WORKING people are already being presented with the bill for imperialist war in Iran. Today the country was told to prepare for food shortages if the conflict caused by the US-Israeli aggression continues.
The blockade of the Straits of Hormuz, presently being enforced by the US military, is cutting off vital supplies of carbon dioxide (CO2). This is needed for the storage of packaged meats and salads, and for brewing.
…
Ultra-Blairite Business Secretary Peter Kyle was deployed in an effort to reassure the public that the Starmer Cabinet has the situation under control.
His version of “keep calm and carry on” was to reveal that Keir Starmer “is going through personally and driving deep dives into lots of areas of resilience throughout our economy.”
Given Starmer’s cynical involvement in Donald Trump’s aggression against Iran, allied to his general mishandling of every project he touches, this announcement may not have the effect Kyle hopes. Even Corporal Jones of Dad’s Army might allow it is time to panic.
The prospect of food shortages comes on top of massively escalating fuel bills as a result of the war.
Allied to these direct consequences there is the mounting pressure for accelerated military spending. This primarily comes from those elements within Labour who are also for unequivocal backing for any US war, no matter how illegal or even deranged it may be.
Thus George Robertson’s intervention. When he was defence secretary under Tony Blair he authorised a military strategy focused not on defending Britain but on acting as first accomplice to Washington in its “world policeman” role.
To maintain that privileged position he made it clear that the people’s welfare must be sacrificed.
Starmer is far from being as distant from that approach as he likes to appear. He is enabling the US-Israel aggression in every way possible whole continuing to declare “this is not our war.”
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/
Paramedics search a building for survivors in Nabatieh on Monday, shortly after an Israeli airstrike. Photograph: Chris McGrath/Getty Images
Lebanese health ministry says killing of 91 healthcare workers shows ‘total disregard’ for international law
When they received the call to respond to an Israeli airstrike in the city of Mayfadoun, in southern Lebanon, most of the paramedics held back, having previously seen colleagues killed by double-tap attacks targeting rescuers. But the medics from the Islamic Health Association (IHA) rushed to the scene.
By the time the other emergency workers arrived at the site, they found the IHA medics had indeed been caught in a second strike. They started evacuating their wounded colleagues, only for their ambulances to be hit in two further attacks.
One of the paramedics covered his ears and screamed, convulsing in pain as shrapnel shattered the back window of the ambulance.
The rescue mission on Wednesday afternoon had turned into a nightmare as Israel carried out three consecutive strikes on three sets of ambulances and medical workers.
In total, the attacks killed four medics and wounded six more, from three different ambulance corps, according to medical sources. Three of the medics were from the Hezbollah-affiliated IHA and Amal-affiliated medical corps, while one was from the Nabatieh emergency services organisation. Under international law, all medics are protected and are considered non-combatants, regardless of political affiliation.
The US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz aims to cut off Iran’s oil exports and punish any ship that pays a toll for transiting the waterway. somkanae sawatdinak/Shutterstock
A US-sanctioned tanker with links to China, the Rich Starry, has transited the Strait of Hormuz, despite the US blockade of the waterway. According to the respected maritime news and intelligence agency Lloydslist, the Rich Starry is falsely registered in Malawi, but is Chinese owned and carrying a Chinese crew. It is subject to US sanctions for carrying Iranian goods. It is not known what the vessel is currently transporting.
Having been anchored off the UAE, the Rich Starry is not technically in breach of the blockade, but the incident has raised fears of a potential confrontation between the US and China in the region. Other vessels are reported to be waiting to transit the Strait, despite the US blockade.
The decision to impose a blockade on Iranian ports in the vicinity of the Strait was announced by the US president, Donald Trump, following the breakdown of US-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 11. Trump’s announcement was clarified by a statement on April 12 from US Central Command, which stipulated that the operation would prevent ships entering and exiting Iranian ports and coastal areas while not impeding vessels transiting the Strait to and from non‑Iranian ports.
Trump also announced that: “I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.” It remains unclear as to whether this will be implemented.
The Strait of Hormuz has been as good as closed since shortly after the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran at the end of February. Most ship owners, charterers and insurers are unwilling to accept the financial risk – and risk to human life – that transiting the Strait under threat of Iranian attack would entail.
Blockades are used to convert naval dominance into advantage on land by preventing imports and exports of goods, in Iran’s case oil, to put pressure on an adversary’s population and government by hurting their economy. Likewise, Iran’s strategy of closing down the Strait after it was attacked intended to disrupt the global economy in order to put international pressure on the Trump administration.
