I am not convinced that owner/managers of SME’s understand this.

The following is a brief extract from my book, the 2nd Edition of the Contentious Probate Handbook (2025), published by the Law Society’, which contains a chapter about ADR including a detailed discussion of both Mediation and Mediation Advocacy.

These points apply equally to Commercial Mediation.

‘In the experience and opinion of the author, the cut and thrust world of trust and estate litigation has very little to do with abstract notions of justice, and is actually more about perceptions and calculation. So, unless a party needs a court determination to move forward, or the court must be involved, i.e. because the case involves children or other vulnerable beneficiaries, then why not do a deal instead? In the author’s experience, there is nearly always a deal to be done.

Paradoxically, while a claimant may have gone to court or threatened to issue proceedings because they are being ignored or stonewalled, the voices in the court room are not those of the parties, but of lawyers and judges who have no actual ‘skin in the game.’

Consequently, how participants speak to each other in a mediation, either directly, or through their legal representatives or the mediator, is an opportunity to show respect by allowing the other to be heard. That can move the parties along from deadlock about their respective positions to doing a deal in their mutual interests. The skill of allowing a participant in mediation their voice, i.e., the right to be heard, is linked to both ‘how you talk’ and to ’empathetic listening’, because to switch the dynamic from ‘confrontation’ to ‘collaboration’, you must first show a person that:

(a)   he has been heard; and

(b)   you understand his position, and the underlying reasons.

The unifying factor in all probate and trust disputes is the composition of the estate/ trust asset pool, and its value. It is not uncommon for litigation costs to exceed the value of an estate. Therefore, the earlier parties in dispute become participants in a process of negotiation, the more likely it is, that each will receive a slice of a larger pie (i.e. of the estate/trust fund) if the dispute settles at or shortly after mediation.

The overwhelming majority of contentious probate/trust disputes never reach trial, because parties agree the structure and terms of a legally robust compromise. ‘The overall success rate of mediation remains very high, with an aggregate settlement rate of 92%.’ (Google – Tenth-CEDR-Mediation-Audit-2023.pdf). This figure is for all civil mediations.

Mediation may also be an opportunity to transform an acrimonious probate/trust dispute into a joint-problem solving exercise, by applying estate planning principles to discover and unlock tax-efficiency post-death, resulting in the enlargement of the estate/trust fund pie for settlement.’

AI –‘Visual literacy is the ability to “read” an image much like you would a text, moving beyond a simple “like” or “dislike” to decode the specific choices an artist made to communicate. It involves active seeing —consciously attending to how an image is constructed to uncover its deeper emotional, narrative, and conceptual layers. 

The 4-Step “Feldman Method” for Reading Art

A foundational technique in art education, the Feldman Method breaks the process into four objective and subjective stages: 

Description (The “What”): Identify only observable facts. List the subject matter, colours, lines, shapes, and objects without trying to explain them yet.

1. Analysis (The “How”): Examine how the work is organised. Look at the composition, balance, contrast, and focal points. Ask yourself: “How do these elements guide my eye through the piece?”.
2. Interpretation (The “Why”): Derive meaning based on your observations. Consider the emotions evoked, potential symbolism, and what the artist might be trying to say.
3. Evaluation (The Judgment): Decide if the work is successful. Does it effectively communicate its idea? Is it innovative or moving? This judgment should be based on your previous analysis rather than just personal taste. 

Techniques to See Beyond the Surface

To uncover complex ideas, you can use these specific strategies:

• Slow Looking: Spend at least five minutes with a single work. Most people look for only 15–30 seconds, but slow looking allows your eyes to adjust and notice subtle details like brushstrokes or hidden patterns that only emerge with time.
• Identify Visual Language: Learn the “alphabet” of art—line, shape, color, texture, and space. For instance, jagged lines might suggest tension, while muted cool colours can evoke sadness or calm.
• Contextualisation: Research the “who, when, and where.” Knowing the historical, cultural, or biographical context—such as Picasso painting Guernica during the Spanish Civil War—instantly shifts a piece from “abstract shapes” to a powerful social statement.
• Notice Absences: Ask what is not there. What has the artist cropped out? What is implied but left unpainted? These omissions are often as meaningful as what is included.
• Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS): Use three simple questions to guide your inquiry: “What’s going on in this picture?”, “What do you see that makes you say that?”, and “What more can we find?”. 

