分类： politics

As the conflict between the US-led coalition and Iran enters another week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has delivered a televised address to the nation seeking to ease widespread public anxiety over the UK’s potential entanglement in the war. Standing behind a Downing Street podium on Wednesday morning, flanked by two Union Jacks and clad in a somber blue tie, the prime minister appeared visibly fatigued and grave as he addressed the unfolding crisis in the Gulf region.

Starmer’s speech shifted between moments of calm reassurance, expressions of sympathy for those affected by escalating tensions, and weighty, often abstract warnings about the historic stakes of the current conflict. Opening with a message of resolve, he told the British public: “No matter how fierce this storm, we are well placed to weather it.”

The core policy announcement of the address was the formation of a 35-nation unified coalition dedicated to protecting maritime security in the Gulf waters. Starmer confirmed that UK Foreign Secretary will host the first in-person gathering of coalition members later this week, with the explicit goal of securing unimpeded, safe access to the Strait of Hormuz — the strategically critical chokepoint currently held under de facto Iranian control. Acknowledging the challenge ahead, Starmer admitted: “This will not be easy.”

Throughout the 20-minute address, the prime minister repeatedly pushed back against growing public fears that the UK would be pulled into active combat. “People worry that the UK will be dragged into this,” he said. “We won’t. This is not our war. We will not be drawn into the conflict.”

The address comes amid significant pressure on Starmer from former US President Donald Trump, who has spent weeks publicly mocking and criticizing the British leader for his initial hesitation to back the US-Israeli operation against Iran. Wednesday’s speech was widely seen as an attempt to balance defiance against US pressure with reassurance for a war-weary British public.

But Starmer’s insistence on UK neutrality has left many Britons confused, given the critical role British territory plays in US military operations against Iran. RAF Fairford, a Royal Air Force base located in southwest England’s Gloucestershire, has become a key launching pad for US strikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure. As of the start of this week, 23 long-range US bombers are stationed at the base, which the US has been permitted to use for strikes against Iranian missile sites and offensive operations intended to open the Strait of Hormuz, a deployment that entered its second week this week.

Just hours before Starmer’s address, Iran’s ambassador to the UK, Seyed Ali Mousavi, told Times Radio that Tehran was actively considering retaliatory strikes against British bases hosting US forces. A week and a half earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi had already warned the UK’s foreign secretary that allowing the US to use British soil for military action amounted to “participation in aggression.” Speaking Wednesday, Mousavi called the UK’s position “very unfortunate.”

Beyond the question of military involvement, Starmer sought to manage public expectations around the economic fallout of the crisis, pushing back against optimistic claims from Donald Trump that the war is nearly over. Trump, who on Tuesday publicly told the UK to “go get your own oil” and insisted the US would not assist European allies in re-opening the Strait of Hormuz, has framed the conflict as nearing a successful conclusion. Starmer pushed back against that optimism, telling the public: “I don’t think it can necessarily be assumed that a de-escalation of the conflict at the same time brings a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.”

On the topic of domestic energy costs, which have been rocked by Gulf conflict volatility, Starmer confirmed that existing government support measures remain in place: a four-month cap on household energy bills and a freeze on fuel duty lasting until September. He claimed the government was “ahead of the game” in responding to price swings, and deflected repeated questions from reporters about whether he would follow Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s lead, who earlier the same day urged his citizens to reduce fuel consumption by switching to public transport where possible. “I’m sick and tired of your energy bills fluctuating up and down,” Starmer said. “We’re taking back control of our energy security by investing in clean British energy.”

The prime minister also used the crisis to announce a vague long-term strategy, promising that the UK would not return to “business as usual” after the conflict ends. “This time will be different,” he pledged, revealing that the government has drafted a “long term plan to emerge from this war a stronger and more secure nation” — though he offered no specific details on what the plan entails. “How we emerge from this crisis will define us for a generation,” he said. For Starmer, the immediate political priority remains upcoming local elections scheduled for May, as the prime minister balances national crisis management with domestic political pressures.

In a high-profile verdict that has reignited debates over protest rights and the criminalization of pro-Palestine activism in the United Kingdom, two veteran movement leaders have been convicted of violating police-imposed restrictions stemming from a major January Gaza war protest in central London. Chris Nineham, 62, vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition, and Ben Jamal, 61, chair of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC), were found guilty on two counts of breaching the UK Public Order Act following a three-day trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday.

