Iran says it has bombed wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu’s office in Israel. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are also claiming that they have attacked the Israeli air force headquarters.

Palestine Chronicle reported that:

According to Tasnim News Agency, the Public Relations office of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the location of the commander of the Israeli air force were attacked in what it described as “targeted and surprise attacks.”

The Times of Israel has reported that:

Israel says there were no injuries in the strikes.

And, Netanyahu’s office have dismissed Iran’s claims that the “fate” of the Israeli PM is unclear. As yet, details remain entirely unclear – Iran’s assertions have not been verified, nor has Netanyahu’s location.

At the weekend, Netanyahu – along with various co-criminal Western leaders – crowed about the assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his family. It’s hard to argue that turnabout is not fair play. However, it will be no surprise to see Keir Starmer and other ‘leaders’ condemn Iran for ‘disproportionately’ retaliating for what Israel did to it – just as Starmer did on 1 March after the US and Israel slaughtered Iranian schoolchildren and bombed hospitals.

Featured image via the Canary

The US military has admitted that its ally Kuwait shot down three US fighter jets that crashed in Kuwait in a so-called ‘friendly fire’ incident.

Footage of one of the fighters as it crashed also appeared to show pilots ejecting via parachute. The BBC reported that:

US Central Command has just now said three of its F-15 jets “flying in support of Operation Epic Fury” – the US operation against Iran – “went down over Kuwait due to an apparent friendly fire incident”.

All six crew ejected safely and have been recovered, it says.

The news is a massive embarrassment for the US, though it may suggest its other allies may have taken a leaf out of Israel’s book. The genocidal colony murdered hundreds of its own people on 7 October 2023 under its ‘Hannibal directive’. This was admitted by former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant and has been common knowledge in Israel since a few weeks after it happened. Israel also killed the Bibas family, three escaping Israeli captives and numerous other Israelis in Gaza.

However, UK and other western media continue to ignore both facts.

Featured image via

Nick Sitter and Ulf Sverdrup look at the lessons that the UK could learn from looking at Norway’s relationship with the European Union. 

As the United Kingdom recalibrates its post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, Norway’s experience offers a revealing case study with some important lessons. As a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), Norway (together with Iceland and Liechtenstein) occupies a very distinct position – a member of the single market but excluded from the EU’s political decisionmaking processes.

For British observers, Norway’s case provides a crucial insight: alignment without representation may be a politically stable arrangement, but one with mounting costs that are difficult to sustain in an era of geopolitical turbulence.

Since the narrow defeat of EU membership in a referendum in 1994, Norway has charted an unusual course in European affairs. Its strategy of maximum integration without formal membership has been a triumph of pragmatism over ideology and polarisation. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Labour Prime Minister at the time, did not resign, but set about salvaging Norway’s relationship with the EU. The EEA agreement between the EU and the EFTA states (minus Switzerland) that had entered into force the year before would prove a durable basis for a workable compromise.

Three decades later Norway has become thoroughly Europeanised, incorporating the vast majority of EU rules and policies in EEA-relevant sectors (agriculture and fisheries are not fully covered; Norway never entered the customs union due to a desire to protect its agricultural sector and maintain independence in foreign economic policy), and fully integrated in terms of free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. Through a raft of additional agreements, Norway has adapted to the EU’s new policy areas. In many cases, it has voluntarily aligned itself with EU standards even in areas where no formal agreements exist. In most sectors, policy developments have largely mirrored those in neighbouring EU members Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

This compromise of participation without representation allows Norway to maintain its formal sovereignty, and the political truce between its pro- and anti-EU blocs. The EEA model has proven a surprisingly durable political compromise, because it rests on stable patterns of Euroscepticism in both the party system and the electorate. The two main parties, the pro-EU Conservatives and somewhat more divided Labour, have both had to rely on Eurosceptic parties to form government coalitions. The 1994 referendum mirrored both the result and voting patterns of the 1972 referendum, and even today opinion polls do not indicate much of a change.

But four other factors have helped sustain the EEA compromise. First, Norway’s fossil fuel-funded prosperity has insulated it from the kind of economic crises that pushed many others along the path to EU membership. Likewise, its NATO membership has provided a security umbrella, and no need to seek EU membership for geopolitical protection.

