All six crewmembers of the US military tanker which crashed on 12 March 2026 are dead, after Trump carried out an unprovoked attack on Iran and brought severe unrest to the region. That brings the overall US death toll thirteen – officially, at least. The cause of the crash is unclear, as the Canary reported here.

Needless to say the number of innocent civilians killed across the region are still being counted and are unlikely to have anything like the same sort of news value in the Western legacy media.

For me, the crash summons an acute memory. Twenty years ago, I personally delivered the coffins meant for 14 dead airmen across Kandahar Airfield in Southern Afghanistan to the base’s medical centre where their remains were held.

Their Nimrod spy plane had crashed days earlier. Some reports blamed a fuel leak on the ageing aircraft.

Then as now, the airmen concerned died in a war of choice they were sent to because of the remote, hubristic ambitions of politicians thousand of miles away. Then as now, such deaths were useful to the political class at home.

Trump will fall for the sacrifice trap

One way of understanding how the deaths of these crew members will be received is to look at the ‘sacrifice trap’. I first heard the term in a 2018 report authored by scholar and anti-militarist writer professor Paul Dixon. He describes the trap as one of:

a range of rhetorical devices are identified to justify war.

This device was regularly used back then to head off public opposition to the failing Afghanistan war.

Here’s Dixon:

The Sacrifice Trap – refers to the situation in which the deaths of military personnel creates a
reason to prolong war in order to justify these sacrifices. As more die this creates further
reasons to justify their deaths by defeating the enemy.

You can almost hear a Trump or a Blair saying it now. ‘If we stop fighting, the previous deaths will have been for nothing’.

In this way, the last death becomes the justification for the next one.

Dixon again:

There is an incentive to put military personnel in harm’s way so that their sacrifice leads to the justification of war. The state escalates or continues to fight in order to justify prior sacrifices.

I haven’t heard this rhetorical device employed fully yet. The US leadership doesn’t seem to care much about public opposition… But in my opinion it is only a matter of time as the death toll mounts. And what I do know for sure is that Trump – whose rise to power is so deeply entangled with the War on Terror – won’t hesitate to wield its devices, narratives, and vocabulary for his own ends.

Featured image via the Canary

The Times of Israel has reported that Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that the Egyptian military is “getting stronger” and Israel needs to “keep an eye on it” to make sure it “doesn’t go too far”.

Of course, this is the Zionist media attempting to manufacture consent for presumable “pre-emptive strikes’ on Egypt.

Hebrew-language media reported that Netanyahu said that Israel and Egypt:

have a relationship and common interests

However:

Jerusalem needs to prevent it [the Egyptian army] from becoming too strong.

Because, of course, armies full of black and brown people should never be strong. That way, Israel can’t overpower them.

Israel accusations are a confession

Reports as far back as September 2025 suggest that Israel was “concerned” about Egypt’s military buildup in the Sinai.

Israeli officials also claimed that Egyptians have extended runways at air bases in Sinai so that they could be used by fighter jets. The claims also include Egypt building underground facilities, which they believe could be used for storing missiles directed at Israel.

However, the officials also said that there is no actual evidence that the Egyptians are actually storing any missiles in these facilities.

Time and time again, Israel claims the people it is ethnically cleansing are using underground military facilities, which are, of course, a huge threat to Israel. The reality is, there is zero real evidence supporting the claims. In actual fact, it is Israel who is using a huge underground bunker dubbed the ‘Fortress of Zion’.

Make of that what you will.

According to a New York Times article in 2021, it is:

a new Israeli Army command post deep underground beneath its headquarters in the heart of Tel Aviv

Talk about using civilians as human shields.

Illegal occupation

Twice previously, Israel has occupied the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt.

The first time was during the Suez Crisis in 1956.

Israel, France and Britain illegally invaded Egypt. In true colonial fashion, the three countries wanted to topple President Gamal Abdel Nasser. This was simply because he nationalised the Suez Canal Company – a British-French enterprise.

