Politics
Ending A Marriage: How A Therapist Helps Couples
“You made a sex tape?!”
Susannah turned to her husband, Ron, mouth agape. He looked down, his cheeks reddening.
“It was right after college. I was experimenting,” he mumbled, twisting in his seat. “No big deal.”
As a couples therapist, I am always looking for how to mend the frayed edges of a relationship, but Susannah and Ron were different: they had come to my office to end their marriage.
I practice what I call breakup therapy — a short-term treatment I developed for couples who want to end their relationships without bitterness.
The premise is counterintuitive: instead of looking forward toward separate futures, we look backward at the relationship itself. It’s structured to look at the beginning, middle and end of their time together with exercises that focus on both their gratitude as well as their resentment.
The work culminates with the couple crafting a shared narrative about their union and literally writing it down – a story of what worked and ultimately what did not. Then, I ask them to sign it. In this way, they resolve the many unanswered, and often unasked, questions that can trap couples in recriminations and keep them from moving on.
The idea was born from my own bitter divorce. After my split, I was plagued by questions that repeated on an endless loop in my brain: “What was I thinking?”; “Why didn’t I see that red flag?”; “What is wrong with me – I’m a therapist and I should have seen what was happening.”
Then, one day, my therapist asked me a different question: who was I when I decided to marry? Suddenly, my internal feedback loop stopped.
“You’re asking me who I was, not why I married him?” I said, skeptically.
“Yes, I am,” she answered. “Marriages can be as much about identity as they are about a union. What were you trying to solve — or avoid — by marrying him?”
The question unlocked something for me. I’d been full of anger at myself, but I hadn’t really taken responsibility for my own actions. With her help, I crafted a story that I could hold onto about what function the marriage had served for me. Truly owning my choices helped me have more compassion for myself and less anger. The most startling realisation? When I had created a story that hung together, the nagging questions ended for good.
I have seen this same process unfold for many couples. But often, in the course of these sessions, new things surface.
“Susannah?” I said, surprised to hear the hurt in her voice. “This feels like a big deal for you. Why is that?”
Ron and Susannah had not been the most willing subjects for breakup therapy. During our first session, Ron blurted out: “You’re like a medical examiner doing autopsies on dead relationships! Your scalpel hurts. I don’t think you know what it feels like to be humiliated.”
“I wouldn’t be so sure,” I answered softly. “I have a teenager.”
“This feels stupid,” he said on another occasion. “She’s done, I accept that. What is there to say? This feels like horseshit.”
“See what I’m working with here?” Susannah said, throwing up her hands and shifting away from Ron on the couch. “I knew he wouldn’t take this seriously.”
“No, he’s right,” I said. “If it’s really true that you fully accept and understand her decision, Ron, then this is horseshit. But is that true?”
His silence was all the answer I needed.
Over the next few sessions, we went over how they’d fallen in love (“It just made sense, we fit”); the birth of their three children (“The unit held us together”); the unraveling of their connection (“We were ships in the night for as long as I can remember, but then one day I woke up and just wanted more from life”).
We mapped the patterns their marriage had fallen into over the course of three houses, two cross-country moves and their children’s exodus from home. It was a saga spanning decades.
Then, in our fourth session, Ron mentioned the sex tape.
“Something about this is landing hard on you,” I said to Susannah, her mouth still ajar. “Why?”
“Yeah, why?” Ron echoed.
Susannah paused and looked out the window.
“It’s that you … you tried something that – I don’t know – was out there … bold and different.”
A tear welled in a corner of her eye.
“It’s not you. You’re not brave! Or, at least you haven’t been with me, not in all these years together.”
Then she began to cry. Ron and I looked at one another.
“Susannah?” Instantly, I regretted breaking the silence.
“All this time, I decided you just couldn’t try new things,” she managed after a while. “I gave up.”
Ron put up his palms. “What is happening?” he said, exasperated.
“But if you can do that …” she continued. “What was it? Did I just not ask? Did I build my life around a lie?” She looked lost. “Was it that you never really loved me enough?”
She turned back to Ron and banged her fist on the couch.
“I did ask! I asked you to look at porn together when we stopped having sex, to take classes with me, to go on that whale-watching tour. … You just ignored me!”
This time, I held my tongue.
“Is that a thing?” she went on, turning to me. “That you can reach the end of a relationship and not even have known what was possible?”
“I made that tape 30 years ago,” Ron blurted out. “She’s upset over something I did when I was a totally different person!”
This was the impasse that I had expected, that arrives in most of my breakup therapy work – the moment when two people realise that as well as they think they know each other, there are things they don’t know or have lost track of. It’s my job to help them hold that bitter realisation. Then it’s my job to help them arrive at forgiveness or some kind of reconciliation – if not with each other, then with what happened to them.
“It was 30 years ago, Ron,” I said. “But you aren’t a different person. You’re the same person, and she’s wondering why you couldn’t have been that with her.”
I turned to Susannah and said, “You have a right to be hurt, but were you truly honest with him? Did you give him the space and the safety and the encouragement to be that person? Do you think you both can forgive each other for what you weren’t?”
It was three weeks before they appeared again in my office, having canceled two sessions in between appointments.
“I was stirred and moved by what happened here last time,” Susannah began. “When we left, I thought: Maybe there’s enough left between us?”
Ron’s eyes were downcast.
“But I realised I can’t,” she said. “I just can’t open up that part of me with him anymore. I want … I need this divorce.”
I nodded. “Ron? How do you feel?”
“I can see where we are … I’m not fighting it.” His voice broke. “I’m just really sad.”
Often it requires some kind of shock to break through the built-up layers of anger, resentment and disappointment in a couple in order to illuminate the cracks in their relationship – something true that has been avoided or left unsaid. In this case, it was the surprise of an ancient transgressive act that lay bare how little they knew each other and how misaligned they’d become.
Susannah moved closer to Ron on the couch and laced her fingers with his.
“You guys seem calmer – closer. Tell me what you are feeling,” I said.
I knew something about that calm after the storm. After my own divorce, we had maintained an uneasy truce for years, until one long car ride after dropping our daughter at camp. As we rode in silence, I suddenly remembered my therapist’s question: Who was I when I decided to get married? For the next two hours, we talked over that question and everything else, and together realised how lonely we had been — two Israelis who, instead of understanding why we had both chosen to leave, had clung to each other and to a shared language. Before long, we were laughing as we had not laughed since the early days of our marriage.
“So, where do we go from here?” Ron asked me in their last session.
“Well, in my experience, when a marriage ends, a different relationship can sometimes be created,” I said. “That’s up to you guys. All endings are sad, but not all endings have to leave you broken. There’s an opportunity here to get to know each other in a different way. And …” I leaned forward to make eye contact with each of them “… to know yourselves better.”
After they left, I sat quietly in my chair for a while. I allowed myself to remember that moment in my therapist’s office when I realised that I had been using my marriage to escape a question I had been avoiding and what a relief it had been to finally face it.
When a sex tape from decades ago unlocks two people’s grief, it’s not so much about the end of the road as it is about the roads never taken – the versions of a marriage they never tried. It is a sad moment, but also a generative one.
