LONDON — Emergency support to help Brits grappling with rising bills should go to “those who need it most,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said Tuesday — all-but ruling out a Liz Truss-style universal bailout in response to the Iran war. Pledging to “learn the mistakes of the past,” Reeves told MPs Tuesday that, while “contingency planning” is underway for “every eventuality,” the government will be “responsible” with public finances in any new state intervention. Oil and gas prices have soared since the conflict began, leading to higher fuel prices in the U.K. and sparking fears of a sharp increase in family and business energy bills when a regulated price cap period ends in July. Reeves said that, while the full impact of the crisis is not yet known, “the challenges may be significant.” In response to the 2022 energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the government of then-Prime Minister Liz Truss subsidized the bill of every household in the country — a policy backed by the Labour Party at the time. But Reeves today criticized the “unfunded, untargeted” 2022 package, saying it had pushed up borrowing, interest rates and inflation. Between 2022 and 2024, households in the top income decile received an average £1,350 of direct energy bill support, Reeves said, contributing to national debt “still being paid today.” However, the chancellor stopped short of explicitly ruling out a similar approach. She said: “Contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our ironclad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.” The government has already announced a £53 million package of support for households that use heating oil, which are not protected by the energy price cap. The majority of households that use gas and electricity will not see prices rise until July, when the next price cap period ends. The latest expert projections suggest the average annual bill could rise by more than £200 from current levels. On fuel pricing, Reeves said the government would give an update “within the next month,” amid pressure from opposition parties to extend a longstanding five pence tax relief on gasoline and diesel — the fuel duty cut — beyond its expiry date in September. U.K. gasoline prices have have risen by nearly 16 pence per liter since the war began, while diesel has risen by more than 31 pence.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s keeping Britain out of the war in Iran — but he can’t duck the conflict’s grave economic consequences. In a sign of growing fears about the impact of the war on Britain, the prime minister chaired a rare meeting of the government’s emergency COBRA committee Monday night, joined by senior ministers and Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey. Starmer’s top finance minister, Rachel Reeves, will update the House of Commons on the economic picture Tuesday, as an already-unpopular administration worries that chaos in the Middle East is shredding plans to lower the cost of living and get the British economy growing. For Starmer’s government — headed for potentially brutal local elections in May — the crisis in the Gulf risks a nightmare combination of a rise in energy prices, interest rates, inflation and the cost of government borrowing that threatens to undermine everything he’s done since winning office. Economists are now warning that even if Donald Trump’s promise of a “complete and total resolution of hostilities” with Iran were to bear fruit, the effects on the British economy could still last for months. Already there are signs of a split within Starmer’s party over how to respond. Labour MPs want the government to think seriously about action to protect households — but Starmer and Reeves have long talked up the need for fiscal responsibility, and economics are warning that there’s little room for maneuver. Fuel prices displayed at a Shell garage in Southam, Warwickshire on March 23, 2026. | Jacob King/PA Images via Getty Images Jim O’Neill, a former Treasury minister who served as an adviser to Reeves, told POLITICO the government should “not get sucked into reacting to every external shock” and “concentrate on boosting our underlying growth trend.” WHY THE UK IS SO HARD HIT Just before the outbreak of war, there was reason for Starmer and Reeves to feel quietly optimistic about the long-stagnant British economy. The Bank of England had expected inflation to fall back sustainably toward its two percent target for the first time in five years, giving the central bank the space to carry on cutting interest rates.  