博客

A landmark preliminary peace agreement between the United States and Iran that halted a months-long devastating conflict across the Middle East hit an immediate snag this week, after Washington confirmed that high-level final talks scheduled in Switzerland have been postponed due to unresolvable logistical challenges. The delay came just one day after the leaders of both nations signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), a 14-point framework that pauses hostilities and lays the groundwork for a permanent end to the war that broke out in late February 2026.

US Vice President JD Vance, who was set to lead the American negotiating delegation to Switzerland, will not travel as planned, the White House announced late Thursday, noting that logistics for the summit had proven far from “simple or predictable” amid the complex, fast-moving diplomatic process.

The preliminary deal, signed separately by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday, marks the official end to open military conflict that has upended regional stability, crippled energy markets, and caused widespread humanitarian damage across the Middle East. The framework establishes a path to restore open commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the critical Persian Gulf chokepoint that handles roughly 20% of global oil supplies, which had been effectively blocked by Iran since the outbreak of hostilities. That blockade triggered a sharp surge in global crude prices in the months following the war’s start.

Within hours of the MoU’s signing, the first wave of commercial shipping resumed: three Saudi-flagged supertankers completed transits through the strait by Thursday morning. Under the terms of the memorandum, Iran will guarantee toll-free safe passage for all commercial vessels through the waterway for the 60-day negotiating window, but the long-term status of shipping fees remains a major unresolved point of disagreement. Trump told The New York Times over the weekend that the final agreement would lock in a permanent toll-free arrangement, but Iranian officials announced Thursday that they plan to introduce transit fees for long-term operations. The MoU itself offers only vague guidance, requiring Iran to negotiate future regulatory frameworks with Oman and other Gulf littoral states in line with international law and the sovereign rights of coastal nations.

The deal also outlines a series of economic concessions to Iran, whose economy has been crippled by decades of US sanctions compounded by a US naval blockade on exports imposed after the war began. Per the MoU’s terms, the US began dismantling its naval blockade on Friday morning, with full withdrawal of blockading forces scheduled for 30 days after the preliminary deal was signed. The framework also commits the US to lift all existing sanctions on Iran — including multilateral UN and IAEA sanctions, as well as Washington’s unilateral primary and secondary sanctions — as part of a final agreement, and to unlock billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen by the US, some dating back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

One of the most contentious sticking points surrounding economic relief is the proposed $300 billion reconstruction and development fund for Iran outlined in the MoU. Initial statements from Vice President Vance suggested the US would lead the funding effort, but senior administration officials have since walked that pledge back. Vance clarified Monday that the US would instead invite third countries to contribute to the fund, and Trump doubled down on that position Tuesday, telling reporters the US would not invest “ten cents” in Iranian reconstruction.

On the regional security front, the MoU requires an immediate and permanent end to all military operations across all fronts, including Lebanon, where Israel has expanded its invasion of southern Lebanon to disarm the Iran-aligned Hezbollah movement since March. The agreement commits both the US and Iran to upholding Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, but it makes no mention of Israel, which currently occupies roughly one-fifth of southern Lebanon and has continued airstrikes that have killed more than 3,000 people since March, even after the MoU was signed. A senior US official confirmed Friday that Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to a new ceasefire, but top Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected the US-Iran deal, saying it does not bind their government and that they will not withdraw from occupied Lebanese territory until Hezbollah is fully disarmed. Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said Monday that the agreement does not meet Israel’s security requirements, and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed this week that Israeli forces would remain indefinitely in self-declared “security zones” across Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. Trump publicly criticized Israel’s conduct in Lebanon during a G7 summit Tuesday, marking a clear rift with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that Israel had fought in Lebanon for “too long” and that unnecessary civilian casualties from widespread bombing were unacceptable.

