分类： politics

In a landmark confirmation made Tuesday during Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s official visit to Islamabad, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has publicly clarified that Iran’s ballistic missile program was never part of the agenda for ongoing US-Iran negotiations, contradicting long-standing claims from Washington and Tel Aviv that the program was a core casus belli for their conflict with the Islamic Republic.

Speaking on the record about the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that paused hostilities between the US and Iran to open diplomatic space, Sharif emphasized, “This MOU does not mention ballistic missiles. It was never on the table, it was never on the agenda and the Iranian side never even wanted to discuss it. This is not an impression, but a fact of the matter.”

Sharif also pushed back against what he called global double standards on missile proliferation, saying, “There cannot be double standards; that some countries can have ballistic missiles and Iran shouldn’t have them. You cannot digest this kind of duplicity.”

Iran’s president echoed and amplified Sharif’s remarks, stressing that his country’s defensive missile program will never be up for negotiation under any circumstances. “Iran will never compromise on our missile programme and capabilities and this shall never be part of any agreement between Iran and any other party,” Pezeshkian stated. He added that the country’s defensive arsenal acts as a critical deterrent: “If the missiles we have for our defence did not exist, Israel and the United States would have ploughed Iran just like Gaza, showing no mercy to either the old or the young.”

The confirmation aligns with a recent shift in US policy: during last week’s G7 summit hosted in Paris, US President Donald Trump acknowledged that demanding the missile program be placed on the negotiating table was never a realistic goal. “I’m saying that if other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some,” Trump told reporters in Paris.

This public shift marks a stark reversal from the US’s opening war aims, which explicitly identified the elimination of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity as a non-negotiable core objective. A declassified 1 April US presidential memo made clear: “From day one, the objectives have been clear and unwavering: obliterate Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capability… That is the clear objective of this mission.”

Since the end of formal US military operations against Iran, none of Washington’s original primary war objectives—including regime change, the total destruction of Iran’s missile program, the elimination of Iran’s naval capabilities, and the seizure of Iran’s uranium stockpiles—have been achieved. Today, Washington has reframed its negotiation priorities around two core goals: keeping the Strait of Hormuz open (a status that held before the US launched its invasion) and preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Diplomatic progress has moved forward rapidly in recent days. On Monday, the US suspended economic sanctions against Iran as part of the first round of high-level talks held under the Islamabad MOU framework. US Vice President JD Vance, who leads the US negotiation team, described the day of talks as having yielded “good progress.”

The lifting of US sanctions is expected to deliver major economic relief to Iran: before the US blockade was imposed in response to Iran’s temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran produced roughly 4.6 million barrels of crude oil per day and exported 1.5 million barrels daily. The Islamabad MOU, which was mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, halted all US-Iran hostilities for a 60-day period to allow for in-depth technical negotiations. Following Monday’s successful High-Level Committee Meeting, Sharif announced that negotiators had finalized a roadmap to reach a comprehensive final agreement within the 60-day window. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf leads Iran’s negotiation delegation. On Tuesday, Trump reaffirmed that Washington is seeking a fair agreement with Tehran, adding that relations between the two countries are currently positive.

Beyond bilateral US-Iran negotiations, the MOU also includes a commitment to end all ongoing hostilities in Lebanon. However, achieving a ceasefire there has proven far more complicated, as Israel has openly defied US efforts to end the conflict. Parallel direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon are already underway independently of US-Iran talks.

On Tuesday, the two countries launched their fifth round of direct negotiations in Washington. Lebanon’s delegation is pushing to revive earlier proposals that would require a full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The three days of talks come after four prior negotiating rounds failed to deliver a permanent ceasefire or close the substantial gaps between the two sides’ positions.

Beirut is expected to push for four core demands during this round: a binding timetable for Israeli withdrawal, the safe return of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced Lebanese people, the release of Lebanese detainees held by Israel, and the launch of post-conflict reconstruction efforts. For its part, Israel has linked any full withdrawal to the complete disarmament of Hezbollah, and insists that Israeli forces will maintain control over a large security buffer zone inside southern Lebanon until it is convinced that the Lebanese army can prevent Hezbollah from re-establishing a military presence in the area.

