UK threatens sanctions on Iran if it doesn't end uncertainty on nuclear plan
He also told the Commons that Iran cannot assume Israel will not strike Iran's nuclear sites again.
His tough warning was echoed by the French foreign ministry, which is working closely with the UK in a bid to persuade Iran to end its new ambiguity about its nuclear intentions and re-engage in talks with the US.
Iran is maintaining a fragile ceasefire with the US and Israel but the risk exists of the crisis flaring up into further warfare unless a diplomatic agreement is found soon.
The UK, France and Germany – the E3 -signed the original nuclear deal with Iran in 2015 and according to its terms can impose 'snapback' UN sanctions without the risk of a Security Council veto so long as they act by its expiry in October. Alternatively, they could table a UN resolution to delay the snapback by some months if Iran had shown a willingness to negotiate.
The three are also using their power to reimpose UN sanctions as a lever to persuade the US to join the talks with the Iranians, but have so far had no success. Iran has said it will restart talks with the US only if there is a guarantee that Israel will not attack Iran while the talks are under way.
Speaking to the UK parliament's foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday, Lammy said: 'Iran faces even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy.
'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions.'
The reinstated sanctions would include cargo inspections on Iranian shipments, reinstated arms embargos and restrictions on missile-related technologies.
'Iran's decision to suspend cooperation [with the UN nuclear inspectorate] will only lead to greater uncertainty about their nuclear intentions,' Lammy warned, adding that such a step would also be in stark violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Witholding a judgment on Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear sites, Lammy said the detailed intelligence assessment of the attacks had not been completed but regardless of the degrading effect on Iran's uranium stockpiles and centrifuges, Iran would retain its knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon – making it necessary for the west to reach some diplomatic agreement.
With some inside Iran near triumphant because the Israelis did not dislodge the government, Lammy urged Iran to make a sober assessment of its true strategic weakness. 'Iran has lost its air defences and I suspect the Israelis, monitoring Iran very closely, are free to act again, if they think they can further degrade Iran's nuclear capability,' he said. He added that he had not seen either Russia or China rushing to come to Iran's defence.
The Iranian leadership, faced by domestic pressure not to re-engage with America or Israel, has not ruled out further talks with the US, but plans for negotiations to restart this week in Oslo this week have not materialised.
At the weekend US special envoy Steve Witkoff said again the US would require Iran to end the enrichment of uranium inside Iran, a red line for Iran.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bailey provokes Chancellor over pension fund plan - but he does have a point, says ALEX BRUMMER
Andrew Bailey and Rachel Reeves may be former Bank of England colleagues. But it does not mean they always sing from the same songsheet. The Governor has been uneasy for some time about Labour assuming powers to mandate pension funds to invest in riskier assets. The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced in the House of Commons this week, would give ministers 'backstop' capability. The Government would assume powers requiring trustees to plough up to 10 per cent of funds into infrastructure, private firms, start-ups and equities. Governor Bailey acknowledges the case for greater retirement fund investment in Britain but does not support compulsion. One doesn't have to be a free marketeer to recognise Bailey has a point. Reeves has been impressed by the way that the Australian and Canadian pension fund managers invest beyond domestic shares and infrastructure. They also co- invest in UK assets such as Heathrow. British pension funds are nowhere to be seen at a time when Labour is seeking to speed up and bolster investment in cleaner energy and transport projects. Taking reserve powers over the pension funds might, however, cut across the fiduciary duty which state trustees must invest safely and cautiously for pensioners and future retirees. There must also be a fear of what might happen should a less scrupulous government than that led by Keir Starmer were to grab the reins of power. A leftie or populist administration might seek to take assets into part-public ownership or only back projects favoured by trades unions or financial backers of the governing party. The Reeves-Bailey pensions dispute is nothing like the bitter, public assault on chairman Jay Powell and the independent Federal Reserve by Donald Trump in the US. He wants rid of Powell and to see borrowing costs slashed. Reeves too craves lower UK borrowing costs before growth heads over the horizon. One trusts the Chancellor is conscious enough of the sensitivity of Bank independence not to rock the boat. Drug therapy Whatever happened to the Government's life sciences strategy? Britain's pharmaceutical giants are caught in a regulatory pincer movement. On this side of the Atlantic, differences between science minister Patrick Vallance and the Treasury over rebates to the Government on drug sales is proving a block to better access by the UK's life science pioneers to innovation in the NHS. In the US, President Trump is threatening a 200 per cent tariff on imported medicines unless the pharma industry gets its act together. The White House argues that dependence on foreign drug supplies is a national security threat. Both AstraZeneca and GSK