Connect with us

Diplomacy

Starmer faces Cabinet rift over US-Iran military operations

Published

on

Internal discord has fractured the British government regarding the US-led military operations against Iran and the authorization for American forces to utilize British military bases.

According to reports from The Telegraph, during a meeting held the Friday preceding the strikes, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves, and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper expressed vehement opposition to the UK supporting what they characterized as an illegal, preemptive military campaign.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially supported his ministers, resisting pressure from Donald Trump to permit US bombers to launch strikes against Iran from Royal Air Force (RAF) bases in Gloucestershire and the Chagos Islands.

Less than 48 hours later, however, the Prime Minister pivoted. US B-2 stealth bombers are now scheduled to arrive in the coming days at Diego Garcia, a military installation on the Chagos Islands, to conduct what have been described as “limited, defensive” missions.

President Trump indicated that large-scale US strikes remain pending, contingent upon Iran’s continued aggression toward Western allies in the Gulf and the Middle East.

Furthermore, the US has reportedly destroyed an Iranian warship with a submarine near Sri Lanka. This action marks the first such naval engagement involving a submarine since the sinking of the General Belgrano by the UK during the Falklands War.

During the National Security Council meeting on Friday, Energy Secretary Miliband voiced fierce opposition to the imminent US airstrikes, focusing on the potential repercussions for the UK’s energy security.

The meeting followed more than two weeks of contentious deliberations with President Trump and his administration.

Miliband leads opposition to Iran war

These deliberations included a heated exchange between the UK’s Deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, and Elbridge Colby, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development.

Reportedly relying on the legal counsel of Attorney General Lord Hermer, Miliband articulated what was described as a “grumpy, pacifist, legalistic, and highly political” argument against both the airstrikes and British participation.

“He [Miliband] fundamentally dislikes Trump and dislikes this Iran business,” a source remarked to The Spectator.

Miliband’s position was supported by the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, who advocated for Starmer to maintain a firm stance against Washington’s pressure to join the conflict.

Conversely, Defence Secretary John Healey reportedly favored granting permission for the use of British bases to protect allies from Iranian retaliation.

The Prime Minister’s initial refusal to authorize the use of Diego Garcia drew sharp criticism from President Trump.

On Monday, Trump told The Telegraph that the Prime Minister had “greatly disappointed” him; by Tuesday, he had further remarked that Starmer was “no Winston Churchill” and was “ruining the relationship.”

According to Western officials, preparations are underway at Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire for the arrival of US combat aircraft this week.

The Telegraph also reported that the Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon, which Starmer stated on Tuesday would be deployed to defend the British base in Cyprus, will not arrive for another two weeks as it was not slated to depart Portsmouth until next week.

The vessel had been undergoing maintenance prior to the announcement of its deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean; however, the HMS Duncan remains available for immediate deployment.

Starmer: US Aircraft Operating from UK Bases

During parliamentary proceedings on Wednesday, Conservative MP Gareth Bacon questioned the Prime Minister: “The US is our most important international strategic partner. Does the Prime Minister believe that his hesitant and ambiguous response to the events in the Middle East this week has strengthened or weakened this relationship?”

Starmer defended his position, stating that the British military had been in contact with the US for several weeks and that British forces were actively engaged in operations to protect American lives.

In the House of Commons, Starmer justified his initial decision to withhold base access, asserting that there was no legal basis or “viable, well-thought-out plan” at the time.

Starmer stated:

“US aircraft are operating from UK bases. That is how the special relationship works. British jets are intercepting drones and missiles to protect American lives in the Middle East from our shared bases. That is how the special relationship works. We share intelligence daily to ensure the safety of our people. That is how the special relationship works. Obsessing over President Trump’s recent remarks is not the special relationship.”

Military assets deployed by the UK include radar systems, ground-based air defense, counter-drone capabilities, and combat aircraft.

