by Carl Islam, LLM (Exon)(International Business Legal Studies), Diploma in Art Law (Institute of Art & Law) (London), Barrister & CMC Registered Mediator – Contentious Probate & Cultural Heritage Disputes – 1 EC Barristers, Temple, London.
That is the paradox of ‘Making Iran Great Again!’ by destroying it.
Logically, Trump can either only do one, or the other.
Today on Truth Social Trump wrote – ‘Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today.’
Some, politicians and journalists excuse and justify this illegal war of aggression by asserting that the Iranian Regime must be changed.
I wonder, have any of these people ever visited Iran?
Others state that ‘pre-emption’ is legally justified, because there was an imminent risk of Iran attacking the US,UK, Israel and the Gulf States. However, they cannot provide any evidence to support this belief.
Iran at the time of the attack, was engaged in negotiations with the US.
So both sets of people appear to have invented and to be peddling a ‘false’ narrative,
See:
Trump says US ‘totally destroying’ Iran: ‘Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today’ – https://lnkd.in/en9i95sg
UN experts denounce aggression on Iran and Lebanon, warn of devastating regional escalation: https://lnkd.in/eWVvyKJ3
‘… “The conflict risks engulfing the wider region in catastrophic armed violence and threatens to set yet another precedent of total impunity for some of the world’s strongest military powers,” the experts said.
They stressed that the unprovoked attack by the United States and Israel on Iran – carried out while negotiations were still ongoing and with the implicit or explicit endorsement of numerous States – is entirely illegal under international law and constitutes an act of aggression. …
They expressed deep alarm at the U.S. demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender”, warning that such a move could lead to prolonged war and enormous human suffering. They also condemned U.S. demands for regime change, including declarations by the U.S. President that “he will choose the future leadership of Iran”.
“No violations of human rights in Iran or elsewhere provide any legal or moral justification for an unwarranted interference with the sovereignty of a UN Member State and an illegal attack,” the experts said.
They urged all States to respect the rights of the Iranian people to self-determination, and to define and change their own political system free from foreign interference.
“Only the Iranian people can decide their own future, in full sovereignty, and in line with the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights,” the experts said. They added that decades of U.S. interference in Iran and the rest of the Middle East through coups, military interventions and unilateral sanctions, had caused chaos in the region and must end.
“Any loss of life in an illegal war is a violation of the right to life,” the experts said.’
US Secretaey of War today (13.03.2026) said – ‘We will show no mercy and give no quarter’. This is illegal under International Law, and it amounts to ‘terrorism’. See – Iran War: Finishing the Job /Lt Col Daniel Davis
As Professor Mearsheimer explains, if Israel and the US escalate the war, Iran has ‘options’ and ‘can play hardball.’ That is because if Iran destroys the desalination plants and oil infrastructure in the Gulf, then the Gulf states cannot survive, i.e. because there will be no fresh water.
The impact on the world economy will be catastrophic.
Listening to a BBC News anchor this morning, I am not convinced that the proverbial ‘penny’ has dropped. She asked what would happen if the Straights of Hormuz were closed for seven days.
It has been ‘closed’, i.e. ‘gated’ and nothing has been getting into the Gulf States, and no oil has been coming out, except with Iran’s permission destined for e.g. China – for 12 days!
As a Political Science graduate of a top UK school of Political Science, which is the capacity in which I am writing this post, and not in any professional capacity – my jaw dropped when I heard this.
The level of ignorance about what is actually going on the Middle East, including war crimes committed by Israel in Lebanon, where Israel have attacked a high rise appartment block, is beyond my comprehension.
Comments added:
AI (11.03.2026) – ‘Justice Robert H. Jackson’s closing remarks at
Nuremberg on July 26, 1946, defined the Nazi crimes as a
“supreme” violation of international law. He argued that if the
defendants were found not guilty, it would be equivalent to denying that the
war, the slain, and the crimes themselves ever existed. Jackson emphasized
that, to avoid mere vengeance, the tribunal must uphold the rule of law against
unprecedented atrocities, focusing on the planned, systematic nature of the Nazi
conspiracy.
Jackson asserted that the prosecution had established that the defendants
planned and executed a “war of aggression,” which was the
foundational crime enabling all others.
