标签: Asia

亚洲

  • Israel has tried to drag US into war on Iran for decades, says former Qatari PM

    Israel has tried to drag US into war on Iran for decades, says former Qatari PM

    In a high-stakes interview on Al Jazeera’s flagship current affairs program *Al Muqabala*, one of Qatar’s most influential veteran statesmen has laid out a stark assessment of Middle East geopolitics, framing the ongoing conflict with Iran as the culmination of 30 years of Israeli efforts to redraw the region’s map by force.

    Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani, who previously served as both Qatari prime minister and foreign minister, outlined how Israeli hardliners led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have worked since the 1990s Bill Clinton administration to pressure Washington into launching a full-scale war against Iran over its nuclear program. For decades, successive U.S. governments — including even the first administration of Donald Trump — resisted calls for an all-out conflict, but Sheikh Hamad says Netanyahu ultimately succeeded in persuading the current U.S. administration to back the campaign by selling a false narrative of quick victory.

    “He convinced the U.S. administration that the war would be short and swift, and that the Iranian regime would fall within weeks,” he said, drawing a parallel to flawed U.S. assumptions around regime change in Venezuela. The former diplomat added that Washington’s greatest strategic strength has always lain in its ability to avoid unnecessary military intervention, not in its willingness to deploy force, noting that Netanyahu stands as the primary beneficiary of the conflict, using it to advance his long-held goal of expanding Israeli territory to form a “Greater Israel”.

    Since the U.S.-Israeli campaign launched on February 28, Iran has retaliated with strikes targeting Gulf nations including Qatar, as well as U.S. military bases, critical energy infrastructure, and civilian sites across the region. Sheikh Hamad explicitly condemned Iran’s attacks on civilian, industrial and energy facilities, while acknowledging that Gulf states have repeatedly voiced opposition to the current conflict. Despite widespread outrage over the strikes, he argued that geographic proximity makes long-term coexistence with Iran unavoidable, requiring sustained dialogue between Gulf governments and Tehran.

    Most notably, Sheikh Hamad argued that internal disunity among Gulf nations poses a greater threat to regional stability than Iran, Israel, or foreign military presences in the region. To counter this risk, he called for the urgent establishment of a unified “Gulf NATO”, a cohesive security bloc anchored by Saudi Arabia that brings together strategically aligned Gulf states.

    He explained that while the U.S. security umbrella has provided regional deterrence for decades, Washington’s growing strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific and its focus on countering China means Gulf nations can no longer rely indefinitely on American protection. Instead, he argued the bloc should pursue deep strategic partnerships with key regional powers including Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt.

    Turning to the ongoing crisis in Gaza, Sheikh Hamad condemned what he called Israel’s genocidal war in the enclave, revealing that intelligence indicates Israel is deliberately plotting to depopulate Gaza by encouraging Palestinian residents to leave. He stressed that any negotiations on the disarmament of Hamas must be tied to a clear political roadmap leading to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. He also praised Saudi Arabia’s decision to reject normalization of relations with Israel until such a plan is in place, noting that this principled stand has upended Netanyahu’s long-term strategic calculations.

  • Birmingham jury fails to convict pro-Palestine activist accused of supporting Hamas

    Birmingham jury fails to convict pro-Palestine activist accused of supporting Hamas

    A high-profile terrorism case against a British-Palestinian activist has ended in a hung jury, forcing the court to schedule a full retrial scheduled for late 2027.

    Majid Freeman, 38, also known by the alias Majid Novsarka and based in Leicester, stood trial for two weeks at Birmingham Crown Court, answering to charges tied to social media posts he published on X and Instagram between 2023 and 2024. Prosecutors accused Freeman of two key offenses: intentionally encouraging terrorist activity and publicly backing Hamas, the Palestinian militant group classified as a proscribed terrorist organization by the UK government. Freeman has repeatedly denied all allegations throughout legal proceedings.

    After more than 13 and a half hours of closed deliberations, the jury notified the judge that they could not reach a required majority verdict on any of the charges brought against the activist. This deadlock automatically triggers the scheduling of a new trial, which is set to open in September 2027 and run for four weeks.

    Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse following the jury’s announcement, Freeman said he welcomed the retrial, framing it as a new chance to bring evidence of Israeli military actions in Gaza before a British civilian jury. He criticized the prosecution’s case, noting that the Crown had spent significant public resources to pursue charges rooted in social media content including emojis, Islamic prayers (duas), and public posts. “After almost a week of deliberation, the jury could not agree that I was guilty. They could not agree,” Freeman emphasized.

    The prosecution, led by senior barrister Tom Williams KC, argued during the trial that Freeman leveraged his social media platforms to promote and incite violent acts. Prosecutors pointed to specific content on Freeman’s accounts, including a 2024 reposted video from independent outlet Middle East Eye that showed an Israeli soldier shooting an elderly Palestinian woman in Gaza. They also claimed Freeman used visual symbols, including a red triangle, that prosecutors allege are associated with Hamas, and that his posts consistently amplified the group’s messaging. Prosecutors branded Freeman an “effective propagandist” who used short-form videos and casual messaging to humanize Hamas and build long-term public support for the organization in the UK.

