British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has declared that he would participate in any future leadership contest within his party, following political developments that have fuelled speculation about a possible challenge to his position.

Starmer made the remarks on Friday after potential rival Andy Burnham secured victory in a parliamentary seat, paving the way for a return to Westminster and increasing speculation about a possible leadership bid.

Speaking to reporters, Starmer said he did not believe a leadership contest would be beneficial for the country but made it clear that he would defend his position if challenged.

“If there is a contest … then yes I will run, I will stand.”

The prime minister stressed his commitment to leading the country and dismissed suggestions that he might step aside.

“I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that.”

Burnham’s return to Parliament has intensified discussions about the future direction of the governing party, with some political observers viewing him as a potential contender for the leadership.

Despite the speculation, Starmer remains focused on his premiership and has publicly reaffirmed his intention to continue leading both the government and the party.

The comments come at a time of growing political scrutiny in the United Kingdom, with attention increasingly turning to the strength of Starmer’s leadership and the prospects of any future internal challenge.

At least 18 people have been killed in southern Lebanon following a wave of overnight Israeli airstrikes, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, while the Israeli military says four of its soldiers were killed in separate clashes with Hezbollah.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the strikes targeted militants and infrastructure linked to the Iran-backed Hezbollah group.

The escalation comes just a day after the United States and Iran signed an agreement aimed at ending the wider Middle East conflict, including provisions calling for a permanent halt to hostilities in Lebanon.

Despite the agreement, both Israel and Hezbollah have continued exchanging attacks, casting doubt on the durability of the truce framework.

The US-Iran deal calls for an end to military operations across the region and emphasizes respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

However, Israel has maintained that its campaign against Hezbollah is separate from the conflict involving Iran and has insisted that it will not withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory.

Lebanon’s National News Agency described Thursday’s bombardment across the Nabatieh district as one of the most intense assaults since the conflict began.

According to Lebanese authorities, at least 18 people were killed, 33 others injured, and several buildings damaged during the strikes.

Hezbollah said it carried out an ambush against Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, claiming to have destroyed three tanks using guided missiles while also targeting soldiers with rocket and artillery attacks.

The latest confrontation is part of the broader conflict that intensified after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel following a strike that killed Iran’s supreme leader.

Israel responded by expanding military operations in Lebanon, launching extensive airstrikes and ground incursions into the south with the stated aim of pushing Hezbollah fighters away from its northern border.

According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, at least 3,783 people have been killed and 11,699 wounded since the latest phase of the conflict began.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing growing domestic pressure to continue military operations against Hezbollah, a position that could deepen tensions with US President Donald Trump, who has publicly criticized Israel’s actions in Lebanon.

Following the deaths of the four Israeli soldiers, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir issued a strongly worded response.

“With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not up for bargaining,” he said in a statement.

He also declared that “all of Lebanon must burn”.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called on Israel to comply with the agreement and urged the United States to pressure the Israeli government to respect the terms of the deal.

The US-Iran agreement includes provisions covering Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, and a commitment by both parties to work toward a comprehensive settlement within 60 days, with the possibility of extending the timeline by mutual consent.

Efforts to advance the agreement have already encountered challenges.

A fresh round of direct negotiations scheduled for Friday was postponed after US Vice-President JD Vance cancelled his planned visit to Switzerland.

Vance has previously criticized members of Netanyahu’s cabinet who oppose the deal, urging them to “wake up and smell reality”.

“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” he told reporters.

In an interview with the New York Times, Vance specifically identified Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as critics of the agreement.

“I guess my response to them would be – what is your exact proposal? You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.”

Despite disagreements over the agreement, Netanyahu stressed on Thursday that the relationship between Israel and the United States remains vital.

He said Washington had stood “shoulder to shoulder” with Israel throughout the conflict with Iran.

However, reports suggest tensions have emerged behind the scenes, with leaks indicating that Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration with Netanyahu during private conversations.

US officials have also clarified that while Lebanon falls under the broader ceasefire framework, the agreement does not require Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory and preserves Israel’s right to self-defence.

Vice President JD Vance has become the central figure defending the US-Iran agreement, even as President Donald Trump continues to dominate the political narrative around the deal.

At a White House press briefing on Thursday, Vance dismissed suggestions that Trump had positioned him as a “fall guy” for a controversial agreement that has divided Republicans in Washington. Responding to Trump’s remark that he might blame the vice president if the deal fails, Vance said he believed the president was joking.

Throughout the week, Vance has taken on the task of publicly defending the memorandum of understanding with Iran, but his efforts have often been overshadowed or complicated by mixed messages from Trump and other senior officials.

He also faced uncertainty over a planned trip to Switzerland for a signing ceremony with Iranian representatives, with questions about the logistics of the event highlighting the confusion surrounding the deal. The White House later confirmed that Vance would not be travelling, at least for the time being.

