Read the daily news to learn English

picture of article

Middle East crisis live: Trump says Nato allies making ‘foolish mistake’ for not supporting war with Iran, which US will leave ‘in very near future’

Addressing membres of the UK parliament earlier, Volodymyr Zelenskyy told British MPs and peers that 201 Ukrainian anti-drone experts are in the Middle East helping to counteract Iranian drone attacks, and that there are a further 34 “ready to deploy”. These are military experts, experts who know how to help, how to defend against drones. Our teams are already in the Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and on the way to Kuwait. We are working with several other countries. Agreements are already in place. The Ukrainian president said that he sent these military experts “at the request of our partners, including the United States”.

picture of article

Trump says US does not need Nato after being rebuffed over strait of Hormuz

Donald Trump has said the United States does not need Nato after being rebuffed by a number of the organisation’s member countries over his appeal for a multi-national naval force to reopen the key strait of Hormuz trade route closed by Iran. Speaking to reporters from the Oval Office, the US president described the rejection of his calls as a “very foolish mistake”, adding without evidence: “Everyone agrees with us, but they don’t want to help. And we, you know, we as the United States have to remember that because we think it’s pretty shocking.” Trump added that he thought Europe would have sent minesweepers to assist the with the operation in the strait, adding that it was “not a big deal” but was “unfair” to the US. Once again among Trump’s targets was the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, who Trump said he was disappointed with, adding that the relationship with the UK had been good before Starmer took office. The US president’s remarks came after Starmer said on Monday that while the UK would be “taking the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war”. A number of US allies have questioned Trump’s changing logic for, and the necessity of, the US-Israeli war against Iran, now in its third week. In an earlier post on his Truth Social network, Trump also called out Japan, Australia and South Korea for saying they would not be sending warships. “Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the Nato Countries’ assistance _ WE NEVER DID!” he wrote His remarks came in the midst of an escalating crisis in the Middle East, which has seen Iran attack cargo vessels transiting the strait of Hormuz bringing oil shipments from large parts of the Gulf to a halt and triggering sharp rises in the global price of oil. On a typical day, ships carrying about a fifth of the world’s oil travel through the narrow passageway but Iran has said it would not now allow “even a single litre” to be shipped to its enemies. That has sent oil prices above $100 (£75) per barrel and threatened a surge in inflation for the global economy. In response to reports that he was considering potential ground operations by American or Israeli forces – either in the shape of taking over the Kharg Island oil port complex or in the area of Isfahan where Iran has stored stores much of its of highly enriched uranium – Trump said, “I’m really not afraid of that. I’m really not afraid of anything” when asked if such a move might risk a Vietnam-style quagmire. Reuters meanwhile reported that the White House was encouraging the Ahmed al-Sharaa regime in Syria to help disarm Hezbollah in eastern Lebanon, a proposal that could pit Sunni former Salafists from the al-Nusra Front, which was implicated in sectarian massacres, against Shia Hezbollah forces. Trump’s messaging on Tuesday remained contradictory as it has through much of the war, with the US president refusing to be drawn on a timeline even as he bragged about his military successes. “Look, if we left right now it would take 10 years for them to rebuild,” he said. “We’re not ready to leave yet, but we’ll be leaving in the near future.” Separately the Washington Post reported that senior Israeli officials told US diplomats that Iranian protesters would “get slaughtered” if they took to the streets against their government, even as Israel continued to publicly call for a popular uprising. Iran launched fresh attacks across the Gulf on Tuesday, widening a conflict that has already begun to spill beyond its initial fronts. Qatar said it had intercepted a missile, with falling debris causing a fire but no casualties. In the UAE, authorities briefly shut down airspace as the military responded to what it described as missile and drone threats before declaring the situation stabilised. In Iraq, drone and rocket attacks reportedly struck near the US embassy in Baghdad, while a separate strike killed four people at a house said to be hosting Iranian advisers. The incidents underscored how quickly Iraq was being drawn deeper into the regional confrontation. Explosions were also reported across Iran, including in Tehran, Ahvaz, Isfahan and Shiraz. Meanwhile, Iraq’s oil minister said Baghdad had reached an understanding with Tehran to allow tankers to cross the strait of Hormuz.

