分类： politics

In a sudden development that has shaken British politics, Keir Starmer has stepped down as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party less than two full years after securing a landslide victory in the UK general election. His announcement came Monday morning outside 10 Downing Street, ending days of swirling public speculation about his political future.

Starmer confirmed in his address that he would formally resign from the party’s top leadership role, and has requested the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee launch a leadership selection timetable that will open nominations on July 9, with the full process wrapped up before parliament’s summer recess. Under this schedule, a new party leader will be confirmed and installed before MPs return to Westminster in September, regardless of whether a contested election is held.

Addressing the pressure that led to his exit, Starmer acknowledged that the Parliamentary Labour Party had delivered a clear answer on whether he remained the best candidate to lead the party into the next general election. “I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace,” he said. “Every decision I’ve taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour party.” He added that he had already notified King Charles III of his decision during a conversation earlier that morning.

The collapse of Starmer’s leadership follows a string of damaging political setbacks. A catastrophic round of local election results, widely blamed on Starmer’s deep unpopularity among voters, preceded last week’s by-election win in Makerfield by Andy Burnham, the former popular mayor of Greater Manchester. That victory solidified Burnham’s position as the overwhelming favourite to replace Starmer, and political insiders now widely expect him to run unopposed, potentially taking office as prime minister as early as mid-July.

In his departure speech, Starmer defended his two years in office, framing his tenure as a period of necessary reset for the Labour Party. “I inherited a Labour Party that was politically, financially and morally bankrupt,” he said. “We changed our party, ripping out the poison of antisemitism and restoring trust on the economy, defence and national security.” He pledged full, unwavering support to his successor, adding: “They will inherit a Britain that is far stronger and fairer than the one I inherited two years ago, better prepared for the challenges ahead and better able to ensure the Labour Party secures a second term in office.”

Burnham is scheduled to take his seat in the House of Commons later on Monday, completing his transition from municipal leadership to national politics. While former Health Secretary Wes Streeting previously indicated he would enter the leadership race, sources close to Streeting have confirmed he is now reconsidering his bid. Polling data shows Streeting is even less popular among Labour Party members than the outgoing Starmer, making a successful challenge unlikely.

Politically, Burnham is positioned on the soft left of the Labour Party, and has long been described as a pragmatic “political chameleon” who has adjusted his policy stances significantly over his career. During his tenure as Greater Manchester mayor, he and his allies developed a policy framework they have branded “Manchesterism”, which he now proposes to roll out across the entire country.

Unlike Starmer’s more centrist economic approach, Manchesterism advocates for far more interventionist government action in the economy – stopping short of full socialism, but bolder than the outgoing government’s vision. In Burnham’s own framing, it 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 pledged to bring water and energy utilities back into public ownership if he takes office.

Still, questions remain about which policy iteration of Burnham voters and party members will see as prime minister. During his recent by-election campaign, he indicated he would retain key elements of Starmer’s policy agenda, most notably continuing the government’s push to dramatically cut net immigration. This position is intended to win back voters who have defected to the right-wing Reform Party, but it has already become a potential target for criticism from the left-wing Green Party, which has seen a major surge in national polling in recent months.

Burnham and his campaign team are well aware of the political risk posed by the Green Party’s rise, and observers expect many of his upcoming economic policies will be crafted to appeal to left-leaning voters who have abandoned Labour for the Greens. If Burnham takes office as expected, the coming months could bring sweeping policy shifts across British politics.

Fresh claims from a senior official within Somalia’s internationally recognized government have pulled back the curtain on an undeclared Israeli military presence in the breakaway region of Somaliland, stirring new friction across the Horn of Africa and the broader Middle East. The disclosure comes months after Israel made a historic and widely condemned decision to grant formal recognition to Somaliland, a self-declared independent state that has not received endorsement from the United Nations or nearly any sovereign nation. In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye, the senior Somali government source outlined that the deployment of a 50-strong Israeli military contingent took place in early 2024, shortly after Israel resumed open military conflict with Iran in late February. To evade detection and integrate seamlessly into the local population, Israeli military commanders specifically selected troops of African descent, the majority of whom have Ethiopian heritage, the official added, citing intelligence gathered by Somali security agencies. Israel’s path to formal diplomatic ties with Somaliland began in December 2023, when it became the first country in the world to recognize the region’s independence. That unilateral move immediately drew sweeping condemnation from nearly every government across the African continent and the Middle East, as it upends longstanding international consensus on Somalia’s territorial integrity. By April 2024, Israel had completed the first step of formal diplomatic representation, appointing Michael Lotem as its inaugural ambassador to Somaliland’s capital, Hargeisa. When Middle East Eye reached out to the Israel Defense Forces for comment on the allegations of a secret troop deployment, military officials declined to address the claims directly, stating that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the country’s political leadership, rather than military spokespeople. Outlets including MEE also attempted to secure a response from Somaliland’s government, but those requests have so far gone unanswered. While the Israeli government has not confirmed the deployment of troops, senior Israeli officials have openly acknowledged the long history of covert security cooperation between the two sides. During a public meeting with visiting Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi this week, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed that discrete collaboration has been ongoing for years, operating outside of public view. “For many years, we cooperated under the radar in a series of operations that will remain classified,” Katz said. “Now we are determined to bring our security cooperation to new heights, for the benefit of both peoples and for the benefit of stability in the region.” Earlier this month, CNN reported, citing anonymous sources familiar with the arrangement, that Somaliland has granted Israel access to an additional military facility. This site, the report claims, could be used as a refueling and logistics hub for Israeli aircraft conducting long-range missions targeting Iran. Regional security analysts who specialize in Horn of Africa politics have further speculated that Israel is actively pursuing a permanent naval base along Somaliland’s Red Sea coast. Such a base would position Israel to more effectively counter growing threats from Houthi militants in Yemen, who have targeted commercial shipping in the Red Sea in recent months. In comments released Wednesday, Somaliland’s Defense Minister Mohamed Yusuf Ali denied persistent claims that Israel maintains a military base on Somaliland territory. At the same time, he did not downplay the scope of current bilateral security engagement, confirming that Israeli personnel are supporting Somaliland’s security forces by providing training for both local police and military units. The developing situation has heightened concerns across the region, with many governments warning that deepening Israeli military involvement in Somaliland threatens to destabilize the already fragile security environment in the Horn of Africa and undermine regional efforts to maintain Somalia’s territorial unity.