They’d come to me to bury their marriage. What they found instead was a way to know each other – maybe for the first time in years – even as they said goodbye.
Note: Names and some details have been changed to protect the identities of the individuals appearing in this essay.
Sarah Gundle, Psy.D., is a psychologist in private practice and an assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center. She is currently writing a book about breakups. You can find her on Instagram @dear_dr_sarah.
Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.
Green party deputy leader Mothin Ali is among a handful of UK politicians to condemn the killing of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei as the illegal assassination that it was.
Mothin said that he is “proudly anti-war” and described the murder of Khamenei as “deplorable”:
I’m proudly anti-war. And to be anti-war that means looking to explore all possible diplomatic solutions. The US and Israel took a unilateral decision in the midst of negotiations to kill the Iranian leader, and opted for war. This is deplorable.
— Mothin Ali (@MothinAli) March 1, 2026
Green deputy leader goes where many won’t
Your Party MP Jeremy Corbyn condemned Israel and the US as rogue states and their attacks on Iran as illegal, but has not so far mentioned the Khamenei murder on his social media.
Green party leader Zack Polanski called for the UK government to condemn US president Donald Trump – a call that sent Zionist horror MP David Taylor into a hissy fit:
It should not be inconceivable to a Member of Parliament that by opposing the violation of international law you can also be advocating for the Iranian people.
How much more evidence does he need from past interventions to show that they can make things much, much worse? https://t.co/DCiataSPkC
— Matthew Butcher (@matthewtbutcher) March 1, 2026
And Polanski described Keir Starmer’s stance – condemning Iran for retaliating after being attacked – as “outrageous”:
.@ZackPolanski: “Its absolutely outrageous that they can be at the negotiating table & then our PM puts out a statement that actually condemns Iran for a retaliatory attack as opposed to Israel & America that started the bombing in the first place”🎯 pic.twitter.com/4QnNTGaDN8
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
Corbyn’s Your Party colleague Zarah Sultana was also outspoken, condemning Israel and the US for starting a war to cover for their “paedophilic crimes”. LIke Corbyn, however, she does not appear to have mentioned Khamenei directly yet.
The killing of Khamenei – along with his family, as so often the case in Israeli and US atrocities – is murder. So is the killing of the almost 150 Iranian schoolgirls and hundreds of other Iranians. Trump and Netanyahu are indeed trying to distract from their crimes and the world should be united against them – and calling their crimes what they are.
Featured image via the Canary
Welcome to The Canary Catch Up. Each Sunday, the Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey will bring us bang up to date with the telly she’s been obsessed with, what she’s hate-watching, and what she can’t wait to get stuck into.
Warning- Spoilers for Bridgerton ahead!
Well, isn’t this exciting! The thing about me is I love ALL telly, there’s very little I won’t watch, to be honest. From a hard-hitting drama to Strictly, I’m there. That’s why I’m over the bloody moon to bring you the Canary Catch Up. Every Sunday, I’ll be here rounding up what I loved, things that I think you need to watch, and of course, the silly TV moments we couldn’t stop talking about.
Murky sewage scandal laid bare
Something that stopped me in my tracks this week was Dirty Business on Channel 4. The docudrama brought the sewage scandal, which destroyed our rivers and coastlands, whilst also risking many people’s health into stark focus. Channel 4 did an excellent job of holding the water companies and the regulators to blame. Showing just how much the latter was in the pockets of the former. But it also highlighted just how detrimental the scandal was for a lot of people personally, and also the cruelty of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
In one absolutely rage-inducing scene, Reuben, an ex-surfer, attempts to be assessed for Personal Independence Payments (PIP). Throughout his assessment, his distress is ignored. The assessor tells him to only focus on the days when he’s not having Ménière’s drop attacks. This is despite him pointing out that the attacks happen at least three times a week and that they leave him paralysed. As a disabled person, I sobbed when he failed his assessment and told the assessor, “I don’t know what to do.” This is such a raw look at how much the DWP is failing those with chronic illnesses; everyone needs to watch it.
Back to the Ton for Bridgerton series 4
Dearest gentle reader, as we head back to the Ton, this writer has many questions she needs answered. Why is Francesca so mad to see Michaela? Who is the new Lady Penwood? And most importantly, how the fuck did Benedict become obsessed with a woman he met at a party yet not realise she wasn’t white?
Yes, it’s back to Netflix’s dazzling alternate reality Georgian drama where racism doesn’t exist, but also it does. I will admit I’m only on episode 2 so far, but I screamed my face off when we found out who the new lady Penwood is. Everyone’s fave villain, Cressida Cowper! The carriage scene might’ve been a highlight of last series for many, but mine was when this absolute queen showed up pretending to be Lady Whistledown to the soundtrack of Confident by Demi Lovato on strings.
BBC doing the DWP’s work for them, again
The BBC were full of disability hate this week. Alongside airing a man with tourette’s tics to cause division between marginalised communities, they also aired a benefits-hating Panorama. The title says it all, really: The Rising Cost of Health Benefits. As usual, the BBC presented this as concern for taxpayers when it was obviously another attempt to call disabled people scroungers.
The show was packed to the rafters with murky think tanks like Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice and the Institute of Economic Affairs. Their faux concern was barely hiding their utter contempt for disabled people. There was, of course, the usual poor disabled person exploited for the cameras whilst the presenter, Bronagh Munroe, shat all over autism and ADHD. It was a massively transparent PR piece from the DWP.
Anyone for one last haunting?
Anyone who knows me knows that my favourite TV show EVER is the BBC’s Ghosts. I was left bereft in 2023 when the team announced they were done with the ridiculous spectres forever. But in fairness, I actually respected that they chose to end it before it got too tired. They closed the show off well, and there were no more stories to tell. Or so we thought.
It turns out there’s still one more haunting left. The team announced this week that Ghosts: The Possession of Button House starts filming next week. That’s right, we’re getting a Ghosts movie! I can’t even begin to explain my excitement for this one, lads. I cannot believe my emotional support, silly little dead people are coming back – and I will be so fucking seated for this film.
Featured image via the Canary
Zack Polanski joined Laura Kuensberg to discuss the war of aggression instigated by the US and Israel. An illegal war which has seen Iran’s Supreme Leader assassinated alongside his family. This comes in stark contrast to the shameful ignorance shown by other public figures in the UK with their reluctance to call out the flagrant breaches of international law on clear display.
Nevertheless, many have welcomed Polanski’s perspective supporting the suggestion that the Green Party leader is far more in tune with ordinary people across the UK than most of our elected MPs. Polanski made clear the woefully apparent cowardice shown by the British government. Akin to their ignorance of Israeli crimes, they refuse to stand up to Trump despite his and Netanyahu’s illegal military campaign. A war of aggression that has resulted in 148 schoolgirls murdered through western bombs being dropped on a primary school in Minab, a southern province in Iran.
The school reportedly sheltered 170 at the time, showing the deplorable lack of morality in mainstream media who have refused to discuss it. Whilst highlighting the sheer devastation being dealt by the West against Iranian civilians.