Second, the EEA model has worked well, enabling economic integration while safeguarding sensitive sectors like fisheries and agriculture that are central to Norwegian identity and the country’s centre-periphery political dynamics. The model has also held together reasonably well constitutionally and administratively.

Third, because the EEA model works well, many struggle to identify compelling additional benefits from full membership. Likewise, a high tolerance has developed for the costs of remaining outside.

Fourth, there is little ideological pressure to join since Europe hardly resonates as a political project in which Norway participates and holds a meaningful position. If anything, the continent has become even more peripheral to Norwegian identity than before.

The main lesson here is the importance that a compromise with a broad political base, anchored in both the political left and right, plays in sustaining an EU arrangement (a lesson lost on UK policymakers in the wake of the Brexit referendum). But it helps if the arrangement works well.

A defining feature of the EEA agreement is that it is a dynamic arrangement. Not only did Norway immediately adopt all relevant EU legislation; it also effectively agreed to adopt all new relevant EU legislation. (Although there is a procedure whereby an EEA state can reserve the right not to adopt a new policy, this is a potential deal-breaker and has consequently never been used.)

However, today Norway faces unprecedented challenges. First, the EU complains about Norway’s backlog in terms of transposition of EU law. The primary irritant in EU relations stems from Norway’s decision not to implement remaining portions of the Fourth Energy Package, because this is a clearly stated government policy rather than an ordinary capacity-induced backlog.

Second, the EU’s changes to its budget may generate unintended problems. If resources shift from areas where Norway does not participate (such as agriculture or cohesion funds) to areas where Norway participates (or wishes to) and contributes on a program-by-program basis, it could mean that the mode of association becomes more complicated and expensive.

Third, the strategy of patchwork expansion, whereby Norway buys into new arrangements as the EU expands beyond the core single market areas covered by the EEA, is increasingly difficult. This is particularly challenging in substantial new sectors such as health and crisis management, not to mention geopolitics, trade and economic security.

Nevertheless, despite cautious public opinion, Norway’s technical path to full EU membership is very short. Because Norway is so closely aligned to the EU, it satisfies requirements for membership in most of the 35 negotiation chapters involved in accession. Even under the current rules, negotiations could be completed quickly. Moreover, the geopolitical realities brought about by Russia’s war in Ukraine is causing the EU to reconsider its enlargement and accession procedures. Although this is at an early stage, it could lower the membership threshold and create new opportunities for exemptions and flexibility.

For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.

The path to Norwegian EU membership faces no insurmountable technical obstacles. The barriers are primarily political: a pragmatic calculation of when the costs of remaining outside finally exceed the benefits of the status quo. In the current security environment, with American guarantees uncertain and European integration accelerating in defence and security domains, that inflection point may be approaching more rapidly than anticipated. The question is no longer whether Norway can join the EU, but whether Norway can afford to remain outside.

By Nick Sitter, Professor at the Department of Law and Governance, BI Norwegian Business School and Ulf Sverdrup, Professor at the Department of Law and Governance, BI Norwegian Business School.

This piece first appeared in our report ‘UK-EU alignment and divergence: the road ahead‘.

Tara-Jane Sutcliffe was the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Swansea West at the 2024 General Election and serves as a Federation Chair in West Wales.

The Labour Government has now introduced its Representation of the People Bill, proposing sweeping reforms and presenting them as the biggest expansion of democracy in a generation. A tall claim, and one that will come under close scrutiny as the Bill progresses.

Some elements of reform are necessary and right. Safeguarding elections from hostile foreign influence, tightening controls on political donations, and strengthening enforcement against electoral offences reflect the realities of modern democratic vulnerability. Democracies today are threatened not only by conventional means, but by hybrid tactics – covert influence, disinformation, cyber intrusion and financial interference.

The Bill focuses heavily on widening participation: lowering the voting age, simplifying registration, and expanding access to the ballot. Yet democracy is not only about who can vote. Critically, it is about whether those votes are honoured. On this fundamental question, the Bill is silent – and herein lies a timely opportunity for Conservative intervention.

