Lammy says he told Iran it would be a mistake to blockade Strait of Hormuz
Questions are being asked about whether the shipping channel or oil exports through it could be blocked amid the tensions.
Important discussion with @SecRubio this evening on the situation in the Middle East.
We will continue to work with our allies to protect our people, secure regional stability and drive forward a diplomatic solution.
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) June 22, 2025
Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Monday morning, Mr Lammy said he had been 'crystal clear' that 'it would be a huge, catastrophic mistake to fire at US bases in the region at this time. We have forces in the region at this time.
'It would be a catastrophic mistake. It would be a mistake to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.'
He said he thinks his counterpart 'gets that and understands that'.
The UK has been pressing for Iran to engage in negotiations and diplomacy over the issues, and Mr Lammy told the same programme: 'Let's take the diplomatic off-ramp. Let's get serious and calm this thing down.'
Mr Lammy is expected to address MPs in the Commons about the situation on Monday.
Mr Trump launched bombing raids on Iran over the weekend (AP)
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer warned on Sunday that there is a risk of the crisis escalating beyond the Middle East, telling reporters '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.'
Sir Keir spoke to US President Donald Trump on Sunday, and Downing Street said the leaders agreed Tehran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and called for Iran to return to negotiations.
The conversation came after the air raid by American B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities.
'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,' Downing Street said.
'They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement.'
Mr Lammy suggested on Monday that the action by Mr Trump 'may well have set back Iran several years'.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the US President's rhetoric was 'strong' but that strikes had been 'targeted' to 'deal with Iran's nuclear capability'.
The Foreign Secretary later added: '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.'
Mr Lammy has also spoken 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 over the weekend.
Overnight, Mr Trump called the future of the Iranian regime into question, posting on his TruthSocial platform: '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???'
It appeared to be a different approach to that of his defence secretary Pete Hegseth, who had said on Sunday that 'this mission was not and has not been about regime change'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
When US presidents talk of regime change, we must be careful what they wish for
US president Donald Trump once boasted that he was a 'stable genius'. Well, it never had much of a ring of truth to it. He is in fact, and probably always has been, extremely erratic, a trait lauded by his cult followers as a mystical style of instinctive leadership that all Maga disciples must simply trust, as if he were a latter-day Jesus Christ or, more likely, a tangerine Charles Manson. Either way, Trump is more dangerous than ever. Only a few days ago, we may recall, he was publicly taunting the Ayatollah Khamenei, head of the Iranian theocracy, an 86-year old mullah of unyielding, medievally cruel convictions. Trump took to social media to declare: 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' It's almost as if the guy had spent all his life in the gangsterish world of New York real estate, isn't it? Then, at the weekend, having bombed the hell out of some mountains (the experts say those crafty Iranians cheated by getting their precious enriched uranium out before the bunker busters dropped), Trump allowed his closest lieutenants to go and tell the world it's all about the nukes, and not the old monster who rules the country – Khamenei, not Trump. JD Vance, for example, rumoured to be sceptical about intervention, said that 'has been very clear that we don't want a regime change '. Marco Rubio, secretly still more of a George W Bush style neocon, and thus probably more sympathetic to the idea of getting rid of the 'regime', nonetheless sought to please his boss with what was supposed to be the collective line on Operation Midnight Hammer: 'It was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn't a regime change move.' Now? Not so much. Trump has revived the idea, in his trademark menacing-playful way, in a post of 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!!!'. Trump apologists say he was only kidding; but how do we know when to take the guy seriously – apart from 'always and never'? Perhaps Trump dreams of the Iranian people rising up and creating a new pluralistic democracy – a country where elections are free and fair, where the losers always gracefully accept the result and participate in the ceremonial peaceful transfer of power, and would never incite a mob to storm the parliament building where the will of the people is being ratified, and deny the parliamentary authorities the use of troops to defend themselves and the overwhelmed police officers…? The Iranians, especially, are unlikely to be impressed by such talk from the Americans, and, indeed, the Israelis. If they're paranoid about the CIA and MI5, they have reason to be. On numerous occasions in the past, the 'Great Satan' of America – and before that, Little Satan (Britain) – have interfered in Iranian affairs, including deposing two shahs and a prime minister, Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had the temerity to want take control of Iran's oil riches away from 'British' Petroleum. The various coups engineered by the imperialists – a fair description – worked, but not indefinitely; and the seeds of their