With the Iran war in full flow, it was forced to rewrite those forecasts at the Monetary Policy Committee’s meeting last week — and now sees inflation at around 3.5 percent by the summer. The U.K. is a big net importer of energy and also needs constant imports of foreign capital to fund its budget and current account deficits. That’s made it one of first targets in the financial markets’ crosshairs. The government’s cost of borrowing has risen by more than half a percentage point over the last month. That threatens both the real economy and Reeves’ painstakingly-negotiated budget arithmetic. Higher inflation means higher interest rates and a higher bill for servicing the government’s debt: fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates a one-point increase in inflation would add £7.3 billion to debt servicing costs in 2026-2027 alone. The effect on businesses and home owners is also likely to be chilling. Britain’s banks are already repricing their most popular mortgages, which are tied to the two-year gilt rate. Hundreds of mortgage products were pulled in a hurry after the MPC meeting last week, something that will hit the housing market and depress Reeves’ intake from both stamp duty and capital gains. Duncan Weldon, an economist and author, said: “Even if this were to stop tomorrow, the inflation numbers and growth numbers are going to look materially worse throughout 2026. “If this continues for longer… it’s an awful lot more challenging and you end up with a much tougher budget this autumn than the government would have been hoping to unveil.” DECISION TIME The U.K.’s economic plight presents an acute political headache for Starmer, as he faces a mismatch between his own party’s expectations about the government’s ability to help people and his own scarce resources. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has promised to keep looking at different options for some form of assistance to bill-payers hit by an energy price shock. A pain point is looming in July, when a regulated cap on energy costs is due to expire and bills could jump significantly. One left-leaning Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said: “They [ministers] need to be treating this like a financial crisis. They need plans for multiple scenarios with clear triggers for government support.” A second MP from the 2024 intake said “it’s right that a Labour government steps in, particularly to help the most vulnerable.” Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves at the first cabinet meeting of the new year at No. 10 Downing St. on Jan. 6, 2026 in London, England. | Pool photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images This demand for action is being felt in the upper echelons of the party too, as Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy recently argued Reeves’ fiscal rules — seen as crucial in the Treasury to reassure the markets — may need to be reconsidered if prices continue to rise and a major support package is needed.  One Labour official said there are clear disagreements with Labour over how to go about drawing up help and warned “the fiscal approach is going to be a massive dividing line at any leadership election.” The same official pointed to recent comments by former Starmer deputy — and likely leadership contender — Angela Rayner about the OBR, with Rayner accusing the watchdog of ignoring the “social benefit” of government spending. Despite the pressure, ministers have so far restricted themselves to criticizing petrol retailers for alleged profiteering, and have been flirting with new powers for markets watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority. The government said Reeves would on Tuesday set out steps to “help protect working people from unfair price rises,” including a new “anti-profiteering framework” to “root out price gouging.” But Starmer signaled strongly in an appearance before a Commons committee Monday evening that he was not about to unveil any wide-ranging bailout package, telling MPs he was “acutely aware” of what it had cost when then-Prime Minister Liz Truss launched her own universal energy price guarantee in 2022.  O’Neill backed this approach, saying: “I don’t think they should do much… They can’t afford it anyhow. The nation can’t keep shielding people from external shocks.” Weldon predicted, however, that as the May elections approach and the energy cap deadline draws nearer, the pressure will prove too much and ministers could be forced to step in. The furlough scheme rolled out during the pandemic to project jobs and Truss’s 2022 intervention helped create “the expectation that the government should be helping households,” he said. “But it’s incredibly difficult. Britain’s growth has been blown off-course an awful lot in the last 15 years by these sorts of shocks.” Geoffrey Smith, Dan Bloom, Andrew McDonald and Sam Francis contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump said Monday the United States would pause “any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure” for five days as Tehran and Washington engage in diplomatic negotiations. In a social media post, Trump wrote that the U.S. and Iran have had “very good and productive conversations” in the past two days and that the pause on strikes against energy infrastructure came as a direct result of the “in depth, detailed, and constructive conversations.” Trump added that the talks “will continue throughout the week.” The move indicates that a diplomatic off-ramp to the conflict between the U.S. and Iran could be in reach. It also followed increasing unease from the U.S.’s allies in the Middle East and Europe over the conflict continuing to spiral. Ferdinand Knapp contributed to this report. This is a breaking news story that will be updated.

