Read the daily news to learn English

Iran rejects Trump’s demand for unconditional surrender as a ‘dream’

The president of Iran has rejected Donald Trump’s call for the country’s unconditional surrender as a “dream”, while issuing a rare apology for Iranian attacks that hit neighbouring states, even as missiles and drones continued to strike Gulf countries. In a prerecorded address broadcast on state television on Saturday, Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said the country would never capitulate, responding to remarks by the US president, who said on Friday that only Iran’s total submission could bring the war to an end. Iran’s enemies, Pezeshkian said, “must take their dream of the Iranian people’s unconditional surrender to their graves”, in remarks that further escalate the eighth day of conflict, which has choked global oil supplies and cut world air travel. During his speech, Pezeshkian also issued an apology to neighbouring states for Iran’s recent “actions”, in an apparent attempt to ease regional anger after Iranian strikes hit civilian targets in Gulf Arab countries. Tehran has responded to attacks on its territory by targeting Israel, but also Gulf Arab states that host US military installations, while Israel has also launched intense strikes on Lebanon, where the Iran-backed armed group Hezbollah is based. Over the past week, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have all reported drone and missile attacks. Pezeshkian said Iran’s temporary leadership council had approved suspending attacks on nearby countries unless an assault on Iran originated from those states. “I personally apologise to neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” he said. It remains unclear whether Pezeshkian’s remarks signal a broader decision by Tehran to scale back its campaign, or what prompted the apparent shift, with reports suggesting some strikes were still being directed at Gulf states on Saturday morning. On Saturday, video published on social media and obtained by the BBC shows an apparent drone strike on the property of Dubai international airport. The UAE said it intercepted 15 ballistic missiles and 119 drones on Saturday. Pezeshkian’s remarks were swiftly followed by a warning from Trump, who said Tehran faced the prospect of “complete destruction” if it did not capitulate, adding that Iran’s apology to neighbouring states was the result of mounting US military pressure. On his Truth Social platform, Trump replied that if Iran did not surrender, “it will be hit very hard!” adding that the country was “under serious consideration for complete destruction and certain death”. Trump also said that Iran had apologised and surrendered to its Middle East neighbours, “because of the relentless U.S. and Israeli attack”. Israeli and US officials said strikes had destroyed about 60% of Iran’s missile launchers and large stockpiles, while roughly 80% of its air defence systems had been neutralised, allowing Israel to claim aerial superiority over Iran. Western officials were trying to decipher President Pezeshkian’s apology and the authority behind it, but urged caution in reading it as a sign Tehran was seeking an off-ramp. “We do not know what is driving the Iranian president’s remarks,” one official said. “It is one data point, no more.” Officials say Iran’s capabilities appear degraded and recent attacks have declined, citing US Centcom briefings. Tehran’s regional offer seems conditional, but it remains unclear whether attacks hinge on the use of US bases – or their mere presence. Later, Mehdi Tabatabaei, deputy for communications in Pezeshkian’s office, said the president’s message was “clear”. “If countries in the region do not cooperate in a US attack on Iran, we will not attack them,” he said, adding that Iran would not submit to coercion and that its armed forces would respond decisively to any aggression launched from US bases in the region. Pezeshkian later wrote on X that Iran had not attacked neighbours but targeted US bases in the region, adding that Tehran’s commitment to regional ties did not negate its right to self-defence. Pezeshkian’s speech came as Israel said it had launched a fresh wave of strikes on Iran, sending 80 fighter jets in a pre-dawn blitz that set one of Tehran’s main airports on fire. Israeli officials said the targets included a military academy, an underground command centre and a missile storage facility. Photos showed flames and thick plumes of smoke rising from Mehrabad international airport, one of the two airports serving the Iranian capital, Tehran. Iran also retaliated on Saturday. Air raid sirens sounded over Jerusalem, while explosions were reported in Gulf cities including Dubai and Manama. Saudi Arabia said it intercepted a ballistic missile aimed at an airbase hosting US personnel near its capital, Riyadh. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) said they struck a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker in the strait of Hormuz, the strategic shipping chokepoint that Tehran has effectively closed. Now entering its second week, the war was triggered by joint airstrikes by Israel and the US that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Hardline clerics have called for the swift selection of a new supreme leader withing 24 hours to help guide Iran. Mojtaba Khamenei, the late supreme leader’s son, wields significant influence and ties to the IRGC, but dynastic succession is frowned upon in revolutionary Iran. The conflict has rapidly widened, spilling into Lebanon and reaching as far as the eastern Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. Iran’s health ministry said at least 926 civilians had been killed and about 6,000 injured. Israel has also intensified airstrikes in Lebanon, repeatedly targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut. Lebanon’s health ministry said at least 339 people had been killed. The Norwegian Refugee Council said about 300,000 people had fled their homes. Meanwhile, as Israel fights war on multiple fronts, violence continues to surge in the occupied West Bank, where a 27-year-old Palestinian was shot dead near Masafer Yatta after settlers reportedly opened fire.

