-
AAPL
213.43 (+0.29%)
-
BARC-LN
1205.7 (-1.46%)
-
NKE
94.05 (+0.39%)
-
CVX
152.67 (-1.00%)
-
CRM
230.27 (-2.34%)
-
INTC
30.5 (-0.87%)
-
DIS
100.16 (-0.67%)
-
DOW
55.79 (-0.82%)
The Iran war is just what Putin’s depleted coffers need
Of all the parties watching the chaos in the Middle East unfold, one should be rubbing its hands together with particular satisfaction. Russia has not fired a shot in this conflict, lost no allies it cannot afford to lose and has so far gained rather a lot, with more to come. A cynic might call it the perfect war for Vladimir Putin.
Moscow’s public reaction has been characteristically theatrical. The Foreign Ministry denounced American and Israeli actions as a “reckless step” and a “dangerous adventure.” Things have gone no further. There has been no announcement of political or military support for Iran from the Kremlin – nor is there likely to be: Russia needs its drones and missiles for Ukraine. In any case, Iran’s military usefulness to Moscow has already passed: they have already mastered and indigenized Iran’s Shahed drone technology so Tehran is no longer needed as a supplier. Bilateral trade between the two countries amounts to a modest $5 billion, mostly agricultural goods that can easily be sourced or sold elsewhere. The loss of Iran as a partner worries the Kremlin very little.
The loss of Iran as a partner worries the Kremlin very little
What the Kremlin does care about is money – and here the Middle East crisis has been unexpectedly generous. Oil prices for Russian crude have climbed from under $40 a barrel in December to around $72 in the past week and are rising, first on expectations of war and then as tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz ground to a halt. This is already well above the $59 baseline built into the Russian Finance Ministry’s 2026 budget – a welcome development given that January’s oil and gas revenues fell to a four-year low of 393 billion roubles ($4.97 billion), and the budget deficit hit a record 1.7 trillion roubles ($21.5 billion). The government had begun quietly discussing spending cuts. Now, at least for the moment, that conversation is less urgent.
At current prices, Russia is earning an additional $3.6 billion per month – nearly $22 billion over six months, or roughly 0.9 percent of GDP – compared to December.
The Eurasia Group’s base case – a continuation of disruptions lasting several weeks, followed by a return to pre-war price levels – suggests Russia’s windfall may be temporary. The most dangerous scenario for Moscow is one in which prices spike above $100, tipping Europe into recession, slowing China and crushing global oil demand. But that would take time to materialize, and in the meantime, Russia will pocket what it can.
For now, Russia is seeing demand for its oil rising, and the usual discount to Brent is shrinking. Russia has already received the green light from America to sell oil to India – one of its biggest buyers alongside China – which had promised to switch to Saudi crude but finds itself constrained by the ongoing conflict. Further sanctions relief may follow if the war drags on. Following an hour-long conversation with Putin, Donald Trump hinted last night that he may ease some sanctions on Russia “until the Strait is up.”
The story with gas is, if anything, more interesting – and not merely financially. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz could disrupt up to a quarter of global monthly LNG supplies. Qatar, which provides roughly 12 percent of European LNG imports, suspended operations at Ras Laffan, the world’s largest LNG terminal. European gas futures have spiked sharply, raising the specter of a repeat of the 2022 crisis. This puts the EU’s cherished plan to phase out Russian LNG by 2027 in an awkward position. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Hungary and Slovakia together import some 40 billion cubic meters of Russian gas annually – around 15 percent of total European demand. Even a few weeks of Qatari disruption could be enough to freeze EU plans for a post-April ban on new Russian contracts.
Putin, ever alert to leverage, moved quickly. In remarks last week week, he mused that Russia might find it more profitable to abandon the European gas market entirely and shift to “markets that are opening up.” He added, with characteristic disingenuousness, that this was “not a decision – thinking out loud,” then immediately instructed the government and energy companies to model the transition. The comments came directly after a meeting with Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó, who helpfully confirmed that Russian energy remains critically important for Budapest. The choreography was not subtle.
Moscow’s real prize here is political. Rising gas prices strengthen the hand of pro-Russian governments and parties across the continent. They increase pressure on Brussels to soften its stance and make it harder for the EU to move forward with new sanctions packages – work on which has, conveniently, apparently slowed. In the gas market, Russia benefits whether the conflict is short or long: a brief disruption brings immediate financial gains and a sanctions slowdown; a prolonged one may well extend Russian gas contracts and amplify the voices of those European governments most opposed to the “Russophobic establishment,” as Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev helpfully characterized it.
There is also a quieter windfall in fertilizers. The Middle East accounts for between 40 and 50 percent of global nitrogen fertilizer trade, nearly all of it passing through Hormuz. Russia is already a key global supplier of ammonia and nitrogen fertilizers; together with Belarus, it controls some 40 percent of global potash exports. With Qatari, Iranian and Egyptian production all disrupted simultaneously, Russia faces a sellers’ market. Nigerian and Ghanaian importers are already placing advance orders for the third quarter of the year. Russia is gaining both revenue and goodwill among the countries of the Global South it has spent three years cultivating.
And then there is Ukraine. Washington’s diplomatic attention has drifted; the pressure on Kyiv has eased, but so has the US pressure on Moscow. Air defense missiles are being redirected to the Middle East. A protracted conflict, wearing down both Western arsenals and Western willingness, suits Russia perfectly.
The optimal scenario for Moscow is precisely what it is quietly working to encourage: a conflict of moderate, sustained intensity that keeps energy prices elevated without triggering a global recession. Whether the financial gains are large enough to paper over Russia’s budget crisis – and the political ones sufficient to keep the war in Ukraine grinding on without constraint – depends largely on how quickly, and at what price, order is restored in the Gulf.
For now, Vladimir Putin is watching events he did not start and cannot control – and has clearly concluded that, on balance, things are going rather well.
Is Trump turning GOP succession into The Apprentice?
At a private dinner with two dozen donors, President Trump surveyed the room and asked which candidate they would choose to follow him in leading the MAGA movement. The vote was almost unanimously in favor of Marco Rubio over J.D. Vance. As the two men vie to be next-in-line to the throne, Trump seems to be enjoying the spectacle.
If Rubio was indeed preferred in this (albeit skewed) environment, it is not much of a surprise to Cockburn. Vance has appealed strongly to an online contingency which is… overrepresented online. Remember when Rubio fell on his sword because he wanted to keep Trump out of office? Of course not; that was over two seasons ago.
Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, comes across as a late-stage auditionée who doesn’t have the respect of the crowd. His entire dramatic purpose is to make the other two look better in comparison. At the end of the day it’s not a competition between the Old Republican party and the New, but between the most savvy conservatives Ohio and Florida have to offer. Make of that what you will. Trump has proven himself to be more motivated by hometown pride than expected– he likes Zohran Mamdani because he is a New Yorker, so it may follow he prefers Rubio because Rubio is from the state where he plays golf and stops by Hispanic restaurants.
This is just how things look when a movement that once defined itself as being anti-establishment becomes the establishment. America may have needed a businessman president but one thing’s for sure: we will end up with a career politician yet again.
On our radar
NO-TACO TUESDAY War Secretary Pete Hegseth said, “Today will be once again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran,” at an 8 a.m. ET press conference.
GREENE PASTURES Some 17 candidates face off today in a Georgia special election to replace firebrand Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who resigned from the US House in January.
HARVEY’S CRYING GAME Disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein has given an extensive prison interview to the Hollywood Reporter in which he says, “Did I ever sexually assault a woman? No. I never did that.”
Talarico turbulence
James Talarico has undergone a seven-day baptism of fire since his victory over Representative Jasmine Crockett in last week’s Democratic primary for a US Senate seat in Texas. The RNC’s rapid-response account has been feasting on resurfaced clips of Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian, saying that he loved the “trans children” who showed up to “advocate for their humanity” and attempting to argue parts of the Bible are pro-choice. That’s not to mention wider discussion of an Axios story from November about how Pastor Talarico followed a number of escorts and OnlyFans girls on Instagram (though he may point to Matthew 21 to justify such outreach). Many of the young women in question deleted their social-media accounts at the time and have yet to return.
Perhaps the Republicans are hoping to draw focus from their own candidate selection woes: incumbent Senator John Cornyn is headed for a runoff against Attorney General Ken Paxton. President Trump has said he’ll endorse in the race and would like the other candidate to drop out; Paxton has said he’ll withdraw if Cornyn changes his mind and votes to advance the SAVE America Act on voter ID. No wonder they’d rather discuss some meddlesome priest…
RFK Jr.’s animal magnetism
Those Kennedys! Many of you will remember the revelations about the romantic relationship between RFK Jr. and the journalist Olivia Nuzzi during the former’s presidential campaign. Now, it has been revealed that Nuzzi was not the only woman on the campaign trail who took a shine to the political scion and veteran health campaigner.
Fittingly for RFK, there was apparently a quasi-supernatural element. Former female campaign aides describe how the candidate cast a “bizarre spiritual spell” on them. “He really pierces you deep in your soul spiritually,” recounted one.
Reading through the Daily Mail’s report, Cockburn can’t help but think that some of those interviewed were hamming things up for effect. Asked to detail some of RFK’s supposedly eccentric behavior, key political ally Tony Lyons describes some decidedly normal habits:
“He’s taken one-hour hikes each day for the 15 years that I’ve known him. And AA [Alcoholics Anonymous] for one additional hour. And the gym. And he takes daily showers, which may seem bizarre to you. He also sleeps 6-7 hours a night. He turns his phone off, which is also bizarre.”
Is it, though? What seems odder to Cockburn is the power that this dynasty still exerts after all these years.
Why Alba failed
Farewell, then, Alba, the little party that tried to take on the Scottish political establishment and learned, as others had before it, that the establishment always wins. You can join it but you can never beat it.
When Salmond went, so did Alba’s soul
Just to rub salt into the wound, the party has imploded only two months before the Scottish Parliament elections. And that was Alba’s only real purpose: to contribute to a pro-independence majority at Holyrood which, so the notion went, would then notify Westminster that Scotland was leaving.
This was the plan set out by the late Alex Salmond in which he would have played the part of Moses, Keir Starmer Pharaoh, and the Scots the Israelites: ‘Let ma people go!’ It’s almost heartbreaking that we will never get to witness the absolute scenes this would have occasioned.
Alba was, depending on your prejudices, Salmond’s one-man band or an inevitable reaction to the SNP’s failure to achieve independence. Salmond quit the party to which he gave most of his life after a Scottish government investigation accused him of sexually harassing two women. The Scottish government admitted in court that its probe had been ‘unlawful’, ‘procedurally unfair’, and ‘tainted with apparent bias’. The authorities then charged him with a series of sex crimes, but a jury cleared him on all counts. Salmond claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by some of the most powerful people in Scottish politics. Going back was no longer an option.
