'Dangerous escalation': World reacts to US strikes on Iran
Demonstrators gather outside the Wilshire Federal Building during a rally opposing the United States' strikes on Iran on June 22, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. — AFP photo
PARIS (June 23): The United States struck three nuclear sites in Iran on Sunday, joining Israel's bombing campaign and fuelling fears of a wider regional conflict.
'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' US President Donald Trump said after the strikes.
Here is a roundup of the key reactions:
– Iran: 'Everlasting consequences' –
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the US attacks as 'outrageous' and said his country had a right to defend its sovereignty.
'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' he posted on social media, calling the attacks 'lawless and criminal' behaviour.
Araghchi later said the United States and Israel crossed 'a very big red line' with the attacks, and said he would head to Moscow later Sunday for talks with President Vladimir Putin.
– Israel: 'Change history' –
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump, saying the attacks would 'help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace'.
'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,' Netanyahu said in a video message, adding that the attacks demonstrated 'America has been truly unsurpassed'.
Restating his objectives as destroying Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, Netanyahu later told a press conference that 'we are moving step by step towards achieving these goals, we are very, very close to completing them'.
– EU: 'Step back' –
The European Union's top diplomat Kaja Kallas called for de-escalation and a return to negotiations.
'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' Kallas wrote on X, adding that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and that EU foreign ministers would discuss the situation on Monday.
– Russia: 'Irresponsible' strikes –
Russia 'strongly condemned' the bombings, calling them 'irresponsible' and a 'gross violation of international law'.
'A dangerous escalation has begun, fraught with further undermining of regional and global security,' the Russian foreign ministry added.
– Australia: Avert 'full-scale war' –
'The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that. That is what this is,' said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
At the same time, he stressed: 'We don't want escalation and a full-scale war. We continue to call for dialogue and for diplomacy.'
– UN: 'Dangerous escalation' –
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the strikes a 'dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge'.
'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace,' Guterres said in a statement.
– OIC: Dialogue and 'peaceful means' –
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation warned that the strikes could lead to 'heightened tensions and threaten regional security, peace, and stability'.
It called for 'de-escalation and self-restraint, and for resorting to dialogue and returning to negotiations and peaceful means.'
– Britain: 'Stability is priority' –
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called on Iran to 'return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis'.
'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said on X, adding that 'stability in the region is a priority'.
'Dangerous escalation': World reacts to US strikes on IranFrench President Emmanuel Macron called a meeting of the country's defence council, with his office saying he had spoken with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Oman.
France is urging 'all parties to exercise restraint to avoid any escalation that could lead to an extension of the conflict', Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot posted on X.
– China: 'Cease fire' –
China's foreign ministry said it 'strongly condemns' the US strikes, warning that they 'escalate tensions in the Middle East'.
'China calls on all parties to the conflict, especially Israel, to cease fire as soon as possible,' the ministry said.
– North Korea: 'Violated UN charter' –
North Korea condemned the US strikes, calling them a violation of the United Nations charter and blaming the tension in the Middle East on the 'reckless valor of Israel'.
'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea strongly denounces the attack on Iran by the US, which severely violated the UN Charter with respect for sovereignty,' said a spokesperson of the North's foreign ministry, according to a statement carried by the state news agency.
– Saudi Arabia: 'Exercise restraint' –
Saudi Arabia expressed 'great concern' after the strikes on its neighbour, the 'sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran'.
'The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions and avoid further escalation,' the foreign ministry posted on X.
– Pakistan: 'Violate international law' –
Pakistan, the only nuclear-armed Muslim country and a longtime Washington ally, said the US attacks 'violate all norms of international law'.
'We are gravely concerned at the possible further escalation of tensions in the region,' Pakistan's foreign ministry said, adding that Iran had the 'right to defend itself under the UN Charter'.
– Hamas: 'Brutal aggression' –
The Palestinian militant group Hamas condemned the 'blatant US aggression against the territory and sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran'.
'This brutal aggression is a dangerous escalation,' Hamas said, calling the attack 'a flagrant violation of international law and a direct threat to international peace and security'.
– Huthis: 'Declaration of war' –
Yemen's Huthi rebel government, which is backed by Iran, condemned the US attacks and expressed solidarity with the Iranian people.
