Spain’s foreign minister Jose Manuel Albares has refuted US suggestions pushed by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that the country has changed its stance on the US-Israel war on Iran. Levitt’s comments have reportedly sparked anger amongst Spanish politicians with Albares stating defiantly on Spain’s Cadena Ser radio:

Our ‘no to war’ stance remains clear and unequivocal.

She may be the White House press secretary, but I’m the foreign minister of Spain and I’m telling her that our position hasn’t changed at all.

“The Spanish government’s position… has not changed by a single comma.”

BREAKING: Spanish FM Jose Manuel Albares has denied that his government will cooperate with the US military attack on Iran, contradicting the White House.

🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/tdXE6QEY2O pic.twitter.com/60matbd9ih

Advertisement

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 4, 2026

Spain government: ‘No to war’

The US-Israel war on Iran began six days ago. Many international leaders have aligned themselves with what critics describe as aggressive and war-driven leadership of Trump and Netanyahu. Spain, however, has refused to be pressured into supporting or joining what it rightly views as an unjust war in the Middle East.

BREAKING

Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez says no to war on Iran:

“You cannot play Russian roulette with the destiny of millions.”

Advertisement

He rejects the US–Israel war on Iran.
Refuses to let Spain be complicit.
Refuses to allow Spanish bases to be used by the US. 🇪🇸 pic.twitter.com/6lWumfl2vP

— sarah (@sahouraxo) March 4, 2026

Spain has already distinguished itself from many Western governments through its stance on Israel’s genocide on Gaza, which it has strongly criticised. By refusing to be drawn into a wider regional conflict, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez continues to demonstrate his principled stance. The Spanish government bases this position on respect for international law and the rules-based international order.

Our own Skwawkbox wrote in January:

In a speech announcing the decision, Sánchez said that the board is not fit for purpose, criticised the exclusion of Palestinian people and their representatives and condemned Trump’s attempted extortion over Greenland and for ramping up tensions with Europe. Trump, Sánchez said, has made it clear that Europe must forge relationships with the wider world and refuse to be US vassals.

Spain is one of the few countries in Europe that hasn’t lost its mind and become neocon…

Spain urges arms embargo on Israel, calls for renewed talks on Iran’s nuclear program https://t.co/iPLkMg3FjF

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) June 17, 2025

A stark contrast from other western leaders, as our own HG wrote yesterday:

The majority of Western leaders have shown that when shit hits the fan, and civilian lives are at stake, they will side with genocidal maniacs (Trump) instead of doing the right thing.

Except Spain, of course, which condemned:

Advertisement

“unilateral military action by the US and Israel.”

It also banned the US from using Spanish military bases to attack Iran.

HG astutely pointed out the backwards nature of the response seen from Western leaders, writing:

Time after time, Western leaders have come out to condemn Iran’s retaliatory strikes. Of course, they fail to mention why they are retaliating, the thousands of people Israel has murdered, or the fact that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that actually has nuclear weapons.

Trump is nothing but a bully. He even claimed he might have forced Israel’s hand in attacking Iran. But Western leaders are enabling his bullshit – along with Netanyahu’s. One day we will see them all in the Hague – and then they will have been against this all along.

Advertisement

The White House might be trying to bully Spain into submission, however their continuing resistance has received widespread respect and recognition.

Resistance is growing

President of the European Council Antonio Costa has expressed his support in a call to PM Sanchez:

Acabo de mantener una llamada con el presidente @sanchezcastejon para expresar la plena solidaridad de la UE con España.

La UE siempre garantizará que los intereses de sus Estados miembros estén plenamente protegidos.

Reafirmamos nuestro firme compromiso con los principios del…

Advertisement

— António Costa (@eucopresident) March 4, 2026

His statement in full reads:

I just held a call with President
@sanchezcastejon
to express the EU’s full solidarity with Spain.

The EU will always ensure that the interests of its Member States are fully protected.

We reaffirm our firm commitment to the principles of international law and to the rules-based international order worldwide.