The case traces back to a mass national demonstration organized by a coalition of pro-Palestine advocacy groups, which had planned a march from a starting point outside the BBC’s headquarters to protest what organisers decry as the outlet’s pro-Israel media bias in its coverage of the Gaza conflict. The route was first publicly announced in late November 2024, and received initial approval from the Metropolitan Police. However, following objections from pro-Israel groups, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, and multiple sitting Members of Parliament, police revised the permit, relocating the starting point over concerns about its proximity to a nearby synagogue. On the day of the protest, police imposed a last-minute additional restriction that converted the planned march into a static demonstration confined to Whitehall.

The two activists were arrested after a small contingent of demonstrators left the static rally to travel to Trafalgar Square to lay flowers in honor of children killed in Gaza. Prosecutors argued that protesters deliberately forced their way through a police cordon after the rally ended, and that Jamal delivered a speech that incited the crowd to defy the legally imposed restrictions.

Delivering the ruling, District Judge Daniel Sternberg upheld the prosecution’s position, ruling that the police’s restrictions were lawful, issued under valid statutory powers, and based on a reasonable assessment of risks including large crowd size (estimated by PSC itself at 100,000 attendees) and potential disruption to local businesses and worshippers at nearby synagogues. Sternberg stated that Jamal’s speech amounted to incitement, framing it as deliberate persuasion and inducement to encourage attendees to breach the imposed conditions. He also rejected a defense application to dismiss the case entirely.

During the trial, the defense mounted a vigorous challenge to the prosecution’s narrative. Mark Summers KC, representing Nineham and Jamal, argued the entire case was unlawful, citing a previous Court of Appeal ruling that found legislation granting police unlimited power to restrict protests was enacted outside legal bounds. Body-worn police footage played in court revealed significant operational chaos among officers on the ground: one officer was captured referring to the police response as a “massive clusterfuck,” while another can be heard shouting orders to withdraw as the cordon was overwhelmed by crowd density. Summers emphasized the footage undermines claims of a premeditated breach, instead showing inconsistent communication, poor planning, and reactive policing that failed to manage the large demonstration. He also noted that multiple video recordings from the day show police themselves ushered organisers through police lines, contradicting the prosecution’s version of events.

Outside the courthouse following the verdict, both Nineham and Jamal announced they would immediately appeal the conviction, framing the ruling as a major blow to civil liberties in the UK. Nineham described the verdict as part of a systemic campaign to criminalize the pro-Palestine movement, saying: “This is clearly part of an ongoing criminalisation of the Palestine movement in which people protesting against a genocide are being targeted by a British establishment that is colluding with it. It is an attempt to send a chilling message across society that people shouldn’t risk protesting – it is an attempt that will not stop us.”

Jamal echoed the criticism, noting the judge’s acknowledgment that the pair had previously possessed good character, which the conviction now revokes. He responded by referencing a core moral question from Palestinian activists: “What did you do when Gaza was going through a genocide? History will judge which of us stood on the right side of history. Chris and I will not be silenced. You will not be silenced. This movement will not be silenced.”

The verdict drew widespread condemnation from across UK left-wing politics. Labour MP John McDonnell, who was arrested alongside the two organisers on the day of the protest, called the ruling a “grotesque” attack on civil liberties. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, now leader of the left-wing Your Party and a longstanding critic of UK foreign policy in the Middle East, described the decision as “disgusting,” and reiterated calls for the UK to end its military and political support for Israel and U.S. operations in the region.

The January protest was one of more than 20 national pro-Palestine demonstrations held across the UK since the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023, all calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to British state backing for Israel’s military campaign.

A senior Japanese academic and Sino-Japanese friendship leader is pressing the Japanese government to issue a formal public apology to Beijing over a deeply alarming breach of diplomatic protocol that took place in late March. Hisashi Inoue, honorary professor at Surugadai University and chairman of the Japan-China Friendship Association, has labeled the March 24 incident — where an active officer of the Japan Self-Defense Forces forced entry into the Chinese Embassy in Japan while armed with a knife — an extraordinarily severe violation of long-established international diplomatic norms. Inoue emphasized that the incident, which shocked diplomatic circles on both sides, constitutes a clear and grave breach of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a foundational international treaty that guarantees the inviolability of diplomatic mission premises and the safety of diplomatic staff. As of the report’s update on April 1, 2026, the Japanese government has not extended a formal apology to China over the intrusion, only issuing a vague expression of regret over the event. Inoue argues that this mild, indirect response is wholly insufficient to address the severity of the incident and the risks it poses to bilateral ties. The long-time advocate for friendly Japan-China relations is calling on Japan’s top elected leader, the prime minister, and the country’s defense minister to deliver a formal, public apology to the Chinese government over the unacceptable incursion.

During an official state visit to Tokyo on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron publicly called for an immediate ceasefire to end escalating conflict in the Middle East, alongside joint commitments with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi to deepen cross-sector bilateral cooperation spanning defense, critical resources, nuclear energy and space exploration.

