Churn in Horn of Africa Political Alliances

The Horn of Africa, with principal military bases and logistic hubs (Google Earth/CJRC)

Published Apr 26, 2026 1:24 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

The Horn of Africa, embracing Eritrea with its Red Sea coastline, Djibouti and the component parts of what used to be Somalia, is in a state of flux, buffeted by the changing political situation in the neighborhood. How matters settle will have a direct impact on the safety and flow of merchant traffic through the Suez Canal and the Bab el Mandeb, a trade route using the Maritime Security Transit Corridor (MSTC) which recently carried just under 15% of world trade, and now, with the Hormuz War still a live issue, probably carrying rather more.

There are a number of dynamics at play.

Firstly, any potential interruption of traffic through the Bab el Mandeb has become a far more serious concern since the blockage of sea traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. More than 50% of Saudi oil is now being exported southwards from the East-West pipeline terminal at Yanbu through the Bab el Mandeb, up previously from about 20%. The United Arab Emirates likewise is reduced to exporting crude through the ADCOP pipeline to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman. General cargo and container traffic is a little more flexible, and traffic through Salalah, Duqm, Sohar, Fujairah and Khor Fakkan reflects the upsurge in shipments to the Gulf States completing with a final land leg. The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz makes the Bab el Mandeb even more important.

The second major development has been the resurgence of the Internationally Recognized Government (IRG) in Yemen at the expense of the separatist Southern Transition Council (STC). Following its failed attempt to move forward with its secessionist position in December, the STC’s primary backer the United Arab Emirates announced its withdrawal from what it had described as its counter-terrorist operation in southern Yemen. Since then the IRG has consolidated its position, and support for the STC has further waned.

The UAE withdrawal has resulted in a number of bases covering the sea lanes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden being deactivated. Some mystery surrounds which bases retain a presence, notwithstanding the UAE announcement of its withdrawal, and how some of these bases used to operate. The UAE still retains positions in Eritrea and Somaliland, but probably no longer for example the EL/M-2084 coastal surveillance radar which used to operate from Bosaso. With the UAE no longer quite so present, it can be concluded that surveillance, and consequently the defense of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden sea lanes, has probably been degraded.

Given the growing disparity between military need and capability, it is no surprise that a number of diplomatic moves are afoot to address this issue.

For several months, reports from Washington think-tanks, Trump insiders and Massad Boulos, the State Department’s Advisor on African Affairs himself, have talked up a potential US-Eritrean rapprochement. Though opposed vocally in Congress on account for what has been described as Eritrea’s similarities politically to North Korea, the Eritrean embassy in Washington have said that Massad Boulos and Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh have had a “cautious but hopeful” dialogue. If anything useful were to emerge from these initial moves, it would be a triumph of pragmatism over political differences, especially as Eritrea still has a confrontational relationship with Ethiopia, with whom the United States enjoys a productive relationship. Eritrean ports nonetheless would be useful for maintaining over-watch over the southern Red Sea.

Recent weeks have seen a resurgence of Somaliland’s efforts to be internationally recognized, after the first such recognition was granted by Israel on December 26, 2025. Somaliland has enjoyed a successful and stable existence post its unilateral declaration of independence in 1991, in many respects one of Africa’s most successful democratic systems. With DP World having upgraded its container port, the harbor and 4,140-meter airfield in Berbera offer advantages over Djibouti’s rather over-crowded basing facilities, and its government is both stable and avowedly pro-Western. The Somaliland government might be willing to trade international recognition for the grant of basing facilities, as it is working towards with landlocked-Ethiopia, which is seeking a port where it can re-establish its navy.

The entry of Somaliland onto the world stage has predictably enraged Somalia, from whom it has seceded. Turkey has established a substantial presence at Warsheikh. Egypt too has strengthened ties with Somalia in Mogadishu, worried about Ethiopia’s bid to regain access to the sea and its control of Nile waters, even though now in operation the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has merely better regulated seasonal Nile flooding rather than reduced water flow.

Eritrea ought to be considered too inflammable to build up a secure long-term relationship with. But Berbera in Somaliland is different, and rather like Diego Garcia is close enough from which to deploy influence in regional hotspots without being too close to be vulnerable. Facilities and basing rights, as has been seen in the Gulf, can be a double-edged sword and proximity does not necessarily translate into tactical dominance.

But rather than substantially pulling back from the region, which has been the policy of successive US administrations, Central Command and Africa Command may be looking for an alternative, less intrusive footprint. Others are interested too. Closer US relationships in the Horn of Africa might help maintain stability and freedom of navigation in the area.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

Houthis Remain on the Sideline While Iran Threatens to Widen Conflict

Houthis continue to say they are supporting Palestine and have not renewed the attacks in the Red Sea (file photo)

Published Apr 24, 2026 3:36 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Senior political figures associated with the IRGC-dominated hardliner faction in the Iranian leadership continue to make escalatory threats in an attempt to pressure the United States to loosen its blockade on traffic entering Iranian ports.

