The US embassy in the Riyadh has advised US citizens to reconsider travel to the country amid the war, per a travel advisory from the Saudi authorities. It also advised Americans to reconsider “participation in Hajj this year” – the annual Muslim pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca – “due to the ongoing security situation and intermittent travel disruptions”.
Donald Donald Trump has warned that Iran’s “whole civilisation will die tonight” if Tehran did not comply with his demands, as the world braced to see if the president would deliver on his latest threat to order the mass destruction of Iranian power plants and bridges in the absence of a deal by 8pm EDT (1am BST). Iran’s Revolutionary Guards signalled they were also ready to escalate the war with a threat to retaliate “beyond the region” and “to deprive the US and its allies of oil and gas in the region for years”, suggesting Iran would target oil and gas production facilities in the Gulf and elsewhere, potentially sending the world into recession. The White House issued a statement on Tuesday insisting the US was not considering the use of a nuclear weapon after the vice-president, JD Vance, triggered concern with a warning that US forces had tools they “so far haven’t decided to use”. But by threatening Iranian “civilization”, Trump appeared unwilling to dispel doubts he was prepared to commit serious war crimes by targeting the country’s population. On Sunday, he said US bombing would destroy all Iran’s power stations and bridges within fours hours of his deadline. With Trump’s deadline looming, there was no sign of Pakistani-led peace efforts bearing fruit, with Iran unwilling to give up its main point of leverage, the near-total closure of the strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint for the flow of oil, gas and petrochemicals such as fertiliser from the Gulf, in return for a temporary ceasefire. On X, Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said: “More than 14 million proud Iranians have so far registered to sacrifice their lives to defend Iran. I too have been, am, and will remain devoted to giving my life for Iran.” Tehran has presented its own 10-point plan, insisting on long-term security guarantees, which Trump has rejected as “not good enough”. After days of escalating threats, Trump put up a social media post on Tuesday warning: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” The president has set deadlines before and allowed them to pass over the five weeks of the conflict, but he insisted on Tuesday the ensuing hours would be “one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World” unless “something revolutionarily wonderful” happened, with “less radicalized minds” in Iran’s leadership. Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s representative at the UN, said that Trump’s threats constituted “incitement to war crimes – and potentially genocide”. During a security council session on the strait of Hormuz, Iravani said: “Iran will not stand idle in the face of such egregious war crimes. It will exercise, without hesitation, its inherent right of self-defence and will take immediate and proportionate reciprocal measures.” Through his spokesperson, the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, issued a reminder on Monday that attacking civilian infrastructure is banned under international law, but Trump declared on the same day he was “not at all” concerned about being called a war criminal. Officers in the chain of command are obligated under US and international law not to carry out blatantly unlawful orders but it was unclear whether there was anyone left in Trump’s entourage willing to intervene to stop him. In the hours before Trump’s deadline, Israel mounted its own attacks on Iran’s infrastructure. A rail bridge in the central city of Kashan was one of the first reported bombed on Tuesday by Iranian state media, with two people reportedly killed as Israel’s military said it had launched “a wide-scale wave of strikes targeting dozens of infrastructure sites”. A bridge over a railway line near Karaj, to the north-west of Tehran, was hit, according to Iranian media, and power outages were reported in the same city after a substation and transmission lines were bombed. Bridges near Qom and Tabriz were also reportedly hit. The US also struck 50 military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island, the home to its main oil export terminal, while Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they had attacked Saudi Arabia’s Jubail petrochemical complex in retaliation for strikes on an Iranian petrochemical facility the night before. . Israel’s military, writing in Farsi on social media, said on Tuesday morning that “from this moment” – 8.50am Iran time – until 9pm, Iranians should refrain from “travelling by train throughout Iran” for the sake of their own security. “Your presence on trains and near railway lines endangers your life,” the statement continued in a clear warning that stations and tracks normally used by civilians would be bombed on Tuesday. Iranian media reported on Tuesday that Khorramabad airport, in western Iran, had been attacked, and Israel said it had conducted another wave of strikes on Tehran overnight. Israel’s military said it had bombed a petrochemical facility in Shiraz, where it said nitric acid used to make explosives was produced, as well as a ballistic missile launch site in north-western Iran. Israel’s military expressed regret on Tuesday for damage caused to a synagogue in Tehran, claiming it was “collateral damage” from a strike against a “senior military target”. Iranian media said the synagogue, serving the capital’s small Jewish population, had been destroyed.
