Politics
Is Christian nationalism on the march?
Something peculiar is afoot in Great Britain. Last year, hundreds gathered on Bournemouth beach to witness a mass baptism. Crowds of young men marched under ‘Christ is King’ banners through the rain-slicked streets of London as part of the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protest. MP Danny Kruger, then still a Conservative, went viral after declaring to an empty parliament chamber: ‘The story of England is the story of Christianity… We have to own our Christian story, or repudiate it.’ Meanwhile, as overall church attendance continues its slow slide across the UK, reports suggest young people are rediscovering faith with an intensity that belies the statistics and falling pew counts alike. A quiet revival, it seems, is stirring.
There is much debate surrounding the identity of the new Christians. Outlets such as the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent have launched head-scratching analyses into why ‘supporters of Tommy Robinson’ are being baptised en masse. The Times questions whether young men have ‘lost their herd immunity to Christianity’. At its kindest, the commentary paints young converts as ‘lost boys’ searching for meaning. At its harshest, it views the revivalists as hostile, hard-right interlopers using the Church’s imagery to further their political causes.
So what do we know about the newly devout? A 2025 report by the Bible Society describes the standard-bearers of the Christian resurgence as predominantly young and male. They are also more likely to be Catholic than Pentecostal or Anglican, suggesting an inclination towards a more liturgical, ritualistic version of the faith, as opposed to something purely experiential. Though we have yet to gain a complete picture, it is difficult to deny that the public face of Britain’s latest generation of believers seems designed to short-circuit every residual Anglican stereotype: not meek, guilt-ridden, or satisfied with the ‘milky’ Church, but bold, politically active and unapologetically online.
While it would be lazy to cast all of Gen Z converts as uncompromising American-style Christian fundamentalists, a brief scroll through Catholic Twitter is enough to confirm that this breed of believer now exists in Britain. X is where one is most likely to encounter what the internet refers to as a ‘TradCath’. Though not all traditional Catholics are TradCaths, all TradCaths are traditional Catholics (and then some). Members of this subculture mix scholarly tweed with crusader flair. They enjoy discussing the grandeur of faith – the meaty theology, the rites, the architectural splendour, the togas-and-sandals of it all – but show markedly less enthusiasm for the unglamorous grind of parish politics and the slow, unspectacular work of keeping institutions of faith alive. Often, they can be found quote-tweeting political opponents with calls to repent, lamenting the liberal church reforms of the 1960s, and slam-dunking Matthew 10:34 (‘I have not come to bring peace, but the sword’) on ‘progressive’ atheists who insist Jesus was akshully an open-borders pacifist. British TradCaths – along with their disillusioned Anglican counterparts – are also intensely proud of their nation’s Christian heritage.
It is clear to see why X has become the natural gathering place for this crowd. In recent years, the platform has offered unprecedented space for theological discussion and zealous performance in equal measure. No longer are British Christians limited to interactions with their local parish priest during surgery hours; now, they can bicker online with top theologians, anonymous monks, unverified shamans, podcasting Dominicans, reformed Baptists and just about everyone in between.
Amid the noise, a handful of figures have carved out more prominent, more politicised platforms for themselves. And this is where we come to an emergent strain of Christian nationalism. Just this past November, pundit and recent addition to the priesthood Calvin Robinson issued the following call:
‘England is a white Christian country. One does not need to be an etho-nat[ionalist] to appreciate that… Christians are persecuted in England. Christianity thrives under persecution. If white Englishmen want to survive, they must return to the faith of their forefathers.’
Robinson is not entirely wrong. For all its ethnic mixing and complex pockets of immigration, England remains majority white. And though the Kingdom of England was not officially Christian when it was founded in 927 AD, it has certainly been culturally Christian for much of its existence. Even after the accelerated decline of churchgoing from the late 20th century onwards, Britain’s institutions, landscape, art, community structure and moral vocabulary are shot through with a distinctly Christian inheritance. If we in the West are goldfish, as historian Tom Holland puts it, then Christianity is the water in which we swim.
At the same time, there’s plenty to challenge here, too – particularly the idea that the ‘survival’ of ‘white Englishmen’ hinges on a return to the faith. As others have pointed out, this sounds like Christianity infused with blood-and-soil nationalism. A form of identity politics rebranded with Templar iconography.