The most consequential unresolved security issues, including the status of Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile arsenal, have been deliberately deferred to the 60-day negotiating period outlined in the MoU, with the window extendable by mutual consent of both parties. The US has long alleged that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is evidence of a covert nuclear weapons program, a claim Iran has consistently denied — a denial explicitly reaffirmed in the preliminary agreement. Currently, Iran holds uranium enriched to roughly 70%, a level far higher than the 5% needed for civilian energy production, but still below the 90% enrichment required for nuclear weapons. The MoU only requires that the two sides negotiate a mutually acceptable framework for managing the stockpile as part of a final deal. US officials have proposed exporting the stockpile to a third country, a step Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has reportedly already ruled out.

Notably, the MoU makes no mention of limiting Iran’s ballistic missile program — a core stated war objective for the US when hostilities began. At the war’s start, Trump justified US intervention by warning that Iran’s arsenal of more than 3,000 ballistic missiles, the largest in the Middle East, could soon reach the US mainland. But this week, Trump shifted his stance, telling reporters that if other regional powers possess ballistic missiles, it is unfair to deny Iran the same capability, adding that “missiles are not the problem” in terms of global catastrophic risk.

The agreement also formally abandons the long-rumored US and Israeli goal of regime change in Tehran. The MoU explicitly requires both nations to respect each other’s sovereignty and refrain from interference in internal affairs. At the G7 summit this week, Trump claimed he “never cared about regime change” in Iran, praising the current Iranian leadership, which took power after a US-Israeli airstrike killed longtime Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in February. “I think they’re very smart, I think they’re far less radicalised; I think they’re good,” Trump said, adding “Frankly, I think that’s regime change.” The statement marked a sharp reversal from Trump’s address on the first day of the war, when he called on the Iranian people to overthrow the clerical government and declared “the hour of your freedom is at hand.”

All remaining outstanding issues will be negotiated over the next 60 days, and any final peace agreement will be codified in a binding United Nations Security Council resolution, per the MoU’s terms.

In a political earthquake that has upended Britain’s domestic political landscape, former Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has secured a landslide victory in the Makerfield constituency by-election, catapulting him directly into position as the clear frontrunner to become the United Kingdom’s next prime minister.

Burnham’s stunning win in the early hours of Friday defied every recent political trend in the northern, working-class dominated seat. Just one month prior, Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK had delivered a crushing blow to Labour in Makerfield during local elections, opening a 20-point lead over the incumbent party. Against all polling expectations, however, Burnham captured 55% of the by-election vote to Reform’s 35%, handing the insurgent right-wing party its second high-profile by-election defeat of 2025, following a second-place finish behind the Greens in the Gorton and Denton contest in February.

This double defeat seriously undermines Reform’s core narrative that a Farage-led government is an inevitable outcome of the next general election. Political analysts now agree that Burnham’s victory has shifted the entire trajectory of British party politics.

Within the Parliamentary Labour Party, Burnham already commands widespread popularity, with dozens of MPs now viewing him as Labour’s best chance to secure a stable majority in the next election. Polling on his impact is split: some analysts predict his leadership would boost Labour’s national support by multiple percentage points, while others argue the shift would be more modest, and leave Labour still neck-and-neck with Reform.

The path to Downing Street for Burnham is already laid out in Labour Party rulebook. To trigger a leadership challenge against incumbent Prime Minister Keir Starmer, he only needs the public backing of 81 Labour MPs, plus support from 5% of local Labour party branches or three party-affiliated groups, including at least two major trade unions. A challenge would then proceed to a membership-wide vote. If Starmer chooses to resign voluntarily, Burnham could even secure an uncontested “coronation” to the leadership.

Notably, Burnham’s inner circle has actively discouraged junior ministers from resigning en masse to force Starmer out, a dramatic escalation that would risk splitting the party. Instead, the frontrunner prefers to give Starmer space to announce a voluntary timetable for stepping down. A senior anonymous campaign source quoted by The Guardian noted: “If they’re trying to force Keir’s hand with a kamikaze approach it will ultimately be counterproductive.”

If Starmer steps aside, Burnham could be sworn in as prime minister within a matter of weeks. But multiple Westminster sources confirm the incumbent prime minister remains determined to hold onto his position, and is prepared to fight any leadership challenge head-on. Still, few political insiders in Westminster believe Starmer can survive the current momentum behind Burnham, with many already describing him as a “dead man walking.”