have substantial research and manufacturing capacity in America. But there is genuine concern that, as overseas-based and listed enterprises, they could be targeted. Despite the status of Britain's big pharma companies as R&D powerhouses, with an opportunity to make an enormous contribution to growth, they are failing to get the attention they should from the Government. There is a brief reference to a special status for UK pharma in Britain's outline trade deal with the US. But almost all the efforts of negotiators has been on the UK's steel industry and car makers. It is not surprising that Pascal Soriot, chief executive of AstraZeneca, is reported to have considered shifting Britain's most highly valued enterprise to the US. Drug firms were initially encouraged by NHS reforms to make greater use of digital tech to test new treatments and roll them out quickly in Britain. There is acute pain over the failure of the Government to recognise the critical role of the sector in fuelling productivity and growth. Comeback kid? New chairman Philip Jansen's work is cut out if he is to reverse the fortunes of UK marketing powerhouse WPP. Shares in the group plunged 18.8 per cent after the advertising group scythed its revenue and earnings projections. Maybe WPP creator Martin Sorrell could come to the rescue with a reverse takeover masterminded by his S4 Capital digital and AI-enabled agency.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government sees off backbench rebellion as welfare reforms clear Commons
A proposed benefit cut for future out-of-work claimants has cleared the Commons after Labour ministers saw off a backbench rebellion. The Universal Credit Bill cleared the Commons at third reading, after it received MPs' backing by 336 votes to 242, majority 94. 'If you can work, you should,' social security minister Sir Stephen Timms told MPs before they voted on the welfare reforms. 'If you need help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who can't work must be able to live with dignity. 'Those are the principles underpinning what we're doing.' Work and pensions ministers faced calls to walk away from their universal credit (UC) proposals at the 11th hour, after they shelved plans to reform the separate personal independence payment (Pip) benefit and vowed to only bring in changes following a review. 'When this Bill started its life, the Government was advocating for cuts to Pip claimants and UC health claimants now and in the future. They conceded that now wasn't right, and it was only the future,' Labour MP for Hartlepool Jonathan Brash said. 'Then they conceded it shouldn't be Pip claimants in the future, leaving only UC health claimants in the future. Does (Sir Stephen) understand the anxiety and confusion this has caused people in the disabled community, and would it not be better to pause and wait for the review and do it properly?' Sir Stephen replied: 'No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do. 'And it's particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers – nearly a million not in employment, education or training.' The minister said the Government wanted to 'get on and tackle the disability employment gap' and added the Bill 'addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit, it protects those we don't ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment'. As part of the Bill, the basic universal credit standard allowance will rise at least in line with inflation until 2029/30. But the Government has proposed freezing the 'limited capability for work' (LCW) part of the benefit until 2030, which a group of 37 Labour rebels including Mr Brash opposed in a vote. The move was ultimately approved by 335 votes to 135, majority 200. New claimants who sign up for the 'limited capability for work and work-related activity' payment would receive a lower rate than existing claimants after April 2026, unless they meet a set of severe conditions criteria or are terminally ill, which the same rebels also opposed. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central who was among them, had earlier said: 'No matter what spin, to pass the Bill tonight, this will leave such a stain on our great party, founded on values of equality and justice.' She warned that making changes to universal credit before a wider look at reform was putting 'the cart before the horse, the vote before the review', and branded the Government's decision-making an 'omnishambles'. Ms Maskell pressed her own amendment to a division, which she lost by 334 votes to 149, majority 185. It would have demanded that out-of-work benefit claimants with a 'fluctuating medical condition' who slip out of and then back into their eligibility criteria either side of the changes would receive their existing – not the lower – rate. Marie Tidball said that during the review of Pip, which Sir Stephen was tasked with leading, 'the voices of disabled people must be front and centre'. She proposed putting a series of legal conditions on the so-called Timms review, including that disabled people should be actively involved in the process. The Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge did not move her amendment to a vote, on the basis Sir Stephen could offer 'further assurances that there will be sufficient link between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on Pip to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard'. The minister said he could give her that assurance, and added that 'the outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows'. A total 47 Labour MPs voted against the Bill at third reading including Mr Brash, Ms Maskell, Mother of the House and Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP Diane Abbott, and former minister Dawn Butler. The Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Who are the 47 Labour MPs who rebelled in the welfare reforms vote?