Why It Matters

Developing visual literacy serves as a “mirror,” revealing what you value based on what you notice. Beyond the gallery, these skills build critical thinking and resistance to manipulation in an image-saturated world, helping you decode everything from advertising to political propaganda. … 

Visual literacy is a critical skill for interpreting ancient art because, in many early societies, images functioned as the primary language of communication. While modern audiences are heavily text-based, ancient cultures were often image-based, with visual symbols serving as a more accessible and widely understood “lingua franca” than written words. 

Developing this skill is essential for several key reasons:1. Decoding a Visual “Grammar”Ancient art is not merely decorative; it operates like a language with its own vocabulary and syntax. A visually literate viewer can: 

Identify specific codes: For example, in Buddhist art, the specific position of a statue’s hands (mudras) carries distinct symbolic meanings that are only “readable” to those with visual training.

Understand compositional structure: Elements like balance, movement, and scale were intentionally used by ancient artists to direct a viewer’s eye and emphasize certain power dynamics or narratives. 

2. Navigating Contextual and Cultural NuancesSymbols are rarely universal; their meanings are deeply rooted in specific historical and social frameworks. 

Cultural Specificity: A symbol representing “purity” in one culture might signify “mourning” in another. Visual literacy allows researchers to avoid misinterpreting symbols through a modern or ethnocentric lens.

Evolution of Meaning: Symbols change over time. Visual literacy helps track how an ancient symbol (like the swastika’s original spiritual meaning) can be reappropriated or subverted in later contexts. 

3. Bridging the “Literacy Gap”In ancient societies with low textual literacy rates, visual icons were the primary tools for education and political persuasion. 

Mass Communication: Religious icons acted as focal points for worship, while political monuments reinforced a ruler’s legitimacy to a population that could not read official decrees.

Primary Historical Record: Because iconography often captured a broader range of daily life and social values than elite-authored texts, visual literacy is a vital tool for archaeologists to reconstruct the worldviews of the past. 

4. Recognizing “Mixed-Media” IntentionsMany ancient artifacts combine text and imagery. Visual literacy reveals that images often held more weight than the accompanying inscriptions. 

Iconocentric Archives: In the Persepolis Fortification Archive, research shows that officials often applied seals in a way that highlighted the iconographic symbol while partially or completely obscuring the written text, suggesting the image was the “primary reading material”. …’

See – https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0691171947?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

This morning when I woke up I had the insight that instead of ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ being proposed and brought about from the top of the institutional architecture of the Rules Base Order, i.e. by the UN, that instead it could be engineered from below, i.e. by state actors themselves.

In other words that in ‘International Relations’ and ‘Mediation Theory’, there is a ‘nexus’ between ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ and ‘Humanitarian Mediation’.

‘Geopolitical Mediation’ [‘GM‘] is a facilitated dialogue between ‘stakeholders’ [‘S‘] to:

(i) discuss the existence of shared/common interests; and

(ii) negotiate the accommodation of competing interests, by jointly
developing and implementing, a strategy of ‘convergence’, built upon the foundation of common ground.

In other words, GM is a process through which S can engineer a new ‘political order’ that is:

(i) mutually beneficial; and

(ii) more productive to each S, than the individual pursuit of their own competing interests. This is achieved by transforming geo-political ‘competitors’ into ‘partners’.

See – ‘The geopolitics of China’s Belt & Road Initiative and Westward focus’: https://lnkd.in/e_Vdf8Hr

To listen to the Professor’s reply to my Q. scroll forward to 57 minutes – ‘Potential for strategic convergence – a Geopolitical pivot upon which conflict can be avoided?’

As a diplomatic process GM may result in a road-map for multi-lateral ‘progressive-realism’ through innovative ‘partnerships and alliances’ formed with states in the Global South based upon a ‘convergence of interests.’

Britain through its historical ‘networks’ could become a pioneer.

