Ukraine strikes Russian oil refinery as Zelenskyy calls for Moscow to end war

(LONDON) — As Britain prepares for yet another prime ministerial change, a former holder of the office — Theresa May, who led the country from 2016 to 2019 — urged the country’s next leader to focus on shared U.S.-U.K. interests, rather than falling prey to potential personal or political clashes with President Donald Trump.

The U.K. Parliament is expected to anoint the Labour Party’s Andy Burnham as prime minister later this month. Burnham will become the seventh leader to take the reins of the country in 10 years, a reflection of the political and economic turbulence that has beset the country since the Brexit vote in 2016.

Burnham will replace current Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who last month said he would vacate his post following a collapse in support among Labour members of parliament, exacerbated by disastrous local election results in May. Starmer delivered Labour a historic majority in parliament in the 2024 general election, but saw his authority and approval rapidly deteriorate.

Like his predecessors, Burnham will need to juggle domestic discord while navigating a raft of foreign policy demands — among them the cultivation of the so-called “special relationship” between the U.K. and the U.S., which during President Donald Trump’s two terms in the White House has been subject to strategic, ideological and economic headwinds.

Trump has already described Burnham — who until recently was serving as the mayor of Greater Manchester — as “extremely liberal.” During Starmer’s time in office, the president has been scathing toward the prime minister’s policies in areas including energy, immigration, crime and foreign policy.
May, whose time in office overlapped with Trump’s first term, told ABC News last week that institutional transatlantic relationships and shared interests can help Starmer’s successors ease possible interpersonal tensions.

“Keir Starmer, actually, on the foreign policy field, by and large, played a good hand,” May told ABC News on the sidelines of the Chatham House think tank’s conference in London. The outgoing prime minister has been broadly praised for his deft handling of the transatlantic relationship, which included hosting a state visit for Trump to the U.K. in 2025.

Of the special relationship, May said, “We talk about it perhaps slightly more than the U.S. does. But that relationship is built on a whole set of different levels of relationships. So, it’s not just about the prime minister and the president. It’s also about our security relationships, our defense relationships … It’s not just about the two people at the top.”

The same is true of the U.K.’s own political issues, May said, as the nation prepares for the coronation of its next prime minister. “It’s not about individuals. Politics today generally across the globe has become more about individuals and personalities and I think that’s problematic,” she said.

“What matters to people is not the personality at the top. What matters to the people is what they’re doing, what their policies are,” May said.

The recent joint U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has again prompted Trump to strike out at America’s European allies, who refused to join the campaign in support of Washington though expressed willingness to aid security and minesweeping missions in the Strait of Hormuz once the conflict is over.

The U.K. was among the American allies who refusal to assist the U.S. against Iran “greatly disappointed me,” Trump said in March. Starmer’s response in particular, the president said, was “very disappointing.”

Asked whether the Iran war would prove to be a long-lasting blot on U.K.-U.S. relations, May said she was hesitant to comment as the conflict “is not finished.”

Still, she — like many other current and former European leaders — noted that European nations have previously shown their “commitment to the United States,” not least in rallying to the U.S. side after the 9/11 attacks; the only time in NATO history that an ally invoked the Article 5 collective defense clause.

When asked about Trump’s repeated suggestions that the U.S. should be less involved in European security, May replied, “There have been other times when there’s been more of that sense of isolationism,” specifically noting the later American entry into the Second World War in support of the U.K. and its allies.

“But I think, again, the interests that we have together are what combines us,” May said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LONDON) — Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on Monday he would resign as the leader of his party and as prime minister, setting the stage for the United Kingdom’s seventh prime minister within a decade.

Starmer, who said he spoke on Monday with King Charles, said he expected to remain in office until a successor was chosen from within his Labour Party.

“The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election,” he said outside 10 Downing Street. “I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace.”

Starmer, who had led Labour since 2020, was elected to lead the country in a general election 2024. His replacement is expected to be chosen by his party.

Starmer said he asked party leaders to open nominations for a successor on July 9. He did not give a date for his departure from 10 Downing Street, but said he expected a new prime minister to be in place by September, when Parliament returns from its summer recess.

The resignation announcement followed months of turmoil for Starmer, with some members of his own party criticizing his leadership, saying he had not been able to deliver the rapid change needed after taking office following 14 years of Conservative Party rule in Britain.

Many in Starmer’s Labour party had written to Starmer asking him to step down following local elections in May, which saw the party lose more than 1,000 seats on local councils, results that were widely interpreted as a repudiation by British voters of Labour’s performance under the prime minister’s leadership.

A formal challenge to his premiership had not yet begun as of Monday, but some members of his party have in recent weeks coalesced in public support of Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Greater Manchester, as his potential successor.

Burnham, who won a special election on Friday to become a member of parliament representing Makerfield, was expected to be sworn in in the House of Commons on Monday.

Following Starmer’s announcement, Burnham said on social media that he would seek a nomination in the Labour leadership contest.

