Fact check: What was the official statement from the United Nations regarding Trump's Iran strike?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres issued several official statements regarding Trump's Iran strike. Guterres expressed that he was "gravely alarmed" by the use of force by the United States and called on Member States to de-escalate ^[1]. The UN Secretary-General emphasized that "there is no military solution and the only path forward is diplomacy" ^[1].

Guterres characterized the US strikes as constituting "a perilous turn" in a region already reeling and called for an end to "another cycle of destruction" ^[2]. He also described the situation as a "dangerous escalation" and a potential "spiral of chaos" following the United States' bombing raids against Iran's nuclear facilities ^[3]. The Secretary-General urged immediate and decisive action to halt the fighting and return to negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, emphasizing the need for peace and de-escalation ^[4].

The UN Security Council convened for an emergency meeting following the strikes ^{[2] [4] [5]}, where Iran's ambassador accused the US of "waging a war" against Iran under a "fabricated and absurd pretext", while Israel's ambassador said the world should thank Trump for attacking Iran ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question focuses solely on the UN's official statement but omits the broader diplomatic context that emerged from the Security Council meeting. Iran denounced the US and Israel at the emergency UN Security Council meeting and voiced skepticism about the potential for diplomacy ^[6], providing Iran's perspective on the strikes.

The analyses reveal that while the UN Secretary-General called for de-escalation, Israel's ambassador to the UN took a completely opposite stance, stating that the world should thank Trump for attacking Iran ^[2]. This demonstrates the stark division within the international community regarding the legitimacy and consequences of the strikes.

Additionally, the question doesn't address the potential consequences and Iran's possible responses that were discussed in the aftermath ^[7], which would be crucial context for understanding the full scope of international concern expressed by the UN.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it simply asks for factual information about the UN's official statement. However, the phrasing "the official statement" (singular) might imply there was only one statement, when in fact the UN Secretary-General made multiple statements and characterizations of the situation over time, as evidenced by the various quotes and descriptions provided across different sources and dates.

The question also doesn't specify whether it's seeking the UN Secretary-General's statement, the Security Council's collective response, or statements from individual member nations within the UN framework, which could lead to incomplete understanding of the full UN response to the situation.