LONDON — Donald Trump has berated Keir Starmer over the Iran war. But the U.S. president might just have bought the British leader a little more time in the job. Trump blasted Starmer as “no Winston Churchill” for his limits on the U.S. launching offensive attacks from British bases — and has helped stoke criticism from opposition parties at home about an indecisive U.K. administration. But the global tumult from the U.S.-led war in the Middle East has had one counter-effect: strengthening, for now, Starmer’s precarious domestic position. Numerous errors and climbdowns — plus voter frustration at not seeing the “change” promised in the 2024 election — has left Starmer one of the most unpopular British prime ministers on record. Missteps and a failure to bring political troops with him on a host of controversial issues have also left Starmer sorely lacking support among his own MPs. Whether he will survive past a difficult round of local elections on May 7 is an open talking point at Westminster. Would-be replacements, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and former Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner, have made little secret of their hope to stand if a contest arises. But external events have a habit of changing the course of politics. And a sense is growing that the crisis in the Middle East is dampening the chatter about removing the prime minister. “Iran has bought him time,” said one Labour official, who like others in this piece spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party tensions. A Labour frontbencher, who in the past predicted Starmer would be out after the spring elections, said the war is “making colleagues think again about changing leader,” adding: “It focuses minds on who we want leading the country at a time of crisis. Would we really want Angela or Wes sitting around the NATO table?” Britain’s involvement entered a new stage on Friday, when the U.K. said the U.S. could use British bases to bomb Iranian missile sites attacking commercial shipping the Strait of Hormuz. Downing Street insisted this fell within the existing scope of “defensive” action that Starmer approved on Mar. 1. There is broad agreement among Labour MPs that Starmer has taken the correct approach to the conflict — refusing to let jibes from Trump rile him while sticking to his position that the initial U.S.-Israel offensive action was wrong but that allies need defending from Iranian blowback. “Most other potential prime ministers, Labour or otherwise, wouldn’t have had the backbone to stand firm, and would now be explaining to a furious British public how we were disentangling ourselves from Trump’s war and all the ensuing economic challenges we will face,” said one senior government official. The same person sensed that even among rival leadership camps “there is an acknowledgement that this war changes things. It would be a terrible time to be seen to be playing politics by any contender.” Health Secretary Wes Streeting speaks to the press at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England on March 19, 2026. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Indeed, one of Streeting’s allies accepted that there won’t be a leadership challenge while the war continues, adding that being a statesman on the world stage is “what Keir is good at.” Even disgruntled MPs have been telling each other “there’s no way there could be a challenge at a time like this,” one noted, while Conservative MPs have also discussed how the war has shored up the Starmer position.  But the calculation among plotters is still likely to come down to weighing the state of the war against how bad the verdict is from voters at the May local elections. “He’s played a blinder and is exactly where most of the country is,” one Starmer critic said. “But if it’s a bloodbath in May it would still be tricky. And it feels like everyone is on maneuvers in Westminster.” That is acknowledged even in government. One minister said the outcome will be difficult to predict if election results are “catastrophic,” while another said: “There is still a feeling that things are untenable and could come to a head quite quickly.” Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves have been contacting junior ministers in recent weeks encouraging them to rally round the prime minister, said one of those on the receiving end. They described the outreach as one of the “save Keir calls.” Some note, too, that those arguing that a leader cannot be changed during a war have forgotten lessons from the past. “The center [of government] will argue people shouldn’t move at a time of war, but we changed leaders during two world wars,” said another government frontbencher. “If things are really bad in May, I don’t think it will be the argument that stops people.” Even the ongoing Ukraine war serves as a lesson. There was murmuring among Conservative MPs that it would be wrong to oust their then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson amid war in Europe. But he was gone six months after the BBC reported it in 2022.  The opposition is also not giving Starmer the grace he afforded to Johnson as the Ukraine crisis mounted. “Starmer is in office but not in power and that is making Britain’s response to this conflict confused and incoherent,” a Conservative spokesperson said. In the end, it could be Starmer’s response to bad election results, not his reaction to a war beyond his control, that really seals his fate. “Clearly we are working hard to secure success in the May elections. However, following any election, it is right that there is a full assessment of the outcome,” said Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has called for Starmer to quit in the past.  “There are always circumstances where a case can be made that ‘now is not the right time’ but what is important is that there is recognition of the outcome, the reasons why and the remedy that is required. “Let’s see where we get to in seven weeks’ time,” she added.