Salmond’s answer was Alba, a party committed to independence but impatient with the SNP’s gradualism, and one vocal in opposition to his old party’s embrace of gender identity ideology. On paper, everything was in alignment: a major political figure, a resolutely pro-independence party, and a platform of resisting gender self-identification. Half the country backs independence and the vast majority are not on board with pretending blokes are women. So why did Alba fail?
There is the obvious explanation: the man died. When Salmond went, so did Alba’s soul. Another is the difficulty of breaking the electoral mould. For all the talk of Holyrood’s proportional voting system, the major parties (the SNP, Tories, Labour) have continued to exercise a hold over the parliament. Then there are the financial demands of running a party, the organisational challenges, and the headaches of factionalism and internal disputes over personalities and policies. Some independence supporters refused to vote for a party with a ‘socially conservative’ (i.e. gender critical) stance on trans matters; some gender-critical voters couldn’t bring themselves to treat with separatists.
But was there something else going on, something too revealing to be acknowledged by Alba’s target voters? Alba, you see, wasn’t just pro-independence. It was really pro-independence. Its policy statement on the matter isn’t backwards about coming forwards: it is titled ‘We Don’t Need Westminster’s Permission’. Alba asserted that a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament – something that has been in existence continuously since 2011 – formed ‘the basis to commence negotiations to establish an independent Scottish state’.
The party urged voters to confirm their backing for a breakaway at the 2026 Holyrood elections. ‘[A]n election,’ it assured supporters, ‘can be used as a means for restoring independence as courts do not and can not block elections or thwart manifesto commitments that the people of Scotland can mandate.’ It all sounds a bit Lionel Hutz, attorney at law, but it had the advantage of candour. If only Westminster could grant another referendum, and Westminster kept saying No, the independence movement was going to have to call Westminster’s bluff.
It was a risky approach. If (when) Westminster said No, Alba would have to choose whether and how to stand their ground, at which point the UK would have been thrown into a constitutional crisis of a kind unseen since the battle over Irish Home Rule. Which, however much a person supports independence, is a scary prospect. The SNP has spent years de-fanging independence, framing it as ‘normal’, non-threatening, just a wee tidy-up of constitutional arrangements. After two decades of the SNP in power at Holyrood, and 12 years on from the 2014 referendum, support for independence is the settled view of the Scottish government.
Perhaps a little too settled. Because while the SNP talks about independence, campaigns on it, and pumps out (civil servant-authored) propaganda in favour of it, it has no plan for delivering it. That should hurt the party electorally but the fact it doesn’t confirms that the SNP is truly a big-tent party: it’s for those who want independence but it’s also for those who don’t. You can vote for them safe in the knowledge that while they believe in independence, they don’t believe in doing anything about it.
How many independence voters feel the same? Yes, the polls show support at around 50 per cent, sometimes less, sometimes more, but given a choice between a party which has essentially thrown its hands up in despair and a party which threatens to take risks on the off-chance that it moves the dial forward, these voters are more comfortable with the former. Inertia or action? Independence voters seemingly say the former, which prompts an obvious question: can an independence voter who prefers change in theory but the status quo in practice really be called an independence voter?
Yes, there are tactics, and strategies, and long games, and credibility, and some – many – voters might feel the SNP is more serious and therefore the safer choice. Independence will come eventually. The challenge Alba posed to the SNP was: why not now? Maybe the answer is that nominally pro-independence voters have become devolutionists without realising it.
Should Reeves cut fuel duty?
With Donald Trump signalling that he does not want a long war in Iran, markets have started to settle down. Traders are no longer betting on interest rate hikes, the FTSE is in the green and a barrel of oil is hovering around $90.
Nevertheless, the pressure on the Chancellor to set out further financial support to tackle the cost of living is on. The average five-year fixed mortgage passed 5 per cent today for the first time since November, prices at the pumps have jumped at their fastest pace in four years, and Morgan Stanley is the latest bank to warn that inflation could hit 5 per cent later this year.
On petrol and diesel, Rachel Reeves is angry with service stations. The British government will ‘not tolerate price gouging,’ she told MPs today – pointing to the disparity yesterday between some petrol stations charging under 130p a litre while others had hiked costs to 180p.
Reform, meanwhile, say it is the Chancellor who risks pushing fuel costs even higher. Visiting a petrol station in Derbyshire this morning, Nigel Farage and his Treasury spokesperson Robert Jenrick announced Reform plans to cut the government’s 5p fuel duty rise that is due to come in from September. Mel Stride has made similar calls.
The reversal is estimated to cost £2.4 billion a year by 2029. Behind the announcement, though, we see a demonstration of Reform’s new approach to their economic policy. Absolutely everything must be costed, even if, privately, those close to Jenrick admit this is difficult. To that end, Reform has included a sizeable margin of error in its current economic plans. It has called for Labour to scrap the Boiler Upgrade Scheme and ‘carbon capture usage and storage’ spending which, Reform say, would save over £12 billion by the end of this parliament. On top of that, Reform has also announced that they would scrap the electric car grant and save another £1.5 billion. Reeves has, so far, ruled a fuel duty U-turn out.
Back in Westminster, calls for further cost-of-living support from Reeves have gathered pace. Martin Lewis is on television even more than normal. The concern among Labour MPs is that if Trump does not wrap up his war in Iran in the next few weeks, then despite today’s calmer markets, Ofgem will calculate a large price hike from July. At that point, the pressure for action from a Chancellor who has made living costs her main priority will become unbearable. So what might Reeves consider?
Deutsche Bank researchers set some proposals out in a note to clients this afternoon:
- Granting Jenrick and Stride’s wish and extending the fuel duty freeze for another year (cost: £700 million)
- Year long fuel duty cut (£2.3 billion)
- A temporary VAT cut on energy bills (£1.8 billion)
- Council tax relief or lump sum payments (£2.4 billion)
- Expanding the warm homes discount (£450 million)
- Bringing back Liz Truss’s energy price guarantee to limit Ofgem’s cap (£1.4 billion – £6 billion)
It’s the last of those suggestions that is worrying some economists. As I explain on today’s Coffee House Shots, it was Liz Truss’s limitless commitment to control energy prices, rather than the mini-Budget, that really spooked markets and, arguably, led to her downfall. That support cost a lot more than any of the Deutsche Bank options (roughly £80 billion), but the potential for growing costs and require ever more borrowing is there.
When I went fishing among my City contacts for quotes yesterday, the responses were fairly underwhelming. ‘Meh, things are not as bad as you think,’ was the general view. ‘But gilts are still fucked though,’ one trader added. And that is where the Chancellor is vulnerable. As long as Britain’s ‘moron premium’ remains – the result of structurally higher inflation expectations after years of short-sighted energy and labour market policy – any hint of new borrowing will worry the market strangers we rely on. Reeves will be desperate to avoid making further cost-of-living commitments. For our own sakes, we should hope she does not have to.
No, Britain is not about to run out of gas
Over the weekend, following continued US-Israeli attacks on Iran and the resulting disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, several newspapers warned that Britain has ‘just two days of gas’ left in storage. This line appeared prominently in coverage from outlets including the Guardian and the Times, leaving readers with the impression that the country may be only days away from running out. It is a striking statistic, but one that is also profoundly misleading.
Britain does indeed have relatively little gas in storage compared with continental European countries. But the implication that the country could somehow run out of gas within a matter of days reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the British energy system actually works. The UK gas network was never designed to operate like a giant reservoir. It was built around continuous flows.
Those flows come from three main sources. The first is domestic production from the North Sea, which provided an average of 43 per cent of Britain’s gas supply between 2020 and 2024. The second is pipeline imports from Norway, delivered through infrastructure such as the Langeled – one of the largest subsea gas pipelines in the world – with Norway alone supplying three quarters of the gas Britain imports. The third is liquefied natural gas arriving by ship at British terminals, much of which originates in the United States, which provided 17 per cent of our gas in 2024.
Taken together, gas from UK and Norwegian fields accounted for 79 per cent of Britain’s total gas supply in 2024, with LNG imports and storage making up the remainder. So long as we do not go to war with Norway, and Iran remains unable to blockade the Atlantic to prevent American tankers reaching Britain, we will still have access to gas supplies.
The strait of Hormuz is not relevant, in supply terms, to Britain, as our imports from the Middle East are tiny. In fact, Britain imports roughly as much LNG from Trinidad and Tobago (1.6 per cent of total gas imports) as it does from Qatar (1.8 per cent). The backbone of the UK’s gas supply remains the North Sea basin and Norway, making Britain far less exposed to geopolitical chokepoints than many Asian economies that rely heavily on Gulf energy exports.
None of this means that Britain is immune from global energy shocks. If tensions in the Middle East disrupt global LNG markets, prices will rise. Britain participates in an integrated European gas market, and wholesale prices at the National Balancing Point tend to track movements at the continental benchmark, the Title Transfer Facility. In that sense, the UK may pay more for gas when global supply tightens. But that is a price, not a supply, problem.
In effect, Britain’s energy system functions more like a river than a reservoir. Gas is constantly flowing into the network rather than sitting idle underground waiting to be used. The shutting of the Strait of Hormuz will not have a significant impact on either LNG imports from America, our own extraction from the North Sea or what we receive from Norway. That is why discussions about our natural gas reserves, or lack thereof, is a red herring.
The implication that the UK could somehow run out of gas within a matter of days reflects a fundamental misunderstanding
This is also why comparisons with continental Europe are often misunderstood. Countries such as Germany maintain vastly larger underground storage facilities than Britain. Yet during the 2022 energy crisis Germany faced far more severe disruption, had to nationalise its biggest gas importer and was even pushed into a recession in 2023.
The reason is simple: storage does not insulate a country from market prices. Gas sitting underground is still valued at the prevailing wholesale price, and utilities must pay whatever the market demands to refill those stores once they are drawn down. Even a country with months of gas in storage therefore remains fully exposed to price shocks in the wider European market. Storage improves resilience against physical shortages, but it does not shield consumers from volatility. In 2022, Germany’s vast reserves did little to prevent the surge in energy prices that swept across Europe.
Headlines suggesting that Britain has ‘two days of gas left’ therefore do something quite dangerous. They take a technically accurate statistic about storage levels and turn it into an implication of imminent national vulnerability. At a moment of international uncertainty, when public reassurance matters, that kind of framing risks amplifying panic rather than improving understanding.