Keir Starmer is facing increasing pressure to limit US access to British airbases after Donald Trump threatened “a whole civilisation” would die if Iran ignored his demands, comments that Downing Street has not directly criticised. No 10 has allowed US forces to use UK bases only for defensive missions against Iran, such as targeting missile sites, ruling out involvement in attacks on civilian infrastructure such as power stations, which the US president has threatened. The Liberal Democrats and Greens, as well as some Labour MPs, responded to Trump’s demands that Iran accept his conditions by a Tuesday night deadline by calling for the UK government to take further action. Even Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader and Trump’s closest supporter among the main UK parties, condemned the president’s comments as going “way too far”. Downing Street declined to comment. Asked whether the UK may limit the use of British bases if US forces did target civilian infrastructure, which most experts would regard as a war crime, Starmer’s official spokesperson said he would not comment on “a hypothetical”. Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, called on Starmer to immediately block US missions leaving British or US-British airbases, such as Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean or RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, saying failing to do so “risks making the United Kingdom an accomplice to war crimes”. Zack Polanski, the leader of the Greens in England and Wales, made the same demand, saying: “This is a rogue state carrying out war crimes and threatening more. The UK government must grow a spine and stop our bases being used for this war.” Starmer’s spokesperson, when asked about the use of British bases, said that while he would not provide a “running commentary on our allies’ operations”, UK bases were available on the strict condition they were used only for defensive missions. He added: “We remain committed to defending our people, our interests and our allies, acting in accordance with international law and not getting drawn into the wider conflict.” While no ministers have publicly expressed alarm at Trump’s comments, a series of Labour MPs have done so. Some have called for the UK to block US forces entirely from its bases for Iran missions, following the lead of Spain which has barred US aircraft involved in such attacks from its airspace. Stella Creasy, a senior Labour MP, called for the UK to not stand by while Trump tore up international law. She said: “The threat to destroy an entire civilisation is beyond unconscionable and unacceptable – it’s not just about the niceties of diplomatic language but the intimidation of an entire nation whose people are already under attack by the ayatollahs Trump claims to oppose. “We cannot stand by as he rips up international law and risks global chaos, as even if he doesn’t follow through this time, we are all paying the price for this war. It’s time to ask Congress about the 25th amendment and what their red lines are for triggering it.” One senior Labour backbencher said that so far Starmer had made the right calls over the war but he now needed to change course. “I think now the bare minimum is to take up what Spain has done and say we cannot allow you to use UK military infrastructure for war crimes,” he said. “Britain cannot have any credibility in the world stage if it allows Donald Trump to use UK military bases for what is very clearly a threat of war crimes.” The MP added that many other MPs were nervous about the UK’s position. Ben Goldsborough, the South Norfolk MP, called Trump’s comments “reckless and dangerous”, while Dawn Butler, the Brent East MP, said they amounted to a threat of war crimes from “someone who is clearly deranged”. Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons foreign affairs select committee, asked how the UK could be sure that US forces were using UK bases only for defensive operations. She said: “I don’t know the details, but I would presume that there is a protocol that has been agreed. Whoever is president, the trust between our security and defence forces goes pretty deep and so if the UK makes clear what the restrictions are, we would certainly expect the Americans to keep to the agreement.” Farage, speaking at a Reform UK press conference in Warwickshire, indicated that if he were in power he would allow the US to use UK bases even for attacks on civilian targets in Iran, as long as he received “satisfactory answers” about the aim of the attacks. But when questioned afterwards about Trump’s comments about an existential threat to Iran, he expressed alarm. After being read part of Trump’s Truth Social post, Farage said: “I am quite shocked just to hear that. That is over the top in every single way. Yes of course he wants to threaten – to get them to the negotiating table. But those words are … they’re way too far.”