'The Trump administration's reckless aggression… is a blatant declaration of war against the brotherly Iranian people. We declare our full support for the brotherly Iranian people,' it said. — AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
28 minutes ago
- The Star
Iran's Fordow nuclear facility hit by Israeli attack, local official says
DUBAI (Reuters): Iran's nuclear facility of Fordow was hit again on Monday in an Israeli attack, the spokesperson for Qom Province's Crisis Management Headquarters said according to semi-official news agency Tasnim, a day after the United States struck the same target. The official added that there will be no danger to residents in the area.- Reuters
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Unprecedented levels of violence against children: UN
FROM Gaza to the Democratic Republic of Congo, violence against children in conflict zones reached 'unprecedented levels' in 2024, according to a United Nations (UN) annual report recently. 'In 2024, violence against children in armed conflict reached unprecedented levels, with a staggering 25% surge in the number of grave violations in comparison with 2023,' according to a report by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The report verified 41,370 grave violations against children in 2024, including 36,221 committed in 2024 and 5,149 committed previously but confirmed in 2024, the highest number since the monitoring tool was established nearly 30 years ago. The new high beats 2023, another record year, which itself represented a 21% increase over the preceding year. With more than 4,500 killed and 7,000 injured, children continue to bear 'the brunt of relentless hostilities and indiscriminate attacks', the report said. There was also a marked increase in the number of child victims of multiple violations to 22,495. 'The cries of 22,495 innocent children who should be learning to read or play ball – but instead have been forced to learn how to survive gunfire and bombings – should keep all of us awake at night,' said Virginia Gamba, special representative of the UN secretary-general for children and armed conflict. 'This must serve as a wake-up call. We are at the point of no return.' In the report, the UN compiled violations of the rights of children, those aged under 18, in some 20 conflict zones around the world. In its appendix – a 'list of shame' that names those responsible for these violations – a powerful coalition of Haitian gangs was added this year. Their actions include child killings and mutilations, recruitment of children into violence, kidnappings, denial of humanitarian aid and sexual violence. The Israeli armed forces, which were named last year along with Palestinian militant group Hamas, remain on the list. Conflict casualties The Palestinian territories occupy the top spot in the dismal rankings, with more than 8,500 serious violations, the vast majority attributed to Israeli forces, including more than 4,800 in the Gaza Strip. This figure includes confirmation of 1,259 Palestinian children killed in Gaza, and the UN noted it is currently verifying information on an additional 4,470 children killed in 2024 in the war-torn territory. Violence erupted there following Hamas's unprecedented attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023. The report also calls out Israel's military operations in Lebanon, where more than 500 children were killed or injured last year. Following the Palestinian territories, the countries where the UN recorded the most violence against children in 2024 are: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (more than 4,000 grave violations), Somalia (more than 2,500), Nigeria (nearly 2,500) and Haiti (more than 2,200). 'List of shame' inductees include Haitian gang coalition 'Viv Ansanm', blamed for a 490% increase in violations, including child recruitment, murders and gang rapes. Another addition to the list is Colombian drug cartel Clan del Golfo, which is accused of child recruitment. Colombia in general recorded a significant increase in cases of forced recruitment, with 450 children in 2024 compared to 262 the previous year. Remaining on the list are the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, which have been fighting in Sudan for more than two years. Also listed again is the Russian army for its actions in Ukraine, where the report records a 105% increase in serious violations between 2023 and 2024. – AFP
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Overcapacity: the economic buzzword fuelling Europe's clash with China
In a soulless conference room in Brussels in November, officials and experts from around Europe and the United States were locked in a technical debate over a cryptic bit of economic jargon: global non-market overcapacity. Beneath the geography-free legalese so common in Brussels, China was undoubtedly the subject. The conference, organised by the European Commission, was designed to thrash out solutions to the problem of overcapacity in China's economy and the second-order effects Europe fears. Decades of overinvestment and state subsidies in China, weak domestic consumption, an addiction to manufacturing, crashing corporate profits, zombie companies that the state does not let die and a superpower trade war have, the EU believes, created a perfect storm. China's industrial overflows must go somewhere, Brussels thinks, probably at a discount, and the only logical destination is Europe. Governments fear companies that make everything from industrial machinery and chemicals to hydrogen electrolysers and wind turbines will be eaten alive, industries decimated and jobs lost forever. They worry about a wave that could sweep populist parties to power in Europe's hollowed-out manufacturing heartlands. They insist that Beijing should worry too, or face a European anti-China backlash similar to the one that has coursed through the United States over the last decade. 