Britain faces many real energy challenges. An imminent physical shortage of gas is not one of them.
What would Katie Lam’s defection to Reform mean for the Tories?
Fresh from chastising Labour for not involving Britain more deeply in another American misadventure in the Middle East, Kemi Badenoch is reportedly planning a ‘root and branch’ shadow cabinet reshuffle. Those most at risk are said to be her top team of Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride, Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp.
For Lam, there are plenty of reasons to defect to Nigel Farage’s party
The intention, the Daily Mail suggests, is to promote younger MPs ‘to energise the battered Tory brand’. Stride is said to ‘lack energy’, Patel ‘reminds voters of record levels of migration’, and Philp is believed to ‘no longer [be] fully focused on the job at hand’. None of these is a surprise.
Stride has largely been an absent Shadow Chancellor. As a leadership rival, his appointment was a sign of Badenoch’s lack of interest in economics – she claimed last year that politics was now all about culture – and he responded with a similar disdain for his brief. Similarly, as the Home Secretary who presided over both the Boriswave and the explosion in small boat arrivals, Patel was a busted flush long before Badenoch appointed her. Any attempt to move on from 14 years of Tory failure was always going to be difficult with her in such a prominent position. By contrast, Philp has proven an energetic Shadow Home Secretary, with something of the prefect about him. But having been a Home Office minister, there was always a sense he was running against his own record. By clearing all of them out, an opportunity arises to promote fresher faces.
CCHQ has apparently been ‘monitoring’ the 2024 intake of MPs for ‘their ability to cut through to young audiences online’. By their metrics, the best is Katie Lam, currently a Shadow Whip. This isn’t just a recognition of her talent, but is driven by worries she might be off to Reform.
For Lam, there are plenty of reasons to defect to Nigel Farage’s party. At last year’s locals, all of the wards in her Weald of Kent constituency went teal. Lam faces the very real prospect of being unemployed in three-and-a-half years if she stays Tory – no matter how many endearing videos of herself flipping pancakes and visiting local vineyards she puts up on Instagram. Having worked in both the Home Office and Number 10, she has exactly the sort of government experience of which Farage is in dire need. If she were to hold her nose and head to Millbank, she would be welcomed with open arms, and made a Reform star. Team Lam strenuously denies that she plans to become the thinking man’s Laila Cunningham, and follow her chum Robert Jenrick’s example.
Nonetheless, to keep Lam in the tent, Badenoch is said to be planning on promoting her to fill the space left by the ‘dead wood’ of the aforementioned trio. It seems a slam dunk: another defector bought off, a top team refreshed, a break made from the past, and a shadow cabinet kicked up the bottom. But Badenoch should be careful what she wishes.
I first identified Lam as one to watch in a ConservativeHome profile of her back in 2023. Having waded through the selections of endless identikit councillors and local favourites, Lam stood out: an ex-Spad, a former President of the Cambridge Union and Goldman Sachs employee who wrote musicals in her spare time. Out of all the 2024 hopefuls, she seemed like an obvious future leader; I obliquely advocated for her running to replace Rishi Sunak, straight after her election, as Ruth Davidson had done immediately after becoming an MSP. She was untainted by the outgoing dumpster fire, and clearly due for Big Things.
Her success since entering the Commons has proven my suspicions right. She’s head and shoulders above most on the Tory benches in terms of intellect, commitment and ambition. That she wasn’t immediately put in Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet was a mistake, a small-minded deference on the leader’s part to time served and loyalty rather than the best use of the slim resources available. As with the eventual elevation of Nick Timothy and Neil O’Brien, this is an example of Badenoch taking months to do what Jenrick was thought to intend immediately. Better late than never. But Lam has made an impression, especially through her eloquent and eye-catching speech on the rape gangs scandal last year.
Yet as Jenrick’s defenestration proved, there is little room for tall poppies in Badenoch’s Conservatives. In the first few months after her election, her erstwhile rival filled the void Badenoch left with her disdain in policy, media appearances and sandwiches. He demonstrated to Tories what they were missing; the leadership chatter grew louder as the party fell further behind Reform.
Similarly, if Lam were promoted, one suspects it wouldn’t be long until she was challenging Badenoch for the affections of her party, shooting up the ConHome league table, winning more plaudits for speeches, revelling in profiles, and being talked up as the obvious replacement if the Conservatives endure another shellacking in May. Lam might soon seem to be the cuckoo in the shadow cabinet nest. Could Badenoch handle that? Look how things went with Jenrick.
Team Lam strenuously denies that she plans to defect to Reform
Undoubtedly, Badenoch’s position has strengthened. Her approval ratings have shot up since her Budget response speech went viral. She has finally grasped how to do PMQs; with a more proactive team around her, she is showing that the Tories are not yet wholly exhausted. But she remains the leader who took her party from first to third, who left the space open to Farage with her inaction, and who, as her America-brained response to the Iran crisis has showed, remains trapped by the sort of stale thinking that the Right’s big brains disdain. She is the past; Lam is the future.
In which case, perhaps Badenoch should reassess whether she should fight so hard to keep Lam in the Tory tent. As with Jenrick, her defecting to Reform would remove her as leadership contender. Yes, it would mean losing one of the party’s few burgeoning talents, and be a sign to the young and bright on the Right that throwing in their lot with Farage might be the best course of action. But Badenoch would at least get to stay on as leader a little longer, in the absence of an alternative.
What Timothée Chalamet gets wrong about opera and ballet
In February, Timothée Chalamet said to his fellow actor Matthew McConaughey, as part of a CNN and Variety town hall: “I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera or things that are, hey, let’s keep this thing alive even though it’s like no one cares about this thing anymore.” The studio audience laughed along with Chalamet, while McConaughey weighed in with, “yeah, yeah, yeah, we hear you.” Perhaps realizing the offense he was causing, Chalamet added, “with all due respect to the ballet and opera people out there, I just lost 14 cents in viewership.”
Two weeks passed before the video of this went viral, leading to widespread condemnation of Chalamet’s remarks by those in the ballet world. Derek Deane, former artistic director of English National Ballet, was one of the first to react, stating “when my production of Swan Lake is performed at the Royal Albert Hall, almost 5,000 people are there at every performance. A dying art form? I think not.”
Christopher Wheeldon, a choreographer who mixes ballet with Broadway shows, stated, “Ballet and opera are not relics of the past. They are living, evolving art forms sustained by artists who devote their lives to mastering them. As artists we have a responsibility to respect other art forms, even those we may not personally admire. They all matter.” Social media platforms have been, and continue to be, awash with criticism of Chalamet.
One issue that has not been much referenced is that Chalamet’s mother, Nicole Flender, was a professional dancer: she attended Yale University on a ballet scholarship and danced with New York City Ballet as a child, switching to Broadway musicals such as Fiddler on the Roof and Hello Dolly before marrying Marc Chalamet. So, one might reasonably assume that her son has not made these comments from a position of ignorance.
Chalamet’s reference to keeping ballet and opera alive when “no one cares” was part of a wider discussion with McConaughey about the attention spans of the moviegoing public, and the generational differences in consumption between Gen Z and Millennials. Chalamet specifically referenced films such as Barbie and Oppenheimer that still managed to arouse passionate support from younger audiences. Clearly he doesn’t believe the same applies to ballet and opera. I think though he is mistaken.
I read Chalamet’s comments while on a visit to the Lithuanian National Ballet and Opera in Vilnius, just before witnessing a class of the company’s ballet soloists. For those not familiar with ballet, every dancer’s day invariably starts with a “class” in which all aspects of their technique are exercised by a ballet master. Fifty young boys and girls were also sitting avidly watching the process, all almost certainly dreaming about becoming ballet dancers themselves one day. Around 1,200 young people pursue vocational dance training in the UK, far more than can ever gain employment as professional dancers. It’s an international passion for an art that is far from dying.
Chalamet’s comments may have some resonance when it comes to the high cost of accessing ballet and opera. The only available ticket I could find for Rigoletto at the Royal Opera House, later this month, cost £282, but the production is virtually sold out. So, the price may be high but the house is generally full.
It’s perhaps not coincidental that Chalamet’s remarks came within a month of the Academy Awards ceremony, to be held on 15 March. Chalamet is up for the Best Actor award for his performance in Marty Supreme and, as has been the case in past years, some notoriety in the run-up to the Awards can be a good thing.
Perhaps the wittiest response has come from Seattle Opera, which is selling tickets for its production of Carmen with a discount using the promotional code, “Timothee!” On Instagram, Sir Matthew Bourne pointed out that if nobody cares about ballet and opera, why is the world’s most popular musical about ballet and opera, noting that Phantom of the Opera has grossed over $6 billion, more than double the income of the highest-grossing film (Avatar, at around $3 billion)
Being generous, I think that Chalamet was trying to say that movies have a bigger and more diverse audience than opera or ballet and that he’d rather be involved in an art form that connects with the most people, which is fair enough. What he didn’t need to say was that no one cares about ballet and opera, a statement he might now be regretting.
Three more bets for day 1 of the Cheltenham Festival
The decision by connections to run Lossiemouth in today’s Unibet Champion Hurdle (4 p.m.), rather than the Close Brothers Mares’ Hurdle on Thursday, is good for racing but not ideal for my two ante-post bets in the big race, the highlight of day one of the Cheltenham Festival.
Irish trainer Willie Mullins’ talented mare is unbeaten in her three visits to the Cheltenham Festival, winning a Triumph Hurdle and two Mares’ Hurdles. This will be her stiffest task to date as she is probably even better over two-and-a-half miles than today’s trip of just over two miles. However, she is still going to be very hard to beat today, especially with cheekpieces fitted for the first time.
Unlike Lossiemouth, Brighterdaysahead, the other mare at the top of the market, has saved her best performances for away from Cheltenham, failing to win despite being well fancied on both her visits to the Festival over the past two years.
The New Lion, who won the Grade 1 Turners Novices’ Hurdle at the Festival a year ago, is the other horse at the top of the market with a big chance of winning. Stable confidence seems high but I would expect at least one of the three mares in the line-up to beat him.
I am happy enough with my two ante-post bets in the race: the third mare Golden Ace each way at 16-1 and Tutti Quanti each way at 20-1.
Golden Ace was, of course, lucky to win the Champion Hurdle last year after first Constitution Hill, the 1-2 favourite, and then State Man, who had a commanding lead at the last hurdle, fell. However, according to her trainer Jeremy Scott, Golden Ace comes into today’s race in better form than last year and I wouldn’t put anyone backing her each way now at 10-1.
Tutti Quanti might just be outclassed in such a competitive race but he is an improving horse who is likely to lead and he should, at least, give supporters, including me, a good run for their money.