“People want to see progress on economic growth, cost of living, public services, housing and opportunities for the next generation,” he said. “Political change should never distract from the responsibility to improve people’s lives.”

Another potential successor, Wes Streeting, a member of parliament who resigned from his position as Starmer’s health secretary in May, threw his support behind Burnham on Monday.

“We could spend the summer exaggerating our small differences, or we can roll up our sleeves and help [Burnham] to deliver the change our Party and our country needs,” Streeting said in a statement. “That is the choise that I am making and I hope that everyone else will back Andy, too.”

Starmer long said he intended to see out his full five-year term, which began with his party’s 2024 landslide election victory, which also delivered Labour a historic majority in the House of Commons.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, praised Starmer after his announcement, saying, “It can take many leaders years to grow into the statesman you became in just two years. European and Ukrainian security is stronger because of you. Thank you, dear Keir.”

ABC News’ David Brennan, Jamie Dorrington and Zoe Magee contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LONDON) — President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kicked off their joint military campaign against Iran in late February, urging the fall of the Islamic Republic.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” Trump said, addressing Iranians in announcing the start of “major combat operations.”

A month of unrelenting combined U.S.-Israeli strikes appears to have significantly eroded Iran’s military capabilities and killed many of its most senior leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who died alongside dozens of top Iranian officials in a series of airstrikes on his official residence in Tehran in the opening salvos of the war.

But despite Trump’s assertion that the “war has been won,” Iranian forces continue to launch attacks on Israel, regional U.S. bases and American partners across the Middle East, while commercial shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz remains constrained, with large numbers of cargo vessels in limbo on either side of the narrow waterway at the southern entrance to the Persian Gulf.

Trump has also asserted that there had been “complete regime change,” with the leaders the U.S. is now dealing with in recently announced negotiations “more moderate” and “much more reasonable,” the president told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.

Trump named Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the powerful speaker of the Iranian parliament, as the direct U.S. negotiating partner, though Ghalibaf has denied the assertion.

But in Tehran, the cadre of officials – Ghalibaf among them – emerging to take the reins of power appear as committed as the slain figures they are replacing, many of them veterans of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), analysts have said.

The regime in Tehran, according to Danny Citrinowicz – the Israel Defense Forces’ former top Iran researcher, now at the Institute for National Security Studies think tank in Israel – “is weaker than it was before the conflict, but it is also more radical. The IRGC has further consolidated its influence over decision-making, eroding what little internal balance once existed within the regime.”

The war appears to have given Tehran long-term leverage over the Strait of Hormuz – a “weapon of mass disruption,” as described by Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group during an online briefing hosted by the think tank this week.

If the Islamic Republic survives the war, and its immediate aftermath by suppressing simmering anti-regime movements, its new leaders may be emboldened to retain perceived strategic advantages, chief among them control of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts who spoke to ABC News said.

That regime sentiment seems to be crystalizing. Ghalibaf, for example, told the IRNA state news agency that Iran’s strategy now rests on its control of three pillars: “missiles, the streets, and the Strait.”

Inside Iran, some sense that shift. Darius – who did not wish to use his real name for fear of reprisal – told ABC News from Tehran of a growing sentiment that “the source of legitimacy for the Islamic republic is shifting” from the clerical establishment to the IRGC.

“Now, the de facto leaders of the country are the generals in the IRGC. And they are actually running the show at the moment,” Darius said.

IRGC ascendant

The IRGC was formed shortly after the Iranian Revolution by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, ultimately emerging as the new Islamic Republic’s primary tool for projecting its ideology and influence beyond its own borders.

The IRGC entrenched and expanded its power during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988. With its battlefield exploits and ideological zeal, the IRGC came to embody the wartime concept of “sacred defense,” Johns Hopkins University professor Vali Nasr wrote in his recent book, “Iran’s Grand Strategy.”

Observers have long considered the IRGC to be the most powerful military, political and economic institution in Iran.

Even before the most recent U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, many experts warned that decapitation strikes or a push for regime change risked empowering the IRGC to seize the state’s other mechanisms of power – though others suggested the force had no need to openly seize control, given its de facto hold over the country.

The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Ali Khamenei, served in an elite IRGC unit during the Iran-Iraq War, and analysts have suggested his candidacy was strongly supported by the force.

Mojtaba Khamenei’s newly appointed military adviser, Mohsen Rezaei, was drawn from the senior ranks of the IRGC, as was the new secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, who was selected to replace Ali Larijani when the latter was killed by Israeli airstrikes in mid-March.

Meanwhile, IRGC veteran Ghalibaf – who has reportedly long been close to Mojtaba Khamenei – remains alive and appears to be in a position of influence, one of the few top prewar officials to have survived the U.S.-Israeli campaign.

Inside Iran, some sense that shift. Darius told ABC News from Tehran of a growing sentiment that “the source of legitimacy for the Islamic republic is shifting” from the clerical establishment to the IRGC.

“Now, the de facto leaders of the country are the generals in the IRGC. And they are actually running the show at the moment,” Darius said.