Since the last General Election, several elected representatives have, to much local and national opprobrium, changed party allegiance without returning to constituents for endorsement. Danny Kruger, Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman and Andrew Rosindell – all elected as Conservatives MPs – now sit for Reform UK. And in Wales, most recently, Senedd member James Evans lost the Conservative whip and subsequently joined Reform. Not unprecedented, all parties have at times both gained and lost from such movements. But the electorate loses most of all.

When an MP crosses the floor without returning to the electorate, the Nolan Principles of public life – not least integrity – are flagrantly flouted. It is, at heart, a breach of trust. When we vote, we choose not merely a person but a particular policy perspective: a party. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the political basis on which a mandate is secured will endure for the full term of office, not merely part. The same principle applies at every level of government. Whether in Parliament or on a local council, the democratic deficit is the same. In a post-trust political era, each such instance risks deepening disengagement and eroding confidence in public life. Any measure capable of restoring public trust should, and must, be taken.

The Government claims this Bill will strengthen democracy. But the absence of any provision addressing mid-term party defection leaves a glaring gap. Setting aside differing views on extending the franchise to younger voters – on which many have reservations – expanding participation while ignoring practices that can undermine the meaning of the vote risks elevating process over legitimacy. It looks therefore less a principled reform than a political calculation.

Having had the honour to stand in local elections and as a parliamentary candidate, I know how seriously voters treat their choice of representative. Campaigning through the 2024 General Election meant defending a Conservative programme on doorsteps, in hustings and in the media – asking voters to place their trust in that platform. That trust is not symbolic; it is the foundation of democratic legitimacy. To seek election under one set of principles and then serve under another, without returning to the electorate, is quite simply unconscionable.

My professional work on governance and my experience as an international election observer have reinforced this perspective. Participating in election observation missions under the auspices of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the UK helps uphold democratic standards worldwide – not only assessing whether voting is free and fair, but whether the will of the electorate is faithfully reflected in representation thereafter. The UK rightly promotes these principles abroad; it should reflect them at home.

The remedy is neither radical nor complex. In fact, it is blatantly obvious. Where a representative voluntarily changes party affiliation mid-term, the electorate should be given the opportunity to decide whether to renew that mandate. A recall mechanism triggering a by-election would help ensure that any change in political allegiance remains anchored in electoral legitimacy rather than personal advantage.

By-elections are not without cost, and as Conservatives we are rightfully cautious stewards of public money. But what price democracy? Electoral accountability is not an optional expense; it is the foundation of legitimate government. Moreover, the very existence of such a requirement would likely deter opportunistic defections, meaning by-elections would remain rare rather than routine.

Democracy is more than participation and access. It requires trust, and trust depends not only on who can vote, but on whether their vote continues to carry meaning after polling day. If the Government is serious about its proposed objectives, it should address this omission. Without it, the Bill risks expanding the franchise while leaving the democratic mandate itself exposed.

From a values and principles perspective, this is a moment for Conservative leadership. This should serve as a call to action for those who believe that restoring trust in politics begins with honouring the choice voters make. Championing this reform would demonstrate our commitment to democratic integrity and accountability, and to ensuring that the electorate, not political convenience, remains sovereign. Restoring that principle is not only good for democracy; it is essential to Party renewal.

UK PM Keir Starmer unilaterally decided to drag the UK into another illegal Middle East war late on 1 March 2026. Just hours after Starmer’s announcement an Iranian Shahed drone hit the UK’s colonial military base in Cyprus.

The US and Israel began an unprovoked attack on Iran on 28 February. This was despite unprecedented progress in negotiations with Iran. They’ve since assassinated Iranian leadership figures including Ayatollah Khameini.

The Red Crescent puts the death toll in Iran at 555. The Israelis also killed 165 with a missile strike on a school. Iran has hit back at Israel and US military infrastructure throughout the Gulf.

The drone reportedly hit the runway in Cyprus:

I understand that damage was minimal and the runway is operating as usual

— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) March 2, 2026

Military families were initially locked down after the strike. They’ve now been moved off base into alternative accommodation.

