分类： politics

On the morning of June 28, a coordinated large-scale pre-dawn operation carried out by elite Iraqi security forces inside Baghdad’s highly fortified Green Zone marked one of the most striking anti-corruption crackdowns Iraq has seen in recent years. However, widespread scepticism persists among ordinary Iraqis and analysts alike that the country’s most powerful, deeply entrenched corrupt figures will ever be held accountable for years of siphoning public funds.

Backed by tanks and armoured vehicles, counter-terrorism units swept into the Baghdad Residence neighbourhood, a residential and official enclave located just steps from the U.S. Embassy, following a months-long probe launched by Iraq’s new administration into misappropriated funds linked to irregular public infrastructure and development contracts. By the end of the operation, at least 47 people had been taken into custody, including sitting members of parliament, senior political appointees and other high-ranking government officials. Security forces raided dozens of private homes and official offices, seizing millions of dollars in undeclared cash, gold bullion, and even luxury gold-plated women’s lingerie, items that quickly became a lightning rod for public anger.

Footage of the operation spread across Iraqi television stations and social media platforms within hours, with many viewers comparing the dramatic show of force to blockbuster Hollywood action sequences. For generations of Iraqis who have watched their political elite line their own pockets while basic public services from electricity to clean water remain consistently out of reach, the crackdown represented an unprecedented public challenge to a ruling class long accused of systemic graft.

“It’s really shocking seeing millions of dollars hidden in the gardens of politicians, finding gold bars and gold-made women’s lingerie that they use to please themselves with our money,” said Mohammed Basheer, a 24-year-old resident of Basra, in an interview with Middle East Eye. While Basheer welcomed the operation, he warned that its credibility would stand or fall on whether the government ultimately moves against Iraq’s most powerful political leaders. “I am looking forward to seeing if Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi will touch the big heads. If he does not, then it would be unfortunate – just like a TV show,” he added. “As previous prime ministers did almost the same campaigns, I need to see where this will end, and how serious it is when it comes to holding big officials accountable.”
That scepticism is shared by many long-time Baghdad residents. Jassim Mohammed, 52, argued that the operation would only prove meaningful if it leads to sustained systemic change. “Let’s wait and see how serious this campaign is. If so, that would be great; if not, then it is just a bubble,” he said. “Taking corrupt politicians to jail would be a good lesson to others to avoid following their path in stealing the people’s money. However, after this campaign, the prime minister should offer good services, better infrastructure, and, most importantly, kick out the Iran-backed allies.”

The timing of the raids, carried out just weeks before al-Zaidi is scheduled to travel to Washington for high-level talks, has fuelled political speculation about the operation’s dual motivations. The al-Zaidi administration is already facing growing pressure from the U.S. to curb the influence of Iran-backed armed factions and demonstrate greater institutional control over Iraqi state affairs. Analysts say the crackdown is designed both to appease Iraqi voters fed up with decades of endemic corruption and to signal to U.S. officials that Baghdad is serious about targeting officials linked to Iranian-aligned Shia political parties. According to Iranian opposition outlet Iran International, multiple of the arrested officials have documented ties to Shia parties close to Tehran. The outlet also confirmed the raids came shortly after a closed-door meeting between U.S. Special Envoy Tom Barrack and Prime Minister al-Zaidi.

Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at London-based think tank Chatham House, argues the crackdown is as much a political performance for international audiences as it is a domestic anti-corruption measure. “Al-Zaidi is looking to sell his administration – not just to the Iraqi public – but to the US and its allies in the region,” Mansour told Middle East Eye. “In particular because of the threat that the US is posing to Iraq with sanctions, and because Iraq is stuck in the middle of this ongoing regional standoff between Israel, the US, and Iran.”

Mansour noted that while the operation has generated blanket media coverage and uncovered massive amounts of stolen assets, it has so far carefully avoided confronting the top figures who control Iraq’s patronage-driven political system. “The ongoing anti-corruption campaign has been effective only insofar as he has managed to go after some middle-ranking officials and, through those arrests, uncover a lot of cash and gold bars. So, the theatrics are certainly there. Because of that, the prime minister is pursuing this anti-corruption campaign. The drive is very much going after those who are easier to catch: the middle-ranking officials, not the tops, not the heads of the system who sit above it, as it is impossible to go after them.”

