British and Australian citizens are paying the price for a war that their leaders refuse to condemn
The leaders of the UK and Australia have told their citizens to cut fuel consumption and prepare for months of hardship as a result of the US-Israeli war with Iran. But Keir Starmer and Anthony Albanese couldn’t bring themselves to name who’s responsible.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, delivered a pair of seemingly coordinated addresses to their nations on Wednesday. “The economic shocks caused by [the Iran war] will be with us for months,” Albanese said, telling Australians to switch to public transport if possible, and promising to cut fuel taxes and prepare for the possibility that “the global situation gets worse and our fuel supplies are seriously disrupted.”
“Australia is not an active participant in this war,” he claimed, despite his government being the first in the world to back the US and Israel’s opening strikes on Iran on February 28.
Starmer struck a similar tone, declaring that “this is not our war,” but warning that “the impact of this war will affect the future of our country.” The British PM promised that “no matter how fierce this storm is, we are well placed to weather it,” and vowed to help “reopen” the Strait of Hormuz.
How bad is the energy crisis?
The US-Israeli war with Iran has triggered the most severe energy crisis since the 1970s, if not in history. Around 40% of the world’s oil comes from the Middle East. Nearly a third of the world’s seaborne crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway less than 40 km wide at its narrowest point, which through a combination of Iranian attacks on tankers and hesitance by Western insurers, is de facto closed to maritime traffic.
Additionally, Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Gulf states hosting American troops have taken refineries and export terminals out of action. Qatar, which supplies 20% of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG), completely halted production almost a month ago.
As a result, Brent oil prices – which serve as a barometer for 80% of the world’s crude oil – have sat above $100 per barrel for three weeks, while gas prices have surged 60% in the EU and more than 100% in the UK. While the crisis is global, its effects are particularly acute in the EU, UK, and Australia, all of which have sanctioned Russian oil and gas, shutting themselves off from a potential lifeline amid the crisis.
The EU once relied on Russia for 45% of its gas imports, before switching to more expensive American and Qatari supplies after 2022. With no date in sight for the resumption of Qatari imports, and with inflation spiking across Europe, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde warned last week that “we are facing a real shock…probably beyond what we can imagine at the moment.”
Are Starmer and Albanese pressuring the US?
The Strait of Hormuz was open to maritime traffic until the US and Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran in the middle of nuclear talks. However, neither Starmer nor Albanese mentioned the US or Israel in their speeches. Instead, both the UK and Australia issued a joint statement – along with 32 other US allies in Europe and the Gulf – blaming the closure of the strait squarely on “Iran’s actions.”
“We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the Strait to commercial shipping,” the statement reads, accusing Tehran of posing “a threat to international peace and security.
Furthermore, Albanese has sent surveillance aircraft, stocks of air-to-air missiles, and military personnel to the UAE, while Starmer has allowed the US to use the British-American air base on Diego Garcia to attack Iran. Despite aiding the US in a war that Starmer claims is “not ours,” the British PM has been publicly humiliated by US President Donald Trump. Starmer’s decision to grant access to Diego Garcia took “too long,” Trump complained last month, adding that he was “greatly disappointed” in his ally.
What does the crisis look like for ordinary people?
The most immediate signs of an energy crisis are felt at the pumps, where rising fuel prices foreshadow increasing costs of everything else dependent on oil: namely food, consumer goods, and the means of transporting them.
As of April 1, Americans are paying an average of $4.06 per gallon of gasoline ($1.07 per liter), up from around $3 before the war. British customers pay around $2.03 per liter while Australians pay roughly $1.79 – respectively 15% and 44% more expensive than in February. In the EU, fuel prices are highest in the Netherlands, where drivers pay $2.73 per liter.
In Russia, where export controls have been introduced to protect Russian consumers, Gasoline prices currently sit at around $.083 per liter, down from $0.87 in February.
What is Trump doing to solve the crisis?
Trump has acknowledged that fuel prices will fall once the conflict ends, predicting on Tuesday that military operations could cease in “two to three weeks.” However, his messaging on Iran so far has swung between claims that peace is imminent, and threats to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages” until Tehran capitulates – each abrupt shift in tone seemingly timed to calm energy markets.
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, Trump claimed that “Iran's new regime president… has just asked the United States of America for a ceasefire.” Trump added that he would grant Tehran a ceasefire once the Strait of Hormuz “is open, free, and clear.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry dismissed Trump’s claim as “false” and “baseless.”
Trump is due to discuss Iran in a speech to the nation later on Wednesday. It is unclear whether his address will signal escalation or deescalation. However, the Pentagon announced the deployment of another aircraft carrier – the USS George H.W. Bush – to the Middle East on Tuesday, and with plans reportedly being drawn up for a ground invasion of Iran, the conflict and resulting energy crisis may drag on significantly longer.
Lebanese Hezbollah, Iraqi armed groups and the Houthis in Yemen are helping the Islamic Republic widen the conflict and raise its costs
The war’s second ‘ring of fire’ is no longer forming around Iran. It is already there. What we are witnessing is not a limited clash between a state under pressure and its immediate enemies, but the gradual emergence of a wider regional confrontation in which Tehran’s allied forces are moving from symbolic solidarity to practical engagement.
In Lebanon, Iraq, and now once again in Yemen, groups aligned with Iran are opening new fronts and making any American or Israeli campaign far more difficult to execute. If Iran cannot stop pressure by matching superior military power plane for plane or missile for missile, it can still answer by stretching the battlefield across time and space.
That is the real significance of the current escalation. Wars are easiest to sell and easiest to sustain when they look concentrated, technically manageable, and politically clean. They become much harder to continue when every strike produces another zone of instability, when every advance prompts retaliation, and when every promise of decisive success runs into a new and costly complication.
Iran and the forces loyal to it understand this perfectly well. Their goal is not necessarily to win a spectacular conventional victory over Israel or the US. They are trying to deprive their adversaries of a quick result, to turn military superiority into strategic over-extension, and to make the price of escalation rise with every passing week.
Israel is getting mired in Lebanon
Lebanon has become the clearest example of this dynamic. Israel entered the confrontation with Hezbollah expecting that greater firepower, harsher pressure, and deeper incursions would eventually impose a new reality in the south of the country. But so far the campaign has not produced the kind of result Israeli leaders would need in order to claim genuine success. Israeli officials are still speaking openly about expanding operations and about the need for a broad security zone in southern Lebanon. That does not sound like a completed military mission. It sounds like a campaign still searching for a workable outcome.
Israel remains capable of inflicting enormous damage on Lebanon. It can devastate border villages and infrastructure, and force large numbers of people from their homes. But the ability to destroy is not the same as the ability to impose control. A military campaign can appear overwhelming on television and still fail to neutralize the armed force it was meant to break. Hezbollah remains capable of hitting Israeli territory, and that single fact tells us that the war in Lebanon has not been resolved in Israel’s favor.
Israel is also suffering losses, not only in military terms but in political and psychological terms. Reports of fallen soldiers and continuing battlefield casualties show that Hezbollah is still able to turn southern Lebanon into a dangerous combat zone for the Israeli army. This is important because Israel’s military doctrine relies heavily on speed, on offensive initiative, and on the demonstration of dominance. A campaign that drags on, consumes manpower, exposes soldiers to attrition, and leaves northern Israel under continuing threat is not simply unfinished. It becomes strategically corrosive. It undermines the image of effortless superiority on which deterrence partly depends.