The Church of England leadership has, until recently, had few qualms about mixing faith and politics, especially ‘progressive’ politics. Its leaders have frequently spoken out on a range of issues, from opposing the former Tory government’s attempts to tackle illegal immigration to coming out in support for Black Lives Matter. But it seems they’re less happy if those of an unwoke persuasion invoke Christianity. So they accused those attending the Unite the Kingdom rally last autumn of ‘co-opting’ and ‘corrupting’ the cross in order to divide.
‘Many will come in my name’, said Jesus, shortly before his crucifixion, ‘and they will lead many astray’. Certainly, the prevailing view is that the pied pipers have arrived. But for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of this apparent Christian revival, it would be unwise to entirely dismiss Calvin Robinson’s claim that Christians are facing a tough time in Britain right now. Because it’s this sense of persecution, of being culturally threatened, that is partially driving the Christian pushback.
Of course, Christians here don’t face systemic persecution in any life-threatening sense of the word. To suggest as much does a huge disservice to some 380million Christians around the world, from North Korea to Nigeria, for whom persecution is a bleak and daily reality. That said, British Christians have faced a growing range of pressures since the turn of the century. One 2025 report placed the UK among Europe’s ‘most hostile’ countries to Christians; another found that 56 per cent of British Christians have experienced antagonism or ridicule when discussing their faith. Interestingly, this rose to 61 per cent for respondents under 35, suggesting younger generations are even less tolerant of Christianity than their largely secular Gen X parents.
No faith should be exempt from mockery in a liberal, secular society – and in the case of Christianity, whose central claim is that God became man to endure the ultimate humiliation, a certain tolerance for mean-spirited jibes ought to be expected. The same goes for the attempts to deny or distort Britain’s religious past, from English Heritage’s ahistorical assertion that Christmas is actually a refurbished Roman Sun-god festival, to the continued creep of insipid Americanisms like ‘happy holidays’ and ‘festive season’. Christianity is often cast in the post-colonial fantasies of modern academia as the scheming sidekick to ‘whiteness’ (the final boss of Western wrongdoing), and so it has become increasingly awkward for forward-thinking institutions to associate with. But these slights remain of the annoying but largely harmless kind. They might even be understood as the spasms of a newly post-Christian society desperate to prove itself as such. Convert zeal, if you like.
Far less easy to dismiss, however, is the growing number of British Christians facing censorship, unfair dismissal and, in some cases, arrest over matters of belief. In 2025, multiple Christians faced fines or police action for quietly protesting near abortion clinics, including a woman fined £20,000 for holding a sign reading ‘here if you want to talk’. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who was praying silently in her head within an abortion clinic ‘buffer zone’ was told by police that her ‘mere presence’ was deemed ‘harassment’.
These were not isolated incidents. Christian teachers, pastoral workers and medical staff increasingly report a sense of vulnerability over holding views that are central to their faith. There was Kristie Higgs, who, in 2019, was unlawfully suspended from her role at a school in Gloucestershire, after criticising her son’s sex-education curriculum on a private Facebook page. Or the anonymous teacher who was dismissed, referred to a safeguarding board and reported to the Metropolitan Police after telling a Muslim student that ‘Britain is still a Christian state’.
Just like the freedom to mock or criticise Christianity, the freedom to express Christian beliefs must be protected under law. But both Christian and secular observers are beginning to note inconsistency in how such protections are applied. In March 2025, Bristol-based pastor Dia Moodley was accosted by three Muslim men while preaching about the differences between Christianity and Islam. The men began to shove him. ‘I’m going to stab you’, said one. Somerset police officers responded to the incident by threatening to arrest Moodley for ‘breaching the peace’. Moodley had already been arrested back in 2024 for public comments made about Islam.
This incident captures the key ingredient contributing to the turn among some towards a more assertive Christianity – namely, the growing and uneasy awareness that Britain’s Christian heritage is colliding, more and more frequently, not only with official multiculturalism, but also with Islamic sectarianism and extremism.
This unease is not altogether unfounded. Indeed, Christmas markets that once conjured images of tinsel and fairy lights have now become associated with anti-ramming bollards. In the Essex seaside town of Southend, shopfronts were recently vandalised with intimidatory graffiti reading ‘This is a Muslim area’. Last year, police were summoned after a Muslim woman stormed into an Islington church, shouting repeatedly into its sound system: ‘I have come to kill the God of the Jews.’ A month prior, a mob of around 50 balaclava-clad Muslim males had trashed Croydon high street while chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’.