.@ZackPolanski: The US & Israel attack is illegal and unprovoked, the defence secretary & the govt won’t condemn it, we have a PM who is incapable of standing up to Trump, and the worry is that we’ll be pulled into another illegal war.
Spot on. pic.twitter.com/EGFSnu0v1s
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
How diplomacy should be done: with a spine
UK officials would be wise to watch Polanski’s interview with Kuenssberg. Specifically taking note of his principled stance and refusal to kowtow to the genocidal state Israel and thug-bully US. After all, this attack on Iran is illegal, unprovoked, and has directly afforded Iran the right to defend itself from attacks on its sovereign territory. It must not be forgotten that these attacks came — once again — as negotiations were ongoing, reaching agreement on issues that had never seen that progress before. Such as a commitment to stockpile limit of zero, making Iran’s capability of building nuclear bombs impossible.
Once again, this exposes the excuse of stopping Iran having a nuclear bomb as a load of hogwash. Instead, it appears to be constructed in a ‘deja-vu’ to Iraq to further the colonialist and imperialist agenda of Israel and the Epstein-compromised US President Trump.
Kuenssberg, like any loyal client journalist to the establishment, refused to acknowledge that retaliatory strikes are a legal right under international law. On the contrary, she firmly lays all blame on Iran for threats to military bases in the region. Both the victim and the aggressor apparently:
.@ZackPolanski says the PM should condemn the strikes by the US/Israel as illegal & unprovoked#bbclaurak: but what about Irans retaliatory strikes, you’re not calling on them to de-escalate
Doesn’t LK know what retaliation means? Of course she does. Shes just doing her job pic.twitter.com/EI4flhG3gT
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
Zack Polanski astutely exposed just how ridiculous that wilful ignorance is:
.@ZackPolanski: “Its absolutely outrageous that they can be at the negotiating table & then our PM puts out a statement that actually condemns Iran for a retaliatory attack as opposed to Israel & America that started the bombing in the first place”🎯 pic.twitter.com/4QnNTGaDN8
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
Zack Polanski highlighted the fact that there is only one country in the region who has nuclear bombs. Making clear who she works for, Kuenssberg defends Israel as the only ‘democracy’:
.@ZackPolanski: “There is only one [country] in that area with a nuclear weapon, and that’s Israel”#bbclaurak: “but there is also only one democracy..”
Kuenssberg is defending a genocidal apartheid state that denies millions of people under its control their basic civic rights pic.twitter.com/AXwO15fMMK
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
This shouldn’t really need to be pointed out by Polanski, but recollection seems short lived in the West and common sense is second to self interest:
.@ZackPolanski: “I do know that there’s no example in history where you’ve bombed people to democracy.. airstrikes for regime change has never led [to] an example where a country is better off afterwards” 🎯 pic.twitter.com/03CojFCHVw
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
Justice must be necessary, not optional
The illegal war on Iraq killing millions is widely condemned. In fact, it is now widely recognised as having been instigated based on fearmongering lies and manipulations from US President Bush. However, the very fact that no one has been held responsible has long been a stain on our international rules-based order.
For instance, war criminal Tony Blair is seemingly protected from accountability under international law in the International Criminal Court (ICC), having never answered for his crimes against humanity. Instead, he was championed to sit on Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ painfully exposing the sham that that is.
Our own Joe Glenton wrote last year on the interconnected realities between Iraq and Israel’s genocide on Gaza. It is highly likely that Iran will soon be joining this list of victimised, terrorised sovereign states that never seem to see accountability. Joe Glenton wrote:
Now imagine a world in which Tony Blair simply never got a platform to advance his grandiose, yet inevitably ridiculous takes?
And imagine a world where the core values of Blairism – embodied today in the Magic Bank Manager Keir Starmer – had been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Sounds alright, doesn’t it?
Well one of the reasons that world doesn’t exist is that nobody was ever remotely held to account over the Iraq War.
The legacy media is a part of this. We shouldn’t be surprised that an industry dominated by Russell Group-educated Professional Managerial Class (PMC) losers would help recondition figures who represent their own values and ambitions.
Glenton was bang on and the theory is ongoing. If war criminals weren’t protected by power, with the rule of law having teeth of its own, our leaders would feel more uncomfortable about their prior, current and ongoing complicity in US-Israeli aggressions.
Nevertheless, it’s clear western leaders are less bothered about silly objective issues of legality. Instead, they have long been far more interested in keeping the big orange paedo-pal in the US happy. Zarah Sultana gave a damning rebuke to Tory Tom Tugendhat, the former security minister:
Tom, it’s interesting that you present yourself as the sole defender of Iranian lives when your record says otherwise:
You sit on the advisory board of United Against Nuclear Iran, a lobby group that supports punitive sanctions that hurt ordinary Iranians and has backed calls… https://t.co/7HVKVmqmfY
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 1, 2026
Her damning takedown of Tugendhat reads in full:
Tom, it’s interesting that you present yourself as the sole defender of Iranian lives when your record says otherwise:
You sit on the advisory board of United Against Nuclear Iran, a lobby group that supports punitive sanctions that hurt ordinary Iranians and has backed calls for US military action against Iran.
You’ve been paid by pro-Israel networks like YPO United Mosaic.
You criticised the UN Security Council for condemning illegal Israeli settlement expansion.
You described your participation in the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqis, as “the naughtiest thing I have ever done.”
You condemned the “betrayal” of Afghanistan when Western forces withdrew in 2021, yet consistently supported the interventionist policies that helped produce that disaster.
Your government wanted to deny Iranian refugees the right to claim asylum in the UK and ship them to Rwanda.
And I’m still looking for your condemnation of Israel’s targeted strike on a girls’ school that killed over 100 Iranian children.
When you mount an attack, you need someone to watch your back.
Healey makes clear that this is Britain’s role – guarding the rear, while Israel and America go on a killing spree.
We are actively participating in an illegal, regime-change war – yet again. https://t.co/q4KpNjjZdK
— Steve Howell (@FromSteveHowell) March 1, 2026
Journalist Richard Sanders also exposed this double standard in a post on X, highlighting the selective nature of western condemnation:
The killing of dozens of girls at a primary school in Iran is not on the front page of a single British newspaper.
A simple test – imagine the reaction if they were Israelis.https://t.co/jvdHrLEMlB
— Richard Sanders (@PulaRJS) March 1, 2026
Mark Curtis of Declassified UK applauded Polanski’s ‘principled position’ on foreign policy, before warning that the threat he poses to the establishment will face concerted efforts to sabotage him as a result:
Many of Polanski’s positions on UK foreign policy are decent/principled and therefore a threat to the UK oligarchy. He’ll obviously be increasingly subject to the same kind of media campaign that helped remove J.Corbyn in 2015-19. We must monitor and raise awareness of it. https://t.co/RrUhAkOyR7
— Mark Curtis (@markcurtis30) March 1, 2026
Zack Polanski — potential future Prime Minister?
The principle and courage on show from Polanski to speak truth to power and put the interests of the majority over the interests of the powerful is earning respect across the country. It seems where other MPs choose to earn the favour of the US President, Polanski prefers to put the British public first.