The IRGC-linked semi-official news agency Fars has hinted that undersea cables may be at risk of attack, although Iran is short of the capability to carry out such a threat. A deputy to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Esmail Saqab Esfahani, has also threatened that if the ceasefire breaks down and attacks on Iran are widened to include infrastructure targets, then Iran has a prepared list of Saudi oil-related targets that it will attack.

Speaking on Iranian state television, Major General Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi said that he considered the interception of Iranian merchant traffic on the high seas to be a breach of the ceasefire, and that if such interceptions continued, then Iran would “not allow any exports or imports to continue in the Red Sea,” presumably making the presumption that the Houthis would respond to any IRGC demand that attacks should resume on merchant traffic in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. General Aliabadi, in his post as commander of Khatam-al Anbiya Central Headquarters, the joint headquarters exercising operational control of all Iran’s forces, has been in post since September 2025, the third incumbent since June 2025.

The Houthis have made their position on a resumption of attacks in the Red Sea very clear, although their position is nuanced. The Houthis' leader, Abdul-Malik Al Houthi, has made several speeches in which he has said his movement stands ready to undertake such attacks, but that the emphasis for the Houthis was the plight of the Palestinian people. In this context, the Houthis have carried out several “demonstration” drone and missile attacks on Israel, all of which were safely intercepted but which have not been repeated. But the decision to resume attacks in the Red Sea would be his alone, and for the moment, Abdul-Malik Al Houthi appears to be focused on maintaining the successful ceasefire with Saudi Arabia, which was agreed upon in March 2022, with the aim of fostering an environment in which the Houthis and Saudis can reach a final settlement to the war between them, which broke out in 2015.

Notwithstanding the pressures facing the Iranians, the Houthis appear to be sticking to their position, as evident, for example, in the face-to-face Saudi-Houthi engagement in the Military Coordination Committee held under UN aegis last weekend in Riyadh. Moreover, the Houthis have not made a fuss over the reappearance of USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group back in the Red Sea off Al Wajh after laundry and toilet repairs, noting that the carrier strike group is being kept well to the north in the Red Sea.

 

Tanker traffic in the southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden still going strong, April 24 (VesselFinder)

 

While there appears to be no immediate desire on the Houthis’ part to resume Red Sea attacks, this intent could change very quickly, and those who might be impacted are making contingency preparations accordingly. Besides the presence of USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group within striking distance, Saudi Arabia has been reinforcing its forces on the Yemeni border. Qatari C-17s appear to have been lending a hand with this operation, probably flying in Bayraktar drones direct from Turkey to the primary border garrison station at Sharurah. The Qatari reinforcement is particularly significant, indicating that Saudi-Qatari military cooperation is once again active after a decade of political tension between the two countries.

The Houthis will also be aware that should they provoke further problems, the Saudi interest in fighting back is hugely magnified, now that Saudi oil exports to Asia from Yanbu are moving south through the Red Sea. Cutting off the bare minimum needed to keep critical services going in countries such as Korea and Japan would motivate others to join in as well. The Houthis also know that the United States is thinking of developing its political-military presence both with Somaliland and Eritrea, a development in their immediate neighborhood that the Houthis would not wish to nurture by being provocative at this juncture.

By going back to war, the Houthis risk more of the punishment that they suffered during the U.S. bombing called Operation Rough Rider. They also risk the Saudis moving from a policy of containment to one of resolution through the application of force.

How Do We Stop Farage and the Far Right?

HubMP2012

APRIL 24, 2026

The David Renton interview

After the massive Together March in London, on 28th March 2026, it is  exactly the right moment for the Labour Left Podcast, introduced here by Bryn Griffiths, to interview David Renton and take a deep dive into the far right.

David Renton, our guest, is a barrister who specialises in trade union rights and free speech and he has appeared in the European Court of Human Rights. He is both a  socialist and a historian who writes for publications such as The London Review of Books, Tribune, and Jacobin. His academic specialism has always made a big contribution – of around ten books  – to our understanding of fascism, racism and the extreme right.

The UNITE delegation led by Sharon Graham was part of the impressive trade union bloc on 28th March 2026. Photo: Bryn Griffiths

David Renton has written a powerful trilogy of books. His book on Fascism is an excellent primer on what fascism is and just as importantly what it isn’t.  Never Again is a history of Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Finally, The New Authoritarians brings us right up to date to help us grapple with the new forms the extreme right is taking today. In the podcast, David guides us through his three books to leave us with an excellent grounding in this subject.