picture of article

Belgian court sends ex-diplomat, 93, to trial over 1961 murder of Congo leader

A former Belgian diplomat, 93, should stand trial over alleged complicity in the 1961 murder of Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of what was then the newly independent Congolese state, a Brussels court has ruled. Étienne Davignon, the only person still alive among 10 Belgians the Lumumba family accuses of involvement in the killing, is charged with participation in war crimes. The decision, which follows a surprise referral by the Brussels prosecutor last June, can be appealed against. Davignon, a former vice-president of the European Commission, has denied the charges. In a statement the Lumumba family welcomed what they called a significant step: “For our family, this is not the end of a long fight, it is the beginning of a reckoning that history has long demanded.” Yema Lumumba, a granddaughter of the assassinated leader, told reporters: “The fact that all this time has passed does not mean it is done and we will never get to know the truth. It is also very important for the legal Belgian system to start confronting its own responsibilities regarding what happened during colonial times.” The decision was also hailed by lawyers for the Lumumba family as setting a historic precedent in criminal justice for crimes allegedly committed under European colonial rule. If the trial goes ahead, Davignon will be the first Belgian official to face justice over the assassination of Lumumba 65 years ago. In its decision, the court went beyond the prosecutor’s decision, extending the scope of the trial to cover Lumumba’s associates, Maurice Mpolo and Joseph Okito, who were murdered alongside him. Davignon is accused of participating in war crimes on three counts, according to information provided by the court of first nstance in Brussels: The illegal transfer of Lumumba and his associates from Léopoldville (now Kinshasa) to Katanga. The “humiliating and degrading treatment” of the men. Depriving them of a fair trial. “This is a historic decision,” Christophe Marchand, a lawyer for the family, said. “This decision confirms that the passage of time cannot erase the legal responsibility for the gravest crimes.” Lumumba, aged 35, was tortured and assassinated by firing squad in January 1961, alongside Okito and Mpolo, two other leading politicians. The murders were carried out by separatists in the Katanga region with the support of Belgian mercenaries. Davignon had arrived in what was then Belgian Congo as a 28-year-old diplomatic intern on the eve of independence in 1960. Davignon, who went on to numerous senior political and business roles, was not present for the hearing at the Palais de Justice in Brussels. Johan Verbist, Davignon’s lawyer, told the Guardian that it was too soon to comment on the decision, but he would “now analyse the possibilities for an appeal”. Verbist rejected claims of war crimes at a hearing behind closed doors in January and argued that reasonable time to judge the case had passed, according to sources cited in Belgian media. A 2001 parliamentary inquiry concluded that Belgian ministers bore a moral responsibility for the events that led to the Congolese leader’s gruesome death. Belgium returned a gold-capped tooth to the Lumumba family in 2022 that one of the Belgians involved in the killing had kept as a macabre souvenir. Belgium’s then prime minister, Alexander De Croo, reiterated his country’s “moral responsibility” for Lumumba’s murder at a ceremony to mark the return of the tooth. “Belgian ministers, diplomats, officials and officers had perhaps no intention to have Patrice Lumumba assassinated,” he said. “No evidence has been found to support this. “But they should have realised that his transfer to Katanga put his life in danger. They should have warned, they should have refused any assistance in transferring Patrice Lumumba to the place where he would be executed. Instead they chose not to see … not to act.” Lawyers for the Lumumba family believe that if there is no successful appeal a trial could begin in January 2027. While there have been previous successful reparations claims against former colonial powers, experts who support the Lumumba family believe it will be the first-ever criminal trial against someone who acted for the state over a political murder. Speaking to the Guardian in 2025, Marchand said the case was unusual among former colonial powers. “There are very few cases where a former colonial state accepts to address the colonial crimes and to consider that they have to be tried in that same colonial state, even if it’s a very long time after,” he said.