    In his testimony to the court, Freeman clarified his position, drawing a distinction between backing Hamas as a political organization and supporting the right of armed resistance to occupation. “I do not support Hamas as a group,” Freeman told the jury. “I believe that not just Hamas, but every group has the right to defend themselves against Israeli aggression. That includes using force.”

    Freeman’s defense team, led by Hossein Zahir KC, pushed back aggressively against the prosecution’s claims. The defense argued that Freeman does not support Hamas as an organization, and instead advocates broadly for what he terms Palestinian resistance. Zahir urged jurors to contextualize Freeman’s social media posts against the backdrop of the ongoing Israel-Gaza war, which the defense described as a genocide against Palestinian civilians. The defense noted that Freeman’s use of the hashtag #GazaResists reflected his focus on the broader Palestinian cause rather than endorsement of any specific proscribed group. “Social media is fast-moving and often harsh, but his intention was to raise awareness, not to incite violence,” the defense told the court.

    This is not the first high-profile legal case Freeman has faced in recent years. Earlier in 2024, an English court acquitted Freeman on charges connected to 2022 intercommunal riots between Hindu and Muslim youth in Leicester. In that case, police had alleged Freeman pushed an officer, used abusive language toward law enforcement, and incited violent confrontation during the unrest.

    This case, which centers on the boundaries of free speech for activists criticizing Israeli policy in Gaza, has underscored the growing legal tensions in the UK between counter-terrorism prosecutions and the right to advocate for Palestinian causes amid the ongoing war.

  • What is Jerusalem Day and the March of Flags?

    What is Jerusalem Day and the March of Flags?

    This week, Israelis are set to observe Jerusalem Day, a national holiday that marks the capture of East Jerusalem by Israeli military forces in the 1967 Six-Day War. The annual commemoration will kick off at sunset on Thursday, May 14, and conclude at nightfall the following day, May 15 – one day before Palestinians mark the Nakba, the catastrophic displacement and violence that accompanied the founding of the state of Israel in 1948.

    The origins of the holiday stretch back to 1968, just one year after the 1967 war, when Israeli lawmakers voted to establish a formal observance of Israel’s seizure of Palestinian-inhabited East Jerusalem. It was formally enshrined as a national holiday in 1998, when then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed the legislation into law during his first term in office. Immediately following the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed the occupied areas of Jerusalem, granting permanent residency status to local Palestinian residents. That status allows Palestinians to vote in municipal elections, but bars them from voting for Israel’s national parliament, the Knesset. Today, roughly 350,000 Palestinians call East Jerusalem home, the majority of whom hold no Israeli citizenship and have no national representation in the government that governs their daily lives.

    For Israelis, the holiday centers on commemorating soldiers killed in the 1967 battle for Jerusalem, and is framed as a celebration of the reunification of the city under full Israeli control. This year, the Jerusalem Municipality has called on participants to “march with courage and valour, with Israeli flags raised high, and connect themselves with the celebration of Jerusalem’s eternity, and bind Jerusalem forever.”

    The centerpiece of the annual observance is the Flag March, which draws tens of thousands of participants, the majority of whom identify with Israel’s ultra-nationalist and far-right factions. Per the Knesset’s official description of the event, the large procession starts in central Jerusalem, moves into the Old City, and concludes at the Western Wall with a collective prayer of thanksgiving. But human rights groups and independent media have repeatedly documented the event as a flashpoint for anti-Palestinian violence, harassment, and provocation.

    Far-right Israeli leaders routinely use the march as a platform to broadcast their expansionist and supremacist agenda. Last year, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich told a crowd gathered near the Western Wall that “we are conquering the Land of Israel. We are liberating Gaza. We are settling Gaza. We are defeating the enemy.” Smotrich’s comments, delivered months ahead of a 2025 ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war, drew loud applause from attendees. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who has overseen a sharp rise in settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound since taking office in 2022, used the 2024 march to deliver an overtly provocative message: “Jerusalem is ours. Damascus Gate is ours. The Temple Mount is ours. … it is ours.”

    Under Ben Gvir’s leadership, Israeli police deployed more than 3,000 officers to secure the 2024 march, clearing a path for participants through the Old City’s Damascus Gate and Muslim Quarter. Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has documented that during the procession, far-right participants regularly hurl racist chants, assault Palestinian residents, and vandalize Palestinian property in the Muslim Quarter, while local businesses are forced to close and residents are confined to their homes to avoid violence. Independent Israeli left-wing outlet Local Call has described the march as “a display of racism and violence under police protection,” noting that once confined to fringe far-right groups, open racist chants have become widespread across participants in recent years, amid Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza.