The three books by David Renton discussed in the podcast.

The one-hour long Labour Left Podcast asks: what is a fascist? How can we understand the different forms the right wing takes today?  How can we build a modern anti-racist movement which will win? And finally, most notably, how do we stop Farage?  We hope the podcast will prove invaluable to the political tasks that we must face up to in the next few years.

As we consider how we might defeat Farage today, we look back into the 1970s to consider what Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League might add to our contemporary tool box. To help you enjoy the 1970s, we’ve created a Rock Against Racism playlist on Spotify to accompany this episode – just search for ‘Carnival Against the Nazis 1978’ or click here.

Watch more Labour Left Podcasts

You can watch the podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts here, Audible here, Substack here and listen to it on Spotify here.  You can even ask Alexa to play the Labour Left Podcast. If your favourite podcast site isn’t listed, just search for the Labour Left Podcast and it should be there. 

If you enjoy the David Renton interview, take a look at the Labour Left Podcast back catalogue to hear guests such as Rachel Shabi explaining the truth about antisemitism; Jeremy Gilbert on Stuart Hall’s analysis of Thatcherism; Bernard Regan, of Palestine Solidarity, on Netanyahu’s genocide; Corinne Fowler talking about Britain’s history of slavery and colonialism; and Bell Ribeiro-Addy telling us about the fight against racism in Parliament.

If you appreciate what we are doing, please give us a like and a follow.  Every comment draws the podcast to a wider potential audience. Please, please, please share it with your friends as it gets the podcast to a wider audience.

Bryn Griffiths is an activist in Colchester Labour Party and North Essex World Transformed. He is the Vice-Chair of Momentum and sits on the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy’s Executive. 

Bryn hosts Labour Hub’s spin off – the Labour Left Podcast.  You can find all the episodes of the podcast here  or if you prefer audio platforms (for example Amazon, Audible Spotify, Apple, etc,) go to your favourite podcast provider and just search for the Labour Left Podcast.

Later this year David Renton will publish Comrade Delta: The 2013 Crisis in Britain’s Largest Far Left Party with Ebb Books.

Photomontage and photographs: Bryn Griffiths.

Globalise the Resistance to Trump’s War Drive!

HubMP2012

APRIL 25, 2026

Growing action against the US Empire is on the rise internationally, writes Matt Willgress, ahead of Arise’s upcoming eve of Mayday rally.

Speaking at Arise’s annual eve of May Day rally last year, I said that “the returning Trump [is] launching a new phase in the ongoing war of US imperialism against the majority of humanity,” noting amongst other threats the possibility of wars on Venezuela and Iran, and the ongoing genocide on Gaza.

As we approach 2026’s International Workers’ Day, these threats of war have now tragically come to pass, and the estimated death tolls from these wars (all in this year alone) at the time of writing are as follows:

• In Lebanon, at least 2,483 deaths and 7,707 injuries as of 24th April 2026. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, this includes at least 130 children, and at least 40 medical personnel have been killed. Additionally, over 1 million people (more than 20 percent of the population) have been displaced.
• In Iran, as of 19th April, state-linked sources said over 3,400 people have died from the US war. On 12th April, the Iranian Legal Medicine Organization said 3,375 had been killed. On 7th April, the US-based Human Rights Activists news agency said at least 3,636 people had been killed, including over 254 children.
• In Venezuela, January’s attack killed over 100 people. Additionally, on 19th April, the New York Times carried an article with the cumulative figure of 180 killed this year in US naval strikes in the Caribbean against people it claims are smuggling drugs, and which was a ‘justification’ for the illegal war on Venezuela.

Additionally, Israel’s killing continues unabated in Gaza, with US and UK backing, and Israeli aggression in the illegally occupied West Bank also continues to deepen.

These wars have not only been condemned by governments across the world – in the case of Iran and Lebanon reaching even into governments in Europe itself – but also by significant protests, including the massive “No Kings” protests in the US itself.

In Italy, to take just one example, there have even been national strikes against Israel’s war in Gaza and militarism more generally.

What are the underlying reasons behind Trump’s wars and the growing global opposition to them?

For socialists, it is vital to understand that these are not the actions of a “mad man” or a few “bad eggs,” nor are these the actions of the world’s mightiest power in its prime or at the peak of its powers.

Instead, they are those of an increasingly desperate Empire seeking – through the use of its dominant military power – to reverse its relative economic decline and hold off the emerging new global economic reality, not least the rise of much of the Global South, notably China and other ‘BRICS’ countries. As this problem becomes more desperate for the US, so do the attempted ‘solutions’ on the world stage.

