United Kingdom
• PM Keir Starmer supported the U.S. action, calling Iran’s nuclear ambitions “a grave threat to international security,” and urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution .
• The UK was informed ahead of the strike but did not participate, and its military bases (e.g., RAF Akrotiri, Diego Garcia) were not involved .
• The government emphasized restraint and protection of British/U.K. personnel in the region, while preparing for potential backlash .
🇫🇷 France
• Foreign Minister Jean‑Noël Barrot said France “learned [of the strikes] with concern,” stressed that Paris was not involved or consulted, and urged restraint to avoid escalating the conflict .
• He underscored that a lasting solution must come through negotiation under the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, affirming France’s readiness to support multilateral diplomacy .
🇨🇦 Canada
• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (via PM Mark Carney/Foreign Affairs) warned that Iran should “never be allowed” to obtain nuclear weapons. Canada endorsed a diplomatic approach, urging all parties to “return immediately to the negotiating table” .
• Canada emphasized that while the strike targeted a real threat, the stability of the Middle East remains extremely fragile, and diplomacy must guide next steps .
🇷🇺 Russia
• Strong condemnation: The Russian Foreign Ministry labeled the strikes “irresponsible” and a “gross violation of international law,” warning they significantly raise the risk of regional/global escalation .
• Medvedev’s warning: Dmitry Medvedev warned the strikes could galvanize Iran around Supreme Leader Khamenei, and implied some countries might now supply Iran with nuclear warheads .
• Closer ties with Iran: Iran’s Foreign Minister is heading to Moscow for urgent consultations, reinforcing their January 2025 strategic partnership treaty .
Likely actions: Moscow may ramp up diplomatic and material support to Tehran, possibly including civilian nuclear cooperation or indirect military aid, while pushing for UN Security Council responses and positioning itself as mediator.
🇨🇳 China
• Condemnation and caution: Beijing officially expressed concern that the strikes escalate Middle East tensions and emphasized dialogue and diplomacy .
• Economic leverage: China’s long-term energy ties to Iran could factor into its response; analysts warn disruptions might pressure Beijing, though China lacks direct military capability to intervene .
• Strategic messaging: Experts caution that if the West appears weakened, China might shift more assertively in other theaters—but for now its stance is primarily diplomatic .
Potential actions: Diplomatic statements at the UN, possibly vetoing resolutions. China may quietly pressure Iran to pursue diplomacy, while monitoring regional ripple effects impacting its global posture.
When the World Held Its Breath: Global Reactions to the U.S. Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
A Free-Flow Narrative Report
When the news broke that U.S. forces had launched precision strikes on Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear facilities—particularly the Fordow uranium enrichment complex nestled in the Zagros Mountains—the world entered a tense, suspended moment. Operation Midnight Hammer, as it was codenamed, was not just a military maneuver; it was a geopolitical thunderclap whose reverberations crossed deserts, oceans, capitals, and corridors of power.
In Africa, reactions were layered with concern and caution. Nigeria, the continent’s most populous nation and a diplomatic heavyweight in West Africa, issued a solemn call for restraint. In a statement from Abuja, the Nigerian government condemned the use of force, warned of regional destabilization, and reminded world powers that escalation in the Middle East would inevitably ripple across oil markets, migration flows, and peacekeeping operations globally. South Africa echoed similar sentiments, invoking the spirit of multilateral diplomacy and urging the United States to respect international norms. Egypt, deeply rooted in both African and Arab spheres, found itself in a delicate balancing act—warning of catastrophic consequences while quietly signaling alignment with broader Arab consensus.