Today’s superb card kicks off with the Grade 1 Sky Bet Supreme Novices’ Hurdle (1.20 pm), and this is a high-quality version of this race. Once again, this contest is going to be hard to win now that Willie Mullins has chosen it as the target for three of his string, including Mighty Park and Leader d’Allier.
Old Park Star, trained by Nicky Henderson, comes into the race with a formidable reputation but I am, once again, happy enough with my ante-post each-way tip of Sober Glory at 12-1 even though the ground will not be a soft as he would like. Joint trainer Philip Hobbs and Johnson White have stabled plenty of high-class horses over the years and this one could be right up with the best of them.
I am far less happy with my two ante-post tips for Singer Arkle Challenge Trophy Novices’ Chase (2 p.m.). Gordon Elliott has opted to run unbeaten chaser Romeo Coolio in the Brown Advisory Novices’ Chase tomorrow even though he is untried at the trip. Equally annoyingly, my second tip in the race, Mambonumberfive became a non-runner yesterday afternoon due to a bruised foot.
If both horses at the top of the market in the Arkle stay on their feet, Kopek Des Bordes is likely to fight out the finish with Lulamba and my preference would be for the former. However, I will simply be watching the race to enjoy it given his short price.
The McCoy Contractors Juvenile Handicap Hurdle (2.40 p.m.), that’s the ‘Fred Winter’ in old money, is an ultra-competitive 22-runner contest for four-year-olds. AMMES is well handicapped on his flat form and has taken well to hurdles winning two of his three starts and running his best race when second to Minella Study. Ammes was considered a Grade 1 JCB Triumph Hurdle candidate at the start of the season so to get into this handicap off a mark of just 128 looks lenient.
Victory for Ammes would be a first Festival for success for both trainer James Owen and champion jockey Sean Bowen. I preferred the price of 11-1 available still on Sunday evening because since then the horse has shortened in the market. Nevertheless, back him one point each way at 9-1 Best Odds Guaranteed (BOG) with bet365 paying six places.
Joint trainers Joel Parkinson and Sue Smith will have only two runners at the Cheltenham Festival and I am happy with my ante-post bet on Konfusion at 20-1 for the Ultima Handicap Chase (3.20pm).
However, I am also going to put up their other runner, GRAND GESTE, in the last race on the card today, the National Hunt Challenge Cup Novices’ Handicap Chase (5.20 pm) over nearly three miles and six furlongs.
He’s an improving stayer who proved his stamina last time out when landing the William Hill Half A Mill Grand National Trial Handicap Chase. Returning to novices’ company is a plus so back him one point each way at 16-1 with bet365, paying five places.
However, I want to go into this race double-handed because the shrewd Irish handler Paul Nolan has laid out ICEBERG THEORY for this race and, although unproven at this distance, he looks a stout stayer too. He has been hammered in the market over the past two days but back him one point each way at 11-2 (BOG) with bet365 or Betfred, paying five places.
The Sun Racing Plate Handicap Chase (4.40 p.m.) is too hard for me to solve so I will leave that with just the three new wagers for today. The opening day of the Festival is almost always a real treat and today should be no exception so enjoy the quality racing even if it proves a difficult to find winners.
Pending:
1 point each way Sober Glory for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle at 12-1 NRNB, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places.
1 point each way Romeo Coolio at 16-1 for the Arkle Chase, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places. Non Runner.
1 point each way Mambonumberfive at 20-1 for the Arkle Chase, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places. Non Runner.
1 point each way Ammes at 9-1 BOG in the Juvenile Handicap Hurdle, paying 1/5th odds, 6 places.
1 point each way Konfusion at 20-1 for the Ultima Chase, paying ¼ odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Golden Ace at 16-1 for the Champion Hurdle, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places.
1 point each way Tutti Quanti at 20-1 NRNB for the Champion Hurdle, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places.
1 point each way Iceberg Theory at 11-2 BOG for the NH Novices’ Chase, paying 1/5th odds, 5 places.
1 point each way Grand Geste at 16-1 BOG for the NH Novices’ Chase, paying 1/5th odds, 5 places.
1 point each way Laurens Bay at 25-1 for the NH Novices’ Chase, paying ¼ odds, 4 places. Non Runner.
1 point each way Derryhassen Paddy at 25-1 for the Brown Advisory Chase, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places. Non Runner.
1 point each way La Conquiere at 16-1 for the Mares’ Novices’ Hurdle, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places.
1 point each way Helnwein at 33-1 NRNB for the County Hurdle, paying ¼ odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Haiti Couleurs at 14-1 for the Cheltenham Gold Cup, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places.
1 point each way Resplendent Grey at 50-1 for the Grand National, paying ¼ odds, 4 places.
Last weekend + 3.3 points
1 point each way Cinquenta at 16-1 for the EBF Betfair “National Hunt” Novices’ Handicap Hurdle Final, paying 1/5th odds, 5 places. Unplaced. – 2 points.
1 point each way Get On George at 33-1 for the EBF Betfair “National Hunt” Novices’ Handicap Hurdle Final, paying 1/5th odds, 5 places. 2nd. + 5.6 points.
2025-26 jumps season: running total – 4.485 points
2025 flat season: + 84.12 points on all tips.
2024-5 jumps season: – 47.61 points on all tips.
2024 flat season: + 41.4 points on all tips.
2023-4 jumps season: + 42.01 points on all tips.
2023 flat season: – 48.22 points on all tips.
2022-3 jumps season: + 54.3 points on all tips.
Total for six full seasons of tipping: + 126 points
The BBC will regret jettisoning the Oxford vs Cambridge Boat Race
And so, slowly but regularly, the BBC loses touch with British national life. The BBC has just lost the radio broadcast rights to the Oxford vs. Cambridge Boat Race to Times Radio, which will cover the event for three years. It comes after Channel 4 won the deal last year for TV rights for the next five years, meaning it will cover the 200th anniversary of the first boat race in 1829.
What was once the finest broadcaster in the world becomes a navel-gazing, self-obsessed purveyor of frivolous rubbish
Until now, the BBC had broadcast the radio commentary of the race since 1927, except for a brief spell from 2005 to 2010, when LBC had the radio rights. The BBC had televised it (with interruption between 2005 and 2009) since 1938.
The Boat Race may not be quite so embedded in British hearts as it once was but, still, 2.82 million people watched it on the BBC last year, making it the most-watched sporting event that weekend on TV.
It’s true, too, that the Boat Race is a decidedly odd sporting contest. For the rest of the year, the British barely take interest in rowing and then, for 20 minutes in spring (this year, on 4 April), we’re gripped. Up to 200,000 people flock to the Thames just to get a brief glimpse of two boats flashing past them.
But its oddness – and its history and clockwork annual regularity – were what once rooted the Boat Race in British affections, appealing even to non-sports fans. The BBC has gone through its own decline in recent years but, still, the fact the Boat Race was a staple of its sports coverage buttressed the race’s place in our annual calendars.
As Rupert Murdoch realised to his bank balance’s credit, sport is the must-see gold dust of broadcasters. But the BBC has gradually lost most of its gems, once shown live by the Corporation: the Grand National, Cheltenham, Ascot, the Derby, home Test matches, the Ryder Cup, the Rugby World Cup, Formula One, the Lions and the Open.
And what has the BBC replaced these compelling, unique occasions with? Dud game shows, vacuous interviews with forth-rate celebs, bargain basement 24-hour news, crammed with trails of John Simpson showing off about his own brilliance.
Even the BBC’s remaining crown jewels are rapidly going downhill. The Today programme had a five per cent drop in weekly audience last year. Its average weekly audience is now 5.47 million, down from numbers that once hit seven million.
And no wonder! Instead of John Humphrys grilling politicians with intense precision, you get Emma Barnett banging on about herself and asking the listeners to get in contact with the show to give their own opinions. And so what was once the finest broadcaster in the world becomes a navel-gazing, self-obsessed purveyor of frivolous rubbish.
The BBC, to be fair, is in a tricky position. To justify its position as the national broadcaster, supported by a national tax, it must try to be all things to all people: thus the trashy game shows and the dumbed-down news.
If it makes highbrow programmes, the BBC worries it is betraying its obligation to be mainstream. But, in fact, we all like to be talked up to, whatever our background. That’s why Kenneth Clark’s high-minded Civilisation (1969) remains much more admired than its dumbed-down successors, Civilisations (2018) and the moronic Civilisations: Rise and Fall (2025), where that famed Egyptologist Alastair Campbell was brought in to opine on the ancient world.
In fact, for all its oddity – two small, ancient universities rowing against each other – the Boat Race was prized for its oddity and its hallowed history. Take away all those quirky institutions – particularly if they have high-minded, ancient connotations – and the BBC becomes less interesting and no longer unique.
Meanwhile, the commercial channels are eating the BBC’s lunch. Series like The Sopranos, Succession and Curb Your Enthusiasm are on such a high, dramatic, comic level that they are real art. Such brilliance appeals to viewers of all backgrounds – and it is rewarded with the sort of praise and income that mean successive series are commissioned.
No self-respecting commercial broadcaster would ever jettison such gems as the BBC has just jettisoned the Boat Race.
The Iran war is just what Putin’s depleted coffers need
Of all the parties watching the chaos in the Middle East unfold, one should be rubbing its hands together with particular satisfaction. Russia has not fired a shot in this conflict, lost no allies it cannot afford to lose, and has so far gained rather a lot, with more to come. A cynic might call it the perfect war for Vladimir Putin.
Moscow’s public reaction has been characteristically theatrical. The Foreign Ministry denounced American and Israeli actions as a ‘reckless step’ and a ‘dangerous adventure’. Things have gone no further. There has been no announcement of political or military support for Iran from the Kremlin – nor is there likely to be: Russia needs its drones and missiles for Ukraine. In any case, Iran’s military usefulness to Moscow has already passed: they have already mastered and indigenised Iran’s Shahed drone technology so Tehran is no longer needed as a supplier. Bilateral trade between the two countries amounts to a modest $5 billion (£3.7 billion), mostly agricultural goods that can easily be sourced or sold elsewhere. The loss of Iran as a partner worries the Kremlin very little.
The loss of Iran as a partner worries the Kremlin very little
What the Kremlin does care about is money – and here the Middle East crisis has been unexpectedly generous. Oil prices for Russian crude have climbed from under $40 (£30) a barrel in December to around $72 (£54) in the past week and are rising, first on expectations of war and then as tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz ground to a halt. This is already well above the $59 (£44) baseline built into the Russian Finance Ministry’s 2026 budget – a welcome development given that January’s oil and gas revenues fell to a four-year low of 393 billion roubles (£3.7 billion), and the budget deficit hit a record 1.7 trillion roubles (£16 billion). The government had begun quietly discussing spending cuts. Now, at least for the moment, that conversation is less urgent.