Advertisement

It appears divides are becoming increasingly apparent in the EU as a result of this pursuit of a war on Iran:

🇪🇸 Spain is pushing back against the narrative that Europe is lining up behind a U.S. war with Iran. Defense Minister Margarita Robles has publicly rejected NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s claim that there is “widespread support” for Donald Trump’s military campaign, making…

— Gandalv (@Microinteracti1) March 5, 2026

Post in full:

Spain is pushing back against the narrative that Europe is lining up behind a U.S. war with Iran. Defense Minister Margarita Robles has publicly rejected NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s claim that there is “widespread support” for Donald Trump’s military campaign, making it clear that Spain does not share that assessment.

The statement highlights a growing gap inside NATO and across Europe about how far the alliance should go in supporting a new conflict in the Middle East. While Washington has framed the situation as a collective security concern, Madrid is signaling that European backing is far from automatic.

Advertisement

Robles’ response is notable because it directly contradicts the impression that NATO members are broadly aligned with Washington’s approach. Instead, it suggests that several European governments may be far more cautious about escalating tensions with Iran than public statements from alliance leadership might imply.

The episode also reflects a broader pattern emerging in recent years: Europe increasingly asserting its own political judgment, even when it differs from the strategic direction coming from Washington.

Whilst other far-right leaders are seemingly more than happy to descend into the abyss behind out-of-control Trump and Netanyahu:

BREAKING: Italian PM Giorgia Meloni says her country plans to send air defence systems to Gulf countries. pic.twitter.com/BR9e7bGBCz

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 5, 2026

Advertisement

No to WWIII

It is clear Spain is holding firm in refusing to support this illegal war of aggression against the Iranian population, which has seen over a 1000 murdered by US and Israeli bombs.

Let’s hope this courage spreads across the west before we are all pulled into WWIII by weak, timid leaders.

Featured image via the Canary

Prof. Petro Nicolaides is the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Cyprus and Conservative Party Member and activist for over 40 years. He serves in governance roles across various organisations.

When sovereign British territory is attacked, the response should be immediate, clear and firm.

What we saw after the strike on RAF Akrotiri was none of those things. Instead, Keir Starmer chose hesitation, hedging and bureaucratic language.

That is not caution. It is paralysis.

And in the eastern Mediterranean, paralysis invites trouble.

This was a direct attack on British Sovereign territory. The Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus are not leased facilities or convenient outposts. They are British, retained under the 1960 independence settlement that created The Republic of Cyprus. An attack on Akrotiri is an attack on the United Kingdom. It is that simple.

The correct response to an attack on sovereign territory is deterrence. Instead, Downing Street reached for minimisation: “limited damage”, “no casualties”, “no escalation”. That language may produce calming headlines at home, but it signals something far more dangerous abroad — hesitation.

Deterrence relies on clarity. If hostile actors believe Britain responds to kinetic attacks with reviews, process and ambiguity, they will push again. And they will push harder.

Not only was this letting down a Commonwealth Partner but also an EU ally. Cyprus is not just a host nation. It is a Commonwealth partner and a member of the European Union. It currently holds the Presidency of the EU Council. British bases on the island have always been justified as mutually beneficial — enhancing regional security while reinforcing Cyprus’s stability. Yet when those bases became targets, the Cypriot government was left scrambling to reassure its own people.

From Nicosia’s perspective, the message was stark: Britain keeps sovereign territory on the island, conducts military operations from it, but hesitates when those operations generate risk.

That imbalance is politically poisonous. It feeds the perception that Britain is willing to externalise danger onto Cyprus without fully accepting the responsibility that comes with it. For a small EU state on Europe’s geopolitical fault line, that looks less like partnership and more like exploitation.

Starmer is excercising responsibility without resolve.

Under the Treaty of Guarantee, the UK is one of three guarantor powers — alongside Greece and Turkey — charged with upholding Cyprus’s independence and security. The treaty may not mandate automatic retaliation, but its meaning is clear. Britain accepted an ongoing security responsibility in return for retaining sovereign bases. That bargain carries real weight.