Reading the ‘mosaic’

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi credited a “mosaic defense” strategy with enabling the Iranian military to launch retaliatory strikes despite the killing of so many senior military officials in the opening hours of the U.S.-Israeli campaign.

That decentralized approach also appeared to cause some tactical confusion. Araghchi and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, for example, both denied Iranian responsibility for several reported Iranian drone and missile attacks in the region in the days after the war erupted.

A decapitated regime in Tehran may pose challenges to American negotiators seeking a peace deal, Citrinowicz said, telling ABC News that the killings have created a “worse” strategic situation by dispersing power.

The centralized decision-making power enjoyed by Ali Khamenei is no more, he said. “Now, how are you going to work with them? It’s going to be very hard to reach an agreement with them,” Citrinowicz said, referring to the newly emergent group of leaders.

Trump himself appeared to acknowledge a diffusion of power in Iran as a result of the American-Israeli assassination campaign. “We have nobody to talk to, and you know what, we like it that way,” the president said earlier this month.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told “Good Morning America” this week there are “fractures” within the Iranian leadership, though he would not say with whom the administration is in contact.

Yossi Kuperwasser – the former head of the IDF’s military intelligence research division – told ABC News that the emergence of hardliners “was to be expected.”

“Once you eliminate Khamenei, he’s not going to be replaced by some wishy-washy character, but somebody who is committed to the cause and the IRGC is going to be in charge,” Kuperwasser said.

But Kuperwasser also noted that figures currently touted as Iranian negotiators, such as Ghalibaf, might not live to see the end of the war. Indeed, Larijani was often noted as among the prime negotiating candidates before his killing. “I’d guess there are going to be more eliminations,” Kuperwasser said.

As the war progressed, both U.S. and Israeli officials have distanced themselves from earlier suggestions of regime change. Instead, officials refocused the strategic narrative on their ambitions to degrade Iran’s conventional military – especially ballistic missile – and nuclear programs.

These targets, according to Kuperwasser, were always the Israeli priority.

“Simultaneously, we are trying to weaken the regime so as to create the conditions that can be used by the people of Iran in order to promote something that can bring about the removal of the regime from power,” Kuperwasser said. But that will not necessarily occur in the short term, he added.

‘Missiles, the street, the strait’

Citrinowicz said that whatever structure emerges to negotiate with the Trump administration will likely be influenced toward more hardline demands by the killing of its predecessors.

On the nuclear file, too, “it goes without saying” that Tehran’s outlook will have shifted, Citrinowicz said. Before the war, Iranian leaders had already publicly committed not to pursue nuclear weapons, though Tehran was refusing to accept Trump’s demands of zero enrichment. Now, Citrinowicz said, the new Iranian leadership “might find themselves rushing toward a bomb.”

Iran also has more leverage in the Strait of Hormuz than it did before the conflict, even with the significant military degradation that the U.S. and Israel appear to have inflicted. Officials in Tehran have suggested that Iranian control over the strait – and the requirement for those transiting it to coordinate with Tehran and pay tolls – is the new baseline.

Rubio hinted at long-term disruption in the Persian Gulf last week. “Immediately after this thing ends, and we’re done with our objectives, the immediate challenge we’re going to face is an Iran that may decide that they want to set up a tolling system in the Strait of Hormuz,” Rubio said.

Hamidreza Azizi of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs think tank said during the Crisis Group briefing that Tehran will be set on a conclusive settlement, not merely a ceasefire that would allow the U.S. and Israel to rearm and resume the conflict at a later date, as was the case after the 12-day conflict in June.

“Deep inside Iran’s strategic thinking, there is an understanding that ceasefires are only a means for the United States and Israel to buy time,” Azizi said. While before the conflict, Tehran appeared willing to make concessions on the nuclear file and other issues, now Iranian leaders see an opportunity to achieve what they were unable to across years of negotiations.

The endgame, Azizi said, could be one in which Iran preserves “some sort of leverage” over the Strait of Hormuz or secures “substantial sanctions removal.”

For its part, Citrinowicz said the U.S. appears to be scrambling. “There are so many people in the U.S. that understand this regime, but the administration is behaving like it’s Venezuela. It’s crazy,” Citrinowicz said, referring to the American operation in January to seize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and support his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, as Maduro’s successor.

Last week, the U.S. delivered 15-point plan to end the war, which was widely interpreted as a blueprint for Tehran’s capitulation. Iranian demands are likewise maximalist, calling for reparations and for the U.S. to abandon its regional bases.

“Nobody’s getting their wish list,” Dalia Dassa Kaye of the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations said during this week’s Crisis Group briefing.

In the meantime, the battlefield costs will rise and geopolitical implications deepen across the Middle East. “Even if this ends tomorrow,” Kaye said, the costs have already been paid. “It’s going to take years to recuperate the damage.”

“This is not something you put back in a box,” he added.

ABC News’ Desiree Adib and Somayeh Malekian contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.