In other words, this desperate economic situation is directly linked to the drive of the US towards permanent wars. In the examples of both Venezuela and Iran. This is clearly shown by US attempts to grab oil and future control of these countries’ oil.

The manufacture and sales of weapons is also a massively profitable business – especially in the US – and is growing at record levels, with no regards for the damage being done to people and planet.

As the legendary German socialist Rosa Luxemburg herself put it over 100 years ago: “The high stage of world-industrial development in capitalistic production finds expression in the extraordinary technical development and destructiveness of the instruments of war.”

Today, it is estimated that Trump’s war on Iran cost an incredible $2 billion a day initially, and could now have been some £35 billion in total.

An expert from the UN analysed this week that US spending on what he termed the ‘reckless’ Iran war could have saved 87m lives. Specifically, the head of the UN’s humanitarian agency Tom Fletcher said, “For every day of this conflict, $2bn is being spent. My entire target for a hyper-prioritised plan to save 87 million lives is $23bn. We could have funded that in less than a fortnight of this reckless war. Now, of course, we cannot.”

In terms of the climate, 5m tonnes of CO2 were emitted in just the first 14 days of US war on Iran, with much more bombing since, and more in the pipeline.

The aforementioned international movements against war – and for Palestine – have made the links between the twin drives for war and profits with slogans around ending arms sales, putting people and planet before private profit, and for welfare not warfare.

As we mark May Day 2026, let us not only unite with these people-powered movements across the globe, but also redouble our efforts here to build movements to end austerity and war for good.

• INTERNATIONAL ONLINE EVE OF MAY DAY RALLY: Trump’s War Drive – Globalise the Resistance! Thursday 30th April, 6.30pm UK time, with the Cuban Ambassador H.E. Ismara Mercedes Vargas Walter, Diane Abbott MP, CND, Stop the War and guests from India, Palestine and South Africa. Full details and register here.

Image: c/o Labour Hub.

UK Green MP calls on Keir Starmer to resign over Peter Mandelson scandal in fiery PMQs speech

Olivia Barber 

22 April, 2026 

Left Foot Forward

‘Does the prime minister not recognise that the best thing he can do to restore trust [...] is to take true responsibility and resign?’

Green MP Dr Ellie Chowns used her question at PMQs to call on Keir Starmer to resign as prime minister.

In a fiery speech, Chowns accused Starmer of appointing Peter Mandelson, who had links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, “in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump”.

Chowns alleged that Starmer knew about Mandelson’s involvement in Kremlin-linked company Sistema and his friendship with Epstein.

She also criticised the PM for taking “a dismissive and extraordinarily incurious attitude to vetting, compromising national security”.

This comes after Sir Olly Robbins, former head of the foreign office, who Starmer fired last week, told the Foreign Affairs select committee that there was a “dismissive approach” to Mandelson’s vetting at No 10.

In reference to Starmer sacking Robbins, she added: “Now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin.”

The Green MP continued to criticise Starmer, stating: “All this from a prime minister who promised to restore trust and integrity in government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down.”

Chowns then asked Starmer: “Does the prime minister not recognise that the best thing he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?”.

The prime minister did not respond to Chowns’ call for him to resign.

Instead, Starmer said the Green MP was wrong about there being “a dismissive attitude” to vetting.

The prime minister said: “Mr Speaker, let me just correct what she said. There was no dismissive attitude to developed vetting, I knew the post was subject to developed vetting.”

He added: “it was subject to developed vetting, what didn’t happen was that I wasn’t told about the UKSV recommendation. That was a serious error of judgement.”

Starmer once again said that if he’d known about the UK Security Vetting Recommendation he wouldn’t have appointed Mandelson.

Chowns shook her head at Starmer’s response.

5 things we learned from Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence on Peter Mandelson’s appointment

Olivia Barber 

21 April, 2026 

Left Foot Forward

Pressure is piling on the prime minister over the Mandelson scandal ahead of the local elections

Sir Olly Robbins, former head civil servant at the Foreign Office, appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee today to give evidence on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.

Sir Keir Starmer fired Robbins last week, after it emerged that the foreign office had granted Mandelson security clearance despite him failing the vetting process. Mandelson was fired from his ambassador position last September after it was revealed that he had had close ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Here are 5 things we learned from Robbins’ appearance at the select committee hearing.Robbins did not tell the prime minister about Mandelson’s failed vetting

Starmer has consistently insisted that he was not told that Lord Mandelson failed the vetting process carried out by the Foreign Office. Robbins confirmed that he did not tell the prime minister that Mandelson had failed the vetting process.

He told MPs today: “You are not supposed to share the findings and reports of UKSV other than in the exceptional circumstances where doing so allows for the specific mitigation of risk.”