He dismantled the defendants’ excuses, noting that while they claimed ignorance
or innocence, the evidence proved they were central to the machinery of murder.
He declared that the trial was not just about punishing individuals, but about
making it clear that international law now prohibits the “supreme”
crime of aggressive war.
Jackson, acting as the Chief Prosecutor for the United States, insisted that
the proceedings were a “tribute that Power has ever paid to Reason,”
aiming to replace vengeance with a record of documented, legal judgment.’
In the US, under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441), the penalty for deliberately committing a War Crime which results in death – is the Death Penalty. ‘Everybody in the kill-chain is [legally] responsible – including the sailors [on the US war ship that launched these missiles].’ These people committed the mass murder of children. The bodies were so badly burned, that some parents could only identify their child by the back-pack that the child was wearing.
See also – https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/07/us/israel-investigate-iran-school-attack-as-a-war-crime
– ‘A prompt and thorough investigation is needed into this attack, including if
those responsible should have known that a school was there and that it would
be full of children and their teachers before midday,” said Sophia Jones,
open source researcher with the Digital Investigations Lab at Human
Rights Watch. “Those responsible for an unlawful attack should be held to
account, including prosecutions of anyone responsible for war crimes.’
The attack on the primary
school in Iran was a ‘double-tap’ strike. In other words, before the second
Tomahawk Missile was authorised to strike the children’s school, US forces,
their commanders, and presumably the self-styled US Secretary of State for War,
had visual confirmation of the civilians they had targetted, i.e. children aged
between 4 and 10 years old. To my recollection, the last time that a war crime
as obscene as this one was committed, was by Germany in World War 2. So,
justice demands that there must be War Crimes prosecutions of all military and
political leaders involved, i.e. of all those who planned and authorised this
attack on children. Under English Law, silence may in some circumstances be
deemed to amount to ‘knowing acquiesence’, i.e. by turning a ‘Nelsonian Blind
Eye.’ In the context of ‘complicity’ in an unlawful war of aggression in which
the UK may become involved, it is therefore logical to conclude, that this may
result in the prosecution of UK political leaders for ‘accessory liability’,
i.e. for ‘complicity’ in War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
AI – ‘Professor Jiang
Xueqin has explicitly stated that he believe the world, including the
military and national security apparatus, is run by secret societies he refers
to as the Illuminati. In his analysis of the current conflict with
Iran, he describes an “eschatological factor” where these groups
believe a war in the Middle East is essential for the “end times”.
Key Predictions and Claims
Professor Jiang, a Chinese-Canadian historian
and YouTuber known for his channel Predictive History, gained viral
attention for three specific 2024 forecasts that many believe are now unfolding
in March 2026:
Trump’s Return: He
predicted Donald Trump would return to power.
War with Iran: He
predicted a major military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.
U.S. Defeat: He
predicts that the United States will ultimately lose this war, comparing
it to the failed Athenian Sicilian Expedition.
Theories on the “Illuminati” War
In a 2026 interview, Jiang elaborated on the
hidden forces he believes are driving the conflict:
Secret Societies: He claims the “Illuminati” is
an umbrella term for three major groups: the Jesuits (controlling
the Vatican), the Sabbatean Frankists (controlling modern
Israel), and the Freemasons (controlling the U.S. national
security apparatus).
Eschatological Motivation: He argues these groups are influenced by a belief
that this specific Middle Eastern war is necessary to create “heaven
on Earth” through an end-times scenario.
Global Financial Reordering: He suggests the war is a pretext for implementing
emergency war powers and shifting toward a “Pax Judea” world
order run from Jerusalem.
While Jiang has been dubbed “China’s
Nostradamus” by some for his geopolitical accuracy, critics and media
outlets like The Free Press have
labeled him a conspiracy theorist for these views, noting that his theories
often incorporate debunked historical claims and antisemitic tropes.
If Russia did that, then a nuclear attack, i.e. by Israel on Iran, would be treated as being a nuclear attack on Russia.
Consequently, Israel will have started a nuclear war between the US, Europe and Russia, which China, North Korea and Pakistan may join, i.e. a global thermonuclear conflict.