picture of article

Norway to investigate links between Jeffrey Epstein and foreign office

The Norwegian parliament has voted unanimously to appoint an independent investigative commission to look into connections between its foreign office and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Speaking before the vote on Tuesday, the prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, paid tribute to Epstein’s victims and said that the files released by the US Department of Justice had clearly shown “it is possible to buy and abuse influence if you are rich enough”. Støre said that connections between Norwegians in “trusted and central positions” had been “proven” in the Epstein files, adding: “Reasonable questions have been raised about whether the links are in violation of the law and many aspects of society’s ethical regulations. It is crucial that these circumstances and the questions they raise are clarified, and that the facts are brought to the table.” The release of the Epstein files in January sent shockwaves through Norway after multiple figures from the highest echelons of society – including the crown princess and a former prime minister – were named in them. The foreign office was also drawn into the spreading scandal after the financial crimes squad, Økokrim, said it was is investigating Mona Juul, Norway’s former ambassador to Jordan and Iraq, on suspicion of gross corruption while working at the ministry of foreign affairs. Her husband, Terje Rød-Larsen, also a former diplomat and former president of the International Peace Institute, is being investigated by Økokrim on suspicion of complicity in gross corruption. Juul’s lawyer has said that she “does not recognise the accusations made against her”. Rød-Larsen’s lawyer has said he is confident the investigation will find “there is no basis for criminal liability”. The couple were part of a small group of diplomats who facilitated the 1993-1995 Oslo accords. The Epstein files appear to show that Juul and Rød-Larsen’s two children were bequeathed $10m by Epstein and that Rød-Larsen was appointed executor of Epstein’s will in 2017, which was later revoked. Økokrim is also investigating Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Labour prime minister and the former chair of the Nobel committee and former secretary general of the Council of Europe, charged with gross corruption. His lawyer has said “he believes that there are no circumstances that would lead to criminal liability”. Børge Brende, a former foreign minister, also appears in the documents. After they were published he left his position as president of the World Economic Forum. Being named in the Epstein files does not indicate wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Crown Princess Mette-Marit is under pressure to explain her years-long relationship with the US financier. As well as any contact between Norwegian politicians and civil servants and Epstein, the oversight committee has said that the commission will investigate “Norway’s campaigns for top positions in international organisations” and the “allocation and use of development aid”. In his speech to Stortinget, Støre said that he agreed that the files raised “serious questions” that must be answered in order to restore public trust. When the independent commission delivers its report, he said, the government will “thoroughly review it”. The ministry of foreign affairs, he said, is reviewing grants that it has given and contact it has had with the International Peace Institute. However, he said that the foreign office does an “important and good job for Norway” and contributes to the country “being able to stand up for the efforts for a more just and peaceful world”. While he said all aspects of their work must be “open and available for discussion, scrutiny and critical scrutiny”, it should not be “the subject of suspicion. Especially not in the situation we are experiencing today, where international law is being violated, and the threshold for using military force seems to be lowered by powerful states,” he said. Trust in public officials, he said, was “essential in our democracy. “We are and must always be open to improvements and to learning from mistakes. That is why it is important that the issues raised by the release of the Epstein files are now thoroughly reviewed.” Per-Willy Amundsen, chair of the standing committee on scrutiny and constitutional affairs, said: “The case raises serious questions about contacts with criminals, and about corruption in the administration.” Amundsen, a member of the far-right Progress party (Fremskrittspartiet or FrP), added: “If this is documented, it could cause lasting damage to trust. The case therefore requires extraordinary measures to restore this trust.”