Almost 50 Labour MPs have rebelled against the Government over its welfare reforms after warnings the legislation 'remains a danger to disabled people'. Mother of the House Diane Abbott, former minister Dawn Butler, and former shadow minister Andy McDonald were among the 47 Labour MPs who voted against the welfare Bill at third reading. The reforms passed with MPs voting 336 votes to 242, majority 94. The Government had watered down its welfare plans last week by removing the personal independence payment (Pip) part of the Bill in a bid to appease angry backbenchers. Despite this, a number of Labour MPs remained unhappy with the now-called Universal Credit Bill. Speaking in the Commons, Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Poole MP, said the Government's earlier concessions were not enough 'because this Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for over 750,000 future claims'. Nadia Whittome, MP for Nottingham East, said 'these changes do not alleviate all of my concerns', adding: 'One in three disabled people are already in poverty. 'This Bill, even after the Government's amendment, would take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future.' Kim Johnson argued the Bill 'remains a danger to disabled people', adding: 'It's not just a bad policy, it's economically reckless, because when you take away essential support you don't reduce costs, you shift those costs on to the NHS, on to local authorities and on to unpaid carers and on to working class communities.' The Liverpool Riverside MP said she 'will not stand by while this Government has stripped away dignity, security and hope for the people I represent'. Mr McDonald described the situation as a 'shambles', adding: 'Now is the moment to stop the cuts, and I implore the Government to rethink this Bill.' The Middlesbrough and Thornaby East MP said the welfare Bill would 'discourage' people from taking an opportunity to try and work. 'A Government that claims to care about fairness cannot proceed like this,' he added. Alison Hume, MP for Scarborough and Whitby, also urged the Government to 'pull this Bill', adding: 'Let's get it right for the people who really matter. Let's get it right for disabled people.' Cat Eccles, who spoke of her own experience of the system after she 'almost lost my life, followed by a total mental breakdown', also criticised the legislation. The Stourbridge MP said: 'I didn't come here to make people worse off, and that's why I still cannot support this Bill.' Stella Creasy tabled an amendment which would have required the Secretary of State to have due regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Walthamstow MP said her new clause four would aim to 'ensure that people can live a life of freedom equally alongside us as our fellow human beings' and that 'disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses'. Here is a full list of Labour MPs who voted against the Bill at third reading: Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington), Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting), Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree), Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire), Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood), Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Chris Bloore (Redditch), Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool), Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East), Dawn Butler (Brent East), Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby), Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran), Stella Creasy (Walthamstow), Marsha De Cordova (Battersea), Peter Dowd (Bootle), Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole), Cat Eccles (Stourbridge), Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham), Barry Gardiner (Brent West), Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith), Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend), Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Imran Hussain (Bradford East), Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside), Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington), Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Emma Lewell (South Shields), Clive Lewis (Norwich South), Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford), Rachael Maskell (York Central), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East), Navendu Mishra (Stockport), Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central), Grahame Morris (Easington), Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham), Simon Opher (Stroud), Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East), Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill), Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston), Euan Stainbank (Falkirk), Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South), Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth), Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood), Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East), Mohammad Yasin (Bedford).