In contrast to Starmer and the government’s abysmal approval ratings and failure to ‘read the room’ amongst the electorate, Polanski’s consistent show of principle is now earning calls for him to be PM.
With the recent astounding and overwhelming victory of the Green Party in Gorton and Denton, this might just be a glimpse of the future:
The Prime Minister this country needs: https://t.co/EHsHKZpKRj
— Sharmen Rahman (@sharmen_r) March 1, 2026
Featured image via the Canary
A BBC expert has demolished Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s case for bombing Iran.
Israel said the attacks were “pre-emptive” to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and firing at them.
In his statement announcing the bombing, Trump said: “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”
But Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s international affairs editor, dismissed those arguments.
He said: “Israel used the word ‘pre-emptive’ to justify its attack – the largest in the Israeli Air Force’s history, according to the Israel Defense Forces.
“The evidence is that this is not a response to an imminent threat, which the word pre-emption implies. Instead, it is a war of choice.”
The military action, Bowen said, was “another blow to the tottering system of international law”.
He added: “In their statements, both Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran was a danger to their countries – Trump said it was a global danger.
“The Islamic regime is certainly their bitter enemy. But it is hard to see how the legal justification of self-defence applies given the huge disparity of power between the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other.”
Bowen also warned that Trump’s stated objective of regime change in Iran will be far from straightforward – and could lead to a wider conflict in the Middle East.
He said: “There is no precedent for regime change happening just because of air strikes.
“Even if this becomes the first case of air power alone collapsing a regime, the Islamic regime will not be replaced by a liberal democracy that upholds human rights. There is no credible alternative government in exile waiting in the wings.”
The Middle East expert went on: “Iran’s remaining leaders will now be calculating how to ride out the war, how to survive and how to manage its consequences.
“Their neighbours, led by Saudi Arabia, will be dismayed by the huge uncertainty and potential consequences of today’s events.
“Given the capacity of the Middle East to export trouble, the eruption of renewed and intensified war deepens the instability of a region and wider world that is already turbulent, violent and dangerous.”
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have now given testimony before a congressional panel looking into the crimes of serial child rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Despite the clintons’ frequent meetings with the vile Zionist billionaire, they both seem to have developed selective amnesia about their interactions with him. The former president said in his opening remarks:
You’ll often hear me say that I don’t recall. That might be unsatisfying. But I’m not going to say something I’m not sure of. This was all a long time ago. And I am bound by my oath not to speculate, or to guess.
This inability to recall is surprising, given what a significant role Epstein played in the lives of the Clintons. Earlier in the week, Hillary:
…confirmed that Epstein visited the White House 17 times – as suggested in the presidential mansion’s visitor records – during her husband’s presidency and had flown at least 27 times on the Epstein plane, which was nicknamed the “Lolita express”.
Clinton released a statement after he gave testimony, one that closely resembled his opening remarks to the panel. In it, the 42nd US president dishonestly described his dealings with Epstein as “limited interactions” and said he:
…never witnessed…any indication of what was truly going on…
Clintons forget, but remember they’re definitely innocent
Clinton offered a strange combination of recollection failures, alongside total certainty about his innocence, saying:
First, I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing. No matter how many photos they show of me, I have two things that at the end of the day matter far more than any interpretation of 20-year-old photos. I know what I saw and more importantly what I didn’t see. And I know what I did and more importantly what I didn’t do. I saw nothing and did nothing wrong.
Clinton featured in numerous suspicious photos among the Epstein files, including one of him in a hot tub with a person who appears to be a young girl or woman. Her face is blacked out in the file release. Another features Clinton with a young girl/woman on his lap. Again her identity has been protected.
In the statement, Clinton went on to defend his wife Hillary’s memory loss, saying:
She has no memory of ever even meeting him. She neither travelled with him nor visited any of his properties.
The Clintons seemingly did cut ties with Epstein after his 2008 conviction for procuring a child for prostitution, but remained close to his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. She was honoured by the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013 and attended their daughter Chelsea’s wedding in 2010.
Both Clintons attempted to pass off their testimony as a service to their country, rather than the reality, which is that they would have faced prosecution for failing to appear. They had previously attempted to dodge scrutiny. Bill Clinton opined:
I [testified] for two reasons. First, I love my country, including our Constitution. And America was built on the idea that no person is above the law, even presidents, especially presidents, and that we should all live under the same set of rules. This kind of democracy requires every person to play their part.
And I hope that by being there today, we can bring ourselves just a little further away from the brink and back to being a country where we can disagree civilly and we can search for truth and justice and that it outweighs the partisan urge to score points and create spectacle.
No accountability, no justice for the victims
In reality, every US president has operated beyond the law. Clinton ought to be in the Hague for his crimes against the people of Iraq. Hillary is a similarly vile figure, a backer of so-called ‘Israel’s’ holocaust in Gaza. She too engaged in self-aggrandising rhetoric, concluding her opening statement by saying:
My challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust the American people have given you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. They expect you to use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein’s crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking.
This was a reference to the committee’s failure thus far to call before it the current criminal occupant of the White House, Donald Trump. This is a fair point, as Trump is accused of multiple child rapes in the file release. Other documents related to the thug currently wrecking Iran are missing from the files released by the Department of Justice.
Trump’s non-appearance and his atrocities in Iran are yet further indications of the near total absence of accountability for powerful criminals, leaving the same sort of impunity that allowed Epstein to conduct his crimes in the first place.
Featured image via people.com
Israel has targeted the Iranian Red Crescent Headquarters in Tehran, which is a clear and direct attempt to assassinate healthcare workers.
BREAKING: Israel Just Targeted The Iranian Red Crescent Headquarters In Tehran
A clear direct assault on medical workers.
More attacks on civilian targets. Which indicates weakness as well as immorality. pic.twitter.com/AnUvGlAE1L
— Robert Inlakesh (@falasteen47) March 1, 2026
Once again, Israel is breaking international law.
Schools, hospitals, ambulances, emergency workers, and journalists are all off-limits under international law.
Schools, hospitals, humanitarian institutions, journalists, doctors, women, children: these are always going to be the targets of genocidal zionists
— Tasneem Essop (@TasneemEssop) March 1, 2026
To truly fathom how EVIL Israel is, note that it has been a universal law of warfare that attacking hospitals, aid workers, journalists, children, and schools is forbidden – for obvious moral reasons.
But Israel goes out of its way to attack these entities. Every. Single. Time. https://t.co/baJC9kMucr
— Dani Fethez (@DaniMet1) March 1, 2026
But hey, so is military occupation, unprovoked attacks and apartheid. Yet the world has let Israel get away with all of it.
What the world allowed in Palestine will come to everyone. Israel is a cancer. https://t.co/ZkQzRPrzwy
— fatima bhutto 🇵🇸🇱🇧🇮🇷 (@fbhutto) March 1, 2026
Israel — Cry babies
But as we have seen previously, as soon as bombs start dropping near Israeli soldiers, they run away crying like babies.
In South Lebanon in October 2024, Israeli soldiers ran from bombs whilst sobbing and holding hands. Israelis make themselves out to be these big, tough men. But when Iran drops a couple of bombs and turns the tables, they’re really not.