This limited scope means the campaign cannot address the root structural causes of corruption that have crippled Iraqi governance for decades, Mansour argued. “Insofar as that is the case, this isn’t changing how the political system is largely fuelled by corruption. It is just changing the configuration of what that corruption looks like and who is part of it. While this might bring some cash infusion, it is not going after the whole system and it is not structurally fixing it. The system is really facing massive challenges with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the ongoing conflict in the region. Therefore, it is hard to see this cosmetic display as a structural fix for the corruption that stops Iraqis from having basic services, electricity, and a functioning economy.”

Baghdad-based political analyst Raad Hashim echoed that assessment, agreeing that the campaign’s long-term credibility depends on whether al-Zaidi expands the crackdown beyond mid-level officials to target Iraq’s most powerful political actors. “In this campaign, the small fish have been caught, while everyone is waiting for the moment when the big fish – the major targets among the corrupt – are netted,” Hashim said. While he described the mass arrests as unprecedented by Iraqi standards, he noted that such operations would be considered routine anti-corruption work in most other countries. “Comparing al-Zaidi’s campaign with global anti-corruption efforts, his campaign is merely a drop in the ocean, because what al-Zaidi has done is routine work. However, only in Iraq does everyone view it as a major campaign, simply because we are not accustomed to seeing such actions.”

Hashim added that it is still too early to write off the operation entirely, leaving open the possibility that it could be a first step toward a broader crackdown. “That is, unless this is a preliminary campaign paving the way for a broader one – then we would have a different tone of talk,” he said. Still, he questioned why the operation had not targeted wealthy militia leaders and other influential figures linked to Iraqi armed factions. “Failure to target the big heads, including the influential figures who have become wealthy among the militia leaders, means that avoiding them constitutes a blow to the entire campaign, its seriousness, and its credibility.”

Sarkawt Shamsulddin, a former Iraqi member of parliament, said the campaign aligns with long-standing anti-corruption rhetoric from the Sadrist movement and could help build political momentum ahead of next year’s scheduled parliamentary elections. Regardless of the mixed motivations behind the operation, Shamsulddin noted that al-Zaidi is taking a political risk few Iraqi leaders have been willing to take in recent decades. “I applaud his efforts and all who have been arrested are samples of a larger group who have been suffocating public coffers without consequences. This campaign is a warning. Is there a foreign push? Maybe, but it takes someone in the prime minister’s position who is ready to take the risk and limit the bleeding in public resources being plundered with impunity.”

Even so, Shamsulddin cautioned against overstating the immediate impact of the raids. “But that is just a scratch on the surface. Will he continue? Maybe this is a very sensitive issue and requires serious consideration of domestic politics.”

As of July 4, Iraq’s Federal Integrity Commission confirmed that officials have recovered at least 98 billion Iraqi dinars ($74 million) in stolen assets alongside $11 million in untraceable cash. One commission official told Middle East Eye that security teams required heavy excavation equipment to dig up cash stashed four meters underground in private gardens and remote plots of land owned by arrested officials.

In a dramatic Tuesday press conference broadcast live from central London, senior British right-wing political figure Nigel Farage announced his immediate resignation as the Member of Parliament for Clacton — and immediately confirmed he would run in the resulting by-election, casting the move as a stand against what he calls a coordinated smear campaign by the UK political establishment and national media.

Farage’s resignation comes on the heels of two successive damaging revelations published by *The Sunday Times*, which have opened new ethical and regulatory probes into the Reform UK leader’s financial ties. First, the outlet reported earlier this month that British-Thai crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne donated £5 million to Farage personally in early 2024, just months before Farage won the Clacton seat in a general election. Now, a second follow-up investigation revealed that 32-year-old convicted aristocrat George Cottrell — who the paper describes as Farage’s closest personal advisor for more than a decade — covered the cost of Farage’s personal security and social media team in the 12 months leading up to Farage’s election to the House of Commons.