A shortened, accelerated leadership contest lasting only a few weeks is also a likely outcome, which could see Burnham face off against Starmer and former Health Secretary Wes Streeting. While Streeting’s allies claim he has already secured the required 81 MP nominations to get on the ballot, polling consistently shows he is far less popular with rank-and-file Labour members than even Starmer, let alone Burnham.

Politically, Burnham is positioned on the soft left of the Labour Party, and is often described as a pragmatic politician who has adjusted his policy stances over his decades in public life. During his tenure as Greater Manchester mayor, he and his allies developed a distinct economic philosophy dubbed “Manchesterism,” which he now proposes to roll out nationally. The framework calls for a far more interventionist approach to the UK economy than Starmer’s cautious platform: it is not full socialism, but represents a clear break from four decades of privatization and centralized political control. In Burnham’s own words, Manchesterism is a “modern and functional response to the high-inequality, low-growth trap that came from the 1980s drive to privatise economic power and overcentralise political power in the Treasury.” He has already publicly committed to bringing water and energy utilities back into public ownership if he takes office.

Still, open questions remain about what version of Burnham would govern as prime minister. During the by-election campaign, he signaled he would retain key planks of Starmer’s policy agenda, most notably the current government’s aggressive push to cut net immigration levels. This pivot is widely interpreted as an attempt to win over working-class voters who have drifted to Reform in recent years, but it has already become a key point of attack for the Green Party, which has seen a major surge in national support under Starmer’s leadership.

While the Greens captured just 0.7% of the vote in Makerfield, political analysts note the party has never prioritized the constituency, focusing its resources instead on the upcoming Manchester mayoral race, where they believe they have a credible shot at victory. In last month’s local elections, the Greens actually inflicted more damage on Labour’s vote share across the country than Reform did, a fact Burnham and his team are acutely aware of. Some of Burnham’s left-leaning economic policies could help win back disaffected Green-leaning voters, but foreign policy and immigration remain major flashpoints.

Green Party co-deputy leader Mothin Ali publicly criticized Burnham on Friday over his immigration stance and his refusal during the campaign to label Israeli military actions in Gaza as genocide. Burnham largely avoided discussing foreign policy during the by-election, with internal Labour sources confirming he and his team believed the issue would not help him win over Makerfield voters. But if he wants to win over the Labour membership, which overwhelmingly supports stronger action to address the crisis in Gaza, he will be forced to take a clearer stance on the issue. A shift toward a stronger condemnation of Israeli military actions would also help him undercut the Greens and win back left-wing voters who have abandoned Labour in recent years.

Political events are expected to move rapidly over the coming week, and many outcomes remain uncertain at this stage. It remains unclear whether Burnham will move quickly to claim the premiership, whether a prolonged public leadership contest will unfold, or whether Starmer will ultimately concede that his time as leader has come to an end. What is certain, however, is that the United Kingdom’s political landscape will be fundamentally reshaped by the outcome of the Makerfield by-election, regardless of what comes next.

Tensions between the U.S. government and Israeli leadership have escalated sharply this week, after Vice President JD Vance delivered a blunt public warning to Israeli officials: President Donald Trump is the only major world leader still sympathetic to their cause, and they risk damaging their most critical security partnership by attacking the newly signed U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU).

Speaking at a White House press briefing Thursday, Vance pushed back against fierce Israeli criticism of the draft agreement, which includes a reported $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran and paves the way for 60 days of formal negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program and relief from international economic sanctions. The MoU, which aims to end months of open conflict between the two nations, has sparked widespread outrage across Israel’s political spectrum, with many leaders arguing the deal effectively grants Tehran a major strategic victory.

