分类： politics

Following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran has become a nation visibly divided along ideological lines. The government’s official declaration of 40 days of public mourning—a traditional Shiite practice—and its characterization of Khamenei’s death as martyrdom stand in stark contrast to spontaneous celebrations erupting among segments of the population. This polarization reflects profoundly divergent perceptions of Khamenei’s nearly four-decade rule: viewed by supporters as a principled martyr and by opponents as a repressive autocrat.

The theological foundation of martyrdom in Shiite Islam traces back to the 7th century Battle of Karbala, where Hussain ibn Ali, grandson of Prophet Muhammad, was slain after refusing to pledge allegiance to Caliph Yazid, whom he considered unjust. This historical narrative of righteous resistance against oppression became central to Shiite identity and was systematically incorporated into Iran’s political framework following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Khamenei’s leadership was defined by confrontational foreign policy and domestic authoritarianism. He maintained unwavering support for regional proxies including Hamas and Hezbollah while rejecting diplomatic compromises during three rounds of U.S.-Iran negotiations. Domestically, his regime responded to recurrent protest waves with brutal suppression, including the lethal crackdown on January 2026 demonstrations that resulted in thousands of casualties.

The supreme leader accumulated substantial personal power and wealth during his 37-year reign, commanding military forces, judiciary appointments, and media oversight through parallel governance structures. His personal wealth, managed through the Setad organization, was estimated at $95 billion as of 2013.

The recent military strikes that killed Khamenei and several family members represent the culmination of escalating tensions with the United States and Israel. While government institutions continue to reinforce the narrative of martyrdom, contrasting public reactions reveal deep societal fractures that will inevitably shape Iran’s political future.

In the aftermath of coordinated US-Israeli offensive strikes against Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliatory measures targeting US installations in the Gulf region, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has articulated a dual-strategy approach to the escalating conflict. Addressing Parliament on March 1, 2026, Starmer emphasized that the United Kingdom would maintain a defensive posture while supporting regional allies through targeted military cooperation.

The UK’s intervention framework comprises two principal components: first, the interception of Iranian drones and missiles to protect non-combatant states in the region; second, permitting US forces to utilize British military installations for ‘specific and limited’ defensive operations against Iranian missile sites that have targeted Gulf partners. Starmer explicitly stated that Britain would not participate in offensive actions but would focus exclusively on defensive measures to ‘destroy the missiles at source’ while preventing further escalation.

The Prime Minister justified these actions as necessary to protect British interests and citizens, asserting that such measures represent ‘the best way to eliminate the urgent threat’ and facilitate a return to diplomatic solutions. However, this position has raised significant legal questions regarding its compliance with international law, particularly the United Nations Charter.

Middle East Eye consulted five distinguished international law experts to examine the legality of Britain’s stance. The central legal argument presented by the UK government maintains that its actions constitute lawful, proportionate collective self-defense at the formal request of Gulf states. Officials issued a legal summary describing Iran’s actions as ‘reckless’ and ‘indiscriminate,’ requiring coordinated defensive response to restore regional security.

Legal scholars present divergent interpretations regarding the legitimacy of Iran’s initial response to US-Israeli strikes. Professor Janina Dill (University of Oxford) acknowledged Iran’s right to self-defense against aggressor states, while Professor Marko Milanovic (University of Reading) argued that Iran’s retaliation exceeded permissible boundaries by targeting civilian infrastructure in neutral territories. The debate extends to whether Gulf states genuinely possess the right to collective self-defense given the complex chain of escalation.

Further legal complications emerge regarding Britain’s authorization of US base usage. Professor Oona Hathaway (Yale Law School) noted that UK assistance might inadvertently prolong unlawful US-Israeli operations against Iran, creating obligations for Britain to demand cessation of the original aggression. Professors Adil Haque (Rutgers University) and Ben Saul (University of Sydney) contended that facilitating US strikes constitutes participation in ongoing unlawful campaigns, regardless of defensive framing.

The legal consensus indicates that Britain’s actions exist in a gray area of international law, where determinations of legality depend on interpretations of necessity, proportionality, and the inseparable nature of defensive and offensive operations in active conflict scenarios.

Mothin Ali, co-deputy leader of the Green Party, has revealed he fears for his safety after receiving approximately twenty death threats. This alarming development follows controversial remarks made in Parliament by Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke, which were subsequently endorsed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

During Monday’s parliamentary session, Shelbrooke falsely alleged that Ali had been ‘protesting in support of the ayatollah’ at a recent anti-war demonstration. The event, organized by Stop the War Coalition, was primarily focused on protesting US-Israeli military actions against Iran. Shelbrooke further claimed that Ali had whipped up ‘hatred and fear’ throughout Leeds, describing the councillor’s alleged actions as ‘a disgrace.’

Prime Minister Starmer responded by expressing shock at the Green Party official’s behavior, adding that he was ‘perhaps not surprised, given that party’s recent turn of direction.’

Ali, who enjoys no parliamentary protection against defamation, told Middle East Eye that the MP’s privileged position enabled him to make damaging claims without legal consequence. ‘They will get me killed,’ Ali stated, emphasizing the real-world impact of political rhetoric. He challenged Shelbrooke to repeat the allegations outside Parliament, where standard defamation laws would apply.

The Green Party councillor clarified that his attendance at the demonstration was motivated by humanitarian concerns following a strike on a school in Iran that reportedly killed more than 153 people, including numerous children. ‘A whole load of little girls had just been blown to bits,’ Ali explained. ‘I’m not supposed to feel anything about that?’

Green Party leader Zack Polanski condemned the Prime Minister’s response as ‘blatant Islamophobia’ and characterized the incident as an establishment attack on ‘a calm, kind, thoughtful gardener who happens to be a Muslim man in politics.’

Neither Downing Street nor Shelbrooke’s office responded to requests for comment or clarification regarding the allegations.

Turkey’s pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (Dem) Party has issued a strong condemnation of the ongoing US-Israeli military operations against Iran, characterizing them as imperialist endeavors rather than genuine efforts to promote democracy. The party, which holds the third-largest parliamentary bloc, expressed skepticism about Western motives, stating that global powers appear more interested in establishing a regional order that serves their interests than in fostering genuine freedoms.

The Dem Party’s statement emphasized that ongoing airstrikes fail to create conditions conducive to liberation for Iran’s diverse ethnic and religious minorities, including Kurds, Balochs, Christians, and Azerbaijanis. While acknowledging the oppressive nature of Iran’s regime and commemorating victims like Jina Mahsa Amini and Ramin Hossein Panahi, the party insisted that regime change must originate from internal popular will rather than external intervention.

Co-chair Tulay Hatimogulları addressed parliament, warning that the conflict risks engulfing the entire region after already spreading to Iraq, Lebanon, and Gulf states. She revealed that a girls’ primary school had been struck in the attacks, resulting in over 150 casualties among schoolchildren.

The developments occur against a complex backdrop of Kurdish political dynamics. While Turkey has made significant progress in peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), resulting in the group’s disbandment after four decades of conflict, concerns remain about its Iranian affiliate, the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK). Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan acknowledged monitoring whether PJAK might attempt to launch an insurgency in Iran, which could impact Ankara’s delicate peace process.

Meanwhile, Iranian forces have targeted Iranian Kurdish opposition groups in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, with drone strikes hitting headquarters of multiple Kurdish parties including the Kurdistan Freedom Party and Komala Party. This escalation suggests broadening regional tensions that extend beyond the immediate US-Israeli-Iranian confrontation.