The US-Iran MOU frames the Lebanon conflict as part of a broader regional ceasefire framework, and earlier talks near Lake Lucerne, Switzerland, produced a draft framework for a de-escalation mechanism between Israel and Hezbollah. This latest diplomatic development means the Washington talks are no longer the only diplomatic channel working to end the Lebanon war.

This report was sourced from independent coverage by Middle East Eye, a outlet specializing in on-the-ground reporting and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and global affairs.

On a Monday evening at the UK Parliament’s Westminster Hall, a deeply contentious and rarely seen debate unfolded, centered on a public call for a formal inquiry into foreign lobbying linked to the Israeli state and pro-Israel advocacy groups in British politics. The debate was triggered by a public petition that gathered over 118,000 signatures – a threshold that guarantees parliamentary discussion under UK rules – where signatories expressed growing concern over unreported influence campaigns connected to Israel, arguing the public has a right to know the full scope and impact of such activity on British democratic processes.

What followed was a sharp split along largely partisan and ideological lines. The majority of participating MPs from both the Conservative and Labour parties, most of whom hold membership in prominent pro-Israel parliamentary lobby groups, immediately labeled the petition itself as inherently antisemitic, dismissing its demands as a rehash of outdated anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, a small bloc of independent and backbench MPs who supported the inquiry’s premise raised detailed, pointed questions about lobbying transparency and foreign influence that were never addressed by the government front bench.

Opening the government’s official response, James Frith, parliamentary under-secretary of state for digital government and a longstanding member of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) – who has previously participated in LFI-organized trips to Israel – rejected calls for a targeted public inquiry. Frith emphasized that the UK maintains a deep, long-standing bilateral relationship with Israel, marking 76 years since British recognition of the Israeli state, and reaffirmed the UK’s unwavering commitment to Israeli security. He further argued that singling out pro-Israel influence unfairly holds the UK’s 300,000-strong Jewish community collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

That claim drew an immediate rebuke from independent MP Adnan Hussain, who challenged the minister’s deliberate conflation of the Jewish faith and Jewish people with the actions of the Israeli state. Hussain stressed the petition never made that association, before pressing Frith on whether he would acknowledge that the state of Israel stands accused of genocide in its military campaign in Gaza. Frith flatly rejected the accusation.

Former Conservative foreign office minister Andrew Mitchell, a member of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) who traveled to Israel on a CFI-funded trip in May 2025, echoed the antisemitism claims, questioning why Israel was being targeted for scrutiny when other foreign states also lobby in UK politics. Mitchell argued the entire petition amounted to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. He was joined by other CFI and LFI-linked MPs, including Conservative John Lamont, who has also taken CFI-funded trips to Israel, who claimed that modern antisemitism often hides behind rhetoric about a secret pro-Israel “lobby” controlling political life, replacing explicit anti-Jewish language with coded attacks on Zionism and Israeli influence.

Supporters of the inquiry pushed back by pointing to existing official assessments of foreign interference in UK politics. They referenced the Rycroft Review, an April 2025 official investigation into foreign financial influence in British politics that concluded the UK faces persistent, ongoing risks of foreign interests seeking to skew domestic politics – a review that exclusively focused on Russian and Chinese influence without any mention of Israel, a point independent MP Iqbal Mohamed highlighted to underscore the double standard in how foreign influence is scrutinized.

Independent MP Ayoub Khan, one of the most prominent advocates for the inquiry, stressed that the debate was never an attack on Jewish communities or Jewish identity, nor a challenge to the right of any person to advocate for either Israel or Palestine. Instead, Khan argued the core issue is transparency: lobbying itself is a legitimate part of democratic politics, but when large sums of money are spent out of public view, the public is right to question whether the government is genuinely committed to rooting out undisclosed foreign influence, or only blocking donations that do not align with its interests.