DAWG HE DEAD ASS SOBBING IM FUCKFOFNFF LMAODOEOSODKSKSJDDJD 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 https://t.co/9d4QHlRmzO
— ⋆ab ྐ❤︎ (@itgirlab) March 1, 2026
Israel crosses every red line known to man. But when Iran hits back, it shows less composure than Boris Johnson does when being interviewed by Piers Morgan.
Israel:
First attacks another nation under a pack of lies.
Then bombs schools.
Then bombs hospitals.
Then cries victim. https://t.co/39agZSayqQ
— Daniel Lambert (@dlLambo) March 1, 2026
You might think it was the IDF’s first time fighting fully grown adults.
When your opponent is not a 2 year old toddler. https://t.co/RQUl4nFe3R
— Its_Isra💫🍉 (@Isra44945572) March 1, 2026
Israel is so used to bombing 9-year-olds with stones that it forgot that millions of people do, in fact, hate its guts. And just a few of those people happen to have large bombs.
What a shame.
Is bro sobbing???? This is sooooo embarrassing omg.
Bravery flew right out the window when the enemy is suddenly not a 9 year old with stones eh? https://t.co/SM93kQTOPs— Spooky Pookie🧛👻🎃🦇 (@Lanaschild_) March 1, 2026
Israel’s only military strategy is terrorism.
It’s Israel’s only strategy: to deinstitutionalize.
Bomb schools, hospitals, restaurants, homes. Punish and humiliate civilians. Force collapse.
In 1982 Israel started a war with Lebanon by bombing a Red Crescent hospital. And lost, of course.
Israel knows no strategic… https://t.co/8Uog6ILmhg
— Rathbone (@_rathbone) March 1, 2026
No sympathy
But 82% of Israelis support expelling Palestinians from their homeland. That’s 82% of Israelis who support literal ethnic cleansing, which makes it extremely difficult to find a single shred of sympathy when bombs start falling over Tel Aviv.
I don’t want to hear any thing about Israelis crying victim. We all sick of it..
U wanted war, u got one https://t.co/oF6NpP6uOw
— Abier (@abierkhatib) February 28, 2026
The international community has practically given Israel the green light to do whatever the fuck it wants by standing idly by for two and a half years. Israel’s evil has no limits. And we are going to see it time and time again until the international community grows a backbone.
Feature image via Robert Inlakesh/X
The cast of Sinners has called out the BAFTAs and BBC for exploiting a man’s disability whilst also blindsiding black presenters and audience members.
“You want to celebrate our art, but you won’t protect it.” – Jayme Lawson calls out the #BAFTAs slip up at the #NAACPImageAwards pic.twitter.com/y19yOIMfrk
— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) March 1, 2026
Last week, the BBC made the ridiculous editorial decision to broadcast an involuntary, racist slur by John Davidson, a white man with Tourette’s. Of course, that resulted in widespread upset and huge increases in racism.
It also sparked heated animosity between Black and disabled communities in the UK. But that is probably precisely what the BBC intended.
The Canary’s Maddison Wheeldon previously reported that:
the BBC seemingly reassured executives from Warner Bros it would not broadcast the slur.
She added:
the BBC may have deliberately left this offensive incident in the cut. This carries considerable weight given the absence of other inappropriate slurs that came as a result of Davidson’s tics.
BBC — Exploitation, not inclusivity
We have to question why production companies, movie producers, and even media outlets (I’m looking at you, BBC) are not providing the necessary resources to keep people from diverse backgrounds and with varied lived experiences safe.
“Just because you invite someone into a space but you don’t provide the necessary resources to keep them and everyone else in that room safe, by them being there, that’s not inclusivity. That’s exploitation.”
Hrtwt, we’ll talk about this tomorrow. https://t.co/fiaeYsAHYz
— beygala (@HintonsDrew) March 1, 2026
It’s nothing short of exploitation when they fail to do that.
Jayme Lawson absolutely said the right thing: a man with Tourette’s was exploited.
Assuming the censoring of many elements was done by BAFTA, allegedly, they used John Davidson’s random outburst to create division and needlessly.
Many people agreed Mr. Davidson is not at…
— Long Tran (@longttran) March 1, 2026
The BBC were able to censor homophobia. So why couldn’t they muster up enough energy between the whole production team to censor deeply offensive and oppressive, racist language?
I did NAWT expect her to come for blood like that but I’m glad she called out the BAFTAs exploited that mans disability and then blindside the black audience while simultaneously choosing to edit out other things. https://t.co/iZVP7AddkZ
— El Mago (@AtlantisFell) March 1, 2026
Jayme Lawson was putting the blame where it belongs, with the BAFTAs and BBC.
Listen to her and listen to her deeply. It was always the BAFTAS fault. https://t.co/je8WgA0NhY
— 𝚋𝚛𝚘𝚠𝚜𝚎 𝚑𝚘𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚛🦇 (@BrowseHorror) March 1, 2026
Lawson also called out both organisations for censoring Akinola Davies Jr. She called for a Free Palestine during her speech.
I love that Jayme Lawson just called out the BAFTAs and BBC for censoring Akinola Davies Jr.’s “Free Palestine” speech https://t.co/A03j73iSvn
— Ahmed Hathout 🇵🇸 (@ahmedhathoutt) March 1, 2026
It’s funny how the BBC remembered to censor that one, isn’t it?
not only is she calling out the BAFTAS for the exploitation, she’s calling out those trying to put John Davidson’s comfort over Michael and Del Roy’s. https://t.co/R4Dbe5z65w
— helena (@wannabespiced) March 1, 2026
What John Davidson did was not his fault. However, that does not omit the harm that his words caused to black people.
what john davidson did was involuntary, he feels awful and i hope he’s okay, but 98% of those advocating on his behalf, have been belittling michael and del roy’s embarrassment/humiliation at what they experienced to uplift john at this time, and you are 100% foul for that.
— helena (@wannabespiced) March 1, 2026
Additionally, speaking about the ableism that the BAFTAs have shone a light on makes zero sense as a standalone issue. Unless you’re going to also speak out about the harm black people faced in hearing those words, and the racist backlash they have then faced for speaking out about said harm. Because the issue here is the BBC exploiting one issue to stir up another.
you condemn those speaking of tourette’s in a negative matter and stay silent about the rampant racism this event has unleashed, because it makes you uncomfortable to realize you aren’t as nuanced as you believed you were.
— helena (@wannabespiced) March 1, 2026
But it all seems to be a game to the BBC. Do the bosses care about anything more than clicks and views?
Clearly, the British public service broadcaster places more value on causing an absolute shitstorm of racism by exploiting a man’s disability than it does on keeping their presenters and viewers safe. So why are they still getting the license fee?
As Jayme Lawson said so perfectly:
You want to celebrate our art, but you won’t protect it.
The United States’ attack on Iran is stirring up an already-roiling Democratic debate over Israel, just as primary season kicks off.
The joint U.S.-Israel military operation has put the countries’ relationship squarely at the center of the national political debate — and the role of its big-spending allies like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which praised President Donald Trump’s strikes, front-and-center in the Democratic primaries where the group is spending.