Essentially, all three were set to lose money and control, and as we saw with Iran in 1953, when Western countries are going to lose money, they call for regime change.

Eventually, they withdrew. But then in 1967:

The Soviet Union falsely warned Egypt that Israel was assembling its troops to invade Syria. Under an Egyptian-Syrian defence treaty signed in 1955, the two countries were obliged to protect one another in the case of an attack on either.

Israel then launched a surprise attack against Egypt’s airbases and destroyed its air force.

What followed was Israel seizing the remainder of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, along with the Golan Heights in Syria, and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. It did all of this in six days.

The night before the 1967 attack, Israeli minister Yigal Allon wrote:

In … a new war, we must avoid the historic mistake of the War of Independence [1948] … and must not cease fighting until we achieve total victory, the territorial fulfillment of the Land of Israel.

Immediately, in direct contravention of international law, Israel started building illegal settlements for its citizens on land it did not (and still does not) own.

By 1977, over 11,000 Israelis were living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula.

In 1979, Egypt signed the Peace Accord with Israel.

Israel agreed to withdraw from Sinai, and Egypt promised to establish “normal diplomatic relations” between the two countries and open the Suez Canal to Israeli ships.

Israel finally withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula on April 26, 1982.

Manufacturing consent once again

It seems Israeli news sites have been attempting to manufacture consent for taking back the Sinai Peninsula for a while. In 2024, The Times of Israel reported:

northern Sinai has been mired in an insurgency by Islamist groups for the past decade, including an ISIS cell.

It’s a pattern – Israel claims terrorists need to be taken out and then proceeds to flatten entire countries with no regard for life.

Israel made its intentions for Egypt clear as far back as 1967. So why wouldn’t Egypt build up its armed forces? The whole world is watching the Zionists destroy Iran and Lebanon, after already destroying Gaza. Anyone in their right mind would take that as a warning and take the necessary steps to protect their citizens.

Israel has nukes – yet allows no one else in the region to have them. Israel has one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world, yet its neighbours and resistance movements must disarm. And Israel is using massive underground bunkers under hugely populated areas, yet is blowing entire communities to pieces in other countries for that same reason – without any evidence.

The rest of the world cannot let a genocidal, terrorist state keep bullshitting a moral high ground through fear of ‘antisemitism’, whilst it destroys any semblance of life in majority Muslim countries.

Featured image via Real Time History/YouTube

The UK has awarded 26 arms firms lucrative contracts to develop its own autonomous targeting systems –  this is despite numerous atrocities in Gaza – and now, Iran – being linked with haphazard AI kill chain systems. The UK NGO Drone Wars reported:

that as public concern about the use of AI for warfighting grows in the aftermath of Israel’s war on Gaza and US strikes on Iran, the UK is quietly pressing ahead with development of a new AI-based military targeting system.

This should be a worry for us all. Besides the gigantic cost – up to £1bn handed to death firms – the ethics and effectiveness of handing the killing over to AI systems are highly dubious.

The UK is developing a system (typically and idiotically) named ASGARD, a reference to Viking mythology. The tender notice states:

This Open Framework will focus on the ‘Decide’ element of the target acquisition cycle (Sense-Decide-Effect); supporting ASGARD’s goal of reinventing, and transforming, how land forces deliver operational decision-support and decision-making software via the use of modern Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning (AI/ML) technologies.

Gaza is a testing ground for AI

Drone Wars’ Chris Cole said:

While militaries are keen to use AI to speed up decision making around lethal strikes, there are serious ethical and legal concerns about these developments, with increasing evidence that ratcheting up the number of strikes leads to greater danger for civilians.

Drone Wars’ tone is urgent to say the least:

As we have said before, the grave dangers of introducing AI into warfare and in particular for the use of force are well known.  While arguments have been made for and against these systems for more than a decade, increasing we are moving from a theoretical, future possibility to the real world: here, now, today.