Set against the backdrop of government efforts to enshrine an official definition of ‘Islamophobia’ – one that would render robust criticism of Islam extremely difficult – it is perhaps unsurprising that sections of Britain’s disenfranchised youth are starting to feel apprehensive. And so they are looking to Christianity to provide a buffer against the aggressive strain of Islam that the UK has been incubating.
This brings us to anti-Islam campaigner Tommy Robinson, seen as the combative figurehead of Britain’s Christian nationalism. Although he has long talked up the importance of Britain’s Christian heritage, he seemingly underwent his own road-to-Damascus moment during a prison sentence in 2024, when he is said to have become a Christian convert. He now wants to see Christianity actively celebrated in public life – as a marker not just of faith, but also of national unity.
‘There should be a massive Christmas event put on by our government’, Robinson insisted towards the end of 2025. ‘Did you see Poland’s this year? Did you see the Christmas market switch-on? All the lights, lit in the colours of their country.’ Soon after, Robinson announced his own alternative: a carol concert entitled ‘UNITED FOR CHRIST THIS CHRISTMAS’, each letter emblazoned with the colours of the Union flag. While publicly framed as a peaceful celebration – ‘not about politics, immigration, or other groups’ – promotional emails sent out on the lead-up to the concert told a slightly different story:
‘The left-wing elites are waging a ruthless war on Christianity, tearing down our crosses and silencing our prayers in the name of their globalist agenda. Lefty cities like Sheffield (which has a Muslim mayor), have cancelled their Christmas lights this year… But we will not yield our Christian heritage demands we fight back with unyielding resolve.’
Another email cast the event as a kind of festive resistance: ‘This isn’t just a concert, it’s a rally for our values… a statement that Britain belongs to the British people.’ In the same message, London mayor Sadiq Khan was labelled ‘a coloniser’, ‘unwelcome guest’ and ‘Muslim extremist’ who ‘will hate the fact that real Christians are celebrating Christmas on his patch’. While Khan had allegedly transformed ‘London, our city, into a Sharia Zone’, Robinson’s event would be ‘a shining light in the midst of turmoil caused by unchecked immigration and the fading of our cultural identity’.
In the end, the 13 December concert drew only a fraction of the attendees that Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally had just two months earlier. Nonetheless, the media responded as if this sparsely crowded carol concert was a 21st-century equivalent of Mussolini’s March on Rome. ‘A far-right perversion of the Gospel’ dedicated to ‘undermining peace and goodwill’, bleated the Guardian. Anglican priest and commentator Giles Fraser described it as an event for those with ‘thuggish anti-immigrant intent’, conjuring images of cross-wielding skinheads chanting ‘In-gur-land’ between verses of ‘Hark the Herald’. Yet a cursory glance at the footage suggests that if the concert’s aim was to wage spiritual warfare, it was a dismal failure.
Even so, Tommy Robinson and others have unwittingly exposed the biggest hole in the ‘Christian nationalist’ movement – there’s a lot about Christianity they don’t really get.
Put simply, the story of Christianity is not one of worldly glory. It has never promised civilisational dominance or cultural protection. It does not promise a comprehensive socio-political order in the way that Islam can. It therefore struggles to provide certain young Christian converts with what they want – which is something like the muscular, totalitarian convictions that they see exhibited among certain Islamist factions. This should come as a surprise to no one. The people of Israel once prayed for a king, a general, a liberator from the oppressions of Rome; what they got was a Nazarene carpenter who told them to ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. Christ promised a separation of temporal and spiritual powers. He offered no equivalent to Sharia, nor instructions for a militaristic branch of discipleship. Where Islam’s revelation assumes governance, Christianity’s assumes non-sovereignty. Christianity carries within it the promise of secularism. The upshot is that it leaves room for the very religious plurality that Islam has historically choked out – and that today’s Islamists and Muslim hard-liners are exploiting.
As Tertullian suggested some 18 centuries ago, and St Paul a couple of centuries before that, Christians conquer not by killing, but by dying. Conversely, in almost every instance that Christianity has become the reigning authority, its following has waned. It operates under the painful juxtaposition of being strong when it is weak, appealing when it is out of fashion. In that light, it is hard not to wonder if Tommy Robinson might have achieved more simply by picking a struggling parish (of which there are many) and attending a carol concert there – thus encouraging his millions of followers to do the same. Indeed, if there is a Christian revival underway, it is precisely because the British state has not been propping up the church, rather than in spite of it.