At current prices, Russia is earning an additional $3.6 billion (£2.7 billion) per month – nearly $22 billion (£16 billion) over six months, or roughly 0.9 per cent of GDP – compared to December.
The Eurasia Group’s base case – a continuation of disruptions lasting several weeks, followed by a return to pre-war price levels – suggests Russia’s windfall may be temporary. The most dangerous scenario for Moscow is one in which prices spike above $100 (£74), tipping Europe into recession, slowing China and crushing global oil demand. But that would take time to materialise, and in the meantime, Russia will pocket what it can.
For now, Russia is seeing demand for its oil rising, and the usual discount to Brent is shrinking. Russia has already received the green light from America to sell oil to India – one of its biggest buyers alongside China – which had promised to switch to Saudi crude but finds itself constrained by the ongoing conflict. Further sanctions relief may follow if the war drags on. Following an hour-long conversation with Putin, Donald Trump hinted overnight that he may ease some sanctions on Russia ‘until the Strait is up’.
The story with gas is, if anything, more interesting – and not merely financially. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz could disrupt up to a quarter of global monthly LNG supplies. Qatar, which provides roughly 12 per cent of European LNG imports, suspended operations at Ras Laffan, the world’s largest LNG terminal. European gas futures have spiked sharply, raising the spectre of a repeat of the 2022 crisis. This puts the EU’s cherished plan to phase out Russian LNG by 2027 in an awkward position. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Hungary and Slovakia together import some 40 billion cubic metres of Russian gas annually – around 15 per cent of total European demand. Even a few weeks of Qatari disruption could be enough to freeze EU plans for a post-April ban on new Russian contracts.
Putin, ever alert to leverage, moved quickly. In remarks last week week, he mused that Russia might find it more profitable to abandon the European gas market entirely and shift to ‘markets that are opening up’. He added, with characteristic disingenuousness, that this was ‘not a decision – thinking out loud’, then immediately instructed the government and energy companies to model the transition. The comments came directly after a meeting with Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó, who helpfully confirmed that Russian energy remains critically important for Budapest. The choreography was not subtle.
Moscow’s real prize here is political. Rising gas prices strengthen the hand of pro-Russian governments and parties across the continent. They increase pressure on Brussels to soften its stance and make it harder for the EU to move forward with new sanctions packages – work on which has, conveniently, apparently slowed. In the gas market, Russia benefits whether the conflict is short or long: a brief disruption brings immediate financial gains and a sanctions slowdown; a prolonged one may well extend Russian gas contracts and amplify the voices of those European governments most opposed to the ‘Russophobic establishment’, as Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev helpfully characterised it.
There is also a quieter windfall in fertilisers. The Middle East accounts for between 40 and 50 per cent of global nitrogen fertiliser trade, nearly all of it passing through Hormuz. Russia is already a key global supplier of ammonia and nitrogen fertilisers; together with Belarus, it controls some 40 per cent of global potash exports. With Qatari, Iranian and Egyptian production all disrupted simultaneously, Russia faces a sellers’ market. Nigerian and Ghanaian importers are already placing advance orders for the third quarter of the year. Russia is gaining both revenue and goodwill among the countries of the Global South it has spent three years cultivating.
And then there is Ukraine. Washington’s diplomatic attention has drifted; the pressure on Kyiv has eased, but so has the US pressure on Moscow. Air defence missiles are being redirected to the Middle East. A protracted conflict, wearing down both Western arsenals and Western willingness, suits Russia perfectly.
The optimal scenario for Moscow is precisely what it is quietly working to encourage: a conflict of moderate, sustained intensity that keeps energy prices elevated without triggering a global recession. Whether the financial gains are large enough to paper over Russia’s budget crisis – and the political ones sufficient to keep the war in Ukraine grinding on without constraint – depends largely on how quickly, and at what price, order is restored in the Gulf.
For now, Vladimir Putin is watching events he did not start and cannot control – and has clearly concluded that, on balance, things are going rather well.
Putin is enjoying the Iran war
After Iran unleashed a torrent of missiles against its neighbors – including those with whom it had enjoyed friendly relations such as Turkey and Azerbaijan – few regional leaders are in the mood to congratulate the new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei.
Few, but not none. “At a time when Iran is confronting armed aggression, your work in this high office will undoubtedly require great courage and dedication,” wrote Vladimir Putin in an official message of congratulation to Khamenei Junior. “I am confident that you will honorably continue your father’s legacy and unite the Iranian people in the face of these severe trials.” Putin was also at pains to “reaffirm our unwavering support for Tehran and our solidarity with our Iranian friends” and claimed that Russia “has been and will remain a reliable partner of the Islamic Republic.”
Putin remains, as he has always been, an equal-opportunities disruptor
In addition to thoughts and prayers, the Kremlin has reportedly in recent days also offered something of more practical use to Tehran – satellite targeting for Iran’s missiles, including the location of US military targets in the region. If reports in the Washington Post that Moscow is helping to target US forces are confirmed, that represents a substantive involvement in Iran’s attempt to set the East ablaze as well as a serious provocation to Washington. So far, US official reaction to the reports has been muted, with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth saying that Russia and China were “not really a factor” in the ongoing military campaign against Iran.
Putin remains, as he has always been, an equal-opportunities disruptor. His major geopolitical skill over the last quarter century has been to seize opportunity when it presents itself.
On the upside, the US attack in Iran has spiked oil prices and allowed Putin to return to his pre-Ukraine invasion games of using energy as a political tool. On March 4, Putin, claiming to be “just thinking out loud” mused that it might be time to cut off energy supplies to Europe and explore other partnerships, as the EU has officially vowed to ban the import of all Russian oil and gas by 2027. That statement was, of course, Putin the troll at his most malign. Even as he spoke oil prices were climbing and natural gas prices rocketing. Yesterday, Putin appeared to change course, telling a cabinet meeting that Russia would “continue to supply oil and gas to countries that are reliable partners – including in eastern Europe.”
The continent has seen this kind of good-cop, bad-cop routine before through the summer of 2022 when Gazprom cut off, then restored, then cut off supplies through the Nord Stream pipeline, citing spurious technical reasons. This time around, with 20 percent of global oil supply cut off by the closure of the Straits of Hormuz and oil clocking its largest daily rise in history, Putin can openly afford to flaunt Russia’s status as the world’s largest non-Middle Eastern supplier.
Soaring energy prices could see wartime restrictions on Russian oil exports quickly discarded. Already, Donald Trump has suspended planned sanctions against Indian refineries importing Kremlin oil for a month. An ongoing row between Hungary, Slovakia and the EU over their continued import of Russian oil via the Druzhba pipeline (which runs through Ukraine) will take on an entirely different tone now that an era of cheap abundant oil has been abruptly replaced by a global supply crunch. And high prices of course benefit Putin in the short term and help him fill Kremlin coffers – even as long term trends predict a significant oversupply of global oil this year and sinking prices.
On the downside for Putin is the embarrassing fact that three of Russia’s so-called global allies – Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and Iran’s late ayatollah Khamenei – have been taken out directly or indirectly by US power. Russia could do precisely nothing to intervene.
In fact, in recent years Iran has been a more helpful ally to Russia than the other way around. In early 2023 Moscow signed a $1.75 billion contract with Tehran to supply not just Shahed drones but the complete manufacturing blueprints too. Those have been used to produce up to 1,000 modified Shaheds – known as Geran – per day at a vast factory in Tatarstan. In addition, Iran has sold the Russians over $4 billion in other hardware, including Fath-360 ballistic missiles, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft systems and hundreds of thousands of artillery shells. In return, Moscow offered (but did not actually provide) S-400 air defense systems, Su-35 fighter jets, as well as an expanded program of nuclear reactor construction. Moscow’s continued geopolitical cover at the UN Security Council was, of course, the unspoken part of the deal, which in early 2024 formalized into a 20-year “strategic partnership.”
Just as Israeli and US jets made short work of the evidently not-so-great S-300 missile defense systems that Russia did sell Iran, so Washington’s offensive has taken a wrecking ball to the Tehran-Moscow partnership. Possible target-sharing aside, Russia has once again found itself sitting by the sidelines unable to materially help yet another supposed ally.
Putin has his own delicate relationship with the US to preserve as he walks a tightrope between refusing to make concessions in Ukraine while at the same time not provoking Trump’s anger. For the time being Putin can collect the oil dividends of Trump’s war and meanwhile wish the new Ayatollah “sound health and strength of spirit.”
Greek tips on how to beat Iran
In 500 BC, Persia (modern Iran) was the most powerful state in the known world, ruling an area of more than two million square miles from the Balkans and Egypt to central Asia (nearly half of the world’s population). In 499 BC, Athens and a number of other Greek states rebelled against its empire and incredibly defeated it in the ensuing Persian Wars (390-379 BC).
The Greek historian Herodotus (d. c. 425 BC) wrote up those wars after traveling extensively around the whole region. He was as fascinated by different cultures as he was by the war itself, contrasting the Persian way of life with the Greek. For example, he said that Persians did not put up statues or temples or altars, or treat their gods as human in nature, as the Greeks did. They thought one’s birthday was the most important day of the year (a rich Persian baked and served whole, at table, an ox, horse, camel or donkey). Herodotus did express admiration for the custom which forbade even the king himself to put a man to death for a single offense: their way was to balance faults against services. They thought themselves in every way superior to everyone else in the world, and the further that people lived away from them, the more they despised them.
After prowess at fighting, the chief proof of manliness was to be the father of a large family of boys. They were educated between the ages of five and 20, and taught only three things: to ride, use the bow and speak the truth. Telling lies was worse than anything else and next, owing money (because they would be bound to lie). Every man had many wives and concubines, and they took to new pleasures very keenly (e.g. pederasty, learned from the Greeks). Famously, they considered important decisions twice: first sober, next day drunk, or vice versa, before reaching a conclusion. (Since Muslims abhor alcohol, the Green party’s Zack Polanski will provide water, then heroin.)
Herodotus saw Persia not as an evil empire, but as a misguided one, preferring tyranny, enslavement and the rule of fear to the Greek love of freedom and the rule of law. Plus ça change?
Can the US Navy really defend the Strait of Hormuz?
George W. Bush’s war haunts Donald Trump, who is now calling the Iranian operation a “little excursion”. But Iran differs from Iraq in one significant way: Bush spent years fending off accusations that he had invaded for oil, whereas Trump wholeheartedly embraces the idea. In fact, he doesn’t even need to invade a country to get oil flowing.