Starmer and No 10 say that there is nothing to stop officials telling the prime minister about the recommendations made by security officials even if they are not involved in making the decision. Starmer announced Mandelson’s appointment before he was vetted.

Starmer announced Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador in December 2024, before the Foreign Office had completed its vetting process.

Robbins told the committee: “I regret that this process was not done before [the] announcement”. However, he said it would not have changed his decision if it had been.

He also noted that Mandelson had already been given access to the Foreign Office building as well as “highly classified briefing on a case-by-case basis” prior to vetting being carried out.

The prime minister said that vetting usually happens after the appointment. Starmer told MPs on Monday: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time.”‘Not a given’ Mandelson would be vetted at all

Robbins said there was a “dismissive approach” to vetting at No 10.

The sacked civil servant said: “I’m afraid I don’t think, at the point of his appointment and for days thereafter, it was actually a given that he would be vetted. He also said that the position taken by the Cabinet Office was that Mandelson’s status meant “vetting might be unnecessary”. Constant pressure on foreign office to get Mandelson to Washington

“The focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly,” Robbins said, adding: “Throughout January, honestly, my office [and] the foreign secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing.”Starmer asked Robbins to ‘potentially’ get diplomat job for his top spin doctor

During the select committee today, Robbins told MPs that No 10 asked him to “potentially” find an ambassadorial job for Matthew Doyle, who at the time was the prime minister’s director of communications.

Robbins said he had felt “quite uncomfortable” about the request, and that he was told not to discuss the possible appointment with the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Surely this the end of the Starmer Project – but will it take the Labour Party down with it?

HubMP2012

APRIL 20, 2026

Frank Hansen explains why the Prime Minister’s claims of ignorance about Mandelson’s vetting process are not credible.

As the ‘Starmer Project’ staggers towards its death agony following the latest revelations concerning the security vetting of Mandelson, plus the likelihood of a massive defeat in the May local elections, this provides both an opportunity and a threat for the Labour Party.

 Starmer probably won’t be resigning soon due to external factors and the effect of his project on the Labour Party itself. The Iran debacle, local elections and above all the suppression of Party democracy have left a lack of an effective opposition in the Parliamentary Labour Party – destroyed by the Starmer Project’s manipulation of selection procedures – and a shortage of challengers for the leadership, who can bring about the radical change needed if Labour is to continue as a party of Government both now and in the longer term.  

Those who have read Paul Holden’s book The Fraud – described by Owen Jones as “meticulous, explosive, essential” – will know exactly what is meant by the term ‘Starmer project’ and be aware of its appalling, toxic impact on the Labour Party and UK politics. Those who haven’t, should do so – it is eye-opening and will cure you of any tendency to argue that ‘poor Sir Keir’, a ‘a lawyer and a decent bloke’, has probably been ‘manipulated’ by Mandelson, McSweeney and Labour Together. Wrong – McSweeney may have been the devious, invisible hand planning and guiding the project, but Starmer was up to his neck in it. He was the politician chosen to front a massive political scam that helped him become Labour leader and eventually put him and his clique into Government. He was a conscious participant in the project and still is. 

As the ship sinks and Cabinet loyalists huddle around to justify his increasingly ridiculous excuses, Starmer s striving to deflect responsibility away from himself by throwing former allies overboard – Mandelson. McSweeney, Josh Simons. At McSweeney’s leaving do, it is reported that Starmer even praised him as a great political strategist.

Indeed, the strategy (or ‘fraud’) that enabled Starmer to win the Labour leadership contest was a ‘clever’ one in the worst sense of the word. It was concocted by McSweeney and carried out in plain sight. Starmer posed as a successor to Corbyn – a socialist and a progressive internationalist.  His ten promises, promoted during his leadership campaign, ticked all the right boxes for Party members, but this was just a means to outflank Rebecca Long-Bailey and attract support. As we know now, it was just a con devised by McSweeney based on the polling of members, funded dubiously and for the project’s use.  Once elected the fake promises were ditched and the real Sir Keir emerged – a right-wing authoritarian, who set about purging those who opposed him.

As Paul Holden documents in his book, McSweeney and his allies carried out a series of secret machinations, dirty tricks and questionable funding arrangements to facilitate success. ‘Success’ meant winning the leadership and then destroying Corbynism and any effective opposition from the left or even the centre. This was achieved by the purges of life-long socialists, many of them Jewish comrades, deliberately using antisemitism allegations as a weaponised tool to promote this, backed up by underhand online techniques to whip it up into a crisis.