Cottrell, a self-described crypto gambler nicknamed “Posh George,” has a criminal record: he previously faced up to 20 years in a U.S. prison after pleading guilty to 21 charges including money laundering, fraud, blackmail and extortion. He has accompanied Farage on official trips around the UK and across Westminster, the *Sunday Times* confirmed. He is also linked to Harborne through Tether.bet, an online casino and bookmaker that issues its own digital token, in which Harborne holds a partial ownership stake.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is already conducting an official inquiry into whether Farage violated parliamentary rules of conduct by failing to properly declare Harborne’s £5 million donation. Farage confirmed Tuesday that a second separate investigation into the Cottrell payments has now been launched in response to the latest *Sunday Times* reporting. Under House of Commons procedural rules, an ongoing standards investigation is paused if a sitting MP resigns — but the inquiry can be immediately reactivated if the MP wins re-election.

In fiery remarks from the press conference podium, Farage denied any wrongdoing, framing the revelations as an unfair attack by his political and media opponents. “The establishment has decided they can’t beat us fairly. They’ve chosen to use foul means,” Farage told reporters. “I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve not broken the law in any way. I’ve not misused public money. My personal MP expenses are zero.”

A former commodities trader who left the finance sector decades ago to lead the Brexit campaign, Farage pushed back against criticism of his outside income, arguing that political leaders should not be barred from earning money outside of parliament. “Britain’s political and media class seem to fundamentally object to any MP who has outside income,” he said. “Making money is not a crime. I gave up my former job in finance at a huge cost to fight for Brexit, and came out of that decades-long fight with very little money. Since then, I have earned income through work as a broadcaster and social media influencer, and that is entirely legitimate.” He described Harborne’s £5 million donation as a “large personal gift” and a “lottery win,” asking reporters, “Do we want leaders that know how to make money?”

Farage cited the recent publication of details of his multi-million pound property portfolio — including a home owned by his daughter that was featured in an article in *The Times* — as the “final straw” that pushed him to resign. “I’ve never been angrier in my life,” he said of the coordinated coverage from *The Times*, *Sunday Times* and Sky News. Notably, both *The Times* and *Sunday Times* are owned by News Corp, the media company controlled by the Murdoch family. Farage has previously praised 95-year-old Rupert Murdoch as a “remarkable bloke” and “very good man,” and the pair were photographed celebrating together at a garden party shortly after the 2016 Brexit referendum, where both were reported to be in an ecstatic mood.

Farage also claimed he has been the target of repeated threats, recalling one recent incident where he was forced to flee his local pub by a hostile crowd that later damaged his car. Critics of the Reform UK leader have previously linked his inflammatory rhetoric to a rise in violent far-right protests across the UK and Northern Ireland, where far-right demonstrators have targeted care workers and migrant communities in violent attacks.

Rupert Lowe, a former Reform UK MP who now leads the rival right-wing party Restore, rejected Farage’s framing of the controversy, saying the MP was clearly aware he was required to declare Harborne’s donation to parliamentary authorities. “He should have declared that five million pounds. He knows it. We all know it,” Lowe told reporters. “Now he is going to weaponise a by-election to distract from that… Will Farage fund it out of his own pocket? Because he bloody well should.”

A major British train operating company has implemented a ban on staff wearing pro-Palestine solidarity badges during working hours, following a formal legal complaint lodged by a pro-Israel advocacy group that argued the political symbols created a hostile environment for Jewish passengers. The incident that sparked the policy change dates back to June 14, when a Jewish passenger was traveling on a London North Eastern Railway (LNER) service connecting Edinburgh to London. The passenger, who identifies as Jewish, filed a complaint stating that a food service employee wearing an official RMT trade union “Palestine Solidarity” badge left them feeling uncomfortable and unwelcome during their journey.

The badge at the center of the dispute was produced and distributed by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), Britain’s main rail workers’ union. It features the text “Palestine Solidarity” overlaying the Palestinian national flag alongside the RMT’s official logo. After receiving the passenger’s complaint, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel legal organization, issued a formal legal letter to LNER last month pressing the company to address the issue.

In its complaint, UKLFI argued that political symbols worn by customer-facing rail staff violate the UK’s 2010 Equality Act, which places a legal obligation on service providers to avoid subjecting customers to harassment based on protected characteristics, including religion. The group claimed the badge could create an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for Jewish, Israeli and Zionist passengers.

In response to queries from Middle East Eye, an LNER spokesperson confirmed the company’s existing uniform policy regulates the badges staff may wear while on duty. Under the policy, customer-facing staff are only permitted to wear one small pin badge on their blazer lapel, which must either be issued directly by LNER, aligned to an official company charity or public campaign, or limited to the standard logo of the worker’s trade union. Unauthorized external items, including political solidarity badges, are not permitted under the existing policy.