picture of article

Trump’s Iran war has no ethical or legal grounds | Letters

In justifying the joint United States-Israel airstrikes on Iran, US politicians have adopted humanitarian rhetoric, claiming that their actions will enable the liberation of the Iranian population from repression (Even taking Trump’s confused reasons for the Iran war at face value, it’s still a total disaster, 13 March). The arguments echo the justifications offered before the 2003 war in Iraq. But the strikes on Iran have even weaker grounds to be considered humanitarian than the war in Iraq. During the buildup to the Iraq war, there was at least a clear military objective: removing Saddam Hussein’s regime. By contrast, there is little evidence of a coherent plan for achieving regime change in Iran. Bombing alone is unlikely to produce it, yet no alternative strategy has been articulated. Humanitarian action would normally prioritise the minimisation of civilian harm. Yet early reports already suggest otherwise. An elementary school has been struck, killing 168 people, most of them young girls. The Iraq war reflected extraordinary hubris and produced catastrophic consequences, including hundreds of thousands of deaths and lasting regional instability. The intervention in Iran threatens similar outcomes. Yet the architects of the Iraq invasion at least accepted a degree of responsibility for dealing with the aftermath. Colin Powell famously invoked the “Pottery Barn rule”: you break it, you own it. However flawed that principle proved in practice, it at least implied a duty to repair the damage caused. In the case of Iran, there appears to be no such commitment – only the prospect of breaking something and walking away. We can therefore see that the war in Iran is not merely far from humanitarian – it is even worse than the 2003 war in Iraq, the quintessential unjust war of the past three decades. James Pattison Professor of politics, University of Manchester • The US-Israel war against Iran marks a new low in many ways. As a young woman aspiring to work in international law, I see it as yet another chapter in an ongoing decline: most European leaders (unlike Pedro Sánchez) refuse to call it what it is because they will not stand up to bullies. Their silence echoes their silence on Gaza, Venezuela and all the other countries that Trump and his allies continue to threaten and undermine every single day. I wish I could say this comes as a surprise – but it no longer does. What is most upsetting is the precedent it sets: violations of international law seem to matter only when they happen close to home or touch on European interests, as in Greenland or Ukraine. And, as if their silence were not shameful enough, many still choose to play by Trump’s and Netanyahu’s rules, effectively supporting their crimes. Ivette Félix Padilla Berlin, Germany • Jonathan Freedland accurately addresses the weaknesses of the arguments put forward to justify the actions of the US and Israel in relation to Iran and its proxies. However, a further hugely significant point is missing. It is ordinary people, civilians, poor and elderly people, women and children who will bear the brunt of this war. As in Gaza, the bombs are obliterating everything. It is utterly unacceptable that hundreds of thousands of civilians are being told to evacuate Beirut. Where is the accountability for the blatant disregard for international law? Just imagine what any western country’s response would be if anything like the way this war is being conducted was imposed on their population. Chris Lake West Hallam, Derbyshire • It was good to read Jonathan Freedland’s cogent and hard-hitting analysis of Donald Trump’s war on Iran. I would like to add one thing. Beyond the human tragedy and the economic impact of the bombed oil wells, there is the catastrophe of the surge of carbon going straight into the atmosphere as the oil burns. This is even worse than Trump’s “drill, baby, drill”. Diana Francis Bath • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

picture of article

‘Everything was burning, people were burning’: witnesses describe strike on Kabul drug rehab centre

