The UK’s Growing Involvement in the Iran War

Starmer’s Self-Defence Fudge

by Binoy Kampmark / March 10th, 2026

Wars can distract, and for leaders in political purgatory, they can be particularly useful. It remains to be seen whether the UK’s increasing involvement in the illegal war being waged on Iran by Israel and the United States will serve that purpose. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the great saviour of the British Labour Party in taking them to victory in 2024, is finding himself in sinking desperation. Being less popular than a pandemic, he has much work to do if he is to retain his premiership till and after the next election.

This deepening involvement in the Iran War has been messy. Britain, along with France and Germany, was initially clear in their joint February 28 statement that they had not participated in the strikes on Iran, despite growing questions about Britain’s role in attacks on Iran, but were “in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region.” Instead of condemning the pre-emptive attack on Tehran as a crime of aggression in breach of the United Nations Charter and international law, the statement went on to “condemn Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms.”

Within a matter of hours, Starmer rebadged his country’s engagement in the conflict as a matter of self-defence under Article 51, a justification that echoes the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive war of the United Nations Charter, making what can only be regarded as a spurious use of international law – or whatever was left of it. The press release on March 1 again reiterated condemnation for Iran’s “reckless and ongoing discriminatory attacks against countries in the region”, taking no account of why Tehran was engaged in such an avenging task, despite diplomatic initiatives such as Iran’s comprehensive peace proposal. But international law permitted the UK and its allies “to use or support force in such circumstances where acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an ongoing armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate.”

It followed from this that the UK had “military assets flying in the region to intercept drones or missiles targeting countries not previously involved in the conflict.” A request from Washington had also meant that his government would “facilitate specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes at regional allies.” The statement went on, weakly, to ward off suggestions of any “wider involvement in the broader ongoing conflict between the US, Israel and Iran.”

On March 9, in an oral statement to the House, the UK Secretary of State for Defence John Healey revealed the sheer scale of British involvement. The briefest of references was made to Starmer’s justification along lines of collective self-defence under international law. To put some flesh on the bone, it was important to inflate the threat posed by the Iranian regime, a force of cruel destruction that had “slaughtered protestors in its own streets”, supplied Shahed drones to Russia in its “illegal invasion of Ukraine” and conducted cyber-attacks against Britain and plotted assassinations on it streets.

Healey confirmed that the US was using British bases to target Iranian missile sites from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. He also outlined various “defensive operations” that had taken place: the destruction of Iranian drones over Jordan by F-35s; the use of Typhoons to shoot “down targets heading towards Qatar”; and “counter-drone units defeating further attacks against coalition bases in Iraq.” Various “defensive air sorties in support of the UAE” were also being conducted. Given this burgeoning list, it is surely a matter of time, given the prolongation of conflict, for Starmer to join the full-blooded effort and hit sites in Iran proper. The pretence to legality will have all but collapsed by that point.

The US President Donald Trump, for his part, has been petulant, scornful of Starmer for not doing more. “This is not Winston Churchill,” he moaned to journalists over the PM’s initial tardiness in permitting the use of British bases to launch strikes on Iran. In a social media post, Trump revealed that the UK, “our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East.” With a bitchy turn, the President informed the PM that “we don’t need them any longer – But we will remember.” He had “no need for people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

The dangers of closer involvement with the US in this war should be all too clear for Starmer and the Labour Party.In March 2003, as a human rights lawyer, he warned the government of Tony Blair that pre-emptive action against Iraq could repeat the mistakes of the disastrous US war against Iraq.“The mere fact that Iraq has a capacity to attack at some specified time in the future is not enough.” No one believed that Iraq was imminently about to attack the UK or its allies, and any claim to self-defence “would sit uncomfortably with the US position that military action is justified to destroy such weapons of mass destruction as Iraq may have, and to bring about a change of leadership.”

Despite these warnings, Blair joined President George W. Bush to attack Iraq, finding no WMDs and inviting the deserved opprobrium of the international law community, while deeper motivations including oil and geopolitical interests behind the Iraq invasion remained widely debated. The public inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the war, chaired by John Chilcot, noted that “the circumstances in which it was decided there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory”. The phase of planning and preparations for a post-Saddam also proved “wholly inadequate”. But the inquiry report also made an unimpeachable observation troublingly relevant as Britain gets ever more involved in the current crime of aggression: “The US and UK are close allies, but the relationship between the two is unequal.”

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

Britain’s Role in Attacks on Cyprus, Venezuela, and Iran

by Alfie Howis / March 9th, 2026

Britain’s role in the recent machinations of the US empire has been central, despite going underreported and little criticised. Britain has a significant hand in the ongoing US war of aggression against Iran and their recent invasion of Venezuela. Britain’s empire and overseas bases, and associated intelligence and surveillance capabilities, are cornerstones of its contribution to these ongoing wars. Just as Britain’s colonial bases in occupied Cyprus served an intelligence and surveillance role in the Gaza genocide, so to did they help surveil Iran and prepare intelligence in preparation for US attacks, and are now being used as a staging post for those attacks. The ongoing UK-Mauritius Chagos Islands deal and subsequent US-UK rift over Diego Garcia’s use in the attack on Iran shows the potential for decolonial practice in international law and is a case that the US-UK Bases off Cyprus campaign can learn from.

RAF Akrotiri has been very important in the US attacks on Iran to date. For example, it provided a base for air refuelling planes that refuelled the bombers that struck Iran’s nuclear sites in June last year, and the bases likely provided intelligence and surveillance support for this operation too. Between March and May last year, the base also refuelled US bombers, which attacked Yemen, an attack in which the RAF also directly participated. The base is used for all UK bombing of Iraq and Syria, which still happens sometimes, and it was almost certainly an intelligence hub for the American support for the successful counter-revolution in Syria. British F-35s are currently stationed in Akrotiri, reportedly to conduct ELINT (electronic intelligence) against Iran, essentially to use their advanced sensors to gather intelligence on Iranian air defences as part of the current war. Any strike on Iran would commence with SEAD (suppression of enemy air defence) operations, necessitating mapping those air defences out beforehand, which is what the F-35s are doing. Now the British government has allowed the use of the bases on Cyprus for attacks on Iran, despite earlier denying this. GCHQ and the NSA’s main Middle Eastern intelligence base is in the British base area, which is extremely important to any military operations in the region. The NSA controls part of these bases more than GCHQ, meaning that there would be no oversight of US intelligence operations by the UK, let alone democratic accountability for the people of Britain or Cyprus to decide if they want this kind of thing happening on their land and in their political jurisdictions.

Britain’s role in US wars during the Trump administration has been much more significant than many people realise. Britain actually suspended Caribbean and Eastern Pacific-related intelligence sharing with the US in November 2025 because of the US strikes on fishing boats, which killed innocent people. The British state was briefing, ie, telling journalists anonymously, that this was because the strikes were illegal murders that Britain didn’t want to be implicated in legally, which was, of course, a self-interested position, not a moral one.

Yet by the start of this year, Britain had started to contribute to the Southern Spear mission directly, this time in relation to the oil blockade of Venezuela. Essentially, the UK drew a line between these different parts of US actions in the area, even though the tanker seizures are clearly illegal too. There were at least 4 examples where this is evidence of a direct British role in the seizure of tankers. Britain helped the US seize three tankers in the Caribbean with a total of 2.5 million barrels of oil, the M Sophia, the Olina, and the Sagitta, between January 7th and January 20th. Britain contributed to this with surveillance flights, probably operating from British colonies in the Caribbean, from Florida, and from the Azores.

