Trump's air strikes on Iran 'Illegal' says Macron as Starmer faces pressure to pick a side

Emmanuel Macron has hit out at Donald Trump's air strikes on Iran, branding them "illegal" and deepening the row over whether the US action broke international law, reports The Telegraph.

The French president warned that while it could be seen as "legitimate" to bomb nuclear facilities that posed a threat, there was no legal basis for Saturday's strikes carried out by America and Israel.

Mr Macron's intervention came as Sir Keir Starmer and senior ministers repeatedly failed to say outright whether they supported the US president's decision, despite mounting pressure for the PM to "get off the fence."

The Prime Minister had been warned last week by his own Attorney General, Lord Hermer, that joining a US attack could put the UK in breach of international law, however Starmer, unlike Macron, has failed to condemn the bombing in keeping with his legal advice.

In fact, Starmer seemed to welcome the result of the US bombing by saying they would "alleviate" the Iran nuclear problem, prompting accusations that he was happy to accept the end result of the bombing, but not the means.

The US strikes followed a week of public and private lobbying by European leaders urging Mr Trump not to act unilaterally.

Instead, America carried out a surprise stealth raid on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday night - which Mr Trump hailed afterwards as a mission that left all targets "obliterated".

The move has raised serious questions about whether Sir Keir and other Western leaders can have any influence on Mr Trump's international agenda.

It comes after the US president walked out halfway through the G7 summit in Canada last week. The leaders are due to face off again at the Nato summit in The Hague on Wednesday.

Mr Macron told reporters: "It may be considered legitimate... to neutralise nuclear facilities in Iran, given our objectives.

"However, there is no legal framework, no. And so we must say it as it is: there is no legality to these strikes.

"Even though France shares the objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, we have consistently believed from the outset that this can only be achieved through diplomatic and technical means.

"I say this because I hear many commentators who basically accuse you of inefficiency when you defend the diplomatic route on these issues. But when you are consistent, you can claim to be effective.

He added: "We continue to believe that it is through negotiation and re-engagement that we can achieve our goals."

His stance was backed up by Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, who added: "International law has some clear principles on the use of force. It can be granted by the Security Council or it can be in pure self-defence," making it clear the US raids were "outside the realm of international law".

Yet Mr Macron's comments were sharply at odds with those from Germany and Nato chief Mark Rutte, who insisted the pre-emptive US action was not illegal.

Asked whether this was comparable to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Mr Rutte replied: "My biggest fear would be for Iran to own and be able to use and deploy a nuclear weapon to be a stranglehold on Israel, on the whole region and other parts of the world.

"This is a consistent position of Nato: Iran should not have its hands on a nuclear weapon," he continued. "I would not agree that this is against international law - what the US did."

And Friedrich Merz, Germany's Chancellor, also defended America and Israel, saying there was "no reason to criticise" their moves, arguing that leaving Iran's nuclear programme untouched "wasn't an option either".

In Westminster, ministers echoed Mr Macron's cautious tone. Several repeatedly refused to say explicitly that the bombing was lawful or justified - choosing instead to highlight that they were glad Iran was prevented from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy was asked directly on BBC Radio 4's Today programme about the legality of the strikes, replying only: "Well, we weren't involved, it's for the Americans to discuss those issues."