AI – ‘In international relations and mediation theory, the nexus between geopolitical mediation and humanitarian mediation lies in their operational interdependence and the way they navigate the tension between “elite” power interests and the protection of vulnerable populations. While they often serve different primary objectives, they increasingly overlap in modern “multipolar” conflict zones where humanitarian aid becomes a strategic tool of geopolitical influence. 

1. Functional Interdependence

• Access vs. Stability: Humanitarian mediation acts as a critical precursor or “door-opener” for broader geopolitical negotiations. By securing local ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, or aid access, it builds the foundational trust and “de-escalation” required for high-level political settlement.
• Tactical Complementarity: Humanitarian efforts (often Track II or III) and geopolitical efforts (Track I) are frequently “complementary”. A reduction in violence through local humanitarian agreements can provide the breathing room necessary for a long-term geopolitical peace process to take root. 

2. Strategic Overlap and Risks

• The “Chess Board” Effect: Every local conflict now has a geopolitical dimension as great powers compete for global influence. Consequently, humanitarian mediation is no longer isolated; it takes place in a “complex geopolitical context” where actors like the UN must navigate the interests of major powers (e.g., the P5 of the UNSC) to maintain mandate and leverage.
• Instrumentalisation of Aid: In a multipolar world, humanitarian aid can become “hostage” to geopolitical trends. Major powers may use humanitarian missions to showcase capabilities, build coalitions, or gain political access to a region, effectively blurring the lines between “soft” humanitarian power and “hard” geopolitical strategy. 

3. Divergence in Principles

• Neutrality vs. Interests: Humanitarian mediation is strictly guided by the principles of humanity, neutrality, and impartiality. In contrast, geopolitical mediators are often driven by specific political, economic, or security interests related to their own strategic positioning.
• Scope and Duration: Geopolitical mediation focuses on national/international legal frameworks and long-term “stable governance”. Humanitarian mediation is typically a short-term, “needs-oriented” problem-solving process intended to improve immediate safety and access to basic services. 
• Key Comparison Table

See also:

• Trump’s Iran strategy is ‘very weird’, says Rory Stewart: Trump’s Iran strategy is ‘very weird’, says Rory Stewart – YouTube
• BREAKING: Trump Gives Iran 48hr Ultimatum: Open Straits or Else: BREAKING: Trump Gives Iran 48hr Ultimatum: Open Straits or Else – YouTube
• Seyed M. Marandi: Total War – Attacking Nuclear Plants, Desalination & Infrastructure: Seyed M. Marandi: Total War – Attacking Nuclear Plants, Desalination & Infrastructure
• Iran HITS Israel’s Dimona Nuke Site, Trump’s 48-Hour Power Plant Threat COLLAPSES: Iran HITS Israel’s Dimona Nuke Site, Trump’s 48-Hour Power Plant Threat COLLAPSES – YouTube
• Ray McGovern: Iran Hits Targets Near Israel’s Nuclear Site: Ray McGovern: Iran Hits Targets Near Israel’s Nuclear Site
• Stanislav Krapivnik: Israel Caught Off Guard as Iran’s Hypersonic Missiles DEVASTATE Dimona and Arad: Stanislav Krapivnik: Israel Caught Off Guard as Iran’s Hypersonic Missiles DEVASTATE Dimona and Arad
• We are Living in Dangerous Times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tRFM2K4Wj8
• Iran War on the Brink of Major Regional Escalation /Lt Col Daniel Davis: Iran War on the Brink of Major Regional Escalation /Lt Col Daniel Davis

See:

‘War spirals as Trump admin threatens media for positive coverage’ – https://lnkd.in/eJyaxBxr

I am going offline from LinkedIn for the next three to six months, in order to focus on the writing of my next book – the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

I wonder whether the fundamental right of journalists and media organisations to operate, report, and disseminate information without censorship, interference, or fear of retaliation from governments or other powerful entities, will exist when I return?

Are we fast approaching a ‘tipping-point’, beyond which ‘journalistic freedom’, i.e. a Free Press – which is a pillar of Democracy, will have been displaced by communication strategies used by governments to:

(i) foster national pride;
(ii) justify military actions – and axiomatically – ‘conscription’; and
(iii) consolidate domestic support, by blending national identity with state interests –

i.e. ‘state run patriotic’ propaganda’?