So once again, we see the intelligence and surveillance role that Britain plays in the imperial alliance; in lieu of a powerful navy, Britain seems to have specialised to an extent in its role. This type of activity is by its nature quite secretive – it would be politically difficult to have sent navy ships to interdict ships off Venezuela. But the surveillance contribution, enabled by the remaining empire’s geographical footprint, has not been picked up by the media here at all, and is also pretty unaccountable to parliament, and not subject to much democratic oversight. This, of course, mirrors Britain’s role in the Gaza genocide, where its surveillance contributions have been shrouded in secrecy and the details hidden even from MPs who are supposed to have some oversight of the military or at least its participation in foreign wars.

The other case is that of the ship, the Bella 1, renamed the Marinera, which the US seized in the North Atlantic, between Iceland and Scotland, on January 7th. This was a Russian-flagged tanker sailing from Venezuela to Russia. What happened here was more direct – US special forces flew to Britain, which was tracked by flight trackers following known special ops planes. Then, they undertook the seizure operation after flying from Britain in helicopters, and meeting US Navy ships. Britain provided more intense logistical and surveillance help in this instance, as it happened so close to Britain. The ship was stolen and brought to Scotland, and the 26 crew were kidnapped and falsely imprisoned in Scotland, with most being able to leave after the US had determined they were allowed to.

The captain and first mate of this ship, the captain being a Georgian citizen, were not allowed to go home by the US once detained in Scotland. The wife of the captain made an appeal to the Scottish courts, arguing that her husband was being illegally detained without the right to the proper extradition procedures. A Scottish court granted an interim interdict, an emergency injunction, prohibiting the removal of the captain from Scotland, whilst the case was heard and the courts made their decisions. However, immediately after that court decision, the very same night, the two men were taken from Scotland to a US Navy ship, which set sail for the US. A couple of days ago, the captain had his first court hearing in Puerto Rico, where he will be transferred to DC and put on trial for ‘preventing a lawful seizure’ and failure to stop the vessel during the Coast Guard chase. The Scottish government condemned the US actions, but the Green Party of Scotland led a more serious analysis of the situation in the Scottish parliament, arguing that the US had basically illegally kidnapped people from Scotland, ignoring the courts.

There are a few things to pick up on here. Firstly, like all the US actions around Venezuela and the tankers, there was no legal basis for them to do any of this. A ship isn’t ‘illegal’ or part of a ‘dark fleet’ just because it’s ‘sanctioned’ by one country. Venezuela and Russia are, in theory, sovereign nations that can conduct trade and sail ships between them; no one gets to randomly call any of that illegal. There is this pretense that somehow these sanctions represent international law, but they are just edicts by one country, with no relation to international law, treaties, the UN, or any multilateral decision-making body. In fact, Bella 1 was not even sanctioned by the UK, so what was the possible legal justification for the UK’s involvement in this?

The second part is the US flouting of Scottish and British law. Scotland has its own judicial system that is separate from the rest of the UK. It is under the UK Supreme Court and the British Parliament, but it can exercise judicial authority otherwise. Likewise, the Scottish government has a high level of autonomy within the UK, with its own elected parliament and government. The US violating the law of places where its troops are based is pretty normal, take all the murders and rapes that go along with US bases abroad, cases that have come to prominence in Japan and Korea, especially. A US diplomat’s wife killed a young man in a car crash near a US base a few years ago in England, and flew back to the US, never to face any consequences.

So, regardless of UK law and international law, the US is allowed, and even invited, to do whatever it wants in Britain, and can commission the British military to help. The British military is helping the US commit crimes in Britain, crimes under British law, in the case of the kidnapping of the sailors from Scotland. The British military is literally helping a foreign power defy civilian courts here. In the UK, we are facing the trumping of our own government and legal system by US imperial diktats, and our military and certainly this government, are choosing to actively promote it. It is a serious crisis of sovereignty for the UK. It is more important to think of the imperial violence that we are dishing out to others rather than ruminating too much on the implications of that violence in the metropole, but there are the seeds of a domestic political and legal crisis here, which could one day help to undermine Britain’s role in all of this.

There was relatively big news in mid-February about the UK denying the US the use of its bases for their coming renewed war on Iran. Namely, bases in England and Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean. Trump posted angrily about this and again withdrew his support for the Chagos Islands deal. To summarise the current situation regarding the Chagos Islands, there’s a UK colony in the middle of the Indian Ocean called the British Indian Ocean Territory. After WW2, the US leased the main island, Diego Garcia, as an airbase, and it’s now one of the most important US bases in the world due to its location. It was one of the CIA’s black sites and has supported attacks on the region before, including on Iran. Mauritius went through international courts to force the UK to give it back to them and won, so in 2025, the UK government made an agreement to hand over the territory but lease the base back from Mauritius for 99 years, guaranteeing the base’s status is basically unchanged.

This is good news that there is some kind of rift between Britain and the US on this, but it does raise some interesting questions, and these denials have been rescinded anyway. Namely, can the UK always exercise this right of denial, because then it would proactively have had to have proactively approved US use of bases for attacking Iran last year, or did they approve the torture black site on Diego Garcia, do they approve the use of UK bases as transit for all this equipment to the Middle East which will be used to attack Iran anyway? Secondly, Trump posting that he ‘may have to use’ the Fairford and Diego Garcia bases to attack Iran, despite apparently being told he can’t, should be a big deal! Again, the question of UK sovereignty over its own land and military resources comes up – can we even say no to the US, is it possible at all? And will this government do anything about it if their request is ignored – highly unlikely.

However, it turns out that this whole issue may have originated in an order to the civil service in the foreign office, telling them to act as if the Chagos Islands deal had already gone through. In this case, it seems that the UK government asked the Mauritian government about the US request, and they must have said no, and so Britain said no. Alternatively, the foreign office may have said no based on the specific wording of the deal, where Britain must consult Mauritius on an attack on a third state from Diego Garcia, and have judged Trump’s intended actions to be an attack on the Iranian state, rather than self-defence, which would not require consultation.

This then makes it seem all the less benevolent. This government and the previous government, which started negotiations with Mauritius over this deal, have faced attacks from the right in the UK for giving away British land and throwing away an important base. The government has justified the deal not because it is the right thing to do, or by accepting any of the principles of the arguments around it, but instead, they justify it because they say it is the only way to keep the base operating. They claim that because of the ICJ ruling, they would be forced to cede the territory very soon, and so it was best to make a deal first. We don’t typically have much faith in these organs of international law, as they were set up to enforce the imperial order. However, it is possible for the subjects of that order to assert some agency and attempt to use that system in an insurgent manner. In this case, it is Mauritius and much of the world supporting it, which has forced this to happen, and indirectly has caused this rift and may prevent the base from being used for these attacks. I don’t think this will ultimately work, and the US would probably just use them anyway, but these are all interesting things to consider in relation to the base question. It seems that the UK is now allowing the use of Diego Garcia for attacks on Iran, which it deems ‘defensive’ even though that definition includes strikes on ground targets. The potential utility of this model of handover deal, despite keeping the base open, does then seem to restrict the uses of the base in line with aspects of Mauritian sovereignty, disrupting the bases in some way or another, which is a big decolonial win the left has not yet fully grasped.