The horrifying nature of autonomous war systems is hardly a mystery in 2026. Israel’s genocide in Gaza has been fuelled with AI tools like Lavender and the grotesquely named Where’s Daddy, which is:

used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

There is mounting evidence AI targeting has shaped the US-Israeli attack on Iran too. The Guardian said on 3 March:

Academics studying the field say AI is collapsing the planning time required for complex strikes – a phenomenon known as “decision compression”, which some fear could result in human military and legal experts merely rubber-stamping automated strike plans.

The US also reportedly used AI in the 3 January attack on Venezuela.

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

The UK government is racing to catch-up with its allies in the US and Israel. There is ample evidence that AI targeting is, at best, deeply flawed. It’s increasing use by indifferent imperial powers – seemingly concerned more with speed and a deadly numbers game – has already produced horrific results for targeted populations in Gaza, Iran, and Latin America.

Featured image via the Canary

Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag is a UK representative of the Coalition for Jewish Values and a communal rabbi based in Manchester.

 As the confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran unfolds, Western governments — including Britain’s — now face not only a strategic challenge but a test of moral clarity.

Public statements from many European capitals have emphasised legal caution and diplomatic restraint while avoiding direct engagement with the ideological nature of the Iranian regime.

That hesitation reflects a deeper uncertainty within Western societies: an increasing difficulty in distinguishing between regimes that defend civilisation and those that undermine it.

This is not merely a geopolitical problem. It is a test of whether Western societies still possess the moral clarity required to recognise ideological threats.

For decades the Islamic Republic of Iran has maintained a posture of hostility toward Israel while supporting proxy militias across the Middle East. Its leadership has invested heavily in ballistic missile development and pursued nuclear capabilities while sponsoring armed groups operating from Lebanon to Yemen.

None of this has been hidden. The strategic outlook of the Iranian regime has been visible for many years.

Yet reactions across parts of the Western world to the recent confrontation have been strikingly confused. Within days of military strikes against Iranian targets, demonstrations appeared in several Western cities condemning Israel and the United States, while paying little attention to the actions and ideology of the Iranian regime itself.

At precisely the moment when the nature of the Iranian government’s policies should have become clearer, many in the West seemed unable to say plainly what they were witnessing.

The crisis exposed by Iran is therefore not only about Middle Eastern strategy. It reflects a wider Western uncertainty about power, religion, and the moral foundations of political order.

A deeper civilisational uncertainty

During the twentieth century, Western democracies ultimately recognised that certain ideologies represented existential threats to civilisation. Nazism and Soviet communism were understood not simply as political adversaries but as systems fundamentally hostile to human dignity and freedom.  Today that moral clarity appears to be weakening.

In much contemporary discourse, liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes are increasingly treated as morally interchangeable actors in a global system. The language of “both sides” has too often become a substitute for serious moral judgment.

Yet moral relativism becomes difficult to sustain when one side openly pursues destabilisation across an entire region.

Iran’s ruling ideology combines religious absolutism with revolutionary hostility toward Western influence in the Middle East. Its regional strategy has centred on supporting armed proxy groups and expanding its strategic reach through networks of allied militias.

These are not the policies of a conventional state pursuing ordinary diplomatic interests. They are the policies of an ideological regime.

A memory from another moment

For me, these debates carry echoes of an earlier period.  In the late 1970s, as a teenager studying in yeshiva in Israel, the radio would often carry news bulletins referring to bnei ha’arubah — “the hostages”. The phrase was repeated constantly during the Iranian revolution and its aftermath, when diplomats and civilians were held captive in Tehran.

For a young student immersed in Torah study, hearing those broadcasts created a vivid impression. Even then it was clear that something profound had shifted in the Middle East: a revolutionary regime had emerged that openly challenged the norms of international conduct.

Those memories return today when watching the current crisis unfold. The ideological roots of the confrontation we see now were already visible in those early years.

The language of a revolutionary regime

Another feature of the Iranian revolution that left a lasting impression was its political language. From the earliest years of the regime, public rallies and official demonstrations were marked by chants calling for the destruction of the United States and Israel. These slogans were not fringe expressions; they formed part of the official vocabulary of the state.

