World Business Report Iran launches missiles at US airbase
Iran launches missiles at a US airbase in Qatar in response to strikes on its nuclear sites. This leads to airspace shutdowns in many Middle Eastern countries.
We examine whether Iran will now close the world's busiest oil shipping channel, the Strait of Hormuz.
Plus, Argentina's economy is expanding. Andrew Peach finds out what is driving the growth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Iran crisis is putting our special relationship to the test
Sir Keir Starmer is being left in the dark by President Trump SIMON DAWSON/NO 10 DOWNING STREET S peaking in Kananaskis, Alberta, last Tuesday, Sir Keir Starmer offered his thoughts on Donald Trump's intentions towards Iran. 'There is nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict,' said the prime minister confidently. Sir Keir had spent the previous evening sat next to the president of the United States at a G7 dinner, so he should have known if Mr Trump was considering some form of military intervention. Yet, within only a few days, that assessment was shown to be hopelessly wrong. Heedless of Sir Keir's pleas for de-escalation, Mr Trump ordered in the stealth bombers to destroy Iran's subterranean nuclear sites. Despite all the talk in British circles in recent months of a warm relationship between London and Washington, cultivated assiduously by Sir Keir and his new ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson, Downing Street has clearly been left in the dark about the intentions of this country's most consequential ally. US actions against Iran have a material impact on the safety of British military personnel in the Middle East, who are vulnerable to retaliatory attacks of the kind mounted on Monday against America's giant Al Udeid base in Qatar. Yet, Sir Keir and his foreign secretary, David Lammy, are clearly out of the loop, When Mr Trump decided that enough was enough and ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, the unprecedented B-2 raid on uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the United Kingdom was given barely any notice. The White House's reticence may have owed something to its belief that Britain was no longer the steadfast ally of the Thatcher, Major and Blair years. The warnings of Lord Hermer, Britain's attorney general, that supporting US action could amount to a breach of international law may have convinced the US administration that its supposedly closest ally might be a hindrance rather than a help if hostilities ensued. As late as Monday Mr Lammy was unable to offer America definitive British support, repeatedly refusing to deny that the B-2 strike was a violation of international law. • How did Britain get it so wrong on Trump and Iran? Relief in Whitehall that Britain dodged a bullet in not having to authorise US use of its base on Diego Garcia for Midnight Hammer must now have been replaced by the chilling realisation that its view on how to handle Iran is irrelevant to the Trump administration. Not that London's view is especially clear. While Sir Keir has warned of the danger of escalation following Israeli and US strikes, Mr Lammy has insisted that the UK is 'doing everything we can to stabilise the situation', whatever that means. The Americans were content for Britain, together with France and Germany, to engage in talks with Iran in Geneva, even as they were preparing to bomb its nuclear estate. Being strung along by your closest ally is the price you pay for offering lukewarm support when the chips are down. The Iranian missile attack on Al Udeid, America's biggest airbase in the Middle East, must now put an end to Labour's fence-straddling. It appears to have been a performative, face-saving exercise for Iran, involving a tip-off to the US via diplomatic channels. But, having first suggested in the wake of the B-2 strike that he was not interested in regime change in Tehran, Mr Trump may now have concluded that the mullahs and their henchmen in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps must go, or their power be so degraded that they can no longer present any kind of threat, nuclear or conventional, to the region. As with the Falklands in 1982, the bombing of Libya in 1986, the first Gulf War in 1990-91 and in the aftermath of 9/11, this crisis is another acid test of the special relationship. At the moment, it is one the government is failing. If Britain wants to be an ally worthy of close consultation with the US, it should start acting like one.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
UK and NATO allies agree to increase defence spend to 5% by 2035
Sir Keir Starmer said the UK is set to increase spending on defence, security and resilience to 5% of GDP by 2035 to meet an "era of radical uncertainty" - but without promising any additional cash. The move - part of a new spending pledge by the NATO alliance - was panned as deceptive "smoke and mirrors" by critics, who pointed to the very real risk of escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel, as well as Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Sky News the timeline for the increase was "very slow" and warned Russia could attack a NATO country within five years. "In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030, Putin can have significantly greater capabilities," he told chief presenter Mark Austin. 1:32 The prime minister, Donald Trump and the other leaders of NATO's 32 member states are expected to approve the investment goal when they meet at a summit in The Hague, which opens later today. It replaces a previous target to spend 2% of GDP purely on defence. The announcement will be celebrated as a win for the US president, who has been demanding his allies spend more on their own defences instead of relying on American firepower. Overnight, he claimed to have secured another success, declaring that Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire - just hours after Iran launched missiles against two American military bases in retaliation to a US decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Perhaps it will mean he will switch attention back to achieving a goal to end Russia's war in Ukraine, which will be another key focus of the gathering in the Dutch capital. NATO planners have crunched the summit down to a short main session tomorrow, with a final communique much briefer than usual - all steps designed to reduce the chance of the US president leaving early. He is already scheduled to arrive late and last this evening, provided he turns up. There is huge nervousness about Mr Trump's commitment to an alliance that has been the bedrock of European security since it was founded more than 75 years ago. He is not a fan though, and has previously accused Europe and Canada of an overreliance on American firepower for their own security, calling for them to do more to defend themselves. This pressure has