We could then conclude that a big concerted international campaign against blatant colonial practices may actually work in damaging the effectiveness of these colonial overseas bases to some extent. Mauritius exploited the inherent contradictions between international law on the one hand and the bases’ colonial nature on the other, to build a campaign, get almost everyone onside, and force a reckoning in the international courts, which is binding. So for Cyprus, although it is a different situation in many ways, we can see similarities, and we can learn from what’s happened around Diego Garcia. The fact that the bases are a colonial relic is important because it gives our campaign the leverage to say that this is obviously wrong and obviously contradicts the international law that you, the imperial powers, set up, and this gives us the opportunity to build alliances based on that. That is actually much easier and much less radical than talking about the bases’ role in genocide, which seems wholly exempt from the international law system, which shows how dehumanised Palestinians and Gaza are.

The US-UK Bases Off Cyprus Campaign that CODEPINK is running has those two integral parts to it, working on the bases in Cyprus’ contribution to genocide and imperial wars, and their inherent status as a colony on occupied land. Linking those two parts of the base question is the central point of what we’re trying to do and trying to expose, as a step towards practical change to the bases’ status.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Alfie Howis is an activist and writer with CODEPINK London. Read other articles by Alfie.

OPINION

Dark new poll reveals something deeply broken in America — and it predates Trump

Robert Reich
March 10, 2026


A demonstrator shouts in front of Trump Tower in New York City. 

REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

A survey released last Thursday by the Pew Research Center finds that 53 percent of American adults describe the morality and ethics of our fellow citizens as “bad” (ranging from “somewhat bad” to “very bad”).

This puts Americans way out front of other nations on the we-hate-our-compatriots scale. In the 24 other countries polled by Pew, most people called their fellow citizens somewhat good or very good.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from the United States is Canada, where 92 percent say their fellow Canadians are good, while just 7 percent say they’re bad.

Why are we so down on our fellow citizens? It may have something to do with our politics.

Some 30 years ago, my dear friend, the late Republican Senator Alan Simpson, told me Democrats viewed Republicans as stupid and Republicans viewed Democrats as evil.

“I’d rather be in the stupid party,” he chuckled.


I asked him why Republicans saw Democrats as evil.

He took a deep breath. “Religion.”

I said I didn’t understand.

“It’s the Christian right,” he said as if talking to a five-year-old. “Since Reagan, my party has been a magnet for religious conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, where it’s all about good and evil. Too bad, pal. You’re on the evil side.”

That was 30 years ago. Since then, the divide has only sharpened.

In 2012, Mitt Romney told supporters that “47 percent” of Americans would vote for Obama no matter what because they’re “dependent upon government ... believe that they are victims ... believe the government has a responsibility to care for them ... [and] pay no income tax.”

Insulting 47 percent of Americans was no way to win an election. It was also no way to unite the country.

Then in 2016, Hillary Clinton described half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” Also no way to win or to foster mutual trust.

Once Trump took office, dislike of our fellow citizens soared.

Before he entered the White House, 47 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of Democrats said people in the opposing party were “immoral.”

By 2022, after years of Trump’s venom, 72 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats called people in the opposing party “immoral.”

Since he’s been back in the Oval, it’s got even worse.

After Charlie Kirk was assassinated last September, Trump blamed a “radical left bunch of lunatics” for the killing. Vice President JD Vance, parroting Trump, vowed to “punish these radical leftist lunatics.”

As Democratic Senator Chris Murphy noted at the time, “Kirk’s assassination could have united Americans against political violence, but the Trump camp seems to be preparing a campaign to destroy opponents.”

When a federal judge ruled in March that Trump didn’t have authority to send National Guard troops into Los Angeles, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly — in language typical of what we hear from the Trump regime — called him a “rogue judge” and claimed Trump “saved Los Angeles” from “deranged leftist lunatics sowing mass chaos.”


After ICE agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Kristi Noem, Trump’s former secretary of Homeland Security, called the two of them “domestic terrorists.”

Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has sent out a steady stream of tweets — catching some 380 million views on X — claiming that its agents have been under attack by U.S. citizens whom it describes as “terrorists,” “rioters,” and “agitators,” and asserting, among other things, that “Americans are fed up with rampant criminality ruling this country.”

Meanwhile, Trump has been threatening to cut off funding for various programs that help poor Americans by vilifying them as “fraudsters” and withholding money from Democratic-led states.

A few days ago, Vance charged that Medicaid and food assistance programs were rife with fraud perpetrated by “bad actors in our society … who take the goodwill and trust of the American taxpayers and use it against us, [who] decide to make themselves rich.”


***

For almost a decade, Trump has told us that certain other Americans should be feared: among them, Democrats, liberals, Mexican Americans, Muslim Americans, Black Americans, transgender people, and LGBTQ+ people. All are presumed to be the “enemy within.”

As Barack Obama said at Jesse Jackson’s memorial on March 6, “Each day, we’re told by those in high office to fear each other and to turn on each other, and that some Americans count more than others, and that some don’t even count at all.”


Is it any surprise that a majority of Americans now describe the morality of other Americans as “bad?”

But I can’t help wonder: How much of our distrust and resentment is the byproduct of something more fundamental that’s been unfolding in America for over four decades — something Trump took exploited but that would have invited a hateful demagogue like Trump eventually: the increasing concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands?

Trump took advantage of anger and distrust that had been building for years — at a system increasingly seen as rigged against most of us.

What do you think?

Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

FUBAR TOO?!

Arnold Schwarzenegger staging a comeback with ‘King Conan’, new ‘Predator’ and ‘Commando’ movies

Copyright AP Photo - 20th Century-Fox

By David Mouriquand

Published on 10/03/2026 - EURONEWS

Arnold Schwarzenegger is in talks to return to not one but three of his iconic film franchises. The first seems to be ‘King Conan’ - a return to the world of the 1982 film that propelled him to stardom.

One of Hollywood’s biggest action stars hasn’t been seen on the big screen since 2019’s poorly received Terminator: Dark Fate... But now, "The Austrian Oak" is staging a comeback.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has revealed that he is currently in talks to return to his first franchise, Conan the Barbarian.

The 1982 action-adventure film was the former body builder's breakout role, before James Cameron’s The Terminator propelled him to international fame two years later.

The 78-year-old former Governor of California is not just limiting his return to one franchise though... He’s in talks to return to the worlds of Commando (1985) and Predator (1987).

“They did an additional Predator and the director [Dan Trachtenberg] has been doing a great job of that. Now, he wants me to be in the next Predator. We’ve talked about it,” Schwarzenegger revealed at this year’s Arnold Sports Festival in Columbus, Ohio, according to Variety.

“As a matter of fact, Fox Studios has kind of rediscovered Arnold,” he added. “They’ve come to me and said, ‘We want you to do Predator, we just got a script for you to do Commando 2.’”

Arnold Schwarzenegger at the premiere of "Fubar" - 11 June 2025 AP Photo

Related

• Arnold Schwarzenegger makes rare endorsement for Kamala Harris

Schwarzenegger said that for the Conan sequel, the studio “just hired a fantastic writer/director who did Tom Cruise’s last four movies to write and direct King Conan.”

He seems to be referring to Christopher McQuarrie – who directed Cruise in Mission: Impossible – Fallout (2018), Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023) and Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025) – as well as write and produce 2022’s Top Gun: Maverick.

He clarified that all three roles will be “different” and written to better reflect his current age.

