military action, saying there was a 'real risk of escalation'.
It remains unclear whether the UK would join any military action, although there has been speculation that US involvement could require using the British-controlled base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands.
The B-2 stealth bombers based there are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which could be used against Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordo.
Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Mr Trump decides to act militarily.
Meanwhile, two Labour backbenchers pushed for a 'fresh, tough approach' to Tehran.
Jon Pearce and Mike Tapp, chairman and vice-chairman respectively of Labour Friends of Israel, said the UK urgently needed 'a multifaceted diplomatic, economic and national security plan to guard against the Iranian threat and force the regime to change course'.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, the pair called for tighter sanctions on Iran, the proscription of the country's Revolutionary Guard Corps and a 'comprehensive diplomatic solution' that 'eliminates once and for all' Iran's nuclear threat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
LA protests: US court allows Trump to keep control of California national guard while lawsuit proceeds
A US appeals court has let Donald Trump retain control over California's national guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles. A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US circuit court of appeals on Thursday extended a pause it had placed on US district Judge Charles Breyer's 12 June ruling that Trump had called the national guard into federal service unlawfully. Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by governor Gavin Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump had violated the US law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's national guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th circuit panel put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's national guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 US marines to the city after sending in the national guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state national guard forces, including an invasion, a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The justice department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous US city. The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump's deployment of the national guard and the marines violated the state's sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a 'rebellion.' The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US immigration and customs enforcement officers. The 9th circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former president Joe Biden.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Casual threats of annihilation from Trump are not reality TV stunts
The spectacle is as grotesque as it is predictable. Here we have a man whose entire career is built on graft and bluster, a conman who has spent decades swindling contractors, stiffing workers, and peddling conspiracy theories, now playing at empire with the lives of millions. READ MORE: Donald Trump on whether US will strike Iran: 'I may do it' His rhetoric – equal parts mob boss and megalomaniac –would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. When he boasts of 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran' and casually threatens to assassinate the country's supreme leader, one half-expects him to segue into a plug for Trump Steaks or a rant about 'fake news.' But this is no reality TV stunt. The consequences of Trump's bloodlust are horrifyingly real. The US military, that vast engine of imperial violence, is surging bombers, warships, and God knows what else into the region, while Trump all but dares Tehran to retaliate so he can justify an even greater bloodbath. His demand that Tehran's citizens 'evacuate' carries the unmistakable whiff of nuclear menace – a threat as reckless as it is depraved. READ MORE: Angela Rayner does not rule out following US into war with Iran Of course, the usual suspects are lining up to cheer this madness. The G7, that club of imperialist powers, has dutifully parroted the lie that Iran – not the nuclear-armed Israel, not the US with its endless regime-change wars – is the 'principal source of regional instability'. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, ever eager to prove its bipartisan commitment to militarism, has offered its full-throated support. Adam Schiff, that perennial windbag of the liberal establishment, has already greenlit further aggression, proving once again that when it comes to war, there is no opposition party in America. The truth is, this war is not about nukes, or terrorism, or any of the other threadbare pretexts trotted out by Washington. It is about oil, about empire, about the desperate flailing of a capitalist system in terminal decay. Trump, that bloated avatar of American decline, is hurtling toward catastrophe because he – like the oligarchs he serves – has no other cards left to play. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee IRAN doesn't want nukes to destroy Israel, it wants nukes to deter the West from doing to Iran what it has done to the rest of the Middle East. Who can blame Iran? Iran is one of the world's oldest countries, and whether they have proxies in other countries or do bad things to their people, the fact is that Iran has had one war in the last 200 years and it was started by Saddam's Iraq. Google how many wars the USA has had in its 320 or so years, then google how many military bases the USA has around the planet. READ MORE: Kelly Given: Israel's aggression makes mockery of self defence claims The fact is, it's the West that is the warmongering terrorist. Israel attacks Iran out of hate, the USA helps due to its liking for other countries' oil. The UK tags along trying to look like a continent, but like Trump, ends up looking incontinent. Scotland AND England need independence from these warmongering British nationalists who keep power and who have sold their souls to the donor at the expense of the voter. They can't feed or heat pensioners, who already have the worst pensions in the developed world, but here we are fighting two proxy wars against Russia and Iran. British nationalism and its unaffordable world stage must go. The UK must return to being independent countries. The days of England's huge Westminster majority controlling everything must be brought to an end. British nationalism is a disease, and there is a cure. Independence. Bill Robertson via email THE US-Israel war against Iran (Trump using 'we' on Tuesday confirms this) is reminiscent of the Iraq war, where the smokescreen of imaginary weapons of mass destruction was really about regime change. Deja vu! Trump and his administration lack the diplomatic nous to prevent wars and genocide. Trump declared there would have been no Ukraine invasion if he had been in power, bravado chest-beating but he has failed to stop it or reign in Israel's war in Iran and genocide in Palestine, so it is unlikely he would have stopped the Ukraine war – not until his good friend Putin had achieved his objectives, just like now. A Wilson Stirlingshire I AM writing in response to Peter Thomson's letter in Wednesday's National. I made no comment on Peter's letter of the 16th in my letter, my comments referred to Leah Gunn Barrett's from the 16th. Norman Robertson via email
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Iraq made Blair a pariah – Starmer risks the same with Iran