Despite the challenges, Vance has remained one of the most vocal supporters of the agreement, delivering strong arguments in its defence and even criticising Israel’s reaction more sharply than the president has publicly done.

However, the timing of the diplomatic push comes at a politically sensitive moment for Vance, who recently released a memoir that has fuelled speculation about a potential 2028 presidential run.

Analysts say his role in the Iran deal could prove politically risky, as the Republican Party remains split between anti-interventionist supporters of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement and more traditional foreign policy hawks who view the agreement as overly concessional to Tehran.

Other senior officials have largely avoided the spotlight. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has maintained a lower profile, while Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has focused more on military aspects of the broader regional conflict rather than the diplomatic negotiations.

Some Republicans argue that Vance has been left carrying responsibility for a politically sensitive agreement, with critics suggesting Trump has deliberately distanced himself from potential backlash. Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak said the situation reflects a pattern in which presidents avoid political fallout by delegating responsibility to deputies.

The agreement itself has also been marked by confusion over its details. Early announcements suggested Iran could access a $300 billion reconstruction fund if it met its obligations, but Trump later dismissed such claims, insisting the US would not contribute financially. The final text included language about working with regional partners on a reconstruction plan, further fuelling debate over its meaning.

On Iran’s nuclear programme, Vance has echoed Trump’s position that the deal represents an initial step toward preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, although key technical issues are still to be negotiated in the coming months.

However, critics in the US Senate have raised concerns that the agreement does not go far enough, arguing it fails to meaningfully limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions and could embolden Tehran diplomatically.

During the same period, Trump alternated between publicly supporting the deal and downplaying its significance, even joking that he might blame Vance if it collapses. At one point, he appeared uncertain about whether the document required a formal signing, before later signing a copy during a high-profile event in France.

The inconsistency has added to the perception that Vance is carrying the diplomatic burden of the agreement while Trump remains the dominant political voice.

Despite criticism, Vance has defended the deal as a pragmatic step forward, pointing to early signs such as falling oil prices as evidence of its potential benefits. He has insisted that the agreement will succeed if Iran complies with its commitments, while warning that failure to do so would have no negative impact on the United States.

“If they change their behaviour, big things are going to happen,” Vance said. “If they don’t, no skin off our backs. Either way, we win.”

As negotiations continue, Vance’s role places him at the centre of one of the most consequential and politically sensitive foreign policy efforts of the Trump administration, with both success and failure likely to carry significant political implications for his future.

The United States has ended its naval blockade of Iran after both countries signed an agreement aimed at bringing the Middle East conflict to an end.

US Central Command announced on X that the blockade had been lifted in line with President Donald Trump’s directive, adding that some American naval vessels would remain in the region.

Shortly after the announcement, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said he approved the agreement despite personally holding a “different view.” He explained that he accepted the deal after receiving assurances from President Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran’s national rights would be protected.

Khamenei accused President Trump of using “all kinds of leverage” out of desperation to secure the agreement. He also stressed that while Tehran and Washington would hold face-to-face negotiations in the future, such talks should not be interpreted as Iran accepting the position of the United States.

The statement marked Khamenei’s first public reaction to the agreement. He has not appeared in public since assuming office in March after his father and predecessor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed during the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, an event that triggered the regional conflict.

President Trump did not directly respond to Khamenei’s remarks. Instead, he wrote on Truth Social that he expected a ceasefire to take effect “on all fronts,” including between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon. He also expressed hope that countries across the Middle East would uphold their commitments to allow negotiations to continue.

The agreement between Washington and Tehran contains 14 major provisions, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, and establishing a $300 billion (£227 billion) reconstruction and economic development fund for Iran, although the United States is not obligated to finance it.

The deal also commits both countries to reaching a final agreement within a maximum of 60 days, with the option of extending the deadline if both sides agree.

An official signing ceremony had been scheduled to take place in Switzerland on Friday, but Pakistani mediators later confirmed it had been cancelled because the agreement had already been signed remotely. However, US and Iranian officials are still expected to meet in Switzerland for further discussions.

A White House spokesperson said on Thursday evening that Vice President JD Vance would not travel as originally planned. Earlier, Vance confirmed that the agreement had officially taken effect, beginning the 60-day negotiation period, and said he expected to travel to Switzerland for technical talks. However, he declined to specify when, noting that Iran was “not an easy country to get out of.”

The White House added that it was eager to begin technical negotiations as soon as possible.

Trump’s decision to reach an agreement with Iran has faced criticism from some American lawmakers, including members of his own Republican Party. Critics have questioned several aspects of the deal, particularly the creation of a reconstruction fund for Iran.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy described the agreement as the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” arguing that Iran’s nuclear ambitions had not been sufficiently addressed and that Tehran had demonstrated the effectiveness of threatening the Strait of Hormuz.

