Iran - is this the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning

A number of US and UK media outlets have argued the decision to go to war with Iran depended almost entirely on the assumption that a popular uprising by the people could lead to the elimination of the top leadership in Tehran.

From the information available here in the UK it would seem this assessment was provided by Israeli intelligence to Benjamin Netanyahu who then went on to convince President Trump their analysis was a certainty rather than a possible scenario. 

Based on this the Pentagon were advised by the President to prepare for war and military resources and personnel were advised to prepare for a brief military entanglement lasting only a few days rather than the prolonged campaign it has now become and with the Strait of Hormuz being closed leading to a dramatic increase. At the time of writing,  I am led to believe is priced for ordinary petrol (gas) in the US at about $4,10 (£3.10) a gallon while in the UK it is $9.35 (£7,05) anddiel being significantly more.

The core demise of this approach was that Israel assumed The Israeli judgement assumed the Iranian people, eager to be free of the Ayatollahs and  hopeful of then being able to enjoy Iran's riches would grab the chance presented by the assassination of Khamenei and the IRGC leadership.

It was a reasonable assumption based on earlier mass demonstrations by the Iranian people on the streets of Tehran, but what it ignored, or chose to dismiss was the large-scale crackdowns that followed and left thousands of protesters dead,  The hope from Israel and the US was that Iranians would continue taking  to the streets with greater confidence against the IRGC but instead they sheltered from dozens of devastating attacks on their cities..

The assumption made by US/ Israeli strategists was that, much as had happened in Syria under Assad, Hussein in Iraq, and Gaddafi in Libya, the remaining regime, facing a vacuum in decision-making, would have no option but to flee.

However, critics in NATO of the US/ Israeli approach are now arguing that while the majority of Iranians disagree with the regime on many issues, overall they do object a centralised and strict domestic form of governance, but do fear a national leaderless fragmentation of their country. External to Iran, many exiles have been drawn to the Shah of Iran/ Persia, Reza Pahlavi, but many within Iran see his family politically damaged because of his father's oppressive regime. What is more, is that without Pahlavi as a figure head there is no central figure to take over the 'political revolution' necessary to eradicate the Ayatollah leadership.

It also largely supports Iran’s regional policies, which provide it with influence, strengthen its international position, and enhance its negotiating leverage on nuclear, energy, and military matters. Persians also see themselves as the country’s true owners and are reluctant to share power or wealth with non-Persian groups in Iran.

Additionally. US and Israeli strategists assumed Kurds, Arabs, Baloch, Azeris, and Turkmen would view the regime’s weakness as a chance to replace it with a more liberal and open system that would allow them to secure rights through a new social contract and constitutional framework where they might gain equal participation in power and wealth.

However, the key failure in the US-Israeli plan is their determination to ignore historical evidence and, in particular how, in general minority groups in revolutions seldom try to overthrow ruling systems (admittedly there are tribal examples throughout Africa but, in broad terms most of these have produced short-term regimes that have themselves been overthrown. As a broad rule of thumb, minority ethnic grouos tend to view revolutions as the concern of the majority, so avoid  sacrificing their own members.

Of course, if the US/ Israeli coalition entered this war fuly cognisant of all the issues mentioned above then there can only be one conclusion and that is that both the US and Israel started this war with only one goal in mind - and that is the entire dismantling of the Iranian state. This would in many ways seem the most logical option and is consistent with the “Periphery Doctrine”, developed by David Ben-Gurion and advocates as its core principle the dividing of states and creating chaotic entities. Indeed it could be argued that, in some respects it would be the safest option for Israel as a divided and broken Iran would cease to be a future threat to the country and, from the US perspective a disjointed Iran would cease to be any kind of threat to the Strait of Hormuz.

Political comment

Wake up and smell the coffee - antisemitism is on the rise and our politicians are doing nothing

Since October 7th the world has seen a huge surge in antisemitism reminiscent  of Germany during the early stage of the Nazi regime. In response a number of political leaders across Europe and the United States have called for action to protect Jewish communities from race hate. However despite these efforts, where they exist, the statistics show that far from being a decline, there remains a significant problem.

