With the US strikes on Iran, the old international order is under threat
SIR – Will the American bombing of Iran lead to another Iraq-style conflict? It is certainly a major breach of the rules-based international order which has largely prevailed since 1945.
No doubt Donald Trump and his apologists will continue to justify what has happened. However, it is clear that if there is to be any hope of a return to a better settlement of world affairs then work towards this must start now.
At least three things need to happen: a major reconstitution and strengthening of the United Nations (especially in relation to the Security Council); the recommitment by its originators to the 1941 Atlantic Charter; and serious talks on universal nuclear disarmament. Things certainly cannot go on as they are.
Andrew McLuskey
Ashford, Middlesex
SIR – A few days ago, Sir Keir Starmer was adamant that Donald Trump would not get involved in Iran. The US president, along with Israel, has now taken a vital step towards long-term peace in dealing a blow to the nuclear capabilities of the primary sponsor of global terrorism.
Now that our Prime Minister has demonstrated his irrelevance on the world stage, let him concentrate on making our country secure. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed, hate marches in our capital should be prevented and the small boats should be turned back to France.
Tim Coles
Carlton, Bedfordshire
SIR – In light of the bombing of Iran's key nuclear sites, Sir Keir Starmer shows himself to be naive at best when claiming that the Chagos treaty his Government negotiated guarantees the effectiveness of the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia for the next 100 years.
As a reminder, Annex 1 section 2 of the treaty states '... the United Kingdom agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia'. Had the B-2s been deployed from Diego Garcia it stands to reason that Mauritius would have instantly warned Iran, one of their key regional allies, of the imminence of the military operation, thus gravely jeopardising its success.
Jean Maigrot
London SW6
SIR – The protesters who sprayed red paint on the engine of a RAF refuelling aircraft (report, June 22) deserve our sincere thanks. At a stroke, they have revealed the sheer inadequacy of the security of Brize Norton airbase.
Having regard to current world events, including the destruction of so many aircraft across Russia, and the situation in the Middle East, the lack of effective security is truly mind-blowing. One can only hope that this warning leads to immediate and effective action across all our Armed Forces everywhere.
Jonathan Fogg
Loulé, Algarve, Portugal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
41 minutes ago
- Times
Iran has the most to risk if it declares war on the world
Even if its nuclear programme has been crippled for now, Iran still has a formidable weapon at the ready: geography. On Sunday, hours after the attack on its nuclear sites, Iran was disrupting GPS signals on the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is an energy chokepoint, as narrow as the eye of a needle: barely 24 miles wide, it is the route through which 25 per cent of the world's oil and 30 per cent of its liquefied natural gas travels. There has already been talk of Iranian submarines planting mines along the way. A crude way of turning what started as a war between Israel and Iran, which mutated into the US and Israel versus Tehran, into Iran versus the world. The move, though passed by Iran 's rubber-stamp parliament, is still subject to approval by the top leadership. Its effects would be potentially devastating for developed economies everywhere with oil prices storming beyond $100 a barrel, pushing up household bills, fuel prices and food prices. What could the embattled Iranian regime hope to achieve by doing that? The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, may not much care as he hides in his bunker. At 86, with his political authority seeping away, he may believe that posing as a global disruptor is at least historically consistent for someone who rose to power in the 1979 toppling of the pro-western Shah. If he can't blow up the region (and the verdict is still out on how much damage was done to Iran's nuclear plants in the US raid), then he can at least give the Great Satan a bloody nose. Strangely, though, the blocking of Hormuz might turn out to be even more suicidal for the regime than accelerating its nuclear programme. Iran depends on the income it gets from selling oil to its ally and customer China and the well-disposed (if officially neutral) India. If the strait closed, that revenue would stop and the pressure for regime change within Iran would only grow. Saudi Arabia, Iran's arch rival, would fortify its position as a regional and broadly western-aligned leader. The only rational political argument for Iran closing the strait is to nudge China into playing a more active role as a mediator with the US — and that doesn't look like happening. The manner of the US attack — a one-off strike rather than a precursor for a wider war — has the approval of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. In that sense it resembles Trump's order during his first term to assassinate the Iranian Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani: an act of controlled state violence that is supposed to close a chapter rather than signal a new phase in a forever war. The White House will have calculated that any possible Iranian response — attacking US bases in the region or a mass drone attack by Iran's Houthi allies on Saudi oil facilities — will merely deepen the isolation of the Tehran regime. Iran, once a proud member of the Crinks club of autocrats (China, Russia, North Korea), now finds itself shunned. Apart from the Houthis in Yemen, who said on Sunday that they were preparing to attack US vessels in the Red Sea, Iran's proxy armies are exhausted and certainly not up for a fight against America. It could be that North Korea lends a hand in rebuilding Iran's nuclear programme, but Russia's offer to control the enrichment of uranium is almost certainly off the table. It only ever made sense if Vladimir Putin could present Moscow as a diplomatic equal of Washington. Trump's bombing raid has wrong-footed the Kremlin and may force it to re-think its whole alignment with Iran. Has the weekend attack made the world safer? Many political decision-makers will be conducting a thought experiment over the next few days. An angry Iran is threatening to close down global trade. How much worse would that be if it were a nuclear-armed power making that same threat? Iran may now withdraw from the nuclear proliferation treaty. Again, will that lead to a more dangerous or a safer world? So far, at least, most of Iran's neighbours may be sleeping better at night.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump suggests regime change in Iran – hours after Vance and Hegseth insisted that was not the plan