A guarantor power cannot credibly claim to uphold security while appearing reluctant to confront threats linked directly to its own installations. Hesitation hollows out the guarantor role until it becomes little more than symbolism. A guarantor that hesitates is no guarantor at all.

But even if these things in themselves weren’t important Starmer has quite simply sent the wrong signal at the worst moment The eastern Mediterranean is crowded, volatile and heavily watched. Every move is read as a signal. By choosing restraint without visible reinforcement — no posture shift, no rapid defensive surge, no muscular diplomatic response — the UK projected ambiguity when clarity was needed most.

Allies notice this. EU partners see a Britain still reliant on Mediterranean basing but reluctant to lead. Commonwealth states see strategic privileges without matching resolve. Adversaries see an invitation to probe.

Credibility is not built in speeches. It is built in moments of pressure. And once credibility erodes, it is difficult to restore.

That’s why it’s so damning that we can see this is domestic politics over strategic duty. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that domestic political calculation played a role. A new government, anxious to avoid entanglement, instinctively dampened rhetoric and avoided confrontation.

But global leadership is not compatible with reflexive risk‑aversion. The UK claims a global defence posture. It fields one of the world’s most capable militaries. It sits on the UN Security Council. Yet when its own sovereign territory was struck, it responded with managerial language rather than strategic intent.

That gap between posture and performance is corrosive.

Britain under Starmer has failed the test.

The question is not whether Britain should have retaliated militarily. That is a false argument. The real question is whether Britain demonstrated unmistakable resolve — to defend its territory and to reassure its ally. It did not.

A guarantor power must show three things:

• Speed — immediate recognition and response
• Clarity — a firm framing of the act as unacceptable
• Deterrence — visible steps to prevent repetition

What we saw instead was procedure, not strategy. For Cyprus, that hesitation weakens confidence in the security architecture that underpins its post‑independence existence.

But this extends beyond Cyprus. This does not end at Akrotiri. If Britain appears uncertain about defending its own sovereign territory, how persuasive are its commitments elsewhere — from NATO’s eastern flank to the Indo‑Pacific?

Credibility is indivisible. A falter in Cyprus echoes far beyond the Mediterranean.

Caution is not strength. Sir Keir Starmer may present this as measured statecraft — keeping channels open, avoiding escalation. But excessive caution in the face of aggression is not wisdom. It is vulnerability. By reacting slowly and softly, the government risks undermining deterrence, weakening trust with an ally, diluting its guarantor role and encouraging further tests.

A guarantor power that hesitates at the moment of challenge does more than misjudge the situation.

It diminishes itself.

2 min read27 min

The government is set to bring forward legislation permitting an additional 11 ministerial roles to be paid with a salary, PoliticsHome understands.

The reforms, which are expected to be brought forward today by Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds, are designed to bring the total number of paid ministerial roles in line with the average size of government since 2010, which is around 120 ministers. Under current legislation, the limit is 109. 

As things stand, 12 ministers in the Labour government serve without pay.

The new salaries are expected to be largely allocated to ministers in the House of Lords, who are often seen as experts in their fields.

The government is expected to argue that it is not right that a number of ministerial roles favour those who have the financial means to fulfill them without a salary.

A government source told PoliticsHome: “The current Cabinet has the highest proportion of state-educated members in history, and the Prime Minister believes that ministerial office should not be reserved for those wealthy enough to fund it for themselves.”

Ministers will also argue that the reforms will help improve transparency by ending the practice of ‘borrowing’ whips’ salaries to fund departmental roles, which successive governments have used when organising their payroll.

The salaries themselves are expected to remain at the same level.

Rare diseases affect approximately 3.5 million people in the UK – with 1 in 17 impacted by one of the 10,000 known rare conditions at some point in their lives – a collective prevalence similar to cancer.^1,2 However, with each rare disease affecting so few people, these conditions are often overlooked.

