Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, the Emirati billionaire behind the Al Habtoor Group, wrote a long post on X in Arabic questioning Trump’s wisdom. In addition, his post showed cracks in the US-Gulf states alliance.

He accused the US and Israel of starting the current war “before the ink has dried” on the Board of Peace initiative launched by Trump in January. Furthermore, Al Habtoor also openly questioned whether the decision was Trump’s alone or the result of “pressures from Netanyahu and his government.”

سيادة الرئيس دونالد ترامب،

سؤال مباشر: من أعطاك القرار لزجّ منطقتنا في حرب مع #إيران؟ وعلى أي أساس اتخذت هذا القرار الخطير؟

هل حسبتَ الأضرار الجانبية قبل أن تضغط على الزناد؟ وهل فكّرت أن أول من سيتضرر من هذا التصعيد هي دول المنطقة!

من حق شعوب هذه المنطقة أن تسأل أيضاً: هل كان…

Advertisement

— Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor (@KhalafAlHabtoor) March 5, 2026

He also noted that Trump has ordered more than 658 foreign airstrikes in his first year alone. This matches the total from Biden’s entire term. Moreover, there are military operations now spanning seven countries including Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.

Habtoor dropped a different kind of bomb – one aimed straight at Trump’s political standing. The billionaire noted that the president’s approval ratings have dropped nine percent since his first 400 days in office. He attributed it to Trump’s foreign intervention binge (read war crime binge).

People have been resharing the post on X.

UAE billionaire Habtoor lambasts Trump: “A direct question: Who gave you the authority to drag our region into a war with #Iran? And on what basis did you make this dangerous decision? Did you calculate the collateral damage before pulling the trigger?” https://t.co/tTv2s60CsN pic.twitter.com/TEJKb0sCmK

— Jorge Martin ☭ (@marxistJorge) March 6, 2026

Joe Guinan said on X: Trouble for Trump with his base – the billionaire class.

Trouble for Trump with his base—the billionaire class. https://t.co/WF2ybyKWSe

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) March 5, 2026

Al Quds New Network said

UAE billionaire Khalaf Al‑Habtoor, chairman of Al Habtoor Group, publicly criticized Donald Trump for dragging Gulf countries into a dangerous war with Iran without their consent. He questioned who authorized Trump to escalate the war and warned that Gulf nations would suffer first from the consequences. He also asked whether Trump was incited by war criminal Netanyahu. Habtoor argued that the war contradicts U.S. promises of peace initiatives in the region, including plans to rebuild Gaza Strip, which Gulf states were expected to fund. He also accused Trump of breaking his pledge to avoid new wars and risking American lives and regional stability.

UAE billionaire Khalaf Al‑Habtoor, chairman of Al Habtoor Group, publicly criticized Donald Trump for dragging Gulf countries into a dangerous war with Iran without their consent.

He questioned who authorized Trump to escalate the war and warned that Gulf nations would suffer… pic.twitter.com/Hiip9orRVM

— Quds News Network (@QudsNen) March 6, 2026

Middle East Eye (MEE) highlighted the comments from the Emirati billionaire.

‘Funding peace or war?’: UAE billionaire slams Trump for dragging Gulf into Iran war

UAE billionaire Khalaf al-Habtoor accused US President Donald Trump of dragging the US’s energy-rich Gulf partners into “danger” by unleashing a war on Iran

Advertisement

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) March 5, 2026

According to MEE, the billionaire was once a Trump ally. He also embraced and welcomes Trump’s Abraham Accords with open arms.

The Financial Times reported that Gulf states are quietly reviewing their overseas investments, including pledges to the US, sports sponsorships, and corporate contracts, as the Iran war strains their budgets.

Drop Site News reshared the FT article along with Al Habtoor’s post, saying officials say reduced energy exports, disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, declining tourism and aviation, and rising defence spending are squeezing finances.

Gulf states are reviewing overseas investments and contracts as the US-Israeli war with Iran strains their budgets, including possible use of force majeure clauses and reassessment of investment pledges, the Financial Times reports.

➤ Officials say reduced energy exports,… https://t.co/wcXsJQp44y

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 6, 2026

What do we know – even billionaires make valid points sometimes.

Featured image via the Canary

US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a press conference at the White House in early 2003 to discuss Iraq (Alamy)

9 min read1 hr

As the seventh day of the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran unfolds, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s government has faced a complex geopolitical challenge. After initial US-Israeli air strikes on Iranian military infrastructure last Saturday, Iran responded with waves of missile and drone attacks across the region, and the conflict has since expanded rapidly.

The UK initially declined a direct request from Washington to allow US forces to use British military bases to launch attacks on Iran. But following Iranian strikes on regional allies, including British personnel and bases, the government agreed to allow the US to use UK bases for limited defensive operations, aimed at neutralising missile and drone threats.

Labour ministers insist the response has been measured and lawful, focused on protecting UK personnel, interests and civilians in a volatile region. Starmer has refused to echo stronger offensive positions called for abroad, prompting Donald Trump to criticise the Prime Minister’s stance as “very disappointing”.

For many Labour ministers and MPs, the Iraq War of 2003-2011 remains a source of political trauma and a guiding lesson for how the UK engages in the Middle East. Speaking on his Political Currency podcast this week, former Cabinet minister Ed Balls said Starmer’s approach had been influenced by Iraq.

“Ever since Iraq, from the moment Gordon Brown became prime minister, the aftermath of Iraq has hung over the Labour Party,” he said.

“It absolutely shapes the politics, which is: Don’t just go in without a legal basis and without a clear plan, because that could end up an absolute political catastrophe.”

The Iraq War: a political and military turning point

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a seismic event in British political history. Led internationally by the United States with support from Labour prime minister Tony Blair, British forces joined the attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime on the basis of an asserted threat from weapons of mass destruction – weapons that were never found.

The war toppled Hussein but unleashed years of insurgency, sectarian violence and regional destabilisation. Later inquiries, including the Chilcot report, condemned the UK’s decision-making and lack of post-conflict planning.

For the Labour Party, Iraq fractured party unity, damaged public trust, and represented flawed intelligence, weak strategy and “forever wars”. Figures who opposed the war from the start later felt their warnings vindicated.

The risk of ‘mission creep’

One such figure is Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East, who attended his first demonstration as a student against the Iraq War.

From the Labour backbenches, Burgon has taken a leading role on the left in criticising UK involvement in the Iran conflict.

“The campaign against the Iraq War made a big, big impression on me,” Burgon told PoliticsHome.

“The shadow of Iraq quite rightly hangs over foreign policy considerations and considerations of military involvement. We’ve seen in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, what this can lead to. It can lead to death, destruction and chaos impacting tens of millions of people, and obviously the view of the of the public on the politicians who have been part of that will be formed accordingly.”

On 18 March 2003, Parliament passed a motion to “use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”. Of Labour MPs at the time, 254 voted in favour, 84 against and 69 abstained, meaning around 60 per cent supported the invasion.

“Parliament overall, despite the big vote against the Iraq War, gave Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt, and many, many MPs who did so regretted that, not only for the rest of their political career, but for the rest of their lives now,” Burgon said.

He argued that the legacy of Iraq makes MPs very wary of the risk of “mission creep”, and less willing to accept assurances from prime ministers or allies that the UK will not be drawn into a longer, wider conflict.

Setting boundaries on military intervention

While Burgon opposes any British military action in Iran, others argue the line should be drawn at defensive air operations while refusing to commit land troops.

Lord Peter Ricketts, former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office between 2006 and 2010, said Iraq established a clear British approach: “no boots on the ground”.

“In Libya in 2011, particularly, which I was very involved with, the principle at the outset was that we could do an air campaign, but no boots on the ground,” he said.

Legal lessons from Chilcot

Ricketts also highlighted international legitimacy as a key lesson. The Chilcot report concluded the Iraq invasion was “not a last resort” and criticised the legal and diplomatic groundwork.

“I completely agree with Starmer’s stance that the assault [on Iran] at the beginning was not lawful,” Ricketts said.

“The British government and Tony Blair learned the hard way that having any doubt about the legal basis caused massive problems for him in UK Parliament and UK public opinion, and has dogged him ever since.”

Questions of legality were central to the UK’s initial refusal of Trump’s request to use Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford. It was largely on this basis that cabinet ministers, including Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, were opposed to Starmer approving the request, according to the Spectator.

The Chilcot Report’s lessons are also directly informing discussions between backbenchers on the Iran conflict. Calvin Bailey, former RAF officer and MP for Leyton and Wanstead, spoke at the PLP meeting earlier this week and advised colleagues to read The Good Operation, a handbook inspired by Chilcot to help MPs ask the right questions when planning military interventions.

Post-conflict objectives

Another reason for British caution is uncertainty over US and Israeli objectives in the region. Trump and administration officials have sent mixed messages on whether their goal is regime change in Tehran, including urging Iranians to “take back your government” while asserting a focus on destroying nuclear capabilities.

Clive Betts, who has served as a Labour MP in Sheffield since 1992, said the government is balancing competing priorities.

“Essentially, the Prime Minister was in a difficult position and played it as well as he could,” he told PoliticsHome.

“The lesson from Iraq is don’t start something unless you know how to finish it. But then I’d say we have to protect British bases, like in Cyprus, and protect UK nationals. We aren’t doing what we did in Iraq and joining in the American attack. I don’t think the answer can be nothing when we have British soldiers. We have a responsibility for UK nationals and troops.”

The situation has also renewed scrutiny of the UK-US “special relationship” and raised questions about whether alignment with Washington is politically or strategically beneficial for Labour. Some Labour Cabinet ministers, particularly Miliband, do not want the UK to be led once again into a foreign conflict by the US.

The risk for Labour’s political legacy

The legacy of the Iraq War also weighs heavily on the British public, which has remained deeply sceptical about overseas military intervention. Public trust in government assertions about threats and strategy plummeted after Iraq and has never fully recovered.

“The Iraq War started off being relatively popular because the public believed Blair’s warning that the weapons of mass destruction could pose a real risk,” Ricketts said.

“But it very quickly drained away, in particular when the casualties started. Public opinion is already very wary of this exercise, and it must be getting warier every day… all the negatives will come through. And so it’s only going to get less and less popular here.”

Many Labour MPs elected over the last 10-20 years grew up politically during Iraq’s peak, witnessing first-hand how it damaged trust in the party and government. Paul Foster, MP for South Ribble and a former army officer, said he left the military in 2003 “knowing the decision that was being made was the wrong decision for the wrong reasons”.

“For Tony Blair, even now, Iraq is all he is remembered for,” Foster said. “We did not achieve anything in the Middle East that we were meant to achieve.”

Senior Cabinet ministers are aware of this risk for the current Labour administration. PoliticsHome understands that Defence Secretary John Healey has been engaging with individual backbench Labour MPs in an attempt to reassure them that the UK military involvement in Iran will remain limited.

A flawed comparison

Many senior diplomats and former MPs argue the parallels with Iraq are limited. William Patey, UK ambassador to Iraq during 2002-05, emphasised that ground troops are not being asked for in Iran, unlike the central feature of Iraq.

“The ask is much less, and it’s a different proposition altogether,” he said. “While Iraq has shaped political and public attitudes, it should not dictate the legal and practical decisions taken in the current circumstances.”

UK defence capabilities have also shrunk since 2003, making a large-scale military commitment impossible. Some MPs worry that further action in Iran could compromise the UK’s support elsewhere.

One right-wing Labour MP said: “I’m worried if we committed ammunition and kit to bombing Iran that would compromise our help for Ukraine.”

Looking ahead

Left-wing MPs like Burgon believe a mass opposition movement will be necessary if UK involvement escalates, similar to the protests against Iraq.

“We’ve seen that in relation to a mass movement against Israel’s war on Gaza, and people can see more clearly now than they used to be able to on their mobile phones, on their TVs, the consequences of war, the innocent men, women and children who are killed,” he said.

He predicts opposition in the parliamentary Labour Party will grow if the conflict drags on. “Lots of those people will end up being sadly disappointed as this develops.”

For others who support the UK’s defensive operations in Iran, the hope is that the very limited nature of the military engagement will prevent the UK from becoming entangled in another complex war in the Middle East that drags on for years.

As intense exchanges of air strikes and missile attacks continue in the Middle East and greater economic and humanitarian impacts begin to be felt at both home and abroad, Labour politicians will continue to draw lessons and warnings from the Iraq War more than 20 years later.

Cruz Beckham has admitted he’s hopeful that he and his eldest brother Brooklyn can bury the hatchet at some point in the future.

Earlier this week, TMZ stopped Cruz in the street for an interview, asking him if he had a message for his big brother on his birthday.

“Happy birthday,” the youngest of the Beckham boys offered.

When TMZ’s reporter asked if Cruz was “hopeful” that he and his brother could “repair the relationship”, he responded: “I hope so.”

Earlier that day, Cruz had shared a picture of himself and Brooklyn on Instagram to commemorate the latter’s 27th birthday, which, as reported by Us Weekly, he captioned simply: “I love you.”

“I’ve tried [with] my children to educate them,” he claimed. “They make mistakes. Children are allowed to make mistakes. That’s how they learn.

“That’s what I try to teach my kids. But you know, you have to sometimes let them make those mistakes as well.”

Dr David Buck C.Psychol AFBPsS is an Independent Consultant Educational Psychologist and a former SEN Ofsted Inspector.

Bridget Phillipson’s latest announcement on Special Educational Needs (SENs) is being billed as bold reform.

In reality, it is a weary rehash of old ideas dressed up as a “once in a generation opportunity”.  The Education Secretary’s central claim is that spiraling demand for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) must be curbed by reserving them for children with the most “complex” needs. Yet EHCPs are now the only robust legal protection for SEN provision beyond the discretion of schools and local authorities. To shrink access to them is not reform. It is retrenchment.

Her language of “over-demand” from parents and schools will be familiar to anyone who has followed this debate over the past four decades. So, too, will her rhetoric of “inclusion”.

Inclusion is not new

The push to integrate children with SEN into mainstream schools did not begin in 2026. It began in earnest with the Warnock Report 1978, which reshaped the language and philosophy of special needs provision. It drew upon American developments such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated special education in the “least restrictive environment”  signed off in 1975 it somewhat pre-dates Phillipson’s current enthusiasm for “inclusion”.  All her proposals are presented as novel whilst successive British statutes have already embedded the principles:  The Education Act 1981 introduced the concept of special educational needs and the Statementing process, with a preference for mainstream schooling wherever possible. The Education Act 1993 created SEN coordinators (SENCOs) and a Tribunal system. The Education Act 1996 consolidated earlier provisions. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthened the right to ‘mainstream’ education and extended disability discrimination law to schools. The Equality Act 2010 required “reasonable adjustments” for disabled pupils. Finally, the Children and Families Act 2014 replaced Statements of SEN (SSEN) with EHCPs and extended support to age 25, mandating cooperation between education, health and social care services.

“Inclusion” is therefore not an innovation. It is already deeply embedded in law. The suggestion that today’s difficulties stem from a failure to embrace it is implausible. The problem is not philosophy but funding.

More troubling still is the new emphasis on “complexity” as the gatekeeper for legal protection. Complexity is not a reliable proxy for severity or urgency. A profoundly deaf child, a pupil with severe ADHD, or one with acute language disorder may have only a single, clearly defined need — but an urgent one, nevertheless. To imply that only the multiply diagnosed merit enforceable provision is to redefine need downwards.

We have seen this type of manoeuvre many times before e.g. “Care in the community” once accompanied cuts to institutional provision. Now “inclusion” risks becoming the rhetorical cover for narrowing statutory entitlement for SENs.

Individual Support Plans: re-heated

Phillipson’s other flagship proposal — Individual Support Plans (ISPs) — is presented as fresh thinking. It is simply not so. Before 2014, similar staged interventions were standard practice as a prelude to statutory assessment and Statements of SEN.

The old three stage model worked roughly as follows. At classroom level, teachers ‘differentiated’ their course content for the substantial minority (20%) identified since Warnock as having learning difficulties. If progress lagged, an individual education plan (IEP) was written by the class teacher and delivered with teaching assistant support. If that proved insufficient, further IEPs incorporated input from external professionals. Only after these three stages — often spanning several terms — would a statutory assessment be triggered, potentially leading to a Statement and the legal protections that followed.

Parents frequently experienced this as delay. Teachers, burdened by time and training constraints, often preferred swift progression to a Statement that would bring ring-fenced funding. SENCOs had to ration scarce support hours across Stages 2&3. Headteachers balanced training costs against the financial implications of rising Statements for which they would expect additional budgetary support. Local authorities (LAs), for their part, funded earlier-stage interventions while exercising bureaucratic caution over expensive statutory assessments — yet also used rising Statement numbers to argue for larger budgets from central government.

In other words, every actor operated within differing financial incentives that shaped their behaviour. Rebranding these stages as ISPs will not change those incentives. Without serious investment in training and staffing — and without legal enforceability — ISPs will once again be seen, like IEPs, as hurdles to clear on the way to guaranteed provision.

The cycle repeats

In 2014, Statements were abolished and EHCPs introduced, partly in response to frustration about delay and bureaucracy. Now EHCPs are blamed rather than SSENs for generating delay and over-demand. But demand rises for a simple reason: they work! They are the only mechanisms that guarantee additional resources with a right of tribunal appeal, just like SSENs

If IEPs are revived as ISPs chiefly to reduce EHCP numbers, history will repeat itself. Schools and parents will still seek the only secure route to provision. The terminology will change; the incentives will not.  Phillipson cannot be unaware of this. The profession understands it well. What is cynical is to present underfunded consultation plans as reform while quietly tightening access to the only legally enforceable safeguard.

Phillipson’s strategic use of “complexity” will not solve the problem either. If anything, it will intensify the medicalisation of educational need. When legal protection hinges on multi-layered diagnoses, categories with recognised “co-morbidities” will expand. Autistic Spectrum diagnoses, already associated with anxiety (40-55 per cent), depression (10-20 per cent), ADHD (30-70 per cent) and epilepsy (up to 45 per cent), will become more attractive gateways to protection. The cost implications will show a familiar asymmetry by falling primarily on education budgets, not health.

Meanwhile, the genuinely complex group — pre-school and early years children whose needs span multiple agencies — remains persistently under-resourced.  ‘StartRight’ early intervention services and ‘Portage’ home-visiting provision have withered in practice. The families of this group lack the organised lobbying power of older cohorts, just as the elderly are easy to overlook, such groups lack a collective, cohesive voice and therefore become fair game for cuts.

A question of candour

If the objective here is genuinely to meet SENs, ministers must confront the funding gap openly. if the objective is to cut costs, they should say so.  Dressing reductions in the language of innovation and inclusion insults the intelligence of both parents and professionals alike.

EHCPs may be imperfect. But they represent the culmination of decades of legislative development designed to protect vulnerable pupils from the vagaries of local budget constraints and management. To reserve them for only an ill-defined elite of those with “complex” needs is to hollow out that protection.

Demand for EHCPs will remain as strong as demand once was for Statements, because families will always seek the only mechanism that carries legal force. Shift the language from “deficit” to “complexity”, and the system will adapt accordingly.

There is nothing “once in a generation” about this cycle. It is the familiar parade of reform without resources. If ministers wish to break it, they must address causes rather than redefine categories — and fund inclusion rather than merely invoke its promise.

On 5 March, the Electoral Commission published its records of political donations in the last quarter of 2025. And, surprise surprise, Reform UK has taken yet another massive crypto donation from Thai-based billionaire Christopher Harborne.

Last quarter’s £3m donation joins the record-breaking £9m that the cryptocurrency investor already gifted to the far-right party. Likewise, on top of the £3m, Reform also received a further £2.5m from other sources.

It appears the 1% know which way their bread is buttered.

Reform is in the pocket of the super rich

As the Independent pointed out, a great deal of Reform’s newfound fortune comes from former Tory donors fleeing Badenoch’s sinking ship:

The latest register of donations, released on Thursday, also showed that more Tory donors are giving money to Reform UK. This included construction equipment firm JCB, which has previously backed the Conservatives but this time gave £200,000 to both Reform and the Tories.

Isabel Goldsmith, the sister of former Tory minister Zak Goldsmith, also gave Reform £100,000.

Former Tory donor and high-profile Reform defector Nick Candy, a property developer, donated £240,000 to the party.

Commenting on the massive donations, a spokesperson for the far-right party said:

These figures show the extraordinary momentum behind Reform UK. Raising more money than any other party in 2025 proves that people are backing the party to deliver real change.

That’s an awfully strange way of phrasing ‘we promised to be a good little lap-dog for the billionaires’.

That £5.5m total puts Reform head and shoulders above any other party in terms of donations. For contrast, the Tories received £4.2m, the Lib Dems took almost £2.2m, and Labour were given £2m. Meanwhile, the Greens received just over £294k.

If you wanted a clearer demonstration of which parties are in the pockets of the super-rich (and which aren’t) – look no further.

Reform goes crypto

Speaking of shilling for the interests of the wealthy…

Back in May, Farage told the Las Vegas Bitcoin Conference that his party would launch a “crypto revolution”. On the same day, Reform announced that it would start accepting donations in crypto.

Then, in the very next financial quarter, Harborne’s major £9m donation to Reform rolled in on 1 August. It was the largest ever gift from a private individual to a political party.

At the time, the Canary highlighted that Harborne also donated millions to the Brexit Party in 2019, as well as to the Conservatives between 2001 and 2022. While Harborne is British, he’s now based in Thailand.

Sky News spoke to political donation expert professor Justin Fisher, who told them:

It exposes the fact that this is a person who is a British citizen but is able to influence British politics without being subject to the laws that any Reform government might bring in, any tax arrangements that a Reform might bring in.

This is foreign money by any other name.

Advertisement

When the crypto donation revelation surfaced, Farage insisted that Harbourne “wants nothing from me”.

Farage and the crypto lobby

Completely by coincidence, in January 2026, the Reform leader used his first ever meeting with Bank of England chief Andrew Bailey to shill for the crypto lobby.

The Reform leader reportedly criticised the Bank of England for imposing restrictions on cryptocurrencies. Instead, he urged that the UK follow Trump’s example in the US by lifting efforts to police crypto.

Likewise, he also tried to push one cryptocurrency – the Tether stablecoin, the value of which is pegged to the US dollar. In an interview with LBC Radio ahead of his first meeting with the Bank of England chief, Farage said:

I’m going to go tomorrow to say this. You know, Tether is a stablecoin. Stablecoins are the way which money goes from conventional currencies through into cryptocurrencies and back again. Tether is about to be valued as a $500bn company.

And, as luck would have it, Christopher Harbourne also just happens to be a major shareholder in Tether. Funny that, isn’t it?

Reform are not a party of the common man. They are not a friend of the everyday resident of the UK just trying to get by. As their donation history – and Farage’s flip-flopping talking points – makes clear, the party is wrapped around the finger of anyone they think will launch them to power.

Featured image via the Canary

The Immortal Man marks a new era for the Peaky Blinders

There’s plenty of nostalgia for Peaky Blinders fans

The soundtrack compliments the mood of the whole film

So, what’s the verdict?

Cuba appears to be next on Donald Trump’s hit list.

The president appeared to suggest US-assisted regime change in the communist-run Caribbean island is on his agenda during a speech Thursday while hosting Argentine soccer star Lionel Messi and his Inter Miami teammates at the White House to celebrate the club’s MLS Cup victory.

Trump began his remarks — with the players standing behind him — by giving an update on the Iran war.

While thanking the alleged “phenomenal people” involved in the military operations, Trump turned to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was in the audience, to praise his “fantastic job” and also his “fantastic job on a place called Cuba.”

Rubio’s parents fled Fidel Castro’s regime for America and he has been one of Washington’s most outspoken critics of the island’s leaders.

But what’s happening with Cuba is amazing. And we think that we want to fix, finish, this one first. But that will be just a question of time before you and a lot of unbelievable people are going to be going back to Cuba. Hopefully not to stay. We want you back. And we don’t want to lose you. We don’t want to make it so nice that they stay. But some people probably do want to stay. They love Cuba so much. I hear it all the time. That was another one that wasn’t supposed to happen.

Later in the event, Trump congratulated Inter Miami co-owner Jorge Mas, also the son of Cuban immigrants, for his team’s victory and again returned to the subject of Cuba.

Trump told him he could soon be traveling back to the island.

“You’re going to go back,” said Trump. “Oh yeah. Yeah. It’s going to be — and you won’t need my approval. You just fly back in when — I can just see that. It’s going to be a great day, right? We’re going to celebrate that separately. We, I just want to wait a couple of weeks. I wanted to wait a couple of weeks, but we’ll be together again soon, I suspect, celebrating what’s going on in Cuba. They want to make a deal so badly, you have no idea.”

Trump has previously floated the idea of a “friendly takeover” of the island amid mounting pressure from Washington for political change in the Cuban government.

On 5 March, last night, the London Metropolitan Police last night aided a Quaker meeting house, during a non-violence training session.

Violent raid on Quaker meeting

Fifteen people were arrested, one so traumatised that police had to call an ambulance.

🚨 BREAKING: 15 TAKE BACK POWER SUPPORTERS ARRESTED AT WESTMINSTER QUAKER MEETING HOUSE

They were arrested during a nonviolence training this evening for “conspiracy to commit theft”.

One of those arrested had a panic attack, and an ambulance had to be called. Two others were… pic.twitter.com/BRa2A7tBzK

Advertisement

— Take back POWER (@takeback_power) March 5, 2026

Targeting sites of worship

It’s not the first time that the state’s enforcers have violently raided a house of worship. In March 2025, Met police officers armed with tasers smashed down the door of another Quaker meeting room. In that incident, their aim was to arrest six women planning a peaceful protest. The Met had made no attempt to enter peacefully by, say, ringing the bell before battering down the door.

Quakers are committed to justice and to non-violence. Their meeting houses are frequently booked by groups engaged in non-violent activism and protests, and regularly host discussions about state oppression and exploitation.

At that point, it was the first time in living memory that police had raided a Quaker house.

Now it seems like it’s become a habit.

Featured image via the Canary

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

The Middle East is on fire again.

The United States has launched strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, identifying Tehran’s programme as an imminent threat to its security. Since then, the missiles and drones have been flying in all directions – from Israel’s and American assets into Iran, and in retaliation from Iran towards Israel and US-aligned Gulf states. In just seven days, the war has claimed thousands of lives in Iran and across the region. Lebanon too has suffered casualties, after Israel retaliated against Hezbollah – the Iran-backed militia group – following the group’s attack on the country on Sunday.

At the same time, Lebanon’s leadership has moved swiftly to curb Hezbollah’s independent military and security operations, accusing the group of dragging the country into a conflict it cannot afford. Hezbollah’s political arm, however, remains an active and influential part of Lebanon’s governing system.

The situation in Lebanon is turbulent and violent, and yet there is still a genuine hope for change. That hope came evident when I was in Beirut two weeks ago on a mission as Honorary Chairman of the International Democracy Union, visiting one of our member parties – the Kataeb Party – and meeting leading figures in Lebanese politics and society.

Hope surfaced in many conversations, most palpably around economy. Lebanon has been emerging from an unprecedented financial collapse that began in 2019, culminating in a sovereign default and the near-total breakdown of its banking sector. Since then, the Lebanese pound has lost most of its value, and banks have effectively ceased normal operations, squeezing liquidity and trapping depositors’ savings for more than six years. There is cautious optimism that reform is now inevitable. The government advanced a draft ‘financial gap law’ that aims to distribute losses fairly and provide mechanisms for depositors to reclaim their savings over time. But this process will be painful – many Lebanese have already seen their life savings evaporate. Meaningful International Monetary Fund engagement will also require a structural reform, including down-sizing public sector and enhancing financial transparency.

I saw hope with many Lebanese expats returning to their homeland to serve in rebuilding their country anew. I met with at least three accomplished individuals – leaders in business, academia and public service – who have sacrificed comfort abroad to contribute to Lebanon’s renewal. Their belief in the country’s future was humbling.

There was also hope that with Hezbollah’s recent decapitation and significant weakening by the Israeli forces, there could be a chance to minimise their influence on the political system. Much of this hope relied on the United States intervening in Iran, as it has done so in the last several days.

Lebanon’s sectarian political system is as intricate as is its society. Having been at the crossroads of civilisations, Lebanon has developed into a beautiful tapestry of intertwining cultures, religions and influences. Accurate demographic data is hard to come by, as Lebanon has not conducted an official census since 1932. Today, estimates suggest roughly 32–34 per cent Christian, 31–32 per cent Sunni, 31–32 per cent Shia, with Druze and other minorities making up the remainder.

Yet, this diversity also creates an equal challenge of finding consensus. For the longest time, the design of its political system was responding to the necessity of equal representation. Being a parliamentary republic – when the legislative branch decides on the Prime Minister, the government and the President, the powers were thought to be split equally. The Presidential post was allocated to Christians, the Speaker of the Parliament was to be a Shia Muslim, the Prime Minister – a Sunni. The political factions themselves also have their own representation, currently having six Christian and four Muslim parties holding mandates in the parliament. A classic in Western understanding majority in the Parliament does not exist – the voting – as many things in Lebanon – is situational and negotiable. Like, the election of the new President last year – the former chief of the army General Joseph Aoun was voted in with the support of both Christians and Muslims, including the Hezbollah faction.

The question of Hezbollah’s future looms large.

The group’s routes lie in the marginalisation of parts of the Shia community during the civil war era, yet many Lebanese now see it less as a protector and more as a liability. Those I spoke to genuinely believe that competitive elections could diminish Hezbollah’s parliamentary influence. At the same time, we must understand that radical political movements are merely a representation of the deep socio-economic problems that exist within the society. Simply getting rid of symptoms will not cure an illness. Lebanon has to work with marginalised communities and address the underlying inequities to minimise the risk of their further radicalisation and creation of a new ‘Hezbollah’ over time. At the same time, some of the political leaders were very forthright with me: unless Tehran’s influence and by extension Iran’s support for Hezbollah is substantially curtailed – including through an external intervention -the group could rearm within two to three years. In this case, deradicalizing Lebanon must be both internal and external effort.

The newly elected leadership – after years of vacuum – faces a monumental task. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have moved quickly to form a government and articulate a reform agenda, but building state capacity will require more than rhetoric. The Lebanese Armed Forces, underpaid and under-equipped, need revitalisation. Improving soldiers’ remuneration and restoring professionalism are prerequisites to restoring a monopoly on legitimate force.

Disarming Hezbollah will take a strong and competent army. Lebanon has relied heavily on international peacekeeping in the south. With the UN mission winding down, political leaders deliberate alternatives for security cooperation. Historically, France has been a close partner. Yet many Lebanese lament that French support often falls short of its declarations. Today, there is a greater expectation placed on Germany, Italy and the United States, while the United Kingdom’s presence feels diminished and almost irrelevant.

Security and prosperity will also hinge on Lebanon’s relationship with Israel. Formal recognition of Israel remains deeply contested in Lebanon’s fractured society, yet many see reducing Iran-backed influence as the first prerequisite to any meaningful rapprochement.

Beyond geopolitics, Lebanon needs robust internal reforms – the ones that will worsen conditions before they improve. Parliamentary elections planned for Spring may now be delayed, but they are essential. A government with a renewed democratic mandate will need to confront hard truths about economic collapse and institutional failure.

The last time I visited Lebanon was in 2005 – just as the explosion that killed former Prime Minister Farik Hariri rocked the Bay of St. George. Since then, Lebanon has weathered years of upheaval – economic collapse, political stalemate and intermittent conflicts. Today, the turbulence continues with fresh conflict erupting anew.

And yet, despite the destruction and the uncertainty of war, in Beirut hope still prevails. Hope that the beautiful jewel of the Middle East – with its unique mosaic of cultures, religions and ambitions – can rise again, harnessing innovation and the best of its people to secure a future of stability and prosperity.