'We are seeing a new 'China shock' – as China's economy slows down, Beijing floods global markets with subsidised overcapacity that its own market cannot absorb,' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said at the G7 meeting in Canada this week. Back at the Brussels forum on global non-market overcapacity last year, the discussion was becoming bogged down in terminology – 'decreasing profit margins', 'returns on capital', 'underutilised assets' – when an arm shot up in the middle of the room. 'I have to make some remarks, because China is the elephant in the room, and everything is about China on the agenda,' a Chinese diplomat said. Stirring the dozing room to life, the diplomat angrily disputed speakers' remarks that there was deflation in China – despite official government data showing a 31st successive monthly fall in producer prices in May – and flatly denied that China's industrial success was because of subsidies. The diplomat rejected the argument that overcapacity in China's giant industrial economy could be a problem for anyone, particularly in cleantech industries at a time of climate emergency. 'There is no country which produces as they consume ... otherwise, there will be no need for global trade ... the challenge we're facing in new energy sectors is not overcapacity, but undercapacity,' he said. Xi Jinping doesn't like overcapacity, hence it doesn't exist The word 'overcapacity' has become a battleground in China's rivalry with the West, and the episode in Brussels shows that the two sides have started airing their dirty laundry in public. After years of complaints, Europe has grown frustrated by Beijing's lack of response. Chinese officials brush off EU grievances, pointing out that Germany exports more cars than Germans can drive, while Belgians could not possibly eat all the chocolate made there. A running joke in Brussels is that the official Chinese term for the trend is 'so-called overcapacity'. 'Western politicians and press have repeatedly hyped up the so-called Chinese 'overcapacity',' wrote Peng Gang, minister for economic and trade affairs at China's mission to the EU, in an article for Euractiv, a Brussels media outlet. 'Some Western countries, in order to protect their vested market shares and dominant positions ... hype up the 'Chinese economic threat' or Chinese 'overcapacity' by all means.' In a highly polarised world, a seemingly innocuous economic term has become, in itself, a geopolitical tinderbox. Any mention of 'overcapacity' is enough to get eyes rolling in some quarters, and not just in Beijing. Prominent Western critics insist it is an ideological stick with which to beat China. 'We're seeing the emergence, from the standpoint of the West, at least, of a country that is from outside the West, from the South, an economic threat. I definitely think there's an ideological element behind these accusations of overcapacity,' said Jostein Hauge, an expert in development economics at Cambridge University, on a recent episode of the Sinica Podcast. Adam Tooze, a noted economic historian, told the South China Morning Post late last year it was 'significant that the debate has come up at this moment, because it provides a kind of justification for industrial policy in the West'. He asked: 'Why would you not simply take advantage of the subsidy that Chinese taxpayers effectively have provided to give us all really cheap vehicles?' Part of the problem could lie with the imprecise nature of the term 'overcapacity'. In Western discourse, the phrase has become a Frankenstein's monster, a catch-all criticism for many of the structural issues critics do not like in China. Trey McArver, co-founder of the Trivium China consultancy, said it 'has become a byword for either angst or anger regarding the Chinese economy'. 'It's applied in a lot of different instances, and it's not applicable in every context in which it's used. It is such a broad and abused term that it doesn't help further productive discussions from a policy perspective about what the EU wants to achieve,' he said. Those gripes include opaque subsidies, zombie companies kept alive by local governments, an unwillingness to turbo-boost consumption, a proliferation of industrial policies throughout the country and, latterly, a group of highly competitive companies, many of which struggle to turn a profit in China. 'The way China does industrial policy leads to overcapacity,' said Bert Hofman, adjunct professor at the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore. 'More importantly, it leads to inefficiencies – just look at profitability. Even BYD, the greatest success in electric vehicles, can barely make ends meet amid strong price competition. In the automotive industry, one-third of companies is making a loss,' said Hofman, who was previously World Bank country director in China. Even some overcapacity believers admit that the word does not quite capture the extent of the grievances they have with China's economic model. 'There's no formal definition for overcapacity and so that's what makes it such a fraught, complicated term to use,' said Agatha Kratz, a China specialist at Rhodium Group, a research house whose work on the topic has been cited widely by Western officials pushing for China to change, and for Europe to act. Kratz pushed back strongly against the idea that an endless supply of Chinese cleantech products would be good for the world, even during a climate emergency, since it would kill European industries. 