There is plenty about the state of modern Britain to be angry about. And it is entirely reasonable to want to preserve and renew one’s national culture. But those hoping Christianity will serve as a ready-made tool for national, cultural revival will be disappointed. This was clear even to the earliest Christians, hence Didache, writing in the first century AD, says nothing of Christianising the state, and everything of Christianising the men within it. Its leaders did not riot, stage protests, or attempt to reclaim Rome. Many went singing to their deaths in the Colosseum, transforming the world around them through witness, not force or fear. For some, this emphasis on inner renewal over political triumph will be a source of solace; for others, it will be a thorn in the flesh.
The temptation to make Christ a mascot for national renewal is not new. It was the temptation of Peter in the garden, of Constantine on the battlefield, of countless kings, clerics and national leaders since. But Christianity was born of exile – and its power has always come from being willing to lose. Whether Britain’s new Christians are willing to endure the sacrifice Christianity demands still remains to be seen.
Georgina Mumford is a content producer at spiked.
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.”
It’s astonishing how many experts on international law there seem to be. They all seem to know it, chapter and verse assume that any action taken by the USA or Israel must, by definition, breach international law. And that tells you all you need to know about their motivations.
Of course they can never provide any detail of which clause of which treaty they are talking about. Quiz them and then they start spluttering about the UN. As if the UN is the arbiter of when a nation is justified in taking miliary action against another.
I make no pretence to be an expert in international law. Why would I? I’m not even a domestic lawyer, let alone an international one. I do know, however, that launching a military attack on one nation by another does not necessarily mean that it is illegal. Self defence and pre-emptive self-defence can be totally justified. Both Israel and the USA have been attacked by Iran, and Iran has been guilty of issuing almost daily bellicose threats to both countries with its leaders’ constant mantras of ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’. It is somewhat ironic that having continually chanted those words, Ayatollah Khomeini suffered ‘Death FROM America’.
I see some people arguing that all the Iranian regime wanted was peace and it was no threat to anyone. Seriously, that’s what some are saying, trying to keep a straight face at the same time. Iran has been a threat to both Israel and the USA ever since the 1979 revolution, yet some people seem to like ignoring the basic facts of history. A simple internet search provides all the evidence you need.
Article 51 of the UN Charter states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs…”. In addition, it can also be argued that an attack is justified if an attack is imminent and unavoidable. Any international lawyer worth their salt would be able to argue this is exactly the scenario here, given Iran’s current and planned ballistic missile capabilities.
Where there is more doubt is about the legality of targeting a head of state for assassination. International law leaves less room for interpretation here, but I still think there is a good case to argue, given Khameni was Commander in Chief and therefor the presidential palace, where he met his maker, was a justifiable military target.
The UK government’s response has been timid, tepid and embarrassing. As George W Bush said after 9/11: “You’re either with us, or you’re on the side of the terrorists”. Simplistic maybe, but sitting on the fence should never be an option for a country like Britain. Starmer did take a stance of sorts by refusing to let American bombers take off from Diego Garcia or RAF Fairford. All he has done since then is to call on Iran not to respond to the attacks and for things to de-escalate. How courageous.
If both the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers can issue statements of support and understanding for the US/Israeli actions, why can’t ours? After all, we currently hold the presidency of the UN Security Council, so it is surely important that we state our position clearly. Either we are for the action or we’re not. Both positions can be justified. Sitting on the fence and displaying the weakness of a wobbling jelly cannot.
The Prime Minister should come before the House of Commons tomorrow and state his position very clearly. Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage have all stated their positions very clearly. It’s about time Keir Starmer did the same, rather than hide behind the well-trodden path of saying ‘well on the one hand’. Show some leadership, Prime Minister.
On Trevor Phillips this morning, UK defence minister John Healey condemned ‘indiscriminate’ attacks on Bahrain by Iran. This is despite widespread reports confirming it was a US military base. However, Healey said nothing about the blatant indiscriminate attacks by Israel that have brutally murdered almost 150 women and children, bombing a girls’ elementary school in Iran.