Witnesses and survivors have described the horrific scenes of a Pakistani air raid that hit a drug rehabilitation centre in Kabul, killing more than 400 people, who burned in their beds or were crushed by the collapsing building. Afghan rescue crews were still digging bodies out of the rubble on Tuesday after the strike, the deadliest single attack so far in a three-week war between the two countries. An ambulance driver Haji Fahim said he arrived at the hospital to find “everything was burning, people were burning”. “Early in the morning they called me again and told me to come back because there are still bodies under the rubble,” he told Reuters. While some structures were still standing, much of the compound had been reduced to blackened rubble. Bunk beds stood in the open after roofs had collapsed, with blankets, mattresses and shoes strewn across the area. Surviving patients, dressed uniformly in green outfits and with shaved heads, sat inside a yard. The Afghan interior ministry spokesperson Abdul Mateen Qanie said 408 people were killed and 265 injured at the state-run Omid hospital, which was hit late on Monday evening. Authorities did not give details of how they counted the dead, although multiple eyewitness accounts suggested a mass-casualty event. The Norwegian Refugee Council, an independent aid group, said its staff had seen large numbers of casualties. “We visited the hospital treating addicts in Kabul this morning and found hundreds of civilians dead and injured,” it said in a statement. Yousaf Rahim, a patient, said everyone was inside the wards when the explosion happened. “My bed was in the corner, and I suffered injuries to my leg and thigh. It was a horrific scene. Patients fell from their beds, screaming and running as fire and smoke filled the wards and rooms,” he said. “Thick smoke and dust spread throughout the hospital,” he added. “Many people lay on the ground. Dozens died instantly, and the critically injured were pleading for help. I didn’t know what to do. I stepped over bodies and managed to escape outside.” Mohammad Mian, who works in the radiology department of the hospital, said many young people under treatment lived in large containers on the campus and very few survived the strike. “It was extremely terrifying,” he said. “Those who survived were the ones whose rooms were not destroyed and were fortunate. But the places where the bombs were dropped, everyone there was killed.” The UN meanwhile called for an independent investigation into the killings. The organisation’s human rights spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan told journalists in Geneva that the “tragic blast” must be investigated promptly, independently and transparently. “Victims and victims’ families are entitled to reparations,” he added. The conflict, which escalated in February when Pakistan launched airstrikes on militant targets in Afghanistan, is the worst ever between the neighbours who share a 2,600km (1,600-mile) border. Still, it has been overlooked as world governments focus on the spiralling US-Israeli war on Iran. Pakistan has rejected accusations it deliberately targeted the hospital, and claimed it bombed “technical support infrastructure and ammunition storage facilities at two locations in Kabul”. The Pakistani information minister, Attaullah Tarar, posted on X in the early hours of Tuesday that the strikes had been carried out “with precision only at those infrastructures which are being used by Afghan Taliban regime to support its multiple terror proxies”. Omid Stanikzai, 31, a security guard at the drug treatment centre, told AFP that he heard the sound of a jet patrolling on Monday evening, and then Afghan forces fired into the air. Later, the “jet dropped bombs and a fire broke out,” he said. The drug rehabilitation centre had been established on the grounds of an old Nato military base in 2016. It treated hundreds of people, providing them with vocational training, such as tailoring and carpentry, to make them more employable, according to local media reports. Locals referred to it as Omid Camp, or “camp of hope”, although its official name was Ibn Sina drug addiction Treatment hospital. India, a nuclear-armed rival of Pakistan that has recently forged close ties with the Taliban in Afghanistan, condemned the strike on the hospital. China, which has attempted to play a mediating role in the conflict, urged both governments to stay calm and exercise restraint. The UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, said he was “dismayed” by reports of the airstrikes and civilian casualties. “I urge parties to de-escalate, exercise maximum restraint and respect international law, including the protection of civilians and civilian objects such as hospitals.” The attack came hours after Afghan officials said the two sides had exchanged fire along their common border, killing four people in Afghanistan, including two children, as deadly fighting continued to worsen. Islamabad has described its conflict with Afghanistan as an “open war”. The fighting began in late February after Afghanistan launched cross-border attacks in response to Pakistani airstrikes. The clashes disrupted a ceasefire brokered by Qatar in October. The Taliban seized Afghanistan in 2021 as the US and Nato withdrew their forces at the end of a two-decade war. Since then, they have imposed their interpretation of Islamic law on daily life, including sweeping restrictions on women and girls, who remain barred from many jobs, education and most public spaces. Pakistan initially welcomed their return to power but relations have quickly soured, notably over the Afghan Taliban’s alleged role in giving a safe haven and sponsorship to radical militants. The Pakistan Taliban has, in particular, been responsible for a surge in deadly attacks in Pakistan. Afghanistan’s Taliban government has denied any involvement in cross-border militant violence. Agencies contributed to this report

