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.

ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Zoya Sheftalovich and Nick Vinocur unpack Donald Tusk’s accusation that Hungary may have leaked sensitive European Council discussions to Moscow — and what that means for trust, decision-making and Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán’s position in Brussels. Plus: Europe’s balancing act as Donald Trump turns up the pressure over Iran — and a breakdown of the weekend’s voting in France and Germany. Questions? Comments? Send them to our WhatsApp: +32 491 05 06 29. 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Nach 35 Jahren verliert die SPD ihre Bastion Rheinland-Pfalz. Gordon Schnieder führt die CDU zum Sieg, während Alexander Schweitzer trotz persönlicher Beliebtheit dem massiven Bundestrend unterliegt. Gemeinsam mit Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert Gordon Repinski die Schockwellen für Berlin und die Bundespolitik. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht der schleswig-holsteinische Ministerpräsident Daniel Günther (CDU) über den „Auftrag zur Beherztheit“. Günther ordnet ein, warum der Wahlsieg in Mainz kein Grund zum Ausruhen ist, sondern die Koalition in Berlin nun zwingt, die großen Sozial- und Rentenreformen durchzuziehen. Donald Trump verliert die Geduld: Angesichts der immer weiter steigenden Energiepreise in den USA hat der Präsident ein 48-Stunden-Ultimatum gestellt. Entweder das Regime gibt die Straße von Hormus frei, oder die USA bombardieren iranische Kraftwerke. Jonathan Martin berichtet aus Washington über die Frustration im Weißen Haus und warum dieses „Roulette“ für Trump zur Schicksalsfrage für die Midterm-Elections im November wird. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht der PKV: Hätten Sie’s gedacht? Vom jährlichen 15,5-Milliarden-Euro-Mehrumsatz der Privatversicherten profitiert das gesamte Gesundheitswesen. Denn neben den Haus- und Fachärzten kommen die höheren Honorare auch den zahnärztlichen Praxen zugute, dem Arzneimittelbereich oder Therapeutinnen. So stützt die PKV die medizinische Versorgung in Deutschland zugunsten aller – auch der gesetzlich Versicherten. Mehr auf pkv.de**