“I will not allow a terrorist regime to hold the world hostage and attempt to stop the globe’s oil supply,” he said. “And if Iran does anything to do that, they’ll get hit at a much, much harder level,” he said at his golf club in Miami, Florida, last night. As well as declaring that the war is “very complete, pretty much,” Trump explained that he is “thinking about” taking over the Strait of Hormuz and using the US Navy to protect shipping. The Strait – through which a quarter of the world’s oil moves – is effectively closed after Iran threatened to sink passing vessels.
Oil will no doubt be discussed when Trump meets Xi in Beijing at the end of this month
Trump’s words, spoken just before markets closed, were oil on troubled waters. US stocks immediately regained their earlier losses while oil futures, which had surged above $119 over the weekend, fell below $90 a barrel. At his State of the Union address last month, Trump boasted about cheap gas prices. He knows that his greatest political danger is at the pumps. This is why he ordered that an additional 100 million barrels of oil would be extracted from a now-supplicant Venezuela, although it’s unlikely the country has the infrastructure to meet that demand.
Can the US Navy really defend every tanker in the Strait? Yesterday Trump boasted that Iran’s “navy is gone. It’s all lying at the bottom of the ocean – 46 ships. Can you believe it?” It’s unclear whether we can. Are all the small, swift attack boats that Iran uses to harass tankers gone as well? The Revolutionary Guard still has some stockpiles of rockets, drones and missiles that it can fire at vessels from shore. Trump is deploying a third aircraft carrier strike group to the region – the USS George H.W. Bush – just to make sure of American dominance.
These days, Trump rightly commits little of Washington’s might for free. When asked if he was thinking of seizing Iran’s oil industry just as he has Venezuela’s, he said: “People have thought about it, but it’s too soon to talk about that.” In public, at least. Perhaps there will be a fee on ships that want to pass through US-defended waters. But this huge US naval presence will serve another purpose: clamping down on the shadow fleet that supplies China with black market energy.
“We’re really helping China here and other countries, because they get a lot of their energy from the Strait. But look, we have a good relationship with China. It’s my honor to do it.” President Xi may have detected a twinkle in Trump’s eye – it’s an honor the Chinese leader knows he will end up paying for. China imports an estimated 90 percent of Iran’s oil supply at a steep discount thanks to US sanctions. Around 50 Chinese-flagged ships are currently unable to enter the Strait.
Oil will no doubt be discussed when Trump meets Xi in Beijing at the end of this month. By then, Trump may have a stranglehold on Iranian production – just as he has on Venezuelan oil. China imported around 75 percent of Venezuelan oil in 2025 but exports to Beijing have fallen by three quarters since Nicolás Maduro’s rendition.
There are a dizzying number of geopolitical factors at play. Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin yesterday morning and later at his press conference said he was going to remove oil sanctions on some countries, although didn’t specify which ones. “We’re going to take those sanctions off until this straightens out. Then, who knows, maybe we won’t have to put them on – there’ll be so much peace.” Reuters reports that Trump may ease sanctions on Russia. If he does, the usual shrill voices will accuse him of capitulating to a dictator that he admires. But Trump knows that to wean the Russian economy off war with Ukraine, Putin needs an alternative source of revenue. And this will be a source controlled by America. If it works.
While Trump claimed that action against Iran will be over “soon, very soon,” in all likelihood the fighting will shift to the Strait. A war to defang Iran and for regime change has quickly morphed into one of global economic management. We may soon be seeing a new shipping lane: the Strait of America.
Australia finally did right by Iran’s brave footballers
In 1989, as tanks rolled into central Beijing to crush the pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen Square, Australia’s then prime minister, Bob Hawke, spontaneously offered asylum to all Chinese citizens who happened to be in Australia. Thousands took up his offer and made lasting contributions to the country that gave them shelter.
Last Tuesday, the women showed personal courage by taking a silent but very public stand against a regime that stops at nothing to punish open disloyalty
On Tuesday, Hawke’s successor, Anthony Albanese, granted five women of Iran’s national football team asylum, and offered it to all those in the team’s party. Unlike Hawke, however, Albanese did the right thing only after being pressured by Australian public opinion and, if you accept his version of events, US president Donald Trump.
The footballers were in Australia to play in the regional Asian Women’s Cup tournament on Queensland’s Gold Coast. They didn’t expect their presence would coincide with the US-Israeli Operation Epic Fury but, last Tuesday, the women showed personal courage by taking a silent but very public stand against a regime that stops at nothing to punish open disloyalty: they remained stonily silent during the regime’s anthem when it was played before their first match. Australians applauded the footballers as the team’s burly minders, thought to be linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, watched on.
Back home, Iranian state television denounced the team as ‘wartime traitors’ and accused them of treason, a capital offence. In their next match, against Australia last Thursday, the women sang the anthem and saluted stiffly – but looked sullen and tense. Even that was not enough to placate the Iranian authorities. Footage emerged of the fanatical presenter Mohammad Reza Shahbazi calling for the squad and coach Marziyeh Jafari to be ‘dealt with more severely’. Even with drones and missiles raining down on Iran, its Supreme Leader killed and in the midst of a power vacuum, the regime still harassed and threatened female footballers who dared defy it.
With the team’s defeat in their third and final pool match on Sunday, their moment of reckoning arrived. The women were expected to fly home before their visas expired, to an uncertain fate for them and their families. Their minders isolated them in their hotel, denying them outside contact. But their stand pricked Australia’s conscience. Calls to give the footballers asylum grew louder, political leaders called for the Australian government to act quickly, and an online petition supporting asylum gathered almost 50,000 signatures.
In spite of this, however, Albanese’s government initially remained reluctant to intervene, just as it refused to condemn some Australian Islamic leaders mourning the elimination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As late as Sunday, a junior foreign affairs minister declared ‘there’ll be no special circumstances granted to anyone who’s competing in the Asian Women’s Cup’.
But overwhelming public pressure to do something eventually was heeded. By Monday, Australia’s home affairs minister and immigration authorities had belatedly grown a backbone and set the wheels in motion to assist any women that wanted to defect before the team left the country. Activists and Iranian diaspora staked out the team’s hotel, determined to let the women know they had friends, to help them make a break if they could. Some encouraging messages were smuggled through to the women.
On Monday night, five footballers, including the team’s captain Zahra Ghanbari, succeeded in getting away, fleeing to an underground car park with panicked minders in close pursuit. Taken to a safe house, they were greeted by Australia’s home affairs minister, Tony Burke (who incidentally holds a Sydney constituency with a very large Muslim minority). Burke approved their asylum claim then and there, in the middle of the Queensland night. Photos showed the minister surrounded by five obviously happy women, ditching their hijabs as a visual statement of their newfound freedom. Burke said they chanted ‘Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi!’ as he signed his approval.
But one person still needed convincing that the courageous Iranian women were not being abandoned by Australia: Donald Trump. Having posted on Truth Social that Australia was failing the footballers, Trump rang Albanese at 2 a.m. on Tuesday, Canberra time, ready to berate him if Australia wouldn’t do its humanitarian duty to protect the footballers from jail, torture or death back home.
A presumably drowsy Albanese was able to tell Trump the defection operation had just been carried out without publicity, and that if any other members of the team and staff also sought asylum, they would be welcomed. ‘He’s on it!’, Trump personally posted moments after the conversation, effectively taking credit, as only Trump could, for what had already been done. Claimant to the Iranian throne, Reza Pahlavi, similarly rushed out to tweet his approval and praise the women.
But this drama is not over yet. On Tuesday morning, the rest of the team party hurriedly prepared to fly out to Sydney, then Malaysia, before arriving in Iran. One player appeared to be pulled by the wrist aboard the bus by a teammate, before the bus was buffeted and hindered by protestors in chaotic scenes. Early Tuesday evening in eastern Australia, it is still unconfirmed if at least two more players refused to leave: how many more finally boarded their plane in Queensland is uncertain, and the opportunity to defect on their Sydney stopover remains.
Whether they fly home or not, all these women showed courage and dignity in defiance of a brutal and fanatical regime. As in England, Iran’s national women’s team is known as the Lionesses. In taking the stand they have, these brave women lived up to that noble name.
This ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ definition is truly sinister
The government’s new official definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ is 144 words long. But in a sign that even ministers now realise what a mess they have made, it is followed by a further tortuously pleading 1,400 words which ‘must be read together’ with it.
You will be relieved to hear, according to this ‘accompanying text,’ that the definition is no threat at all to ‘the fundamental right of every person in the UK to exercise freedom of speech,’ or to ‘academic and political discussion,’ or to ‘criticisms of religion or belief,’ or to ‘debates in the public interest.’
If this were not a threat to free speech, the government would not need to say so
To which I reply: qui s’excuse, s’accuse (he who excuses himself, accuses himself). If this were not a threat to free speech, the government would not need to say so. And to which I also reply: for the state to publish a list of examples of permitted speech sets a deeply sinister precedent, and on subjects far wider than Muslims. Is only speech ‘in the public interest’ now to be allowed? Who decides what the public interest is? Doesn’t freedom mean the right to say something that’s not in the public interest, too?
Because of the war, and because it was wrapped in with a ‘community cohesion’ strategy that has some potentially good bits, the publication of this definition hasn’t caused as much of an immediate outcry as it normally would have done. But make no mistake: it will do.
Because freedom of speech is not the only problem. The government is acutely sensitive to charges of ‘two-tier’ policy – rejecting, for instance, the Sentencing Council’s scandalous demand that ethnic minority criminals be treated better.
Yet here is an obvious and open act of two-tier policy. Hatred and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. The only purpose of an additional definition must be to create special protections for one faith which do not apply to those of other faiths or none.
It will not alleviate Muslim discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. It will strengthen divisive extremists on all sides – not just the populist right, but also the growing Muslim populist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, will be harmful to community cohesion. In short, it risks making Muslims less safe, not more.
True, the May government did adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. But that text explicitly uses language akin to that of Britain’s existing hate crime laws, which apply equally to all faiths. It was agreed in international discussions over many years, rather than cooked up by a private working group after Labour panicked about losing Muslim votes. And, of course, it has done nothing to stem the rise in anti-Semitism.
Finally, as if the definition itself were not bad enough, there will also be – as The Spectator revealed and Policy Exchange analysed on Friday – a ‘special representative for anti-Muslim hostility,’ a post likely to go to an activist who will constantly press for even more restrictions, and even more expansionary wording of the definition.