Many rare conditions are life-limiting or life-threatening, making access to a timely diagnosis, expert care and effective treatment critically important. In healthcare systems geared towards more common diseases, it can be difficult for people with rare diseases to navigate and access the specialist services they need.³ This results in poor health outcomes and experiences of care – challenges that have been reflected in the UK Rare Disease Framework since 2021, with work underway to measure its impact.⁴

In late 2025, health ministers from all four nations agreed to extend the UK Rare Diseases Framework by one year through to February 2027.⁵ Over the next 12 months, it is critical that this time is used to determine the long-term priorities for the rare disease community, those specific areas where national policy and coordination can make the most meaningful impact, and how best to track progress.

Every year, Rare Disease Day takes place on 28th February – or 29th February in leap years to coincide with the rarest of days – to raise awareness of all rare conditions. Work by patient organisations underlines how low awareness of rare conditions makes it harder for others to relate to their experiences. As a result, empathy, understanding and support can be harder to find.⁶

For Rare Disease Day 2026, Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease and the Wolves Foundation have partnered to raise the visibility of rare diseases and support the foundation’s disability football programme and the Wolves Wishes initiative.

Wolves Wishes organises memorable club-related experiences for fans facing health challenges. The Premier League fixture between Wolverhampton Wanderers and Aston Villa, which took place on 27th February, featured the disability teams playing at half-time to mark Rare Disease Day. 

The team wore a kit they had designed themselves, reflecting the diverse and unique nature of rare conditions. They showed their skills and beat the Aston Villa team 1-0, with both home and away fans united in their support for these important players and cause. 

Through the partnership, Alexion is supporting the foundation’s eight disability teams by providing new kit for the players and backing the Wolves Wishes project.

“This partnership reflects our shared values of equity and inclusion, while raising awareness of rare diseases with a broad audience,” said Deborah Richards, Managing Director of Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease UK. “Rare diseases often bring challenges that aren’t always visible, but they have a clear impact on those they affect and their families. Through this partnership, we can help make rare disease more visible and build greater understanding within the football community and beyond.”

“Our disability football and Wolves Wishes programmes are built on years of evidence showing how sport and local communities can transform lives,” said Kieron Ansell, Head of Business Development at the Wolves Foundation. “Through our partnership with Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease UK, we can continue this important work while also shining a light on rare disease awareness. It shows that local children and families are seen and valued, and that their health challenges are recognised beyond the medical world, which can make a real difference, particularly for those at the beginning of their diagnostic journey.”

To find out more about the Wolves Foundation visit, https://foundation.wolves.co.uk/. To find out more about Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease UK, visit https://alexion.com/worldwide/UK.

This article was developed and funded by Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease.

M/UK/NP/0191 | March 2026

References

1. https://geneticalliance.org.uk/news/rare-conditions-the-stories-behind-the-stats/

2. https://www.macmillan.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/research/cancer-prevalence

Advertisement

3. https://shca.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SHCA-Health-Inequalities-Report.pdf

4. https://geneticalliance.org.uk/news/rare-conditions-the-stories-behind-the-stats/

5. https://geneticalliance.org.uk/our-campaign-for-a-new-uk-rare-diseases-framework/

6. https://shca.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/‘Are-you-okay-Rare-diseases-and-mental-health-–-A-case-study-report.pdf

World leaders’ relentless focus on economic growth is a key driver of social inequality and extreme poverty. That same centering of profit at all costs is fuelling the climate crisis and hastening the death of our planet.

But then, the Canary would say that, wouldn’t we? We’re a bunch of rabid leftists who probably read Marx on the shitter before wiping with recycled toilet paper.

Except it’s not us that said it — it’s the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Professor Olivier De Schutter. In April, he will present his findings to the UN and advocate for a global shift toward a ‘Beyond Growth’ approach.

New economies for eradicating poverty

De Schutter leads a team entitled ‘New Economies for Eradicating Poverty,’ or ‘NEEP’. At the heart of what they do is the Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth, a blue print for:

expand[ing] the range of policy options available in the fight against poverty, beyond those that rely on economic growth.