Iran has long threatened to use its geographical proximity to the Strait of Hormuz to close it down. Having demonstrated how effective this can be in disrupting oil and liquid natural gas prices, Tehran has been flexing its muscles by demanding that ships wanting to transit the waterway pay a tariff of up to US$2 million (£1.5 million). Lloydslist reported on March 25 that “a total of 26 vessel transits through the strait have followed a route pre-approved under an IRGC [Islamic Republican Guard Corps] ‘toll booth’ system that requires the ship operators to submit to a vetting scheme”.
This was reportedly a sticking point in negotiations between the US and Iran in Pakistan on April 11. Tehran wants to retain control of the Strait and the ability to levy tolls from transiting ships. The US is demanding that the maritime right of free passage must be enforced. It was when the first round of talks ended in deadlock that the US president decided to impose the naval blockade.
Former US diplomat to the Middle East, David Satterfield, told the BBC on April 13 that it was now about which country could absorb more pain, adding: “The Iranians believe … that they can absorb more pain for a longer period than their opponents can.”
Expensive – and risky – gambit
The cost calculus is asymmetric. It will be more expensive for the US to maintain its blockade than it was for Iran to close the Strait. The question will be whether Washington can sustain interdiction long enough to effectively undermine the regime – always remembering that the Islamic Republic has potentially had decades to prepare for this sort of scenario.
A prolonged crisis in the Gulf will inevitably affect prices and disrupt the global economy. Justin Ng/Alamy Live News
If the blockade can be implemented effectively, it could – in time – have an effect on an economy wrecked by years of sanctions and further weakened by the recent war and nationwide protests in January. The question is how long that might take.
To be effective, the blockade will require considerable naval resources. The US is reported to have as many as 21 warships in the Middle East, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Tripoli, an amphibious assault ship with a complement of marines who are trained to board ships using helicopters and small boarding craft.
This introduces another layer of risk as assets operating near to the Iranian coasts will need to be protected against Iranian missiles, drones and fast attack craft. So, this would be resource‑intensive, operationally demanding and thus politically exposed for the US.
How the US will go about enforcement remains to be seen. In December and January, US naval and coastguard ships boarded and seized several vessels linked to Venezuela’s shadow fleet that had broken America’s blockade. Whether it would pursue the same action with a vessel linked to China is another matter though. And while another option would be to fire warning shots, these can be dangerous around tankers because of the risk of oil spillage, as well as the obvious political risk attached to Chinese-linked vessels.
It’s not clear at present that imposing a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz will restore free navigation of the waterway any time soon. But it now appears that, in the absence of free navigation, some countries have decided to call America’s bluff and attempt to transit the waterway in defiance of the US blockade. And the big concern must be the serious risk of escalation if the US attempts to enforce the blockade on a Chinese-owned vessel.
None of this will be welcomed by the US president and his national security team.
Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/
Israeli and US flags hang at Ben Gurion Airport ahead of the arrival of the US president, Donald Trump, to Israel in October 2025. Abir Sultan / EPA
Israel and the US have maintained a close alliance for decades. Their recent joint air campaign in Iran has once again underscored the depth of this partnership. Yet while the strength of their relationship is widely acknowledged, the reasons behind it remain contested.
At the centre of this debate lies the question of whether US support for Israel is driven primarily by domestic political forces, particularly lobbying organisations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), or whether it reflects broader strategic imperatives within US foreign policy.
Aipac’s historical influence is well documented. It emerged in the 1950s from the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs and developed into a powerful lobbying organisation. By the 1970s it had become instrumental in securing substantial US military and economic aid, as well as favourable legislative outcomes, for Israel.
US aid to Israel now includes approximately US$3.3 billion (£2.4 billion) annually in military financing and an additional US$500 million for missile defence. Aipac, which has embedded itself across Democratic and Republican political networks, has played a central role in maintaining this flow of support.
But the claim that Aipac drives US policy, which former US counterterrorism official Joe Kent suggested in March when resigning from the Trump administration in opposition to the Iran war, misreads how power operates in Washington.
As scholars of American power, we argue that the US-Israeli alliance has been driven primarily by Israel’s demonstrated value as a strategic asset for the US, rather than solely by the influence of lobbying. Aipac has become effective because it aligns with this existing strategic consensus, not because it created it.
The former US national security advisor and secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, meets with Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in 2008. Anna Kaplan / EPA
Strategic US asset
This strategic consensus can be traced to the cold war. Israel’s decisive victory in the 1967 six-day war over a coalition of Arab states supported by and aligned with the Soviet Union revealed its utility as a regional proxy capable of advancing US interests in the Middle East.
From that point onward, US policymakers framed Israel as a pillar of their Middle East strategy – part of a broader effort to contain the influence of rival powers, project US power overseas and stabilise a region that is central to global energy supplies.
This framing became institutionalised in US policy in the late 1960s. Washington sharply increased arms transfers, supplying Israel with advanced aircraft such as F-4 Phantoms under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Intelligence-sharing arrangements were also expanded between the two countries.