Iranian missiles late Saturday hit two southern Israeli towns close to a nuclear facility in what Tehran said was retaliation for Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear site at Natanz. More than 160 people were injured in the strikes, which hit the towns of Dimona and Arad near Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center, according to the Israeli health ministry. The attack came as U.S. President Donald Trump warned that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government in Tehran doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. Tehran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt retaliatory attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities. Iranian state TV said Saturday’s strikes by Tehran were a response to an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility earlier in the day, according to the BBC. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament, said the fact that ballistic missiles evaded Israeli defenses and struck near the nuclear research site appears to signal “a new phase” in the war. “If Israel is unable to intercept missiles in the heavily protected Dimona area, it is, operationally, a sign of entering a new phase of the conflict,” he posted on social media network X. “Israel’s skies are defenseless.” He added that the “time has come to implement the next pre-planned schemes,” without providing further details. Israeli military spokesman Effie Defrin said the strikes did not represent a new threat. “The air defense systems operated but did not intercept the missile. We will investigate the incident and learn from it,” he wrote on X. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it had been a “very difficult evening,” and vowed to “continue to strike our enemies on all fronts.” The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was aware of the strikes near the nuclear research center and has not received any indication of damage to the facility, nor any information from regional states indicating that abnormal radiation levels have been detected.

The Trump administration is telling foreign officials and others that it will not reschedule a summit between the U.S. president and Chinese leader Xi Jinping until the Iran war ends. A Washington-based diplomat privy to U.S.-China summit planning confirmed that the administration has made clear “the next dates for the Trump-Xi summit will only be proposed after the active part of the Iran conflict is over.” A Washington-based individual close to the administration also briefed on White House summit planning confirmed the administration shared that timeline. POLITICO granted both the people anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive diplomatic discussions. The U.S. State Department directed queries to the White House. The White House denied the summit timeline was tied to the Iran war. “This is fake news. The United States and China are having productive discussions about rescheduling President Trump’s visit — announcements are forthcoming,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said. The Chinese embassy said it had “no information to provide” about the possible delay in summit scheduling. The long-anticipated meeting between Trump and Xi had originally been planned for the end of March, but Trump said Monday the meeting would be pushed back “a month or so” because “we’ve got a war going on.” On Thursday, he said it would happen in “about a month and a half.” Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt suggested the meeting might not take place until after May. “The president has some things here at home in May that he has to attend to, and I’m sure President Xi is a very busy man, as well, so we’ll get the dates on the books as soon as we can,” Leavitt said. Tying the summit preparations to the end of the Iran conflict could mean additional delays to a meeting intended to maintain stability in a fragile U.S.-China trade truce. As the war on Iran enters its fourth week, the Trump administration appears to be preparing for a longer conflict. The U.S. has made detailed plans for the deployment of ground troops onto Iranian soil, CBS News reported Friday. The administration is also moving to dispatch thousands of troops to the region. Trump told reporters Thursday he’s “not putting troops anywhere” but then added: “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.” “There are operational constraints to managing a war from a foreign country — particularly a hostile one like China,” said the person close to the administration. “It would be terribly awkward for Trump and Xi to transact in this climate.” On Friday, Trump signaled a potential wind-down in the Iran conflict in a Truth Social post, suggesting the U.S. could scale back its role while pushing allies to take on more responsibility in securing the Strait of Hormuz, the major commercial waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts in the Middle East,” Trump wrote. Trump and Xi made progress toward heading off an intensified trade war in an October meeting in South Korea. During that meeting, Xi committed to Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products like soybeans and the elimination of many of Beijing’s restrictions on critical minerals exports. In return, Trump agreed to extend a pause on triple-digit tariffs on Chinese goods. Wendy Cutler, a former negotiator in the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, argued this work can continue even if Trump and Xi don’t meet again in person. “The stabilization part of this won’t necessarily be jeopardized without a meeting,” she said. “Now, if something happens in the war, either foreseen or unforeseen, there’s just lots of flash points that can threaten this truce, which are unforeseeable at this period.” Rush Doshi, former senior director for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, said a meeting between the two leaders is important to strengthening and maintaining the bilateral relationship. “Without leader-to-leader communication to manage a relationship of this complexity until the war is over — and there’s no sense of when the war is going to be over — there’s a real risk the relationship is going to be less stable than people might have expected,” said Doshi, now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