Which human remains are held in UK museums – and where?

How many human remains are held by UK museums? An investigation by the Guardian found 241 UK museums, universities and local authorities hold more than 263,228 items of human remains. Due to the complex way some institutions catalogue their collections, and gaps in their records, the actual figure is likely much higher. These remains include skeletons, body parts and preserved bodies, such as Egyptian mummies, as well as bones and bone fragments, hair, teeth, nails and remains incorporated into cultural artefacts. Only 100 institutions provided an exact or estimated number of individuals in their collections, totalling about 79,334 people. The University of Cambridge did not disclose a number, explaining this was difficult because “many remains are commingled and fragmented”. But a 2003 report stated that its Duckworth Laboratory held the remains of approximately 18,000 individuals. That would bring the recorded total to about 97,334. A Cambridge University spokesperson said: “The vice-chancellor has written to the families and descendants to acknowledge their profound grief and the enduring uncertainty they have expressed.” They added that the vice-chancellor had assured the descendants that the Duckworth Collection does not hold the remains of any of the first Chimurenga heroes from Zimbabwe. Responses to freedom of information (FoI) requests, analysed by Dr Rebekah Hodgkinson, a researcher of colonial legacies in British history and heritage, and Dan Hicks, professor of contemporary archaeology at the University of Oxford, also show that about 5,700 items of remains are not recorded in a database. Some institutions only disclosed having several boxes of human remains of unknown provenance. The FoI figures do not include human remains held in private collections, such as the Royal Collection, or by individuals. Which museums hold the most human remains? The Natural History Museum (NHM) in London appears to have the largest collection, representing an estimated 27,500 individuals. The museum said it has 27,864 catalogue records of human remains, which may each represent more than one individual. Furthermore, one individual may be represented by a single tooth, a small number of bones or up to thousands of bone fragments. The University of Cambridge holds about 20,110 items in its Duckworth Laboratory, of which about 9,399 originated from outside the UK. The university said there are 1,070 catalogue entries referring to human remains in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, of which an unspecified number were transferred to the Duckworth collections. The Fitzwilliam Museum holds “a small number of human remains”, of which 14 records are on its public catalogue. The University of Bristol estimated that it holds “well over” 20,000 items, representing about 2,000 individuals. The University of Winchester holds 30,488 items, but this represents only 150 skeletons excavated in the UK. The National Museums and Galleries of Wales hold 7,391 items, but did not disclose how many individuals this represents. How many human remains originated in the UK? The Guardian found 166,124 items of human remains are recorded as originating from the UK, representing 63% of the known total. Of these, 122,747 are recorded as coming from UK archaeological excavations, which is less than half (47%) of all the human remains held. The University of Winchester holds a quarter of the items of remains from UK excavations. There are also high numbers of UK excavated remains held by Armagh city, Banbridge and Craigavon borough council in Northern Ireland (6,400 items, representing only 10 individuals), and the University of Sheffield (3,972). How many overseas remains are held in the UK? The FoI responses show there are 37,996 items of human remains recorded as originating from overseas, while the continent of origin of another 16,236 items is unknown. Ninety-seven institutions hold 28,914 items of remains recorded as originating from Africa, Asia, North and South America and Oceania. Seventy-five institutions hold 11,856 items of remains recorded as originating from Africa. Of these, 6,223 (52%) are held in the University of Cambridge’s Duckworth Laboratory. Fifty-three institutions hold 9,550 items of remains originating from Asia, with the largest collection in the National History Museum. Thirty-nine institutions collectively hold 3,252 items of remains from Oceania, with the largest recorded collection in the British Museum. Thirty-three institutions hold 2,276 items of remains from North America, with more than half (1,398) held by the National History Museum. Twenty-nine institutions hold a total of 1,980 items of remains from South America, with most held by the National History Museum (1,141). How did overseas human remains come to the UK? The 2003 report of the government working group on human remains said they were acquired in “a very wide range of circumstances”. Some remains