The US perception of Israel as a strategic regional asset grew further in 1970. That year, the US requested that Israel prepare to intervene in Jordan on behalf of the government in its conflict with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israel responded by moving troops to the border, with the presence of Israeli planes overhead often credited as having deterred invasion by Syrian forces.
Then, during the 1973 Yom Kippur war (again fought between Israel and Soviet-aligned Arab states), the US launched a large-scale airlift of military supplies into Israel. The operation signalled that Israel’s security was now directly tied to American strategy.
From the late 1970s, Israel was incorporated into a wider US-led regional security architecture alongside countries such as Egypt and Jordan. This followed the 1978 Camp David accords and 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty, which brought Egypt into a US-backed regional order. The US subsequently expanded joint military exercises, positioned military equipment in Israel and deepened defence coordination across these states.
Further evidence underscores the primacy of strategy in the US-Israeli relationship. President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 decision to sell surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia, for example, proceeded despite intense opposition from pro-Israel lobby groups. When core US strategic interests have been at stake, US policy has overridden lobbying pressure.
Formal agreements have reinforced the depth of the US-Israeli alliance. A 2016 memorandum of understanding committed US$38 billion in military aid over a decade. The US is also Israel’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade approaching US$50 billion annually.
Cooperation extends across scientific, technological and industrial sectors, while both states are deeply integrated within international organisations. This dense web of ties cannot be reduced to lobbying influence alone.
People walk past damaged buildings in Corniche el-Mazraa, one of the areas of Beirut that were hit during a wave of Israeli airstrikes on April 8. Wael Hamzeh / EPA
Israel has played a significant role in destabilising the Middle East in recent years through its actions in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. It has also effectively undermined the current ceasefire between the US and Iran by continuing to bomb Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.
In light of these developments, does the core premise of the US-Israeli alliance – that Israel helps underpin regional stability in line with US interests – still hold? Or are the foundations of US support for Israel beginning to strain under the pressures of a more volatile Middle East?
We argue that, instead of undermining the alliance, Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon expose the underlying structure of the US-Israeli relationship. Israel said Lebanon was not included in the ceasefire, a stance that was reinforced by US officials including President Donald Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance.
They backed Israel’s right to act against Hezbollah, with Trump calling the conflict in Lebanon a “separate skirmish”. This alignment suggests not divergence, but coordination within an asymmetric relationship in which the US provides the overarching strategic framework and Israel executes within it.
Rather than adding strain to the alliance, these developments illustrate its durability. Even where Israeli actions risk escalation or complicate diplomacy, US support remains intact – rooted in a broader convergence of interests centred on maintaining regional dominance.
Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone …
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer in Berlin, Germany on 18 March 2021 [Bernd von Jutrczenka/Pool/Getty Images]
Support for Israel is set to become a virtual purity test for Telegraph journalists after the newspaper’s takeover by German media giant Axel Springer, whose chief executive, Mathias Döpfner, has reportedly described his political credo as “Zionism above all”.
The acquisition, cleared by UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, puts one of Britain’s most influential newspapers under the control of a company that formally lists support for Israel as one of its core institutional values.
According to details published by Owen Jones, Döpfner wrote to Telegraph staff to say they would operate within Axel Springer’s “Essentials”, a set of principles that the company presents as its editorial compass.
Among them is a commitment to support “the right of existence of the State of Israel” and to oppose “all forms of antisemitism”, placing Israel second only to freedom, free speech, the rule of law and democracy in the company’s hierarchy of values.
The singling out of Israel for special protection out of 193 UN member states has raised concern. Israel alone is explicitly granted this level of institutional protection in Axel Springer’s declared values, raising immediate questions about how far editorial independence can really extend under the new ownership.
Axel Springer insists its “Essentials” create the conditions for “maximum journalistic freedom and intellectual independence”, but critics argue that requiring adherence to a fixed political position on a specific foreign state undermines any claim to neutrality.
Döpfner’s outspoken support for Israel is also likely to deepen concern about whether the Telegraph can cover Palestine fairly under its new owners. The Guardian reported that leaked messages attributed to him using the phrase “Zionism above all”.
Döpfner’s public remarks have also repeatedly blurred the line between support for Palestinians and support for Hamas. In an internal Axel Springer transcript published by the company, he described more than four million social media posts under “Free Palestine” and similar hashtags as “pro-Hamas topics”.
That framing is likely to deepen concern among journalists and readers alike about how criticism of Israel may be treated at the Telegraph under its new owners.
A Telegraph journalist told Owen Jones that being informed by the incoming owner’s chief executive that support for Israel was effectively a core principle was “more than a little concerning”, adding that it raised questions about “how any reporting from the paper can be considered factual if that is our core principle”.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Goods at a food bank
