John Swinnney: 'This situation is a threat to us all'
He said he agreed with the UN Secretary General on the need for an end to the conflict through diplomacy.
Mr Swinney said: 'The conflict in the Middle East has escalated to an intensely more dangerous and alarming level as a result of the US intervention overnight, which risks spiralling into disaster for the region and the wider world.
'The world finds itself at a profoundly dangerous moment and must pull itself back from the brink.'
READ MORE:
He added: 'I agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations that we need to see immediate de-escalation and an end to the conflict through diplomacy. It is vital that the UK Government takes any and all steps it can through diplomatic channels to insist upon that. We also call on Iran to return to negotiations.
'And while the danger is clearly greatest for those in the region, make no mistake that this situation is a threat to us all. The consequences for international peace and security could be severe and it is vital that all nations work through the United Nations to de-escalate this conflict and bring about peace.'
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said earlier on Sunday he was "gravely alarmed by the use of force" by the United States against Iran.
'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security," he said.
President Donald Trump in the White House on Saturday 21 June (Image: AP) He added that there is a 'growing risk' that this conflict could 'rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world'.
Mr Guterres called on member states to 'de-escalate' and 'uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law'.
He said: 'At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.'
The First Minister's response to the developments in the Middle East came after Sir Keir Starmer urged Iran to return to negotiations.
US President Donald Trump said early on Sunday that three key nuclear sites in Iran were 'completely and fully obliterated' in the military strikes.
The US is thought to have used B-2 stealth bombers to drop bunker-busting munitions on the sites – including the deeply-buried Fordo facility – as well as 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines.
The US-UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is not thought to have been used in the operation.
The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped.
Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there are no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes.
The strikes came just days after President Trump said a decision on whether to join Israeli attacks on Iran would be delayed as international leaders, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer, urged restraint.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday the US president was still hopeful of reaching a negotiated solution with Tehran and would decide on military action within two weeks.
But speaking after the strikes on Iran early on Sunday, President Trump said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security.
'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.'
Trade policy minister Mr Alexander, who is the MP for Lothian East and a former international development minister, spoke to the BBC's Sunday Show.
He said: 'I understand that people have woken up this morning to the news that was breaking overnight with a real sense of concern.
'I want to assure your viewers that the British Government has been putting contingencies in place.
'There have been a whole series of meetings, I and other have been attending Cobra meetings in the course of the week.'
He said plans are being put in place to move UK nationals in affected countries to safety, stressing the UK 'took no part in this military action'.
The Prime Minister had earlier said Iran should 'return to the negotiating table', noting the region remains 'volatile'.
Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf was critical of the Prime Minister's response.
He posted on social media: 'An awful statement from the PM, which ignores our collective responsibility to uphold international law.
'Supporting illegal military action in Iran, and gas-lighting us about an imminent nuclear threat, is hauntingly reminiscent of the lies told in the run up to the Iraq war.'
During a protest march in London, Mr Yousaf had earlier accused the UK Government of 'abusing' anti-terror laws against the Palestine Action group, which vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.
Meanwhile, business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said today it would be 'naive' to think the risk of Iranian-backed terrorism in the UK will not increase as a result of the US strikes on Irainian nuclear sites.
Speaking to Sky News this morning Mr Reynolds said the UK was not involved in the strikes against Iran but was informed in advance by the US.
He said "no request was made" was made to the UK by the US for support.
He told Sky News: "We were not and have not been involved in these attacks."
But asked about the potential risk to the UK, he added: 'This is not hypothetical. There is not a week goes by without some sort of Iranian cyber attack on a key part of UK critical national infrastructure.
'There is Iranian activity on the streets of the UK, which is wholly unacceptable.'
He added: 'It's already at a significant level. I think it would be naive to say that that wouldn't potentially increase.