Since the fall-out of a nuclear attack by Israel on Iran is likely to contaminate the entire Gulf Region, then will the Gulf States support such a declaration by Russia, i.e. in order to survive?
It appears that UK Think Tanks like Chatham House, have concluded that there is almost a zero chance of Russia doing this.
That is not how I am reading the situation.
What if they are wrong?
This would be an existential mistake.
In other words, this is a possibility that no rational political actor can take a ‘gamble’ on.
Meanwhile, it appears from press reports that Trump is preparing to send in ground troops.
If Israel in a moment of desperation launches a nuclear weapon, how can US ground troops in Iran, avoid becoming casualties of Israeli nuclear aggression.
So, is Israel willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of US ground troops in a final attmept to establish escalatory dominance?
Logically, a subsidiary question is whether Trump is ready to sacrifice thousands of American lives for Israel?
What do you think?
Caveat – This post is written in my capacity as graduate of one of the UK’s top schools of Political Science, and not in any professional capacity whatsoever.
The Foundation
Stone (Hebrew: Even ha-Shetiyya) is a bedrock protrusion
at the
center of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It
is considered the holiest site in Judaism and the third-holiest in Islam
due to several foundational religious traditions:
Religious Significance
Judaism:
Creation of the World: Jewish tradition identifies this rock as the starting point from which God created the entire world.
Holy of Holies: It is believed to be the site of the Holy of Holies, the innermost sanctum of both the First and Second Temples.
Ark of the Covenant: Some sources state the Ark of the Covenant was placed directly upon this stone.
Sacrifice of Isaac: It is traditionally identified as Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son, Isaac.
Islam:
The Night Journey: Known as the “Noble Rock” (al-Sakhra), it is believed to be the spot from which the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven during his Night Journey (Mi’raj).
Sacrifice of Ishmael: While Jews identify the site with Isaac, Islamic tradition typically associates it with the attempted sacrifice of Abraham’s older son, Ishmael.
First Qibla: Early Muslims originally faced this site (Jerusalem) for prayer before the direction (qibla) was changed to Mecca.
Christianity:
Temple Association: Christians revere the site for its connection to events in the Hebrew Bible and the life of Jesus, who taught at the Temple that once stood there.
Physical Features
Well of Souls: Beneath the stone lies a cavern known as the Well of Souls, which some traditions believe holds the spirits of the dead awaiting judgment.
Artificial Alterations: The rock bears several cuts and marks, some attributed to Crusaders who used the site as a church and others believed to be the footprint of Muhammad or Gabriel’s fingerprints.’
Israel/US is not only systematically targeting civilians, it is also carrying out ‘double-tap’ missile attacks on civilians.
This involves a 1st attack, e.g. on an apartment block, followed by a 2nd attack on those who go there to help the wounded and dying – including paramedics.
In Gaza, Israel carried out systematic attacks against civilians using AI, to commit ‘Domicide’ – see: https://lnkd.in/eYRg8M4N
‘According to the experts, the systematic and widespread destruction of housing, services and civilian infrastructure represents a crime against humanity, a domicide, as well as numerous war crimes and acts of genocide as described by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory in her recent report to the Human Rights Council.
“… the shocking revelations of the use of AI systems by the Israeli military such as “Gospel”, “Lavender” and “Where’s Daddy?”, combined with lowered human due diligence to avoid or minimise civilian casualties and infrastructure, contribute to explaining the extent of the death toll and home destruction in Gaza,” the experts said.’
That is the depravity of Israel and the United States, and the UK now appears set to become involved in this illegal and immoral war – up to its neck!
In his opening statement at the Nuremberg Trials on November 21, 1945, Chief US Prosecutor Justice Robert H. Jackson declared that initiating a war of aggression is ‘not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole’.
Jackson argued that this supreme crime, rooted in a common plan or conspiracy, serves as the foundation for all other war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, making leaders accountable for the resulting destruction.
This is the endeavour upon which Starmer and his ministers, with what appears to be vocal opposition by only a handful of Parliamentarians, is now potentially embarking.
I predict that as result of full UK involvment in this unlawful war of aggression, which was started last Saturday by Israel and the United States, that the reputation of the UK will be forever tarnished, because Starmer, his ministers and what appears to be most Parliamentarians, will end up standing on the wrong side of history – along thereby, with the UK.