“Since Saturday morning, a significant number of F-35s and Typhoons have been on patrol, not just in the Middle East but across the entirety of Cyprus. Further missions were conducted throughout the night. Typhoons have been specifically tasked with the defense of Qatar, while F-35s have supported other regional partners,” the Prime Minister added.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister subsequently stated:

“The Prime Minister has been exceptionally clear that he will only take decisions that align with the UK’s national interest and ensure the safety of the British people.”

US withheld operational details from UK

According to The Guardian, the US did not share specific operational details or the precise timing of the joint US-Israeli strikes against Iran with the UK beforehand.

The US decision to exclude the UK from the official notification loop regarding the airstrikes coincided with Keir Starmer’s initial refusal to allow US access to British military bases.

Government sources indicated that while the UK usually aligns with the US on military matters, it is difficult to determine whether the lack of formal notification was unprecedented.

A source from Whitehall confirmed that the UK was aware an operation was imminent through the buildup of equipment and intelligence via “normal channels,” but was not informed of the exact timing or operational specifics.

The UK decided to evacuate its embassy in Tehran on Friday, signaling an awareness of the impending strikes, though details regarding the timing over the weekend remained undisclosed.

RAF Akrotiri houses 4,000 personnel and is home to F-35 and Eurofighter jets. Beyond RAF Akrotiri, the UK’s largest permanent overseas airbase, the country maintains three other permanent installations in the region.

These include a naval support facility in Bahrain, a joint logistical support base in Duqm, Oman, and the Donnelly Lines facility at Al-Minhad Air Base in the UAE.

British forces also possess access to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

Additionally, Diego Garcia, located in the Indian Ocean, remains within striking range for long-range US bombers targeting Iran.

Regional allies frustrated: ‘You did not protect us’

Other British allies have expressed dissatisfaction with Starmer’s response to the conflict.

Kyriakos Kouros, the High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus to the UK, told The Times that Cyprus expected at least a robust defense from Britain, given that the UK maintains two sovereign base areas on the island.

“The French are coming; we expect the British to be there as well, because as I said, we are not just defending the Cypriots on the island,” Kouros said.

The Times further reported that Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have expressed concerns regarding the UK’s tepid reaction to the Middle East conflict.

The UK operates a naval support facility in Bahrain with approximately 300 personnel. This facility is located near the site where Iran launched a successful missile attack against the US Fifth Fleet headquarters.

Defence Secretary John Healey noted that the missile impacted less than 200 meters from British forces.

Gulf nations, including the UAE, have been reportedly incensed by the delay in granting permission to use joint bases, including Diego Garcia, to conduct “defensive” airstrikes against Iranian missile sites.

Public criticism reflects deep-seated frustration among Britain’s regional allies regarding the perceived slow response to Iranian retaliation.

A source familiar with the concerns of the UAE remarked: “There was a sense that the Prime Minister had to be dragged there. This clearly leaves a poor impression in the eyes of the Gulf Cooperation Council.”

Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters, equipped with Martlet missiles capable of neutralizing aerial threats, are scheduled to arrive in Cyprus in the coming days.

Kouros noted that while the deployment of the HMS Dragon was “welcomed,” the vessel’s arrival remains more than a week away.

Diplomacy

Iran rejects Turkish foreign minister’s comparison of regional policy to Israel

Published

on

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei strongly criticized Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent statements comparing Iran’s regional actions to those of Israel, calling the comparison “astonishing and incorrect” during his weekly press conference.

In a comprehensive briefing on Monday, Baghaei addressed a wide range of foreign policy developments and regional security matters, including relations with Türkiye, the current state of diplomatic understandings with the United States, and Iran’s nuclear program.

“Hakan Fidan’s comparison is astonishing and incorrect”

When asked about Fidan’s assertions regarding Iran and his comparison of Iranian actions to those of the Israeli government, Baghaei sharply rejected the assessment.

“It is astonishing that a figure of Mr. Fidan’s standing would make such an unwarranted comparison,” Baghaei said. “He knows very well that the Israeli regime is expansionist by nature and seeks to harm the entire region, including Türkiye. How they arrived at such a bizarre comparison remains a major question for us.”