For many outside observers this was sometimes dismissed as rhetorical theatre. Yet slogans matter. They reveal the ideological worldview of a regime and the moral climate it cultivates within its society.

When hostility toward entire nations becomes embedded in public ritual and political messaging, it signals something deeper than ordinary geopolitical rivalry. It reflects a revolutionary ideology that defines itself through confrontation with the outside world.

Religion and power

One of the deeper problems raised by the Iranian regime is the way in which religion itself can be distorted when fused completely with political power.

The Islamic Republic presents itself as a religious state governed by clerical authority. Yet history repeatedly shows that when religious leadership and state power become fully merged, faith can easily become a tool of political control.

The Jewish political tradition developed a different model. In the biblical structure of leadership, authority was distributed across distinct institutions. The king exercised political power — and even he was subject to explicit limits in the Torah’s law of the king (Deuteronomy 17) — while the kohen embodied religious authority and the prophets spoke with an independent moral voice. These roles were not intended to collapse into one another.

In other words, the Hebrew Bible recognised very early that faith must sometimes stand as a restraint upon power rather than an instrument of it.

This arrangement allowed religion to function not merely as an instrument of state authority but as a source of ethical critique of power itself.

In that sense, the Jewish tradition anticipated a principle that later became central to Western constitutional thought: the need to restrain concentrated power and preserve independent moral authority within society — a principle that would eventually find expression in the Western idea of limited and separated powers.

When legalism replaces moral judgment

Another revealing feature of the recent crisis has been the hesitant response of some Western governments. In Britain, as elsewhere in Europe, official statements have often emphasised legal caution and diplomatic restraint while avoiding direct engagement with the ideological nature of the Iranian regime.

Another complication in the present debate has been the tendency to frame criticism of Western preparedness for Iranian escalation as though it were simply an endorsement of a more confrontational American posture toward Iran. That framing risks obscuring the real issue. It is entirely possible to reject reckless rhetoric or unilateral adventurism while still asking whether Western governments adequately recognised the scale of the Iranian threat and prepared accordingly. A serious strategic discussion should not collapse into caricatures about “pro-war” or “anti-war” positions; the more relevant question is whether the warning signs were visible and whether governments responded with sufficient foresight.

Instead of asking the most basic moral question — whether a regime pursuing aggressive regional expansion should be permitted to acquire the means to make those ambitions irreversible — much of the debate has revolved around a narrower legal question: whether military action satisfies particular interpretations of international law.

International law plays an important role in restraining the arbitrary use of force. But when legal frameworks become the sole lens through which governments view serious threats, they risk paralysing the very societies they were meant to protect.

Democratic governments should not lightly resort to war. But neither should they allow procedural legal debates to obscure the underlying moral reality of the situation.

The classical just war tradition, which shaped the development of Western law, recognised that the defence of innocent life may at times require decisive action — a principle that also appears in Jewish law’s distinction between necessary and discretionary wars and in the Talmudic teaching that one may rise in self-defence against a mortal threat.

The question facing Western leaders today is therefore not simply legal.  It is whether they still possess the moral clarity required to defend the societies they govern.

Recovering moral confidence

The conflict with Iran will eventually subside, as conflicts always do.  But the deeper question facing Western societies will remain.  Do we still possess the moral confidence required to defend the values that built our civilisation?  Or will we continue drifting into a moral fog in which democracies and authoritarian regimes are treated as morally equivalent actors?

The Iranian regime represents not only a geopolitical challenge but also a warning about the dangers of unconstrained power justified in religious terms.  Recovering that clarity — moral, political and institutional — may prove essential if the West is to defend the civilisation it has inherited.

Are young people’s bowels different to older people’s?

What does that mean?

The US and Israel have accidentally made Iran a global oil superpower. This might sound exaggerated… But it is the view of esteemed scholar of air warfare Professor Robert Pape, whose damning critique of the attack on Iran has generated wide interest recently. Pape said on 12 March:

Iran hit 16 vessels so far in Strait of Hormuz.