See also – ‘FCC chair threatens broadcasters’ licenses over Iran war coverage’:
https://lnkd.in/ed8G9q_6

See also:

• Ex-military chief says UK is now ‘involved’ in Iran war | The Independent
• ‘FCC chair threatens broadcasters’ licenses over Iran war coverage’:
  https://lnkd.in/ed8G9q_6 

Humanitarian Mediation – which is the process of facilitating dialogue between conflicting parties in order to secure access, protection, or aid for civilians, faces unique ethical challenges that often pit core humanitarian principles against the messy realities of conflict. 

The most critical ethical challenges include:

1. Compromising Core Principles for Access: 

• ‘The Neutrality Trap’ – Mediators may face pressure to remain silent about human rights abuses to maintain a relationship with a warring party. This ‘silence for access’ can make mediators appear complicit or biased.
• ‘Challenges to Impartiality’ – Armed groups often demand that aid be directed to their supporters in exchange for safe passage. Mediators must decide if providing ‘conditional’ aid to some is better than providing no aid at all.
• ‘Erosion of Independence’ – Dependence on state funding or military escorts for security can lead to the perception, or reality, that the mediation is serving a political agenda rather than purely humanitarian needs. 

2. Legitimacy and Engagement Dilemmas:

• ‘Recognizing “Controversial” Actors’ – Engaging with designated terrorist groups or oppressive regimes can be seen as providing them with undeserved international legitimacy.
• ‘The “Body Bag Factor” & Risk Transfer’ – Humanitarian organisations face the ethical burden of deciding whether to send staff into high-risk zones. A growing concern is ‘risk transfer,’ where international NGOs mitigate their own risk by assigning dangerous tasks to local staff or partners who have fewer protections. 

3. Unintended Long-term Harms:

• ‘Sustaining the Conflict’ – There is a constant fear that mediation and subsequent aid deliveries may inadvertently prolong a war by providing resources that warring parties can tax, divert, or use to alleviate their own responsibility for civilian welfare.
• ‘Market & System Destabilisation’ – Facilitating large-scale free aid can destroy local economies or create a ‘dependency trap’ where populations become reliant on external support that eventually disappears. 

4. Operational & Cultural Clashes:

• ‘Incommensurable Values’ – Mediators often navigate ‘red lines’ (non-negotiable principles) and ‘grey zones’ where International Humanitarian Law may clash with local cultural norms or the immediate political reality on the ground.
• ‘Power Imbalances’ – Powerful donor nations may dictate the terms of mediation, potentially ignoring the specific needs or self-determination of the local communities they aim to help.

Humanitarian Mediation transforms conflict by shifting the focus from entrenched political positions to shared humanitarian needs.

This specialized form of mediation uses the delivery of aid and the protection of civilians as a bridge to dialogue, often when formal political channels are blocked. 

Conflict is transformed through three primary functions: 

(i) ‘Humanitarian Access as a Bridge’ – Mediators negotiate ‘corridors of tranquillity’ or local ceasefires to allow for aid delivery. These small-scale agreements build initial trust and demonstrate the benefits of cooperation without requiring immediate political concessions.

(ii) ‘Information and Uncertainty Reduction’ – Conflict is often fueled by uncertainty about an opponent’s intentions. Neutral mediators provide credible information and verify adherence to local agreements, reducing the fear of ‘defection’ from a peace process.

(iii) ‘Empowerment of Local Communities’ – By facilitating direct dialogue between affected communities and armed actors, mediation moves away from patronising ‘top-down’ aid. It allows communities to voice their own protection needs, transforming them from passive victims into active stakeholders in their own safety. 

Humanitarian Mediation typically follows a structured, ten-step journey: 

1. ‘Conflict Analysis’ – In-depth situational assessment.
2. ‘Pre-mediation: Separate meetings with involved parties.
3. ‘Opening’ – Establishing agreed-upon ground rules.
4. ‘Storytelling’ – Sharing experiences and concerns from all sides.
5. ‘Agenda Setting’ – Defining the specific problems to be resolved.
6. ‘Exploration’ – Deep-diving into the agenda items.
7. ‘Solution Generation’ – Collaborative brainstorming for viable options.
8. ‘Adoption’ – Selecting commonly acceptable solutions.
9. ‘Action Plan’ – Finalising the agreement and implementation steps.
10. ‘Follow-up’ –  Monitoring progress and managing new crises.