In other words, they will have brought the UK into disrepute – globally.
Consequently, the UK will receive universal condemnation.
In which case, the Jewel in the Crown of UK Diplomacy – ‘UK Soft Power’, will be finished.
I am left wondering what advice has been provided about this, by the UK Foreign Office?
As far as I am aware, the argument I have just outlined above, has not even been debated in Parliament. So, do our Politicians understand this?
AI (07.03.2026) – ‘As of March 7, 2026, President Donald Trump has issued a series of severe escalatory warnings against Iran, following a week of intense US and Israeli military strikes.
“Complete Destruction and Certain Death”: Trump stated on Truth Social that “areas and groups of people” not previously considered for targeting are now under consideration for “complete destruction and certain death” due to “Iran’s bad behavior”.
Demand for Unconditional Surrender: Trump has explicitly declared that there will be “no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” asserting that the country is currently being “beat to hell”.
Regime Change Objectives: He further stipulated that after surrender, the U.S. and its allies would work with “GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s)” to rebuild the country, signaling a clear goal of replacing the current leadership.
Ultimatum to Security Forces: Trump issued a direct warning to members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), military, and police to “lay down their arms” and support the Iranian people, or face “guaranteed death”.
If I understood correctly Trump has threatened the mass murder of civilians in Iran – see my previously comment.
AI (Today) – ‘Trump stated on Truth Social that “areas and groups of people” not previously considered for targeting are now under consideration for “complete destruction and certain death” due to “Iran’s bad behavior”. …’
So, Starmer, his Ministers, Parliamentarians and all UK military leaders, may be presumed at law to know about this fact.
In other words, today – Trump put all UK Political and Military leaders on notice, that he is about to commit a mass atrocities, which will be both War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
AI (07.03.2026) – ‘As of March 2026, multiple reports have surfaced alleging that some U.S. military commanders have told troops the war with Iran is a “biblical plan” and that President Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus” to trigger Armageddon. These allegations are based on over 200 complaints filed by service members with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a watchdog group.
Key Allegations
“Anointed” Claim: Reports allege a commander told NCOs that President Trump was chosen to initiate a conflict with Iran to cause Armageddon.
Divine Plan: Commanders across over 30 installations allegedly framed the conflict as part of a theological plan related to the Book of Revelation.
Widespread Reports: The MRFF reported being “inundated” with complaints across all military branches.
Impact: Service members, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews, reported that this rhetoric violates the separation of church and state.’
AI (06.03.2026) – ‘As of early March 2026, many international legal experts, human rights organizations, and some UN officials have characterised the ongoing military operations by the United States and Israel against Iran as an illegal war of aggression.
The core of the legal dispute hinges on
whether the strikes meet the strict criteria for lawful force under the United Nations Charter.
Arguments for Illegality
Under international law, the use of force is
only permitted in two scenarios: self-defence against an
“armed attack” or authorization by the UN Security
Council.
Lack of Authorization: The UN Security Council has not authorised military action against Iran, and the US has not requested such authorization.
Absence of “Armed Attack”: Critics, including UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul, argue that Iran had not launched an armed attack against the US or Israel prior to the strikes.
Failure of “Imminence”: For “pre-emptive” self-defence to be legal under the Caroline Doctrine, a threat must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. Experts state a weeks-long military buildup and ongoing diplomatic talks disqualify this justification.
War of Aggression: Organizations like DAWN have called for the strikes to be investigated as a “crime of aggression,” defined by UN Resolution 3314 as the use of armed force against the sovereignty of another state without legal justification.
Arguments for Legality/Justification
The US and Israel justify the campaign as a
necessary defensive measure:
Preventive Defence: They argue the strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to counter its support for regional proxy groups.
Ongoing Armed Conflict: Some legal scholars suggest the strikes are a continuation of a long-standing, undeclared war in which Iran has already initiated hostilities through its proxies.
Moral Justification: Proponents argue that the removal of a “bloodthirsty” regime and the protection of regional peace provide a moral basis for action, even if the formal legal framework is strained.