Nevertheless, it’s no surprise as he seems perfectly happy to ignore the flagrant breach of international law in the US and Israel’s war of aggression on Iran. He even went so far as to suggest that the regime ‘lashing out’ in the Middle East is Iran.
Apparently murdering dozens of schoolgirls isn’t illegal in the eyes of our defence minister.
“When you get a regime like this [Iran], lashing out in the Middle East, indiscriminately and widely, hitting civilian as well as military targets”
This is the UK defence minister talking about an illegal and unprovoked attack *on Iran* pic.twitter.com/ghsUbGx8nM
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
John Healey: US-Israeli bombing campaign is a ‘positive action’
In the interview, Healey was asked about the legality and legitimacy of the unexpected attack by Israel and the US on Iran. He didn’t state it was legal, clearly wary to show that level of support, but notably said he didn’t disagree with Phillips that the act was ‘positive’. Unsurprisingly, Phillips failed to bring up the Israeli bombing of a girls’ school in Iran, most of those killed between the ages of 7 and 12.
The double standard is hard to ignore, as Saul Staniforth highlighted on X:
John Healey: “The answer to the question of, is the US action legal, that is for the US to set out & explain, its not for me as a defence secretary of the UK”
So its up to Russia to say whether its invasion of Ukraine was legal or not, & you don’t have an opinion, right? pic.twitter.com/72gUnKYwtf
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
As a result, it’s hard to avoid the painful reality that it appears John Healey either is undisturbed by the majority of those murdered being women and children in Iran on day one.
Or is his omission indirectly confirming the attack by Israel and supported by the US was ‘discriminate’ so deliberately? Given the advanced technology that has been on clear display from Israel in its brutal genocide on Palestine and acts of aggression on Lebanon, it’s incredibly hard to accept it as ‘accidental’.
Just hours after we reported the US is moving forward with a $260+ million sale of kits that make bombs more “precise,” Israeli forces have bombed a school, killing more than 80 people — with the help of “precise arming” https://t.co/VLSvd8DNn6 pic.twitter.com/odoVflLkex
— Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) August 10, 2024
According to international law, the Israel-US attack on Iran represents an illegal, unprovoked and aggressive act. In light of that, Iran very much has the legal right to defend itself. This is why it is ever more crucial for western leaders to remember the rule of law to prevent this escalating even further across the region. After all, I can’t imagine a western leader would hold back if a girls’ school had been bombed on our own territory.
John Healey refuses to say if the UK will join the US & Israel in bombing Iran. I guess we don’t have a right to know if our govt is planning to take us to war.
And as for #trevorphillips calling bombing Iran a positive action rather than an offensive action. That says it all. pic.twitter.com/zpPdZYkk5h
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
.@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
Selective condemnation
This should come as no surprise that our leaders seem reluctant to defend and uphold international law. They’ve done so ever since October 7th, 2023, refusing to step on the wrong side of the rogue US President.
We wrote yesterday about Thornberry’s surprise recollection of the rule of law, declaring the attack on Iran was ‘illegal’. Whilst it’s a positive development, it also highlights how selective western government officials are in determining legality of military campaigns conducted by allies.
Our own Joe Glenton wrote:
She’s not entirely wrong. The strikes are illegal and ill-advised. Their consequences are likely to be severe not just for the wider region, but also for the global economy.
But still, there are a couple of thorny issues we must first address.
Thornberry has herself previously defended Israel’s genocidal misconduct in Gaza. In 2024, when asked on BBC if Israel cutting off food and electricity in Gaza was “within international law”:
Thornberry, with a straight-face, said:
I think Israel has an absolute right to defend itself against terrorism…
One could be forgiven for thinking he meant Israel because it is the ONLY regime “lashing out in the Middle East indiscriminately and widely, hitting civilian as well as military targets”. https://t.co/PxYJvjZQUA
— Karyn Taylor-Moore (@TaylorMooreK) March 1, 2026
Let’s be clear, Donald Trump and the Epstein class that have enabled genocide in Gaza are now blowing up Iranian children and setting the Middle East on fire to enrich themselves and cover up their paedophilic crimes.
We need to build a mass movement to stop them.
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 28, 2026
We do not consent to WWIII
Thankfully, many more have been loud in their condemnation of these attacks and those who had been complicit in Gaza are stepping out of turn with their colleagues, such as Thornberry. Once again, as we saw with the genocide on Gaza, ordinary people are overwhelmingly able to understand the rule of law without a need to selectively apply it. This highlights that those who have power have precious little sense of principle.