Baghaei asserted that Iran maintains no proxy forces in the region and argued that Israel represents the only true proxy entity in the Middle East. “We ask our Turkish friends to align their analyses with existing realities and to avoid repeating analyses that serve the exploitative interests of the Israeli regime,” the spokesperson added.

The remarks follow recent statements by Fidan, in which he addressed the ongoing conflict involving Hezbollah and Hamas, describing them as Iranian proxies in the region.

“We need to return to a situation where the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation is fully recognized,” Fidan had stated. “Iran has long claimed to pursue a preventive security policy by maintaining proxies in these countries, just as the Israelis occupy the rest of the region as part of their own security.”

“The Islamabad Agreement has entered a crisis phase”

Responding to a question regarding the status of the Islamabad Agreement, Baghaei stated: “There is no doubt that this agreement has entered a crisis phase.”

While emphasizing that Iran approaches all negotiations with seriousness and precision, and fulfills its commitments in good faith once an agreement is reached, Baghaei accused the opposing party of failing to honor its pledges.

“They were so eager to breach the agreement that they did not even allow the one-month period specified in Article 5 regarding the Strait of Hormuz to run its course. They began backsliding from the very first days,” Baghaei said. “Looking at the 14 articles of the memorandum of understanding, the Americans dismantled different components of the agreement within this short timeframe. We have maintained from the beginning that it is a matter of ‘commitment for commitment.’ As long as the other party fulfills its obligations, we will remain committed to ours.”

“We reject the IAEA’s request to access damaged facilities”

Asked about the request by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi for inspectors to return to Iran and visit damaged nuclear facilities, Baghaei delivered a flat rejection, stating that the request would not be granted.

Addressing separate reports regarding satellite imagery of nuclear facility reconstruction, Baghaei noted that he had not yet seen the satellite images in question and therefore declined to comment.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be threatened by the US”

Commenting on maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and allegations that the United States is providing military escorts to 20 vessels, Baghaei reiterated Iran’s opposition to the presence of extra-regional forces.

Baghaei stated that regional security can only be achieved without foreign intervention, through consultative mechanisms among regional countries. He added that the US military presence is a source of insecurity in the region.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to become an area of threat against Iran’s interests,” the spokesperson said. “We made genuine efforts to ensure navigation security, but the US was the party that undermined the process. The claims regarding vessel escorts demonstrate that the US is continuing its interventionist and aggressive policies in the region.”

Regarding the interpretation of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Baghaei stated that the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

He noted that provisions designating the management of the strait to Iran, in consultation with Oman, were included in the text to protect Iranian interests. He added that the US is attempting to establish parallel routes by provoking regional countries, which he warned causes environmental issues and jeopardizes maritime safety.

“The declaration by the three European countries is null and void”

Referring to a joint declaration issued by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Baghaei dismissed the statement as entirely invalid, accusing the European nations of attempting to distort facts.

He stated that the actions of the US and Israel are the source of instability and harm in both the region and the wider world, adding that such declarations do not contribute to any resolution.

Addressing claims made by the French Foreign Minister, Baghaei added that French officials should cease attempting to assume roles in matters that do not concern them.

“We have not conditioned cooperation with Afghanistan on recognition”

Baghaei provided details on a recent visit to Afghanistan by Alireza Jalalzadeh, the Deputy Foreign Minister for Consular Affairs, noting that discussions were conducted within the framework of consular affairs and people-to-people relations.

Highlighting that Iran shares a border of more than 900 kilometers with Afghanistan, hosts a large number of Afghan migrants, and maintains extensive commercial ties, Baghaei said: “We have not conditioned the official recognition of the Afghan administration on the cooperation necessary for the interests of both countries. The recognition process is a legal procedure, and a decision on this matter will be made when the time comes.”