There is also the issue of equipment and operational pressure. Public claims about destroyed Israeli vehicles are often difficult to verify independently, and any serious analysis should avoid repeating battlefield propaganda as fact. But even without dramatic and unverifiable numbers, the broader reality is evident.
Hezbollah continues to create an environment in which Israeli ground operations are costly, risky, and politically burdensome. Israel may seize or enter territory, but it still has not demonstrated that it can transform that presence into a stable and secure military arrangement. As long as Hezbollah keeps imposing losses on Israel, the campaign remains strategically incomplete.
Hezbollah is demonstrating to the entire pro-Iranian regional camp that Israel can be denied a clean military outcome. That message matters in Iraq, in Yemen, and in every arena where forces aligned with Tehran are watching closely. Every week in which Hezbollah continues to strike back weakens the notion that Israel and the US can simply pummel the region into submission through superior firepower. That perception encourages allied groups to escalate because it suggests that resistance is not futile and that prolonged confrontation can produce strategic leverage, even against a stronger opponent.
Iraqi fighters activate
Iraq is the second arena where this logic is becoming visible. For years, Washington tried to handle pro-Iranian armed groups in Iraq through a familiar formula of pressure, selective strikes, deterrent warnings, and political bargaining. That formula is now under severe strain. The Iraqi factions loyal to Iran are again attacking Western interests and American-linked facilities, and their posture is hardening as the regional crisis grows. Any American move toward direct ground involvement against Iran would not remain confined to Iranian territory. It would immediately activate the Iraqi theatre in a much more serious way.
That possibility is now being discussed with increasing seriousness because Iraqi armed groups are presenting themselves as a reserve force that could mobilize in Iran’s favor if the war enters a more dangerous phase. This is not yet a mass transnational deployment on a scale that would determine the outcome of a large war by itself. But that is not the most important issue. The key point is that the Iraqi arena is being prepared politically, organizationally, and psychologically as an extension of the Iranian front. If Washington were to attempt a ground operation against Iran, it would face not one battlefield but several at once.
Washington appears to have assumed that by concentrating military pressure on Iran, it could either isolate Tehran or intimidate its regional allies into caution. But the opposite dynamic is taking shape. Pressure on the center is activating the periphery. Iran’s allies do not need to defeat the US or Israel in direct set-piece battles – only to ensure that no front can be fully closed, no rear area can be treated as safe, and no military plan can be presented as limited and controllable. That alone is enough to alter the political mathematics of war.
The Iraqi dimension is especially dangerous because it sits at the intersection of military operations, internal state weakness, and competing sovereignties. Iraq is not a sealed theatre. It is a country in which militias, parties, foreign forces, and state institutions coexist uneasily. Any renewed cycle of attacks on Western targets can therefore produce consequences far beyond the immediate strike. It can reignite internal tensions, weaken already fragile governance, increase pressure on the Iraqi government, and deepen the long-running struggle over whether Iraq is a sovereign balancing state or a contested zone inside a larger regional conflict. Once that process begins to accelerate, it becomes very difficult to contain.
Yemeni Houthis can shock the global economy
Yet the most strategically explosive development may be the renewed role of Ansar Allah (the Houthis) in Yemen. For nearly a month, the movement was relatively restrained in this specific phase of escalation. That relative quiet led some observers to believe that Yemen might remain a secondary theatre while events centered on Iran, Lebanon, and the Gulf. But this reading now looks premature. Ansar Allah has signaled a return to direct action against Israel, and even more importantly, it has once again raised the specter of pressure on maritime traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb strait.
That threat cannot be dismissed as rhetorical theater. Bab el-Mandeb is one of the great chokepoints of the global economy. It connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, which means it is part of the shortest maritime route between Europe and Asia through the Suez Canal. If this corridor becomes unsafe on a sustained basis, the consequences extend far beyond the region. Shipping companies reroute. Insurance premiums surge. Delivery times lengthen. Fuel costs rise. Supply chains absorb new friction. The shock travels outward through freight markets, commodity prices, and industrial planning. In the modern world, a narrow stretch of water can become a multiplier of global instability.
This is why even the threat of closure is almost as bad as closure itself. Markets do not wait patiently for a waterway to be blocked in definite terms before reacting. They respond to risk. If Ansar Allah signals that ships tied to Israel or to its supporters may face attack, and if the movement demonstrates that this threat is credible, then the commercial effect begins long before a formal blockade exists. Some carriers will avoid the route. Others will demand sharply higher rates. Naval escorts may become more common. A military problem turns into a commercial one, and a commercial problem soon becomes a macroeconomic one.
A serious disruption in Bab el-Mandeb would also hit the Gulf states in complicated ways. On the surface, high oil prices often appear beneficial for energy exporters. But in wartime the picture is much less straightforward. Gulf monarchies depend not only on price levels but also on predictable flows, secure shipping, investor confidence, infrastructure safety, and the broader perception that the region remains a viable center for trade and finance. A war that pushes up energy prices while simultaneously making maritime transit less secure can produce gains on one side and losses on the other. It can raise revenue while also raising risk. It can improve the price per barrel while damaging the political and logistical environment needed to move that barrel efficiently.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in particular would face a difficult balancing act. Both states have tried to reduce their exposure to open-ended regional wars while preserving close security relationships with Washington. But a wider confrontation involving Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Israel would undermine that balancing strategy. Even if they avoid direct military participation, they remain physically embedded in the conflict zone. Their ports, export routes, desalination infrastructure, airports, and industrial facilities exist within missile and drone range of hostile actors. In other words, geography limits neutrality. The Gulf states can try to hedge politically, but they cannot fully hedge physically.
A regional war goes global
The effects on the global economy could be severe if this pattern continues. The most obvious risk is a combined shock to energy and logistics. If pressure on the Strait of Hormuz coincides with renewed disruption in Bab el-Mandeb, the world economy would face stress on two of its most sensitive arteries at once. Oil prices would rise not simply because of lost supply, but because of fear, insurance costs, and the scarcity premium that always appears when multiple chokepoints are threatened simultaneously. Gas markets would become more nervous. Shipping costs would climb. Import-dependent economies would feel the squeeze first, especially poorer countries already vulnerable to debt, inflation, and food insecurity.
This is how regional wars become global economic events. They do not need to shut every route completely or destroy every refinery to trigger wider consequences. They only need to make enough critical routes uncertain at the same time. Once uncertainty spreads across energy and transport, it feeds into everything else: Freight becomes more expensive, manufacturing inputs arrive later, food prices rise through transport and fertilizer costs, central banks face renewed inflation pressure and governments face budget strain. Political instability follows economic stress, especially in countries where societies are already exhausted by previous shocks.
Have the US and Israel miscalculated?
All of this points to a broader conclusion. The conflict is expanding because the forces aligned with Iran are deliberately making it expand. Their strategy is not based on rapid decision or spectacular breakthrough. It is based on the controlled multiplication of pressure points. Hezbollah keeps the northern Israeli front unstable. Iraqi factions raise the cost of any deeper American military involvement. Ansar Allah threatens one of the world’s most important maritime corridors. Iran itself remains the central actor, but it does not need to act alone in a linear and isolated fashion. Its allies provide strategic depth, geographical spread, and the ability to transform one war into several interconnected confrontations.
From this perspective, American planners appear to have miscalculated. They may have believed that forceful pressure would narrow Iran’s options and restore deterrence. Instead, it risks producing the opposite result. Rather than isolating Iran, escalation is drawing its allied forces more tightly into the conflict. Rather than shortening the crisis, it is lengthening it. Rather than concentrating the battlefield, it is fragmenting it across the region. That is a dangerous trajectory, because a dispersed war is often harder to win than a concentrated one. It taxes logistics, political patience, alliance cohesion, and public confidence all at once.