    B’Tselem has recorded dozens of violent incidents targeting both Palestinian residents and journalists covering the event. In 2023, before the start of the current Gaza war, one reporter told the group that “groups of Jews threw stones, plastic water bottles, and broken flag poles at us,” with at least two correspondents hit by rioters. Another journalist described being struck in the head by a projectile, saying he was too afraid to leave the area before the march concluded out of fear of further attack. Uri Erlich, spokesperson for Israeli NGO Emek Shaveh, which defends cultural heritage rights in the region, noted that a broader shift has occurred in recent years: “It is not the march that has become more extreme, but [Israeli] society.”

    This year’s observance comes amid new controversial policy moves from the Israeli government. Multiple reports confirm the government plans to redraw Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries for the first time since the 1967 annexation of East Jerusalem, expanding the city’s borders further into the occupied West Bank’s Palestinian-inhabited territory. Additionally, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported last month that the government has allocated more than 1 million shekels ($344,000) to fund new satellite flag marches led by Israeli settlers in cities across the country outside Jerusalem.

    The stated goal of the program is to reinforce “a sense of connection and identification with Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, even among those who do not live in it.” Marches are scheduled in Lod, Ramla, Haifa, Yavne, Ashdod, Beersheba, Herzliya, Petah Tikva, and Raanana, many of which have large Palestinian citizen populations. This is not the first time parallel flag marches have been held outside Jerusalem: in recent years, processions in cities including Lod and Jaffa have already sparked severe intercommunal tension with local Palestinian communities.

    This year’s Jerusalem Day, held on the eve of the Nakba commemoration – which marks the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine that left an estimated 13,000 Palestinians dead and 750,000 displaced from their ancestral homes – is expected to reignite longstanding international and regional tensions over the status of Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinian residents in the city.

  • I led hikers up an Indonesian volcano – and then it erupted

    I led hikers up an Indonesian volcano – and then it erupted

    Nestled on Indonesia’s Halmahera Island in North Maluku, the chronically active Mount Dukono turned deadly on a Friday morning in May, when a sudden volcanic eruption claimed three lives in a group of hikers who had accessed the restricted mountain despite official climbing bans. For Reza Selang, the local Indonesian guide who led the 20-person expedition, the harrowing moments of the blast remain seared into his memory, leaving him grappling with overwhelming grief, guilt, and ongoing legal scrutiny.

    Reza, who operates a small tour company in North Maluku, was contracted in 2025 by Singaporean adventure expedition organizer Timothy Heng to guide the mixed group of Singaporean and Indonesian hikers on a multi-mountain trek that included Dukono. The group began their ascent on Thursday afternoon, and Reza told the BBC that there were no visible signs of impending volcanic activity at that point, nor when the party reached the summit early Friday morning. Even a pre-ascent drone sweep of the crater captured no smoke or unusual activity. Reza allowed 14 hikers, including Heng, to approach the crater with a promise of a quick descent, while he and the remaining six hikers waited at a lower elevation.

    At 7:40 a.m. local time, just one minute after Reza launched his drone to monitor the group near the crater, the mountain erupted. The first blast only released plumes of smoke, but a far more violent second eruption followed 15 to 20 seconds later, hurling massive volcanic rock fragments and ash across the summit. Panicked, the group scattered and fled down the slope, but Reza spotted Singaporean hiker Shahin Muhrez bin Abdul Hamid injured and stranded near the crater via his drone feed. Reza rushed upward to rescue Shahin, and Heng, who had already escaped, turned back to help.

    As the two men dragged the injured hiker down the mountain, with flying rocks falling on all sides, a 2-meter-wide boulder dislodged from the crater and bounced toward them. In a split second, Reza recalled, Heng pushed Shahin behind him and absorbed the full impact of the rock. The boulder crushed both men instantly, killing them on the spot. Shocked frozen for nearly a minute, Reza fled down the mountain to alert emergency authorities.

    Indonesian officials launched an immediate search and rescue operation for the two dead Singaporeans and a third missing hiker, Indonesian national Angel Krishela Pradita. Angel’s body was recovered near the summit on Saturday, while the remains of Heng and Shahin were extracted from beneath ash and rock on Sunday. All surviving hikers were evacuated to a nearby local hospital for treatment of minor injuries, and the remaining Singaporean citizens have since returned to their home country.

    The tragedy has shone a light on longstanding lax enforcement of volcanic hazard restrictions in Indonesia, a nation positioned along the Pacific Ring of Fire that sees frequent seismic and volcanic activity. Authorities confirmed that Mount Dukono has erupted more than 200 times since late March 2026, and that a full suspension of climbing permits and a ban on entry within 4 kilometers of the crater had been in place since April 17. Officials added that warnings had been posted to social media and displayed on physical banners at all trail entrances to the mountain. The area is now permanently closed to all visitors, and officials have pledged to sanction anyone who violates the entry ban.

    Reza maintains that he had no knowledge of the full prohibition, noting that local villagers he regularly hires to assist with guiding expeditions also did not alert him to the new restrictions. He acknowledged that he was aware Dukono was rated at Level 2 on Indonesia’s four-tier volcanic alert system, a classification that marks increased observable activity and restricts access to high-risk zones, but added that other popular Level 2 volcanoes in Indonesia, such as Mount Rinjani, still allow hiking outside restricted crater zones. He told reporters he leads climbs up Dukono almost monthly without incident, a common practice among local tour operators despite the mountain’s active status.