Vance laid out a clear two-part message for Israeli cabinet members considering continued public opposition. “Number 1: Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” he told reporters. “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

Israeli officials have also voiced particular anger over provisions in the MoU that require an immediate end to Israel’s ongoing war in Lebanon, with multiple senior figures saying they will refuse to comply with the terms. Itamar Ben Gvir, Israel’s far-right national security minister, has been one of the deal’s most vocal opponents, insisting Israeli forces will maintain their presence in occupied southern Lebanese territory indefinitely. In an interview with *The New York Times*, Vance pushed back against hardline positions from Ben Gvir and fellow far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, questioning their alternative approach to long-term security. “What is your exact proposal? You’re a country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said.

The political confrontation comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu navigates a challenging path ahead of scheduled October national elections, as he works to shore up sagging approval ratings for his ruling coalition. During a press conference Monday, Netanyahu claimed Israel had secured decisive victories in all recent conflicts across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. He also doubled down on his government’s 2025 and 2022 pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, arguing that inaction would have allowed Tehran to develop a functional nuclear weapon.

Vance reminded Israeli leaders of the depth of U.S. security support that has sustained their country for decades, noting that roughly two-thirds of the defensive military equipment Israel relies on for national protection are manufactured in the United States and funded by American taxpayer dollars. “The problem for Israel is not Donald Trump, and anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in,” he added.

Uncertainty already hangs over the next phase of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. The first formal negotiating session, scheduled for Friday in Switzerland, has been postponed indefinitely, with the White House announcing late Thursday that Vice President Vance would not attend the upcoming round of direct talks, citing unresolvable “logistical complications” that made the trip unfeasible.

Fresh violence on Friday has further complicated prospects for a peaceful resolution, as Israel launched new air strikes across southern and eastern Lebanon. Lebanese official counts confirm 18 civilians and combatants were killed in the strikes, while Hezbollah carried out one of its deadliest attacks of the entire conflict, killing four Israeli soldiers including a senior battalion commander. The sudden escalation has reinforced fears that the ceasefire called for in the U.S.-Iran MoU could collapse before formal negotiations even get underway.

A controversial UK Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the government’s ban on the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action has drawn fierce criticism from legal experts and civil society campaigners, who warn the decision dangerously expands the country’s already broad terrorism definition and undermines long-protected rights to peaceful protest.

The ruling, delivered Monday by a five-judge appellate panel, overturned an earlier February 2025 High Court judgment that had struck down the proscription of Palestine Action as unlawful on three key grounds. The lower court had found that then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper violated her own government’s proscription policies when she designated the group a terrorist organization, that the ban created an unacceptable chilling effect on freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, and that the measure was fundamentally disproportionate: only three of the 385 direct actions carried out by the group were deemed to meet the UK’s legal threshold for terrorist activity, and existing criminal law was already sufficient to prosecute any illegal activity linked to those actions.

In overturning that decision, the Court of Appeal rejected the finding that Cooper had violated official proscription policy. The appellate judges ruled that policy guidelines did not limit the home secretary’s ability to consider external factors such as the ban’s potential to disrupt the group’s overall operations, arguing Cooper was owed “appropriate latitude” in her national security decision-making, and that her role granted her both institutional authority and democratic accountability to make such a designation. On the question of proportionality, the court held that Cooper had struck a fair balance between individual civil liberties and the UK’s stated national security interests.

Critics argue the ruling grants unprecedented and undue deference to executive branch decision-making, creating a template that concentrates near-unchecked power in the hands of government ministers at the expense of judicial oversight. Former government lawyer Tim Crosland told Middle East Eye that the decision creates a pattern where courts are reluctant to challenge executive assessments of what counts as terrorism, clearing the way for unfettered executive authority that he argued is already misaligned with public interest, captured by corporate lobbying from the fossil fuel and arms industries.

The ruling’s foundation rests in part on the interpretation of the UK’s unusually broad terrorism legislation, which includes “serious damage to property” carried out to influence government or intimidate the public for an ideological cause as a terrorist act. Critically, UK law provides no clear legal standard to define what qualifies as “serious damage”, leaving the determination to executive assessment that can be based on financial cost, potential risk to human life, or ties to national security. While government intelligence confirmed only three Palestine Action actions met the threshold for serious damage, the Court of Appeal took a holistic approach to the group’s activities, concluding the organization as a whole “overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”. The court cited Cooper’s estimate that the three high-profile actions — targeting defence contractor Thales in Glasgow in 2022, Instro Precision in Kent in June 2024, and an Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol in August 2024 — caused millions of pounds in damage.