What happens next will depend on whether the US and Israel continue to believe that greater military pressure can still produce strategic clarity. That belief now looks increasingly questionable. The longer the war continues without a decisive and stable outcome in Lebanon, the more confidence Hezbollah and its allies will gain. The more American assets are threatened in Iraq, the more difficult it becomes to present deeper intervention as manageable. The more Ansar Allah raises the cost of shipping through Bab el-Mandeb, the more the conflict escapes the boundaries of local war and enters the realm of global economic disruption.
The likely consequence is not a clean victory for any side, but a long phase of attritional regional instability. Israel may continue to intensify its campaign in Lebanon because it has not yet achieved the result it wants. Iraqi militias may continue attacking Western targets while preparing politically for a wider war. Ansar Allah may increase the use of maritime pressure because it understands that chokepoints can generate strategic effect far beyond Yemen itself. Iran, for its part, will keep trying to turn every enemy move into a trigger for wider overextension. It does not need to win in one dramatic moment. It only needs to ensure that its adversaries cannot close the conflict on their terms.
That is the central lesson of the present moment. Military superiority does not automatically translate into political success, especially in a region where allied non-state actors can open multiple fronts with relative flexibility. The US and Israel retain enormous destructive capacity. But destruction is not the same thing as control, and control is not the same thing as victory.
In that sense, the strategic initiative is no longer defined only by who can strike harder. It is increasingly defined by who can force the other side to fight on too many maps at once. Iran and the forces loyal to it appear determined to do exactly that. They are trying to stretch the conflict in time, to stretch it across geography, and to erode the ability of their adversaries to maintain focus. For now, that strategy is working far better than many in the US and Israel.
The US president is set to deliver a speech on the Middle East war later tonight
Welcome to RT’s live coverage of the US-Israeli war on Iran and the wider turmoil across the Middle East, which continues to be affected by missile and drone strikes from both sides.
As the war on Iran enters day 33, missiles struck an oil tanker off the coast of Qatar, as well as Kuwait’s airport on Wednesday, while US and Israeli airstrikes relentlessly pounded Tehran. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has claimed that Iran’s president wanted a ceasefire, which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has refuted. “No ceasefire proposal has been made by Iran. The five-point plan allegedly proposed by Iran is media speculation,” Araghchi said, as cited by IRIB. The war will continue until the aggressor is punished and full compensation is paid to Iran, he added.
Trump is set to deliver a speech on the Iran war later tonight, his first prime-time address since the conflict began, as plunging approval ratings and rising economic anxiety deepen political pressure at home. The White House has given no details on the speech, but it comes hours after Trump claimed Iran had sought a pause in hostilities, even as he set conditions that underscored the uncertainty surrounding the war’s trajectory. Trump is set to speak at 9 PM (0100 GMT on Thursday), more than a month after the US and Israel launched the war, a delay that contrasts with the early addresses presidents typically deliver at the outset of major conflicts.
Recent polling shows Trump’s approval rating slipping below 40%, with disapproval climbing above the mid-50s as voters sour on both the war and its economic fallout.
Support for the Iran campaign itself is deeply underwater, with the majority opposing the offensive and independents turning sharply against it.
Here are the latest developments:
• Trump has suggested that the US is considering leaving NATO over what he cast as its lackluster military support for the Iran war.
• Iran and the US are engaged in “exchanges of messages” but are not holding any talks, Aragchi has said.
• At least 1,318 people have been killed and 3,935 injured in the Israeli invasion and attacks on Lebanon since March 2, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry.
• Russia’s ban on gasoline exports has come into force, following a government decision approved last week aimed at “stabilizing” domestic fuel prices amid volatility in global oil markets due to the Middle East crisis.
• More than 115,000 civilian units have been damaged or destroyed in recent attacks on Iran, the Red Crescent has said. The sites reportedly include residential, medical, educational, and relief centers, with a significant share located in Tehran province.
Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates. You can also read our previous updates here.
The personalized drug will tackle a patient’s stage three melanoma, with results expected in the coming months
A Russian melanoma patient has received the first personalized cancer vaccine in what is hoped to be a breakthrough in the treatment of the disease, the Russian Health Ministry said in a statement to TASS on Wednesday.
Last year, the ministry approved two domestically-made medicines: Neooncovac, an mRNA-based vaccine for advanced melanoma, and Oncopept, a peptide treatment targeting aggressive colorectal tumors. Both began human pilot trials in 2025.
On Tuesday, Neooncovac was administered to its first clinical patient, a 60-year-old male with stage three skin cancer, according to Aleksandr Ginzburg, scientific director of the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, which helped develop the breakthrough anti-tumor medicine.
“So far, he is doing well; there have been no adverse reactions to the drug,” Ginzburg told Russian news portal Gazeta.ru on Wednesday. “He is 60 years old and has stage three melanoma with metastasis. The vaccine specifically helps fight metastases.”
Samples were taken from the patient’s tumor and non-tumor tissue, and researchers analyzed the genome to create a customized vaccine that trains the immune system to attack cancer cells, Ginzburg explained.
According to Andrey Kaprin, head of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology at the Russian Health Ministry, this approach represents a new method of treatment.
“This is a fundamentally different approach – not simply treating the disease, but ‘training’ the immune system to recognize and destroy precisely those cells that pose a threat,” he told TASS on Wednesday.
The patient will be given 8-9 doses of the medicine at intervals of 2-3 weeks, with his immune response recorded after each injection. Results are expected after three months of treatment.
Preclinical animal trials had shown tumors disappearing in many cases, with metastases responding in around 90% of tests, Ginzburg has previously said.
Neooncovac is currently in the final stages of being made available for free treatment under Russia’s national health insurance system, Health Minister Mikhail Murashko told reporters on Wednesday.
The Gamaleya Center, which made the first registered Covid-19 vaccine, Sputnik V, is also working on medicines targeting other oncological conditions, including pancreatic, kidney and non-small cell lung cancer – one of the cancers with the highest mortality rate worldwide.
Former US Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem said she was “devastated” to find out the details about her spouse’s double life
The husband of former US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem allegedly led a double life as a cross dressing fetishist who spent thousands of dollars on online models and shared photos of himself in exaggerated feminine attire, according to a Daily Mail investigation.
Kristi Noem, often dubbed online as the ‘ICE Barbie’ over her glamorous appearance, led the DHS from early 2025 until her removal in early March and was in charge of Washington’s controversial nation-wide crackdown on illegal migration, overseeing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
The Daily Mail reported on Tuesday that her husband, Bryon Noem, an insurance executive, used the alias ‘Jason Jackson’ to communicate with women involved in the “bimbofication” scene – a subculture centered on exaggeratedly feminine, Barbie doll aesthetics.
Reviewing hundreds of messages and images, the Mail said Bryon Noem sent at least $25,000 via Cash App and PayPal, lavished praise on the models’ surgically enhanced bodies, and shared selfies in which he appeared wearing tight pink shorts, crop tops, and what looked like balloons or prosthetics to mimic large breasts.
Secret double life of Kristi Noem's crossdressing husband Bryon: The pouting 'busty bimbo' photos and trove of explicit messages https://t.co/4GvCcfPK9j
In one exchange he also reportedly wrote: “you turn me into a girl.” In another, he also appeared to acknowledge his wife’s rumored affair with longtime Trump operative Corey Lewandowski, telling a model: “I know. There’s nothing I can do about it.”