Khan drew specific attention to recent reporting that LFI, an organization that counts multiple sitting cabinet ministers among its members, has been referred to the UK Electoral Commission over concerns about its opaque funding structures. He noted that while many senior government officials openly identify as LFI members, the group is not registered as a members’ association, allowing it to avoid mandatory public disclosure requirements that would apply to other similar political groups. Khan also emphasized that public electoral records already confirm the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided direct financial support to UK parliamentarians, information that should be fully disclosed to the voting public.

The debate included contributions from MPs with direct connections to unreported pro-Israel travel, including Labour MP Peter Prinsley, who was found in breach of UK parliamentary rules earlier in 2026 for failing to declare an LFI-funded trip to Israel. Prinsley condemned the petition as a shameful revival of ancient antisemitic tropes, citing the long, dark history of anti-Jewish persecution in British history, from medieval massacres to the 1290 expulsion of all Jews from England.

Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice, who visited Israel and met senior Israeli ministers on a November 2025 trip funded by Reform Friends of Israel, echoed the antisemitism claims, calling for the petition to be fully rejected. Tice argued that the UK should welcome closer cooperation with Israel on artificial intelligence expertise to benefit British industries, a comment that drew a sharp intervention from Mohamed, who asked if Tice was also referring to AI-powered weapons that Israeli forces have used against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Tice responded with a general claim that preparation for deterrence is the path to peace, declining to address the specific question.

Labour MP Tahir Ali, one of the most vocal supporters of the inquiry, laid out extensive evidence of Israeli meddling in UK politics, referencing a 2017 Al Jazeera investigation that exposed a senior Israeli embassy official plotting to force the resignation of a Conservative minister who had been critical of Israeli policy – a scandal that ultimately forced a public apology from the Israeli ambassador to the UK. Ali noted that pro-Israel lobby groups have poured hundreds of thousands of pounds in political donations to UK politicians, citing a 2024 Declassified UK report that found 13 out of 25 members of the then-Labour shadow cabinet had received six-figure donations from pro-Israel donors, with roughly 1 in 4 of all 650 UK MPs having accepted such funding over their careers. He also drew attention to a December 2024 private meeting between executives from Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems and senior UK Home Office officials, a meeting that came as Elbit holds hundreds of millions of pounds in British defense contracts.

Fellow independent MP Shockat Adam expanded on that point, noting that freedom of information requests have confirmed repeated private meetings between Elbit executives and Home Office leadership, with internal briefing papers showing UK ministers were preparing to reassure the company amid growing public protests from the activist group Palestine Action. Adam argued the double standard is staggering: while ministers meet privately with executives from a company whose weapons are cited in international genocide investigations against Israel, anti-arms trade protestors who challenge Elbit’s activities are increasingly labeled as terrorist sympathizers. Last summer, the UK government officially proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, a move that Adam said raises urgent questions about whose interests the government is prioritizing.

In the end, minister James Frith declined to answer any of the specific questions raised by proponents of the inquiry, and did not agree to move forward with a public investigation, sticking instead to the government’s line reaffirming the close UK-Israel bilateral relationship. Even so, the debate marked a rare moment where detailed, on-the-record claims about pro-Israel lobbying, undisclosed funding, and links between UK ministers and Israeli arms manufacturers were aired in an official parliamentary setting, topics that are rarely discussed publicly in Westminster.

The debate unfolded against the backdrop of the ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians since the October 7 2023 Hamas attack that killed 1,200 Israelis. More than 173,000 Palestinians have been wounded in the campaign, with thousands more still missing and presumed dead under rubble. The UK has maintained ongoing military cooperation with Israel throughout the campaign, including sharing intelligence from surveillance flights over Gaza, a move the Ministry of Defence has claimed is exclusively for hostage rescue purposes.

One of the United Kingdom’s most prominent human rights barristers is once again facing formal contempt of court proceedings, after the presiding judge in a high-profile Palestine Action trial chose to advance disciplinary action against him for a second time, in a move that legal observers describe as without historical precedent in English law.