A fresh round of U.S.-Iran peace negotiations in Switzerland has collapsed abruptly after former President Donald Trump issued a series of unprecedented, incendiary threats against Iran, prompting the Iranian negotiating team to walk out of the talks and demand a formal apology before they will return to the table.

The crisis unfolded after Iran announced it would re-close the Strait of Hormuz — a strategic global oil chokepoint critical to international energy markets — over an intensified Israeli military assault on southern Lebanon that violates an existing ceasefire memorandum of understanding (MOU) covering all regional fronts. In a public tirade Sunday, Trump issued a cascade of threats: he warned Iran would cease to exist as a sovereign state if it followed through on closing the strait, explicitly threatened to assassinate Iranian negotiators, and for the first time publicly pledged a full U.S. military invasion to occupy the entire country.

According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, who reported on Trump’s comments, the U.S. leader told Iranian negotiators that if they closed the strait — a move Iran first announced Saturday — “you won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” a threat widely interpreted as a reference to targeted assassinations of Iranian officials that have already occurred during the early phases of the ongoing conflict.

Multiple international outlets confirm that the threats directly violated the first clause of the negotiated MOU governing the talks. In response, Iranian negotiators filed a formal complaint with Pakistani and Qatari mediators, who have been facilitating the closed-door discussions at a Swiss mountain resort, before leaving the venue immediately.

In a blunt response to the threats, Iran’s chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf dismissed Trump’s rhetoric as empty, stating that his delegation does not take American threats seriously. This pattern of escalatory rhetoric followed by no action is nothing new: over recent months, Trump has repeatedly issued extreme threats to wipe out Iran’s entire civilization and destroy the country to pressure Tehran into making concessions, yet has never followed through on the warnings even as Iran has maintained its negotiating position.

“Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?” Ghalibaf asked. He added that the U.S. would be “better be more careful with their statements,” noting that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way. No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.”

While the Iranian delegation has left the negotiation venue, indirect talks continue through participating mediators. According to Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the Iranian team has set two non-negotiable conditions for returning to the table: a formal apology from Trump for his threats, and a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The Israeli government, for its part, is reportedly considering limited withdrawals from parts of southern Lebanon’s buffer zone, per senior Israeli sources cited by Channel 12, and the officials added that Washington has not pressured Israel for a full pullout.

Sunday’s outburst marks a sharp, sudden reversal from just one week prior, when Trump signaled a major shift by acknowledging Iran’s sovereign right to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear energy, a key longstanding Iranian demand that the U.S. has previously rejected. Analysts say the sudden escalation was triggered by comments from Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who reaffirmed that Iran would never surrender its right to enrichment and predicted the U.S. would ultimately be forced to accept this position. In response, Trump reportedly warned Pezeshkian to “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” threatening a full U.S. takeover of remaining Iranian territory if he did not comply.

This latest threat of full occupation stands in stark contradiction to Trump’s own recent comments, in which he acknowledged that extending the war would trigger a major U.S. economic catastrophe, and even acknowledged that limited ground operations — such as a proposed mission to seize Iranian uranium facilities — would be too costly in lives and resources to be justified. The ongoing war with Iran is already deeply unpopular with the U.S. public, even without the deployment of American ground troops: recent polling shows a majority of Republican voters oppose deploying ground troops to escalate the conflict, and senior U.S. military leaders have already shelved plans to seize strategic Iranian sites including Kharg Island out of fear of massive American casualties.

In another controversial remark, Trump told Yingst that the U.S. could position itself as the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls from commercial shipping and seizing oil from exporting nations that use the waterway. He offered no details on how the U.S. would secure control of the strait to enact this plan.

Iran’s decision to threaten closing the strait came in direct response to Israel’s deepened occupation and intensified bombing of southern Lebanon, actions that violate the MOU’s ceasefire provisions. Ending Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon is a non-negotiable red line for Tehran in the peace talks: the Israeli campaign has killed more than 4,000 people and displaced over 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the region.

Off the record, Trump has privately acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is deliberately using the Lebanon campaign to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the U.S. into a full-scale regional war. In his conversation with Yingst, Trump acknowledged he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also noted he is close to granting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, permission to lead operations against Hezbollah.

Even as Trump has publicly and privately criticized Israel’s actions and accused Netanyahu of undermining peace efforts, he has taken no concrete action to force Israel to comply with the terms of the ceasefire MOU. Analysts warn that this contradictory approach from the White House puts the entire peace process at severe risk.

“The mixed messages coming out of the White House are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict,” noted Jeet Heer, a staff writer at *The Nation*.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s ongoing military escalations as “an existential threat” to the U.S.-Iran peace process. He told ABC News that Iran’s threat to close the strait ahead of the Geneva talks was intended to signal how seriously Tehran views its demand for an Israeli withdrawal, clarifying the stakes for all parties.

“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi explained. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong. Now, Trump is recognizing that U.S. interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests. They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”