Just hours after Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted that there was no plan for the U.S. to push for regime change in Iran, President Donald Trump suggested he was open to the idea. After the U.S. joined Israel's air campaign targeting Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday with an audacious strike using bunker-busting bombs launched from B-2 bombers, Vance appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday morning. The vice president said that the administration's view 'has been very clear that we don't want a regime change.' He added: 'We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.' However, by late afternoon, a different message emerged from the White House. The president posted on Truth Social: '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!!!' It is the first time Trump has raised the possibility of regime change in Iran, or encouraged it, since Israel launched air strikes against the nation ten days ago. It is also a change of tune for Trump, who has criticized neo-conservatives in the Republican Party for years for their support for regime changes, most notably in Iraq. Vance is not alone in stressing that the goal is not to topple the government in Tehran. Other administration officials have said that the goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Also on Sunday morning, Secretary Hegseth insisted the Trump administration 'does not seek war' and is not trying to force regime change. 'Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated,' Hegseth told reporters in a briefing, adding that the strikes did not target Iranian troops or people. Vance reiterated that message during his NBC appearance, describing it as 'an incredibly targeted attack' while admitting it is 'an incredibly delicate moment.' Of the possibility of Iran responding by attacking U.S. troops, the vice president said it would be 'the stupidest thing in the world,' and would be 'met with overwhelming force.' 'If the Iranians are smart, they are going to have to look in the mirror and say, 'Maybe we are not so good at this war thing, let's give peace a chance, let's drop our nuclear weapons programme and start to make some smart decisions',' he added. In other posts, Trump said the damage to Iran's nuclear sites is said to be 'monumental' thanks to 'hard and accurate' hits by the military, and thanked the B-2 crews for 'a job well done' when they landed back in Missouri. Iran's U.N. ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, speaking at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Sunday, said that the U.S. 'decided to destroy diplomacy' with its strikes on the country's nuclear program and that the Iranian military will decide the 'timing, nature and scale of Iran's proportionate response.'
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Energy costs to be cut for industry as Starmer seeks economic ‘turning point'
Electricity costs for thousands of businesses will be cut by scrapping green levies to help them compete with foreign rivals. The plan, which could cut bills by up to 25%, forms a key part of Sir Keir Starmer's 10-year industrial strategy which he hopes will address stuttering economic growth and transform the business landscape. The Prime Minister said the plan marks a 'turning point for Britain's economy' by supporting key industries where there is potential for growth. Manufacturers have warned 'crippling' power costs are far higher for UK businesses than competitors overseas. From 2027, a new British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will cut costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour for over 7,000 manufacturing firms by exempting them from levies on bills including the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market. Around 500 of the most energy-intensive firms, including the steel industry, chemicals and glassmaking, will also see their network charges cut – they currently get a 60% discount through the British Industry Supercharger scheme, which will increase to 90% from 2026. The plan also promises measures to speed up the time it can take to connect new factories and projects to the energy grid. Sir Keir said: 'This industrial strategy marks a turning point for Britain's economy and a clear break from the short-termism and sticking plasters of the past.' He said the decade-long plan would deliver 'the long-term certainty and direction British businesses need to invest' during an 'era of global uncertainty'. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband blamed 'our reliance on gas sold on volatile international markets' for the high electricity costs for businesses. He said 'doubling down' on wind and nuclear power would 'bring down bills for households and businesses for good'. The industrial strategy focuses on eight areas where the UK is already strong and there is potential for further growth: advanced manufacturing, clean energy, creative industries, defence, digital, financial services, life sciences and professional and business services. Plans for five of the sectors will be published on Monday, but the defence, financial services and life sciences strategies will come later. Other measures include: – Increasing the British Business Bank's financial capacity to £25.6 billion, including £4 billion for sectors in the industrial strategy. – Raising research and development spending to £22.6 billion a year by 2029/30. – An extra £1.2 billion a year for skills by 2028-29 to train Britons to do jobs in growth industries and reduce reliance on foreign workers. – Attracting 'elite' overseas talent through visa and migration reforms. – Cutting the administrative cost of red tape by 25% and reducing the number of regulators. – Reducing the time it takes to get planning permission by hiring more planners, streamlining pre-application requirements and combining environmental obligations. – Increasing the supply of locations for investment around the country with a £600 million strategic sites accelerator. The strategy comes after the latest figures indicated the economy shrank by 0.3% in April, the biggest monthly contraction in gross domestic product for a year-and-a-half, as businesses felt the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs and domestic pressure as a result of hikes to firms' national insurance contributions. There are also concerns in industry about the impact of the Government's Employment Rights Bill, which could add to business costs. Confederation of British Industry chief executive Rain Newton-Smith said: 'More competitive energy prices, fast-tracked planning decisions and backing innovation will provide a bedrock for growth. 'But the global race to attract investment will require a laser-like and unwavering focus on the UK's overall competitiveness.' Manufacturers' organisation Make UK's chief Stephen Phipson said the three major challenges facing industry were 'a skills crisis, crippling energy costs and an inability to access capital for new British innovators', and the strategy 'sets out plans to address all three'. TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: 'We welcome ministers taking action to reduce sky-high energy costs for manufacturers – something unions have been calling for as a matter of urgency. 'For too long, UK industry has been hamstrung by energy prices far above those in France and Germany. It's made it harder to compete, invest, and grow.' Acting shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie said: 'It is astonishing that Labour are finally admitting that the costs of net zero are so high that they're having to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers' money subsidising businesses' energy bills to stop them going bust.' Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith has written an open letter to firms warning they are being 'sleepwalked into disaster' by the Employment Rights Bill.