Rajiv Menon KC, a 30-year veteran of the bar who represented defendant Charlotte Head in both trials of six Palestine Action activists, stands accused of violating pre-trial directions issued by Justice Johnson, the judge overseeing the case at Woolwich Crown Court. The six activists were charged with aggravated burglary and criminal damage for damaging equipment at an Israeli-owned arms factory operated by Elbit Systems outside Bristol. After the first trial ended with all defendants cleared of aggravated burglary charges, a retrial in May resulted in four convictions on the criminal damage counts.

The controversy stems from Menon’s January 2024 closing speech to the jury. Johnson had explicitly barred defense legal teams from referencing the long-held legal principle of “jury equity” — the right of juries to acquit defendants based on conscience, a right first established by the landmark 1670 Bushell’s Case. Johnson also ruled that the defendants could not argue the “lawful excuse” defense, which would have allowed them to claim the damage was justified to prevent greater harms from Israeli military operations in Gaza. He further ordered that all arguments about the broader context of the Gaza war be excluded from jury consideration.

In his closing remarks, Menon read the inscription from a plaque at London’s Old Bailey that commemorates Bushell’s Case, and told jurors the judge could not order them to issue a conviction. He also noted that the defense had been blocked from presenting evidence about Elbit Systems’ role in Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, arguing it would be unreasonable to expect jurors to ignore this wider context when weighing the defendants’ motives. Menon has repeatedly denied violating the court’s directions, noting he never explicitly used the phrase “jury equity” or directly urged the jury to acquit on conscience, and repeatedly reminded jurors to follow the judge’s guidance.

A prior attempt by Johnson to initiate contempt proceedings was thrown out by the Court of Appeal in May, when a three-judge panel ruled Johnson had acted unlawfully by referring the matter directly to the High Court. The panel instructed Johnson that he could either handle the allegation himself, refer the matter to the UK attorney general, send it to the Bar Standards Board for professional disciplinary action, or drop the case entirely.

However, following a directions hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday, Johnson rejected all three of the Court of Appeal’s suggested options. In a ruling issued Monday, he confirmed he would instead refer the case to a separate High Court judge sitting at the Crown Court to hear the contempt proceedings. Johnson stated that he had concluded “there is a case to answer in contempt” and that advancing formal proceedings is “in the public interest to institute”, rejecting defense arguments that the case is too old to proceed. Johnson emphasized he has not yet reached a final finding of contempt, a decision that will rest with the new presiding judge.

Adrian Waterman KC, representing Menon, told the court that Menon never “knowingly” breached the court’s orders, and that the barrister was “astonished” when the allegations were first raised. Quoting Menon directly, Waterman told the court: “I absolutely didn’t cross any line, any line whatsoever.” Waterman added that Menon repeatedly instructed the jury to follow the judge’s directions, and that the court could not find Menon in contempt unless it ruled his account of events was intentionally dishonest — a finding Waterman argued is impossible to support on the evidence.

In contrast, prosecutor Tom Little KC argued that Menon’s closing speech amounted to a “clear, deliberate and sustained breach” of the court’s orders that meets the legal definition of contempt.

Waterman has warned that the case carries far-reaching implications for the UK’s criminal justice system. He argued that defense barristers must be afforded wide latitude to advocate vigorously for their clients, and noted that Menon spent hours consulting with other senior defense lawyers to craft his closing remarks in line with the judge’s directions. Pursuing contempt charges, Waterman argued, will create a profound “chilling effect” across the legal profession, and could violate Menon’s right to freedom of expression protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case has already taken a severe personal toll on Menon. The court heard that Menon has suffered “deep anxiety” throughout the process, and that he was unable to be with his father when his father died recently, due to the ongoing proceedings against him.

Garden Court Chambers, where Menon practices as a senior barrister, released a statement calling the unprecedented proceedings damaging to the UK’s justice system. “The administration of justice depends upon an independent bar willing and able to act in the best interests of their clients, fearlessly and with integrity,” the statement read. “The unprecedented [proceedings against Menon] undermine and diminish our system of criminal justice.”