A heated House race in North Carolina whose election is Tuesday, several contests in Illinois two weeks later and an already stormy Michigan Senate primary have been impacted by tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza and fury over heavy spending by pro-Israel organizations.
“Palestine has become a litmus test in the party,” said Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and executive vice president at the progressive think tank Center for International Policy. “You see this in both the Michigan and Illinois primaries, where candidates are being pushed to acknowledge that Gaza is a genocide and to pledge not to take AIPAC donations. That was definitely going to continue as we move toward the 2028 presidential primary. This war [in Iran] will amplify it even more.”
AIPAC’s involvement has already upended multiple elections in Illinois, where groups aligned with the lobbying group have spent close to $14 million on four House races ahead of the state’s mid-March primary. In Tuesday’s North Carolina primaries, Israel has been a hot topic in Democratic Rep. Valerie Foushee’s reelection bid. And Middle Eastern politics loom large in Michigan’s blockbuster three-way Democratic Senate race, where there have already been sharp divisions between the candidates over Israel. Elected officials and operatives there have been fretting for months about how AIPAC could turn the race on its head and pave a way for a Republican victory for the first time since 1994.
“The war [in Iran] accentuates the risk that AIPAC’s intervention will result in electing the most anti-war, anti-Israel progressive of the available candidates in some of these districts — just as it did in mine,” said former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), who recently lost a hotly contested House primary to now-Rep. Analilia Mejia, a much sharper critic of Israel, after AIPAC spent more than $2 million against him in a failed bid to elevate a more unabashedly pro-Israel candidate.
AIPAC isn’t backing down. In a statement Saturday, the group hailed the U.S.-Israel-led strikes as “decisive action against the terror-supporting regime in Iran.” Its super PAC, United Democracy Project, had nearly $100 million in the bank at the end of January and plans to be active in dozens of races this year, including both Democratic and Republican primaries.
“Anti-Israel candidates should be on notice that we are looking closely at their races,” United Democracy Project spokesperson Patrick Dorton said in an interview. “Our goal is to elect the biggest possible bipartisan pro Israel majority in Congress, no matter which party is in control, and we are singularly focused in this election year on electing a pro-Israel majority in Congress.”
Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said that Democrats are “gonna have to answer for” AIPAC support in primaries. “Any of those Democrats that take AIPAC money, they’re going to have a reckoning,” he said. “How can they stand for peace and the billionaire backers that are supporting them are advocating for this war?”
The Iran strikes did not initially split Democrats as deeply as Israel’s war in Gaza has over the past few years, with most in the party accusing Trump of embroiling the Middle East in conflict, even as disagreements emerged on what comes next.
“I don’t think anyone wants to be seen on the side of Iran, and I think Democrats are generally united on the idea that the president needs to explain to the American people, what the strategy is, what the endgame is,” said Brian Romick, president of Democratic Majority for Israel, a group that supports pro-Israel Democrats.
Several Democratic strategists said it’s too early to predict how much Iran will be on voters’ minds over the next few months, let alone for the next presidential election.
“We know Trump ran against wars just such as these, and the close collaboration with Israel on it may play into ongoing debates in the primary,” David Axelrod, a longtime Democratic strategist, wrote in a text. “But the unknown is the length and level of loss this will entail. The longer, the more costly, the deeper the debate will be.
In Illinois, AIPAC-aligned groups have already spent heavily
Perhaps nowhere on the map does Iran loom larger than in Illinois, whose March 17 primary is just weeks away.
Democratic strategists in the state expect the attacks on Iran to call attention to the role of Congress and the broader implications of partnering with Israel.
“Now this isn’t just about Israel and Gaza,” said an Illinois political consultant granted anonymity because they’re working on multiple local campaigns. “This is about standing with Israel to wage a broad war in the Middle East that has a lot more ramifications.”
An AIPAC-aligned super PAC has already spent more than $1 million supporting state Sen. Laura Fine and attacking one of her top primary opponents, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, in the race to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky.
Biss and Fine’s other opponents have criticized AIPAC involvement in the race. He issued a lengthy statement Saturday slamming Trump and Netanyahu for “pushing America into another reckless and illegal regime change war.”
A separate AIPAC-linked group is set to target progressive activist and digital strategist Kat Abughazaleh, who is Palestinian American.
In an interview, Abughazaleh said Iran will be a crucial focus in her race’s closing weeks.
“We will be talking about it very vocally and often because this is very much a topic on people’s minds,” she said. “ People care about this for a lot of reasons, whether it’s our tax dollars, whether it’s because you have family in Iran, whether you’re just horrified by the humanitarian implications of these strikes, or because you’re very afraid of a forever war that you may be moved into against your will.”
War in Iran isn’t the same issue as Israel’s war in Gaza, and in the first hours after Trump launched the operation, Democrats were much more unified in their opposition — including Democrats who have AIPAC’s support.
After the attack, Fine posted on X calling for Trump’s impeachment, warning that he “is leading us into another military conflict to distract from his own failures that puts American lives at risk and threatens to send the Middle East into further chaos.”
Congressional candidates Donna Miller in the 2nd District and Melissa Conyears-Ervin in the 7th, who are supported by AIPAC-aligned committees, respectively called the attacks “reckless” and “immoral” in separate statements. And Melissa Bean, who has support from an AIPAC-aligned group in the 8th District, said “Congress has the sole power to authorize acts of war.”
North Carolina presents an early test
Tuesday’s primaries in North Carolina will give an early indication of how Democratic primary voters may be considering Israel.
Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.) was first elected to the seat in 2022 with AIPAC help — its super PAC spent more than $2.1 million to boost her to victory. But in 2025, Fousheesaid she would no longer accept the pro-Israel group’s money.
“Check my voting record to see how I have voted and what I have voted for as it relates to the people of Gaza,” she said at a town hall in August.
Dorton, the spokesperson for the AIPAC-aligned super PAC, said Foushee “rejected AIPAC support and we are not involved in or participating in any way in this race.”
But Foushee’s primary opponent, Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam, has attacked Foushee for being insufficiently tough on Israel. A new super PAC created to push back against AIPAC from the left has spent heavily in support of Allam.
Trump’s “illegal and reckless war” in Iran “will inevitably be on voters’ minds as they head to the ballot box on Tuesday,” Allam, North Carolina’s first Muslim woman elected official, said in a statement.
Foushee was also quick to condemn Trump’s “illegal war with Iran.” In a statement, she said her “record and support for legislation to stop arms sales to Israel speaks for itself.”
“It is clear to me and my constituents that the Netanyahu government’s indiscriminate killing of Palestinians cannot continue,” she continued.
Israel was already a major topic in Michigan
The Gaza conflict has already been a major issue in the three-way Democratic battle to succeed retiring Sen. Gary Peters in battleground Michigan, a state with the highest percent of Arab-American residents in the country. More than 100,000 people voted “uncommitted” instead of backing then-President Joe Biden in the 2024 primary over his administration’s support of Israel.
Layla Elabed, one of the founders of the Uncommitted movement who now leads the progressive Arab Americans for Progress, said Democrats “do not want to see their dollars continuing to fund Israel’s genocide and now a war on Iran, especially without congressional approval.”