arguably been a bigger motivator in prompting certain allies to agree to spend more on their militaries than the threat they say is posed by Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. Spain's position could create friction this week. The Spanish prime minister, while agreeing to the new investment goal, has said his country is not obliged to meet it. The UK was also slow to say yes - a stance that was at odds with a defence review endorsed by Sir Keir that was centred around a "NATO-first" policy. As well as agreeing to the defence and security investment goal, the British government is also publishing a new national security strategy on Tuesday that will highlight the importance of a wider definition of what constitutes security, including energy, food and borders. There will also be a focus on a whole-of-society approach to resilience in an echo of the UK's Cold War past. It described the commitment to invest in defence, security and national resilience as an aligning of "national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945". Sir Keir said: "We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe. "That's why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience." The funding will be split, with 3.5% of GDP going on core defence and 1.5% on homeland security and national resilience - a new and so far less clearly defined criteria. Progress on investment will be reviewed in 2029. The defence goal is higher than the government's current ambition to lift defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2034, from 2.3% currently. The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027 - a figure that has been boosted by the addition of the whole of the budget for the intelligence agencies. This level of intelligence spending had not previously been included and has drawn criticism from defence experts because it is not the same as tanks, artillery and troops. The government, in its statement, is now focusing on an even higher-sounding number, claiming that it will hit 4.1% of the new NATO target by 2027. However, this is merely based on adding the new 1.5% spending goal for "resilience and security" to the already stated 2.6% defence spending pledge. A Downing Street spokesperson was unable immediately to say how much of GDP is currently spent on whatever is included in the new resilience category. It could include pre-announced investment in civil nuclear energy as well as infrastructure projects such as roads and railways. For the UK, 1.5% of GDP is about £40bn - a significant chunk of national income. Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, accused the government of "spin" over its spending pledge because it does not include any new money anytime soon. "The threat to our country is real not spin," he told Sky News. "This government thinks it can use smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and Donald Trump. This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one."
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Starmer heads to Nato summit with 5% spending pledge
Sir Keir Starmer and other leaders of Nato countries will meet in The Hague this week, where they are expected to formally agree the target. It includes spending 3.5% on 'core defence' and another 1.5% on 'resilience and security'. It represents a significant jump from the current 2% Nato target, and from the UK Government's aim of spending 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence from 2027 and 3% at some point after the next election. But the figure is in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump, who has called for Nato allies to shoulder more of the burden of European defence. Ahead of his trip to the Netherlands, Sir Keir said the increased spending target was 'an opportunity to deepen our commitment to Nato and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience'. He said: 'We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe.' The Government expects to spend 1.5% of GDP on resilience and security by 2027. The details of what counts towards that target are due to be set out during this week's summit, but it is likely to include spending on energy and border security as well as intelligence agencies. But increasing core defence spending to 3.5% will not happen until 2035, with at least two elections likely to take place before then. Nor would Downing Street say how the increase would be paid for, with a spokesman describing the figure as 'a projected target' that allies would review in 2029 when Nato carries out its next capability assessment. The Royal United Services Institute has estimated that increasing core defence spending to 3.5% by 2035 would cost £40 billion a year more than keeping the figure at 2.5%. Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said the Tories welcomed the higher Nato target, but said the Government's commitment was 'both unfunded and a decade away, when the threat we face is real and imminent'. He said: 'The Chancellor failed to set a path to 3% in the spending review, and this is another announcement without a plan. 'Instead of using smoke and mirrors to inflate defence spending, Labour must get to 3% this Parliament and back our country's defence with a fully funded plan.' The Prime Minister prepared to fly to the Netherlands for the two-day Nato summit against the background of both the war in Ukraine and hostilities in the Middle East. Late on Monday, Mr Trump claimed he had secured a ceasefire between Iran and Israel after Tehran retaliated against a US strike on its nuclear facilities. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Sir Keir would continue to press for a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran crisis. He will also urge allies to help secure a 'just and lasting peace' in Ukraine by showing strength and providing Kyiv with 'the support it needs to defend itself against continued Russian aggression'. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is also expected to attend the summit, but not take part in the main discussions of the North Atlantic Council. Ahead of the summit, Nato secretary general Mark Rutte described the move to spend more on defence as a 'quantum leap' that would make the organisation 'a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance'. But it was reported on Sunday that Spain had reached a deal that would see it exempted from the 5% target. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defence needs. Tuesday will also see the publication of the UK's national security strategy, which is expected to call for the whole of society to become more resilient and recognise national security 'means more than it used to'. The document will tie together a series of reviews commissioned by the Government, including the recent strategic defence review, a review of the Aukus alliance with the US and Australia and an audit of relations with China.