Transformation is not guaranteed and faces several hurdles:

1.      ‘Neutrality Risks’ – Humanitarians may be perceived as partial if aid is seen to benefit one side more than the other.

2.      ‘Spoilers’ – Groups who benefit from continued violence may actively sabotage agreements to maintain their power or resources.

3.      ‘Short-term Focus’ – A focus on immediate life-saving can sometimes delay addressing the deep-rooted political causes of a conflict. 

See also:

• Shelter capacity in Lebanon overstretched, UN humanitarian chief says
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvUomgmxejc
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax5cW357Ru4
• UN chief says Israel’s evacuation orders in Lebanon breach international law

AI – ‘Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is a classic philosophical story from his work The Republic. It serves as a metaphor for the human condition, contrasting our limited sensory perceptions with true knowledge and enlightenment.

The Story

• The Prisoners: People are chained in an underground cave from childhood, forced to face a wall.
• The Shadows: Behind them, a fire burns. Between the fire and the prisoners, people carry objects that cast shadows on the wall.
• The Illusion: Having never seen anything else, the prisoners believe these shadows are the only true reality.
• The Escape: One prisoner is freed and dragged out into the sunlight. Initially, the light is painful and blinding, but eventually, they see the real world—trees, flowers, and the sun itself.
• The Return: When the freed prisoner returns to enlighten the others, they cannot see well in the darkness. The other prisoners mock them, believing the journey ruined their eyes, and they resist being freed.
•  

Key Symbolism

Why It Matters Today

The allegory explores the struggle between knowledge and belief. It suggests that what we perceive through our senses is often just a “shadow” of a higher, more perfect reality—a concept known as Plato’s Theory of Forms. Modern stories like The Matrix and The Truman Show are often viewed as contemporary retellings of this ancient metaphor.’ 

See also:

Game Theory #13: Epstein’s World

You may not have noticed this, or if you did, you may not have realised the geopolitical implications.

In a press conference on Thursday, 19 March 2026, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines across the Arabian Peninsula to Israeli Mediterranean ports as a permanent solution to maritime ‘choke points’.

Netanyahu stated that the world must move beyond reliance on vulnerable maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This is known as Israel’s ‘Land Bridge Vision’.

He called for pipelines to run west across the Arabian Peninsula directly into Israel, which would bypass the Persian Gulf and Red Sea entirely.

He argued that this connectivity corridor would ‘do away with the choke points forever,’ removing Iran’s ability to threaten global energy exports.

Netanyahu suggested that such projects could follow the current war.

So, it appears that a strategic objective of the war is the construction of a new ‘energy connectivity corridor’ that leads to Israeli ports, which will become oil and gas terminuses.
 
China’s primary interest in the Middle East is the stability of its energy and trade corridors. Israel’s land bridge project, often linked with the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), impacts China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (‘BRI’) in several ways:

(i) ‘Strategic Competition’ – The land bridge serves as a Western-backed alternative to the BRI’s land and maritime routes. It strengthens US aligned regional architectures, potentially containing Beijing’s influence.

(ii) ‘Logistical Disruption’ – Escalating conflicts related to this vision, i.e. by attacking Iran, threatens China’s established logistical corridors, including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and access to Central Asian markets.

For Russia, the Israeli vision threatens its role as a regional mediator and its own infrastructure ambitions:

(i) ‘Threat to North-South Corridor’ – Russia has invested heavily in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) to connect its territory to the Persian Gulf. A successful Israeli-led land bridge could render these Russian-backed routes less relevant for global trade.

(ii) ‘Erosion of Regional Influence’ – Russia views the project as part of a broader US led effort to marginalise Moscow’s influence in the Middle East. The potential for regime instability in partner states like Iran (a key node for Russian corridors) is a major concern for the Kremlin.

(iii) ‘Loss of Strategic Leverage’ – Russia’s role as a ‘power broker that can talk to all sides is challenged as regional powers align into more rigid, competing trade blocs.