Two veterans who were forced to resign for being gay due to a ban on LGBT personnel in the armed forces have launched legal action against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) over a scheme set up to compensate them. Steven Stewart, 55, and Mark Shephard, 49, who were both “effectively forced to resign” from the military due to their sexuality, and faced “enduring psychological and relational harm”, are taking legal action against the MoD over the rules of the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme, with their lawyers telling the high court that it is “structurally unfair”. Law firm Irwin Mitchell, which is representing the two men, confirmed on Tuesday that a legal claim had been filed, with no hearing date set. Gay men and lesbian women were banned from serving in the British military until 2000. About 200-250 were thrown out each year because of their sexuality, though the exact figures are not known, as proper records were not retained. In 2024, Labour ministers approved the creation of a £75m compensation scheme for the victims of the policy, which led to some soldiers being jailed and others being stripped of their medals and losing their pension rights. The scheme was one of dozens of recommendations following Lord Etherton’s independent review into the ban in 2023. It offers two payments: a flat rate payment of £50,000 for those who were dismissed or administratively discharged under the ban, and “impact payments” of up to £20,000 for those affected by it. But barrister Kate Gallafent KC, for Stewart and Shephard, said in court documents that the scheme’s rules mean that those who were “constructively dismissed” – or forced to resign – are not eligible for the larger payment as they were not formally dismissed or discharged. Stewart and Shephard received £7,000 and £5,000 impact payments respectively, which were determined by an independent panel, but had their applications for the larger payment refused as they were deemed ineligible, with their appeals then dismissed. Gallafent said veterans who “were compelled to resign or retire by way of an ultimatum”, including her clients, will receive tens of thousands of pounds less than those who were administratively discharged. Stewart served as a corporal in the Royal Military Police from 1988 until 1995, and told the court that he was “confused” about his sexuality at the time. He was arrested, interviewed under caution and removed from his unit, and resigned after being told he would face a court martial and a potential prison sentence. He said: “Leaving under those circumstances was devastating. My military career ended overnight. The impact of that decision has stayed with me ever since.” Shephard served in the Royal Air Force from 1995 to 2001, with Gallafent saying he suffered “persistent and severe bullying”. In 1999, he was asked “point-blank” by his commanding officer if he was gay, which he confirmed he was, as he was unaware of the ban at the time. He later applied for voluntary release to avoid being summarily dismissed. An MoD spokesperson said: “We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT serving personnel between 1967 and 2000, which was wholly unacceptable and this is not representative of defence today. “Whilst we acknowledge the hurt caused to veterans who felt compelled to resign, the dismissed and discharged payment was designed to recognise those who were dishonourably removed from service.”
During Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli jets bombed the Jiyeh power station north of the coastal city of Sidon. The blaze could be seen for miles, a towering column of black smoke. Sand was turned to glass. The plant’s damaged storage tanks leaked an estimated 15,000 tonnes of oil into the eastern Mediterranean, the largest spill in that sea. Israel bombed the country’s motorway bridges as well, destroying spans and cratering roads. The result? In the short term, a ceasefire agreement to end the war was signed, as half-baked as it was over-optimistic. Israel, as it does after each of its conflicts, declared a victory. Hezbollah survived, rearmed quickly and lived to fight another day. As the deadline approaches on Donald Trump’s threat to bomb Iran back to the “stone ages” – the question arises not only of the morality and legality of such a campaign, but also of its utility. On Easter Sunday, Trump threatened in an expletive-laden post that Iran would face “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one,” adding “you’ll be living in Hell” unless the strait of Hormuz reopened. On Monday Trump doubled down on his threats. “A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump posted on Truth Social. Even if Trump pushes back his deadline once again, recent history does not suggest that strikes on infrastructure – widely seen as war crime – are likely to force Iran on to a new path. More recent than Lebanon is the experience of Ukraine under four years of sustained Russian bombardment, after Moscow’s own illegal war of aggression. That culminated this year in Kyiv’s worst winter of blackouts as Russia hammered the country’s heating and power plants, but failed to force Ukraine to concede. Indeed, the history of such bombing campaigns – going back to the second world war – is highly contested, including the British decision in 1942 to move to a policy of “area bombing” aimed at undermining the morale of the “enemy civil population”. Despite the