ZAGROS MOUNTAINS, Iraq — About 5 kilometers from Iran, aircraft roar overhead. Are the planes American, Israeli, Iranian? The Kurdish fighter shrugged and urged haste. The final stretch to his militia’s base could be reached only on foot, along a steep path covered in loose rock. Out in the open, everyone is vulnerable. A tunnel leads to the underground base in a sliver of the Zagros Mountains in northeastern Iraq. The Iranian-Kurdish guerrilla group, the Kurdistan Free Life Party, is careful to keep its exact location secret. Visitors must switch their smartphones to flight mode before handing them over upon entry. The Kurdistan Free Life Party is in waiting mode, poised along Iran’s western border to move in if a weakened regime opens up a path to strike it. The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which includes POLITICO, was granted rare access to the group’s base and its members, who discussed its ideology, goals and under what conditions they’d go into Iran. Militia representative Bahar Avrin said in an interview inside the base that the organization already has elements “inside” Iran, and that deploying a larger force against Tehran is ultimately a question of the right timing and conditions. The border between northern Iraq and Iran runs through the Zagros Mountains and is considered porous — for smugglers, locals and the handful of militias operating there. The Kurdistan Free Life Party, often referred to by its Kurdish acronym PJAK, is part of a coalition of six Kurdish militia groups that want to topple Iran’s Islamist regime and usher in a government that is more democratic and grants more rights and autonomy to Iranian Kurds in Iran. President Donald Trump has said Iraqi and Iranian Kurdish groups are “willing” to participate in a ground offensive against Tehran — but he has said he ruled out the idea to avoid making the war “any more complex than it already is.” A Kurdish assault could spark a sectarian power struggle that destabilizes Iran. And key U.S. allies with their own Kurdish minorities — Iraq and Turkey — have warned the idea could spread unrest elsewhere in the Middle East. The idea could nonetheless prove tempting for Trump as the war, now in its third week, drags on. The ruling regime in Tehran has not capitulated despite punishing airstrikes that have killed scores of its top leaders. Trump could find himself looking for military options that do not trigger the political risk that would accompany deployment of U.S. ground troops. “The president never takes anything fully off the table,” said Victoria Coates, who served as deputy national security adviser for the Middle East in Trump’s first term. “And if you were considering this, this is the last thing you would want the Iranians to know.” TUNNEL VISION PJAK looks ready to go into a fight, with a base that suggests an organized military operation. It consists of a tunnel system running through the mountain’s interior, with electricity and running water. On the walls hang photographs of fallen fighters — many of them young, women and men in their 20s and 30s. Four monitors mounted to the walls display the surrounding terrain outside. Motion sensors control the cameras; when a bird flutters across the screen, the image switches to it automatically. In a dark tunnel, a 20-year-old fighter holding an assault rifle introduced herself as Zilan. Her day begins at 5:30 a.m. and follows a strict schedule. “Our daily life is based on discipline,” she said. Ideological instruction aims at building a democratic society; military training focuses on defending the Kurdish people.Watch: The Conversation “We never want the help of foreign powers like Israel and the United States,” she said. “We are an independent party.” The Kurdistan Free Life Party is one of several Iranian-Kurdish groups in Iraq. In 1979, Kurds in Iran supported the revolution against the shah. When the new Islamic Republic rejected their demands for autonomy, heavy fighting broke out in Iranian Kurdistan. Numerous groups relocated to Iraq, where they now operate freely in northern Iraq, which is largely autonomous from the rest of the country and detached from the central government in Baghdad. The six members of the political and military alliance are not in agreement about whether to invade if called on, and under what conditions they would embark on a full-scale war for their political goals. Some parties appear eager to take on a ground offensive in Iran. Reza Kaabi, secretary-general of the Komala of the Toilers of Kurdistan, has even set out a blueprint, declaring a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone to be a prerequisite for any Kurdish invasion. There is a general sense in the region that PJAK — given its proximity to the Iranian border and its relatively strong military presence — would be one of the first of the six Kurdish militias in the coalition to go into Iran if given U.S. military support. But PJAK publicly rejects the idea that they would do so at the bidding of Washington. It’s a stance rooted in distrust of the U.S. — not least because the United States abruptly withdrew support from the Kurds in Syria in January. Asked under what conditions PJAK would launch an offensive across the Iraqi-Iranian border, Avrin declined to answer. But, she said, her organization has “never waited for any force to bring about change.” CNN recently reported