British Prime Minister Keir Starmer put the blame firmly on foreign ministry officials on Monday over the appointment of a US ambassador, saying they had withheld information about Labour veteran Peter Mandelson that would have halted his employment.

Starmer, under pressure to resign by political opponents over the scandal, has repeatedly sought to defend his role in the appointment of Mandelson and turned to parliament to set out his case that he was unaware that foreign ministry officials had been advised not to give security clearance to him.

He again said he regretted appointing Mandelson, whom he sacked in September after revelations about the depth of his ties to the late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The events have prompted questions about the prime minister’s judgment, which resurfaced when the government said last week it had just found out Mandelson had failed a security vetting process.

On Monday, Starmer again expressed his anger over not being told by foreign ministry officials that in January 2025, they had disregarded advice and decided to grant Mandelson what is known as “developed vetting” clearance, a status that allows individuals access to information regarded as top secret.

“It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the foreign office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government,” Starmer told parliament.

“That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work.”

Starmer says he would not have appointed him if he had known

An appointment that once was hailed as a stroke of genius for employing a Labour veteran with trade experience who could win over incoming US President Donald Trump has turned out to be an ongoing nightmare for Starmer.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social, agreed that the appointment was a “really bad pick.”

“Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom acknowledged that he ‘exercised wrong judgement’ when he chose his Ambassador to Washington. I agree, he was a really bad pick. Plenty of time to recover, however!”, he said.

Starmer said he would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known the UK Security Vetting unit had advised that he should not gain the necessary clearance and that he had stopped the foreign office from being able to go against such advice in future.

Starmer, whose popularity has sunk since he won a landslide majority for Labour at a national election in 2024, had previously told parliament all due process had been followed over Mandelson.

Earlier, his spokesperson said: “The PM would never knowingly mislead parliament or the public … He clearly did not have this information when he previously spoke to parliament.”

After last week’s revelations that the foreign office had overridden a warning that Mandelson should not be appointed, Starmer sacked Olly Robbins, Britain’s top foreign ministry official, who the prime minister said had signed off on a statement on Mandelson clearing the vetting process.

Robbins has yet to make a formal statement on his sacking, but friends of his have been reported as saying he had followed the usual procedure, which allowed the foreign office to overrule advice from UK Security Vetting.

Opponents have accused Starmer of lying and incompetence, and say his position is no longer tenable.

Three weeks before local elections in which Labour is expected to suffer heavy losses, the resurgence of the scandal has triggered new questions about Starmer’s grip on government, although no senior Labour lawmakers have urged him to go.

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, accused Starmer of failing to face up to the consequences of his action.

“It is how you face up to those mistakes that shows the character of a leader,” she told parliament. “Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the prime minister has thrown his staff, and his officials, under the bus.”

ATHENS: Fraudulent messages promising safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for cryptocurrency have been sent to some shipping companies whose vessels are stranded west of the waterway, Greek maritime risk management firm MARISKS has warned.

The US has maintained its blockade of Iranian ports, while Iran has lifted and then re-imposed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passed before war broke out in the Middle East.

Amid ceasefire talks, Tehran, which controls the chokepoint, has proposed tolls on vessels to safely transit.

MARISKS on Monday issued an alert warning shipowners that unknown actors, claiming to represent Iranian authorities, had sent some shipping companies a message demanding transit fees in cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin or Tether, for “clearance”.

“These specific messages are a scam,” the firm said, adding the message was not sent by Iranian authorities.

There was no immediate comment from Tehran.

Hundreds of ships and about 20,000 seafarers remain stranded in the Gulf.

On April 18, when Iran briefly opened the strait subject to checks, ships tried to pass but at least two of them, including a tanker, reported that Iranian boats had fired shots at them, forcing the vessels to turn around.

MARISKS said that it believed that at least one of the vessels, which tried to exit the strait on Saturday and was hit by gunfire, was a victim of the fraud.

Reuters was not able to verify the information or track companies that had received the message.

“After providing the documents and assessing your eligibility by the Iranian Security Services, we will be able to determine the fee to be paid in cryptocurrency (BTC or USDT). Only then will your vessel be able to transit the strait unimpeded at the pre-agreed time,” said the message cited by MARISKS.

The UN Security Council on Monday condemned the recent killing of a French peacekeeper in Lebanon, whose death France has blamed on Hezbollah.

The Frenchman was killed and three others wounded when their unit was ambushed on Saturday as it headed to a UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) outpost cut off from the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel.

“The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the attack…(and) reaffirmed their full support for UNIFIL” a statement from the UN body said.