In Asia, the responses were a spectrum—from measured diplomacy to outright condemnation. India, a strategic partner of both the U.S. and Iran, walked a diplomatic tightrope. Prime Minister Modi, after a direct call with Iran’s President, appealed for immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to the JCPOA framework, underscoring India’s long-held position of non-alignment in great power conflicts. China, which has vast energy ties to Iran and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, released a sharply worded statement denouncing the strike as a breach of sovereignty and a destabilizing act. Beijing, however, stopped short of threatening countermeasures, opting instead to position itself as a potential peace broker. Japan, more cautious, expressed “grave concern” and warned that any expansion of conflict could imperil global nonproliferation efforts and supply chains critical to its economy.
In the Arab world, reactions were both immediate and deeply strategic. Saudi Arabia, Iran’s long-time regional rival, issued a carefully worded response. Riyadh expressed “deep concern” but refrained from condemning the U.S. action outright—signaling tacit approval of any move that might hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet, it called on all parties to avoid further escalation. Qatar and Oman, often seen as neutral mediators in Gulf affairs, issued urgent appeals for restraint, reaffirming their commitment to dialogue and regional de-escalation. Egypt’s President El-Sisi, speaking from Cairo, warned of a “new front of suffering” and invoked the need for Arab solidarity and international arbitration.
Iraq, perhaps the most vulnerable of Iran’s neighbors, condemned the strike outright, citing the dangers of turning its soil once again into a battlefield for foreign agendas. Baghdad called for an emergency session of the Arab League. Meanwhile, the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon—both backed by Tehran—vowed retaliation, framing the strike as an attack not just on Iran, but on the “axis of resistance” across the Middle East. The tone of Jordan and Kuwait was more subdued, expressing “regret” over the situation while urging the UN to step in.
Europe, ever cautious but increasingly assertive in foreign policy, responded with a united voice of diplomatic urgency. The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, speaking from Brussels, stressed the need for an immediate ceasefire and demanded that all parties return to the framework of international diplomacy. France, Germany, and Italy condemned the strike as a unilateral act that risks unraveling decades of nuclear nonproliferation progress. French President Emmanuel Macron, already navigating a fragile domestic political scene, declared that “no nuclear ambition justifies war.” Germany, historically a key player in the Iran nuclear negotiations, reaffirmed its commitment to multilateralism and opposed any further military intervention. Ireland and Spain, aligning with EU consensus, offered humanitarian readiness and called for emergency sessions at both the UN and the EU Parliament.
The Middle East itself trembled under the shadow of retaliation. Israel, though not officially part of the strike, was widely suspected of sharing intelligence. Its government remained silent for hours before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded “the commitment of our allies to regional security.” In contrast, Iran erupted in fury. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei declared the strike an act of war and summoned the Iranian military to full readiness. Retaliatory drone strikes were launched into Iraq and Syria. Protesters filled the streets of Tehran, Baghdad, Beirut, and Sana’a, chanting slogans that fused religious fervor with nationalist rage.
Across the United Nations, emergency sessions were convened. The Security Council—fractured along predictable lines—failed to pass a unified resolution due to veto threats. Russia, firmly condemning the strike, warned of “grave consequences” and hinted at deeper strategic partnerships with Tehran, perhaps even nuclear cooperation under civilian pretenses. China, ever the pragmatist, signaled both disapproval and readiness to mediate—if only to avoid a war that could disrupt its global economic expansion.
In Latin America, left-leaning governments in Chile, Venezuela, and Colombia issued harsh condemnations, painting the strike as a continuation of “imperial violence.” Mexico, while not as forceful, warned against undermining international law. Argentina, in a dramatic break from regional consensus, praised the U.S. action as “decisive and necessary,” aligning itself with Trump’s administration and Israel.
And so, the world held its breath. Diplomats scrambled, oil markets surged, embassies fortified, and military bases braced for impact. In this new chapter of 21st-century geopolitics, it was no longer enough to simply be aligned or opposed. Every nation was being forced to confront its place in a reshaped world order—one defined not just by bombs and treaties, but by a growing urgency to reclaim the sanctity of dialogue before destruction became the dominant language.
By : Jide Adesina
1stafrika
Iran – Isreal war Reporting
June, 2025