were bought from or exchanged with museums abroad. Others, such as tsantsas (shrunken heads), were taken from, and traded by, Indigenous peoples. The report also noted that many items of remains were acquired unethically by collectors, including as a result of “duress, deceit, unlawful removal and, very occasionally, murder”. Some bodies were taken from graves or from battlefields and hospitals, it added. The working group said colonised peoples, such as Australian Aborigines and Native American peoples, were “often unable to prevent the removal of human remains because of the dynamics of power in colonial situations”. Can UK museums return human remains? Section 47 of the Human Tissue Act allows nine national museums, including the British Museum, the National History Museum, the V&A and the Science Museum, to remove human remains from their collections if they are reasonably believed to belong to a person who died less than 1,000 years before the section came into force. However limitations do apply and some national museums are prevented by law from deaccessioning items in their collections unless, broadly, they are duplicates or unfit for retention, eg due to damage. These restrictions do not apply to local authorities and universities.

Revealed: the Ukrainian facility where UK engineers help fix vital weapons

In an unmarked and undisclosed location in western Ukraine, British and Ukrainian engineers work side by side to fix damaged military hardware, crawling under the chassis of artillery systems and pulling apart the insides of British-donated howitzers. Until now, the existence of this facility, along with three other similar sites inside Ukraine, has been kept quiet, buried in neutral language to avoid drawing too much attention to the sites, given the sensitivities of all military-linked work inside Ukraine. However, the Guardian was invited to view the location earlier this week – the first time media have been granted access – during a visit to Ukraine by the UK defence minister Luke Pollard. The facility was an example of Britain doing things that “no other nation has been willing or able to do”, said Pollard. While there are no British military personnel on site, there are British engineers, contracted by the Ministry of Defence, working in-country. For safety reasons, other countries have often preferred to repair kit outside Ukraine, leading to longer journeys and delays with getting it back to the front. The facility visited by the Guardian has repair bays for up to 30 vehicles, and is able to fix a number of weapons systems, including British-made AS-90 self-propelled howitzers. The AS-90 was initially planned to be withdrawn from service in the British army in the 2030s, but the decision was made to donate the entire stock of the system to Ukraine over the past few years. “There are some things that in military times we don’t talk about, but when it comes to industrial partnerships, and the legitimate question of ‘You’ve donated all those AS-90s, what’s happened to them?’… we want to start telling the story,” said Pollard. He acknowledged that there was risk involved in having the facility inside Ukraine, but said it was a “risk worth taking and managing” in the interest of support for Kyiv. “Any operation or support provided inside Ukraine is clearly going to have a greater risk than if its provided in Poland or anywhere within the Nato article 5 protected area, but it’s precisely this type of support that Ukraine needs to stay in the fight,” he said. Engineers and technicians from two British companies, BAE Systems and AMS, work alongside Ukrainian colleagues to repair the kit. Many of the Ukrainians hired by the companies were employed previously by Ukrainian military enterprises that have since been damaged or destroyed, and they are now being trained to work with British and other foreign-donated equipment. Much of the equipment the Ukrainian armed forces are using is now obsolete, meaning a new supply chain for spare parts had to be set up. BAE was involved in the original manufacture of the AS-90 and had access to the technical drawings, but for other systems more creative approaches were required. For the Tunguska, a Soviet-era anti-aircraft platform that is also fixed at the facility, and for Soviet T-72 tanks used by Ukraine, engineers visited the Bovington tank museum in Dorset to look over versions of the vehicles on display there and work out how they could manufacture spare parts in the UK. Swedish Archer artillery systems are also fixed at the facility, under a cooperation agreement in which the Swedish government pays but the British and Ukrainian engineers do the work. In future, the hope is that the project can expand, to more sites and with more countries involved. “We want one structured, organised approach, where any nation giving equipment has a structure they can plug into,” said Pollard. Facilities such as this give some insight into how western support to Ukraine might look after a potential peace deal. A so-called “coalition of the willing” has come together, of nations prepared to offer Ukraine support to prevent Russia from attacking again, in the event that Donald Trump’s efforts to bring about a deal between Moscow and Kyiv prove successful. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed a desire for any postwar settlement to include a provision that western troops be stationed in Ukraine, and last September the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, told the Guardian that a coalition of the willing would involve “real security guarantees” that would compel western nations to fight Russia if Moscow violated the ceasefire. However, the past few years have shown that no western country is ready to go to war in Ukraine, and that calculus is unlikely to change. “We know that our only real security guarantee is going to be a strong Ukrainian army,” said one Ukrainian security source. Last month, the UK defence secretary, John Healey, said he hoped to deploy British troops to Ukraine in the aftermath of a peace deal, but it is not expected that these troops would engage with Russian forces. “UK forces are not the deterrent, a stronger Ukraine is the deterrent,” said Pollard, hence the focus on the regeneration of Ukrainian hardware as well as on training for Ukrainian troops. Currently, Ukrainian units used their hardware “to the point of destruction”, he said, and the task after a ceasefire would be to speedily restore all the equipment at the front, something that is not possible when they are in use during daily operations. “For the UK, one of the key roles in the coalition of the willing is to regenerate Ukrainian armed forces, and to do that we need to have the infrastructure ready to go on day one of the peace,” he said.

Offer from Iran’s president to not attack neighbours provokes internal backlash

The surprise offer by the president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, to not attack countries in the neighbourhood so long as their airspace and US bases within their territories are not used to attack Iran has provoked a storm inside the country as the military appeared to contradict him, if not outright overrule him. There were also calls for a new supreme leader to be installed as quickly as possible, as a means of marginalising the president. Attacks on facilities in Bahrain and elsewhere have continued, and there were unconfirmed reports that Bahrain had become the first Gulf country to fire back at Iran. Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, seemed focused on the likelihood of escalation, rather then de-escalation. “The US had committed a blatant and desperate crime by attacking a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island. Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted. Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran.” There are as many as 400 water desalination plants across the Gulf, and if they come to be viewed as legitimate targets, a drinking water crisis of unimaginable proportions could face the region within days. The backlash over Pezeshkian’s offer was made worse by him including an apology to the region on behalf of himself and the nation in his pre-recorded address on state TV. He also implied that after the US attack on its top command, rudderless armed forces may have been forced to make targeting decisions on their own. He suggested they had fired at will. Pezeshkian’s position was not helped by president Trump characterising his offer as a surrender, describing it as the first time Iran had been forced to admit defeat to its regional rivals in a thousand years. Pezeshkian had specifically said those seeking Iran’s surrender would take that wish to their grave. But Pezeshkian, not always the clearest communicator and not always empowered to make decisions, insisted his offer was the result of a collective decision by the temporary tripartite group of men running the country after the assassination of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Others said it arose out of detailed talks with the Gulf states in recent days. The internal dispute also shows how power has been diffused in wartime and established lines of authority are in flux, a development that is prompting some clerics and hardline newspapers to call for the election as quickly as possible for a replacement supreme leader. Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, for instance, said a choice is “essential in light of the ongoing political confusion”. It is possible the announcement will come this weekend. The apparent delay in the 88-strong Assembly of Experts electing a new leader may be the result of deadlock, or it may be to give moderate political forces within the country a chance to gain the upper hand over war strategy. It has been noticeable that at least three high-profile political prisoners have been released since Khamenei’s killing. Trump has said he must approve the future leadership of Iran. Inside Iran, Pezeshkian’s remarks were met by a range of interpretations and questions, including whether all US bases remained justifiable targets, or only if they were being used to attack Iran. The Gulf states’ anger about the attacks has been growing since they claimed they had clearly communicated to Iran that the US bases and their airspace would not be used in the American attack. Moreover, Iran had not just attacked US facilities. States such as Qatar have complained that oil refineries, hotels and airports have also been hit. There were few immediate official responses in the Gulf to Pezeshkian’s remarks. Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers are due to meet on Sunday. A western diplomat described the president’s address as “one data point”, adding it was not clear if a decline in Iranian attacks was a policy choice or a product of military necessity In the face of the criticism about what precisely had been agreed, Mehdi Tabatabaei, the president’ s deputy director of communications, insisted that Pezeshkian’s message was “clear”. He said: “If the countries of the region do not cooperate in the American attack, we will not attack them. The Islamic Republic of Iran will never yield to force, and our powerful armed forces will give a decisive response to any aggression from US bases in the region.” In the five minute address, Pezeshkian said: “No more missiles will be fired at these countries unless an attack on Iran originates from those countries.” He urged the Gulf states not to become “toys in the hands of imperialism”. But the armed forces clearly showed their disapproval of the president, which could yet lead to splits between the military and some politicians. In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said: “Following the orders of the Honorable President of the Republic, the Armed Forces declare for the umpteenth time that they respect the interests and national sovereignty of neighboring countries and have not yet attacked them. “However, in the continuation of previous offensive actions, all military bases and interests of the criminal America and the fake Zionist regime on land, sea and space in the region will be subjected to crushing and fierce blows by the powerful armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The foreign ministry also did not reiterate the president’s offer, instead saying its “defensive operations were against targets and facilities that are the origin and source of aggressive actions against the nation or serve such targets”. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission stated: “Before the start of the ‘Ramadan war’, we clearly announced to each and every country in the region that if America takes military action against Iran, we will definitely target American bases; these bases are considered American territory and not the territory of the countries in the region; this policy has not changed in any way and will continue with determination.” The president’s words “should not be misused or questioned”, they continued, but added: “If the radars of these bases are active and guide the planes that are conducting operations against Iran, we will target those bases.” Ali Asghar Nakhaeirad, a Mashhad MP, warned: “The Arab countries that have provided bases to the enemy and allowed them to be used to attack our country are … at least accomplices in the martyrdom of our beloved leader, 167 elementary schoolchildren, and nearly 2,000 of our compatriots. In all legal systems in the world, accomplices are punished, not apologised to. “Your apology to the partners or accomplices in the martyrdom of our leader, dearer than our lives, is not wise. The alternative, he said, was to raze the palaces of the emirs to the ground.” During a television appearance, Hamidreza Moghaddamfar, media adviser to the IRGC, seemed to be more supportive of the president’s line, saying the restraint is conditional on no action being “taken against Iran from those bases in the countries of the region; this was the main message”. He clarified: “So far, the countries in the region themselves have not been our targets, and they know this. The aim of our attacks has been solely the interests and positions of the United States in the region, which include military bases, airbases, missile systems and ships, which are our targets.” Moghaddamfar said: “The countries of the region have been repeatedly raising the issue from the beginning that they are being harmed. We have also apologised to them from the very beginning.” He suggested discussions had led to a new understanding with the Gulf states that the US bases would not be used to attack Iran. Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, a member of the government information council, insisted the president’s apology had been viewed very positively. “On the one hand, it shows his personal humility, and on the other hand, it shows the flexibility of Iran’s foreign policy towards neighbouring countries.”