The Iranian ambassador to the UK branded the US military strikes on Iran as a violation of a United Nations charter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Spain exempt from Nato's 5pc spending target
Spain will be exempt from spending 5 per cent of its GDP on defence after striking a deal with Nato, the country's prime minister said. Speaking ahead of this week's Nato summit in The Hague, Pedro Sanchez said he had achieved a 'success' for his country by securing an exception from the new spending target, which had been billed as a strict requirement for all 32 Nato members. It puts Madrid at odds with Donald Trump, the US president, who has called for a significant increase in defence spending and cast doubt on his willingness to defend Nato allies 'if they don't pay'. Mr Sanchez said Spain could fulfil its existing commitments to Nato with a defence budget of 2.1 per cent of GDP. 'We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defence investment, but we are not going to do so,' the Spanish prime minister said in a televised address on Sunday. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned members earlier this month that they must commit to spending 5 per cent on defence spending or 'better learn to speak Russian'. It came after he had warned that Vladimir Putin could attack Nato by 2030. According to Nato estimates, Spain spent only 1.24 per cent of GDP on defence last year. In April, Mr Sanchez pledged to increase defence spending to 2 per cent by the end of this year. Target in doubt But Spain's Left-wing government is divided on the need to increase military spending and a think-tank linked to the administration has cast doubt on whether the 2 per cent target for this year is feasible. Mr Sanchez wrote to Mr Rutte last week to say that 5 per cent of GDP was 'unreasonable and counter-productive', arguing that such a commitment would impact the country's social spending and undermine EU plans for technological growth. On Sunday, it emerged that the agreement Nato leaders will sign at The Hague on Wednesday has been altered to accommodate Spain's objections. The text on the spending pledge has been changed from 'we commit' to 'allies commit', allowing Mr Sanchez to claim the commitment would not apply to Spain. Under the plan, countries are meant to reach 5 per cent of GDP by boosting their core defence spending goal from 2 per cent to 3.5 per cent, and adding a further 1.5 per cent on related items such as cyber security and adapting roads and bridges for military vehicles. Mr Sanchez said that Spain needs only to spend 2.1 per cent of GDP to meet its Nato capability targets – the personnel, equipment and infrastructure requirements set by the alliance The announcement comes at a time of political difficulty for Mr Sanchez, who is under enormous pressure over a corruption scandal within his Socialist party.
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is Trump's biggest gamble yet as president
Donald Trump, a self-confessed risk-taker, has taken the greatest gamble – not just with his political reputation and the future of the Middle East, but arguably with the whole concept of military intervention as a way to solve intractable geopolitical problems. If the US president succeeds – and there will be many rival interpretations and metrics of success in the weeks ahead – it is possible he will have disempowered Iran, and diminished the global influence of a regime that has for 40 years sponsored threats against the west. In the process his personal authority will have been enhanced, and his next three years in office will be a triumph that may exacerbate some of his worst authoritarian and impulsive traits. He will also have allied the US more closely than ever with Benjamin Netanyahu, a man deeply disliked in large parts of the world for Israel's treatment of Palestinians and its assault on Gaza. Under such a scenario, America will not be loved, but it will be feared, and from that fear will come deference. After the failures of ground interventions and occupations in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq war in 2003, Trump would have re-established the value of limited military intervention. Equally, however, much could go wrong. Many leaders and diplomats in Europe may well privately be hoping that is the case – not because they have time for the Iranian government, but because they fear Trump's methods are perilous, and in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and international law. China, which has big interests in Iran, will want to make sure this episode does not usher in a unipolar world. Russia will draw lessons, and is already willing to acknowledge the danger of a US win, telling Iran it is willing to do more to help Tehran develop its nuclear capabilities. Gulf states are also expressing outrage at Trump's intervention. Arab diplomats said they were trying to square Trump's military intervention with his extraordinary speech in Riyadh two months ago in which he decried past US military adventurism. 'In the end, the so-called 'nation-builders' wrecked far more nations than they built – and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,' Trump had said. The Gulf states fear being dragged into a war. Most had thought an irascible Trump needed to allow Iran a right to very limited enrichment of uranium, under close UN monitoring. As an issue it was considered eminently solvable through patient diplomacy – of the kind the Europeans had just embarked on. Nor is the military conflict over. So far Iran has been out-thought and outmanoeuvred in this war. But it is possible that Trump finds himself sucked into a longer conflict than he intended. Netanyahu has notoriously so far shown himself better at starting conflicts than ending them. Once fully engaged in the Iran conflict, Trump will have to see it through to the end, tying him up in the kind of endless foreign conflict that he promised on the election campaign trail he would abjure. If Iran refuses to submit, it has options. It could abandon the non-proliferation treaty, deport the UN inspectors and try to rebuild the nuclear programme in secret. Should Tehran still posses a so-far hidden supply of highly enriched uranium, its nuclear scientists may be tempted to try to dash for a crude nuclear device. That would give Tehran time to try to rally support among its battered allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. Sanam Vakil, the Middle East specialist at the London thinktank Chatham House, said the US leader perceives of this strike as a one-off. 'Trump was careful, he telegraphed the strikes, he sent messages of warning to Iran in advance,' she said. 'I think he wants this to end with a negotiation, with a deal and one he can show is a victory in setting back Iran's nuclear programme.' But a careful de-escalation after such a US escalation is fraught with risk. Vakil said: 'The president is impatient and does not have the bandwidth for protracted negotiation. The Iranians want sanctions relief, but do not know how any longer they can trust Trump, a man they say has repeatedly deceived them.' The best-case scenario is that Iran settles on a symbolic retaliation, much as it did in 2020, when Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander. The president might then push Israel to wind down its war and urge Iran to resume negotiations over a new nuclear deal. Either way, Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, appeared to speak for the region with his assessment. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' he said.
