From London: As Australians woke this Saturday morning, the Middle East had already been transformed overnight. The United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran in an operation the Americans codenamed Epic Fury and the Israelis called Roaring Lion, triggering retaliatory Iranian missile salvoes and a cascade of diplomatic responses from capitals across the globe. The world is now watching, with no clear consensus on what comes next.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed support for Washington's position, aligning Canberra with the US-led action. That places Australia alongside Canada, whose Prime Minister Mark Carney described the Islamic Republic of Iran as "the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East" and backed the strikes as a necessary measure to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. For Canberra, the decision to side with the US reflects the weight of the ANZUS alliance and shared concerns about Iranian weapons proliferation, though it is unlikely to go uncontested among Australia's trading partners in the region and beyond.
Here in London, Prime Minister Keir Starmer moved quickly to address the nation from Downing Street. The British government's position, as articulated by Starmer, is carefully calibrated: the UK did not participate directly in the strikes, but provided air defence cover from its regional bases and personnel. Starmer described the Iranian leadership as "utterly abhorrent" and said Iran had both killed its own people and destabilised the broader region. His message to Tehran was blunt.
"Iran can end this now. They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons program and cease the appalling violence and repression against the Iranian people."
The European Union, as a bloc, struck a more restrained tone. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa issued a joint statement calling for maximum restraint, civilian protection, and adherence to international law. They were careful to acknowledge the EU's own extensive sanctions against Iran while stopping short of endorsing the military action. Spain broke more sharply from the pack: Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez explicitly rejected what he called "unilateral military action" by Washington and Tel Aviv, warning it was pushing the world toward a "more uncertain and hostile international order." His foreign minister echoed the call, insisting the attacks must stop.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took the opposite view, voicing firm support for the strikes. His reasoning was direct: Iran has supplied Russia with more than 57,000 Shahed-type attack drones used against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure since the full-scale invasion began. For Kyiv, Tehran is not a neutral party in global affairs but an active enabler of Russian aggression. Zelenskyy urged that the focus now shift to saving lives and preventing the conflict from widening.
The strongest condemnations came from China, Brazil and Pakistan. Beijing's foreign ministry called for an immediate ceasefire and insisted that Iran's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. Brazil's government condemned the strikes outright, noting they occurred during active negotiations and arguing that diplomacy remains "the only viable path to peace." Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar used a phone call with his Iranian counterpart to demand an immediate halt to escalation and a return to diplomatic channels.
The regional picture is complicated further by Iran's retaliatory actions. Saudi Arabia strongly condemned Iranian missile strikes on the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan, describing them as a breach of sovereignty and warning of "dire consequences" if they continued. That Saudi response highlights a rarely acknowledged reality: several Arab states share Western concerns about Iranian regional aggression, even as they are reluctant to endorse American military force as the remedy.
Japan, whose energy security is acutely sensitive to any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, flagged concern without condemning either side. Oman, which had been mediating between Washington and Tehran in talks that collapsed earlier this week, expressed particular frustration. Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said negotiations his country had brokered were "yet again undermined" and warned the United States plainly: "This is not your war."
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, was unequivocal in deploring the strikes from all sides, warning that civilians always bear the ultimate cost of armed conflict. "Bombs and missiles are not the way to resolve differences," he said, calling for restraint and a return to the negotiating table. The United Nations as a whole faces an acute test of relevance as the Security Council's divisions make any binding resolution virtually impossible.
What's often lost in Australian coverage of Middle Eastern crises is the degree to which these events carry direct economic consequences for the region that sits between Australia and Europe. Any sustained conflict affecting the Strait of Hormuz will affect energy prices globally. Australia imports refined fuel products, and a spike in oil prices feeds through to petrol costs, freight, and inflation. The Reserve Bank of Australia will be watching closely, as will Treasury.
The honest assessment, from where this correspondent stands in London, is that the international community is deeply and genuinely split, not along simple lines of good and bad actors, but along competing interpretations of international law, security necessity, and the limits of diplomacy. Those who support the strikes argue that decades of negotiation failed to halt Iran's nuclear programme and that deterrence sometimes requires force. Those who condemn them argue that military action taken during live diplomatic talks sets a dangerous precedent and risks a wider regional war that no one can fully control. Both positions reflect real values and real risks. The International Atomic Energy Agency had been the diplomatic backstop for years; its authority now hangs in the balance. For Canberra, the task will be to support its ally while keeping open every channel that might bring the parties back to the table before this escalates further.