Domestic Legal Concerns (US)
The war is also being challenged under US law. Critics and some members of Congress argue the strikes violate the War Powers Resolution of 1973, as President Trump bypassed the required congressional authorization for offensive operations. …
The joint US-Israeli military strikes on Iran, launched on 28 February 2026, have been widely criticised by international law experts as failing to meet the legal requirements of the Caroline principles.
The Caroline doctrine is the standard for “anticipatory self-defence” in customary international law. It requires that the necessity for self-defence be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation“.
Experts argue the 2026 strikes failed this test for several reasons:
Lack of Imminence: There was no evidence of an “instant” or “imminent” armed attack from Iran. US intelligence as recently as March 2025 had judged that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.
Available Alternatives: The attacks occurred while active diplomatic negotiations were underway. An Omani mediator had described a “breakthrough” just one day before the strikes began.
Deliberate Planning: The strikes were preceded by a weeks-long military buildup and months of tactical planning, which contradicts the “no moment for deliberation” requirement.
Competing Arguments
Official US/Israeli Position: The Trump administration and Israel justified the action as a “pre-emptive attack” to eliminate an “existential threat” and prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program. They cited Iran’s long-term support for proxies and alleged nuclear ambitions as a continuous threat.
“Ongoing Conflict” Argument: Some supporters argue the strikes are part of an ongoing armed conflict started by Iran years ago, rather than a new act of aggression.
International Consensus: Most international legal scholars, as well as the UN Secretary-General, have termed the strikes a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state. …
Based on reports from early March 2026, multiple Yale Law School professors and legal experts have argued that U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran are illegal under both domestic and international law.
Yale Daily News +1Here are the key arguments and individuals involved:
Harold Hongju Koh: The Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and former State Department legal adviser stated that strikes on Iran constitute a “war of choice that is unlawful under both US and international law”. Koh argued that the actions violate the UN Charter because they were not taken in legitimate self-defense.
Oona Hathaway: A Yale Law School professor of international law has described the strikes as “blatantly illegal,” arguing that they violate international laws regarding the use of force.
Eugene Fidell: A senior research scholar at Yale Law School has repeatedly characterized the actions as a constitutional breach, noting that the strikes occurred without necessary Congressional authorization.
Context of the Legal Argument: The arguments center on the idea that the U.S. strikes violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force, as there was no direct, imminent threat from Iran that justified the action. Yale Daily News +4
These professors argue that such actions disregard the post-WWII international legal order, which restricts the use of force to scenarios involving self-defense or UN Security Council authorization.’
AI – ‘Whether colonialism is “naturally” genocidal is a subject of intense debate among historians, legal scholars, and sociologists, often depending on the specific type of colonialism and the definition of genocide used.
Perspectives on the “Inherent”
Nature of Colonial Genocide
The “Logic of Elimination”: Influential scholar Patrick Wolfe argued that settler colonialism is inherently “eliminatory”. Because settlers come to stay and require the land, the indigenous population is an obstacle to be removed. This removal can take many forms, from physical extermination (genocide) to forced assimilation or “breeding out”.
Structural Potential: Some contemporary research suggests genocide is a “structural potential” of all colonial domination, as the sovereign right to kill in colonies is often not subject to the same rules as in the “motherland”.
Lemkin’s View: Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide,” originally viewed it as an intrinsically colonial process involving the destruction of a group’s national pattern and the imposition of the oppressor’s pattern.
Arguments Against “Natural”
Genocidal Intent
Variability of Outcomes: Critics of the “inherently genocidal” view point out that colonial outcomes vary wildly. In some cases, such as Fiji, native societies were able to accommodate invaders without facing extermination.
Economic Motives: In many “extraction colonies” (e.g., British India), the goal was to exploit indigenous labour rather than eliminate it. Some argue that because colonisers needed workers, they had an economic incentive to prevent mass liquidation.
The Disease Factor: A significant portion of indigenous population declines (often up to 90%) was caused by unintentional disease spread, leading some historians to argue these deaths lacks the “intent” required by the UN legal definition of genocide.
Differing Definitions
The debate often hinges on how
“genocide” is defined:
UN Convention (1948): Requires proven intent to physically destroy a group “in whole or in part”. Under this strict legal definition, many colonial atrocities are debated because intent can be hard to prove.