Shrinking weapon stockpiles and regime-change uncertainty: doubts shadow US-Israel war on Iran

US government reviews of the war in Iran show that the Trump administration may be ill-equipped for a regime-change war, according to reports. The Washington Post reported on Saturday morning that a classified intelligence review found that the war in Iran is unlikely to oust the Iranian establishment, despite the Trump administration’s desire to continue its attacks. At the same time, Democrats are warning that the airstrikes on Iran are diminishing US stockpiles of certain weapons, a point of concern that came up during a closed-door briefing earlier this week between Trump administration officials and members of Congress. Despite ongoing negotiations, the US and Israel began bombing Iran last week, during a campaign that assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian leaders. Iran has engaged in retaliatory strikes, targeting Israel, US installations in the region and several Middle Eastern countries hosting US bases. Since the strikes began, the Trump administration has claimed that Iran has attempted to negotiate a ceasefire, despite multiple reports showing the contrary. For years, Iran hawks in the US have pushed for a regime-change war, warning that Iran’s nuclear program has been close to producing a nuclear weapon. Since last April, Iran and the US have engaged in negotiations surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has repeatedly said that the nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes. Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites last June, leading to a significant escalation of tensions between the countries. Negotiations continued, but, despite them, the US and Israel launched large-scale attacks on Iran this past week. The US and Israel have now been bombarding Iran for a week, striking government buildings and military installations. They have also hit civilian buildings, hospitals and schools. On the first day of the bombing campaign, 168 young girls were killed in a direct strike on their school. The Associated Press later reported that the deadly strike likely came from the US. Trump spoke on Saturday at the Shield of the Americas summit, a gathering of rightwing leaders in the western hemisphere in Florida, just hours after Iran’s president apologized to neighboring countries for missile strikes. “We’re doing very well in Iran, you see the result,” Trump said. “And it’s been amazing. We’ve knocked out 42 navy ships, some of them very large, in three days. That was the end of the navy. We’ve knocked out the air force. We knocked out their communications and all telecommunications is gone.” “They’re bad people, they’re just bad people,” he added. “Eight months ago, they would have had a nuclear weapon. And they’re crazy, and they would have used it, so we did the world a favor.” However, US intelligence points to a different potential outcome, despite a prolonged and aggressive war. As the Post reported, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council shows that a bombing campaign may not oust Iran’s military and clerical establishment. The report, completed in mid-February, outlined two potential actions by the US. In both cases, the outcome would remain the same: Iran’s government would follow protocols for a successor of the country’s supreme leader. After Khamenei was assassinated last week, the Iranian government quickly named an interim leadership council, made up of the Iranian president and other top officials. The council is in charge of choosing the country’s next supreme leader. Intelligence officials said it was “unlikely” that Iran’s opposition would take control of the country. With increasing worries around US stockpiles of weapons, some Democratic senators are concerned that, with the quick use of missiles and advanced weapons, other countries that rely on US military assistance, like Ukraine and others, may not be able to effectively protect themselves. In an interview with Time Magazine, the Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal said he was “deeply concerned about Ukraine”, adding that US military “resources and supplies are limited, and I think we will be hard pressed, at some point, to tell Ukraine what is coming”. Another expert who spoke with the AP said the concern was not about the conflict in Iran, but rather potential military escalations in the future. “I’m not particularly worried about us actually running out during this conflict,” said Ryan Brobst, a scholar focused on US defense strategy at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in an interview with the AP. “It’s about deterring China and Russia the day after this conflict is over.” Weapons manufacturers have already agreed to increase their production. On Friday, Lockheed Martin said it agreed to “quadruple critical munitions production”.