McSweeney also tried to undermine and take down media websites like The Canary who were beginning to expose what was really happening, just as Josh Simons tried to do later with journalists, including Holden, who were investigating the questionable activities of Labour Together – except he was caught out and forced to resign from the Cabinet.

CLPs were also suspended and prevented from selecting local candidates, although one of Starmer’s ten ‘promises’ was to protect Party democracy! This was orchestrated by McSweeney, and it is alleged that Mandelson even provided advice on which candidates to exclude.

As Holden says, the project “radically reshaped the Labour Party at every level, primarily to neutralise oppositional forces and disempower party members. One small, right-wing element of the Labour coalition effectively captured the party. This freed Starmer to move Labour to the right on nearly every political issue.”

We have seen the disastrous results of this in Labour’s dismal performance in Government: a failure to tackle poverty and inequality, support for Trump and Israel, legal attacks on human rights, shadowing Reform’s policy on immigration and so on.  The resulting loss of tens of thousands of members and local representatives means that the Labour Party has been hollowed out. Today it is less of a movement of activists in touch with communities and more a Party of time-serving politicians and bureaucrats many of whom owe allegiance to Starmer, and, until recently. McSweeney.

But now the Starmer project is falling apart. Ironically it is a victim of its own toxic culture and modus operandi. Having won a massive electoral majority due to the vagaries of the UK electoral system – an unprecedented 412 seats based on only 34% of the vote – the project seemed to have gamed the system via McSweeney’s strategy of making vague promises about ‘change’ and shadowing the right to avoid being outflanked.

With a Cabinet packed with loyalists it became easy to ‘fix’ the political agenda as required. Housing Secretary Steve Reed makes numerous appearances in The Fraud as a close long-term ally of McSweeney. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud and many others also feature, with links to and funding from Labour Together. The Cabinet – mainly a Starmer Project clique – embraced big business and proceeded to implement a programme of neo-liberal austerity – some of the worst aspects only abandoned because of protests by community groups and concern within the PLP – but still mainly intact.

On migration the approach was to mimic Reform. On foreign policy it was to appease Trump and support Israel’s destruction of Gaza – with minor ‘reservations’, while continuing to supply arms and even undermining civil liberties by proscribing Palestine Action. 

The decision to appoint Mandelson as US Ambassador was intended to help fix and solidify the relationship with Trump. It too must have seemed a ‘clever’ thing to do, another great plan of the ‘Starmer Project’. Of course, Starmer and McSweeney already knew all the key things about Mandelson’s past and McSweeney was a friend of his. As with the Starmer Project’s previous machinations and fixes, they thought they could easily get away with it, and the Cabinet was mainly tame and acquiescent. 

You would have thought that the ‘great strategist’ McSweeney might have identified the gathering storm around the Epstein files in the US and backed off.  Apparently not – a gross error that led to his own demise and could well finish off Sir Keir. These kinds of ‘mistakes’ happen when you have a political project which is devoid of diversity and any real democratic checks and balances, where differing opinions are not represented, let alone heard and respected, where real decisions are made behind closed doors.  

Starmer should never have appointed Mandelson – it was his own decision and mistake. Once further information about Mandelson’s activities were revealed in the Epstein files, Starmer should have resigned on the basis of incompetence and bringing the Labour Party and Government into disrepute. Instead, he threw McSweeney overboard and decided to cling on and fight to the bitter end. 

While there will be further investigations and revelations around the Mandelson appointment, we have sufficient ‘evidence’ to demand that Starmer sets a timetable for resignation. One that is acceptable to the Labour Party, that ensures an orderly succession.  We need an election process based on democratic procedures and principles which cannot be manipulated by a small clique as it was in 2020. Candidates will need to be open and transparent about their political programme and any previous association with McSweeney and the ‘Starmer Project’.   

To survive, the Party needs radical change – to restore internal Party democracy and enhance the diversity of views. We need an independent investigation into the ‘Starmer Project’ and Labour Together that holds the individual to account no matter what their current standing in the Party is.

Read Labour Hub’s interview with The Fraud author Paul Holden here. Read Bryn Griffiths’ introduction to his Labour Left Podcast interview with Paul Holden and watch the podcast here.  

 Frank Hansen is a former Councillor in the London Borough of Brent.

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/54354501680. Creator: Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Str |Credit: Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Str Copyright: Crown copyright. License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic CC BY-NC-ND 2.0Deed

Rule by Secrecy – How Covert Regime Change Shaped Our World

In Covert Regime Change, Lindsey A. O’Rourke reconstructs the hidden architecture of US power and shows how Western democracies repeatedly destroyed foreign political orders.

by Michael Holmes | Apr 27, 2026 |

The modern international order rests on a contradiction rarely examined in full daylight. Western states present themselves as guardians of international rules, democracy, and self-determination, yet the historical record of their behavior abroad tells a different story — one written not in treaties or speeches, but in classified cables, deniable operations, and shattered political systems. Covert Regime Change, first published in 2018, matters because it documents, with unusual rigor, how this contradiction became a governing method. Lindsey A. O’Rourke, Associate Professor at Boston College, does not ask whether covert intervention occasionally went wrong. She demonstrates that it became a routine instrument of statecraft, one whose predictable consequences were political collapse, mass violence, and long-term instability.