HOW TWO WARS ARE PULLING EUROPE AND THE US APART The EU is worried President Trump could abandon Ukraine if the bloc doesn’t support him in the Middle East. By NICHOLAS VINOCUR in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO  The biggest fear of European leaders is that Donald Trump’s war in Iran will lead him to abandon Ukraine. Governments are terrified that the U.S. president could retaliate against America’s European allies for spurning his appeals for assistance in the Middle East, primarily by cutting off what’s left of U.S. help for Kyiv, according to four EU diplomats with knowledge of their discussions. As they scramble to avoid a permanent break in the transatlantic relationship, leaders hope their offer of limited support for his action against Tehran will suffice to convince Trump to stay the course in the conflict with Russia. The war in Iran “must not divert our attention from the support we give Ukraine,” French President Emmanuel Macron said at the end of last week’s EU summit in Brussels. It’s easy to see why EU leaders are so anxious. In recent days Trump has repeatedly blasted them for failing to do more to help him unblock the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping route used by about 20 percent of the world’s oil that has effectively been closed by Iran. He has also explicitly linked continued U.S. involvement in NATO to the Middle East conflict. “NATO IS A PAPER TIGER!” he railed in a Truth Social Post over the weekend. “They complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz … COWARDS,” he concluded. “[W]e will remember.” At the same time, further deepening fears about the transatlantic alliance, Moscow offered Washington a quid pro quo under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence with Iran if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia, POLITICO revealed on Friday. While the U.S. declined the offer, according to two people familiar with the U.S.-Russia negotiations, the fact it was proffered in the first place points to a possible tradeoff between U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East. “There’s a crack right now emerging between, you know, Europe and the U.S., which, again, as an avid pro-American and transatlanticist, I lament,” Finnish President Alexander Stubb said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph. “But it’s a reality that I have to live with. And I obviously try to salvage what I can.” MISSILES LIKE CANDIES Governments are concerned that the war in Iran is using up missiles and air defense munitions that Kyiv needs to protect itself against Russia, the four EU diplomats, who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic exchanges, told POLITICO. “When you see what Trump did on Greenland, how he cut off intelligence-sharing with Ukraine on a whim, there’s always a risk [that Trump could remove U.S. support for Ukraine],” one of the diplomats said. “The concern is obviously that the Middle East is taking attention away from Ukraine,” added a second diplomat from a mid-sized EU country. “The Emiratis are shooting out Patriot [air defense missiles] like candies, whereas Ukraine desperately needs them. It can’t become an either-or situation” in which the U.S. only has enough bandwidth for one conflict and abandons Ukraine, the diplomat added. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been explicit about the risk of such a tradeoff, telling the BBC on Thursday that he had a “very bad feeling” about the impact of the Middle East war on Ukraine. He lamented the fact that as the war goes on, U.S.-led peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are being “constantly postponed” in what the Kremlin calls a “situational pause.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is pictured at Moncloa Palace in Madrid, Spain on March 18, 2026. | Alberto Gardin/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Ukrainian negotiators traveled over the weekend to the U.S. for talks with Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The latter praised the talks as “constructive” in a post on X, but gave no hint of when negotiations with Russia would resume. DAMAGE CONTROL European leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, are ramping up efforts to show they support the U.S. president’s goal of freeing up the Strait of Hormuz. In a now familiar role, Rutte has been outspoken in praising Trump’s efforts. The former Dutch prime minister last week called the destruction of Iran’s military capacity by the U.S. and Israel “very important,” linking it to “European security” at a time when some EU leaders, like Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, have criticized the war as “illegal.” Macron has been more circumspect in public, but active behind the scenes. In two separate calls with Trump before last Thursday’s gathering of EU leaders, the French president assured his U.S. counterpart that France would help clear the Strait when conditions allow, according to comments from Trump himself and a third EU diplomat who was briefed on the calls. “This is about managing the man,” the diplomat said. In the early hours of Friday, Macron — who has otherwise pledged to send a naval detachment to the Strait of Hormuz after the hot phase of the war dies down — said France was pursuing the aim of freeing it up via the United Nations. In response to a question from POLITICO at the European Council on Thursday, the French leader said Paris intends to “sound out its main partners” about tabling a resolution in the Security Council on securing freedom of navigation in the vital waterway. Trump is no fan of the United Nations, but he could see an advantage to a U.N. Security Council resolution that forms the basis for a broader coalition to free up the Strait, a fourth EU diplomat said. The southern suburbs of Beirut after an Israeli airstrike on March 10, 2026. | Fadel Itani/AFP via Getty Images The U.K.’s Starmer is also doing more to help Trump in the Middle East. Following reports that Iran had fired a ballistic missile at the Diego Garcia U.S.-U.K. base in the Indian Ocean, Starmer gave the U.S. a green light to use British bases to launch strikes on Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz. Previously he had only granted permission for the bases to be used for defensive strikes. Starmer was also the main organizer of a statement signed by seven EU and allied countries (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan) in which they expressed their “readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.” Asked about the intent of this statement, which doesn’t promise any immediate material help, the third diplomat said: “It’s part of the same effort. We need to show Trump we are active in the Middle East. It’s in our interests, but also in Ukraine’s.” Such pledges remain vague for now. Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have both asserted they have no intention of being drawn into the war in Iran. But as far as Trump is concerned, “appearances matter — sometimes more than substance,” said the same diplomat.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Like many, I used to believe that former U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the biggest strategic mistake America had made, at least since the Vietnam War. That is, until now. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel in a war against Iran is a far bigger strategic error, and one with far bigger strategic consequences. The reasons for this are many, ranging from the immediate impact on the region and the global economy to the longer-term upshots for Russia and China, as well as the repercussions for U.S. alliances and America’s global standing. That much is already clear — and we’re only three weeks in. Let’s start with the similarities: Much like the Iraq War, the war against Iran began based on the presumption that the regime in power would swiftly fall and that a new, more moderate and less antagonistic one would take its place. In both instances, the idea was to remove the greatest destabilizing threat in the Middle East — Saddam Hussein’s regime in the initial case, the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran in the latter — through the swift and decisive use of military force. But while Bush understood that defeating a regime required ground forces, it seems Trump simply hoped that airpower alone would suffice. As a result, Hussein’s regime fell swiftly — though Bush did vastly underestimate what would be required to rebuild a stable, let alone a democratic, Iraq in its place. But the Iranian government, as U.S. intelligence officials themselves have testified, “appears to be intact” despite Israel killing many of its key political and security leaders through targeted strikes. Focusing on the region at large, Bush’s misjudgment eventually contributed to a large-scale insurgency, which strengthened Iran’s influence in Iraq and the wider Middle East. In contrast, Trump’s miscalculation has left in place a regime that, aside from assuring its own survival, is now singularly focused on inflicting as much damage on the U.S. and its allies as it possibly can. Iranian drones and missiles have already attacked Israel and the Gulf states, targeted critical energy production facilities and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which hosts one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas export transits. The Salalah oil storage fire in Oman is pictured on March 13, 2026. | Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2026 Less than a month in, the world is now witnessing the largest oil and gas disruption in history. And as the fighting escalates to include gas and oil production infrastructure, the global economic consequences will be felt by every single country for months, if not years, to come — even if the conflict were to end soon. The damage that has already been inflicted on the global economy is far greater than the economic consequences of the Iraq War in its entirety. But that’s not all. Geopolitically, the U.S.-Israel war with Iran will also have far greater reverberations than the war in Iraq ever did. For one, the Bush administration spent a lot of time and effort trying to get allies on board to participate in and support the war. It didn’t fully succeed in this, as key allies like Germany and France continued opposing the war. But it tried. Trump, by contrast, didn’t even try to get America’s most important allies on board. Not only that, he even failed to inform them of his decision. And yet, when Iran responded predictably by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. president then demanded allies send their navies to escort tankers — despite the U.S. Navy so far refusing to do so. And while it’s true that Iraq left many U.S. allies — even those that joined the war, like the U.K. — deeply scarred, Iran has convinced U.S. allies they can no longer rely on the U.S., and that Washington is now a real threat to their economic security. That, too, will have a lasting impact well beyond anything the war in Iraq did. Finally, the fact remains that when Bush decided to invade Iraq, Russia and China were still minor global powers. Russian President Vladimir Putin was only just starting his effort to stabilize the economy and rebuild Russia’s military power, while China had just joined the World Trade Organization and was still a decade or more away from becoming an economic superpower. In other words, America’s blunder in Iraq occurred at a time when the strategic consequences for the global balance of power were still manageable. Trump’s Iran debacle is occurring at a time when China is effectively competing with the U.S. for global power and influence, and Russia is engaged in the largest military action in Europe since the end of World War II. A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in Tehran, Iran on March 15, 2026 after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before. | Majid Saeedi/Getty Images Both stand to benefit greatly. Russia is the short-term winner here. Oil prices are rising, generating more than $150 million per day in extra income for Moscow to feed its war machine. The U.S. is relaxing its sanctions against Russia in a vain attempt to stall prices from ballooning at the pump. All the while, Ukraine is being left to contend with Russia’s missile and drone attacks without the advanced defensive weaponry that’s now being used to protect Israel and the Gulf instead. China, meanwhile, is watching as the U.S. diverts its military forces from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, where they will likely remain for months, if not years. These forces include a carrier strike group, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system from Korea, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan. And while a disruption in oil and gas supply will be a short-term problem for Beijing too, China’s rapid transition to renewables and close alignment with energy-rich Russia will leave it well placed to confidently confront the future. Bush and Trump both came to office determined to avoid the mistaken wars of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they both embarked on military adventures fed by a hubristic belief in American power. But while the U.S. was strong enough — and its adversaries still weak enough — to recoup much of the damage inflicted by Bush’s war, the war unfolding in Iran today will leave behind an America that will have lost much of its global power, standing and influence, destined to confront rising adversaries all on its own.