“We do not make decisions on behalf of Lebanon”

Rejecting allegations that Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Oman, Baghaei said: “We do not make decisions on behalf of anyone. The inclusion of Lebanon’s name in the memorandum of understanding demonstrates Iran’s sense of responsibility toward maintaining international security. In the first article of the text, we emphasized the need to end the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. This is not a matter of decision-making; the decision belongs to the Lebanese people.”

Addressing international pressure regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, Baghaei stated that the Lebanese people are best positioned to understand the value of the resistance’s weapons in protecting their sovereignty, and that any decision on the matter rests solely with them.

“Trump’s claims are false”

Baghaei denied claims made by former US President Donald Trump regarding Iran’s conduct during nuclear negotiations.

“Lying has become a behavioral pattern and an addiction for the US,” Baghaei said. “The talks held in Muscat on Saturday focused exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz. We attempted to establish a mechanism to ensure the safe passage of vessels through Omani mediation, but this outcome was not reached due to pressure exerted on Oman.”

He added that alleged assassination plots against Trump were never a subject of negotiation.

“The death of Lindsey Graham will not grieve free people”

When asked to comment on the death of US Senator Lindsey Graham, Baghaei remarked:

“The Angel of Death is just. One cannot expect the peoples of the region to mourn a figure who built his life philosophy on aggression, war, and terror, and who boasted of being the greatest supporter of genocide. The death of this aggressive senator will not grieve the heart of any free person.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

NATO leadership sees no evidence of Russian preparations for attack on Baltics by 2030

Published

on

The military and political leadership of NATO sees no evidence that Russia is preparing for a potential attack on the Baltic states by 2030, according to a report by The Times, citing a senior alliance source.

“I see absolutely no sign that Russia is interested in engaging in any conflict with NATO,” the high-ranking source told the newspaper. The official added that they had no intention of speculating on the date of a potential conflict, as some other officials within the alliance have done.

The Times noted that rhetoric suggesting an open military conflict between NATO and Russia could begin in 2030 is primarily being used to mobilize the resources of the alliance’s member states. The report stated that this framing aims to encourage members to meet a defense spending target set at 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Speaking to the newspaper on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said that allies currently have a “window of opportunity” to build up the capabilities already agreed upon.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has previously stated that the militarization of Europe would require Russia to take additional measures to guarantee its national security.

As the implications of these developments continue to play out in the military arena, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda announced on July 9 that NATO leadership has converted the mandate of the Baltic air policing mission from air patrol to a combat footing.

The day before this decision, leaders attending the NATO summit in Ankara pointed to the “long-term threat Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security and stability” in a joint declaration.

NATO has repeatedly expressed concerns over a potential conflict with Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged member states not to be “naive” about threats coming from Russia and to increase their defense spending. Similarly, the commander of the German Army, Christian Freuding, asserted on June 12 that his country must “be ready for a Russian attack” by 2029 or sooner, stating, “We must be ready for war.”

In contrast, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko claimed in a June 22 interview with the Izvestia newspaper that NATO and the European Union are preparing for a military conflict with Russia on the horizon of 2030. Grushko noted that from a military perspective, there is now little difference between NATO and the EU regarding aggressive ambitions toward Moscow, and that their main objective is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

The Moscow administration has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that there are no geopolitical, economic, or military reasons to fight the alliance. Nevertheless, Putin has also stated that “all NATO countries are virtually at war with Russia.”

Last year, representatives of NATO countries approved a declaration agreeing to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Under this target, 3.5% of spending is projected to go directly to the military budget, while 1.5% is to be allocated indirectly to defense through cybersecurity and the modernization of highways.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns

Published

on

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced a sweeping structural overhaul of the government, confirming that a new prime minister will soon take office.

Following the announcement, the Ukrainian leader held a series of meetings over a two-and-a-half-hour period with potential candidates positioned to succeed Yulia Sviridenko as prime minister.

“Political strategy is changing”

Writing on his Telegram channel, Zelenskyy announced that the structure of the cabinet of ministers will change and that Sviridenko, who is stepping down from her post, will be assigned to a new role.