LNER Managing Director David Horne confirmed in a response to UKLFI that the company had taken swift and appropriate action following the complaint. Horne noted that the employee involved was spoken to on June 17, three days after the reported incident, and reminded of the company’s uniform requirements. A company-wide briefing was also issued to all LNER staff to reiterate that no unauthorized badges or accessories may be worn as part of the official uniform during working hours. Horne added that the chair of LNER’s internal On Train Company Council, the staff representative body, was informed of the disciplinary action and expressed agreement with the company’s position.

UKLFI director Caroline Turner praised LNER’s response, saying the organization was pleased the rail provider acted quickly and decisively to address the complaint. “Public transport providers serve passengers from every community,” Turner said in a formal statement. “Jewish passengers should be able to travel without being confronted by political messaging from staff members whilst receiving services.”

The RMT, which has been one of the most prominent British trade unions supporting Palestinian solidarity and backing protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, declined to comment on the LNER decision. The union has previously issued public statements condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza, encouraged its members to organize pro-Palestine advocacy in workplaces, and called on workers to join national pro-Palestine marches across the UK.

LNER’s decision comes against a backdrop of growing national debate in the UK over the limits of pro-Palestine solidarity expression in public workplaces, in the wake of Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza that began in October 2023. Palestinian solidarity campaigners have raised widespread concerns that British employers are disproportionately restricting displays of support for Palestinians, while opponents argue that customer-facing public service staff should not display overt political messaging that could alienate passengers or service users.

The LNER case is not an isolated incident. Earlier in 2024, the UK Department of Health and Social Care endorsed a review of anti-Jewish hate and racism in the National Health Service led by the government’s antisemitism adviser Lord John Mann. The review recommended mandatory antisemitism training for 1.5 million NHS workers, alongside a ban on all NHS staff displaying political symbols including pro-Palestine badges in the workplace, and a ban on staff attending pro-Palestine protests while wearing official NHS uniform. Since the outbreak of the war, multiple British public sector workers have faced disciplinary action for displaying pro-Palestine solidarity in the workplace. One high-profile case involved a British-Palestinian nurse who was ordered to remove a video call background depicting a watermelon, a common symbol of Palestinian solidarity, after it was flagged as potentially antisemitic.

A new set of workplace restrictions for UK National Health Service (NHS) staff, which bans the display of political symbols in health facilities and bars workers from wearing medical scrubs at public protests, has triggered widespread condemnation from healthcare professionals and politicians alike. Critics argue the policy is weaponizing legitimate concerns about antisemitism to silence public expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people amid the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The new guidance stems from the Mann report, an inquiry into antisemitism within the NHS commissioned by former UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting in 2025. While NHS England has formally adopted the recommendations, enforcement is left to individual regional NHS trusts. Even as stakeholders broadly agree that addressing antisemitism and all forms of racism within the public health system is a critical priority, leading medical bodies and frontline workers warn that the broad scope of the ban risks severe overreach that undermines free speech.

The British Medical Association (BMA), the UK’s leading doctors’ union, has raised deep alarm over the vague language of the policy, questioning how authorities will define what qualifies as a “political symbol.” The union has called for clear, nationally consistent guidelines that draw a firm line between legitimate expressive activity and professional misconduct, warning that a blanket ban on all symbols interpreted as political goes far beyond what is needed to combat discrimination.

Labour MP Kim Johnson echoed these concerns, noting that pro-Palestine expression has been disproportionately targeted as part of a broader national crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy. Johnson emphasized that sweeping restrictions on solidarity messaging risk conflating legitimate demonstrations of identity and support with professional wrongdoing, ultimately undermining rather than advancing efforts to root out racism in the health service.

Medact, a UK-based medical justice advocacy organization, said the Mann report’s recommendations bypass open, nuanced debate to impose a one-size-fits-all ban on expression. Medact spokesperson Nina Radulovic argued that political leaders and segments of the UK media are more focused on suppressing dissenting views than engaging with the urgent ethical questions frontline health workers are raising about the NHS, corporate influence, and the UK’s role in the political dynamics driving the war in Gaza.