The book’s starting point is empirical, not rhetorical. O’Rourke assembles the most comprehensive dataset to date of U.S.-backed regime change attempts during the Cold War, identifying seventy cases between 1947 and 1989. Sixty-four were covert. Only six were overt. This imbalance is not incidental. It reveals a strategic preference for secrecy as a means of exercising power without democratic constraint. Covert regime change allowed policymakers to intervene repeatedly while insulating themselves from public accountability.

O’Rourke also dismantles the notion that covert regime change primarily served democratic ends. Statistically, covert interventions overwhelmingly produced authoritarian outcomes. Where democratic transitions occurred – and they are hard to find – , they were more often associated with overt interventions, where public scrutiny imposed limits. Secrecy correlated with repression, not reform. O’Rourke’s findings dispel the myth that the US fought for democracy during the Cold War: “The United States supported authoritarian forces in forty-­four out of sixty-­four covert regime changes, including at least six operations that sought to replace liberal demo­cratic governments with illiberal authoritarian regimes. Yet, Washington’s proclivity for installing authoritarian regimes was also not absolute. In one-­eighth of its covert missions and one-­half of its overt interventions, Washington encouraged a demo­cratic transformation in an authoritarian state.” In other words: Washington supported whatever regime or rebel group served its interests — and showed little concern for democracy.

What makes the book so unsettling is that it refuses to stop at the moment of intervention. O’Rourke tracks what followed. Using comparative statistical analysis, she shows that states targeted by covert regime change were significantly more likely to experience civil war and mass killings. Her statistical analysis shows that “states targeted for covert regime change were 6.7 times more likely to experience a Militarized Interstate Dispute with the United States in the ten years following intervention.” US regime change operations also steeply increased episodes of mass killing: “States targeted in successful operations were 2.8 times more likely to experience an episode of mass killing, whereas states targeted in failed covert missions ­were 3.7 times more likely.”

Vietnam demonstrates how covert regime change could deepen rather than prevent war. Before large-scale U.S. troop deployments, Washington pursued covert efforts to shape South Vietnam’s leadership. O’Rourke reconstructs the U.S. role in facilitating the 1963 coup against President Ngo Dinh Diem. Rather than stabilizing the regime, the coup fragmented power and intensified dependence on U.S. military support. What began as covert political manipulation ended in a war that killed millions of Vietnamese and devastated the region.

In the Western Hemisphere, the United States utilized hegemonic operations to enforce a brutal regional conformity, often at the direct expense of democratic institutions. The CIA-backed overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz in 1954 destroyed Guatemala’s young democracy. Guatemala’s subsequent trajectory: decades of military rule, a civil war lasting more than thirty years, and the killing of roughly 200,000 people, the majority civilians. Indigenous communities were systematically targeted.

The case of the Dominican Republic illustrates the cold transition from secret meddling to open violence. The US first backed Rafael Trujillo’s dictatorship. Following the 1961 assassination of Trujillo — an operation in which the CIA provided the weapons — the country attempted a fragile democratic opening. When the reformist Juan Bosch won the presidency in 1962, his refusal to launch a McCarthyite purge of domestic leftists led Washington to view him as a “weak link” in the regional defense against communism. After Bosch was ousted in a military coup, a popular uprising in 1965 sought to restore the democratic constitution. Fearing a “second Cuba,” the Johnson administration launched a massive overt invasion to crush the rebellion and install a more compliant regime. The empirical record here is clear: for American planners, the survival of a pro-Washington hierarchy was far more important than the survival of a Caribbean democracy.

One of the book’s most analytically important findings concerns repetition. States subjected to one covert regime change attempt were far more likely to experience subsequent interventions. Covert action did not resolve instability; it institutionalized it. Political systems weakened by external manipulation became perpetual sites of interference.

The moral failure documented in Covert Regime Change is therefore not accidental. It is structural. Secrecy enabled policymakers to externalize violence, displace responsibility, and treat foreign societies as experimental terrain. Civil wars prolonged, civilians killed, and political futures destroyed were foreseeable consequences of deliberate choices. 

Proxy Wars and Moral Evasion

One of the most revealing dimensions of Covert Regime Change is the attention it pays to proxy warfare. Covert intervention rarely meant the United States acted alone. It meant empowering others to act violently on its behalf, often with full awareness of who those actors were and what they represented.