that just a few days into the Iran war, Trump spoke with Mustafa Hijri, the secretary-general of another group in the Kurdish-Iranian opposition alliance: the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, or PDKI. It is one of the oldest Iranian-Kurdish opposition parties and has maintained armed units operating from exile in northern Iraq. PDKI executive committee member Hassan Sharafi said in an interview that he could “neither confirm nor deny” whether such a conversation had taken place, in part because of the limited contact among the group’s leadership maintained for security reasons. Sharafi said the PDKI had “no operational relations” with the United States on the ground in Iraq. At the political level, however, contacts exist: “In Washington, Paris, and London we have contacts, and our representatives there maintain relations. Our relations are diplomatic and political.” Such links, he said, were long-standing: “For more than 20 years we have had relations with the United States and with all European countries. We have contacts with all of them.” THE ROAD TO TEHRAN From Tehran’s perspective, the militias represent a serious threat. Iranian artillery has struck in the border region multiple times in recent days, hitting villages near the frontier. These attacks primarily affect civilians. The Kurdish guerrillas sheltered inside the mountain remain protected. Other militia groups, whose positions are located in more exposed terrain, have also come under fire. A 2023 security agreement between Iran and Iraq obliged Baghdad to disarm Iranian-Kurdish opposition groups, dismantle their bases and relocate them deeper into Iraqi territory. Now that the Kurdish groups are openly considering an offensive in Iran, Tehran has concluded that the agreement has failed, according to Kamaran Osman, an Iraq-based human rights officer with a nonprofit organization called Community Peacemaker Teams that monitors human rights abuses in conflict zones. “Now it believes it must target, destroy and defeat these groups,” Osman said, speaking in the Iraqi city of Sulaymaniyah, about a two-hour drive from the PJAK base. As of Monday, his organization had recorded 307 Iranian attacks on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, leaving eight people killed and 51 injured. He sees only grim scenarios for the Kurdish people in Iran. “If the regime falls, there is a risk of civil war in Iran,” he said. If the regime survives, he fears more retaliation from Tehran against Kurds in Iraq — both Iranian-Kurdish opposition groups and the Kurdistan Regional Government. Should northern Iraq become destabilized, a power vacuum could emerge. The last time order eroded here, in 2014, ISIS militants seized control of a swathe of territory stretching from Iraq to Syria, a landmass nearly as large as the United Kingdom. PJAK has ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a militant group that has fought against the Turkish government, and is listed as a terrorist organization there — as well as in the EU and the U.S. The United States has a troubled history of making big promises to ethnic Kurdish groups — and then abandoning them at the worst possible moment. After calling on Iraqis to rise up and overthrow then-dictator Saddam Hussein in 1991, President George H.W. Bush declined to intervene when Hussein began slaughtering Iraqi Kurds who took up the U.S. president’s call. And as recently as this January, the Trump administration stood by as a Syrian Kurdish militia that led the U.S.-backed campaign to defeat ISIS just a few years ago was attacked by Syria’s new government. The big question for U.S. policymakers may be how much they would need to support a Kurdish assault on Iran to make it successful. Former U.S. intelligence and special forces experts believe it would require the type of commitment he might prefer to avoid: large infusions of cash and weapons, close air support, and potentially even on-the-ground aid from U.S. special forces. Even then, a Kurdish-led attack could fizzle, leaving Trump with two grim choices: Abandon the Kurds, or come to their rescue with even greater U.S. combat support. “It would require a lot of commitment on the U.S. side with a very unclear end state,” said Alex Plitsas, a former senior Pentagon official who worked on special operations and counterterrorism policy in the Middle East. While Coates cautioned that Trump had other, better options at hand, she argued that even modest U.S. military support for the Kurds — such as small arms shipments and limited air support — could threaten Iran’s increasingly brittle regime. The key, she said, was arming the exiled Kurds in Iraq in conjunction with other Iranian resistance groups inside the country to avoid the perception it was coming from outside. “The way this is going to be effective,” Coates said, “is not by a bunch of Iraqis invading Iran.” Drüten of WELT reported from Iraq. Sakellariadis reported from Washington. The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network is a multi-publication initiative publishing scoops, investigations, interviews, op-eds and analysis that reverberate across the world. It connects journalists from Axel Springer brands — including POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, and Onet — on major stories for an international audience. Their ambitious reporting stretches across Axel Springer platforms: online, print, TV and audio. Together, the outlets reach hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