The Islamist groups who campaigned for the definition – with an explicit agenda of suppressing criticism of themselves – haven’t got all they wanted yet. But they are the winners here. The announcement explicitly says that the definition ‘may need to evolve over time.’
Their demand that Islam be treated as a race, and that any attack on it be treated as racism, isn’t in the definition itself, but is reflected in the supporting text. Their demand to use the word ‘Islamophobia’ hasn’t been granted, but the term ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ amounts to the same thing.
As so often with this government, ministers think they’re crafting a compromise, but they have actually created a dog’s breakfast.
Trump threatens ‘death, fire and fury’ for Iran
Situation report
The war with Iran shows little sign of slowing. Even as Donald Trump said on Monday that the war was ‘very complete, pretty much’ and suggested it was nearing its end, fresh waves of strikes continued overnight across Iran while missiles were fired toward Israeli cities. The exchange now stretches from southern Lebanon to the Gulf, with oil prices surging and diplomatic efforts elsewhere in the region abruptly frozen.
Even as Donald Trump said that the war was ‘very complete, pretty much’ and suggested it was nearing its end, fresh waves of strikes continued overnight across Iran
Iranian missiles were launched repeatedly toward Israel during the day, setting off air-raid sirens across central districts including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as well as communities in the north, repeatedly sending the population into shelters. Israeli authorities said defence systems continued to intercept the incoming projectiles, though officials cautioned that the country’s defensive shield ‘is not hermetic’. In Arad, a 78-year-old man was moderately injured while rushing to a shelter as the alarms sounded.
The missile fire formed part of a wider exchange that still stretches across much of the Middle East. Hezbollah claimed responsibility for launching rockets toward central Israel, including a barrage aimed at what it described as a Home Front Command base in Ramla, some 135 kilometres south of the Lebanese border. Two people were reported lightly injured in that attack. Israeli forces responded by striking the launchers within an hour, according to Israeli reports, while fighter jets continued attacking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.
Israeli aircraft also struck branches of the Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association – the financial network used by Hezbollah to fund its operations – hitting facilities in the Dahieh district of Beirut and south of Sidon. The Israeli military said the sites were used to channel funds into weapons purchases and salaries for fighters. Earlier strikes in Beirut reportedly hit 35 high-rise buildings linked to Hezbollah infrastructure.
On the ground, Israeli troops have begun what officials described as a targeted raid in southern Lebanon aimed at dismantling militant infrastructure and establishing a forward defensive belt to protect Israeli communities near the border. The operation follows several days of escalating exchanges along the frontier and comes as Israel debates whether to expand the campaign further north.
The war’s central theatre remains Iran itself. Israeli officials said the air force completed a wave of strikes on six major Iranian military airfields, destroying aircraft belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force and damaging runways and air-defence systems. The airfields had reportedly been used to transport weapons and funds to Iranian proxy groups across the region. Israeli commanders described the attacks as part of a campaign to deepen aerial superiority over Iranian skies.
Other targets were hit across the country. Strikes were reported in Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz, where more than 170 bombs were dropped simultaneously on military infrastructure including a surface-to-air missile production site and Quds Force headquarters. Explosions were also reported in the cities of Isfahan and Tabriz, while an apparent strike on electrical infrastructure in Karaj caused power outages in parts of the city.
Iran has continued firing back while insisting the war’s outcome remains in its control. In a statement broadcast on Iranian state television late on Monday night, a spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guards said that ‘the end of the war is in Iran’s hands’ and accused Donald Trump of starting the conflict ‘by lying to the American people’. The Guards warned that Iranian forces were awaiting the arrival of the US naval fleet in the Strait of Hormuz and declared that until the attacks stop they would not allow ‘a single litre of oil’ to be exported from the region to what they called the enemy and its allies.
Trump hit back with rhetoric that was no less incendiary, and almost Quranic in style and hyperbole. Writing on Truth Social, he warned Tehran not to attempt to disrupt the world’s most critical oil shipping route. ‘If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz,’ he wrote, ‘they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far.’ He added that the United States could strike targets that would make it ‘virtually impossible’ for Iran ever to rebuild as a nation again, promising that ‘Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them’. Trump framed the warning as a signal to other powers that rely on the route, calling the protection of the strait ‘a gift from the United States of America to China, and all of those Nations that heavily use the Hormuz Strait’.
In Bahrain, an Iranian drone strike on a residential building in Manama killed a 29-year-old woman and injured eight others, according to the Bahraini interior ministry. Explosions were also reported in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, while Turkish officials said a ballistic missile fired from Iran briefly entered Turkish airspace before being intercepted by Nato defences, with debris falling near Gaziantep.
Diplomatically, the war is beginning to freeze other negotiations across the region. Talks on advancing the second phase of Donald Trump’s Gaza plan, including the contentious issue of whether Iranian-backed Hamas would disarm in exchange for amnesty, have been paused since the fighting with Iran began, according to Reuters. The negotiations had been intended to pave the way for reconstruction in Gaza and a broader Israeli withdrawal.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah has reportedly sent out preliminary feelers about a possible ceasefire even as its rocket attacks continue. Israeli officials are said to be debating whether to pursue negotiations or to use the moment to try to sever the organisation’s financial and military connection to Iran, which has reportedly funded Hezbollah to the tune of roughly $1 billion a year.
For now, diplomacy appears far behind the pace of the military campaign. Strikes on Iranian targets continue, missiles are still being launched toward Israel, and negotiations elsewhere in the region have already been pushed aside. Far from signalling an end to the conflict, the steady tempo of attacks suggests the campaign against Iran is entering a sustained phase rather than drawing to a close.
Has Iran’s drone threat peaked?
In response to the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, Tehran has unleashed more than 1,500 drones on countries across the region, including the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. But as the drone threat grows, so too do the region’s defences against these threats. As a result, it’s more than possible Iran’s drone war has now peaked.
On March 6, the United Arab Emirates published data on drone attacks from Iran. Abu Dhabi said it had detected 1,184 drones in total and 1,110 had been intercepted – a rate of around 93 per cent. The interception rate seems to be increasing. On March 6, the interception rate was 97 per cent for the 112 drones detected that day. On Sunday, only 18 drones were detected and 17 were intercepted.
Tehran has been working on drones since the 1980s. It first used drones similar to large model airplanes during its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Later, it began to copy American drones, such as the Predator, to create surveillance drones. These gave Iran a kind of miniature air force at a time when it couldn’t acquire new warplanes due to sanctions.
Where Iran innovated was its investment in what are called one-way attack drones. The Shahed 136 was key to this novel military technology. Around 11 feet long, with an eight foot wingspan, it weighs around 400 lbs with its 100 lb warhead. It’s small enough to fit on the bed of a truck and is easy to launch. In fact, you can put a number of Shahed drones on a single truck, disguised as civilian cargo, and then launch them and drive off.
The Shahed 136 was based on Iran’s previous, similar, kamikaze Ababil drone which it exported to the Houthis in Yemen. In 2021 the Shahed 136 first was spotted in Yemen on grainy aerial photos. With an estimated range of 1,200 miles it could hit Israel and Riyadh from Yemen. The Shahed 136 was soon in the hands of the Russians and was used against Ukraine after the 2022 invasion.
It didn’t take long for the world to take notice. These types of drones are small enough to make detecting them difficult. In addition, they are cheap, while shooting them down with Patriot missiles or other air defence systems is costly. The Ukraine war has shown that these types of drones can be intercepted most of the time. It also has shown that when they are produced in large enough numbers they can spread terror across thousands of miles.
Iran’s drones have been wreaking havoc in the Middle East ever since. In 2021 a drone, likely launched from Iran, struck a merchant tanker off the coast of Oman. The attack killed two members of the crew. In 2024, the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq also targeted US forces in Jordan with drones, killing three Americans.
In the latest conflict, Iranian drones have been the largest danger to the Gulf, especially where there are not enough air defences. It was an Iranian drone which killed six Americans at a military base in Kuwait. This shows how deadly these systems can be when they are not countered.
Yet as time goes by the Iranian drone army is becoming less effective. Countries now know how to confront the drones using air defences such as missiles – learning from countries like Ukraine and Israel. The US has even taken this one step further by copying the Shahed 136 and creating what the Pentagon calls a Low-cost Unmanned Combat Attack System, or LUCAS drone. These drones are built by a company based in Arizona, called SpektreWorks and have been used in recent operations to take out Iranian infrastructure and overwhelm its air defences.
In many ways, one-way attack drones are a resurrection of the V-1 flying bomb which the Nazis used to hit London in the 1940s. The ease of building and launching these weapons means that Iran will likely used them to terrorise the Middle East, and shipping off the coast, for years to come. But it’s increasingly becoming clear that these drones are no longer the unstoppable weapon Iran used to possess.
Putin is enjoying the Iran war
After Iran unleashed a torrent of missiles against its neighbours – including those with whom it had enjoyed friendly relations such as Turkey and Azerbaijan – few regional leaders are in the mood to congratulate the new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei.
Few, but not none. ‘At a time when Iran is confronting armed aggression, your work in this high office will undoubtedly require great courage and dedication,’ wrote Vladimir Putin in an official message of congratulation to Khamenei Junior. ‘I am confident that you will honourably continue your father’s legacy and unite the Iranian people in the face of these severe trials.’ Putin was also at pains to ‘reaffirm our unwavering support for Tehran and our solidarity with our Iranian friends’ and claimed that Russia ‘has been and will remain a reliable partner of the Islamic Republic.’
Putin remains, as he has always been, an equal-opportunities disruptor
In addition to thoughts and prayers, the Kremlin has reportedly in recent days also offered something of more practical use to Teheran – satellite targeting for Iran’s missiles, including the location of US military targets in the region. If reports in the Washington Post that Moscow is helping to target US forces are confirmed, that represents a substantive involvement in Iran’s attempt to set the East ablaze as well as a serious provocation to Washington. So far, US official reaction to the reports has been muted, with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth saying that Russia, and China were ‘not really a factor’ in the ongoing military campaign against Iran.
Putin remains, as he has always been, an equal-opportunities disruptor. His major geopolitical skill over the last quarter century has been to seize opportunity when it presents itself.
On the upside, the US attack in Iran has spiked oil prices and allowed Putin to return to his pre-Ukraine invasion games of using energy as a political tool. On 4 March, Putin, claiming to be ‘just thinking out loud’ mused that it might be time to cut off energy supplies to Europe and explore other partnerships, as the EU has officially vowed to ban the import of all Russian oil and gas by 2027. That statement was, of course, Putin the troll at his most malign. Even as he spoke oil prices were climbing and natural gas prices rocketing. Yesterday, Putin appeared to change course, telling a cabinet meeting that Russia would continue to ‘continue to supply oil and gas to countries that are reliable partners – including in Eastern Europe.’