That’s all it takes for Iran to control 20% of the world’s oil and become an oil hegemon — the number 1 strategic outcome US has sought to prevent in Middle East since 1970s.

He added:

Iran is not weakening— it is gaining power.

Iran hit 16 vessels so far in Strait of Hormuz. That’s all it takes for Iran to control 20% of the world’s oil and become an oil hegemon — the number 1 strategic outcome US has sought to prevent in Middle East since 1970s. Iran is not weakening— it is gaining power. pic.twitter.com/UOCNEqfDyB

— Robert A. Pape (@ProfessorPape) March 13, 2026

Advertisement

Dire straits, but not for Iran

The Straits of Hormuz are a narrow channel between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. They are natural chokepoint. Like the English channel, they are only 21 miles wide at their narrowest point. 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through annually.

The risks were well known. The straits been the topic of discussion for decades. Iran has long developed an ability to mine, blockade, or otherwise control the straits if attacked by the US and Israel. And Iran has now said it intends to do exactly that.

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

As a result of the attack, oil now sits around $100 a barrel. Under severe pressure, the International Energy Agency (IEA) agreed on 11 March to:

make 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves available to the market to address disruptions in oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East.

And here’s a key detail in the IEA statement:

An average of 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2025, or around 25% of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Options for oil flows to bypass the Strait of Hormuz are limited.

The Iranian government seem to be acutely aware of this fundamental material truth. Military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari said on 11 March:

Get ready for oil be $200 a barrel, because the oil price depends on regional security which you have destabilised.

The Iranians – who say they won’t negotiate  – seem content to play a long game.

Fight for the straits

The US response has been to promise more aggression. They’ve floated everything from naval escorts, to a ground invasion, to picking off Iranian mines and boats one by one.

US general Dan Caine spoke to the issue on 13 March:

BREAKING: US Air Force General Dan Caine says US forces are continuing to target Iran’s mine-laying capabilities, adding that Tehran still had the capacity to harm commercial shipping and US-allied forces.

🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/dXIECdlxxg pic.twitter.com/gAJxjeDdpT

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 13, 2026

Rumours of a ground invasion continue. In response, Drop Site News reporter Jeremy Scahill told Zeteo the Trump administration was ‘high on its own supply’:

When you start to believe your own delusions, when you start to imply that every single Iranian is a prisoner to a dictatorship of a mullah—the rhetoric that these guys use at the Pentagon and at the White House on down—and you start to believe it, you know, get high on your own supply, then you start to say, oh well, if we come in with ground troops—and Netanyahu’s telling us the people are going to rise up—you end up at an utter catastrophe.

The US has made it a policy to lock Iran out of the world economy through sanctions and blockades. This is regardless of the impact of that policy on Iranians – the very people the US often performatively claims to care about.

Today, by its lack of foresight and strategic blundering, the US and Israel have handed effective control of a big chunk of the world’s economy to Iran. The US looks to have completely underestimated Iran: a country which seems to grow more determined, angry and defiant by the hour.

Featured image via the Canary

In his latest ‘smoking-gun, the Canary’s Ranjan Balakumaran examines the partial release of the Mandelson files. These files concern Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Jefferey Epstein fanboy, Peter Mandelson to top-tier government positions.

Balakumaran shows that beyond turning a blind eye to Mandelson’s seedy relationship with serial child-rapist, Downing Street’s negligible actions go further.

The rules in place to protect British national security were suspended to allow Mandelson to participate in, and profit from, highly sensitive briefings, meetings, and intelligence. A coordinated “protection racket” for Blaire’s disciples, by Starmer’s handlers.

The Labour party’s increasingly cartel-mindset and the ensuing damage of the Mandelson is yet to receive the attention it deserves. Starmer, in particular, has been left of the hook.

Balakumaran can be viewed in full below.

Featured image via the Canary