picture of article

Death of influential Ali Larijani may be bigger loss to Iran than Khamenei

If confirmed, Israel’s assassination of Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran’s supreme national security council and one of the linchpins of Iranian politics, would be a devastating body blow to the country and probably a bigger reverse than the loss of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei at the outset of the war. In any attempt to decapitate the Iranian leadership, Larijani would always be the prime target, largely because of his ability to straddle so many levels of Iranian politics and his huge personal influence not just in Iran but with foreign states including China and Russia. Indeed, there has been probably no greater loss for the Iranian regime since the US assassination of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leader Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad in January 2020. The significance of Larijani’s removal also lies in the confirmation that Israel and possibly the US never regarded him as an alternative leader for Iran in the event of the government breaking up, or in effect surrendering. Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said: “[Benjamin] Netanyahu is now focused on blocking Trump’s pathways for a ceasefire and follow-up talks with Iran. Larijani would have been the man to get that job done.” Donald Trump has frequently spoken of his wish to find an equivalent to Delcy Rodríguez, the deputy to Nicolás Maduro who is from a US point of view proving a highly pragmatic leader of Venezuela after the American capture of Maduro. Trump’s decision to endorse her leadership has in US eyes prevented a civil war. The assassination of Larijani, 67, an advocate of a nuclear deal with the US and brutal internal repression, not only cuts off the remote chance that he could have played a Rodríguez-type transitional role but also raises questions about whether the US actually has a candidate inside the country. Trump often casually admits he does not know many of the internal alternative leaders since so many have been killed, but Larijani’s removal would show that the US pool of candidates is very shallow. Yet Trump is still refusing to endorse Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah, saying he prefers an internal candidate. Pahlavi has been taking steps to broaden his leadership team in an effort to assuage fears that if he was made leader then Iran would be switching from a clerical dictatorship back to a monarchical dictatorship. Larijani’s special attribute, apart from his vast four-generation span of experience in Iranian politics and his international contacts, was that he managed to have the trust of the IRGC while having his differences with hardliners. He played a role in the recent unsuccessful rearguard action designed to prevent Mojtaba Khamenei from succeeding his father as supreme leader. Mojtaba Khamenei, still yet to appear in public, has been regarded as the candidate who would put the IRGC fully at the helm of Iranian politics, sidelining moderate politicians and spiritual leadership. Larijani was manoeuvring to delay Khamenei’s election by the Assembly of Experts, working with the former president Hassan Rouhani to either postpone the critical meeting of the assembly or find an alternative candidate. Rouhani had been arguing that it was impossible to know the state of Iranian politics after the war, so it would be wise to defer the appointment of a new supreme leader in case the choice might narrow the country’s postwar options. There was also a dispute whether Ali Khamenei had ever said he wanted his son to succeed him. The Iranian revolution of 1979 had been in part a revolt against hereditary rule. But once the battle to defer a choice was lost and the transition would take place, Larijani appeared on television and described the appointment as a “manifestation of consensus”. It was typical of his pragmatic approach. Without the religious training required to be a supreme leader, Larijani instead moved through the halls of Iranian high politics and with his brothers became a driving ideological and practical force. His brother Sadeq was head of the judiciary while another, Mohammad Javad, acted as a diplomat and adviser to the supreme leader. Larijani served as the head of state broadcasting, using the position to lambast the reformist movement. He was then the speaker of parliament for 12 turbulent years between 2008 and 2020. Iranian external politics in those years were dominated by the wisdom of negotiating the nuclear deal struck with the US in 2015, and he was broadly supportive. In a previous stint as secretary of the national security council, in 2006 he had reached out unsuccessfully to the George W Bush administration for talks on Iran’s nuclear programme. Last August, after the June 2025 Israeli US attacks on Iran, Larijani was put at the heart of the establishment by being made secretary of the supreme national security council (SNSC). Within Iran’s multilayered political structure, the SNSC acts as the key link between the military (IRGC) and the civilian administration. One of his roles was to review the lessons learned from the 12-day war, and the extent to which Iran has prepared better for this second war will be seen as his legacy. He was influential in devising the strategy of telling Gulf leaders that US bases in their territory would be regarded as legitimate targets if Iran was attacked. Larijani, far more than the president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was regarded as the authentic message carrier to the Gulf leadership. He stood for the presidency only once, in 2005, when he was heavily defeated by the populist firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Larijani trained as a mathematician at university and was a cerebral intellectual, writing his doctoral dissertation about the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz recently published a profile of Larijani in which the author, after reading six of Larijani’s books, concluded he was “a brilliant thinker who combines, in an unusual way, a life of contemplation with a life of action – no small feat. In his writings, Larijani tries to defend the basic premises of his extreme religious worldview using the rules of western philosophy, and he often advances arguments that are genuinely thought-provoking.” In one of his essays, Larijani wrote: “Society has an existential identity separate from the individual. That is, the intertwining of the spirits of individuals within a nation creates an independent collective soul. If we recognise this independent identity, we must also recognise its rights. According to Islamic thought, this collective soul has a direction – it strives for prosperity and redemption.” After his politics shifted away from conservatism to the Rouhani centre, he and his family found themselves increasingly at odds with those making the decisions in the supreme leader’s office. To his anger, the 12-strong Guardian Council debarred him from standing in the 2021 and 2024 presidential elections, decisions he did not take lying down. The council unusually was forced to justify its decision, accusing him of contributing to the dire economic conditions under Rouhani’s presidency and of failing to adhere to the principle of state officials pursuing simple personal lives. In reality, a faction in the IRGC wanted to ensure Ebrahim Raisi was elected president, and Larijani was the clearest threat. So his sudden return to power as secretary of the supreme national security council last August marked a political comeback. His experience in dealing with China, Russia and in preparing Iran for another wave of us attacks was regarded as too valuable to leave in the wilderness. Once more he was on his political travels, and he showed no leniency when the January economic riots started, describing the protests as urban terrorist tensions. When Khamenei was killed, he was quick to appear on television offering a reassuring and grounded leadership for those worried Iran had no wartime strategy. For all the repression, he remained the figure most likely to hold back the hardliners. In an interview in November 2024, he reflected on the enduring impact of the deaths of Suleimani and the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. “Their martyrdom still feels surreal to me,” he said. “History repeats itself as great leaders fight, offer themselves as sacrifices for the sake of the cause and pave the way for a new generation of freedom fighters.” The test now is whether the attrition, and gaping holes in Iran’s intelligence operation, mean Iran cannot find another generation with which to renew itself.