The continent has seen this kind of good-cop, bad-cop routine before through the summer of 2022 when Gazprom cut off, then restored, then cut off supplies through the Nord Stream pipeline, citing spurious technical reasons. This time round, with 20 per cent of global oil supply cut off by the closure of the Straits of Hormuz and oil clocking its largest daily rise in history, Putin can openly afford to flaunt Russia’s status as the world’s largest non-Middle Eastern supplier.
Soaring energy prices could see wartime restrictions on Russian oil exports quickly discarded. Already, Donald Trump has suspended planned sanctions against Indian refineries importing Kremlin oil for a month. An ongoing row between Hungary, Slovakia and the EU over their continued import of Russian oil via the Druzhba pipeline (which runs through Ukraine) will take on an entirely different tone now that an era of cheap abundant oil has been abruptly replaced by a global supply crunch. And high prices of course benefit Putin in the short term and help him fill Kremlin coffers – even as long term trends predict a significant oversupply of global oil this year and sinking prices.
On the downside for Putin is the embarrassing fact that three of Russia’s so-called global allies – Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and now Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei – have been taken out directly or indirectly by US power. Russia could do precisely nothing to intervene.
In fact in recent years Iran has been a more helpful ally to Russia than the other way around. In early 2023 Moscow signed a $1.75 billion contract with Teheran to supply not just Shahed drones but the complete manufacturing blueprints too. Those have been used to produce up to 1,000 modified Shaheds – known as Geran – per day at a vast factory in Tatarstan. In addition, Iran has sold the Russians over $4 billion in other hardware, including Fath-360 ballistic missiles, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft systems, and hundreds of thousands of artillery shells. In return Moscow offered (but did not actually provide) S-400 air defence systems, Su-35 fighter jets, as well as an expanded programme of nuclear reactor construction. Moscow’s continued geopolitical cover at the UN Security Council was, of course, the unspoken part of the deal, which in early 2024 formalised into a 20-year ‘strategic partnership.’
Just as Israeli and US jets made short work of the evidently not-so-great S-300 missile defence systems that Russian did sell Iran, so Washington’s offensive has taken a wrecking ball to the Teheran-Moscow partnership. Possible target-sharing aside, Russia has once again found itself sitting by the sidelines unable to materially help yet another supposed ally.
Putin has his own delicate relationship with the US to preserve as he walks tightrope between refusing to make concessions in Ukraine while at the same time not provoking Trump’s anger. For the time being Putin can collect the oil dividends of Trump’s war and meanwhile wish the new Ayatollah ‘sound health and strength of spirit.’
Can you ‘identify’ as English?
There is not one drop of English blood in my body. I know this because, like many others, I succumbed to the DNA testing fad. I spat into a test tube and forked out 79 quid only to be told what I already knew: I’m a Mick.
Ninety-three per cent of my DNA is from the west of Ireland. There’s a smattering from Scotland and an even smaller splodge from Wales, conjuring up the delightful image of one of my peasant ancestors bumping uglies with a lost Welshman 800-odd years ago. But Englishness? Not a speck. Cupboard’s bare, as I believe you English folk like to say.
I am not a ‘blood and soil’ person. A man is more than his DNA. And yet, it’s not insignificant, is it?
Does it matter? My instinct is to say no. I am not a ‘blood and soil’ person. A man is more than his DNA. And yet, it’s not insignificant, is it? I may have been born in England but every one of my ancestors was from somewhere else. I’ve spent my entire life ticking the ‘White Irish’ ethnicity box on official forms. It would be mad, not to mention rude, if I were now to turn to someone called Dave Smith and say: ‘I’m as English as you, pal.’
Am I English? This rather navel-gazing stickler whacked me again last week when Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she ‘identifies’ as English. In her speech outlining Labour’s immigration reforms, she talked about people like her parents who come to Britain to make a home, and then ‘just decades later, children of theirs may unthinkingly call themselves English’.
On Sky News Trevor Phillips pressed her, especially on her use of that curious word ‘unthinkingly’. Do you, ‘without reservation or hesitation’, call yourself English, he asked? ‘Yes!’ came the hearty reply. I’m a Brummie, English and a Brit, said Mahmood. Cue another skirmish in the culture war, as digital mobs assembled either to deny her Englishness or affirm it.
I hope it goes without saying that Mahmood is a Brit. Phillips, too. Their parents, like mine, may have been born elsewhere – Mahmood’s in Pakistan, Phillips’ in Guyana. But they were born here, and what an impact they have had. Mahmood has ascended to one of the highest offices in the land. Phillips is a bottomless font of British decency and wisdom. I’d far rather entrust the nation’s future to a man like him than to any of those hard-right hotheads whose sole contribution to the culture war is posting homoerotic AI images of Rupert Lowe on a horse.
But how English are we? I think we who hail from elsewhere have a duty to be honest. I can’t speak for others but I very rarely rubbed shoulders with English people during my north-west London childhood. My RC school was about 90 per cent Irish. Our parents used the term ‘the English’ to refer to those outside of our community – native Brits, basically. Prim, Protestant, not like us.
‘Home’ meant one thing only: Ireland. Every day my parents would bump into fellow Irish people who’d ask: ‘Are you going home this year?’ Some went ‘home’ permanently, including my best friend in junior school. It hardly screams ‘Englishness’, does it, this gnawing vision of another home, far off, which you might one day disappear to?
There is no point denying the problem of dual loyalties. Mahmood says when England plays Pakistan in the cricket, she supports ‘England all the way’. She’s a better person than me. I, hand on heart, could not say the same for an England-Ireland football clash. Of course, I stand for the British national anthem but I only feel the hot sting of tears when I hear the Irish one. Is that bad?
It seems to me that both sides in this infernal discussion have gutted Englishness of meaning. One thinks you’re not English unless you’re directly descended from a peasant who witnessed the coronation of King Æthelred. The other thinks you’re English if you like tea and cricket. That’s me screwed: I have no ancestry whatsoever in these lands, don’t drink tea and couldn’t give a toss about cricket.
Englishness finds itself hollowed of all virtue, of all depth, and is treated either as a solely ethnic category or as a pantomime performance of twee habits. Either as an accomplishment of blood or as a thin garment anyone can pull on. It’s simultaneously too rigid and too elastic. What gets lost is the history, the ideas, the meaning of England. I don’t care about your blood or your preferred beverage – tell me the thing in England’s soul that inspires your love and loyalty for this nation?
For me, everything changed with Brexit. When I saw the Irish government and commentariat do everything in their power to scupper that beautiful English revolt, I knew exactly where my loyalties lay – not with the land of my ancestors but with ‘the English’. With the fine people of Bolsover, Hartlepool, Doncaster and beyond. I happily wrapped myself in the flag of England against those anti-democratic usurpers in Dublin. Who knows, one day I might even feel tearful upon hearing ‘God Save the King’. Here’s hoping.
I spent 25 years fighting neocons. Then Trump became one
Like everyone, I’m glued to the news coming out of Iran. I’m experiencing some depression, as one might, upon realizing that much of what one has worked on for 25 years has suddenly gone up in smoke, destroyed when Donald Trump discovered he was pretty much a neocon after all. Like everyone else, I have no idea what will happen in Iran, whether Trump’s bombing and perhaps breaking apart a very unpopular regime will lead to something better, or just chaos, a failed state spitting out a cohort of embittered men. But one can’t help but acknowledge the American right really likes bombing foreign countries, despite what had seemed an inexorable advance of right-leaning realist and restraint-oriented young foreign policy staffers and intellectuals who grew up or served during the Iraq war, and despite Trump’s successful effort to present himself as the “peace candidate” and my enthusiasm for his endeavor.
I don’t recall as vividly as I might the early days of the American Conservative, which we (Pat Buchanan, The Spectator’s own Taki, and I) founded in 2002 in great part to head off, or at least make a conservative case against, the looming Iraq war. It was exciting to run a magazine, but we were very isolated in DC. In the early days of the invasion, the city was full of hubris and militaristic triumphalism. The happening place to be every morning was a think tank where Richard Perle gave “black coffee briefings” on our military brilliance and the subtle plans of the collaborating Iraqi expatriates we were soon to empower. Iraqis were pulling down statues of Saddam Hussein! The nation’s leading conservative magazine ran a cover story impugning the patriotism of conservatives who opposed the war, including some (like me) who had written quite a bit for said publication. I was set in my ways and financially OK, but I had young staffers barely out of college beginning to wonder whether they would ever have careers in journalism or conservative politics. I remember sitting down with them and drawing upon my memories of Vietnam and saying this nation-building was not going to work out as well as it seemed right then. I was 90 percent sure of that.
Then Trump arrived as a vehicle to lead the Republican party out of this place. He hadn’t opposed the Iraq war, but was hardly its cheerleader. In the spring of 2016, facing off against George W. Bush’s younger brother Jeb, he described the war as a “big fat mistake” in a televised debate in South Carolina, arguably the most hawkish state in the union. He went on to win the South Carolina primary and then the presidency. If you yearned to believe good things were possible, Trump had, in that moment, exorcised the Republican party of neocon control.
As a New Yorker successful in a largely Jewish business, Trump seemed ideally suited for this. He liked Jews and liked Israel, but could somehow manage to talk about the country without the abject deference typical of most Republican luminaries. He joked about Israel lobbyists’ influence and their efforts to influence him. He seemed to know there was a wide range of Jewish opinion. We were so eager to believe that we had somehow prevailed over the faction that would push America into wars in the Middle East forever, that we rationalized otherwise worrying signs. Formal recognition of Israeli conquests. A crackpot Christian Zionist appointed as ambassador. Add to that what is probably the most decisive factor: Trump, lacking the political skill to enact legislation despite majorities in both houses of Congress, can make things happen only by giving orders. He tried that with tariffs, finding he could dominate headlines by a midnight posting of some random number on social media. The Supreme Court ended that. But with the military he can give orders and blow things up. “Mob boss in a tinfoil hat” was Ross Douthat’s depiction of what I once celebrated as MAGA populism.
My despair touches only politics. I’m a member of Trump’s golf club in Virginia, and the driving range just opened after a snowy winter. Despite months of no exercise except rehab for a torn rotator cuff, I can still hit a nine iron about 130 yards. I have crossed paths with Trump there a few times, so may have a chance to insult him to his face. I wonder how that would go. Baseball is starting up. I must have watched a video of a mic’d up Jazz Chisholm taking infield practice a dozen times, it gives me so much pleasure. What Russell Kirk called the permanent things.