Today's blog will explore some of these efforts and will argue the majority are fundamentally tokenistic and do little to reduce race crime.

There is nothing new about Situational Crime Prevention. It was originated by Ronald V. Clarke in the 1970s and became a broad policy approach led by the British Home Office Research Unit and exported in various forms abroad. The approach is underpinned by a core belief that offenders, particularly perpetrators of antisemitic crime act rationally, weighing risks (getting caught) against the satisfaction of upsetting or harming the victim.

                                               Ronald V. Clarke

With this theoretical underpinning of crime prevention against Jews as a base, let us dissect the actions taken by several countries and analyse its effectiveness, starting with the US and the efforts of President Trump 

United States

In the United States, President Donald Trump has enacted the following:

• Executive Order 14188 (2025): Shortly after his 2025 inauguration, President Trump issued a new executive order, “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism,” which vowed to vigorously use legal tools to prosecute and remove perpetrators of antisemitic harassment and violence.
• Federal Funding Pressure: The administration has indicated a willingness to withhold federal funds from universities, such as targetting funding for institutions like Columbia University over the way they handled campus protests.
• Targeting Campus Antisemitism: The administration launched investigations and lawsuits against institutions like Harvard, accusing them of allowing anti-Israel protesters to operate "with impunity" after the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.
• Use of IHRA Definition: The Department of Education under Trump has applied the IHRA definition of antisemitism to include anti-Zionism and certain criticisms of Israel as actionable discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
• Immigration and Visa Controls: Executive actions in 2025 directed federal agencies to review foreign student visas, allowing for the potential deportation of students who "advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats," which the administration tied to campus antisemitism.

In essence these look like promising moves, albeit a little overstating the significance of campus antisemitism rather than looking at Jew-hate in the wider community. However this may be being unfair because it is action. So how have these approaches panned out in practice?

Well, in fairness, it is early days, but initial indicators from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are not good. According to their research, antisemitic incidents in the US. reached record highs in 2024 and have continue to surge throughout the whole of 2025, driven by post-October 7, tensions. According to ADL data, 2024 saw 9,354 recorded incidents, with 2025 data showing a rising, more brazen trend, particularly in high-density areas, with a 21% rise in physical assaults reported.

Furthermore, by the end of 2025 over 30% of American Jews reported feeling unsafe in professional or social settings and 18% experienced direct physical or verbal threats. Meanwhile, on social media platforms 73% of American Jews experienced antisemitism online during 2025, specifically on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok.

The evidence also shows little significant change in the number of hate crimes prosecuted and/ or convictions resulting in over 90% of American Jews feeling unsafe. Consequently and based on data available, early indications are that the Trump initiative isn't working or, if it is the change required to make America safe for Jews is happening too slowly.

United Kingdom

But before we start pillorying Trump for doing too little it would be worth comparing US efforts to address endemic antisemitism compared to other nations. Let us take the UK as an initial example. The UK has a long history of Jew hatred that goes back to Hugh of Lincoln in 1200 and the resulting Jewish expulsion in 1290. They did not return until  l 1656 during the Interregnum under Oliver Cromwell. Since then Jews were largely able to go about their daily business in peace, though antisemitic attacks continued.

It was only really after October 7th that attacks became more prevalent, though signs of antisemitic behaviour became more prevalent among the hard  Left when Corbyn became leader of Labour and the EHRC ruling against the party in 2020.

More recently, the Community Security Trust  "Antisemitic Incidents Report 2025", , showed 3,700 instances of anti-Jewish hate across the UK in 2025, the second highest annual total ever, and a 4% rise from the 3,556 antisemitic incidents in 2024, and second only to the 4,298 antisemitic incidents logged in 2023. CST recorded 1,662 antisemitic incidents in 2022, and 2,261 in 2021.