    Indonesian police have launched a formal investigation into the incident, focusing on allegations of negligence by tour operators and individual organizers. Reza has already been questioned by investigators, and has turned over his drone footage of the eruption as evidence. Police confirmed two people associated with Reza’s tour company have been questioned as witnesses, but are still examining the role each party played in organizing the unauthorized climb. Officials have stated they will not show leniency to any parties found responsible for negligence that led to the deaths. Reza says he accepts whatever legal consequences result from the investigation, and only hopes the process concludes quickly.

    In the days following the eruption, Reza has been open about his crippling guilt and regret over the tragedy. He told the BBC he is haunted by endless ‘what-ifs’ – what if the group had never climbed, what if he had never accepted the expedition contract. ‘I feel very guilty toward the victims and their families,’ he said. ‘I feel like I want to go [to Singapore] and kneel at the victims’ parents’ feet. I want to apologise.’

  • Iran offer was ‘reasonable,’ official says after Trump rejection

    Iran offer was ‘reasonable,’ official says after Trump rejection

    On a Monday press briefing, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei pushed back against former U.S. President Donald Trump’s outright rejection of Tehran’s counter-proposal for a nuclear and regional peace agreement, defending the initiative as a reasonable and good-faith effort to de-escalate long-standing tensions. “The only thing we have demanded is Iran’s legitimate rights,” Baghaei stated, countering accusations of Iranian intransigence by accusing Washington of clinging to a set of non-negotiable unreasonable demands that have stalled progress toward a diplomatic resolution.

    Trump’s rejection came via a public social media post over the weekend, where he dismissed Iran’s counteroffer to Washington’s latest proposal as “totally unacceptable” and added “I don’t like it,” offering no specific details about which provisions he found objectionable. The abrupt, vague dismissal immediately roiled global energy markets, driving crude oil prices sharply higher as investors priced in heightened risk of a wider regional conflict.

    While full text of both the U.S. proposal and Iran’s counterproposal remain confidential, think tank expert Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, outlined leaked key concessions Iran has put forward that represent a significant shift from Tehran’s earlier negotiating positions. According to Parsi’s analysis, Iran has compromised on two of the most contentious sticking points in the talks: uranium stockpiles and long-term enrichment limits.

    Previously, Tehran refused to ship any of its existing uranium stockpile outside of the country, only agreeing to dilute the material to lower-grade, non-weapons grade. Under the new proposal, Parsi says Iran has offered to downblend a portion of its stockpile and send the remainder to a neutral third party for storage. On enrichment, Iran has also agreed to a 12-year moratorium on all domestic uranium enrichment — a major compromise that falls between Trump’s original demand for a 15- to 20-year pause and Tehran’s initial offer of just three to five years.

    “That Iran is willing to pause enrichment at all is a significant concession that I am not sure is fully appreciated by the American side,” Parsi noted in his analysis. He questioned why Trump has hardened Washington’s negotiating position beyond its original core red line of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, suggesting the shift is driven by pressure from U.S. ally Israel. “The insistence on shipping the entire stockpile out appears to be another example of Trump allowing America’s red lines to be replaced by Israel’s,” Parsi wrote. “It would be a shame if the entire negotiation collapses over this issue.”

    Trump confirmed over the weekend that he had spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran’s proposal, calling the conversation “very nice” and noting the two leaders maintain a “good relationship.”

    Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency, citing an anonymous informed source, further clarified the key terms of Tehran’s proposal on Monday. The document prioritizes an immediate end to ongoing hostilities, ironclad international guarantees against future U.S. aggression, the full lifting of crippling U.S. economic sanctions on Iran, and an immediate end to the U.S.-led naval blockade of Iran once an initial preliminary agreement is signed. It also reaffirms Iran’s sovereign authority over the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global energy chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supplies pass — contingent on Washington fulfilling its commitments under the deal. The proposal also includes provisions for advancing regional security and guaranteeing safe commercial passage through the strait.

    Baghaei pushed back hard against narratives framing Iran as the unreasonable party to the negotiations, pointing to Washington’s history of aggressive action in the region to counter the claim. “It is enough to look at Iran’s record,” he said. “Were we the ones who deployed troops? Are we the ones bullying countries in the Western Hemisphere? Were we the ones who committed assassinations twice during negotiations?” He also defended Tehran’s core asks, asking: “Is our proposal for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz unreasonable? Is establishing peace and security across the entire region irresponsible?”

  • Israel closes case against officers accused of killing Palestinian family: Report

    Israel closes case against officers accused of killing Palestinian family: Report

    A 2024 shooting incident that left four members of a Palestinian family dead, including two young children, in the occupied West Bank is on the verge of being closed without accountability, an Israeli news outlet has confirmed. The deadly encounter unfolded in March in Tammun, a northern West Bank town, when undercover Israeli special forces opened fire on the vehicle carrying 37-year-old Ali Bani Odeh, his 35-year-old wife Waad, and their four children. Ali, Waad, and their two youngest sons — 5-year-old Mohammad and 7-year-old Othman — were killed instantly. Two older children, 8-year-old Mustafa and 12-year-old Khaled, survived the attack but suffered severe shrapnel injuries to their faces and heads.