European countries are being advised to lower gas storage filling targets and to start refilling gas stores early, as the conflict in Middle East drives up global energy prices. European Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen urged in a letter to national energy ministers, seen by POLITICO, that countries should be flexible in how they refill gas stores, to “help reduce the gas demand at times where the supply is tense and ease the pressure on gas prices in Europe.” Since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran in late February, the ensuing conflict has caused global energy prices to spike, driven in part by Israeli strikes on Iran’s vast offshore gas field and Tehran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage that facilitates a significant share of the world’s oil and natural gas trade. In the letter, Jørgensen asked EU countries to lower their gas storage refilling targets to 80 percent, 10 percentage points below normal targets. He also suggested that countries could start storage injections early to avoid an “end-of-summer rush to refill storages,” which would put upward pressure on prices. He also suggested that governments extend the deadline to meet filling targets to as late as December, two months later than usual. He said countries can take these measures under the EU Gas Storage Regulation, which provides for flexibility in difficult market conditions. The EU requires member countries to maintain gas reserves at 90 percent of capacity by the winter — a measure brought in after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But this year’s colder-than-average winter depleted those reserves to an average of under 30 percent as of March, the lowest since 2022. Anxiety has been growing in Brussels over whether the conflict in Iran, coupled with already low gas reserves, could spark a fight among countries over dwindling global energy supplies. Jørgensen said that the EU’s gas supplies remain “relatively protected” since the bloc only has “limited reliance” on gas imports from the region. But as a “net importer” of gas globally, “high and volatile global prices may also impact the EU gas storage injections,” he said. As developments in Iran and the wider region are “are significantly impacting global oil and gas markets,” there are indications that it could take longer for Qatari gas production to return to pre-crisis levels, Jørgensen said. The commissioner said he would support countries to make use of the allowed flexibilities, which should be discussed with the European Commission and other member states before being implemented. A Commission spokesperson confirmed that the letter was sent to energy ministers.

Switzerland said it won’t allow weapons exports to the U.S. as long as Washington is involved in its ongoing military campaign against Iran. The Swiss government said on Friday that it will not sign off on any new licenses for the export of war materiel to countries involved in the conflict, citing Switzerland’s commitment to neutrality. Switzerland said that it has not issued new export licenses to send weapons to the U.S. since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran on Feb. 28. Existing licenses to export weapons to the U.S. can continue as they are not relevant “to the war at present,” but they will be kept under review in case they conflict with Swiss neutrality laws, it said. Exports of other dual-use and military goods, and other goods affected by sanctions against Iran, will also be kept under review, it added. Switzerland has not granted weapons export licenses for Israel or Iran for a “number of years,” the government said.

Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other on Saturday, the latest in a string of attacks since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran in late February.  The U.S., meanwhile, was sending thousands more Marines to the Middle East, according to media reports, even as U.S. President Donald Trump broached “winding down” American military operations in the regioin.  Israel’s military said Saturday’s attacks targeted “the Iranian terrorist regime” in Tehran, as well as “Hezbollah targets” in Beruit. Israel also said that it identified missiles fired from Iran at Israeli territory.  Tehran also fired two ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean, but did not hit the base, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. The British government condemned “Iran’s reckless strikes” and confirmed London’s agreement for Washington to use U.K. bases in attacks against Iranian “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” The U.K. “is working closely with international partners to develop a viable plan to safeguard international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” it said in a statement.  Defense ministries in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates said on Saturday that they were responding to incoming missile and drone threats, as the conflict continues to spill over into Persian Gulf states. Trump said in a Truth Social post late Friday that Washington is “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down” the U.S. military campaign against Iran. He listed the objectives being met as “completely degrading” Iran’s missile capability, “destroying” the country’s defense industrial base, “eliminating” Iran’s navy and air force, keeping the country far away from nuclear capability, and protecting U.S. allies in the Middle East. Trump’s statement is at odds with the reports that the U.S. is sending more troops and warships to the region, and has requested another $200 billion from Congress to fund the war. The conflict has caused global oil prices to spike, driven in part by Israeli strikes on Iran’s vast offshore gas field and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical trade passage that facilitates a significant share of the world’s oil and natural gas trade. The U.S. said on Friday that it would temporarily waive sanctions on Iranian oil to help ease the short term shock to global markets, as Trump called NATO allies “cowards” for refusing to join the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and help reopen the Hormuz channel.