Cultural/Sociological Definitions: Many scholars use broader terms like “cultural genocide” or “ethnocide” to describe the systematic destruction of languages, religions, and social structures (e.g., the Canadian and U.S. boarding school systems), arguing these are inherently part of the colonial project.’
This is one of the legal issues that I will discuss in my forthcoming book about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’
See also the ‘Cultural Genocide’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk, on which I argue that, while excluded from the Genocide Convention, the concept of ‘Cultural Genocide’ is a useful tool for courts to link the destruction of cultural heritage with:
(i) the Crime of Genocide; and (ii) Crimes against Humanity.
Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places.
Roosevelt’s four freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want.
Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others, and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction – ‘Genocide’.
Hence, there is an unspoken connection between:
(i) the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation; (ii) Ethnic Cleansing; and (iii) Genocide.
The intentional destruction of cultural heritage is therefore an offence against humanity as a whole.
My copy of ‘Making Amends for Historic Wrongs – Reparative Justice and the Problem of the Past’ (2025) (OUP) by Mayo Moran arrived last week, and forms part of the research reading for my book, which I am on schedule to complete by the end of June this year.
The public mood about ‘Reparative Justice’ which influences policy and political decison-making is changing. On page 2 of her book Mayo Moran states:
‘There is nothing new about the pursuit of justice after atrocity. In the aftermath of mass violence and abuse, survivors typically sought rectification, amassing evidence and pleading their cases to political leaders and sometimes even to courts. But they almost always failed. Political leaders were largely unmoved by their pleas, and courts pointed to numerous barriers and told them to go away. … However, beginning in the late 1980s, that ground started to shift. …. After many decades of inertia, the tide has discernibly turned in favour of return … Courts and other bodies are also showing themselves to be far more supportive of return [i.e. of cultural artefacts]. … For the purposes of the discussion here, the salient fact is that the meaning of the past and its significance as a matter of justice is now at the forefront of public debate, even when that significance is being disputed.’
The scope and embrace of the Principles of ‘Reparative Justice’, extend far beyond the return of cultural artefacts, and include civil claims for compensation as a result of wrongs done during an illegal war of aggression, or period of occupation.
As I warned on Tuesday, as a result of this illegal war, a ‘Humanitarian Crisis’, which could become a ‘Humanitarian Catastrophe’, is now unfolding in the Gulf States, where millions of foreign nationals (including expatriates), and migrant workers from all around the world, are trapped.
While as far as I am aware, Iran has not attacked any de-salination plants in the Gulf States, this commentator predicts that Israel will launch ‘false flag’ operations to destroy de-salination plants in these states, in order to rally other states, who e.g. are NATO members, to enter the war on their side.
See also my blog – ‘Can Humanitarian Mediation provide a Diplomatic Offramp?’
Tragically, Starmer and most UK parliamentarians appear to be taking the UK in the wrong direction.
Instead of:
(i) staying out of this widening and potentially global conflict; (ii) proposing Humanitarian Mediation; and (iii) offering to act as a ‘Humanitarian’ Mediator,
the UK Government appears militarily to have decided to plunge the UK into an illegal war of choice.
In other words Starmer, with what appeared vocally at PMQ’s on Wednesday, to be the almost universal support of members of the House of Commons of all parties, appears to have decided to escalate the war.
I am trying to understand why rational, intelligent, and well informed political actors, would in effect decide to ‘pour petrol on the fire’ of an illegal war, that is likely to result in a Humanitarian Catastrophe in the states of the UK’s allies – i.e. the Gulf States.
What these politicians do not appear to have grasped is that such a crisis may end in:
(i) civil unrest; (ii) a break down in law and order; (iii) civil insurrection; and (iv) the overthrow of the Gulf Monarchies, by their own people/militaries.
So, I am wondering how educated Starmer, his ministers, and parliamentarians are, about the ‘demographic make-up’ of the Gulf States; and the risk of ‘political instability’ resulting from a ‘Humanitarian Crisis’ becoming a ‘Humanitarian Catastrophe’, as an inadvertent consequence of escalation.
Can someone please explain, since logically the price in deaths throughout the Gulf States, as a result of food and medical supplies not getting in, and of lack of clean water, is likely to be high if this turns out to be a protracted war.