    In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, Israeli forces blocked Palestinian medical responders from accessing the scene. After detaining the two wounded surviving children for more than 30 minutes, soldiers finally allowed medics to reach them only on the condition that the ambulance leave the area immediately after extracting the injured boys.

    An anonymous security source cited by i24News shared the military’s initial account of the incident: forces claimed they opened fire after spotting the vehicle speeding toward their position, saying officers “sensed imminent danger” and acted in self-defense.

    But human rights advocates have immediately pushed back on this narrative, rejecting the military’s claim of a threat. Heba Morayef, regional director for Amnesty International covering the Middle East and North Africa, noted that Israeli military officials have failed to produce any evidence that the Bani Odeh family posed any danger to the soldiers at the time of the shooting. She described the mass killing as a horrific event that fits a wider, deeply troubling pattern of escalating lethal force used by Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians, where children and entire families too often bear the deadly cost. Morayef added that witness testimonies raise serious suspicions that the attack amounts to an extrajudicial execution, an unlawful killing outside any legal process.

    This pattern of justification is well-documented: the Israeli military almost always releases nearly identical claims of self-defense after its troops kill Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. Independent and human rights observers have long criticized the Israeli military for rarely opening meaningful investigations into deaths of Palestinians at the hands of its troops, and for enabling a widely condemned “shoot-to-kill” policy that allows troops to use lethal force even when unarmed Palestinians pose no immediate threat to soldiers.

    According to reporting from the Israeli outlet, while Israeli police launched a formal investigation into the Bani Odeh family killing, the special forces officers who carried out the shooting were never questioned as part of the probe. The investigation concluded in recent days, and the case is now expected to be formally closed by Israel’s Attorney General’s office without any disciplinary or legal action against the involved personnel.

    The shooting and impending closure of the case comes amid a sharp spike in Palestinian deaths in the West Bank following the October 7, 2023, attacks. Data from independent monitors shows that Israeli military forces and illegal Israeli settlers have killed at least 1,100 Palestinians in the West Bank since that date.

    For the town of Tammun, which is home to roughly 15,000 Palestinian residents, deadly Israeli military incursions are a regular occurrence. Forces almost always carry out these raids under the pretext of searching for “wanted individuals,” but the vast majority of people killed in these operations are unarmed civilians and children.

  • How Andy Burnham stood up to Starmer over Israel and could now reshape UK foreign policy

    How Andy Burnham stood up to Starmer over Israel and could now reshape UK foreign policy