So, logically, it also appears that powerful business and financial interests stand to make/lose a lot of money, depending upon the outcome of this war.

Look at the chronology for Israel’s ‘Land Bridge Vision’ project:

(i) July 2023 – Israeli Foreign Ministry officials confirmed that construction on the infrastructure for the land bridge had commenced.

(ii) September 2023 – At the G20 Summit, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) was officially announced, with Israel as a key transit hub.

(iii) December 2023 – The UAE-Israel land corridor was officially established and began delivering cargo from the Persian Gulf to Israeli seaports.

(iv) February 2026 – US/Israel attack Iran, resulting in the gating, i..e effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

See -‘The geopolitics of China’s Belt & Road Initiative and Westward focus’ : https://www.cfg.cam.ac.uk/events/geopolitics-chinas-belt-road-initiative-and-westward-focus/

To listen to the Professor’s reply to my Q. scroll forward to 57 minutes – ‘Potential for strategic convergence – a Geopolitical pivot upon which conflict can be avoided?’

If I have joined-up the dots correctly, then in so far as ‘Regime Change’ was ever a US/Israeli objective, that was not for the benefit of any of the people in Iran – as we are told by politicans and the press. It appears that the objective is the destruction of the state of Iran. See also my blog on the ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk – ‘Genocide is not Liberation.’ Israel has nuclear weapons and Netanyahu said yesterday that the war would end ‘faster than people think’, i.e. if certain strategic shifts occur. Russia cannot allow Iran to be destroyed, because that would leave a ‘back-door’ open in West Asia through which to destabilise and eventually balkanise the Russian Federation. So, I am wondering whether Russia will declare that Iran is now under its nuclear umbrella, i.e. so that a nuclear attack on Iran will be treated as being a nuclear attack on Russia?

See also:

• Brian Berletic: Iran War – A Gateway to War with China & Russia
• Game Theory #13: Epstein’s World
• Amb. Chas Freeman: Ground Troops in Iran? This Could Collapse Netanyahu’s Strategy
• U.S. DESPERATE TO BLOCKADE CHINA VIA IRAN WAR, AS DAMAGE IN ISRAEL MOUNTS | Brian Berletic – YouTube

The ongoing military operations in Iran and Lebanon have caused
extensive and potentially irreversible environmental damage.

Following the escalation on 28 February 2026, when US and Israeli forces launched a joint campaign against Iran, the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) has documented over 300 incidents of environmental harm across the region.

Strikes on oil storage facilities and refineries in Tehran and other cities have created massive toxic plumes.

These fires have released particulate matter, sulphur compounds, and heavy metals, resulting in ‘black rain’- a mixture of soot and chemical fallout that poisons the air and soil.

Attacks on military bases and missile facilities have released highly toxic propellants (such as inhibited red fuming nitric acid), PFAS, and energetic compounds.

These ‘forever chemicals’ and toxins leach into groundwater and agricultural land, threatening long-term food security and public health.

Naval warfare and strikes on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf have led to significant oil spills.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical biological corridor, faces nearly total
annihilation of sensitive populations like hawksbill and green turtles,
mirroring damage seen in past regional conflicts.

Large-scale aerial bombardments and the use of heavy military assets contribute millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

Experts suggest the eventual reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure will further drive up these emissions, comparable to the annual output of entire small nations.

In southern Lebanon, continuous bombardment has scorched orchards and destroyed wildlife habitats.

Over one million people have been displaced, and the disruption of environmental governance makes post-war rehabilitation unlikely in the near future.

United Nations experts and groups like Greenpeace International have
denounced the aggression, warning it meets the criteria for Ecocide.

The International Criminal Court has also been urged to investigate these
environmental impacts under its new policy prioritizing environmental crimes.

The environment is a ‘bi-partisan’ and ‘Humanitarian’ issue because it affects the future of all life on this planet,

So, why are UK Parliamentarians not even discussing this?

Today, Trump threatened to blow-up the biggest gas field in the world.

So, why is the UN not discussing this?

Safeguarding the environment from future irreversible harm is a potential diplomatic ‘off-ramp’, i.e. by ensuring that the US and Israel do not ever launch an illegal war again, because of the potentially catastrophic environmental consequences for all humanity – which may involve the use of a nuclear weapon by either or both the US and Israel.