As Zarah Sultana stated on X, we need a mass movement to stop the world careening into WWIII and we need that now.
Featured image via the Canary
When you decide to upload a photo on to your Instagram or social media, you will face a choice: Are you going to let the app see your entire camera roll or not?
Many of the apps that we use every day will ask if you want to grant the app full access to your phone’s images and videos ― and you should think twice before permitting this, no matter how convenient it is, privacy experts say.
“When you limit access to only select photos, you’re both … protecting yourself from accidentally uploading multiple pictures you do not intend, and ensuring that the app can’t access more than you want, either by accident or malicious intent,” said Thorin Klosowski, a security and privacy activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Your camera roll doesn’t just have fun photos from vacations and pictures of your families, it’s also a record of who you are and what you like. Many of us often take photos for verification that reveal our identities like passports and new credit cards. These are the kind of images scammers want to exploit. In 2023, researchers discovered that malicious apps were scanning users’ image galleries to hunt for crypto wallet access recovery phrases. Google and Apple later removed these apps from their stores.
milorad kravic via Getty Images
It’s definitely more inconvenient to search through albums to find that one photo you want to post instead of having the full library within an app, but that’s the point. That extra time you take to select one photo forces you to think about what exactly you want to share with an app that may compromise your privacy later.
Meta, in particular, has a long history of concerning privacy advocates. In 2022, Facebook gave police private messages of a mother and daughter facing criminal charges for allegedly carrying out an abortion.
“That’s an especially striking example of how Meta is willing to share data with law enforcement … to continue chipping away at Americans’ privacy and civil rights,” said Will Owen, communication director for the nonprofit Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.
Last year, a Facebook feature asked users to grant access to their phone’s camera roll in order to automatically suggest AI-edited versions of their photos. The pop-up prompt would ask: “Allow cloud processing to get creative ideas from your camera roll?” However, if users permitted this, they also opted into having their images and facial features analyzed by Meta’s AI ― which upset some users. This feature no longer appears available to users within Facebook. Meta did not respond to HuffPost questions about the status of this feature.
In general, you should always double-check what you’re letting an app see from your phone. On Facebook, you can do this by going to the Facebook app, choosing “Settings & Privacy” and then selecting “Camera roll sharing suggestions” within “Settings.” From there, you can toggle on or off the option to “Get camera roll suggestions when you’re browsing Facebook.”
Refusing to grant full access to any one app is one small way to stop yourself from sharing images you would regret later by accident or on purpose.
Klosowski said he’s seen “countless stories over the years of people just accidentally uploading their entire photo libraries to social media because of confusing prompts.”
When you refuse to grant your favourite social media app full access to your camera roll, it will take you more steps to find and select your preferred image, and this will be a bit more of a hassle. “I realise people find the photo picker cumbersome because the user experience is kind of awful,” Klosowski said.
“But a side effect is it also puts a little speed bump in front of you while you’re thinking about whether you should post that photo to begin with, which isn’t always a bad thing,” he continued.
Social media users have responded with blistering incredulity, outrage and bitter mockery to a US interviewer asking a spokesman why Iran is bombing US bases. His response:
Um, because you’re bombing us from those bases? What do you want me to say?
NBC news anchors asked Iran why it’s justifying attacks on American bases in the region.
“Um, because you’re bombing us from those bases? What do you want me to say? ” pic.twitter.com/P8pZU4L5Ix
— ᗰᗩƳᖇᗩ (@LePapillonBlu2) March 1, 2026
Could anything better sum up the dishonesty and stupidity of western media and the entitled arrogance of the US? Even US respondents thought so too:
OK, the person who asked that question – are they a certified fucking idiot? If not, they are a certified, fucking idiot! Lord help us from all these certified fucking idiots.
— IAmMe (@IAmINTJ1) March 1, 2026
Who writes these dumbass questions?
— Michael J Box (@okanaganchild) March 1, 2026
Which right wing oligarch owns NBC.
— Robert Beattie🇦🇺🌏🌊💙🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺🇨🇦🇵🇦 (@beattiers_1958) March 1, 2026
Seriously? That was a fucking question? I guess they think all countries should just let us bomb them and not fight back?
