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/
The US is bracing for another cycle of elections, with November’s midterms determining the scope of Donald Trump’s power in the final two years of his presidency. All seats in the House of Representatives will be contested, as will one-third of the Senate.
Trump’s Republican party currently controls both branches of Congress. However, polls are indicating a swing to the Democrats that would see them retake the House. A current RealClear generic congressional vote poll, in which people are asked whether they will vote for Democrats or Republicans for Congress, gives the Democrats a five percentage point lead over the Republicans at 47.4% to 42%.
One major variable that is likely to affect the outcome of November’s elections is the war in Iran. Some Republican political operatives believe the conflict and its repercussions, namely the increased cost of living, could prove fatal to their party’s hopes of securing a slim retention of the House.
A March poll by the Pew Research Center revealed 61% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of the conflict. One voting demographic of particular concern for Republicans is people aged 18 to 29. An Economist/YouGov poll also from March showed that 63% of these people opposed the war.
Men within this age bracket were an important factor in Trump’s 2024 election victory. Philip Wang, political reporter for Time magazine, argued in an article on April 8 that this “same voting bloc … is showing far less interest in voting in the midterms”.
William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has asserted that the affordability issue is affecting Trump’s standing. He has also stated that, for a majority of Americans, the president’s “priorities do not align with theirs”. A recent survey conducted by American non-profit Consumer Action for a Strong Economy revealed that voters’ most pressing concern was the price of groceries, with the cost of healthcare coming second.
Over the past year, both parties have also engaged in redistricting efforts designed to increase their respective chances of controlling the House. In a number of mainly – though not exclusively – Republican controlled states, legislators have redrawn congressional maps in an attempt to secure more seats.
The redistricting war has come down to two final states: Democratic-led Virginia and Republican-dominated Florida. On April 21, voters in Virginia will decide the fate of proposed new congressional boundaries heavily favouring Democrats. Florida’s legislature will vote days later on a revised Republican-leaning electoral map.
However, there are growing concerns in both political camps about these votes and their impact on the result of the midterms. Florida Republicans fear Trump’s low approval ratings could cost them redrawn districts, while Democrats are encountering tepid backing from their supporters for their aggressive redistricting in Virginia.
Growing Democrat momentum
There have already been significant election results in recent weeks that have shed light on the trajectory of the upcoming midterms. In Republican-led Texas, a fascinating race is shaping up between both parties for a Senate seat. The last time a Democrat won here was in 1988.
In primary elections in March, Democratic voters chose state representative James Talarico as their candidate for November’s election. Republicans are yet to confirm theirs, with incumbent Senator John Cornyn facing Texas attorney-general Ken Paxton in a run-off election in May.
Primary voting numbers in Texas are encouraging for Democrats. For the first time in six years, more of its supporters cast early vote ballots in a March primary than Republicans. Democrats also saw a major shift in Latino voters to their side, a voting bloc that had swung to Trump in record numbers in 2024.
According to analysis by American broadcaster NPR: “In the ten most populous counties in Texas that are also at least 50% Latino, votes in the Democratic primary increased by an average of 128%.” The same analysis concluded that, in those same counties, the Republican primary saw an average drop in votes of 4.8%.
Then, in early April, liberal judge Chris Taylor won a seat on the state of Wisconsin’s supreme court. She secured 60.1% of the vote to her conservative opponent’s 39.8%. Taylor’s statewide vote is an impressive 21 percentage points higher than Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s vote share was in the state in 2024.
Also in early April, an election took place in Georgia to fill the congressional seat vacated by former Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene, who has publicly broken with Trump over his handling of the Epstein files, won in 2024 by almost 29 percentage points. Her replacement, Clay Fuller, held the seat for the Republican party by a much narrower margin of just 12 percentage points.
The forecasts for November’s midterm elections are moving in the Democrats direction, especially for taking control of the House. But there is some reason for hope among Republicans.
Figures from CBS News and CNN/SSRS show that at the same point in 2006 and 2018 – also midterm election years where a Republican president was in office – Democrats were ahead on party favourability by 18 points and 12 points respectively. At this stage in 2026, the data reveals Republicans are actually sitting with a five-point favourability lead.
Seven months out from November’s midterms, Democrats have momentum on their side as well as a Republican president whose poll ratings are plummeting. The most likely outcome is that the Democrats will emerge with control of at least one branch of Congress.
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 …
Goods at a food bank