Four US bombers land at RAF base in UK after warning of surge in strikes on Iran

Four US bombers have landed at an RAF base in Britain to carry out “specific defensive operations” to stop Iran firing missiles into the Middle East, the Ministry of Defence has said. The B-1 Lancers, which are 45 metres (146ft) long and capable of carrying 24 cruise missiles, arrived at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, one on Friday evening and three on Saturday morning, after Keir Starmer had granted permission for “defensive” US action against Iranian missile sites from UK bases. The deployment comes days after Washington warned that strikes on Iran would “surge dramatically”. The UK’s armed forces chief, Richard Knighton, said he expected the US to launch missions from the Gloucestershire base “within the next few days”. The prime minister agreed on Sunday to allow the US to strike Iran defensively from Fairford and from Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. On Saturday afternoon, the Ministry of Defence issued an update on its operations in the Middle East, which said the US had “started using British bases for specific defensive operations to prevent Iran firing missiles into the region”. It added that a Merlin helicopter, a class of craft previously described by the MoD as a “submarine hunter”, was on the way to the Middle East to provide “additional airborne surveillance”. The bombers’ landing came shortly after the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, warned on Thursday that strikes were “about to surge dramatically”, referring to “more fighter squadrons, more defensive capabilities and more bomber pulses more frequently”. On Friday, Donald Trump demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender while Israeli warplanes bombed Tehran and Beirut, and Iran launched another wave of retaliatory strikes against Israel and Gulf countries. Starmer has defended his decision to block initial offensive strikes by the US and Israel at the weekend, saying he stood by his judgment and denying it had damaged the so-called special relationship. The move prompted Trump to launch a personal attack against the prime minister, saying that he was “not Winston Churchill”. At a top secret national security council (NSC) meeting last Friday, Starmer’s suggestion to allow the US to use RAF bases to carry out defensive strikes was reportedly met with opposition from a number of cabinet ministers including Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood, Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves, according to the Spectator, in a report that was then picked up by several media outlets. Starmer insisted that “all ministers” on the national security council had supported the UK position on the use of British bases, rejecting reports he had faced cabinet opposition led by Miliband. The Guardian understands, however, that all options were discussed at the NSC meeting on Friday. On Saturday morning, Sadiq Khan said Starmer was “right to resist pressure” from the US to join strikes on Iran, and heavily criticised the “war of choice” that he said was “being waged unilaterally without any international consensus or UN approval, or any serious strategy as to what comes next”. Starmer held a call with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, on Friday, in which the prime minister said the UK stood ready to help defend the country should it be needed. It comes after he faced some criticism from Gulf states and Cyprus, where a drone evaded detection and hit RAF Akrotiri, for not doing enough to protect regional allies and British citizens there from Iranian strikes. Air defence destroyer HMS Dragon is not expected to sail to the eastern Mediterranean until next week, while France and Greece have already deployed military assets to defend Cyprus. One reason it is taking some time to prepare the Type 45 destroyer is because it is being equipped to remain at sea for several months if required, rather than rushed into the eastern Mediterranean for a short period. Speaking at the Conservative party’s spring conference in Harrogate, Yorkshire, on Satrurday, Kemi Badenoch said the prime minister was “too scared to make foreign interventions” and that the UK is “in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not”. She also accused Starmer of “sitting on the fence” over the conflict in the Middle East. The Tory leader claimed last week’s byelection won by the Greens had “spooked” Labour, adding: “Now Keir Starmer is too scared to make foreign interventions for fear of upsetting a tiny section of that electorate. “Everyone remembers the mistakes of the Iraq War, nobody sensible is suggesting that we should drop bombs without a second thought. “But Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers, plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on.” Badenoch had sparked a row over her suggestion that UK military jets had been “just hanging around” and not taking the necessary action in the Middle East. Defence secretary John Healey said the remark “insults the men and women of our armed forces” and that she should apologise. The former shadow foreign secretary Andrew Mitchell told Times Radio that Badenoch did not have “anything to apologise for” and that she had been making a point about ministers being slow to offer support to allies in the region. A second government charter flight carrying British citizens from Oman landed at Gatwick on Saturday as efforts to help people trapped in the war zone continue. The latest arrivals join about 6,500 Britons who have returned from the United Arab Emirates since widespread conflict began in the region.