The Ukrainian president stated that the country is renewing its political strategy. Under the new approach, specific individuals with extensive experience will be put in charge of each priority foreign policy direction to implement agreements reached at the leadership level and to meet the expectations of the Ukrainian people.

Approximately one hour after Zelenskyy’s statement, Sviridenko confirmed her departure from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine via a message on social media.

Thanking the president for his high valuation of her work, Sviridenko stated that she and Zelenskyy had discussed future steps.

Sviridenko began her career in the Ukrainian government in 2019 as Deputy Minister of Economy. Between 2020 and 2021, she served as deputy head of the presidential office, during which time she participated in negotiations regarding the Donbas.

In November 2021, she assumed control of economic management as First Deputy Prime Minister. In the spring of 2025, she signed a resource agreement with the US on behalf of Ukraine.

Zelenksyy proposed that Sviridenko lead the government in July 2025, and the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, approved her candidacy with 262 votes in a session held on July 17, 2025.

Prior to Sviridenko, Denys Shmyhal had led the cabinet since March 2020. He currently serves as the Minister of Energy.

Priority targets of the new cabinet established

Zelenskyy outlined the primary areas of focus for the renewed government, listing relations with the US—specifically licensing agreements for the production of Patriot systems and security cooperation—as top priorities.

Other core objectives include the European anti-ballistic missile project, the European Union accession process, relations with neighboring states—particularly Poland and Hungary—cooperation with the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and China, as well as relations with international organizations.

The Ukrainian leader also stressed the need to strengthen operations along the front lines and border regions, increase weapons supplies, complete winter preparations, accelerate the transformation of state-owned enterprises, and implement agreements reached with partners regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Who could succeed Sviridenko as prime minister?

The last major reshuffle in the Ukrainian government took place a year ago, with Sviridenko assuming the premiership in July 2025.

Under Ukrainian law, the candidate for prime minister must be proposed by the majority coalition in the Verkhovna Rada.

Once appointed, the prime minister submits the majority of the cabinet members to parliament for approval.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that the only legitimate power in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada. According to Putin’s assessment, the only authority qualified to participate in peace talks is the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, asserting that Zelenskyy lacks legitimacy and therefore has no authority to sign any document.

According to a report by the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, potential candidates being considered for the premiership include:

  • Sergiy Koretskyy, Chairman of the Board of Naftogaz and Director of Ukrnafta
  • Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy
  • Mykhailo Fedorov, Minister of Defense
  • Ihor Terekhov, Mayor of Kharkiv

Zelenskyy announced that he met with all of these officials, as well as Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, during the day.

Sources familiar with the matter who spoke to RBC-Ukraine stated that the president’s decision to renew the government came as a surprise to many. The sources informing the publication also put forward Koretskyy’s name for the premiership.

Sources speaking to Bloomberg also pointed to Koretskyy alongside Shmyhal. The agency reported that both Koretskyy and Shmyhal possess extensive experience in the energy sector, which partially explains their candidacy to succeed Sviridenko.

Meanwhile, Verkhovna Rada Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported that the parliamentary vote on the prime minister’s resignation could take place on July 13 or 14.

Zheleznyak stated that following this vote, the entire government will function in an interim capacity, with Shmyhal temporarily leading the administration in his capacity as deputy prime minister.

According to information shared by Zheleznyak, Sviridenko will become Ukraine’s new ambassador to the US. The Financial Times also reported, citing two sources, that the outgoing prime minister will be appointed to this post.

Zelenskyy stated that he had offered Sviridenko the opportunity to head a new and important direction in relations with a key partner, though he did not share specific details regarding which country or organization this would involve.

Subsequently, a report by the Interfax-Ukraine agency, citing sources, stated that Olga Stefanishyna, who currently serves as Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US, wishes to end her diplomatic service due to personal reasons.

Stefanishyna has held the post for less than a year, with Zelenskyy having signed the decree for her appointment in August 2025.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey