We are, without doubt, living through a moment that might properly be described as World War III.
Israel and the USA opened an illegal war against Iran late last week.
Most Gulf states are now involved.
Yesterday, the USA sank an Iranian warship off Sri Lanka, considerably extending the geographic scope of the war.
We now know from reliable sources that some claims already made, including that Iran launched a drone strike against the UK base on Cyprus, were false. This raises questions about where the drone in question was launched from, with the possibility that this was a false flag operation by Israel clearly being left hanging as a result.
The UK has been compromised as a consequence, not least by reinforcing that base for what might be false reasons.
A few states have had the sense to criticise the USA. Spain has stood out for doing so.
To give him credit, Keir Starmer has put distance between himself and Trump, although he has hardly gone for the full Love Actually approach.
And the economic implications continue to roll. I am aware that stock markets rallied last night on rumours that Iran was seeking talks, but quite what the source of those rumours was is not clear. Oil prices continued to rise as a consequence.
Israel is sending out signals that it thinks this war will last for several more weeks. Whether food and water supplies to some Gulf states will last that long is open to question, because so much of their supply routes depend on the Strait of Hormuz.
Targeted attacks on desalination plants are also raising questions about whether current lifestyles in many states in the Middle Eastern region are now viable.
Sometime soon, the flows of refugees from this area are going to rise considerably, creating stress in many countries, including the UK.
And this, of course, is not the only consequence that is going to arise for the UK. We are already seeing a significant risk of increases in oil and gas prices. That will have implications both directly and indirectly for all households, as heating and transport costs rise, and this will affect the economic spectrum across the board.
At present, the likelihood of an inflation increase is high. The risk that the Bank of England will, wholly inappropriately, therefore increase, or at least sustain, current inappropriate levels of interest rates is also high. The knock-on effects will be serious, including financial stress, weakened household resilience, business failure, and more.
On top of this, the naive stock market belief that all of this will be resolved soon looks naive in the extreme. As a consequence, the stock market rally later yesterday looks to be misplaced. Israel is, after all, talking about this lasting for weeks, and there appears to be no reason to think otherwise. In that case, the consequences can only get worse.
What is more, there is no stated political endgame to this war when no justification for its commencement has yet been offered. What we therefore have to presume is that the conflict will end only because someone, as a result of circumstances, will eventually give way.
A lack of water and food in the Gulf states might force them to demand that there be an end to hostilities.
Attacks on desalination plants in Israel and Saudi Arabia might be so significant that they are forced to seek an end to hostilities.
And then there is the simple arithmetic of missile supplies to consider. Iranian missiles might be of fairly low calibre, but they still need to be knocked from the skies. Right now, the cost of the defence systems is much higher than the cost of the attack systems. Iran appears to have a deep stockpile of missiles available to it, and whether the cost ratio is really on the side of Israel and the USA, as they claim, is hard to work out.
What we therefore have is a complex situation of profound uncertainty in which the outcome of this conflict cannot be predicted.
What we do know is that Trump began this believing that his success in Venezuela made him invincible, and that his need for a war to distract from the Epstein files was overwhelming.
We know that Netanyahu has the same urgent need for continuing war.
We know that the US population is not convinced by Trump's arguments.
We now know that the UK cabinet rebelled against Starmer's instinct to warmonger, because he, too, needs a war, and they wish to be rid of him.
We know that Europe is in turmoil over where to go with regard to this policy. All the time, NATO is weakened, whilst the position of those who question it is strengthened.
And there is one overwhelming conclusion to reach. If the role of government is to act on behalf of the people it governs, then we are not seeing evidence of that in action at this moment. Instead, what we are seeing is government acting on behalf of privileged elites in the USA, in Israel, and in Iran. If there is one thing that each of these leaderships shares, it is their contempt for the people they are meant to govern, and for everyone else in the world. They are equally worthy of condemnation as a result. Their failings are apparent to everyone but themselves.
Will any good come of any of this? That, to me, is perhaps the most interesting question, and my answers are deeply contingent.
If we now realise (again) that war is profoundly damaging to civilian populations, there may be a change of attitude towards it.
If it is appreciated that regime change from the air is not actually possible, there may be a change of Middle Eastern policy, with wider implications.
And if people realise that leaders who are only concerned with their personal well-being should not be trusted, we might get a shift in politics.
There are, however, a great many maybes and straightforward doubts in those three statements. The simple fact is that war rarely produces good outcomes.
The question is when we will realise that, and when will our armed forces actually begin to doubt whether what they are asked to do is legal, beneficial, or appropriate to follow.
When that happens, we might get a total reappraisal of what defence means.
Until then, this mayhem will continue.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thanks for that concise summary of the situation. I doubt very much whether our MPs or our media have thought through the possible implications of this disastrous enterprise. If they ever did, they would be highly unlikely to come clean with the public. Indeed, I’m sure most of them just seem to be looking for opportunities for political point scoring.
The wider public want and need the truth, not jingoism and flag waving or references to Churchill. Trump is deluded, as are his henchmen, into believing they are in a Netflix series where death is sanitised and the lives of ‘foreigners’ is cheap, especially the muslims.
Where it will all end is unknown, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it will not be the wealthy that will reduced to penury by these events.
What reliable sources are saying that the drone attacks on Cyprus weren’t launched by Iran?
I can’t find any references at all to say Iran didn’t launch them. Could you share yours?
Sky News for a start
And the UK government
The UK government is saying that the attacks were by Iranian made Shahed drones fired from Lebanon, by Hezbollah. Which is sponsored, funded and armed by Iran. The Guardian is reporting the same.
Why are you promoting conspiracy theories by claiming this could be a false flag operation?
I reported that what the UK government said intitally was wrong.
If they have now decided they know – that is not what they said at the time I wrote the post.
I am not creating conspiracy theories. I am reporting questions needing answers.
Bit there is one thiung I do know. I strongly suspect your employers would not want you using a work email address here or you are using a false address. So much for truth seeking.
I think one report said it might have been launched by Hezbollah from Lebanon – but…….?
Who said ‘truth is the first casualty’?
Badenoch and Farage have really got this wrong – even in their own terms – no popular support for joining in.
All we can say is we do not know.
Ande truth is the casualty.
Just search ‘Cyprus drone not from Iran’. There are too many references to list them here.
Thanks
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-cyprus-raf-base-akrotiri-36817529
https://greekcitytimes.com/2026/03/05/cyprus-raf-akrotiri-drone-attack-trump-starmer-troops/
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/cyprus-condemns-uk-after-raf-base-which-launched-gaza-spy-flights-hit-drone
I believe Starmer’s utterances have been entirely performative, in an attempt to pacify, if that’s the appropriate word, those in his party who oppose this illegal war. The reality is that, by making the 2 bases available, he has ensured that the UK is complicit, and he knows it. Trump’s recent criticism of Starmer is Farage-inspired nonsense. The US have the UK right where they want it. Compliant.
You’re absolutely right about WW3. That means our Government should be doing some really serious contingency planning, as I tried to outline in a comment yesterday. As far as we can see, it isn’t.
Hi Richard
Just watched Michael Hudson on Democracy now,
His theory that the American attack on Iran is all about oil
and the control of the dollar with regard to the oil trade.
I believe Iran supplies China with a very large proportion of it’s oil and gets paid in Chinese currency. He also spoke about the role of the dollar in the oil business and how it benefits America.
An Interesting video might be how the USA controls the Middle East Countries through the oil trade and how the USA benefits.
Thanks
I am not sure I have much to add on that subject.
Well said Richard. May I say that the attack and sinking of the Iranian ship off the coast of Sri Lanka was illegal. For clarity:
International laws of naval warfare, primarily governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), establish that the high seas are open to all states and are reserved for peaceful purposes. Military force is only permitted under specific conditions, such as self-defense or with multilateral authorization, to ensure that actions do not violate state sovereignty or international legal principles.
Thanks
The only way out of this that I can see would be mass protest/civil disobedience in Israel. Trump is obviously under Netanyahu’s thumb, most likely with Epstein leverage, and has allowed himself to be manipulated into starting this pointless and unwinnable war.
Only if the Israeli people stand up and say “Enough” could this possibly de-escalate at this stage.
Another, even less likely possibility would be mass resgination or refusal of orders by American top brass. There have been rumours about this already, but they remain rumours for now.
I think at this point we just have to accept that global markets are completely decoupled from reality. Universal US tariffs, wars in Europe and the Middle East, signs of a massive AI bubble (which, if it’s not a bubble, will decimate employment), the Suez Canal at risk and the straits of Hormuz shut down. Barely a ripple.
It goes to show that extreme wealth and asset inflation has yet to run its course, but I suspect the reckoning, when it eventually comes, will be ugly. I honestly think it may be years rather than weeks yet… as ever, timing markets is a fool’s game, even if the long term direction must be obvious to all by now.