The revelations have prompted warnings from former intelligence officials who said the behavior could have exposed Kristi Noem, who oversaw sensitive national security operations until her firing last month, to blackmail.
“If a media organization can find this out, you can assume with a high degree of confidence that a hostile intelligence service knows this as well,” former CIA officer Marc Polymeropoulos told the Mail.
When contacted by the outlet, Bryon Noem did not deny the explicit conversations or the photos, but rejected the suggestion that he had made indiscreet comments about his wife or endangered national security.
A representative for Kristi Noem told the New York Post she was “devastated” and that “the family was blindsided by this.” The couple, married since 1992, have three adult children.
US President Donald Trump, when asked about the reports, said he “feels badly for the family.”
Kristi Noem was removed from her position at the DHS amid mounting controversies, including criticism over her immigration enforcement tactics and two fatal shootings by federal agents. She has since been named special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas” initiative.
Talk of a coup is rising, but the Ukraine playbook might not translate to Hungarian
Polls ahead of the Hungarian elections point to an opposition victory, but players behind the scenes expect Prime Minister Viktor Orban to come out on top. Others say it’s a scenario ripe for a Kiev-style ‘color revolution’.
With two weeks to go until Hungary’s parliamentary elections, Orban is facing the most credible threat to his power yet. Opposition leader Peter Magyar’s Tisza party is currently leading Orban’s Fidesz by 15 points, according to an aggregate of polls compiled by Politico. When looking at pollsters linked to Tisza or funded by the EU, the results are even more stark. A poll by the opposition-linked Median, for example, shows Tisza a whole 23 points ahead of Fidesz, at 58-35%.
However, Politico has also reported that “many” EU leaders secretly believe an Orban victory is “likely.” Hungarian EU Affairs Minister Janos Boka thinks that the disparity between public surveys and private sentiment is no accident, and that by skewing polls, Magyar and his allies in Brussels are “building the narrative that if they lose the election, then this is an illegitimate result.”
Notorious intervention hawk Michael Weiss put Boka’s worries into words last week. “If Orban tries to steal this – and he almost certainly will – it’ll be Euromaidan on steroids in an EU/NATO country. Watch closely, America,” he warned in a post on X.
If Orban tries to steal this — and he almost certainly will — it’ll be Euromaidan on steroids in an EU/NATO country. Watch closely, America…. https://t.co/F62x0oSo47
Weiss, who previously ran a Ukraine regime change outfit he claimed was journalism, was referring to the post-election coup that toppled a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovich, in 2014. Orchestrated by the US, the Maidan/Euromaidan coup set in motion a chain of events that culminated in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
However, there are some fundamental points war hawks in armchairs would like you not to notice; differences between Budapest and Kiev that would make forced regime change a far more difficult prospect if Orban wins.
How the US masterminded Maidan
Presented by Western media as a popular uprising, the ‘Maidan’ revolution was a creation of the US State Department and run out of a very compliant US embassy. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a State Department sub-agency, pumped around $14 million into Ukrainian activist groups from 2011 to 2014, the US embassy funded pro-Maidan media outlets, and between 1991 and 2014, the US funnelled a total of $5 billion into “democracy-building programs in Ukraine,” a State Department spokesperson said in 2014.
The NED boasted in a 2015 report that US-funded organizations “played important roles in the peaceful protests in Kiev.” By the time the report had been published, the “peaceful protests” had descended into a bloodbath, with Western-funded far-right militias massacring nearly 100 pro-Western protesters in a false-flag operation, and pro-Western neo-Nazis burning 46 anti-Maidan protesters alive at the Trade Unions House in Odessa. Awkward questions for the neocons, neolibs, and the righteous.
Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland promised military aid and a billion-dollar loan to opposition politicians, and famously handed out cookies to pro-Western activists in Kiev. Together with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, she helped choose the government that would replace Yanukovich’s. When asked by an obsequious Pyatt in a 2014 phone call if the Europeans might disagree with her choice of candidate, the notorious hawk infamously declared “f**k the EU.”
Now the US backs Orban
The situation in Hungary is radically different. US President Donald Trump is a staunch ally of Orban, and has endorsed the Hungarian PM’s reelection campaign, while Vice President J.D. Vance is scheduled to make a high-profile trip to Budapest just days before the April 12 election.
Furthermore, the US embassy in Budapest has been cleared of ideologues – among them President Joe Biden’s ambassador, David Pressman – and the NED and USAID have both been gutted by Trump. Put simply, the US has stripped back its regime-change machinery in Hungary, and has a keen interest in an Orban victory.
Could the Europeans trigger a Hungarian Maidan?
Nuland and the Americans may have been in the driver’s seat in 2014, but the Maidan coup was also backed by the EU, UK, and the panoply of civil society and activist groups funded by the likes of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
British officials met with Ukraine’s pro-Western opposition, while the UK’s embassy in Kiev hastily created a slew of social media accounts aimed at“explaining the benefits for Ukraine of closer European integration.” Brussels sent officials to meet with the Maidan protesters, while both the EU and UK played a role in brokering a deal between Yanukovich and the opposition, which the latter would immediately break, charging Yanukovich with treason.
The EU and UK are committed to arming and funding Ukraine, and therefore both have a vested interest in Orban’s removal. Under Orban, Hungary has used its EU veto powers to delay every package of energy sanctions imposed on Russia by the bloc, opposes Ukraine’s accession to NATO, refuses to supply arms to Kiev, and is currently, along with Slovakia and the Czech Republic, vetoing a €90 billion EU loan package for Kiev.
As RT outlined in the first installment of our ‘Battle for Hungary’ series, the EU has already brought the full weight of its online censorship machinery to bear on Hungary ahead of the election, and plans to keep speech restrictions in place for a week after the vote. However, the bloc’s ability to pressure Orban directly is already nearly exhausted. The EU has withheld funds equal to 3.5% of Hungary’s GDP since 2022 over Orban’s refusal to accept non-European migrants, his banning of LGBT propaganda, and alleged judicial independence concerns – all without triggering meaningful popular unrest in Hungary. Should Orban win, the last remaining tool in the EU’s arsenal is to strip Hungary of its veto rights, an idea already floated by Sweden, Lithuania, and a host of unnamed “EU diplomats”interviewed by Politico earlier this month.
The UK has played a more low-key pre-election game than the EU. However, British Ambassador Justin McKenzie Smith held a closed-doors meeting with pro-Western activists and journalists in Budapest on March 4. The event was organized in conjunction with Political Capital, a think tank funded by the European Commission, Soros, and the NED.
British journalist Catherine Belton attended the event, and three weeks later ‘broke’ a story revealing contacts between Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. As RT explored earlier in this series, Hungarian opposition journalist Szabolcs Panyi collaborated with EU intelligence agents to obtain this information by wiretapping Szijjarto.
Szijjarto does not deny speaking to Lavrov, maintaining that such diplomatic outreach is part of his job. The real scandal, he insists, “is that a Hungarian journalist is colluding with foreign secret services in order to wiretap a member of the Hungarian government.”
Can Soros stoke a revolution?
Soros’ Open Society Foundations played a pivotal role in fomenting the Maidan coup, or in its own words “supporting civil society.” Around 2014, the Hungarian-born financier’s work in Ukraine included providing legal aid to pro-Western protesters, funding pro-Western media, and financing anti-government think-tanks.