Then, as now, America was acting as virtually a rogue nation giving no thought to the different opinions of its allies. Then, as now, the American president had a skewed vision of the situation in that part of the world and no clear idea of the forces which would be unleashed by his actions and how to restore peace. Then, as now, Labour were in power and had demonstrated they were willing to support America in any course of action they decided upon no matter what the consequences might be. Today those consequences look even more terrifying than they appeared when America, with support from Britain's armed forces, invaded Iraq in 2003. This time the threat of nuclear annihilation hangs more heavily in the air. READ MORE: Casual threats of annihilation from Trump are not reality TV stunts And this time America's president is even more unpredictable and reckless than George W Bush, even more unlikely to apply logic to any decision as to his future course of action. Bush's justification for taking action against Iraq had nothing directly to do with the terrorist atrocity of 9/11. There was no suggestion, far less evidence, that Iraq was in any way linked to the plane hijackings which led to the demolition of the north and south towers of the World Trade Center in New York. America was so desperate to take action – any action – in what it had dubbed the 'global war against terror' in the aftermath of 9/11 that it alighted on the claim that Iraq had in its armoury weapons of mass destruction that posed a potential threat to the US and its allies. There was, in fact, no evidence to back up that claim. Most of the Western world regarded Bush's claim with justified scepticism. However, Britain pledged its support. It's important to remember that in Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, in which the president started to put together the case for action to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, he railed against the so-called 'axis of evil' which included Iran as well as Iraq. The US grudge against Iran has deep roots so it's no surprise that it could one day lead to the possibility of military action. Americans have been easily persuaded by presidential warmongering even without any compelling evidence it was needed. Even before that State of the Union address, a survey suggested that 73% favoured military action to oust Hussein. The government was not willing to let the small matter of there being no evidence of the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction deter it from waging war. Then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN: 'The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.' The British people were less easily fooled, but, alas, the same cannot be said for their government at Westminster. Its Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored the millions in his country marching against the invasion of Iraq and ploughed on regardless. There was some opposition within his own party. Robin Cook, then the leader of the Commons and a former foreign secretary, resigned from Blair's government in March 2003 over Iraq. He said at the time: 'I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.' However, Blair brushed off the resignation and most of his ministers and Labour MPs watched in acquiescence as the invasion proceeded. At the time, the Prime Minister was fond of telling us that if we could see the evidence that was on his desk proving that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction then we too would back his decision. Some time after Hussein was deposed and executed, when the weapons of mass destruction theory had been well and truly dismissed, I watched Blair tell a private meeting of Scottish editors that there was at that time no further evidence of the existence of those weapons but he still supported the invasion anyway. Today I'm still not clear what motivated Blair. READ MORE: The facts are clear. So why won't the BBC report on Israel's nuclear weapons? Did he really believe Iraq posed a threat to the rest of the world, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Or did he support Bush in a bid to cement the relationship between his government and Bush's Republican regime? A Guardian column by Steve Richards queried this interpretation. He suggested that both Blair's support for the invasion and David Cameron's decision to call the Brexit referendum were the result of a lack of prime ministerial depth and experience. Whatever the answer, history will judge. The big question now is whether Keir Starmer will duplicate Blair's blind allegiance to a US president's decision, no matter how crazy. And secondly, will anyone in his government have the guts to advocate standing up to Donald Trump and tell him that joining Israel's bombing of Iran is not only immoral but will move the world closer to nuclear destruction? The answer to that first question looks dangerously close to Starmer hitching his future of Trump's insistence on supporting Israel in all matters, from the unrelentingly inhumane genocide in Gaza to buying into the president's paranoia about Iran's alleged closeness to developing nuclear weapons. That claim has already led to a split between Trump and his director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. The president's annoyance was clear in his dismissal of her opinion this week, when he snapped 'I don't care what she said.' Starmer said on Tuesday that Trump has said nothing to indicate he would direct US missile strikes on Iran. Nothing that is apart from confirming on Wednesday that he has approved a plan to do just that. He told CBS that he has not yet made a decision on whether to enact that plan. The truth is that no one, probably including the president himself, knows what Trump will do next. Things don't look good. According to a 'senior intelligence source', the president has held off from strikes to see how Iran responds to his demands for 'unconditional surrender', which seems to translate as an abandonment of its nuclear programme. The heat was turned up even further yesterday when Israel's defence minister said Iran's supreme leader 'can no longer be allowed to exist' after an Iranian missile attack hit a hospital. It's hard to overestimate the damage done to Israel's claims of moral superiority in this conflict by the damage caused by its missiles hitting hospitals in Gaza. What is clear is that Israel and Iran are nowhere near a solution to their dispute and the pressure is mounting on Trump to make a decision. Starmer has admittedly advocated further negotiations rather than American bombs but if Trump goes ahead with military action it looks more likely that Britain will support him, at the very least by allowing him to use the Diego Garcia UK military base in the Indian Ocean. The record of Labour MPs – and particularly Labour MSPs in the Scottish Parliament – of standing up to their Prime Minister's folly on other matters is poor. READ MORE: David Lammy heads to US as Donald Trump considers whether to strike Iran The party's leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, has urged Starmer to do more for Scotland after its by-election win in Hamilton but any criticism of his performance after major U-turns on election promises has been either missing or heavily coded. That's not going to change if he moves to back Trump's action. Blair's support for Bush moved many former Labour supporters to ditch the party and embrace the SNP and independence because of the urgent need for Scotland to develop its own foreign policy. That urgency has increased rather than faded. John Swinney really has to capture that renewed urgency with real passage and focus, together with an indication of a route to independence, at the SNP's national council meeting tomorrow.