That is because nothing can get in at scale by either sea or air, and in effect, the only way out for most civilians trapped in the Gulf, is south through Oman.
Oman may not allow refugees fleeing in their thousands from the Gulf States, to enter their country.
The route may also close if Yemen joins the war.
I hope that I am wrong!
Let’s see what happens.
Caveat – This post is written in my capacity as a graduate of one of the UK’s top schools of Political Science, and not in any professional capacity.
Comments added since:
AI (05.03.2026) – ‘As of March 2026, a rapidly worsening humanitarian crisis is unfolding across several Gulf states following an escalation of regional violence involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. While the Gulf has historically been a hub for stability, recent retaliatory strikes have brought direct conflict to its territory, leading to civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in countries including the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
The Guardian +3Current Humanitarian ImpactInternational relief agencies, including UNOCHA and the British Red Cross, have raised alarms regarding the following developments:
Civilian Casualties & Displacement: Strikes have hit residential areas, schools, and hospitals across the region. In some areas, residents have been forced to flee or are sheltering in place due to ongoing drone and missile attacks.
Targeting of Infrastructure: Energy facilities, ports, and airports in Oman, Kuwait, and the UAE have been targeted, disrupting essential services and the movement of goods.
Vulnerability of Migrant Workers: Millions of expatriate workers from South and Southeast Asia (including India, the Philippines, and Pakistan) are at severe risk. Several governments have initiated massive evacuation and repatriation plans for their citizens trapped in affected zones.
Operational Constraints: Airspace closures and insecurity have severely restricted the movement of humanitarian personnel and the delivery of life-saving supplies across the region. unocha +5
Regional Context
Conflict Escalation: The crisis intensified following US and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February 2026, which prompted widespread retaliatory attacks by Iran and its allies against US-allied Gulf states.
Economic Disruption: The targeting of the Gulf’s trade and energy sectors threatens its status as a global hub for finance and tourism, further compounding the regional instability.
Resource Strain: The UN Relief Chief has warned that the “daunting” humanitarian fallout is draining the resources and political will needed to save lives in a region already home to millions of displaced people.’
Ai (05.03.2026) – ‘President Emmanuel Macron ordered the deployment of
the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean
and Middle East on 3 March 2026, to protect French allies and secure critical
maritime trade routes during the escalating U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict.
Key reasons for the
deployment include:
Protecting Regional Allies: France is
fulfilling defense agreements with
It also serves as preparation for possible evacuation operations of French and EU citizens in Lebanon and the UAE.
Defending Cyprus: France is sending additional assets, including the frigate Languedoc, to protect Cyprus after attacks on British military bases on the island.’
“The Islamic Republic of Iran… denies its armed forces
launched a drone toward the Republic of Azerbaijan,” the general staff of
the armed forces said in a statement, according to state TV, which also blamed
Israel.
“Such actions by the Zionist regime, aimed at disrupting relations between Muslim countries in various ways, are not unprecedented.”
Humanitarian Mediation provides a diplomatic offramp by pivoting from unachievable strategic military objectives toward urgent, shared humanitarian concerns, such as protecting civilians and ensuring aid access.
By addressing immediate suffering, Humanitarian Mediation creates and protects a space for dialogue, building ‘habits of cooperation’ between adversaries that can eventually form the basis for renewed political negotiations.
When traditional diplomacy falters due to hardline political stances, humanitarian mediation offers several practical paths forward:
(i) ‘Pivoting to Interests over Positions’ – While political positions may be irreconcilable, parties often share underlying interests, such as maintaining legitimacy or managing public health crises.
(ii) ‘Building “Habits of Cooperation’ – Small, technical agreements, such as prisoner swaps, hostage returns, or the reopening of aid corridors, demonstrate that dialogue remains legitimate and that conflict can be managed through words rather than violence.
(iii) ‘Creating Neutral Forums’ – Mediators provide a safe, neutral platform for communication without the fear of prejudice. This allows antagonists to test ideas and explore compromises in a confidential environment.
(iv) ‘Providing a Humanitarian Cover’ – Negotiations that might be politically impossible can sometimes proceed under a humanitarian mantle.