Following closed-door bilateral talks, the two leaders outlined shared foundational principles during a joint press conference held at Tokyo’s Akasaka Palace. Macron emphasized that both Paris and Tokyo are united in their commitment to upholding international law, a rules-based global order, and shared democratic values. “This is why … we both advocate for a return to peace, a ceasefire, calm, and free passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” Macron stated. Takaichi echoed this position, noting the two leaders reached consensus on the urgent need to de-escalate regional tensions, guarantee unimpeded access through the strategically critical waterway, and protect global supply chain stability. Amid growing geopolitical uncertainty across the globe, Takaichi noted that strengthening ties and collaboration between Japan and France carries particular strategic weight.

Beyond regional diplomacy, the summit delivered concrete progress on multiple long-standing bilateral cooperation initiatives. A day prior to the leaders’ meeting, Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi and his French counterpart Catherine Vautmir signed a formal road map outlining expanded defense cooperation through 2030, centered on increasing joint military exercises and personnel exchanges across the Indo-Pacific. In a separate signing ceremony, the two nations’ trade ministers formalized an agreement to collaborate on joint rare earths development projects. Rare earth elements are critical components for high-performance heat-resistant magnets used in defense systems and electric vehicle batteries, a market currently dominated by Chinese production. The two leaders also confirmed a new partnership to advance fast reactor technology and nuclear fuel recycling, an area where Japan has faced repeated technical and regulatory setbacks in recent years.

The bilateral summit comes amid a shifting geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific, where Japan and France have steadily ramped up defense cooperation over the past decade. France maintains permanent military forces, civilian populations and economic assets across its Indo-Pacific overseas territories, and has positioned itself as a key security partner for regional democracies seeking to counter balance growing Chinese influence across the region.

Macron’s visit to Japan also unfolded hours after U.S. President Donald Trump made controversial remarks shifting responsibility for security of the Strait of Hormuz to regional consumer nations. “That’s not for us. That’ll be for France and whoever’s using the strait,” Trump stated overnight. The U.S. president has publicly criticized European allies for what he frames as insufficient support for U.S.-backed Israeli military operations, and specifically called out France for being “very unhelpful” in the conflict. Macron did not address Trump’s comments during his prepared remarks at Wednesday’s press conference, where reporters were not given the opportunity to ask questions.

Looking ahead to the final day of Macron’s Tokyo visit on Thursday, he and Takaichi are scheduled to tour a Japanese private firm specializing in innovative space debris removal technology, a reflection of the two nations’ expanding collaboration in the space sector. Following the site visit, Macron will hold a formal courtesy meeting with Japan’s Emperor Naruhito and attend an official palace luncheon, before departing for South Korea to continue his East Asian diplomatic tour.

China’s Ministry of Public Security confirmed on Wednesday that a high-profile key figure connected to a large transnational criminal network focused on illegal gambling and telecom fraud has been successfully sent back to Chinese territory from Cambodia. The suspect, identified as Li Xiong, is considered a core member of the operation that victimized countless individuals through illegal financial scams and unregulated gambling activities, according to official statements.

This repatriation marks a significant milestone in China’s ongoing coordinated crackdown on cross-border organized crime, which has increasingly targeted criminal syndicates that operate across international borders to avoid domestic law enforcement. Criminal networks involved in transnational fraud and illegal gambling have long posed major threats to public safety and financial stability both in China and neighboring Southeast Asian nations, prompting bilateral law enforcement cooperation to dismantle these operations and bring fugitive suspects to justice.

The handover of Li Xiong underscores the growing collaborative relationship between Chinese and Cambodian law enforcement agencies in addressing shared transnational security challenges. For years, these criminal syndicates have exploited gaps in cross-border regulation to run large-scale scams that steal billions of yuan from Chinese residents and global victims annually, making coordinated repatriation efforts a critical component of regional anti-crime initiatives.

This operation aligns with China’s broader national strategy to combat transnational telecommunications fraud, online gambling, and other cross-border criminal activities that harm public interests. Chinese law enforcement officials have repeatedly emphasized that the country will continue to work with international partners to track down fugitive criminal suspects operating overseas, ensuring that no offenders can evade justice by fleeing beyond national borders.

One month into the military conflict launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, the two nations have yet to articulate a clear, coherent justification for their offensive, outline measurable strategic objectives, or lay out a viable exit strategy—even as they continue to claim steady military progress on the battlefield. What was supposed to be a quick, decisive campaign has instead dragged the entire Middle East into an avoidable, open-ended confrontation, after Iran mounted a far stronger coordinated response than Washington and Tel Aviv ever anticipated.