The rollback operations in Eastern Europe during the early Cold War provide one of the clearest illustrations. O’Rourke documents U.S.-backed covert efforts to destabilize Soviet-aligned regimes in countries such as Albania, Romania and Ukraine through the infiltration of exile groups and paramilitary networks. These operations were conceived as low-risk alternatives to direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. In practice, they relied heavily on émigré militias whose ideological and historical backgrounds were deeply compromised.

Many of these groups included former collaborators with Nazi Germany and fascists, implicated in wartime atrocities. This was not incidental. They were selected precisely because of their militant anti-communism and organizational cohesion. O’Rourke shows that U.S. officials were aware of these backgrounds and proceeded regardless. The operations themselves were militarily ineffective. Infiltrators were frequently captured or killed soon after insertion. What they did achieve was the reinforcement of authoritarian control. The existence of covert Western-backed networks confirmed Soviet narratives of external subversion and justified intensified repression across Eastern Europe.

Afghanistan represents the most consequential case of proxy warfare in the book. During the Soviet occupation, the United States conducted one of its largest and most expensive covert operations, channeling billions of dollars in weapons and support to Afghan resistance fighters. These forces were often described in sanitized terms, but O’Rourke is clear about their ideological character. Most were brutal Islamist extremists, organized around rigidly authoritarian visions of society.

The objective of the operation was narrowly defined: bleed the Soviet Union and force its withdrawal. On those terms, it succeeded. What followed, however, was political collapse. After the Soviets left, U.S. engagement rapidly diminished. Afghanistan descended into civil war as rival militias turned their weapons on one another and on civilians. Out of this chaos emerged the Taliban, followed by transnational jihadist networks whose violence would reverberate globally. The intervention did not merely fail to build a viable state; it actively contributed to the conditions under which one of the most repressive regimes of the late twentieth century took power.

Western publics rarely saw the consequences of policies carried out in their name. Violence was outsourced to proxies. Responsibility was fragmented across agencies and allies. Failure could be reframed as complexity or local pathology. What Covert Regime Change ultimately makes impossible is the claim that these outcomes were unfortunate side effects of well-intentioned policies. The evidence shows that policymakers repeatedly chose secrecy over accountability, power politics over democracy, and short-term advantage over human cost. The victims were not abstractions. They were civilians caught between armed factions, dissidents silenced, and societies denied the chance to determine their own futures. 

Power Without Reckoning

By the end of Covert Regime Change, the accumulation of evidence leaves little room for comforting interpretation. It documents a system of intervention that functioned as intended — discreet, flexible, and largely insulated from domestic scrutiny — while producing outcomes that were consistently destructive for the societies it targeted. Failure abroad rarely translated into accountability at home. The result was a cycle in which intervention became easier precisely because its consequences were borne elsewhere.

The statistical findings reinforce this interpretation with striking consistency. States subjected to covert regime change were more likely to experience adverse regime transitions — coups followed by coups, fragile governments replaced by more repressive ones. Civil wars in these countries lasted longer and were harder to resolve. These were not marginal increases. They were structural shifts in political trajectory, affecting millions of lives over decades.

O’Rourke’s insistence on evidentiary discipline gives these conclusions their force. She shows how similar mechanisms produced similar outcomes under varying conditions. Whether in Latin America, Africa, Europe, or Asia, covert regime change followed a recognizable script: identify a political outcome deemed unacceptable, undermine it quietly, empower local actors willing to use force, and withdraw once immediate objectives were met. What followed — repression, civil war, or long-term instability — was treated as local failure rather than external design.

Covert Regime Change challenges the reader to reconsider how international responsibility is assigned. Violence that is indirect is no less real. Harm that is delayed is no less consequential. Political destruction carried out through intermediaries is no less deliberate.

As a work of scholarship, the book is meticulous and restrained. As a historical record, it is devastating. It reveals an era in which power was exercised without witness and accountability. The world that emerged from those decisions — fractured, militarized, and distrustful — is their legacy. The enduring lesson of Covert Regime Change is that secrecy does not merely hide violence; it makes it sustainable, allowing great powers to destroy other societies while preserving the illusion of innocence at home.

Michael Holmes is a German-American freelance journalist specializing in global conflicts and modern history. His work has appeared in Neue Zürcher Zeitung – the Swiss newspaper of record – Responsible Statecraft, Psychologie Heute, taz, Welt, and other outlets. He regularly conducts interviews for NachDenkSeiten.  He has reported on and traveled to over 70 countries, including Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Mexico, and Uganda.  He is based in Potsdam, Germany.