Broadly speaking UK government action against antisemitism appears to lie primarily with providing financial support to the Community Security Trust who have been allocated £28 million in 2025/26 through the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant. This includes additional emergency funding of £10 million. In addition, the government have prioritised interventions in the following areas: 

1. Security: Providing better support to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities. 
2. Education: Tackling antisemitism in schools, colleges, and universities and ensuring that we raise children and young people who embrace people from all backgrounds and faiths.
3. Institutional Action: Tackling antisemitism in key institutions, particularly the NHS, and the culture, sport, and voluntary sectors.

In short, most would agree the UK government have done next to nothing to eradicate antisemitism but Starmer continues to spout meaningless soundbites to appease the Jewish community. Take for example his recent meetings with Birmingham university students who itemised some of the problems associated with being a student on campus. He listened but offered no suggestions as to how a Labour government might help bring change.

France

Meanwhile, in France, Antisemitism has surged dramatically since October 2023, following the Hamas-Israel conflict, with reported incidents increasing by nearly 400% in 2023 to 1,676, compared to 436 in 2022. This includes a spike in physical assaults, school incidents, and acts of vandalism. The sharp rise continues a trend, with 2024 maintaining similarly high levels of anti-Jewish acts.

In response, the government elevated the domestic security alert to the highest possible level (Vigipirate), increasing security around Jewish schools and places of worship. 

President Emmanuel Macron vowed that perpetrators would be punished, prompting a strong crackdown on vandalism and violent attacks. In 2024, the government recorded 9,400 racist crimes and incidents, with the interior ministry emphasizing "total commitment" to tracking down attackers of Jewish individuals and properties.

Noticeably in the immediate period after October 7th over 1,000 antisemitic crimes were recorded but within that same period (post-October 7, 2023), 486 (less than half) were arrested for antisemitic offences in France.

Sadly, most of Europe reveals the same picture with Germany in particular showing a disturbing number of antisemitic crime and a poor conviction rate.

Political comment

The data clearly demonstrates that throughout much of the 'free world' not enough is being done to reduce or even eliminate antisemitism and without a clear strategy to deal with the problem it will continue to grow and prosper - our children will be frightened in their schools, our teenager boys will fear muggings, or girls will be unsafe on our streets, as will our elderly. Going to synagogue will no longer a joy but will become a weekly and dangerous period in our lives.

We cannot allow this to continue.

- and there is an alternative way. All it needs is for government to be willing to invest in our Jewish communities.

In particular:

Legislation - enact a law where antisemitism is viewed as a hate crime and, if convicted in a court of law a perpretrator would receive a custodial sentence of no less than 12-months for a non-violent crime and no less than 5 years for a violent one. Children under 16 would receive a detention and training order of no less than 12 months, or juvenile detention centre in the US,

• A visible and active police presence in local Jewish communities. Demonstatrors attempting to enter Jewish communities or near synagogues will be subject Dispersion orders or Anti-|Social behaviour orders. Police currently have this authority already but must use them far more to protect local residents.
• Holocaust education to become a core part of the curriculum for all schhol children over 13 years of age.
• The USSA, local college student unions, or NUS should be denied authority to require student unions from preventing college/ university Jewish societies from discussing Zionism or Israeli issues. Any attempt to do would be deemed a denial of free speech.
• Any Imam or Muslim from a foreign country who calls for Jihad or globalising the intifada will be subject to immediate repatriation. If the perpetrator is a UK or US national they will face terrorism charges for inciting violence.
• Legislation should be prepared to stipulate Anti-Zionism is racism and that expression of such by a public servant is subject to disciplinary charges,

Now I would be the first to agree there are significant issues with many of these points, but they offer an initial discussion base that could ultimately lead to feeling safer and a substantial decline in race crime

Whatever we do, one thing is transparent - we must do more!