“They don’t write them like I’m 40 years old. You write it to be age-appropriate,” he explained. “I’ll still go in there and kick some ass but it will be different.”

Addressing plans for King Conan, Schwarzenegger added: “It’s a great old story that Conan was 40 years as king and now he gets forced out of the kingdom and there’s conflict, of course, but somehow he comes back and there’s all kinds of madness, violence, magic and creatures and stuff like that.”

“And now, of course, there’s all kinds of special effects. The studio has plenty of money to make those movies really big so I’m looking forward to all of those projects.”

Conan The Barbarian (1982) 20th Century-Fox

Hollywood previously attempted to reboot Conan in 2011 with Jason Momoa in the title role. However, the film was a box office letdown, with $63 million worldwide on a reported $90 million production budget.

To Penalize Iran, Azerbaijan Could Interdict its Caspian Sea Trade

Iranian-flagged cargo ship Caspian Shiva (Port of Makhachkala)

Published Mar 8, 2026 10:00 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

On March 6, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that ‘There will be no further attacks or missile launches towards neighbouring countries, unless attacks against Iran originate from those countries.  President Pezeshkian’s influence over the decentralised IRGC command structure which appears to running Iran’s war is unclear, but it should be noted that both the Armed Forces General Staff (separate from the IRGC) and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have been denying that Iran has been attacking Gulf countries, despite ample evidence to the contrary, but indicative of the IRGC’s unwillingness to accept political coordination.

Whether Gulf countries accept Pezeshkian's implicit apology, notwithstanding the impact that the attacks will have on the GCC economic model in the long-term, is one matter. What may be even more challenging is whether Azerbaijan will accept Iran’s U-turn, after Iran launched an Arash-2 drone attack on Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan International Airport, which caused damage to a terminal building and injured two civilians. Azerbaijan responded immediately by closing its land border with Iran, in advance of deciding what other retaliatory measures might be appropriate.

Iran and Azerbaijan have had a fraught relationship in recent years – friendly in a formal sense, but with barely-concealed bitterness beneath the surface. Iran treats Azerbaijan with some arrogance, as if it is within its sphere of influence and should obey orders. It occasionally threatens or issues Azerbaijan instructions, which are ignored, or makes policy announcements affecting both countries without coordination beforehand – as when Iran announced that road and rail routes to Russia were to be opened, without noting they would need to pass through Azeri territory. 

There have been two particular incidents – an attack in January 2023 on the Azeri Embassy in Tehran which killed a member of staff, and thwarted attempts to set up a Hezbollah-type organization in Azerbaijan. The Azeris suffer these insults stoically, borne of nationalist sentiment and confidence, particularly boosted since the successful war in 2023 to re-integrate Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh.  Nor has Azerbaijan sought to inflame tensions amongst the Azeri ethnic minority – Iran’s largest – in Northern Iran.

More generally, Iran is worried that Azerbaijan may impede its truck route through the Lachin Corridor in Armenia, and that Azerbaijan enjoys good relations with Israel – which is one reason why they won their war against Armenia.

Why should the maritime community have an interest in this Caucasian tale of intrigue and fraught relationships? Firstly, Azerbaijan may decide enough is enough, and actively support the Azeri separatist cause in Iran. This could be highly dangerous for Iran.

The other possibility is that Azerbaijan will extend the closure of its land borders with Iran to include the right of Iranian shipping to pass through Azeri territorial waters, disrupting Iran’s main means of transport with Russia – both for arms and ammunition, and other crisis-essentials which will soon run short in an Iran where maritime trade via the Gulf is at a standstill.

There has never hitherto been a major dispute interrupting good relations between the five countries bordering the Caspian Sea. But should Azerbaijan decide on this course of action, Israel might see an opportunity to take an active part in enforcing it. Ukraine as well would certainly like to interdict the flow of Iranian weaponry to Russia, as it has done previously. But Azerbaijan has means of its own to interrupt traffic. Its American and Turkish-trained navy has Osa-class missile boats, a modernized Petya-class corvette – and four Triton-class midget submarines. The air force has MiG 29s, attack helicopters and Israeli drones, which proved decisive in the 2023 war with Armenia. 

Collectively, Azeri force are more than a match for a depleted and otherwise preoccupied Iranian Northern Fleet.

Video: U.S. Forces Hit Iranian Drone Carrier

Debris cascades off the stern of IRIS Shahid Bagheri after a direct hit, March 5 (US Central Command)

Published Mar 5, 2026 9:14 PM by The Maritime Executive

U.S. forces have released new footage of a strike on one of Iran's "drone carriers," the converted merchant vessels that Iranian forces have rebuilt to launch ballistic missiles, suicide drones and other unmanned munitions. The vessel's appearance matches IRIS Shahid Bagheri, which U.S. Central Command previously claimed to have struck on the first day of the conflict.  

An accompanying statement by CENTCOM appears to confirm that an attack occurred on March 5. The footage released by U.S. Central Command shows that one of Iran's flat-deck conversions was hit twice - once amidships on the port side, and once again on the port quarter. The ship was hit Thursday and continued to burn as of Thursday night (EST), according to Central Command. 

The vessel can be identified as the Bagheri thanks to its ski-jump ramp, unique among Iran's drone-carrier fleet. Other comparable vessels in Iran's arsenal - IRIS Shahid Roudaki and IRIS Shahid Madhavi - have unmodified, conventional bows, limiting them to vertical takeoff and landing operations. Base ship IRIS Makran, a larger multipurpose vessel constructed on the hull of a tanker and fitted with a helideck, was hit in the deckhouse in a previous round of strikes. 

Adm. Brad Cooper, commanding officer of Central Command, said Thursday that the U.S. has now eliminated more than 30 Iranian warships. The tally includes IRIS Dena, the frigate torpedoed by a U.S. Navy attack submarine off the coast of Sri Lanka earlier this week. 

Iran Claims to Strike Tanker for Running Strait of Hormuz Blockade

NASA file image

Published Mar 8, 2026 1:43 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

On Saturday morning, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed to have struck an oil tanker for failing to abide by Iran's "closure" of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Iran declared the strait to be shut more than a week ago, and has repeatedly attacked vessels that attempt to operate it, including one boxship and one rescue tug. Eight seafarers aboard the tug may have lost their lives, though the outcome of the attack has not been confirmed. 

Industry sources confirm that a small number of tankers continue to continue to transit the strait with transponders off, though the waterway looks entirely empty on AIS tracking. War risk insurance is available, if exceptionally expensive, and day rates for tankers are high enough for some owners to justify the risk to their crewmembers and their tonnage. 

That risk appeared to be confirmed Friday when the IRGC Navy claimed to have used a drone to attack the tanker Prima, "due to its disregard for repeated warnings . . . regarding the prohibition of passage." Other IRGC-linked sources have identified the target vessel as the Louis P, a product tanker currently located near Al Jubail. 

The attack has not been confirmed by official sources, but at about the same time, UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported a drone strike on an unnamed vessel at a position about 10 nautical miles to the north of Jubail, Saudi Arabia. The majority of the crew was safely evacuated, and a small number of personnel remain on board. An investigation into the circumstances of the attack is under way. 

The U.S. Maritime Administration has advised vessels to "keep clear" of the strait for now, given the hazard. Most other industry and government bodies have given a less stringent advisory, recommending that owners should make a thorough risk assessment and take appropriate precautions. 