That damage calculation has itself been contested. When sentencing activists for the August 2024 Elbit Systems raid, presiding Justice Johnson relied on an insurance report that underpinned a £1 million payout, which defence lawyers have challenged as being full of hearsay and inaccurate, noting it included damage to areas of the factory activists never entered and was prepared after the insurer had already approved the payout.

Leading human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield KC argued that even if the damage claims are accepted, they do not justify a terrorist designation. He told Middle East Eye that the ruling overemphasizes the undefined standard of serious damage, a metric that is inherently subjective. Mansfield also rejected the government’s claim that the group’s actions were intended to influence government policy, noting Palestine Action turned to direct action after conventional advocacy failed to shift UK policy on the Israel-Gaza war, with activists acting out of frustration over ongoing civilian harm in Gaza.

Civil rights organization Liberty warned that the ruling fails to draw any clear line between protected protest activity and terrorism, noting even the appellate court acknowledged it is unusual to designate an organization whose core activity is property-focused direct action as terrorist. The Court of Appeal also justified its overturning of the High Court ruling by arguing the lower court failed to account for an escalation in Palestine Action’s activity in the months leading up to the proscription order in June 2024. The judgment noted that Cooper paused the proscription process in May 2024 to request updated intelligence from Counter Terrorism Policing, which reported 158 additional direct actions, 28 of which caused what was defined as “significant damage” (either costing more than £50,000 in repairs or requiring a large police deployment), including tactics such as lock-ons, occupations, blockades, and vandalism.

The court also cited an action at Brize Norton air base as evidence of escalation, despite acknowledging the action took place on the same day proscription was announced and that there was significant legal debate over whether it qualified as a terrorist act. Even so, judges ruled the action posed a threat to national security, and that this threat justified granting the home secretary a wide margin of appreciation in her decision to ban the group.

Mansfield pushed back on the argument that elected politicians deserve automatic judicial deference, arguing that politicians have lost widespread public trust and that the close ties between UK ministers and the Israeli arms industry raise questions about the true motivation for the ban. “I don’t trust ministers to be telling me the absolute truth,” he said. Clive Dolphin, spokesperson for campaign group Defend our Juries, echoed these concerns, noting that the broad deference granted to the home secretary effectively undermines the entire purpose of judicial review, which exists to check executive overreach. “The slide into authoritarianism is not a single step, it’s not that somebody takes over on day one,” Dolphin said. “This is a really, really dangerous ruling.”

Less than two years after securing a landslide general election win, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds his grip on the premiership slipping, following a resounding by-election victory that has cleared the path for a major leadership challenge from popular former Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.

Starmer’s position has been precarious for months. Earlier this year, the Peter Mandelson scandal rocked his administration: sordid connections between the ex-US ambassador, a close Starmer ally, and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein prompted widespread calls for the prime minister to step down. That controversy was followed by devastating losses in May’s local elections, where Labour hemorrhaged support in its traditional northern English and London strongholds. Still, Starmer managed to hold on, with internal Labour sources confirming no party figure was willing to force a leadership change ahead of the local votes.

The current crisis began in mid-May, when former Health Secretary Wes Streeting resigned from Starmer’s cabinet, citing a loss of confidence in the prime minister’s leadership, warning that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.” Hours after Streeting’s departure, Labour MP Josh Simons resigned his safe Makerfield seat in northern England, triggering a by-election designed to return Burnham to parliament. Under Labour Party rules, only sitting Members of Parliament can stand for the party leadership, so the by-election was a critical first step for any would-be challenger.

On Thursday, Burnham secured a decisive win, capturing 55% of the vote in a seat that had seen major defections to Nigel Farage’s far-right Reform UK in recent years. With his return to the Commons confirmed, Burnham now joins Streeting as one of two formal challengers set to oust Starmer.