“I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of [the USSR],” Soros told CNN in 2014. “And the foundation has been functioning ever since. And it played an important part in events now.”
Soros’ influence in his native Hungary has been severely curtailed by Orban. Hungary criminalized the provision of aid to illegal immigrants in a 2018 law named the ‘Stop Soros’ act. This law effectively forced Open Society Foundations to cease operations in Hungary, and forced Soros’ Central European University out of the country. However, at least 153 organizations in or dealing with Hungary were still in receipt of Soros’ money as of last year, according to the Center for Fundamental Rights, a conservative think tank.
Soros is therefore still capable of exerting some influence on Hungary, however diminished and indirect that influence may be nowadays.
Can the EU run the Romania playbook instead?
Hungary in 2026 is not Ukraine in 2014. Orban’s opponents have no support from the US, and the EU’s anti-Orban rhetoric and funding freezes failed to prevent his victories in the 2018 and 2022 elections. Moreover, Brussels is extremely unlikely to instigate or incite post-election violence in one of its own member states. Meanwhile, the UK’s involvement has thus far been limited to encouraging anti-Orban propaganda.
Still, the Maidan playbook is not the only blueprint for regime change and election interference. The EU used its same censorship tools to stifle support for Euroskeptic candidate Calin Georgescu in Romania’s 2024 election: when Georgescu won a shock victory anyway, the country’s pro-EU judiciary simply overturned the result.
Brussels should not count on any help from the Hungarian legal system, however. Orban has been in power for 16 years, created the Supreme Administrative Court that handles election-related cases, and appointed its chief justices. Even if Magyar were to win, his Tisza party would need a two-thirds majority to overhaul this system.
All of this being the case, a post-election coup is likely out of the question in Hungary, should Orban win a fifth consecutive term in office. Before the election, however, all manner of spy games and influence campaigns are already underway.
Draft enforcers now wear civilian clothing and include women in their ranks, the Berliner Zeitung has reported
Ukrainian draft enforcers have begun employing new, more elaborate tactics to catch potential conscripts unawares, the Berliner Zeitung (BZ) has reported. The steps are said to include deploying women as well as officers disguised as civilians.
Pressure on Kiev to mobilize more troops to continue the conflict with Russia is increasing, leading to “growing tensions in the daily life” of Ukrainian citizens, the German outlet said in an article on Monday.
Kiev’s press gangs have increasingly begun wearing civilian clothing as Ukrainian men tend to flee as soon as they see people in military gear in the streets, it said.
According to BZ, the patrols now in many cases include female employees of recruitment centers, which is also done to catch possible conscripts off guard.
The locations for forced mobilization have also changed, with press gangs being spotted in crowded areas more often, the article read.
There were reports of draft enforcers snatching men on transport and as soon as they get off trains and buses.
The mobilization drive has also moved from smaller villages to major cities, including Kiev, the paper added.
Ukrainian media have also reported conscription officers using fake accounts on dating sites to lure men of conscription age out of their apartments. As a result, “a significant number” of males who thought they were going on a romantic rendezvous ended up being sent to the front.
Images have emerged on social media over the past week showing banners popping up across the country reading “Defending Ukraine is a woman’s job” and urging females to join the armed forces. The Ukrainian military has rejected rumors of plans to introduce mandatory mobilization of women, saying that the ads were intended to invite female volunteers to drone units.
Ukraine barred nearly all adult men from leaving the country following the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022. Kiev’s recruitment drive has grown increasingly brutal over time, with hundreds of cases being documented where enlistment officers have violently snatched conscripts from the streets, using pepper spray and even firearms against them.
Moscow has repeatedly accused the Kiev government and its Western backers of being willing to fight “until the last Ukrainian.”
Officials have announced a temporary cut to the general fuel levy
South Africa’s government has moved to blunt the impact of surging global energy prices, announcing a temporary cut to the general fuel levy to ease pressure on consumers, Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe said on Tuesday.
The levy will drop by R3 ($0.16) per liter from April 1 to May 5, reducing petrol levies to R1.10 ($0.06) and diesel to R0.93 ($0.05) per liter.
Officials described the move as a balancing act between shielding households from rising transport and food costs and maintaining fiscal discipline. The one-month intervention is expected to cost the state around R6 billion ($320 million) in lost revenue and will be subject to review.
South Africa relies heavily on imported crude oil and refined fuels. Diesel prices have surged by up to R7.51 ($0.44) per liter, while petrol rose by R3.06 ($0.18), sending shockwaves across the country. By Tuesday evening, some filling stations in eastern Johannesburg were reportedly turning motorists away after running out of both diesel and petrol.
Despite concerns, officials insisted there is “sufficient fuel supply in the country to meet current and projected demand,” urging motorists and businesses to avoid panic buying and “unnecessary stockpiling.”
The decision comes amid conflict in the Middle East after US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran began on February 28, which have driven oil prices above $100 per barrel. According to South Africa’s Central Energy Fund, the country is facing “historically high fuel price increases from April.”
The move follows a directive from President Cyril Ramaphosa to address rising petrol and diesel prices. Minister Mantashe said the average Brent crude price rose from $69.08 to $93.67 due to ongoing conflict between the US and Iran, which “has affected crude oil supply, especially through the Strait of Hormuz.”
In March, Kenyan and Ghanian governments moved to introduce measures such as subsidies, tax adjustments and price controls to curb rising fuel costs. In Kenya, prices were kept unchanged through a state-backed stabilization mechanism, while in Ghana petrol prices surged by 16.9% and diesel by 17.2%.
The highly confidential internal design of the Amazon-backed tech was published due to “human error”
AI giant Anthropic has mistakenly published its own top secret internal code, triggering a viral wave of github rewrites and inflicting potentially catastrophic commercial damage on the Amazon-backed business model.
The developer of the Claude chatbot described the incident as a release issue “caused by human error, not a security breach,” according to US technology news website VentureBeat on Tuesday.
Anthropic was designated a “risk to national security” by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in February after disagreements with the Pentagon over the use of its artificial intelligence systems.
The leak involved more than 500,000 lines of code linked to Claude Code, Anthropic’s AI coding assistant, which helps users write and manage software through natural language commands, according to Axios and The Verge. The material included unreleased features, performance data, and developer notes.
The code spread rapidly online, with versions of the code being placed on code-sharing platform GitHub and replicated thousands of times within hours, according to Ars Technica and The Verge. Anthropic moved to remove the material and issued takedown notices, but the material had already been widely copied and circulated, the reports said.
According to VentureBeat, by exposing the “blueprints” of Claude Code, the leak may have given “bad actors” a “road map” to bypassing security checks or tricking the tool into running hidden commands or accessing data without the user’s knowledge.
A separate data leak reported in February exposed internal materials revealing details of Anthropic’s unreleased model, known as Claude Mythos, after thousands of draft documents were left accessible in a public data cache.
The model was described in the leaked material as the company’s most powerful system to date which could pose “unprecedented cybersecurity risks” if deployed widely. The company has withheld its release due to concerns over its capabilities and potential misuse, according to US business magazine Fortune.
The strategic response for Africa lies not in reacting to individual crises but in reducing its overall dependence on them
US and Israeli strikes on Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have implications for Africa that extend far beyond politics in the Middle East. This external shock has once again demonstrated Africa’s structural dependence on global commodity markets.
The problem isn’t just that African countries are deeply integrated into global trade; it’s rather the nature of this integration: in Africa, most countries primarily act as consumers of fuel and finished goods and lack a robust industrial base that could help absorb shocks.