Salvage Tug Reported Attacked Near Straits of Hormuz with Crew Feared Dead

Tug was reported heading to the disable containership Safeen Prestige (Oman News Agency)

Published Mar 6, 2026 11:24 AM by The Maritime Executive

A salvage tug sent to aid one of the vessels that had been attacked in the area around the Straits of Hormuz has apparently been attacked as well. At least several of the crewmembers from the tug were feared killed in a missile attack.

UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said it received a report from a third party of an apparent attack on a tug six nautical miles to the north of Oman. They reported the incident was being investigated.

The tug is being identified by multiple security consultants as the UAE-flagged Mussafah 2. Built in 2012, it is reported to be 134 gross tons with a length of 26 meters (85 feet). The vessel’s AIS has been dark since departing the Mina Zayed port in the United Arab Emirates yesterday.

The tug was believed to be heading to the disabled UAE-controlled containership Safeen Prestige. The vessel was struck on Wednesday and reported an engine room fire while off the coast of Oman.

Vanguard Tech is reporting that the tug was struck by two missiles today while approximately 18 nautical miles from Khasab, Oman. The report says there were eight crew aboard the tug and they are feared killed in the attack. Later in the day, the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization, Arsenio Dominguez, issued a statement that said that "at least four seafarers have reportedly lost their lives and three severely injured," without providing details on the incident. Dominguez called the situation "unacceptable and unsustainable," while noting that "Around 20,000 seafarers remain stranded in the Persian Gulf, onboard ships under heightened risk and considerable mental strain."

There is no official confirmation or statement from the Oman News Agency regarding the incident. On Wednesday, it confirmed that the Omani navy had organized the evacuation of the crew from the Safeen Prestige.

Reports indicate that the tug was also owned by AD Ports, which owns the containership. Dubai has been one of the areas heavily attacked by the Iranians in their revenge efforts in the Gulf.

This was one of several salvage efforts believed to be underway after the Iranians had struck approximately 10 large commercial ships in the Gulf region. VShips, which managed the product tanker MKD Vyom that was attacked earlier in the week, also reported that a salvage tug had been sent to the vessel. It said the tug assisted in putting out the fires, and efforts were underway to move the vessel to a port of refuge. 

THE EPSTEIN CLASS

Trump joins the global Jewish conspiracy

(official White House photo)

John Stoehr

March 09, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

It bears repeating that Donald Trump’s rationale for war against Iran keeps shifting because Trump himself does not believe his own rationales. The goal of this war has little to do with Iran. It has to do with creating conditions in which an old, depleted and unpopular president looks big, tough and loved on American TV.

But there may be a reason outside the president’s fear of defeat in this year’s congressional elections. While he believes that he benefits from the perception of being a war president, it looks like the decision to become one wasn’t entirely his to make.

Early reporting on the war suggested that Israel was going to attack Iran without or without Trump, and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was lobbying him to join the effort. USA Today reported yesterday that Netanyahu decided in November of last year to order a long-planned operation to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Marco Rubio confirmed that reporting on Monday: "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Just so I have this straight in my mind: Trump did not attack Iran in order to stop it from having nukes; in order to stop it from being a global leader in state-sponsored terrorism; in order to liberate the Iranian people; or in order to manifest world peace.

No, the president launched an illegal and unjustified war with Iran because America’s ally, Israel, put him in a no-win situation in which, as one source told the Post over the weekend, “the only debate that seemed to be remaining was whether the US would launch in concert with Israel or if the US would wait until Iran retaliated on US military targets in the region and then engage.”

Trump could have condemned Netanyahu after the fact, but apparently the appeal of being a war president was too great.

If I were the commander-in-chief of the world’s mightiest military, and if I allowed a foreign head of state to lead me around by the nose, I would also come up with a couple dozen reasons for going to war with Iran, no matter how unconvincing those reasons may be, because I would be highly motivated to draw attention away from the view that I’m not entirely in charge.

I mean, Trump can’t even take credit for Khamenei’s death. Pete Hegseth told reporters the Israeli strikes killed him Saturday. The only “credit” he can claim is having followed Netanyahu’s lead.

That it appears the decision to attack Iran was Netanyahu’s more than it was Trump’s is going to be a problem, most immediately because of the outcry in the Congress. If Trump was not acting in self-defense, and clearly he was not, then this war against Iran is a war of choice, which requires the consent of the Congress. Trump is going to be forced to explain himself, thus risking being held accountable for the spike in goods and oil prices, Tuesday’s sell-off on Wall Street and general chaos in the Middle East.

(According to journalist Steve Herman, the State Department told Americans to “immediately leave 16 countries and territories: Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, West Bank and Yemen.” NBC News reported that the mandatory orders are coming despite many airports in the region being shuttered. In Qatar, Americans who can’t get out were advised that “should not rely on the US government for assisted departure or evacuation.”)

The White House’s best rationale for war seems to be that the US was forced to attack Iran, because Iran was forced to defend itself against Israel’s attack. Such a rationale is not going to fly with most of the Congress, including many maga Republicans. That’s why Trump lied Tuesday. He said Netanyahu didn’t force my hand. I forced his. According to Kaitlan Collins, he said “it was his opinion that Iran was going to attack first if the US didn't.”

For the lie to work, however, he needs the full faith of maga. He needs the base to trust him enough to play along. To do that, he must affirm his dominance. If supporters believe he’s Netanyahu’s puppet, however, such displays of dominance will seem empty and hollow to his own people, thus creating problems much bigger than abstract debates in the Congress over war powers.

To understand the problem he has created for himself, bear in mind the true nature of America First, which has been largely sanitized by the Washington press corps. It is not rooted in high-minded principles like freedom and national sovereignty. It is rooted in conspiracy theory and antisemitism, which are often provided a veneer of respectability by rightwing intellectuals and gullible reporters. Peel away the noble-sounding language, however, about nation-builders “intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” as Trump said last year, and what you find at the center of America First is an unshakeable belief in a global Jewish conspiracy against America.

This belief in a global Jewish conspiracy against America was the foundation beneath the push to release the Epstein files during Trump’s 2024 campaign. The belief took on a slightly different form, but the animus was the same. Trump was supposed to have been the hero sent by God to fulfill a prophecy to save America from a secret cabal of powerful Jews who sex-trafficked young girls to untouchable elites. In maga lore, Jeffrey Epstein came to represent this shadowy, malevolent syndicate. Once reelected, Trump was supposed to bring them all to justice. When he didn’t, he triggered a crisis of faith that can be registered in recent polling that lumps him in with the rest of the “wealthy elites” who act with impunity for the law – the so-called “Epstein class.”

The Times reported Tuesday on the growing uproar within the maga movement over the possibility that Netanyahu said “jump” and Trump asked “how high?” Some of the most invested maga personalities, men like Jack Posobiec, told the Times that divisions can be overcome and lingering doubts will only be relevant to future candidates to lead the maga movement.

If supporters believed Trump betrayed principles, Posobiec might be right, as they don’t really care about principles. Supporters could shift from anti-war to pro-war as seamlessly as Trump does. But what Posobiec is ignoring, because it’s in his interest to ignore it, is that America First is not rooted in high-minded principles. It’s rooted in Jew-hate. Supporters are not going to warm up to the appearance of an American president seeming to take orders from the leader of a Jewish state. Instead, they might see Trump doing to believers in America First what he has done to supporters who demanded the release of the Epstein files.