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer refuses to say UK would support US if it is attacked
Sir Keir Starmer has refused to say whether the UK would offer military support to the US if it was attacked, amid questions over the legal advice given. Britain was not involved in the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities that saw bunker-buster bombs dropped on the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow nuclear facilities. The US made no request to use the UK military in the attack, either through RAF support from Typhoon fighter jets at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, or by using the Diego Garcia military base as a staging base for the bombing. It comes after leaked advice from the Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, last week warned that the UK should not join direct strikes by Israel against Iran as it might breach international law. Responding to the overnight attacks by the US, Sir Keir avoided any comment on their legality but said Iran's nuclear programme was a 'grave threat', which the US military action would 'alleviate'. Asked directly by Sky News whether he would offer military support if needed, the Prime Minister said there was a risk of escalation not only within the region but also beyond it. 'We have been moving assets to the region to make sure that we're in a position to protect our own interests, our personnel and our assets, and of course those of our allies,' he said. Asked whether the UK would support the US if it was attacked by Iran as allowed by article five under Nato's principle of collective defence, Sir Keir said: 'I'm not going to speculate about what may happen, because all of my focus is on de-escalation. 'But I do want to reassure the public that we have taken all necessary measures to protect UK interests, UK personnel, and to work with our allies to protect their interests as well. That's what you would expect.' The United Nations Charter says countries can only launch an attack in self-defence, to defend an ally, or if the UN Security Council passes a resolution authorising military action. The advice was drawn up before the US intervened in the conflict. Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, suggested the situation would be 'clear-cut' on acting in self-defence if UK forces came under attack, but would not comment further on the legal advice. He confirmed that Britain had been told in advance by the US 'shortly' before the strikes on Iran, but Government officials refused to say precisely when. Mr Trump's order to attack, however, came despite Sir Keir's appeals for a diplomatic solution. At the G7 summit in Canada last week, the Prime Minister even suggested the US would not intervene after sitting with Mr Trump at a dinner. Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, said that in his view military action against Iran was lawful under conventions allowing collective self-defence, the right to take 'proportionate' action to avert Iranian attacks on UK bases and personnel, and to prevent Iran realising its 'genocidal intentions' against Israel. He accused Sir Keir of welcoming the end results of the attack but prevaricating over the means. In a post on X, Lord Wolfson wrote: 'The US and the UK are in the same legal position; accordingly, if the UK Govt's position (as reported) is that the UK cannot itself take offensive military action to support Israel, the UK Govt must also consider that the US strike on Iran's nuclear reactors was illegal. 'The UK Govt cannot welcome the ends but prevaricate about the means. So: what is our Govt's stance on the legality of the US military action. I support it. Does Keir Starmer?' In an article for The Telegraph, Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, claimed Sir Keir had been sidelined by his 'peripheral and hesitant' response to the Iran-Israel conflict. 'Ministers talk tough on Iran but have spent the past year straining relations with Israel – our key regional ally. We should be helping shape the international response, not reacting late from the sidelines,' she said. 'Commitment to peace and stability' Lord Ricketts, the former UK national security chief, said he believed the US decided it was better not to ask to launch B-2 bombers from the RAF base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean than to be told no. He told the Guardian: 'Either the Americans worked it out or were privately told please don't ask because it would raise fundamental questions about our taking part.' On Sunday, the Prime Minister held talks with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, after convening a Cobra meeting. In a joint statement the three leaders reiterated their 'commitment to peace and stability for all countries in the region'. They added: 'We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. We stand ready to contribute to that goal in coordination with all parties. 'We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilise the region. 'We will continue our joint diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions and ensure the conflict does not intensify and spread further.' The diplomatic discussions come as Sir Keir faces divisions on his back benches, with Left-wing MPs criticising Mr Trump's intervention as unjustified, illegal and potentially catastrophic. 'These are [illegal] acts with no justification,' said Diane Abbott, while Richard Burgon said: 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.' A third MP said: 'I do not support the entry of one nation state into another, and question the legality of this action, let alone the action itself.' Meanwhile, Britons in Israel have been told to book on the first Foreign Office charter flights to leave the region in the wake of the US bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities. The Foreign Office launched a flight registration form for British nationals in Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories to log their details and interest in the flights. It has opened a booking portal and urged all UK nationals to register their presence now. It said those with greatest need would be prioritised for flights. British nationals, plus non-British immediate family members travelling with them, are eligible.