When former U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greenlit the offensive, they fundamentally misjudged both the ideological cohesion of Iran’s ruling system and its decades-built defensive capacity. They never expected Tehran to respond with a level of preparedness unmatched in the regime’s modern history: launching coordinated strikes against U.S. military installations across the Persian Gulf, dealing heavy blows to Israeli civilian and military infrastructure, and partially or fully closing the Strait of Hormuz—triggering global oil and gas shortages that have already sent shockwaves through the world economy.

Driven by an overreliance on overwhelming military superiority, the U.S. and Israeli leadership bet that air and sea power would force Iran’s Islamic government to surrender quickly, clearing the way for a pro-Western regime change led by the Iranian people. That outcome has not materialized, and now a clear military victory grows more out of reach by the day. For Trump, the only viable path forward is a sharp pivot to diplomacy—and pressure on Netanyahu to follow suit.

### The Roots of Iran’s Unexpected Resilience

Before the outbreak of war, Iran’s ruling regime faced steep headwinds: intense domestic pressure and widespread international condemnation following its violent crackdown on mass public protests that left thousands of Iranians dead. It was also reeling from Israel’s systematic weakening of its key regional proxies, particularly Hamas and Hezbollah, and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s long-standing allied regime in Syria.

Even as Tehran remained distrustful of Trump’s administration, it had agreed to re-enter negotiations over its contentious nuclear program, with a widely reported breakthrough on the horizon. Omani mediators announced in late February that a final deal was within reach, before the U.S.-Israeli offensive derailed the process. Far from crippling the regime, the unprovoked invasion gave Iran’s government an opening to showcase the defensive resilience it had spent 40 years building.

Iran’s governing, security, and command structures were explicitly designed to withstand the loss of top leaders and commanders. The regime proved this endurance during the 1980s, when it survived internal dissent, an eight-year full-scale war with Iraq, decades of U.S. containment, and open hostility from most of its regional neighbors. It has outlasted widespread public discontent, theocratic governance frictions, and repeated policy failures, thanks to three core structural strengths: deep ideological commitment to revolutionary Islamism among Iran’s large Shia population, a rare combination of ideological rigidity and pragmatic policy flexibility, and a deeply entrenched, dedicated security, intelligence, and administrative bureaucracy whose own survival is tied directly to the regime’s survival.

While many Iranians have long pushed for political change at home, the vast majority remain deeply proud of their nation’s millennia-old cultural and civilizational heritage, and uniformly reject foreign aggression, occupation, and humiliation of their country. This nationalist sentiment is what has driven widespread popular rallying around the regime, a pattern that repeats throughout Iranian history when the nation faces external attack.

### A War of Attrition No Side Can Win Quickly

Fully aware it cannot match the conventional firepower of the U.S. and Israeli militaries, Iran has deployed a creative, asymmetrical “mosaic defense” strategy tailored to exploit the weaknesses of its adversaries. This approach includes targeting vulnerable U.S. bases across the Persian Gulf with precision drones and missiles, and decentralizing command structures to ensure leadership can be quickly replaced if top officials are killed in strikes.

Tehran has also received critical external support: Russia and China have supplied dual-use technologies and maintained oil import revenues to keep Iran’s economy functioning, and multiple intelligence reports confirm Russia has shared real-time intelligence on the location of U.S. assets in the region. Even with their capabilities degraded, Iran’s regional proxies remain active and capable of opening new fronts: Hezbollah has launched sustained attacks on northern Israel, while Yemeni Houthis have joined the conflict and are preparing to disrupt commercial shipping through the Red Sea.

Taken together, these factors add up to a clear reality: the Iranian government is committed to denying the U.S. and Israel any form of victory, at any cost. What began as a planned quick strike has devolved into a prolonged war of endurance with no clear military end in sight.

### Negotiated Settlement is the Only Path Forward

It remains impossible to predict how long all three parties will sustain the conflict, but current conditions have drastically narrowed the window for a diplomatic resolution. Iran has shown no willingness to surrender core demands, and the U.S. and Israel remain deeply divided over their end goals for the war.

For Trump, domestic political pressure may force a shift toward compromise: with war mounting economic and human costs, and his poll numbers sliding ahead of critical midterm elections, he may well settle for a deal that freezes Iran’s nuclear program and reopens the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping. Netanyahu, by contrast, remains unflinching in his maximalist goals: he is determined to destroy the Islamic government and permanently cripple Iran’s status as a regional power.

What has become increasingly clear after a month of fighting is that a military conclusion to the conflict is effectively impossible. The only sustainable path forward is a negotiated settlement. The responsibility to force Netanyahu into line and lead diplomatic efforts will fall to Trump, and many analysts already agree that no matter how the war ultimately ends, Iran has already emerged as the de facto winner in the conflict.