No10 has denied Keir Starmer has been made to look a ‘chump’ over the Iran crisis today as he floundered over whether to back Donald Trump’s bombing raids.
The PM and president spoke last night after the US strikes on Tehran’s nuclear sites. But Downing Street’s readout notably did not include any reference to the ‘de-escalation’ Sir Keir has been urging in other statements.
Instead the leaders apparently agreed Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and should return to negotiations.
Soon after the call Mr Trump took to social media suggesting regime change – swiping that it could be time to ‘Make Iran Great Again’.
The stance raises fresh questions about Sir Keir’s influence and the health of the Special Relationship. After meeting Mr Trump in person at the G7 in Canada last week, the premier had insisted he did not believe the US would go ahead with the attacks.
Ministers again refused to say explicitly this morning whether Britain supported the action taken by the US.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy repeatedly dodged on whether the bombing was the ‘right thing to do’.
Challenged at a briefing that Sir Keir was being made to look silly, the PM’s spokesman said the leaders had ‘an excellent relationship’.
‘My answer to that is he acknowledges that it is a very fast-moving situation, he has an excellent relationship with President Trump, as detailed at the G7 last week when the President spoke about the strength of that relationship, but it is a fast-moving situation,’ the spokesman said.
‘The Prime Minister has been consistent that de-escalation and diplomacy for him is the order of the day.’
America did not ask to use the Diego Garcia base for the bombing raid, amid speculation that Attorney General Lord Hermer had advised UK participation would be illegal.
In other developments today:
- Iran is threatening to shut the crucial Strait of Hormuz, with alarm that could cause a spike in the price of oil;
- The UK and other US allies are braced for potential retaliation attacks by Iran, which has flagged ‘heavy consequences’;
- Russia has warned that Mr Trump could have opened ‘Pandora’s Box’ in the Middle East;
- The PM is facing demands to come before Parliament to explain the government’s position;
- Questions have been raised over whether Mr Trump will attend a Nato summit in Brussels starting tomorrow evening.
Mr Trump took to his Truth Social site in the early hours this morning to post satellite images that he claimed showed Iranian nuclear facilities were ‘obliterated’.
He said: ‘It’s not politically correct to use the term, ”Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!’
Asked about Mr Trump’s posts, Mr Lammy said: ‘There will be further tweets on many issues over the next three-and-a-half years of Donald Trump’s leadership that you will be discussing… the rhetoric is strong but actually I can tell you, having spoken to the Secretary of State, having sat in the White House, that this is targeted action to deal with Iran’s nuclear capability.’
He added: ‘I’m very conscious that when I met colleagues in the White House on Thursday that they were considering all of the options… we knew that, you knew that as journalists. And Donald Trump made a decision to act to degrade that capability. It may well have set back Iran by several years. That was a decision that he took.’
Pressed on the legitimacy of the strikes, Mr Lammy said: ‘Well, we weren’t involved, it’s for the Americans to discuss those issues.’
In a readout of the call after B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran’s nuclear facilities, Downing Street said: ‘The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran’s nuclear programme to international security.
‘They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
‘They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement.
‘They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days.’
Earlier, Sir Keir said there was a ‘risk of escalation’.
‘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,’ he said.
There are fears British forces could be dragged into the conflict if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders a retaliation.
Speaking to reporters at his Chequers country retreat, Sir Keir would not be drawn on whether Nato’s mutual defence pact would apply if US forces were targeted.
The PM said ‘we have taken all necessary measures to protect UK interests, UK personnel and to work with our allies to protect their interests as well’.
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.
On a day of intense diplomatic activity, Sir Keir also held calls with the Sultan of Oman, the King of Jordan, Canada’s Mark Carney and European counterparts Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz.
Ministers from the E3 – the UK, France and Germany – had been involved in talks with Iran as recently as Friday as European allies sought to avoid further escalation in the Middle East.
In a joint statement with the French president and German chancellor, Sir Keir said: ‘We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilise the region.’
Mr Lammy spoke to his Iranian and Israeli counterparts ‘to stress the need for de-escalation’.
‘I urged a diplomatic, negotiated solution to end this crisis,’ he said.
The Foreign Office dismissed as ‘inaccurate’ a report by Iran’s IRNA news agency that Mr Lammy ‘expressed regret’ over the US strikes.
Mr Lammy also spoke to US secretary of state Marco Rubio and the foreign ministers of Egypt and Cyprus.
Touring broadcast studios today ahead of making a statement to MPs later, the Foreign Secretary said it would be a ‘catastrophic mistake’ for Tehran to fire at US bases in the region.
He told BBC Breakfast: It would be a mistake to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.’
Mr Lammy said he thinks his Iranian counterpart ‘gets that and understands that’.
‘Let’s take the diplomatic off-ramp. Let’s get serious and calm this thing down,’ he said.
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.
Asked during a round of interviews this morning whether Britain endorsed the military action taken over the weekend, defence minister Luke Pollard told Times Radio: ‘That was a decision that the US has taken. Our focus has been on the diplomatic effort that is necessary to get a lasting peace.
‘That’s why that’s been the focus of the Prime Minister’s actions over the last few days, it’s why the Defence Secretary, myself, the Foreign Secretary and the minister for the Middle East have been engaging in diplomatic activity in the region, because we need to make sure that there is a route to a lasting peace here.
‘The way to do that is with a diplomatic solution that brings Iran back to the negotiating table.’
In contrast, shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said he backed the US action.
‘We support what’s happened, and obviously now need to see what happens next. There is a big question about the Prime Minister’s position. It’s just not clear what he actually thinks of the attacks,’ he said.
‘If you look at the language he’s talking about recognising the action has happened, that he’s spoken to the president, [but] does he actually support the actual military action?
‘Because, let’s be clear, lots of people say, lots of politicians in this country, lots of our allies, quite rightly, and it’s important that they do.
‘They recognise that Iran can’t be allowed to have a nuclear, a military nuclear program, but at the same time, it’s not clear what the action is that they would take to deal with that.’