promise by the head of the British bomber command Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris in late 1943 that he could bring about the collapse of Germany within four months, it was the allied destruction of the Luftwaffe, not the targeting of industrial and residential targets, that would prove more significant. The US Rolling Thunder air campaign against North Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, though far more constrained in the scope of its targets, was not much more successful in persuading Hanoi to withdraw its intervention in the south. By 1967, the US defence secretary Robert McNamara was telling a closed session before the Senate armed services subcommittee on preparedness that there was “no basis to believe that any bombing campaign … would by itself force Ho Chi Minh’s regime into submission, short, that is, of the virtual annihilation of North Vietnam and its people”. Writing in the Interpreter this week, the former Australian general and theorist of modern war Mick Ryan unpacked some of the problems with Trump’s current threat. “The Islamic republic of Iran, whose political identity is built around resistance to American coercion, is unlikely to respond differently. ‘Bridge and Power Plant Day’ is unlikely to change the Iranian regime’s strategic calculus and would not reopen the strait of Hormuz. It would, however, give the Iranian government its most powerful propaganda tool of the war,” he said. Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher in the Iran and the Shi’ite axis program at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, was also sceptical over whether such pressure from Trump could be successful. “The United States lacks a credible military option that can force Iran into submission,” Citrinowicz posted on X. “The assumption that pressure alone can break Tehran is not strategy, it is wishful thinking.”
A group of leading former UK ambassadors and high commissioners has called on the UK government to threaten action against any companies bidding to build an illegal Israeli settlement “designed to divide the West Bank in two and destroy Palestine’s viability”. In a letter published in the Guardian, the 32 former diplomats said tenders for the planned E1 settlement, which would involve the construction of 3,400 houses on “Palestinian soil” as part of Israel’s “systemic West Bank annexation”, were due to be issued on 1 June. The letter called for a UK trade ban on settlements products and services, as well as “suspending trade concessions with Israel for its breach of the human rights provision in the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement”. Criticism of the E1 plans by Britain, Germany, France and Italy, “does not deter this Israeli government, grown used over decades to rhetorical condemnation without consequences”, said the letter, whose signatories include Sir David Manning and Sir Peter Westmacott, former ambassadors to the US; Sir David Richmond, the former Foreign Office director general; and Sir Vincent Fean, the former British consul-general to Jerusalem. Last month Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said Israel’s new West Bank settlement initiative was a “big mistake”, describing it as “annexation moves” and called for a unified European response to the E1 project, which some officials have said poses an “existential threat” to the future of the two-state solution. Keir Starmer told parliament last month the “Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a flagrant breach of international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution”. He added the government recommended “settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed”, adding: “We will continue to take the necessary action to defend Palestinians and protect the two-state solution.” The letter calls for Britain to lead the way. “The prime minister agrees with the advice of the international court of justice that the 1967 occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank is ‘unlawful’. Those territories constitute the state of Palestine, which Britain recognised last year with France, Canada, Australia and others,” it said. “Britain is ideally fitted, both by that decision and its historic responsibilities in the region, to give a lead to like-minded European and Commonwealth partners by: warning now that any bidder for contracts to design, build or finance the E1 settlement endangers their business interests in and with the UK; banning UK trade in goods, services and investment with settlements; and suspending trade concessions with Israel for its breach of the human rights provision in the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement.” It added: “The unlawful occupation needs to end peacefully. Without consequences, illegality grows unchecked, and further violence is inevitable.” The E1 plan, which has been on hold for two decades and has been strongly opposed by the international community, would extend the existing Jewish settlement of Ma’ale Adumim towards Jerusalem, further cutting occupied East Jerusalem from the West Bank, and further separating the north and south of the territory. Last year Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich –a settler himself, who has backed the plan and the imposition of Israeli sovereignty through the occupied West Bank, said he believed construction on E1 would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.