A time to weep for Libya

Well it’s started and I am sure the xenophobes will be delighted. British aircraft are attacking Gaddafi’s forces in Libya and already (according to reports from the BBC) 110 missiles have been fired.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no apologist for Gaddafi – the man is a tyrant and so far removed from socialism it is untrue. Even worse, it is a disgrace that internationally, supposedly socialist states like Venezuela have continued to support his regime.

The rebels in Benghazi have legitimate claims and should be supported and encouraged – but not through gunship diplomacy. Far better that we had sent them humanitarian aid – doctors, nurses and medical supplies. Instead, the United Nations has determined we should intervene in the internal affairs of another country.

US President Barack Obama revealed the doubled standards of American foreign policy when speaking during a visit to Brazil. He said the US was taking "limited military action" as part of a "broad coalition … We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Oddly enough, the US, or the UK didn’t feel the same when Pinochet was massacring thousands in Chile, and they have remained silent about genocide in Uganda, Rwanda Zimbabwe, Darfur, or the Sudan. No offers here of sending in military support to protect civilians from the acts of oppression by a tyrant.

So, is this really about preserving a budding democracy? Of course not, it’s about two things. Firstly, it is about oil. In 2007, BP and its Libyan partner, the Libya Investment Corporation (LIC) signed a major exploration and production agreement with Libya's National Oil Company (NOC). The initial exploration commitment was set at a minimum of $900million, with significant additional appraisal and development expenditures upon exploration success.

Similarly, Royal Dutch Shell has an exploration programme in the country, started after sanctions were lifted in 2004.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last week that Libya's oil output had slumped to a "trickle" and this had helped to drive up the price of Brent crude by 20pc this year. The IEA also said exports from Libya, which are light, "sweet" oils favoured by refiners, may take "many months" to return to normal. International capitalism cannot afford to see these supplies dry up and if rebel forces continue to fight unopposed, Gaddafi will carry on his resistance. Fighting could go on for weeks, or even months before he could be finally able to reunite the country. Even then the marks of division will be transparent and ruling the country would become virtually impossible.

Military intervention will effectively end Gaddafi’s attacks on the rebels and international governments can reasonably assume that once the resistance has taken control of the country, they will be ‘friendly’ to Western pressure to resume oil supplies.

Secondly, Cameron recognises his position as prime minister is insecure. Opposition to his policies is running high and he is expecting matters to get worse. A similar situation occurred under the Thatcher regime – until she sent the warships in to support the Falkland Islands. Suddenly opinion polls started to swing the other ways and Maggie found herself running on the crest of a wave.

It was a strategy John Major tried with some considerable success in 1991 and kept him in power for another six years. His approach was repeated by Tony Blair in the second Iraq War, but this time the British people were less enthused as they watched the dead returning from the battle front.

Now Cameron is repeating the same mistakes – using military forces to stimulate our own xenophobia and prop up his government. The trouble is that Gaddafi is not like Hussein. He will not walk away quietly, or hide in a bunker. He will arm civilians … and that will stimulate a bloody civil war between pro- and anti-government forces.

In sending in fighter planes and warships, the West has effectively guaranteed that the military action in this sad country will increase and as a result thousands will die as brother and sister fight each other. As the “Stop the War” Coalition has argued – this is not our war. If the rebels fail, it is sad and they will have to fight another day.

CND stated it far more clearly than I and I reproduce it in full.

“CND regrets the British government’s decision to pursue military intervention in Libya and opposes the current attacks taking place on Libya. CND urges a political and diplomatic response to the Libyan regime's ceasefire declaration.

Intervention is difficult and dangerous and runs the risk not only of major civilian casualties - and some have already been reported - but also escalation into a major war in Libya and even further afield. The lessons of the last decade’s interventionist wars have not been learnt: military intervention is not the answer to the just demands of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy.

CND urges political solutions including increased sanctions on the Libyan regime and calls on the British government to guarantee that civilian life will be protected and depleted uranium munitions will not be used in any attacks.”

If we are to avoid a repeat of the Afghanistan problem, we must stand down from all future military engagements in Libya.