Humanitarian mediation is distinct from traditional peacebuilding because it is often faster, more informal, and focused on immediate problem-solving rather than long-term political restructuring.
The primary aim is improving the protection of civilians by mitigating violence, preventing forced displacement, and improving access to basic services.
Humanitarian relief operations and political tracks are increasingly viewed as inseparable; unless diplomacy and humanitarianism advance together, neither is likely to succeed.
While effective as an offramp, Humanitarian Mediation faces significant challenges. It can be seen as ‘performative’ if it lacks consistent backing from states and donors.
Additionally, agreements emerging from transactional arrangements, such as those that exclude the voices of women or civil society, can be difficult to sustain long-term.
See; – ‘Douglas Macgregor: A New World Emerges: Iran Will Win & Israel May Not Survive’: https://lnkd.in/esc_ic2S – ‘Saudi, Qatar Capture MOSSAD MEN Involved In Attacks? Iran Drops Israel Bombshell After Aramco Strike’: https://lnkd.in/eCjt_Vrq – ‘Israel’s imminent attack on Iran forced US to join war, says Rubio’: https://lnkd.in/eiT_BgS5 war-attack-trump-b2930752.html -‘This is an illegal war’:https://lnkd.in/eXeWXSSZ – ‘Statistical probability of regime change in Iran is almost Zero!’: https://lnkd.in/diQPaQMY
AI (03.03.2026) – ‘A
humanitarian and logistical crisis is unfolding across the Gulf as of March 3,
2026. Following major escalations in the Middle East conflict, millions of
foreign nationals, including migrant workers, tourists, and transit passengers—are
currently trapped due to sweeping airspace closures and attacks on
regional infrastructure.
Over 13,000 flights have been cancelled,
leaving tens of thousands of travellers stuck in major hubs like Dubai,
Abu Dhabi, and Doha.
An estimated 24 million migrant
workers from South and Southeast Asia are at high risk. Countries like
the Philippines and Indonesia are monitoring the situation closely,
with some nations considering large-scale evacuations if conditions deteriorate.
Several European and Asian governments have
issued “Shelter in Place” orders, advising their citizens to stay
indoors and avoid land travel to neighbouring countries like Oman unless
specifically instructed.
Reports indicate missile and drone
strikes have caused damage at Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Kuwait airports,
complicating exit routes.
While some limited flights resumed on
March 2nd via carriers like Emirates and Etihad, the vast majority of foreign
nationals remain unable to leave.’
AI – ‘Multiple U.S. embassies in the Middle East have explicitly stated they are not in a position to evacuate or directly assist American citizens departing their host countries as of early March 2026. This follows escalating regional conflict and the closure of several diplomatic posts.
Business Insider +1Key details from recent official alerts include:
Israel (Jerusalem & Tel Aviv): The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem stated on March 2, 2026, that it is “not in a position at this time to evacuate or directly assist Americans in departing Israel”. Citizens were instead directed to register for private shuttles to the Egyptian border operated by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism, though the embassy warned it cannot guarantee safety for those using them.
Lebanon (Beirut): The U.S. Embassy in Beirut issued a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory and warned that American citizens “should not rely on the U.S. government for assisted departure or evacuation”. All consular services, both routine and emergency, have been suspended as the embassy footprint was reduced to essential personnel only.
Qatar (Doha): The U.S. Embassy in Doha confirmed on March 2 that it is not evacuating or directly assisting Americans departing the country at this time, as local airspace remains closed.
Kuwait & UAE: Both the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait and the U.S. Mission to the UAE have ordered the departure of non-emergency government personnel and advised private citizens to have departure plans that do not depend on U.S. government help. U.S. Embassy Jerusalem (.gov) +8
Why are evacuations not being provided?
Closed Airspace: Major airports, including Ben Gurion in Israel and Hamad International in Qatar, have suspended civilian flights, making commercial or government-assisted air travel impossible.
Active Hostilities: Ongoing missile and drone strikes have created significant safety risks that prevent the U.S. government from guaranteeing the safety of departing citizens.
Embassy Closures: Several embassies have shut down or evacuated their own staff following direct attacks, such as the drone strike on the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh.
American citizens currently in these regions are advised by the U.S. Department of State to shelter in place, maintain a personal safety plan, and monitor local media.’