Again, this is why the president lied Tuesday. In an attempt to assert dominance, he said he was the one to force Netanyahu’s hand, not the other way around. That might have worked – the base might have trusted him enough to play along with the lie – but for his already established betrayal in the Epstein case. With Iran, he has now compounded maga’s crisis of faith. He must contend with the growing suspicion that instead of destroying the global Jewish conspiracy against America, he has joined it.

'Clearly there’s a coverup': Evidence mounts against Epstein’s suicide

Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are seen in this image released by the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., U.S., on December 19, 2025. (U.S. Justice Department/Handout)

Adam Lynch 

March 09, 2026 

ALTERNET

No matter how many times President Donald Trump “starts illegal wars and engages in military strikes, it will never be enough to make people forget that he was best friends with the world’s most notorious pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein,” argued Left Hook publisher Wajahat Ali.

Ali joined forces with television producer and Epstein documentary creator Zev Shalev and Blue Amp Media editor Ellie Leonard as they discussed new information posted in the Miami Herald incriminating prison guards in covering up the alleged murder of convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Both the New York Medical Examiner and the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Epstein died by suicide, but a forensic pathologist hired by Epstein’s estate to attend the autopsy, has said he Epstein’s injuries look more similar to strangulation than suicide.


However, new information from the Herald by Epstein researcher Julie K. Brown suggests prison guards discussed covering up Epstein’s death, according to FBI conversation with a fellow inmate.

“An inmate housed at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York told the FBI he overheard guards talking about covering up Jeffrey Epstein’s death on the morning he died,” reports the Herald. “The federal government’s online Epstein library contains a five-page handwritten report of an FBI interview with an inmate who awoke the morning of Aug. 10, 2019 to the loud commotion in the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, where he and Epstein were jailed.”

“… [C]learly there's a cover up. Clearly the DOJ has been covering up for the president of the United States,” said Shalev. “That is a scandal of huge, mammoth proportions. … We can't have that. We can't have a president of the United States facing allegations, multiple allegations of raping young girls and then still being a sitting president as the DOJ covers up for him. I mean, it's just unacceptable. It's untenable for any regime.”

Shalev told Ali that the circumstances under which Epstein died had far too many holes not to draw suspicion.

“How did [the guard Tova Noel] have time … to do all these searches, but then didn't have time to do the regular 30-minute checks on the prisoner that she was meant to do because she had fallen asleep? I mean, one of these things doesn't add up. Either the guards fell asleep or they were so distracted doing searches, but their job is to do regular check-ins on the prisoner, and they didn't do that. For… a whole night.”

“And then she gets this mysterious $5,000 check or whatever it is — payment that she gets. No one knows where she's from. She's just a prison guard.

The Herald reported a five-page handwritten report in the federal government’s online Epstein library, consisting of an FBI interview with an inmate who awoke the morning of Aug. 10, 2019 to a loud commotion in the Special Housing Unit where he and Epstein were held.

“Breathe! Breathe!” he recalled officers shouting about 6:30 a.m., according to the Herald, followed by an officer saying: “Dudes, you killed that dude.”

The inmate then heard a female guard reply “If he is dead, we’re going to cover it up and he’s going to have an alibi -- my officers,” according to the FBI notes. The inmate claimed the whole wing overheard the exchange.

Later, after learning Epstein had died, inmate claimed other inmates said “Miss Noel killed Jeffrey.”

“It's not common for her to get these $5,000 infusions of cash. And obviously the whole thing stinks,” said Shalev. “I mean, with the circumstantial evidence it’s hard to see how he committed suicide there. It's hard to see.”

Bombshell investigation verifies key details in 13-year-old Trump accuser's story

Alexander Willis
March 9, 2026 



Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Key details in the account of a woman who’s accused President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her when she was a minor were verified Sunday in an explosive investigation conducted by The Post and Courier.

The woman first came forward to the FBI following the 2019 arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, and was interviewed by the agency four separate times. A Justice Department source told the Miami Herald that the woman was found credible by the agency, the outlet reported.

In her interviews with the FBI, the woman accused Epstein and at least two other associates, including Trump, of sexual assault when she was 13. She accused Trump of sexually assaulting her, pulling her hair and punching her in the head sometime in the mid-1980s.

While details of her specific allegations against Trump were not further verified by The Post and Courier, other details she provided the FBI were, giving further credence to her account.

Details verified by The Post and Courier include the fact that her mother had rented a home to Epstein in South Carolina. The outlet also verified details of another associate of Epstein’s that she accused of sexually assaulting her, an Ohio businessman that she said was "affiliated with a Cincinnati-based college,” and whom the outlet confirmed was a member of a for-profit school.

The woman also accused Epstein of possessing nude photographs of her as a minor and extorting her mother for money to keep them secret, which she said led her mother to begin stealing money. The Post and Courier confirmed that the mother had been charged with stealing $22,000 from the real estate firm she worked for.

The woman’s identity was verified by The Post and Courier by cross referencing details of her account with various public records and old news clippings, though the outlet declined to name her, and both she and her attorney declined to comment on the report.

Due to the sheer volume of Epstein-related materials released by the DOJ, many of the documents contain unverified, uncorroborated allegations that do not constitute evidence, and do not establish wrongdoing. Trump is not facing any criminal charges or investigations related to the allegation.

A dark web of influence: Brexit, the hard-right and why the Epstein mentions matter

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead

7 March, 2026 

Right-Wing Watch

Left Foot Forward

If Epstein’s networks helped broker access or funding for political movements, it’s a matter of public concern. These aren’t insinuations, but a matter of accountability, and in the unresolved story of Brexit, accountability remains in short supply.

When the latest tranche of documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein was released earlier this year, much of the British reaction focused on familiar establishment names, notably Peter Mandelson and former Prince Andrew. Given the seriousness of the allegations surrounding them, that scrutiny is understandable.

But the spotlight has been too narrow.

Buried within the correspondence and contact lists are connections that reach into Britain’s hard-right networks and intersect with the political forces that drove Brexit. Yet, these connections have largely been overlooked or ignored by mainstream media.

Epstein was not merely a disgraced financier cultivating proximity to power, he was enthusiastic about Britain’s departure from the EU and celebrated the nationalist turn in Western politics.

Inclusion in Epstein’s files does not, in itself, imply wrongdoing. Yet the context of those mentions, the political projects being discussed, the money being courted, and the alliances being enriched, is a matter of public interest.

If the disclosures are to mean anything beyond lurid scandal, they must prompt a broader examination of how wealth, influence and political power intervene in modern Britain.

Brexit as “just the beginning”

Among the material are emails in which Epstein discusses Brexit with tech billionaire Peter Thiel. In one exchange, Epstein describes Britain’s vote to leave the European Union as “just the beginning,” heralding a “return to tribalism,” a “counter to globalisation,” and the forging of “amazing new alliances.”

Such remarks suggest that Brexit was viewed in certain elite circles not merely as a domestic democratic event, but as part of a broader ideological realignment across the West.

Thiel’s footprint in the UK has grown steadily in recent years. As Left Foot Forwardreported in 2022, his data analytics firm Palantir Technologies secured multiple UK government contracts during the pandemic and has undertaken extensive work with the Ministry of Defence, including a £10 million contract in March 2022 for data integration and management.

A report by Byline Times described a “Thiel network” seeking to influence debates around free speech in academia, and part of a broader effort to normalise anti-liberal ideas among British intellectuals and policymakers.