    Just two years after securing a landslide general election victory, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself trapped in an existential battle for his political future, triggered by catastrophic, unexpected losses for the Labour Party in last week’s local elections. This challenge to his leadership has been months in the making: earlier this year, Starmer already nearly fell from power following the Peter Mandelson scandal, when damning connections between the now-former US ambassador, a close Starmer ally, and convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein came to light. Back then, internal Labour sources confirm, party figures opted to hold off on a leadership challenge solely to avoid upheaval ahead of the local elections, allowing Starmer to cling to his position. Today, that reprieve is over, and Starmer is surrounded by potential successors ready to step in if he steps down or is forced out. Whitehall insiders name four leading contenders for the top job: Health Secretary Wes Streeting, former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. What is most notable about this unfolding leadership crisis is its likely ripple effect on British foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel — a topic that has dominated UK political discourse for more than two years amid Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the recent economic shocks stemming from the US-Israeli war on Iran. Leading pollster Sir John Curtis has confirmed that the Green Party, the most prominent UK political voice opposing British support for Israel, inflicted far more damage on Labour’s local election vote share than right-wing challenger Reform UK. With left-wing and progressive voters abandoning Labour in droves over its Israel policy, any new leader will be forced to shift course to win back disaffected voters and undercut the Green Party’s growing momentum. That shift would almost certainly mean a far firmer stance against documented Israeli war crimes, analysts say. Of the four main contenders, Andy Burnham has staked out the most distinct position on Israel, diverging sharply from Starmer’s pro-Israeli stance over the last two years. A popular soft-left figure within Labour, Burnham’s history on the issue is layered: he voted for the 2003 UK invasion of Iraq under Tony Blair, joined the pro-Israel lobby group Labour Friends of Israel in 2015, and during that year’s Labour leadership campaign described the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as “spiteful”, called Israel a “democracy with a long history of protecting minorities”, and argued the Balfour Declaration should be celebrated in UK schools as an example of British values. But even in his early career, Burnham positioned himself as a critic of hardline Israeli government policy. A little-documented 2012 trip to the occupied West Bank with the pro-Palestine group Labour Friends of Palestine foreshadowed his later shift. After Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2015 re-election, he called the result “depressing” on social media, noting Netanyahu had run on a pledge to expand illegal settlements and arguing the Palestinian people would need increased international support. That same year, he told the Palestine Solidarity Campaign he backed full recognition of Palestinian statehood as a right, not a gift, called for an end to Israeli occupation and illegal settlement expansion, and condemned Hamas rocket and terror attacks. In the wake of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent siege and bombardment of Gaza, Burnham openly broke with Starmer’s approach. While the then-opposition Labour Party aligned with the Conservative government to give Israel unqualified support — with Starmer infamously backing Israel’s “right” to cut off all power and water to Gaza’s 2 million Palestinian civilians — Burnham released a statement just two days later that drew a clear line between himself and his leader. He condemned Hamas’ attacks but only backed Israel’s right to self-defense “in line with international law”, explicitly ruling out carte blanche for Israel and calling for urgent humanitarian access to Gaza. As the Palestinian death toll climbed into the thousands, Burnham went even further, joining London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar in breaking ranks to call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, at a time when Starmer was still pressuring rebel MPs to fall in line. In a column explaining his decision, he warned Starmer against labeling dissenting MPs as disloyal, argued Israel’s response to 7 October had to be targeted to avoid being seen as disproportionate and indiscriminate, and publicly recanted his 2003 vote for the Iraq War, acknowledging the US-led invasion had caused massive harm to innocent civilians and fueled terrorist recruitment rather than rooting out extremism. This positioning paid off electorally in 2024: while Labour lost a third of its vote share in UK areas with majority Muslim populations, Burnham comfortably retained his Greater Manchester mayoral post, just as Khan held London despite both having large Muslim constituencies. Over the following two years, Burnham continued to push the Starmer government for bolder action on Palestine, joining a group of senior Labour figures in June 2025 to urge immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood, noting the UK’s historic role in carving up the Middle East via the Sykes-Picot agreement created a moral obligation to endorse Palestinian self-determination. The Starmer government ultimately granted recognition that September. Burnham also remains a prominent supporter of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, which organizes parliamentary trips to the occupied Palestinian territories. His stance puts him sharply at odds with the other three leading contenders, all of whom have largely stuck to Labour’s official pro-Israel line on Gaza. While Ed Miliband, a figure seen as more left-leaning on foreign policy, privately opposed British participation in the recent US-Israeli war on Iran before it launched, he has not broken with the party’s public stance. For his part, Wes Streeting — who narrowly held his seat in 2024 against a challenge from British Palestinian independent candidate Leanne Mohamad — privately acknowledged earlier this year that Israel was “committing war crimes before our eyes” and accused Israel of “rogue state behavior” in leaked text messages with disgraced former ambassador Mandelson, but he has yet to repeat these claims publicly or push for concrete action such as sanctions. Even under Starmer, UK-Israel diplomatic relations have been strained, with London imposing a partial arms embargo on Israel, but the British government has continued deep military and political collaboration with Israel throughout its campaign in Gaza. If Starmer departs, analysts agree that any replacement will face overwhelming electoral pressure to ramp up criticism of Israel, and the UK government could finally move forward with sanctions on goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Burnham’s path to the premiership does face significant barriers: as a sitting mayor, he would first need to secure a parliamentary seat to be eligible for the Labour leadership. Even so, he remains the candidate most likely to pull Labour back to its traditional center-left roots if he clears those hurdles. Regardless of which candidate ultimately prevails, all contenders will be forced to take a public stance on Starmer’s handling of the Gaza conflict, and a fundamental shift in British foreign policy is all but guaranteed in the coming months.

  • War on Iran: Senior royal says Saudi Arabia avoided Israeli plan to ‘plunge region into ruin’

    War on Iran: Senior royal says Saudi Arabia avoided Israeli plan to ‘plunge region into ruin’

    A high-ranking member of the Saudi royal family has publicly confirmed that the Gulf kingdom has deliberately rejected falling into an Israeli scheme designed to spark a catastrophic full-scale war between Riyadh and Tehran. Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former longtime intelligence chief who led Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency for more than 20 years and the son of the kingdom’s former ruler King Faisal, laid out this position in an opinion piece published over the weekend in Arab News, a major Saudi-owned regional publication.

    In the commentary, Prince Turki emphasized that under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, the kingdom has prioritized diplomatic de-escalation to resolve a conflict Riyadh sought to prevent from its outset. He detailed that when regional actors including Iran pushed to draw Saudi Arabia into what he called a “furnace of destruction,” the kingdom’s leadership chose to absorb the harm caused by regional tensions to safeguard its citizens’ lives and property.

    The former intelligence head acknowledged that if Saudi leadership had opted to launch retaliatory strikes against Iranian infrastructure and interests, it had the capability to carry out such attacks. However, he warned that any military response would have had devastating consequences, triggering further attacks on critical Saudi assets including vital oil production facilities and the kingdom’s strategic desalination plants that supply the arid nation with drinking water.