'This is going to sound simplistic, but I really, truly believe this. You cannot buy a solar panel if you don't have a salary. You can't invest in the green transition if you don't have a taxable base,' she said. Jens Eskelund, chair of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, has for years advocated moving away from the term since it strikes such a nerve in Beijing. Instead, he points to nearly three years of producer price deflation in China as an official metric that the government cannot really shoot down. '[Premier] Li Qiang calls it 'involution' [ neijuan ]. I'm fine with calling it involution,' said Eskelund. He was referring to a term most often associated with a Chinese societal trend described by the journal Economics & Human Biology as 'a state of intense, internal competition and overwork without significant progress or improvement'. 'But when you have China producing four times more electrolysers than the world can absorb, then it's overcapacity. When you have battery factories that only produce at 65 per cent capacity, then it's overcapacity. But you can call it something else if you want,' Eskelund said. Chinese leaders have used the term 'overcapacity' before, but in a different context understood by most to refer to real estate-related sectors. During the Central Economic Work Conference in December 2023, President Xi Jinping said that 'some difficulties and challenges must be tackled to achieve further economic recovery. Those include a lack of effective demand, overcapacity in some industries, weak social expectations and many hidden risks'. The same meeting in 2024 pledged to 'comprehensively address 'involution-style' competition and regulate the behaviour of local governments and corporations'. The chairman of auto giant Geely, Li Shufu, said last week that 'the global automotive industry is mired in severe overcapacity woes, [so] we have decided to stop building new car plants'. Yao Yang, dean of the National School of Development at Peking University, in a recent interview with the Post said: 'From a domestic perspective, overcapacity in China is a reality. We have to acknowledge that. It's a factual, scientific issue, which is precisely why we're talking about countering involution – it happens because of overcapacity,' But he added that it was a result of an excess of capital instead of government policies and, in the case of EVs, the private sector played the dominant role. So why the strong pushback from Chinese officials? Eskelund at the EU chamber believes it is because 'China doesn't like finger-pointing', but he senses some level of acceptance in Beijing. 'China is beginning to realise it's out of balance and comes at a cost to China. Like changing any habit, it starts with recognising there's an issue,' he said. Some EU officials complain about 'semantics'. They believe Beijing is trying to distract from what they consider to be serious problems by poking holes in the terminology. 'Even if we used another term, the response would be the same,' said one official. Joerg Wuttke, a partner at DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group and formerly Europe's top lobbyist in China, described the debate as an 'echo chamber' that took its lead from the top. 'It reflects the messaging in the system. Xi Jinping doesn't like overcapacity, hence it doesn't exist,' said Wuttke, who said senior Chinese government figures had told him a decade ago there would be across-the-board overcapacity in hi-tech industries. 'There are similarities in DC and Beijing about delusional language. When you meet someone in DC now, they say 'we had the best 100 days ever'. The same in China: we have an echo chamber there that actually comes out with Xi's messages and people who should know better will parrot this, despite the fact it's not the truth.' In the West, some official documents have started referring to 'non-market policies and practices', with overcapacity a subcomponent of that, perhaps recognising the fraught nature of the term, but also the challenge in defining unprecedented developments in China's economy. Others are looking for more innovative language. The economist Arthur Kroeber uses the term a 'venture capital state' to describe Beijing's hydra of policies designed to boost labour productivity, upgrade its technology base and boost self-sufficiency. Like a venture capital fund, the state identifies high-return sectors and pumps them full of money, producing a few winners and many failures. The difference is that in China, the failures are not allowed to die, according to Kroeber. In a contribution to a book published last month, Not Just Another Cold War: The Global Implications of the US-China Rivalry , Kroeber said 1.8 per cent of China's GDP was pumped into funds supporting these sectors – which were all geared towards manufacturing hi-tech goods, 'a feature, not a bug of Chinese policy under Xi' – from 2017 to 2019, 'three to four times higher than comparable spending in other countries'. The funds, 'superficially modelled on venture capital funds, are basically dressed-up subsidy channels', Kroeber wrote, adding that the 'market exit and reallocation of resources is essentially zero'. On June 17, the Anji Soundness car-carrying ship set sail on its maiden voyage from Taicang Port in Suzhou, bound for Europe. With capacity for 9,500 vehicles that could fill 20 football fields, the world's largest methanol-ready cargo ship is the stuff of EU policymakers' nightmares – a floating emblem of overcapacity and of Beijing's unwillingness to change gear. For others, it is a more benign symbol. 'The Chinese model involves ferocious competition – and that doesn't sit well with the classic Brussels mindset, that this is all down to market-distorting subsidies,' said Simon Evenett, the founder of Global Trade Alert, a policy tracker. 'What the Chinese have done is take subsidies and combine [them] with ferocious competition. And in Europe, I'm not sure we're ready for such levels of ferocious competition.' -- SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