While all eyes are on the US-Israel war on Iran, Israel proceeds with its systematic West Bank annexation. The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, recently condemned “annexation moves”, including the illegal E1 settlement project designed to divide the West Bank in two and destroy Palestine’s viability. The Iran war and Israel’s military occupation of south Lebanon have delayed the publication of Israeli tenders to build 3,400 houses on Palestinian soil at E1 – but tenders will be issued on 1 June. Criticism by Britain, Germany, France and Italy does not deter this Israeli government, which has over decades grown used to rhetorical condemnation without consequences. So it keeps growing the illegal settlements, deliberately undermining the two-state solution – the policy of successive British governments and our European partners. As Jennifer Rankin has observed (‘Weak and pathetic’: why is the EU not using its leverage to stop Israel?, 2 April), the EU is not using its leverage to stop Israel. The prime minister agrees with the advice of the international court of justice that the 1967 occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank is unlawful. Those territories constitute the state of Palestine, which Britain recognised last year with France, Canada, Australia and others. Britain is ideally fitted, both by that decision and its historic responsibilities in the region, to give a lead to like-minded European and Commonwealth partners by warning now that any bidder for contracts to design, build or finance the E1 settlement endangers its business interests in and with the UK; by banning UK trade in goods, services and investment with settlements; and by suspending trade concessions with Israel for its breach of the human rights provision in the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement. Keir Starmer’s welcome intent to reinforce European ties should include making common cause with those willing to act to advance equal rights and mutual security between Israel and Palestine. The unlawful occupation needs to end peacefully. Without consequences, illegality grows unchecked and further violence is inevitable. Vincent Fean Former consul-general in Jerusalem David Hannay Former ambassador to the UN Ann Grant Former high commissioner to South Africa Emyr Jones Parry Former ambassador to the UN David Manning Former ambassador to the US David Richmond Former director general, FCO Peter Westmacott Former ambassador to the US Jeremy Greenstock Former ambassador to the UN Frances Guy Former ambassador to Lebanon Peter Millett Former ambassador to Jordan Derek Plumbly Former ambassador to Egypt Edward Clay Former high commissioner to Kenya Tony Brenton Former ambassador to Russia William Patey Former ambassador to Afghanistan Colin Budd Former ambassador to the Netherlands Anthony Cary Former high commissioner to Canada Alan Charlton Former ambassador to Brazil Edward Chaplin Former ambassador to Iraq and Jordan Peter Collecott Former ambassador to Brazil Richard Dalton Former ambassador to Iran Michael Hone Former ambassador to Iceland Nicholas Hopton Former ambassador to Iran Peter Jenkins Former ambassador to the UN (Vienna) Rupert Joy Former EU ambassador to Morocco Robin Kealy Former ambassador to Tunisia Robin Lamb Former ambassador to Bahrain Anthony Layden Former ambassador to Morocco Richard Makepeace Former ambassador to the UAE Mark Matthews Former ambassador to Chad Richard Northern Former ambassador to Libya Christopher Segar Former ambassador to Iraq Adrian Sindall Former ambassador to Syria
… but on that note, it’s a wrap for today! The US vice-president, JD Vance, has offered unprecedented full-throated backing to Hungary’s embattled conservative-populist prime minister Viktor Orbán (17:39, 17:45, 17:52, 18:06, 18:13) as he spoke at what was effectively a pre-election rally, in a stark break with diplomatic rules about electoral interference (18:35). During his speech, Vance called the US president, Donald Trump, and put him on loudspeaker so he too could endorse Orbán to thousands of his supporters gathered in Budapest (17:38). The event comes at the end of a day marking “the Hungarian-American friendship,” in which Vance blasted what he claimed was “disgraceful” foreign interference in the election from the European Union, while declaring he wants to “help as much as I can possibly help” to get Orbán re-elected (13:58, 14:45, 17:56). The leader of the main opposition party, Péter Magyar, tried to play down the importance of the US endorsement, stressing his hopes for positive relations with the US administration should his party win the vote (16:11). It’s five days to go until the vote on Sunday, 12 April. If you have any tips, comments or suggestions, email me at jakub.krupa@theguardian.com. I am also on Bluesky at @jakubkrupa.bsky.social and on X at @jakubkrupa.