Once finished, the Roadmap will offer a catalogue of concrete policy measures that governments, international agencies, and other stakeholders can implement that place human rights, care, and well-being at the centre of the economy, while respecting planetary boundaries.

The roadmap will set out policies for both richer and poorer countries, having suffered under the pursuit of endless growth. De Schutter stated that, in the case of poorer nations:

Although these countries still need to create resources to invest in hospitals, schools, infrastructure and so on, the growth that they are forced to pursue, particularly to reimburse their foreign debt … means they must export, and in order to export, they must produce not for their own population and not based on ecological considerations, but based solely on what the big buyers in global supply chains demand.

Likewise, for richer countries, the roadmap will suggest that:

 instead of public revenue being raised by taxing income from labour or economic activity, we should ensure that public revenue is raised by taxing wealth, financial assets, immovable property, financial transactions, and all the ills of the economy, including from the extractive industry and especially of fossil energy.

Beyond growth

The special rapporteur argues that politicians must set aside the growth mindset focusing on the profits and the:

frivolous and destructive demands of the ultra-rich

In its place, world leaders must adopt a new mindset to fight ecological collapse, inequality and the far-right. De Schutter states:

The scarce resources we have should be used to prioritise the basic needs of people in poverty and to create what is of societal value rather than serve the frivolous desires of the ultra-rich.

As such, the roadmap argues for policies including debt cancellation, universal basic income, job guarantees, and an extreme wealth tax. De Schutter also took care to distinguish the movement beyond growth from uncontrolled economic collapse:

We should avoid the confusion between recession or stagnation of the kind we saw after 2008 or 1929 and the carefully planned and democratically controlled transition to something else.

This shift in mindset would involve a re-ordering of the way we conceptualise the global economy. Only yesterday, UK chancellor Rachel Reeves gave her spring statement on the country’s finances, with that fictional holy grail of growth front-and-center.

Beyond GDP, beyond inequality

As such, one might assume that an anti-growth stance is a fringe idea within the UN. However, De Schutter argues that an increasing number of individuals within the organisation have believed in the “imperative of moving beyond growth” for years. However, their:

existing mandate does not always allow them to say this politically at the highest level, and there is a taboo still about questioning growth.

As such, the special rapporteur’s findings could provide a crucial mandate for ‘beyond growth’ arguments within the UN.

Towards this end, De Schutter is advocating to establish a UN body to ensure that:

the economy is redistributive and sustainable by design rather than encouraging destructive growth and then trying to make up for the mess that creates.

This new body, he argues, could follow the pattern of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This goal is also backed up by the timing of the report. Its April release will coincide with two similar initiatives, as reported in the Guardian:

one instigated by the UN secretary general, António Guterres, which looks at replacing GDP as the key measure of economic success, and a second report by a G20 panel of independent experts on global inequality led by the renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz.

De Schutter argues that this moment in time offers:

a realistic opportunity to shape the post-2030 agenda with a viable alternative that will reconcile planetary boundaries with social justice and the fight against poverty and inequalities. That’s the challenge and the opportunity.

Now, this article should of course come with hefty caveats. This is the UN we’re talking about — a world body famed for a focus on talk over action. After all, the IPCC has warned and warned of imminent planetary destruction, but we’re still sleepwalking towards annihilation.

We can criticise the proposed roadmap for failing to go far enough, for coming too late, for revolving around the presumption of a money-based economy. The idea of a wealth tax is a curb on extreme wealth, but it doesn’t eliminate inequality altogether.

All of these things should be said. However, the news of NEEP’s work is notable still — even the fucking UN is cottoning on to the simple fact that we must abandon the pursuit of economic growth in order to survive.

Endless growth is a fiction; it is not economically, socially or ecologically possible. Rather, its pursuit is a cancer on our societies and our world.

Featured image via the Canary

US President Donald Trump’s war may be costing Americans $1bn a day. As the US switches from ‘smart’ bombs to ‘gravity’ bombs there are questions about where this runaway conflict is going. And now an esteemed air power scholar has warned the Americans are stuck in a strategic trap.