Some figures linked to these debates, including right-wing commentator Douglas Murray and a British Anglican priest and life peer Nigel Biggar, who regularly rages against ‘woke’ culture, have also been associated with initiatives such as the Free Speech Union, founded by perennial culture warrior, Toby Young.

Thiel’s influence also extends through his Thiel Fellowship programme, which has backed entrepreneurs including Christian Owens, founder of the UK payments “unicorn” Paddle.

None of this proves a coordinated “Thiel–Epstein Brexit plot,” but it does point to something subtler, and arguably more consequential. As the New World observed in an analysis about the Epstein files and the Brexit connection, “while millions voted Leave to strike back at a remote elite, parts of that same elite were calmly gaming out how the resulting disorder might be useful to them.”

That tension alone warrants scrutiny.

Nigel Farage and Steve Bannon



The Reform UK leader appears dozens of times in the Epstein files, though many references reportedly stem from duplicated email chains or attached news articles. Farage has denied ever meeting or speaking with Epstein.

Yet the context in which his name arises is important.

Steve Bannon, a former White House chief strategist to Donald Trump, described brilliantly by the New World’s Steve Anglesey as “the sweaty MAGA insider/outsider who once fancied himself a Brexit architect and dreamed of setting up a pan-European far right movement that would ultimately destroy the EU,” appears in thousands of exchanges with Epstein. In one message, Bannon boasts about his relationship with Farage. In another, he writes: “I’ve gotten pulled into the Brexit thing this morning with Nigel, Boris and Rees Mogg.”

The correspondence shows Bannon attempting to tap Epstein for support and funding to bolster far-right movements in Europe. He discussed raising money for figures such as Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini and France’s Marine Le Pen, showing the transnational nature of these networks.

Again, mention does not equal misconduct, but when a financier later exposed as a serial abuser is simultaneously being courted as a potential backer of nationalist political movements, the public is entitled to ask questions about access, influence and intent.

Tommy Robinson and the “backbone of England”

The files also contain references to UK far-right activist, Tommy Robinson.

Bannon has never shied away from sharing his support for Robinson. At the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference, when on stage with Liz Truss, he described the founder of the English Defence League as a “hero” and Truss appeared to agree with him. “That is correct,” she said.

When Robinson was released from prison in 2018, Epstein messaged Bannon: “Tommy Robinson. !! good work.” Bannon responded: “Thanks.”

In July 2019, after Epstein shared an article reporting Robinson’s contempt of court conviction for live-streaming defendants in a child sexual exploitation trial, Bannon replied by calling Robinson the “backbone of England.”

The significance here is not that Robinson appears in correspondence, but that discussions around him sit within a wider ecosystem, that is wealthy financiers, American political strategists and European nationalist figures exchanging messages about funding, media and mobilisation.

Nick Candy, Reform UK and transatlantic links

Nick Candy, luxury property mogul and now treasurer of Reform UK, is also mentioned numerous times in the files, in discussions that appear to concern the potential sale of Epstein’s New York mansion.

In 2024, Candy left the Conservative Party to join Reform. He later attended a strategy meeting at Trump’s Florida residence alongside Farage and tech billionaire Elon Musk. All three men appear within the tranche of documents released by the Department of Justice.

Some messages reference Candy in connection with Ghislaine Maxwell, though the full context of those exchanges remain partially redacted – we’ll come on to redaction shortly.

The files also reveal previously underreported contact between Musk and Epstein in 2012 and 2013, including discussions about a possible visit to Epstein’s private island. The visit does not appear to have taken place.
Like Bannon, Musk has actively involved himself in European politics. He has repeatedly got into spats with politicians including Keir Starmer.

“Civil war is inevitable” … “Britain is going full Stalin”… “The people of Britain have had enough of a tyrannical police state,” are just some of his comments on X in recent years.

And he’s used his own platform X to amplify voices on the right and far-right online, including sending a heart emoji to Tommy Robinson, who said Musk had funded his defence for a charge related to counter-terrorism law.

“A HUGE THANK YOU to @elonmusk today. Legend,” Robinson wrote.

It bears repeating, appearing in Epstein’s files does not establish criminality. Guilt by association is not journalism, nor is it justice.

But context is not smearing, it’s scrutiny. Examining who communicated with whom, how often, and in what capacity is a legitimate part of understanding how power operates.

There’s also the question of redaction. Many of the documents released have been heavily blacked out, names, photographs, email addresses and other identifying details obscured. In sensitive criminal cases, redaction is both necessary and appropriate, particularly to protect victims.

In some instances in the Epstein files, the reasons are obvious. Yet, as the Conversation has observed, “the absence of any reason for the redaction has simply added fuel to the fire, with spectators filling in the blanks themselves.” When transparency is partial and unexplained, it can deepen suspicion rather than resolve it.

The public release of the Epstein files was presented as a milestone for transparency. Instead, it has prompted further questions: about how sensitive material was handled, about the criteria used to withhold information, and about the extent of Epstein’s connections to powerful political figures, including figures on the far-right in the UK. If Epstein’s networks provided introductions, cross-border access, or even financial pathways into political movements, that is a matter of legitimate public interest.

More broadly, the scandal raises structural concerns. What channels enable wealthy outsiders to cultivate influence across government, academia and media? How rigorously are those relationships scrutinised? And what safeguards exist to ensure political outcomes are not quietly shaped by individuals whose interests diverge sharply from the public good?

These are not questions of insinuation, but of accountability, and in the unresolved story of Brexit, accountability remains in short supply.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Misogyny, Epstein and Reform’s cultural agenda

Claire Jones 

6 March, 2026

From Epstein’s web to Reform’s proposed raft of policy ideas, creeping misogyny now risks redefining women’s rights in Britain  

Pampered by the press as ‘the next government in waiting’, Reform continues to poll strongly. We’re familiar with how the party fosters racism through its hostile rhetoric and flagship immigration stance, but its ubiquitous misogyny receives less attention. A Reform win at the next general election will be partly because enough people either didn’t know, or didn’t care, about its views on females. For International Women’s Day, I’d like to explore these views through the lens of the Epstein files.

The octopus

The web of Epstein’s influence, in all its vast complexity, is now coming into full view, like a multi-armed, gigantic octopus being lifted from the seabed. We’re seeing Epstein the enabler, matchmaker, wheel-oiler, and co-ordinator extraordinaire in a multidimensional kleptocratic network of corporate, political, cultural and sexual interest.

You’d need a 3-D modeller to trace the complex inter-connections he orchestrated between climate denialists, fossil fuel industries, political lobbyists (Brexit, the Kremlin) the tech broligarchy, racists, eugenicists, Israeli intelligence, and more, all whilst supplying a deadly pipeline of women and child victims to the depraved subculture he cultivated. It’s all coalescing into one repulsive integrated whole.

Network participation is layered like an onion with peripheral involvement shading into roles that have varying degrees of knowledge and whistle blowing capacity on Epstein’s darkest activities. We may never know all the players or precisely which layers Epstein’s UK friends occupied. But only the outer layer is free of guilt by association of colluding with a monster.

Creeping patriarchy

The island of Little Saint James was the black heart of Epstein’s misogyny, but the objectification and dehumanisation of females there was driven by a culture of extreme patriarchy – the presumed superiority and dominance by males over females. Patriarchal attitudes are tightly embedded in far-right thinking and are central to viewpoints such as Christo-fascism where they fuse with Christianity, authoritarianism and white, right-wing nationalism.