Descendants of Zimbabwe resistance heroes urge UK to locate looted skulls

Descendants of freedom fighters executed and beheaded in southern Africa by colonial British forces have called on the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Cambridge to help them find their ancestors’ looted skulls. Zimbabwean descendants of the first chimurenga heroes, who led an uprising against British colonisers in the 1890s, have long believed the museum and university hold several of the skulls. Eight of the descendants have now formally asked the institutions to collaborate in locating six of their ancestors’ remains. They have also offered to provide DNA samples to assist with the research. The museum and university said in 2022 that they had not identified any remains in their collections as belonging to the colonial resistance fighters, prompting dismay and disbelief among their descendants and Zimbabwean officials. In letters sent to the institutions this month, the descendants said questions over the skulls’ provenance could only be resolved by establishing a taskforce of experts from Zimbabwe and the UK to examine the contested remains and archives in the countries. “This is not only about the past,” the letters state. “It is about whether institutions today are willing to confront colonial violence honestly and repair its enduring harms. Until the remains of our ancestors are accounted for and returned, the suffering continues.” One of letter’s signatories is a descendant of Chief Chingaira Makoni, who opposed British settlers seizing land for farming and mining in what is now Manicaland province in north-eastern Zimbabwe. After engaging the forces of Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa Company at the battles of Gwindingwi in 1896, Makoni was captured, executed by firing squad and beheaded. His skull is believed to be among those of the chimurenga heroes later taken to England. His descendant and the current Chief Makoni, Cogen Simbayi Gwasira, said: “We are very aggrieved as the descendants of those ancestors for the dehumanisation that took place during that period. We feel that the British, and especially the museums in England, should be honest and return those things that they took. “If those remains are not part of us, the notion of subjugation remains in our minds. Because we feel if we are united with our ancestors, then that chapter of colonialism is closed.” The call comes after a freedom of information investigation by the Guardian revealed that UK universities, museums and councils hold at least 11,856 items of human remains from Africa. The University of Cambridge holds most with at least 6,223 items, and the Natural History Museum has the second largest collection with at least 3,375. Robert Mugabe, then the president of Zimbabwe, demanded a decade ago that the Natural History Museum return the resistance heroes’ skulls. The museum’s trustees made a formal decision in November 2022 to repatriate all Zimbabwean human remains, but in a letter sent in support of the descendants last week to the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations said “no discernible progress has been made in the three years since that decision”. Dr Rudo Sithole, a former executive director of the International Council of African Museums, said Zimbabwean experts did not believe the museum or the University of Cambridge had conducted enough research to determine whether the skulls they held from the country include those of the first chimurenga heroes. “Because people long believed that all the chimurenga heroes’ remains were in the UK, we are now very worried that not even a single one has been acknowledged to be there,” she said. Gwasira said his people were still suffering as a result of the colonial theft of his ancestor’s remains. He said that in the Zimbabwean Shona tradition, ancestral spirits known as vadzimu were the spiritual conduit for prayers to Mwari, or God. “Some of our very important ancestors who held the traditional responsibility for taking our grievances to the Lord were killed, murdered, their heads were taken,” he said. “We are suffering because until those ancestors return to us then we have no access to the Lord.” Other leaders of the more than 20 first chimurenga included the spirit mediums Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi, who were hanged from a tree in 1898. Sithole, also a former director of the Natural History Museum of Zimbabwe, said the UK lagged behind other European countries, such as France and Germany, which had funded research into the provenance of human remains taken from their former African colonies. A spokesperson for the Natural History Museum in London said it was committed to repatriating the 11 individuals from Zimbabwe in its collections, and was awaiting confirmation from the Zimbabwean government as to their desired next steps. “After extensive research we found no evidence to suggest that the remains are those of named individuals or are associated with particular historical episodes,” they said. “There are no other known or suspected ancestral remains from Zimbabwe held at the museum.” A University of Cambridge spokesperson said: “The vice has written to the families and descendants to acknowledge their profound grief and the enduring uncertainty they have expressed.” They added that the vice-chancellor had assured the descendants that the Duckworth Collection, which holds the university’s largest collection of human remains, did not hold those of any of the first chimurenga heroes. The DCMS declined to comment. A 2024 report said Cambridge’s governing council had approved a claim to repatriate the remains of the only Zimbabwean individual identified in its African collections. It added that the university was awaiting a response from the Zimbabwe government.