The US and Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time. The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. And the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Atlantic reporter Nancy Youssef posted on X on 4 March:

The preliminary Pentagon cost estimate of the war in Iran is $1 billion a day, a congressional official told me.

— Nancy Youssef, نانسي يوسف (@nancyayoussef) March 4, 2026

Advertisement

An anonymous official’s comment must be taken with a pinch of salt. But the debate about the cost and nature of this attack is urgent. And let’s be clear, this war isn’t ending anytime soon.

On 4 March, US Congress turned their backs on peace and left Trump unchecked:

US Senate Republicans backed President Trump’s military campaign against Iran, voting to block a bipartisan resolution aiming to stop the air war ​and require that any hostilities against Iran be authorized by Congress https://t.co/1KivKwJfyS pic.twitter.com/9KbMnsvVoP

— Reuters (@Reuters) March 5, 2026

Not that the Iranians – who say they were stabbed in the back when the 28 February attack came amid fruitful talks – are in the mood to get back around the table:

Iran says it did not request negotiations with US https://t.co/Rf4aoDkMQO https://t.co/Rf4aoDkMQO

— Reuters (@Reuters) January 28, 2026

Iranian deputy foreign minister Esmail Baghaei explained the Iranian position at length on 4 March:

Trump in over his head

The Costs of War Project have been trying to estimate what the attack will cost the US taxpayer:

Operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities last year cost $2-2.25 billion.

This war will likely cost far more. https://t.co/QTfp0EGDEn pic.twitter.com/B8tdSjoIHA

— The Costs of War Project (@CostsOfWar) March 4, 2026

It’s much easier to say who the beneficiaries of the US-Iran war are going to be: arms firms.

Northrop Grumman’s share price rose 6% yesterday, increasing its market value by billions of dollars in just one day of trading. https://t.co/CqiF6rP2Wx

— The Costs of War Project (@CostsOfWar) March 4, 2026

Advertisement

The war is changing character, possibly due to depletion of ammunition stocks. US Democrats raised concerns on 4 March that:

 the US has been burning through interceptors to defend against ballistic missiles launched by Iran.

Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine acknowledged:

that concern, a person familiar with the matter said, even as he expressed confidence in stockpile levels in public.

US defence secretary Pete Hegseth said the US was moving away from ‘stand-off’ weapons towards gravity-based bombs:

The Hill reported:

Hegseth noted that the U.S. had largely been using standoff munitions — such as cruise missiles and short-range ballistic missiles fired from ships or ground positions — in the campaign so far.

Hegseth said:

More bombers, fighters are arriving just today. And now with complete control of the skies, we will be using 500-pound, 1000-pound and 2000-pound GPS-and-laser-guided precision gravity bombs, which we have a nearly unlimited stockpile.

Gravity bombs are a more conventional form of munition which is dropped from an aircraft rather than fired. B-2’s will arrive at a UK airbase within days on their way to Iran. The UK’s role deepens by the day.

This never works

Professor Robert Pape, a highly-regarded American expert on air warfare, posted on X:

THE SMART BOMB TRAP IS BECOMING A DUMB BOMB

The war is widening.
Not rhetorically.
Operationally.

Advertisement

And the reason is technical — but the consequences are strategic.

— Robert A. Pape (@ProfessorPape) March 4, 2026

Pape told Time magazine on 3 March:

In announcing the goal of regime change through air power alone, President Trump is up against the weight of history. Not just Iran, but the weight of history. For over a century, states—including the United States, European states, Russia, and Israel—have tried to topple regimes with air power alone. It has never—and I’m choosing my words carefully—it has never worked.

You can read his Substack or listen to more of his analysis here:

As this domestically unpopular war expands rapidly without a plan, the costs in lives and dollars will expand too. Experts insist Trump has chosen the wrong tactic in using air power. A shift to old-fashioned bombs hints at depletion of stock. Meanwhile, the Iranians understandably say they consider this an existential war.

Featured image via the Canary