    “Had the Israeli plan to ignite war between us and Iran succeeded, the region would have been plunged into ruin and destruction,” Prince Turki wrote in the piece. “Thousands of our sons and daughters would have been lost in a battle in which we had no stake. Israel would have succeeded in imposing its will on the region and remained the only unchecked actor in our surroundings.”

    He added that Saudi Arabia is currently working alongside Pakistan to head off additional regional escalation and prevent tensions from spiraling out of control. In a sharp rebuke to proponents of military action, he noted that “As for the advocates of war, they continue in their arrogance and cawing, perhaps unaware that the rug has been pulled from under their feet.”

    Prince Turki’s comments come amid a sharply escalated regional crisis that unfolded after the U.S. and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28. In retaliation, Iran carried out strikes against every Gulf state that hosts U.S. military bases, including Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has also suffered major economic and strategic disruption from Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital maritime chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily crude oil shipments pass.

    Last month, Saudi Arabia officially announced that attacks on its key East-West Pipeline had cut 700,000 barrels per day of the kingdom’s production capacity, equal to approximately 10 percent of its current total oil exports. The pipeline is a critical strategic asset that allows Saudi Arabia to ship oil from its Gulf coast fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, bypassing the closed Strait of Hormuz entirely.

    Beyond pipeline infrastructure, Iranian strikes have also targeted key refining facilities in major Saudi energy hubs including Jubail, Ras Tanura, Yanbu, and the capital Riyadh. These attacks have directly disrupted the kingdom’s exports of refined petroleum products to global consumer markets, adding additional strain to already volatile global energy supplies.

  • Gulf turns to Turkey for air defence systems amid Iran threats

    Gulf turns to Turkey for air defence systems amid Iran threats

    Escalating regional security pressures and crippling backlogs in U.S. weapons deliveries have sparked a sharp shift in arms procurement across the Middle East, with Gulf and other Arab states increasingly turning to Turkish defence manufacturers for drones and air defence systems.

  • Yemen: The rise of Saudi-backed Salafi commanders

    Yemen: The rise of Saudi-backed Salafi commanders

    For decades, Yemeni Salafi preacher Gawed cut a familiar figure across Lahj governorate’s mosque circuit. Dressed in traditional Yemeni attire—a mawaz, the men’s sarong-like garment common across the region—and sporting a full beard, the 43-year-old Quranic sciences graduate spent his days proselytizing, teaching a Salafi interpretation of Islam that strictly separated religious guidance from political affairs, a framework he learned from iconic Salafi leader Muqbil al-Wadi’i, who founded the movement’s foundational Dammaj religious center in Yemen’s Saada governorate in the 1980s after studying in Saudi Arabia.

    The Salafi movement, a Sunni Islamist current that adheres to a literalist reading of Islamic scripture centered on the practices of Islam’s earliest three generations, would see its apolitical posture upended by decades of escalating conflict with Yemen’s Houthi movement. A Zaydi Shia faction rooted in Saada governorate, the Houthis share with other Shia sects a core belief that leadership of the Muslim community following the Prophet Muhammad rightfully belonged to Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, and his line of descendant Imams, a doctrine that places it at ideological odds with Salafi thought.

    Tensions between the two groups simmered for more than a decade in Saada, their shared historic stronghold, before boiling over in 2013, when Houthi forces laid siege to Dar al-Hadith, the prominent Salafi center in Dammaj. The siege left more than 250 people dead, and by 2014, Salafis were forced to evacuate the facility entirely. Thousands fled to other Yemeni governorates, including Gawed and a contingent that resettled in Lahj. Shortly after the Salafi evacuation, Houthi forces advanced on Yemen’s capital Sanaa, securing a decisive victory that brought roughly 30 percent of the country—most of the densely populated northern and western regions—under their control.

    When Houthi forces pushed into Lahj in 2015, Gawed and his fellow displaced Salafis abandoned their apolitical tradition and picked up arms. “We didn’t fight for political reasons; we fought to protect our lands and our faith from the Houthis as they tried to invade our villages and distort Islam,” Gawed told Middle East Eye in an interview. For the Salafi preacher and his followers, the fight against the Houthis has never paused: Gawed says his group has remained on the front lines continuously since 2015, vowing not to stop until the entire country is “liberated” from Houthi control. “If we purify our intentions for Allah, we will defeat them across the nation. That is all that is required now,” he said.

    Though Salafis fought alongside various anti-Houthi factions for nearly a decade, 2023 brought a major strategic shift. Backed by Saudi Arabia, Yemen’s internationally recognized Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) launched the National Shield Forces (NSF), a new unified military formation led by Salafi commanders. Drawing on Gawed’s years of frontline combat experience and religious standing, the NSF appointed him a commander despite his lack of formal military academy training.

    Gawed explained that the decision to form an independent, Salafi-led force grew out of longstanding friction fighting alongside factions that did not share the movement’s core ideological commitments. “At times, fighting under groups that did not share our beliefs was a struggle, so forming the NSF was a priority,” he said, adding that the NSF welcomes all committed anti-Houthi fighters regardless of ideological background. “I am not speaking only of Salafis; I believe in any fighters committed to liberating Yemen from the Houthis above all other purposes.” Today, the NSF includes hundreds of non-Salafi fighters serving alongside Salafi troops.