Consequently, any crisis quickly transforms from an external event into an internal macroeconomic challenge for Africa.
The war in Iran has already triggered significant volatility in the oil markets. In March, Brent soared above $95 per barrel, occasionally reaching around $110. This is primarily due to the destabilization of supply chains and the risks surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. More than a quarter of the world’s maritime oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz and about one-fifth of global oil and petroleum product consumption. One-fifth of the global trade in liquefied natural gas (LNG) also passes through this critical chokepoint.
Setting aside the political, ethical, and international legal aspects of the conflict, the key consequence for the global economy is clear: instability in the oil markets and rising costs on products originating from the Middle East. This isn’t just oil, petroleum products, and LNG but also methanol, ammonia, urea, and other petrochemical products essential for agriculture, industry, and transportation, since much of their production is concentrated in the Persian Gulf.
For Africa, the impact is particularly strong when it comes to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is widely used for cooking meals.
Africa’s vulnerability is exacerbated by the structure of its economy. Most countries on the continent lack a developed industrial base and sufficient processing capacities. Even African nations that possess their own oil and gas reserves remain heavily reliant on imported refined products and other finished goods.
In 2025, the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) estimated that Africa incurs additional annual costs of about $30 billion for importing petroleum products due to inadequate refining capacity. In other words, African countries pay not only for raw materials but also for foreign-added value.
In this context, any rise in oil prices hits Africa harder than it does China, India, or other industrialized economies that can process raw materials domestically and partially offset price fluctuations through their own industrial supply chains. Naturally, an increase in oil prices almost automatically leads to higher costs on petroleum products – gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and jet fuel. Automobile transport remains the backbone of logistics in many African nations, and diesel generators provide not only backup electrical supply, but are the primary source of electricity for millions of businesses and households. As a result, rising fuel prices inevitably lead to increased costs on food, construction materials, imports, passenger transport, and nearly all consumer goods.
This blow will hit fuel-importing countries particularly hard. Net fuel importers account for about two-thirds of GDP in Sub-Saharan Africa. This means that Africa as a whole will suffer from this crisis, even if certain oil-exporting nations may temporarily benefit. My estimates suggest that if the current crisis persists for several months, major net importers such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Rwanda, Malawi, Zambia, and others could see inflation rates spike by 1-3 percentage points, and there will also be a slowdown in GDP growth.
For countries already burdened by high debt and weak currencies, even what seems like a ‘moderate’ shock can have severe political, economic, and social repercussions. This is particularly concerning given that regional economies have only just begun to recover from the last debt crisis.
Conversely, rising oil prices promise additional revenue for exporters such as Angola, Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and others. These countries may experience a temporary boost in their budgets, increased fiscal revenues, and renewed investor interest in the oil and gas sector, as high prices typically revive enthusiasm for exploration and new extraction projects.
However, we must not overestimate the scale of potential benefits. A significant portion of resource rents still flows to foreign companies, service contractors, traders, and creditors. Additionally, an increase in budget revenues does not always translate into sustainable domestic growth, industrialization, or the establishment of extensive production chains.
Amidst this backdrop, Algeria stands out as a country that effectively converts some of its external commodity advantages into tangible internal benefits. The state’s role in the oil and gas sector is much stronger thanks to the national oil company, Sonatrach; this enhances Algeria’s ability to redistribute resource rent within the economy compared to other exporters. Algeria experienced a similar cycle between 2022 and 2023. Against the background of high energy prices in Europe, the World Bank and IMF have reported that Algeria’s economy returned to stable growth (4%), emerging from a prolonged period of stagnation.
Nevertheless, even for oil exporters, this crisis isn’t wholly beneficial. While expensive oil generates revenue, it also increases the costs of imports, insurance, freight, equipment, and infrastructure maintenance. In Africa, where supply chains are short and the industrial base is limited, the positive impact of high commodity prices is often muted. Thus, the paradox of the current crisis is that even countries that benefit from oil exports do not always gain in terms of development.
Another consequence of the current crisis is that it may divert the attention of Middle Eastern nations away from Africa. According to experts from the Center for African Studies at HSE University, the Gulf states – particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, along with Iran and, to a lesser extent, Qatar – have recently emerged as key external players in Africa and have significantly altered the balance of power on the continent.
Even if the war in Iran comes to a relatively swift conclusion, the countries in the region will need to allocate substantial financial resources and political capital to address its aftermath, bolster their own security, and transform the order in the Middle East. This shift is bound to reduce the amount of capital, diplomatic focus, and investment opportunities available to Africa, at least in the short to medium term.
Consequently, Africa again finds itself in the position to which it has been confined for decades by global politics: forced to grapple with the consequences of global crises that it had no part in starting. The situation with Iran starkly illustrates this point.
As long as most African nations rely on imported fuel, finished goods, and external logistics, fluctuations in the global market will translate into inflation, current account deficits, rising external debt, and social unrest.
The strategic response for Africa lies not in reacting to individual crises but in reducing its overall dependence on them. This can be achieved by enhancing domestic processing capabilities, improving energy and transportation infrastructure, expanding the internal industrial base, and utilizing natural resource rents more effectively in exporting countries. Only then can external shocks stop automatically morphing into internal crises.
The UAE is preparing to assist the US in unblocking the Strait of Hormuz by force, Arab officials have told the outlet
The United Arab Emirates is getting ready to become the first Gulf nation to commit its military to the US-Israeli war against Iran, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing Arab officials.
Since the start of the conflict a month ago, the UAE has been hit by some 2,500 Iranian missiles and drones, more than any other country in the region, including Israel. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed due to the fighting, the country’s oil output has been reduced by more than half, while stock markets in Dubai and Abu Dhabi have lost around $120 billion in value.
The Emirates wants the Strait of Hormuz unblocked for oil trade so badly that it is ready to assist the US militarily in doing so, the WSJ said in an article on Tuesday.
The nation’s diplomats have privately urged Washington to form a military coalition with European and Asian countries to take control of the waterway, the sources said.
According to the officials, the UAE is lobbying for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in the Strait of Hormuz.
The leadership in Abu Dhabi is currently “actively” looking at ways in which the country could contribute militarily to securing the waterway, including through mine clearing and other support activities, they said.
The Gulf state also wants the US to occupy the islands in the strait, including Abu Musa, which have been under Iran’s control for a half-century, but are claimed by the UAE, the Arab officials added.
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Washington could withdraw from the conflict in two to three weeks and “will not have anything to do with” what happens in the Strait of Hormuz after that. Unblocking the waterway, through which 20% of seaborne oil trade passes, will be a task for “whoever uses the strait,” he insisted.
Iran maintains that the Strait of Hormuz is only closed for the US and its allies, while ships from other countries are free to go through it. Tehran also warned that it would decimate energy infrastructure in the Gulf states if an attempt to capture its islands or coastal areas is made.
Oracle has reportedly laid off around 30,000 people worldwide
US tech giant Oracle has laid off 12,000 employees in India, the PTI news agency has reported. Globally, the company has cut around 30,000 employees, according to media reports.
Oracle employs about 30,000 people in India, including those affected by the present round of layoffs.
The impacted workers told the Moneycontrol website that another round of job cuts is likely within a month.
Oracle informed the affected employees about organizational changes in an email sent at 6 AM, stating that “a decision has been taken to streamline the operations, and as a result, unfortunately, the position you currently hold will become redundant,” according to Moneycontrol.