picture of article

Man and woman charged with murder of Iranian activist in Canada

Two people have been charged with the murder of an Iranian activist in Canada, in a case which has intensified fears over transnational repression of critics of the regime in Tehran. Masood Masjoody, a former university maths teacher, went missing in early February in the city of Burnaby, British Columbia. He had been critical of Iran’s theocratic regime and the exiled family of the former shah. Officials announced on Saturday they had arrested Mehdi Ahmadzadeh Razavi, 48, of Maple Ridge in British Columbia, and Arezou Soltani, 45, of North Vancouver. Both were charged with first-degree murder. Police also revealed they had discovered Masjoody’s remains in the city of Mission, British Columbia, on 6 March. Sgt Freda Fong, a spokesperson for the homicide unit of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, said the motive was still under investigation but the victim and suspects knew each other. “We understand this case has impacted the Iranian community and has generated widespread concern,” added Fong. Razavi and Soltani did not enter pleas during a brief appearance by video in court in British Columbia on Monday. They spoke only to confirm their identities. Masjoody was behind a string of lawsuits against the Iranian government and members of the exiled monarchist faction. He sued Razavi and several others for defamation in September 2024 and Soltani was named in a subsequent defamation suit. He had also launched cases against the social media platform X as well as Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah, and and his former employers, Simon Fraser University in Burnaby. “His conduct bears many, if not all, of the hallmarks of vexatious litigation,” said Justice Bruce Butler of the British Columbia court of appeal in 2025, according to the Globe and Mail newspaper. Masjoody lost a 2021 lawsuit in which he alleged the university and his former colleagues were involved in a “conspiracy, weaponising my personal life against me, defamation, and widespread cover-up” in part enabled by “malicious efforts on behalf of Khamenei’s regime”. Masjoody was himself accused of sexual harassment and making misogynistic and violent social media posts targeting female colleagues Earlier this month, activists told the Guardian they feared Masjoody’s criticism of the regime made him a target. Canada’s intelligence agency has also warned about foreign interference from Iran and specifically threats to individuals. Fong said at that time that “any speculation over whether Iran was involved would be premature and compromise the integrity of the investigation”. Masjoody’s killing has prompted doubts about Canada’s response to academics who say they have also been targeted by Iran. “The Islamic Republic has a long tradition and history of physically eliminating its opponents extraterritorially,” said Maral Karimi, a lecturer at Toronto Metropolitan University who specialises in social movements in Iran. “They are really not taking this seriously until one of us dies, and now Masjoody is dead.”