She said Trump’s Iran attack underscores that Democrats need candidates who “stand up to pro-war lobbies like AIPAC, who have poured money from right-wing MAGA donors into our Democratic primaries here in Michigan.”
Rep. Haley Stevens, who has been supported by AIPAC in the past, said in a statement that Trump “has once again put Americans in harm’s way without consulting Congress,” but warned that a nuclear Iran “would bring even more violence and chaos to the Middle East and the entire world.”
Her foes in the August primary took a different approach. State Sen. Mallory McMorrow said the president “has chosen a war overseas at the expense of everyone back home;” physician Abdul El-Sayed, the most progressive candidate in the field, declared “this war must end” and Trump “must be held accountable.”
Brakkton Booker contributed to this article.
Today, UK defence minister John Healey spoke to Laura Kuenssberg, answering questions relating to the war of aggression on Iran which has seen its’ supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei assassinated. Widespread reports have further confirmed that a number of Iranian officials were also murdered.
Healey’s opening line was to suggest that ‘no one will mourn’ the death of Khamenei. It’s important to note, we condemn the oppressive acts of Khamenei on his own citizens. It is obvious, as in any state, there will be those who will cheer their leader’s downfall. However, it is arguably a deliberate lie from our defence minister to manufacture consent that is not supported by video evidence.
It’s hard to imagine Western society responding well when someone openly says they would feel no sympathy over the death of a public figure, no matter how controversial that person may be. For example, after the assassination of Charlie Kirk last year, critics quickly condemned those who suggested that Kirk’s own rhetoric had contributed to the hostility directed at him.
Once again, double standards are exposed in the West. And those double standards have a racist undertone.
Iran has begun 40 days of mourning after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in ongoing attacks by the United States and Israel, according to Iranian state media https://t.co/OD5V3wh2x7 pic.twitter.com/DmbFLOGCaA
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 1, 2026
Iranians mourning Khameneipic.twitter.com/kS7tPNE6ej
— Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 (@jacksonhinklle) March 1, 2026
‘Revenge’ calls and deep grief on display after Khamenei assassination, not alleged civil uprising
Mainstream media across the West has spoken of the significant likelihood that Iranians would rise up and overthrow their government once US and Israeli attacks apparently ‘cleared the way’. Today, across UK news outlets, references are made to Iranians supposedly jumping for joy and showing gratitude for the widespread attacks on Iran. Those attacks have already resulted in a majority of deaths being amongst women and girls, with bombs hitting a primary school killing around 150 schoolgirls, as well as a sports hall which sheltered a women’s volleyball team which killed 20.
Arguably confirming those civilian deaths were apparently deliberate, Trump celebrated the assassination posting on Truth Social. He stated:
He [Khamenei] was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.
This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country.
The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective.
Contrary to Western ‘saviour’ attitudes, reports across the Middle East show widespread grief with women, men and young girls seen visibly weeping. Whilst we have seen happier celebrations too, looking at the sheer numbers showing deep, continuing faith in their murdered Ayatollah shouldn’t be diminished.
Footage you won’t be shown on Western media today:
Mass mourning in Tehran’s Enghelab’s Square to mourn the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei.
The US and Israel said Iranians would take to the streets and overthrow their government if the leadership was killed…
Instead… https://t.co/9h6APXnEJ8 pic.twitter.com/zqeo0GmhAm
— Going Underground (@GUnderground_TV) March 1, 2026
The post in full reads:
Footage you won’t be shown on Western media today:
Mass mourning in Tehran’s Enghelab’s Square to mourn the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei.
The US and Israel said Iranians would take to the streets and overthrow their government if the leadership was killed…
Instead they have taken to the streets to rally around the flag and mobilise.
And significant mourning seen from his followers in India:
📍Kargil, India 🇮🇳 Mourning the Martyrdom of Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, The Supreme Leader of Iran. pic.twitter.com/RLximdNxJb
— Muhammed Arshad (@Martyrs_lover) March 1, 2026
Many have sought to diminish reports as ‘old videos’, with many coming out to refute that allegation:
Live shot from Shiraz on anti-Iran Qatar’s Al Jazeera – for those who keep insisting that the vast crowds in Iranian cities mourning @khamenei_ir and demanding revenge are “old videos” pic.twitter.com/Nr8HdbZTmk
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) March 1, 2026
Khamenei didn’t run and hide like Netanyahu
Possibly indicating why he was respected by his followers, this report from Al Jazeera suggests the Ayatollah continued his work refusing to run and hide. This draws a contrast to reports that Netanyahu ran like a coward to Germany when he started this war with Iran. A war which has seen retaliatory attacks from Iran on Israelis and Palestinians in the Occupied territories, whilst Gaza has been sealed off.
BREAKING: Iran’s Fars and Tasnim news agencies say Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed at his office early Saturday while “performing his assigned duties.”
A 40-day period of public mourning has been declared. pic.twitter.com/wpVQOQpSIU
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 1, 2026
Russian President Putin has recognised the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader. Stating the murder was ‘cynical’, pictures have shown him honouring Khamenei by placing flowers in his memory in Moscow. We’re sure Putin is happy to see the West increasingly abandon the rule of law. Especially as the current rhetoric suggests aggressors decide if their acts are illegal: not its victims or allies.
🚨 Heavy mourning worldwide Russian President Vladimir Putin places flowers in Moscow to honor Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. pic.twitter.com/d5RKFik2Yo
— Hon Nuhu Sada (@NuhuSada0) March 1, 2026
Khamenei had clearly been an oppressive leader over those who he deemed ‘dissenters’. The immeasurable pain his abuse of power has inflicted is reflected in the X post below.
The Islamic Republic tortured an 87-year-old woman into a confession.
Her only “crime” was mourning her nephew, who was killed by the regime.
In her grief, she cursed Ali Khamenei and the forces responsible for taking his life.
It is standard practice for the Islamic Republic… pic.twitter.com/EvJz3PJq4g
— The Iran Watcher 🇮🇷 (@TheIranWatcher) February 9, 2026
Hypocrites: Do as the US and Israel say, not as they do
However, bombs falling on schools and sports halls hardly makes Israel and the US superior in their regard for human life and civil freedoms in Iran. These extraterritorial attacks have clearly triggered a deeper sense of loyalty and increased resistance to Western aggression amongst Iranians and followers across the region. This is hardly creating conditions for change, and far more likely to set conditions for all-out war in the Middle East.
Thankfully there are Western figures who are widely respected, who have called out the attacks for what they are. They have also recognised the rights inherent to Iran in light of widespread bombings across its territory. Your Party MP Zarah Sultana reminded us of Iran’s right under international law, provoking danger across multiple regions in light of this hostile aggression against its territory:
Under international law, Iran has the right to defend itself from unprovoked and illegal attacks.
This is US imperialist aggression, plain and simple. https://t.co/oObYj5mSJd
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 28, 2026
Law must be objective, not selective
Attempts to hail the assassination of Khamenei are across western media. They are working hard to convince the public that it was a ‘righteous act’ by the US and Israel. An aggressive act that came in answer to calls from Iranians miserable and oppressed under Iran’s IRGC regime. However, evidence does not support the suggestion that ‘few will mourn’ his assassination.