The outcome of this looming leadership contest is poised to reshape British foreign policy, most notably on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – an issue that has roiled UK politics for more than two years amid Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Polling expert John Curtice has confirmed that the Green Party, the most prominent major political voice opposing UK support for Israel, inflicted far greater damage on Labour’s local election vote share than Reform UK, as left-wing and pro-Palestinian voters abandoned the party in droves over its position. To win back these voters and counter the Green insurgency, any new Labour leader will be forced to adopt a harder line on Israel.

Both challengers have laid out different positions on the conflict, with Burnham boasting a long track record of breaking with Starmer’s approach. Burnham, a popular soft-left figure within the party, has a nuanced political history on the issue: he voted for the 2003 UK invasion of Iraq, joined the pro-Israel group Labour Friends of Israel in 2015, and during his 2015 Labour leadership run described the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as “spiteful” and called Israel a “democracy that has a long history of protecting minorities.”

But beyond his pro-Israel credentials, Burnham has a lengthy record of criticizing the Israeli government and advocating for Palestinian statehood. He visited the occupied West Bank in 2012 with the pro-Palestine group Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, called Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2015 re-election “depressing” over his pledge to expand illegal settlements, and publicly backed recognition of Palestinian statehood as a right, not a gift, as early as 2015. He has also called for an end to Israeli occupation and illegal settlement expansion, while condemning Hamas terrorist attacks.

Burnham’s most significant break from Starmer came in the weeks after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks, when Starmer controversially backed Israel’s total blockade of Gaza – a move widely categorized as a war crime. Just two days after Starmer’s statement, Burnham released a statement that carefully distanced himself from the party leader, conditioning Israel’s right to self-defense on compliance with international law and calling for unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza. By late October 2023, as the Gaza death toll surged, Burnham broke ranks entirely to join London mayor Sadiq Khan and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar in calling for an immediate ceasefire, directly challenging Starmer’s refusal to back that position. He also publicly criticized Starmer for branding pro-ceasefire MPs disloyal, and used the moment to apologize for his own past vote for the Iraq War, acknowledging that the 2003 invasion had caused massive civilian harm and fueled global terrorism.

This positioning paid off electorally: while Starmer’s Labour lost a third of its vote share in majority-Muslim areas during the 2024 local elections, Burnham comfortably retained his post as Greater Manchester mayor, where a large Muslim electorate resides. In the years since, he has repeatedly pushed the Labour government to take bolder action, joining a cross-party group in 2025 to urge immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood – a demand the Starmer government ultimately conceded to in September of that year.

For his part, Streeting has sought to position himself as a secret critic of Starmer’s policy since resignating from cabinet, releasing leaked 2025 text messages in which he claimed Israel was “committing war crimes before our eyes” and engaging in “ethnic cleansing.” However, many voters have not forgotten that Streeting publicly backed Starmer’s line for months after 7 October, and opposed ceasefire calls through that period. Unlike Burnham, Streeting has largely stayed aligned with the party’s official position for most of the conflict, and only recently softened his public stance, under pressure from challengers. In the 2024 general election, Streeting nearly lost his seat to a young British Palestinian independent candidate, who came within 528 votes of unseating him.

Under the current Starmer administration, London has already taken small steps to distance itself from Israel, imposing a partial arms embargo amid growing public anger, but it has maintained deep military and political cooperation with Israel throughout its campaign in Gaza. Regardless of which challenger prevails, analysts agree that the next Labour leader will almost certainly ramp up criticism of Israel and could take far more concrete action, such as imposing full sanctions on illegal West Bank settlement goods to win back disillusioned left-wing and pro-Palestinian voters.

For Burnham, the path to the premiership remains littered with obstacles. But if he can overcome them, insiders say he is the most likely candidate to return the Labour Party to its traditional centre-left roots. One thing is certain: all leadership contenders will be forced to take a clear stance on Starmer’s handling of the Gaza crisis, and a fundamental shift in Britain’s approach to the Middle East is likely in the coming months.