Part 1 of 2
Within hours of the United States striking three Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025, governments around the world began responding to an escalation that raised fears of a wider Middle East conflict.
The reactions were far from uniform.
Some governments backed Washington’s stated goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Others condemned the strikes as violations of international law.
But across many of the statements, one message appeared repeatedly: avoid further escalation and return to diplomacy.
President Donald Trump said the U.S. operation had inflicted major damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities and called on Tehran to make peace.
Iran, however, reacted angrily.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the United States had crossed what he described as a major red line and argued that Iran retained the right to defend itself.
The comments immediately intensified questions about what Tehran might do next and whether further military action could spread beyond Iran and Israel.
At the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres expressed alarm about the use of force and warned that the confrontation could rapidly move beyond the control of the countries involved.
His message was straightforward: the conflict needed de-escalation, and diplomacy remained the path toward a lasting resolution.
European governments also focused heavily on preventing a broader war.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but he also called for negotiations and stressed that regional stability had to remain the priority.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas similarly urged all parties to step back and return to the negotiating table.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said negotiations were the only way to end the crisis and called for a credible diplomatic solution.
Canada took a similar position.
Prime Minister Mark Carney said Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon while also calling for the parties to return immediately to negotiations.
Australia’s government emphasized de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy, although Foreign Minister Penny Wong also said Australia supported efforts aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Elsewhere, the criticism of the U.S. operation was much sharper.
China condemned the strikes and said they had intensified tensions in the Middle East.
Beijing called for a cease-fire and renewed dialogue.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry also condemned the attack, arguing that it violated international law and the United Nations Charter.
Iraq warned that the military escalation represented a serious threat to peace and security across the Middle East.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi warned of serious consequences if the conflict continued expanding and urged a return to negotiations.
Saudi Arabia stopped short of directly condemning the U.S. operation but expressed deep concern and urged restraint and de-escalation.
Qatar issued a similar warning, saying the region could not afford another escalation after years of conflict and humanitarian suffering.
The different reactions showed how divided governments were over the strikes themselves.
Yet even countries that disagreed sharply about Washington’s decision repeatedly returned to the same concern.
What happened next could determine whether the confrontation remained limited or developed into something far larger.
And some of the strongest reactions were still to come, as governments across Asia, the Middle East and Latin America weighed in on the consequences of the attack.