However, nobody is proposing ‘Humanitarian Mediation’, see the ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

Why?

See also:

Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ all of Iran’s South Pars gasfield if Tehran strikes Qatar | US-Israel war on Iran | The Guardian

Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Attacked World’s Largest Gas Field & Iran Declares Economic War

Iran War Spirals OUT OF CONTROL – w/. Annelle Sheline

The Plan Is To BLOW UP Entire Middle East | Interview with Trita Parsi

Comments added:

19.03.2026 (16:50) – About 30 minutes ago while hosting the Japaneese Prime Minsiter – Sanae Takaichi in the Oval Office, Trump said to her – ‘Who knows better about surprise than Japan? OK, why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?’
He continued, ‘You believe in surprise, I think, much more so than us. And we had a surprise… because of that surprise, we knocked out… much more than we anticipated doing’. The comments occurred during a meeting regarding the ongoing conflict with Iran. A reporter asked why the United States had not informed allies like Japan in advance of its military strikes. Trump defended the lack of prior notice by emphasizing the necessity of the ‘element of surprise.’ So, logically, it appears that Trump just confirmed that the US was involved in the planning and execution of the suprise attack against Iran. That begs a question – before deciding to send the US to war, did Trump evaluate the ecological and environmental consequences of setting the Middle East of fire for the benefit of Israel?

See : https://lnkd.in/ebcG9bcG

In his resignation letter he wrote – ‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. … ’

In other words he appears to have just confirmed that:

(i) the US went to war with Iran for the cause of a ‘Greater Israel’, and not in America’s interest, i.e. that the US was manipulated into War with Iran by Israel; and

(ii) this llegal war is based upon ‘a lie’, that was manufactured by Israel and the media.

See also:

– ‘Trump counter-terrorism chief quits over Iran war, blaming Israel
Joe Kent resigned as national counter-terrorism center director, saying Iran posed no imminent threat to the US’: https://lnkd.in/ehtRSFcd.

– ‘Trump’s counterterrorism chief, whose own wife was killed by ISIS, quits over Iran War saying Tehran posed ‘no imminent threat’ –https://lnkd.in/eSTHw7tj

A conclusion that may logically be drawn from what is written in Joe Kent’s Resignation Letter, is that this War was not only unecessary, i.e. it did not have to be fought, but that it also has no legal basis/justification whatsoever.

See: Iran War Off Ramps /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Jim Jatras

So, the proverbial ‘lid’ is now off!

See also:

US National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent resigns over Iran war | US-Israel war on Iran News | Al Jazeera

Scott Ritter : Could US Officials Face War Crime Charges?

BREAKING: US OFFICIAL RESIGNS OVER IRAN WAR + ISRAEL TARGETS IRAN SECURITY CHIEF | Mohammad Marandi

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Trump Intelligence Pick Joe Kent QUITS – Israel Goes Nuclear Loses EVERYTHING

Aaron Maté : Is Kushner Netanyahu’s Agent?

EXPERT: Iran War Was Driven By Israel, It’s A DISASTER

US Gets Smashed. Irrecoverable Losses. Trump/Hegseth Panik | Stanislav Krapivnik

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Iran’s Patient Strategy Undermines Trump

‘Today is the 20th anniversary — to the day — of the publication on the internet of “The Israel Lobby” in The London Review of Books. Naturally, the Judge and I talked about the article and book that Steve Walt and I wrote, focusing on the role that the lobby plays today — as opposed to back in 2006 — in shaping the discourse about Israel as well as US policy toward Israel.

I emphasized that the lobby’s role in shaping policy remains as strong as ever, but that it has lost control of the discourse. It is now widely believed in the US — and all around the planet for that matter — that the US was dragged into the Iran war by Israeli PM Netanyahu and the lobby.

Shortly after the show ended, news came out that Joe Kent, the Director of the Trump Administration’s National Counterterrorism Center had just resigned, and said in his letter of resignation that “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Of course, that was the line of argument the Judge and I were discussing just beforehand on his show.

The Judge and I also talked about state of the war and the apparent lack of a way the US can either end the war or win it.’