Vance defended the agreement, insisting that Iran would receive no funding or sanctions relief unless it fulfilled all of its commitments under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). He said Iran must eliminate its stockpile of enriched uranium and prove it will no longer support proxy groups operating across the region.

The vice president also criticised members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet who opposed the agreement, saying they needed to “wake up and smell the reality.”

Speaking to reporters, Vance argued that Israel should avoid attacking its strongest ally, the United States. In an interview with The New York Times, he specifically identified Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as opponents of the agreement. He questioned what alternative they proposed, saying military action alone could not resolve every national security challenge.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu reaffirmed the importance of Israel’s alliance with the United States, saying Washington had stood “shoulder to shoulder” with Israel throughout the conflict with Iran.

Despite the agreement, hostilities have continued between Israel and Hezbollah. Both sides have carried out fresh strikes since the deal was announced, including Israeli attacks in Lebanon on Thursday that reportedly killed three people.

Israel has maintained that its conflict with Hezbollah is separate from its war with Iran, while Hezbollah has rejected the terms of the US-Iran agreement.

Vance said Israel must respect the ongoing peace process with Iran, adding that attacks on civilians in Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, were “not acceptable.”

A US–Iran agreement extending the ceasefire between both nations has officially been signed and is now in effect, according to confirmation from a White House official to the BBC.

President Donald Trump signed the deal during the G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains, France. The agreement—described as a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding—aims to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz and set the foundation for broader negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

The document states that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon and outlines a $300bn reconstruction and economic development plan for the country, although the United States is not required to contribute financially. The deal comes months after tensions escalated between Iran, the US, and Israel.

The Trump administration has described the agreement as “performance-based,” meaning Iran will only benefit if it complies with the outlined commitments.

Although several issues remain unresolved, here are the major highlights of the agreement:

An end to conflict ‘on all fronts’

The agreement calls for an “immediate and permanent” end to military operations involving the US, Iran, and allied forces across all regions, including Lebanon.

From Washington’s perspective, concerns remain that Israeli operations against Hezbollah could disrupt the ceasefire framework. Iran, meanwhile, insists Lebanon should be included under the truce.

A spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said any continued Israeli action in Lebanon would violate the understanding and trigger “necessary measures”.

The agreement also states that neither side will initiate attacks or threats moving forward and will respect Lebanon’s sovereignty.

The final settlement aims at a permanent end to hostilities, though Israel’s response remains uncertain.

Respect for ‘internal affairs’

The document states that both countries will “respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and avoid interference in internal political matters.

This clause is expected to be controversial among Iranian opposition groups.

Earlier this year, Trump told Iranian protesters that “help is on the way” during nationwide demonstrations.

60-day negotiation timeline

Both countries have agreed to reach a final deal within 60 days, though this deadline may be extended if mutually agreed.

The countdown begins immediately following the signing of the MoU.

The White House confirmed Trump signed the document in France, alongside Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.

A planned signing ceremony in Geneva remains uncertain.

End of US naval blockade

The US will begin lifting its naval blockade on Iranian ports, removing restrictions and “disturbances or impediments,” according to the agreement.

The process is expected to take up to 30 days, during which vessel movement will be gradually restored.

Within 30 days of a final agreement, US forces are expected to withdraw from proximity to Iran, returning to pre-conflict positioning.

Strait of Hormuz reopening

Iran has agreed to ensure safe and uninterrupted passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

The agreement states that movement will resume “immediately,” while technical and security obstacles are addressed.

Officials also emphasized that no transit fees will be imposed.

Long-term plans include cooperation between Iran, Oman, and Gulf states to manage the waterway.

$300bn reconstruction plan

The agreement includes a proposed $300bn reconstruction and economic development package for Iran, to be finalized within 60 days.

However, the US will not directly contribute funds.

Officials clarified that Washington will not pay “a cent of money” but may support third-party investments under approved conditions.

Lifting of sanctions

The US will remove all economic sanctions on Iran, including UN and unilateral restrictions.

However, the timeline is still under negotiation.

Iran remains heavily affected by sanctions, and easing them is tied to compliance with the agreement.

No nuclear weapons

Iran has committed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.

Enriched uranium stockpiles will be managed later through mechanisms agreed in future talks, likely under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision.

A US official described this as a “major win” and a minimum compliance standard.

Maintaining the status quo

Both sides agree to maintain the current status of Iran’s nuclear programme until further arrangements are finalized.

No new sanctions will be imposed during this period, while limited waivers may allow exports and financial transactions to continue.

Frozen funds release

The agreement includes provisions for releasing frozen Iranian assets once the MoU takes effect.

Further details will be negotiated, but some funds may be gradually unblocked based on compliance milestone

Monitoring and final deal structure

A monitoring mechanism will be created to oversee compliance and implementation of the agreement.

Both countries will then begin negotiations for a final settlement.

The agreement is expected to be endorsed by a binding UN Security Council resolution once finalized.