own eventual destruction were sown in Iran as elsewhere. A period of misrule by the last shah ended up with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and all that has followed since. We should all be worried when an American president talks about regime change. To be fair, Trump is hardly the first, and it rarely ends well, whether it succeeds or not. Historically, the leader the Americans would most have loved to be rid of was their troublesome Communist neighbour Fidel Castro, parked from 1959 to his death in 2016 (natural causes) on what amounted to a giant Russian aircraft carrier 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The CIA considered all manner of ways to assassinate him, including, famously, an exploding cigar. Whether this was inspired by a trip to a joke shop is still classified. A more serious, but still bungled, attempt at an invasion and a coup d'etat in Cuba failed when the US-trained rebels were cornered in what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs fiasco. That was in 1961, and was hardly the first or the last time they tried to oust Fidel, but this failed plot merely made him even more popular and humiliated the Kennedy administration, who inherited the plan from President Eisenhower's team: regime change has always been a bit of a bipartisan affair. JFK went on, a couple of a years later, to at least acquiesce in the murder of the Diem brothers who ran South Vietnam, replacing them with a chap named Nguyen Van Thieu, who was more to American tastes but no more democratic, nor effective in resisting the Communist conquest of his country. It was an even greater American humbling when they lost that war. The regime change sideshow in that Indo-China conflict was Cambodia, where the Americans helped depose the jolly Prince Sihanouk with a more pro-American general, who was, inevitably, himself deposed when the Khmer Rouge took over and the killing fields were filled with the corpses of more than a million Cambodians. Such disastrous CIA escapades during the cold war were why Congress in the 1970s passed laws banning such covert activities – including the War Powers Act, to try to prevent presidents circumventing the Congressional power to declare war. That oversight didn't persist, and minor, US-inspired coups followed in Grenada (1984) and Nicaragua (1989). The greatest blunder in regime change was, of course, Iraq. To be fair to the second President Bush and Tony Blair, as people tend not to be, it's only right that we recall that their definition of regime change was more nuanced. Regime change could mean a change of policy under an existing dictator. So if Saddam Hussein had genuinely renounced weapons of mass destruction (instead of pretending he had them to scare people away), and allowed comprehensive inspections by the UN, he might still be in business now, albeit unlikely. The alternative, increasingly obvious, was that he'd be forcibly removed. That would also end the mortal threat to the stability of the region. Which it didn't; it just created new ones. As we all know, things didn't turn out any better for the West when Islamic State turned up in post-Saddam Iraq, and turned the Middle East upside down. Much the same may be said about post-Gadaffi Libya, and post-invasion Afghanistan. It all sounds wearily familiar, doesn't it? The Americans upturn one unsatisfactory regime and somehow contrive to make matters worse. Rather like when they re-elected Trump last year.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Stopping Iran's nuclear programme ‘a good thing', says Downing Street
He said: 'We're clear that the prevention of Iran getting nuclear weapons is a good thing for this country. 'But our focus is on diplomacy. That is the priority and that is what every member of this Government is working towards and that's been the focus of the calls with international partners over the weekend.' But asked whether the strikes had breached international law, the spokesman declined to comment, citing the 'long-standing position' that the Government does not disclose the content of legal advice. Earlier, Foreign Secretary David Lammy urged Iran to take a diplomatic 'off-ramp' and engage in talks, as he cautioned Tehran against blockading the Strait of Hormuz or attacking US bases in the Middle East. Questions are being asked about whether the shipping channel or oil exports through it could be blocked amid the tensions. Important discussion with @SecRubio this evening on the situation in the Middle East. We will continue to work with our allies to protect our people, secure regional stability and drive forward a diplomatic solution. — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) June 22, 2025 Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Monday morning, Mr Lammy said he had been 'crystal clear' that 'it would be a huge, catastrophic mistake to fire at US bases in the region at this time. We have forces in the region at this time. 'It would be a catastrophic mistake. It would be a mistake to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.' He said he thinks his counterpart 'gets that and understands that'. The UK has been pressing for Iran to engage in negotiations and diplomacy over the issues, and Mr Lammy told the same programme: 'Let's take the diplomatic off-ramp. Let's get serious and calm this thing down.' Mr Lammy is expected to address MPs in the Commons about the situation on Monday. Mr Trump launched bombing raids on Iran over the weekend (AP) Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer warned on Sunday that there is a risk of the crisis escalating beyond the Middle East, telling reporters '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.' Sir Keir spoke to US President Donald Trump on Sunday, and Downing Street said the leaders agreed Tehran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and called for Iran to return to negotiations. The