Professor Nick Maynard, a veteran British surgeon who has worked in Gaza hospitals throughout the current conflict, described the framing of the new policy as deliberately dishonest. Maynard, who witnessed firsthand what United Nations experts have labeled “medicide” – the deliberate targeting of healthcare infrastructure and personnel by Israeli forces, including the widespread use of deadly double-tap airstrikes on first responders – said the policy conflates pro-Palestine solidarity with antisemitism as part of a deliberate government campaign to silence critical doctors. He added that the deliberate destruction of Gaza’s health system is a core pillar of Israel’s policy of ethnic cleansing, a reality that has compelled healthcare workers globally to speak out. Maynard noted that despite Streeting’s recent public positioning as sympathetic to Palestinians, the former health secretary has led efforts to silence NHS workers who advocate for Gaza.

Dr Omar Abdel-Mannan, a 15-year NHS veteran and co-founder of Health Workers 4 Palestine, framed the ban as part of a growing wave of censorship targeting pro-Palestine voices across multiple UK sectors. He argued that authorities fear health workers because their professional authority gives their statements unique credibility with the public, making their calls for accountability for Gaza particularly threatening to the status quo. Abdel-Mannan also questioned the foundation of the Mann report itself, noting that the NHS lacks even basic data on racist incidents across many regional trusts, making it impossible for the inquiry to meaningfully address the problem it was meant to solve.

He pointed to the high-profile case of Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abu-Sittah, who was reported to the UK General Medical Council (GMC) by the pro-Israel advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel over his pro-Palestine activism. GMC tribunals twice dismissed all antisemitism claims against Abu-Sittah, but the doctor has alleged Streeting pressured the GMC to launch what he calls a McCarthyite witch hunt against him and other critical clinicians – an unprecedented political interference that Abdel-Mannan said has created a chilling effect across the NHS, pushing many workers to self-censor out of fear of professional retaliation.

Ahmad Baker, a British-Palestinian nurse at London’s Whipps Cross Hospital, is one worker who has already faced disciplinary action under the new policy direction. Baker was ordered by hospital managers to remove a still-life painting featuring a watermelon from the background of his work video calls, with managers labeling the artwork potentially antisemitic – a common misinterpretation of the watermelon, which has become a widely recognized symbol of Palestinian identity. Baker, who is now pursuing legal action against Barts Health NHS Trust alongside two other NHS employees, said he is being told to hide his Palestinian identity at the exact moment that his people are facing genocide in Gaza because of that identity.

He also highlighted the glaring double standard in how the policy is applied: after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NHS staff who wore pro-Ukraine solidarity badges faced no disciplinary action or scrutiny, unlike workers who display symbols of support for Palestine. For Baker, these public displays of solidarity matter because they let other supporters know they are not alone, building a collective movement for justice – which is exactly why authorities are seeking to ban them. He added that the concept of political neutrality in healthcare is widely misinterpreted: while clinical care must be impartial for all patients, there is no requirement for health workers to set aside their political beliefs, and they have a moral obligation to speak out against genocide rather than remain silent.

Advocacy group Health Workers for a Free Palestine warned that full implementation of the Mann recommendations would create an absurd reality where NHS managers are pulled away from core patient care duties to adjudicate whether everyday items – from fruit to pieces of jewelry – qualify as punishable political expression, all while Gaza’s entire health system is systematically destroyed. Dr Aarash Saleh, who joined Baker’s legal challenge against Barts Health, said he knows of one colleague who was disciplined simply for wearing watermelon-shaped earrings. Saleh noted that even though Mann has insisted his report should not be weaponized against pro-Palestine voices, the symbol ban has almost exclusively been used to target Palestine supporters.

Saleh added that the ban on health workers wearing scrubs at protests is even more unjustifiable. He called the rule an overreach of government power that blocks clinicians from marching as healthcare professionals in solidarity with their Gazan colleagues who are being targeted by Israeli forces, breaking with a long history of UK medical workers advocating for marginalized communities. Dr Sara Ali, who is also a party to the legal challenge, emphasized that the policy contradicts the core mission of the NHS. “I find it deeply troubling that an institution whose core purpose is the provision of care should regard expressions of human empathy and solidarity with a people undergoing a genocide as inappropriate or objectionable,” Ali said. “Defending the right to express such solidarity is important because healthcare professionals should not be required to abandon their humanity when they come to work. Compassion and empathy for human suffering are not separate from our professional values – they are fundamental to them.”