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.

U.S. President Donald Trump warned late Saturday that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. “If Iran doesn’t fully open, without threat, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 hours from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one first,” Trump said in a post on Trust Social. Iran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities — specifically information technology and desalination operations — in the region, the Associated Press reported, citing a statement by an Iranian military spokesperson carried by state media and semiofficial outlets. The warnings of escalation in the Mideast conflict come after the British government on Saturday confirmed that Tehran launched an unsuccessful attack on Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. Media reports said Iran fired two ballistic missiles at the base but missed. Meanwhile, Israel claimed that Iran has missiles with a range of about 4,000 kilometers, capable of hitting London, Paris and Berlin. “The Iranian terrorist regime poses a global threat. Now, with missiles that can reach London, Paris or Berlin,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a post on X. Iran’s targeting of the base on Diego Garcia occurred before Britain on Friday confirmed that U.S. use of its bases includes defensive operations against “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz,” a permission that includes the Indian Ocean island.

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.

The Trump administration violated the Constitution when it sought to restrict press access to the Pentagon and limit what reporters could cover, a federal judge ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman granted a request from The New York Times to void the Pentagon’s press credential policy on grounds it violated the First and Fifth Amendment, rejecting the government’s argument that the restrictions were needed to prevent the disclosure of classified information. “The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” Friedman wrote. “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing.” The ruling, which comes as journalists around the world seek information about the war in Iran, rolls back a highly aggressive attack on press freedom implemented last year by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host who has had a strained relationship with the media. “Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The New York Times. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the administration would appeal the ruling. Last January, the Defense Department removed Pentagon workspaces for several credentialed outlets, including POLITICO, CNN and the Times and granted access to organizations considered more friendly to the administration. In May, Hegseth announced additional restrictions on areas open to the media within the Pentagon shortly after he inadvertently shared sensitive information about U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on a Signal group chat that included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic. The Pentagon’s most prohibitive measure came in September, when the department said it would only credential reporters if they pledged not to publish information that was not approved for public release by the Pentagon. Nearly every major news outlet refused to make that commitment. Friedman said the policy violated the First Amendment because “the undisputed evidence reflects the Policy’s true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists.” An attorney representing the paper hailed the decision as a “powerful rejection” of the Trump administration’s attempt to “impede freedom of the press” by restricting Julian Barnes, a reporter covering the Pentagon for the paper. “The district court’s opinion is not just a win for The Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon,” said Theodore Boutrous Jr.