The company has reportedly offered 15 days’ salary for each completed year of service for the fired employees in India. It has also offered leave encashment, gratuity based on eligibility, and pay for a one-month notice period, apart from a two-month salary as a top-up for laid-off employees.
The development comes as Oracle increases capital expenditure to build data center infrastructure capable of handling artificial intelligence (AI) workloads.
A 2025 report by the Indian government think tank NITI Aayog estimates that up to 20% of jobs in IT services and call centers in India could be impacted by automation by 2031.
A Citrini Research report titled ‘The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis’ estimated that by 2028, India’s IT services industry could slow down dramatically as clients shift to AI coding agents at significantly lower costs.
India’s largest IT services company, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), laid off around 12,000 employees, representing roughly 2% of its global workforce in 2025. Nearly 700 Amazon employees in India lost their jobs in January as part of a restructuring process. Microsoft cut around 15,000 jobs globally in 2025.
Moscow has denied giving Kiev two months to withdraw from Donbass, insisting Ukrainian forces should have left “yesterday”
The Kremlin has dismissed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s claim that Moscow issued a two‑month ultimatum for Kiev to withdraw from Russia’s Donbass region, insisting that the troops should have left the region long ago.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the idea of a withdrawal deadline “is not about two months,” stressing that Zelensky “must make the decision today for the Ukrainian armed forces to leave the borders of the Donetsk People’s Republic.”
“This has been said for a long time, and he should have done it yesterday. It could have saved the lives of thousands of people and stopped the hot phase of this war,” Peskov said.
Peskov’s remarks came a day after Zelensky claimed in an interview that Moscow had informed Washington that it expected Kiev to withdraw from Donbass within two months. The Ukrainian leader said that if Kiev refused, Russia would capture the territory anyway and the terms of a settlement “will be different.”
The status of Donbass, which voted to join Russia in 2022, remains one of the main obstacles to peace negotiations. Moscow has repeatedly stated that Ukraine’s full withdrawal from the region is essential for a sustainable settlement.
Zelensky’s claims about alleged US pressure to cede Donbass have also been rejected by Washington. Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed the Ukrainian leader’s assertions as a “lie,” saying Kiev had merely been told that security guarantees could only come after a peace deal, not before.
Trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine and the US have been on hold due to the Iran war, with Peskov describing the pause as “situational.” He reiterated on Wednesday that Moscow remains open to negotiations but that the focus of American mediators has shifted to the Middle East.
Zelensky has consistently rejected territorial concessions, calling the withdrawal from Donbass a threat to European security. Meanwhile, Russia insists that any lasting peace must include Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of the regions that voted to join Russia.
British households are facing renewed pressure on living standards as fuel costs surge, the organization has warned
The UK is facing one of the largest economic shocks of any country from the Middle East conflict, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned, saying it is “especially exposed” to surging energy prices due to its heavy reliance on gas-fired power.
Energy importers across Europe are taking the hardest hit after prices surged in the wake of US- Israeli strikes on Iran in late February and subsequent retaliatory attacks across the region. The crisis has effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz – a key shipping route that carries about a fifth of global oil supply – choking off flows and driving up fuel and input costs.
In a blogpost by senior IMF officials including chief economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas earlier this week, the Fund said heavily indebted governments would have little room to cushion the blow, leaving households and businesses more exposed. It added the Middle East war’s impact would be “both global and highly uneven,” with some countries, including the UK, facing a renewed squeeze on living standards.
The UK and Italy are among the most exposed, with rising energy bills set to drive up living costs, the IMF said, while France and Spain are relatively shielded due to greater reliance on nuclear and renewable energy.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday urged the public to “act as normal,” insisting that fuel supplies remain secure.
Economists warn that the British economy is now in a far weaker position than four years ago, when the EU and UK began to phase out affordable Russian gas and oil over the Ukraine conflict.
Former Bank of England deputy governor Howard Davies said this week the UK could be heading towards an energy crisis comparable to the turmoil of the 1970s, when oil prices quadrupled after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war as Arab producers imposed an embargo on Western nations. He warned that Middle East supply could remain constrained, keeping prices elevated – if not as high as $150 a barrel, then well above the roughly $60 seen before the current crisis.
UK natural gas prices have more than doubled since December, while Brent crude – near $60 before the conflict – briefly topped $116 earlier this week before easing to about $100 a barrel on Wednesday.
A three-day transport sector action has disrupted commuting as unions protest restrictions, corruption, and a lack of dialogue
A three-day nationwide transport strike in Senegal, launched on Monday at the call of the Federation of Road Transport Unions of Senegal (FSTRS), has disrupted mobility in Dakar, leaving residents struggling to commute.
Roads in the capital appear unusually clear due to the absence of public transport, local news agencies reported. Union leaders had decided that no transport vehicles should operate across the country. Despite the strike call, some operators have continued working, although their limited presence have failed to meet demand.
The protest movement, backed by the Senegal Road Transport Union, is rooted in long-standing grievances over sector governance and the government’s refusal to formally recognize a new union formed in February 2026.
Transport workers have also accused authorities of systemic harassment and corruption on national roads. Among their key demands is the immediate enforcement of previously agreed measures, particularly those aimed at cutting down the number of roadside checkpoints.
Union representatives say the strike was further fueled by restrictive government policies and a breakdown in dialogue. Drivers have voiced opposition to a nighttime ban affecting certain minibuses, which they describe as unjustified.
Earlier this month, the FSTRS withdrew from talks with the government, accusing the authorities of a “frivolous approach” and procedural neglect.
Although the strike was announced in advance, the authorities introduced contingency measures. The Executive Council for Sustainable Urban Transport (CETUD) said operators including Dem Dikk, Aftu, and Dakar Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) have been mobilized to maintain services and meet daily transport needs.
Senegal has seen strikes beyond the transport sector in recent months. From December, student protests erupted at Cheikh Anta Diop University in Dakar, reaching a peak in February after delays in scholarship payments, dissatisfaction with government reforms, and allegations of police violence.
US President Donald Trump will decide what to do regarding the bloc after ending the war with Iran, the Pentagon chief has said
US War Secretary Pete Hegseth has refused to reaffirm Washington’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense, pointing to the bloc’s refusal to assist or participate in the American-Israeli war on Iran.
Speaking at a Pentagon press briefing on Tuesday, Hegseth stated that the future of US involvement in NATO will ultimately be decided by President Donald Trump, but noted that many issues with the bloc have been “laid bare” in the Iran conflict.
“A lot has been shown to the world about what our allies would be willing to do for the US when we undertake an effort of this scope on behalf of the free world,” Hegseth said. He argued that Iranian missiles did not pose a threat to the US, but to its “allies and others,” who responded to Washington’s request for assistance with “questions, or roadblocks, or hesitations.”
“The President is pointing out that you don’t have much of an alliance if you have countries that are not willing to stand with you when you need them,” Hegseth said.
In an interview with the Telegraph published on Wednesday, Trump himself confirmed that he is strongly considering pulling the US out of NATO if it fails to join the war against Iran, labelling the bloc a “paper tiger.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly suggested in an interview with Fox News that Washington would have to “re-examine” its NATO membership when the war against Iran comes to an end, arguing that “if NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked, but them denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement. That’s a hard one to stay engaged in.”
A number of NATO states have opposed the unprovoked war being waged on Iran by the US and Israel, with several members, including France and Spain, openly refusing to participate in the operation or allow Washington to use their bases or airspace for attacks.