Breaking: Family members of service personnel at RAF Akrotiri are being moved from the base to alternative accommodation on the island

— Larisa Brown (@larisamlbrown) March 2, 2026

There were no casualties:

🔴 Suspected drone strike hits RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus

The British Ministry of Defense confirmed a suspected drone strike on RAF Akrotiri, a UK sovereign base in Cyprus, around midnight Monday, March 2.

🔸 No injuries reported.
🔸 “Minor damage” after a reported small drone… https://t.co/5ETB494NZs

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 2, 2026

British Forces Cyprus posted on X:

pic.twitter.com/YXyZNsyRiW

— BFCyprus (@bfcyprus) March 2, 2026

Keir Starmer’s 1 February update preceded the strikes by hours. The PM’s statement was contradictory. He repeatedly emphasised the UK’s ‘defensive’ role, but also said UK bases would be used by the US to attack Iran:

My update on the situation in the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/DvsOVcTDMy

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) March 1, 2026

Hours before the speech on 1 February the UK military bragged that it had shot down a drone heading for Qatar:

The professionalism of our RAF is remarkable….good work…keep it going. pic.twitter.com/fuYlp3lAa7

— Al Carns (@AlistairCarns) March 1, 2026

The US military will use the Indian Ocean base at Diego Garcia and the UK’s RAF Fairford:

It took just one phone call from Donald Trump for Starmer to jump into yet another Middle East illegal war, failing to learn the lessons of the tragedies of Iraq, Libya and Syria. https://t.co/IhCUF9XJ3m

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) March 1, 2026

Fairford is one of many bases in the UK which serve as effective US military colonies in the UK:

Keir Starmer says he has accepted Trump’s request to use British bases for bombing Iran

These are the US bases in Britain with troop levels

“RAF” Fairford in Gloucestershire is most likely base to be used by Trump for the continuing attack on Iran https://t.co/oFoSZdRlVx pic.twitter.com/EqH7PKYvlw

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) March 1, 2026

The US also has military personnel at Akrotiri, which has been used a base for the UK’s shadowy intelligence gathering operations on behalf of Israel:

The US Air Force also has a secret detachment of 129 personnel based at RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus pic.twitter.com/qUecPVXNhX

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) March 1, 2026

Starmer is backing Trump’s war

US President Donald Trump has said he wants a form of regime change. Former UK Joint Intelligence Committee chair Lord Rickett’s was unequivocal on 28 February:

None of this.. is in any sense legal in a way that the UK would recognise. There was really no imminent threat to the US.. this is action that they chose to undertake or were dragged into it by the Israelis.

Lord Ricketts (a former chair of the UKs joint intelligence committee): “None of this.. is in any sense legal in a way that the UK would recognise. There was really no imminent threat to the US.. this is action that they chose to undertake or were dragged into it by the Israelis” pic.twitter.com/gMiB8P94l6

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 28, 2026

Trump told the US press on 2 March he would like to see a similar outcome to Venezuela. The US bombed Venezuela and kidnapped its president on 2 January:

While Trump has called for regime change in Iran, he makes clear in phone interview with @KannoYoungs that he is fine with remnants of the repressive regime remaining in power. “What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario.” https://t.co/efhjP1eZ92

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) March 2, 2026

Keir Starmer has now committed UK forces to this operation. Many people have pointed out on Twitter that Starmer, like Trump himself, claimed to be a peace candidate once upon a time.

A tweet from 2020 has been getting a lot of attention. Starmer clearly positioned himself as an anti-war candidate:

No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.

No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice. pic.twitter.com/EJ4BKCZB2g

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) February 12, 2020

Advertisement

Like so many of Starmer’s pledges, this commitment fell away as soon as he was elected leader of the Labour Party. As PM Starmer has backed and defended Israel’s genocide in Gaza. He has also consistently toadied to Donald Trump.

Now he has committed the UK to a war in the Middle East. Starmer was already having a tough week domestically, losing a key by-election to the Green Party. He is profoundly unpopular, too weak to resist Trump’s overtures and under pressure from both the left and the far-right. UK involvement in yet another spiraling Middle East war might be the straw that breaks that camel’s back. And the first British casualty will confirm it.

Featured image via the Canary