conversation came after the air raid by American B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities. '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,' Downing Street said. Mr Lammy declined to say on Monday whether the US military action was legal, but added: 'I don't say it's not legitimate'. During an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, it was put to him that it was extraordinary he could not answer the question as critics argue Iran is also a sovereign nation which was attacked without warning. He said: 'I don't think it is extraordinary because this was not the UK's action, we were not involved, we were clear when this began and Israel's attacks began that we were not involved… so I don't say it's not legitimate, but I can tell you as Foreign Secretary that we were not involved.' Chancellor Rachel Reeves was asked about the legality of the strikes as she visited the West Midlands, and said: 'It is up to the US to make that case. We were not involved in these actions and, of course, we would never comment on the legal advice that the Government receives.' Mr Lammy also suggested that the action by Mr Trump 'may well have set back Iran several years'. He told the same BBC radio programme that the US president's rhetoric was 'strong' but that strikes had been 'targeted' to 'deal with Iran's nuclear capability'. The Foreign Secretary later added: '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.' Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has called on the Prime Minister to address the Commons about the situation in the Middle East. He called Mr Trump's strikes a 'seismic moment' and added: 'UK ministers are dodging questions on whether they support these strikes, and failing to guarantee that we won't be dragged into another illegal American war in the Middle East. 'The Prime Minister has not even spoken once in the Commons since this crisis began. He needs to come to Parliament today, update the country on where the UK stands and what he is doing to ensure the situation does not escalate any further.' Overnight, Mr Trump called the future of the Iranian regime into question, posting on his TruthSocial platform: '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???' It appeared to be a different approach to that of his defence secretary Pete Hegseth, who had said on Sunday that 'this mission was not and has not been about regime change'.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Palestine Action's behaviour ‘totally unacceptable', Chancellor says
Rachel Reeves condemned Palestine Action ahead of an update from the Home Secretary to Parliament on the Government's plan to proscribe it under terror laws. A protest in support of Palestine Action is also due to take place in London on Monday. The group posted on X that the protest location has moved to Trafalgar Square after the Metropolitan Police banned action from taking place at the Houses of Parliament. Asked whether Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley should be able to ban Monday's demonstration, the Chancellor told broadcasters: 'What I would say about Palestine Action is that their behaviours in the last few weeks, and particularly in the last few days, are totally unacceptable. 'To cause damage to military assets, but also to cause such damage to privately owned assets, it is unacceptable whatever your views are on what's happening in the Middle East. 'These actions are unacceptable and the Home Secretary will be making a statement to Parliament later today.' On Sunday, Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark said he was 'shocked and frustrated' at the protest supporting the 'organised extremist criminal group' as the force imposed an exclusion zone around Westminster. He said that until the group is proscribed, the Met has 'no power in law' to prevent the protest taking place, adding that breaches of the law would be 'dealt with robustly'. In a statement on Sunday, Sir Mark said: 'I'm sure many people will be as shocked and frustrated as I am to see a protest taking place tomorrow in support of Palestine Action. 'This is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered. 'Members are alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage, assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer and last week claimed responsibility for breaking into an airbase and damaging aircraft. 'The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest.' Palestine Action posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on Friday morning. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being investigated by counter-terror police. Palestine Action has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising US President Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. But Baroness Shami Chakrabarti told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday that plans to ban the group would mark a very serious step. The former shadow attorney general said: 'From what I can tell, this is a militant protest group that engages in direct action and that includes criminality, no question, but to elevate that to terrorism so anybody who attends a meeting, or who promotes the organisation, or is loosely affiliated with it, is branded a terrorist – that is a serious escalation I think.' The former director of the Liberty human rights group added: 'No doubt the Home Secretary will come to Parliament today and she will explain her reasoning and announce what she is actually going to do. 'I think this is a very serious step and I would share the concerns of Amnesty International, of Liberty, my former group, and others that this may be an escalation too far.' A spokesperson for Palestine Action previously accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our Government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe Palestine Action, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.'