    After its formation, the NSF first operated quietly, but it emerged as a decisive player amid rising tensions between the PLC and the Southern Transitional Council (STC), a rival southern Yemeni separatist faction. Moving from positions along the Saudi border and in Marib governorate, NSF forces successfully pushed STC influence out of large swathes of Hadhramout, Shabwa, and Abyan before advancing into Aden, the PLC’s temporary headquarters. Though this campaign was not directed at the Houthis, Salafi fighters took an active role, with Gawed noting that Salafi doctrine frames obedience to legitimate governing authority as a core religious duty rooted in Quranic teachings that command believers to obey Allah, the Prophet, and those placed in authority over the community. “We fight under the banner of Islam, and our faith commands us to obey Wali Al-Amr (the leader in authority). Therefore, we fought alongside the PLC against those attempting to create chaos,” Gawed said. “If a new faction emerges today to sow disorder and hinder our primary goal of fighting the Shia, we will fight them as well.”

    This shift from mosque outreach to formal military power is an unprecedented turning point for Yemeni Salafis, who have only intermittently engaged in armed conflict in the past. The movement played a key allied role in the 1994 Yemeni Civil War, backing former president Ali Abdullah Saleh’s northern government against southern secessionist forces, but for most of modern Yemeni history, Salafis remained focused on religious outreach and avoided formal political or military leadership roles.

    Salafis’ formal entry into high-level Yemeni governance began in 2022, when the PLC was formed, and prominent Salafi anti-Houthi commander Abu Zara’a al-Maharami was given a seat on the council. A new milestone was reached in April 2026, when PLC head Rashad al-Alimi appointed Salafi Brigadier General Hamdi Shukri as Commander of the Fourth Military Region, a strategic command that covers Aden, Lahj, Taiz, Abyan, and parts of al-Dhale. Today, Salafis hold top military leadership positions across nearly all PLC-controlled Yemeni territory, with other anti-Houthi forces—including fighters affiliated with the Islamist Islah party and the Yemeni Republican Guard—now operating under Salafi command in multiple governorates.

    Gawed, for his part, says he welcomes the movement’s growing institutional power, framing it as part of a broader push to unify fragmented anti-Houthi forces under a single PLC-aligned military umbrella. “It is not only the Salafis; the Yemeni army is currently restructuring military groups to fight under a single umbrella, the PLC, represented by the Ministry of Defence. Once unified, we will all direct our weapons toward the Houthis,” he explained. After years of debilitating internal infighting between anti-Houthi factions—including repeated violent clashes between Islah and the STC—Gawed says internal tensions have calmed as military restructuring progresses.

    Not all Yemeni military officials frame the rise of Salafi leadership through an ideological lens, however. Speaking to Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity due to restrictions on speaking to media, a senior Yemeni Defence Ministry source said he opposes dividing military forces along factional, regional, or religious lines. “I am against the division of military groups based on party, region or religious beliefs. We are all Yemenis, and we fight to liberate Yemen from the Iran-backed militia,” he said. The source pushed back against framing top commanders exclusively by their Salafi affiliation, noting: “If there is a good leader, he is promoted to commander because he is skilled and loyal to the country, not because he is a Salafi, an Islahi or anything else. All military regions and units have official names and should be referred to by their designated unit, brigade or region title, rather than being called ‘the Salafi forces’.” Even so, the source acknowledged Salafis’ critical frontline contributions, confirming they have played a major role in battles across multiple governorates and deserve representation in top military leadership, and noted that military restructuring to unify command is largely complete.

    Political analyst Mohammed Sultan, however, argues that Salafis’ rapid rise to power is less a product of institutional restructuring and more a reflection of Saudi geopolitical priorities in Yemen. “The National Shield Forces were formed by Saudi Arabia under the exclusive leadership of Salafis,” Sultan explained. “Saudi Arabia took this step in 2023 when it felt it had almost no other reliable forces on the ground to support its interests.” By 2023, Sultan noted, the STC and Republican Guard were backed by the United Arab Emirates, while the Islah party was no longer viewed as loyal to Riyadh, leaving Salafis as the only major faction aligned with Saudi goals. When STC forces positioned themselves near Saudi borders in Hadhramout in late 2025, it was Salafi NSF forces that successfully displaced them, cementing Saudi trust in the movement. “Since then, Saudi Arabia has placed greater trust in the Salafis. Consequently, they have secured more positions within the Yemeni army, as Saudi Arabia is the primary benefactor funding the military,” he said.

    While Sultan acknowledges that Salafi fighters are brave, effective, and loyal to their command, he warns that their rise to power carries long-term risks for Yemen’s future governance. The core challenge, he argues, is that top positions are being allocated based on factional loyalty rather than professional proficiency—a dynamic that will complicate efforts to build a unified civil state if a peace deal with the Houthis is ever reached. “If a reconciliation with the Houthis is reached or the war ends, establishing a civil state will be extremely difficult,” he said.