— Turboe4truth 🇺🇸🇺🇸🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🇺🇦🇺🇦 (@turboe4truth) March 1, 2026
Others pointed out how the idiot question entirely fits within the usual western ‘mainstream’ media framing of western imperialism and aggression:
— Varangian of the South Seas (@SouthVarangian) March 1, 2026
— V a n a m o n d e 🌙 (@Vanamonde5) March 1, 2026
Which right wing oligarch owns NBC.
— Robert Beattie🇦🇺🌏🌊💙🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺🇨🇦🇵🇦 (@beattiers_1958) March 1, 2026
They are pro-Israel just like our shitty government. What the fuck kind of question is that to even ask? Like, how can anyone watch this shit and take it seriously?
— Blayzn Baddie 💋🌹💨 (@BlazynBaddie) March 1, 2026
Teleprompter: why Iran attacks civilian targets in the region gaining new enemies while being totally hammered by 🇮🇱 🇺🇸?
Anchors….🤯 pic.twitter.com/jZbCM0iWQl— Don Pedro (@DonPedro_s) March 1, 2026
That news anchor is trying to whip up some manufactured consent. They know the truth but is trying to get Iran to say something they can spin. 🙄
— a succulent bread sandwich meal (@BeefFace80) March 1, 2026
The propaganda in the mainstream media is astounding.
— Alina 🌻 (@alinamercedes) March 1, 2026
But among the many sane respondents, just a few demonstrated that some parts of the US population are no less stupid or blinkered than the media that spoon-feeds them this nonsense. Some were outraged that a spokesman from Iran should be interviewed by US media at all.
Others thought they were being clever by claiming the bombers had come from ships, not from those US bases the ships use. As if in war, you only get to retaliate against the parts of your enemy that are directly involved.
Canary readers please, if you’re ever in a fight and someone punches you with their right hand, you can only hit back on that same right hand — anywhere else is not fair play.
Still others just demonstrated how lacking a gag reflex they are when it comes to swallowing MAGA BS:
That news anchor is trying to whip up some manufactured consent. They know the truth but is trying to get Iran to say something they can spin. 🙄
— a succulent bread sandwich meal (@BeefFace80) March 1, 2026
They’re not – the bombs came from the ships
— Sukicee88 (@sukicee8857454) March 1, 2026
The US didn’t launch ANY of the attacks from bases in the region, because we were told a week ago we couldn’t use them by the countries they are located in.
— Steve Boyette (@im_plane_crazy) March 1, 2026
And others pointed out how the US allows itself to be led by the nose by the one actual nuclear-armed rogue state in the region:
The US didn’t launch ANY of the attacks from bases in the region, because we were told a week ago we couldn’t use them by the countries they are located in.
— Steve Boyette (@im_plane_crazy) March 1, 2026
The US didn’t launch ANY of the attacks from bases in the region, because we were told a week ago we couldn’t use them by the countries they are located in.
— Steve Boyette (@im_plane_crazy) March 1, 2026
You can be anti-trump without necessarily siding with terrorist Iran
— kanagasomu (@gosumabrigade) March 1, 2026
Two corrupt states with nuclear weapons and idiots and liars for bosses and mouthpieces are threatening one that is trying to exist flanked by the nuclear armed idiot-liars. One televised interview question was all it took to (again) put a spotlight on it.
Featured image via the Canary
Politics
Healey Confirms UK Only Acting Defensively Despite Iranian Attacks on British Servicemen and Cyprus Base
Healey Confirms UK Only Acting Defensively Despite Iranian Attacks on British Servicemen and Cyprus Base
Ukrainian man pleads guilty to running AI-powered fake ID site
Delroy Lindo Addresses BAFTA Slur Incident at NAACP Image Awards
UFC Mexico: Lone’er Kavanagh upsets former champion Brandon Moreno
-
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
-
Sports2 days ago
The Vikings Need a Duck
-
Tech13 hours agoUnihertz’s Titan 2 Elite Arrives Just as Physical Keyboards Refuse to Fade Away
-
Crypto World5 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 days ago‘Hourly’ method from gastroenterologist ‘helps reduce air travel bloating’
-
Tech7 days agoAnthropic-Backed Group Enters NY-12 AI PAC Fight
-
NewsBeat20 hours agoAbusive parents will now be treated like sex offenders and placed on a ‘child cruelty register’ | News UK
-
NewsBeat7 days agoArmed man killed after entering secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service says
-
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