Trump has repeatedly lashed out at bloc members for their reluctance, branding them “cowards” on social media and claiming that NATO was “a one-way street” and that the US “no longer ‘need[s]’, or desire[s], the NATO countries’ assistance.”
New Delhi has also marginally increased energy prices for domestic routes
India has hiked aviation fuel prices for international flights amid a surge in oil prices globally due to the Middle East conflict.
Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) prices have more than doubled to a record $2,220.45 per kiloliter, according to India’s Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
ATF prices in India were deregulated in 2001 and are revised on a monthly basis, based on a formula involving international benchmarks.
“Due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and extraordinary situation in global energy markets, the price of ATF for domestic markets was expected to increase by more than 100% on April 1,” the ministry said.
ATF prices in India were deregulated in 2001 and are revised on monthly basis based on a formula of international benchmarks. Due to the closure of Strait of Hormuz and extraordinary situation in global energy markets, price of ATF for domestic markets was expected to increase by…
— Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas #MoPNG (@PetroleumMin) April 1, 2026
To insulate domestic travel costs from the substantial increase in international prices, state-backed oil companies have passed on a partial and staggered increase of 25% ($0.16 per liter) to airlines operating domestic flights.
Other carriers, including charter operators, will pay the full market rate. For them, prices have risen by $1,187.49 per kiloliter, or 114.5%, to $2,224.11 per kiloliter, the statement said.
This is the first time ATF prices in India have crossed the $2,145.36 per kiloliter mark. The previous high was recorded in 2022, when rates climbed to around $1,179.95 per kiloliter following the Ukraine conflict.
The federal government also hiked commercial natural gas prices by $2.09 per 19-kg cylinder in line with global trends.
However, domestic natural gas, gasoline, and diesel prices remained unchanged.
State-backed fuel retailers Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, and Hindustan Petroleum normally revise ATF and liquified petroleum gas (LPG) prices on the first day of every month based on international benchmarks and exchange rates.
Short and punchy computer-generated clips by Tehran have been going viral on social media during the conflict
RT has looked into how Iran has used cheap, AI-generated clips to mock US President Donald Trump and the American military, countering the multibillion-dollar US media machine during the conflict in the Middle East.
Videos by Tehran address the latest developments in the war, warning that US troops will face “hell” if Washington launches a ground operation, making fun of Trump’s fear of the ‘No Kings’ protests and reiterating the Iranian narrative that the US president ordered the attack on February 28 to distract the public from the Epstein files.
In the US, the effort to convince the population that the war against Tehran makes sense is spearheaded by the empire of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which includes the likes of Fox News, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
It targets different audiences with tailored narratives, adopting a measured tone for educated elites, while not shying away from making bogus claims – such as suggesting that Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is gay – or relying on slogans such as “short-term pain for long-term gain” when addressing everyday people.
Iran has presented a video utilizing extraordinary AI technology. "Come on over, Americans—we're waiting for you; hell is ready for you!"—a superb visual presentation.#IranWar#IranRevolution2026pic.twitter.com/dHQ7KxLf4w
— Sagar Times সাগর টাইমস (@sagartimeslive) March 31, 2026
The Iranian approach, however, appears to be more effective, with its often-bizarre AI-generated clips going viral and sometimes being shared by the mainstream media outlets themselves. At the same time, Trump’s approval ratings have plummeted to around 36%, with around 60% of Americans saying that the US military action against Iran has gone too far, according to Ipsos polls.
US President Donald Trump previously scolded Paris for blocking an ammo shipment intended for use in the war on Iran
Israel’s Defense Ministry has announced retaliatory steps against France after US President Donald Trump openly criticized the European NATO member for refusing to allow access to its airspace for arms shipments being delivered to the Middle East.
Posting on Truth Social on Tuesday, Trump described the French decision as “very unhelpful” to the US-Israeli war on Iran, adding that Washington “will remember” the move. France’s restriction on facilitating weapons transfers to Israel came alongside a broader embargo on arms sales to West Jerusalem introduced more than a year ago.
Israeli Defense Ministry Director-General Amir Baram stated in a Channel 12interview on Tuesday that he and Defense Minister Israel Katz aim to curb reliance on foreign arms suppliers, especially from countries such as France that Israel does not view as “friendly.”
In an official statement, the Israeli Defense Ministry said it “will reduce all defense procurement from France to zero” and confirmed the cancellation of a planned visit by a senior French defense official. It added that “there will be no new professional engagement with the French military.”
Macron ally diverts to Lebanon
According to Ynet, Alice Rufo – a deputy to French Armed Forces Minister Catherine Vautrin and a reported close ally of President Emmanuel Macron – had been scheduled to visit Israel on Sunday.
Reports differ on the sequence of events, with some suggesting France’s airspace denial came after Rufo’s visit was scrapped by West Jerusalem. Sources cited by Reuters indicated this marked the first time Paris had refused access to an Israel-bound arms shipment since the regime change campaign against Iran was launched over a month ago.
Rufo traveled to Lebanon this week, where she met senior officials and oversaw the delivery of 39 French-made VAB armored personnel carriers to the Lebanese Army. Israel currently occupies the southern part of Lebanon.
Mounting diplomatic fallout
Macron introduced the arms embargo on Israel in late 2024 as part of a broader effort to pressure West Jerusalem over its military action in Gaza. Israeli defense firms have also been barred from showcasing products at French arms exhibitions.
Although France continues to export certain dual-use goods to Israel, volumes have declined significantly. A parliamentary report in 2025 noted that such exports – which require case-by-case approval – totaled €76.5 million ($88.6 million) in 2024, representing a 60% drop compared to the previous year.
Meanwhile, European NATO allies have largely rejected US calls to support its attack on Iran. The Pentagon reportedly had issues with using Italian and British military bases for the bombing campaign, while Spain refused to be involved in any way and has denounced the US and Israel for initiating the hostilities.
Israel ‘turned its back’ on Macron’s conciliatory moves
Israel has “turned its back” on Macron despite a series of recent French efforts to ease tensions, Le Figaro has said.
In November, Israeli companies were permitted to showcase their goods at the Milipol internal security exhibition in Paris. The following month, France signaled it would not join other European countries in boycotting the Eurovision Song Contest over Israel’s participation.
On March 20, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot met with his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar, in Jerusalem – an event Paris viewed as a key step toward improving ties after Macron’s decision last year to recognize the State of Palestine.
However, Israel appears uninterested in rapprochement, Le Figaro argued. It noted that even before the latest dispute, West Jerusalem had dismissed French objections to its planned military incursion into Lebanon, a former French mandate territory.
Trump urges allies to ‘take’ Iranian oil
Over the past several days, the Trump administration has indicated that the US campaign against Iran could conclude within two weeks. Some analysts, however, suggest the messaging may be a strategic distraction as the Pentagon has moved thousands of marines and airborne forces to the Middle East in preparation for a possible face-saving yet risky ground operation.
Tehran has rejected Trump’s calls for a truce, insisting it will maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz and tally ships passing through the vital shipping corridor. US officials have argued that countries more reliant on Persian Gulf energy supplies than the US should take responsibility for enforcing free traffic.
Rufo, the French junior minister, remarked on Wednesday that NATO was designed as an organization protecting the Euro-Atlantic area and “not intended to carry out an operation in the Strait of Hormuz,” adding that such a deployment would be against international law. She appeared to be responding to Trump’s latest suggestion that the US could pull out of the bloc, made in an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph.
In a separate Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said nations such as the UK that face fuel shortages but decline to support the US and Israel should either buy American oil or “build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT.”
Login