This regressive ideology lurks in Project 2025, in the Christian nationalism of JD Vance, Stephen Miller and in far-right parties across central and eastern Europe. It calls for a return to a traditional Christian heterosexual, patriarchal family model in which the primary responsibilities of females are homemaking, procreation and subservience to the male family head. For ‘guidance’, listen to pastor Dale Partridge’s homily on, amongst other things, why a women’s vote must never cancel her husband’s.

Handmaids UK

Extreme patriarchy is also spreading its tentacles in the UK via organisations such as Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). Linked to the right-wing think tank Legatum, ARC emphasises traditional gender roles and women’s duties as breeders.

Patriarchy is very much alive and kicking within Reform. Its intrepidly retrograde Christian nationalist policy creators, James Orr, Danny Kruger and Matthew Goodwin, are currently defining Reform’s cultural agenda in patriarchal terms straight from the wider Christo-fascist comfort zones they share.

Orr opposes abortion in all cases and pushes the pro-natalist policy of families having more children “to boost birth rates”. Kruger, also a keen pro-natalist, personally supports the reversal of no-fault divorce. He wants a ‘reset to sexual culture’ and challenges the rights of pregnant women to ‘absolute bodily autonomy’. Goodwin wants a “biological reality check” for girls and tax increases for childless couples.

Securing the property

Goodwin recently opined that the “sexual exploitation of women and girls is because of open borders”. This devious but false claim uses a supposed threat to females s to attack the liberal left, but arguably, also suggests unspoken proprietorship – we must ‘protect our women and girls’ to end foreign interference with our property.

In an equally stunning patriarchal vein, Farage, who endorsed Andrew Tate as an “important voice”, describes men as ‘more willing than women to sacrifice family life for career’, and objects to the 24 week abortion limit as “ludicrous”.

To enshrine women’s demotion to second class citizens, Reform has pledged to drop the 2010 Equalities Act which provides legal recourse for maternity leave, sexual assault, domestic abuse and employment discrimination. Reform also plans to ditch the ECHR thus thwarting its use by women as another court of appeal. You can hear the sound of doors closing.

All these narratives call for controls on women’s mental, physical and developmental freedom and autonomy and constitute a clear attack on women’s rights.

‘But’, the Reform curious wail, ‘we want change – migrants and Labour must be punished and removed. So, we’ll take the US route and ignore Reform’s misogyny as non-serious, or too unpopular to survive’. Left-leaning progressives join the dismissive fray, insisting that culturally, Britain has moved on from this hopelessly backward-facing misogyny.

Yet Reform is unashamedly pushing back with their patriarchal narratives. Why?

One reason is sheer manospheric arrogance combined with the belligerence of a party looking set for power – the macho ‘just try stopping us’ mindset.

Another is that Reform’s ideas are still camouflaged. ‘Resetting sexual culture’ could mean any number of abuses of women’s rights once Reform is in power, but, for now, can be trained on DEI and LGBTQ issues which reverberate with the right-wing electorate. Similarly, ‘reversing no-fault divorce’ is just Kruger’s “personal view” – for now. Farage’s abortion concerns only imply the need for minor tweaking – for now. And pro-natalism links nicely with great replacement anxieties whilst sounding mildly patriotic – heroic Brits can keep non-whites at bay by breeding more.

The ambiguity of Reform’s statements provides space for moderation whilst simultaneously positioning the party for much more full-throated future iterations of misogynist ideas. Orr’s advice that Reform should “hold its cards close to its chest” and keep certain operations under wraps before entering government reminds us that the party’s position isn’t static.

Human shields

Reform can challenge accusations of misogyny by pointing to women in its senior party roles. But this defence has no more clout than Trump trying to deny his own blatant misogyny but listing the fawning Barbie doll chatbots in his administration. Arguably, women in Reform are serving, like Reform’s non-white cabinet members, as useful pre-election human shields for a party that’s essentially riddled with racist and misogynistic elements.

The misogynist attitudes driving Reform are reason alone for women across the political spectrum to heed what supporting Reform might mean for them, and to recognise what a dangerous backward step it would be.

But we should also recognise that Reform’s misogyny sets a cultural tone of readiness for Epsteinian abuse by providing a direct pathway from regressive, patriarchal policies to sexual exploitation.

Epstein’s network reveals how the corrupting influence of power is a gateway drug for depravity. With excess power, whether as elites or via the privileges of patriarchy, players disengage from norms and stray further afield. Favours, financial rewards and the secrecy of illicit deals create useful bonds for kompromat and further corruption.

Epstein’s network is a forum for experimentation and risk taking, both financially and morally. ‘Getting away with it’ by stepping beyond legal red lines is a self-substantiating way for the patriarchal order to continually reassert control, dominance and virility. The Trump regime’s coercion of leaders and nations, like the abuses on Epstein’s island, are all ways of exercising the same male supremacist drive across different spheres. Epstein’s sex traffickers and guests parallel Trump’s sadistic geopolitical harassment of Greenland and Volodymyr Zelenskyy – ‘you will suffer (more) if you disobey’.

Life support machines

Reform policy is being forged against a transnational backdrop of extreme patriarchy. This framework is the quiet kick-off for Epstein’s darker world.

The research is clear that patriarchal conceptions of women’s role are intimately linked with sexual abuse. Patriarchal values are ingrained in power dynamics, gender hierarchy, and societal norms which drive gender-based iniquities and contribute to the perpetuation of sexual violence (Murnen et al, 2002; Spencer et al, 2023; Trottier et al, 2019).

The Epstein files are strewn with heinous crimes against females, including “sexual slavery, reproductive violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and femicide”. It’s a world in which, as Virginia Giuffre’s memoir testifies, women and children are discardable commodities and legitimacy is given to ‘those who get high on making others suffer’.

The determination of Reform’s policy setters to weaken the infrastructure underpinning women’s equality and rights over their own bodies, once realised, risks dehumanising and corralling women back into their historical dual roles of procreation and sexual pleasure. Projects like pronatalism come together with Epstein in the perception of females as essentially abusable life support machines for babies and vaginas.

I’m not, for a moment, implying that Kruger and co indulge in Epsteinean depravity. But I am asserting that he, along with Goodwin, Farage and other Reform policy creators, are re-positioning society in ways that orientate male thinking towards a future of increased sexual abuse.

Pushback vs forward movement

We should be as deeply alarmed by Reform’s misogynist elements as we are by its racist tendencies, climate denialism and attacks on workers. Women are directly affected because Reform potentially poses an acute, existential threat directly to them.

Epstein was not an aberration. Both he and Reform’s policy makers are hitching a ride with a far more ancient, long-standing misogynistic mindset spanning human history. Reform is part of a clamour across the global far right to push back against threats to white male supremacy. If Reform wins power, regressive misogyny risks being normalised again, encouraging chauvinist males to push boundaries ever further, taking advantage of new norms and tolerance levels.

The issue is not about whether parliament would retain the power of veto over the roll out of Reform’s misogynist policies. It’s about how dangerous it is even to give these ideas any traction in the first place by letting Reform win power. These are not battles that 21st century Britain, as a supposed beacon of human rights, should be having. Women must come together on International Women’s Day and beyond to halt this menace.

This article was first published on the Bearly Politics Substack on 4 March 2026