Also, moral superiority is increasingly short-lived when we look honestly at our own government’s behaviour, and that of our staunch allies. Instead, the arrogant ignorance of the west is likely to exacerbate the calls for vengeance amongst his followers.
This will likely be bad news for all civilians around the world as we see the rule of law diluted beyond all meaning.
Featured image via Aljazeera
There have always been generational conflicts, but the chasm between baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and other generations after them seems particularly hard to bridge.
Between changing values, hyper-polarised politics, and the radical shift in financial stability and opportunity, it doesn’t take a genius to see why some younger individuals find it challenging to relate to their elders.
As challenging as it may feel sometimes, there’s a simple solution for those wanting to experience more closeness with their boomer relatives and to understand them better: ask more questions.
Simple curiosity, by way of a thoughtful question, can make people feel heard and respected – and can also help change your perspective on why someone you love thinks the way they do, why they are the way they are. That dialogue may prove to be one of the most rewarding ones you undertake.
“In my work with families, I’ve noticed that older relatives are rarely waiting to be corrected,” Anna Marchenko, a licensed mental health counsellor and principal practitioner at Miami Hypnosis and Therapy, tells HuffPost.
“What they tend to want is to be understood in the context of the world they grew up in. These questions often slow conversations down in a way that makes real understanding possible.”
HuffPost asked family therapists to suggest some starter questions boomer relatives wish they’d get asked more – and they may appreciate having these conversations more than you could ever know.
‘What do you wish people asked you about more?’
If you’re new to opening this kind of dialogue with an older relative, the best start is often… to ask what they want to be asked. Yes, it’s a little like cheating, but this question in itself can lead the way to so much understanding on both sides.
This question “gets at what a parent may want to share more in their relationship with you,” Sarah Epstein, a marriage and family therapist who specialises in family dysfunction, told HuffPost. “Maybe they wish you asked about their health, their hobbies, their careers or their travels.”
For Epstein, this question can open the door to a new dynamic between your parent or older relative and you. “Asking shows an interest in not only having parents support you, but you to invest in them,” she said. “You can then lean into that more by asking about their current excitement and stressors.”
Remember: the point of asking questions in the first place is to allow your relative to feel heard, so open-ended and even apparently vague conversation starters work like a charm.
‘What was your family like when you were growing up?’
Imagine you were meeting a new friend for coffee. You are likely to ask questions about their upbringing. While you may already know the basics about your relative, like where they grew up and how many siblings they have, asking them about their family of origin is an amazing way to get to know them better – and even forge a new kind of relationship with them.
As well as the more general, “What was your family like?” Epstein also recommends asking more specific questions, such as, “What were your parents like?” or “Who in your extended family were you closest with and who were you not close with?”
“As their child, you only see their adult relationships, not the ones they experienced as children themselves,” Epstein said. “Asking these kinds of questions humanises parents to their children and other younger relatives, and gives parents a chance to tell their children more about themselves. It opens up possible vulnerable topics, like what felt good and what felt difficult in their upbringing and how they managed that.”
‘What did the world expect from you when you were young?’
This is an amazing question to get people to reflect on what the world’s expectations of them might have cost them – as well as any gifts they might have brought.
When asked this question, “people usually talk about pressure rather than nostalgia,” Marchenko said. “They describe growing up fast, being needed early, and making tradeoffs that were not optional. It helps younger relatives see that many values were shaped by necessity rather than preference.”
This line of questioning may also naturally lead into other similar revelations from your older relative, such as how systems of power worked in the environment they grew up in and what beliefs their upbringing created that they may have challenged later in life, says Marchenko.
FG Trade via Getty Images
‘When you look at the world now, how does it feel to you?’
One of the greatest obstacles to creating mutually respectful relationships with our older relatives today is the stark difference in values and politics younger generations often have. But phrasing a question like this opens the door to curiosity rather than immediately creating defensiveness.
“This avoids debates about progress and invites reflection instead,” Marchenko said. “People speak about gains and losses at the same time, which allows disagreement without turning anyone into the problem.”
‘Is there anything you still feel responsible for passing on?’
“This reframes older generations as caretakers rather than obstacles,” Marchenko said. “The answers are usually less about advice and more about values, restraint, and hard-earned perspective.”
This is a great question because they may have previously avoided sharing their thoughts on this subject for fear of how they might be received. For you, hearing about how your relative views their potential legacy may also be eye-opening and perspective-shifting.
‘What feels good in our relationship right now? What doesn’t?’
In the same way that you may find some aspects of your relationship with your older relative difficult, they might too. If you can ask this question and receive the answer without getting defensive, the two of you might be able to work together to deepen the relationship and smooth over areas of discontent.
“When you ask straight out how the relationship feels, you can start to have open, honest discussions about how the relationship is going,” Epstein said. “It may turn out you each have things you love doing together, or discussing, that you can double down on. You may also identify things your relative has been feeling about the relationship that you can then work on together. The easiest route to clarity is gently, respectfully asking about the other person’s experience.”
Northumberland cafe with ‘best’ cheese toasties in North East
Amazon’s cloud unit reports fire after objects hit UAE data center
The 16 best action movies on Amazon Prime Video to get your day moving
-
Sports6 days agoWomen’s college basketball rankings: Iowa reenters top 10, Auriemma makes history
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Iris Top
-
Politics6 days agoNick Reiner Enters Plea In Deaths Of Parents Rob And Michele
-
Business5 days agoTrue Citrus debuts functional drink mix collection
-
Politics3 days agoITV enters Gaza with IDF amid ongoing genocide
-
Tech17 hours agoUnihertz’s Titan 2 Elite Arrives Just as Physical Keyboards Refuse to Fade Away
-
Sports2 days ago
The Vikings Need a Duck
-
Crypto World6 days agoXRP price enters “dead zone” as Binance leverage hits lows
-
Tech5 days agoUnsurprisingly, Apple's board gets what it wants in 2026 shareholder meeting
-
NewsBeat1 day agoDubai flights cancelled as Brit told airspace closed ’10 minutes after boarding’
-
NewsBeat4 days agoCuba says its forces have killed four on US-registered speedboat | World News
-
NewsBeat1 day agoThe empty pub on busy Cambridge road that has been boarded up for years
-
NewsBeat4 days agoManchester Central Mosque issues statement as it imposes new measures ‘with immediate effect’ after armed men enter
-
NewsBeat6 hours ago‘Significant’ damage to boarded-up Horden house after fire
-
NewsBeat6 days ago‘Hourly’ method from gastroenterologist ‘helps reduce air travel bloating’
-
NewsBeat24 hours agoAbusive parents will now be treated like sex offenders and placed on a ‘child cruelty register’ | News UK
-
NewsBeat5 days agoPolice latest as search for missing woman enters day nine
-
Business4 days agoDiscord Pushes Implementation of Global Age Checks to Second Half of 2026
-
Business3 days agoOnly 4% of women globally reside in countries that offer almost complete legal equality
-
Sports6 days ago2026 NFL mock draft: WRs fly off the board in first round entering combine week