UN agencies report deteriorating conditions across North Darfur and neighbouring Kordofan, driven by the civil war between Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). This means restricted aid access and mass displacement of local populations; and now the UN is also warning of widespread trafficking, sexual violence and child soldier recruitment.
The RSF seized control of El Fasher, capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, on 26 October. The city had been the government’s last major stronghold in the Darfur region. Fighting there followed an 18-month siege which saw residents access to food, medicine and other supplies cut off.
Below, CND member Jessica Freeman offers her own take on the horrors of Darfur.
JESSICA FREEMAN perspective on Sudan’s civil war
The dire situation in Darfur finally reached international headlines this past month after years of near silence. The conflict is intense, multilayered, and influenced by a web of international actors. Its impact extends far beyond Sudan’s borders, with displacement visible in Chad, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan, each grappling with their own instability.
I recently completed six months with an NGO working in the region, focused primarily on conflict between herders and farmers. Yet it is impossible to operate in such a context without feeling the weight of the broader confrontation between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Even at the local level, these dynamics seep into daily work and community relationships.
RSF grievances toward other communities in Darfur are deeply intertwined with longstanding farmer–herder tensions. The RSF draws much of its support from the Rizeigat tribe in northern Darfur, a predominantly pastoralist community. As in many parts of the Sahel and Horn of Africa, competition over land, water, and grazing routes has fuelled friction for generations.
These grievances are not the sole cause of today’s violence, but they form an essential part of its roots. Similarly, ignoring SAF’s role is unhelpful. Until recently, many of their airstrikes targeted markets and civilian-populated areas.
The conflict in Sudan resembles so many others. There are no heroes, only bad actors and worse ones with the fate of ordinary Sudanese lying in the hands of those who show little regard for their well-being.
What struck me most during my time with the organisation was the resilience and courage of my colleagues on the ground in South Darfur. Working in a context where maintaining communication with armed groups responsible for horrific abuses is essential for even the most basic operations is unimaginably difficult, delicate, and potentially dangerous. Yet they do it, every single day for their communities.
The broader Horn of Africa region continues to be shaped by greed, self-interest, competing geopolitical agendas. Resource-rich land that invites exploitation. It is a region scarred by decades of conflict, often overlooked by the international community until the violence becomes impossible to ignore.
Too many African tragedies go unheard, and even fewer are truly understood.
Jessica Freeman is a London CND committee member and editor of PeaceLine newsletter. This report first appeared in in the November-December 2025 issue of London Region CND’s PeaceLine.
John McDonnell, Labour Shadow Chancellor 2015-20, argues this budget is the first concrete evidence the government has recognised its political and economic strategy is not working, and gives this administration six months to go further in demonstrating it is a Labour government. He:
welcomes scrapping the two child cap
sees freezing rail fares and reducing energy bills is a first step in recognising cost of living pressures, and
expresses concern that freezing tax thresholds wipes out many of the budget benefits
JOHN McDONNELL Just be Labour!
The wave of relief that swept over the Parliamentary Labour Party was palpable when they heard the Chancellor confirm that the two child cap was at last to be scrapped. This is a huge victory for all those Labour MPs and campaigning groups, who fought so hard to lift 500,000 children out of poverty. It was worth staying in the Labour Party to achieve.
Several of my Parliamentary colleagues stood firm and as a result lost the Labour whip simply for voting to get rid of this appalling policy. It was morally right then and, as the Chancellor explained in repeating their arguments today, it is morally right now that this poverty-inflicting policy had to go.
The Chancellor has also been forced to move onto the left’s agenda of controlling prices and taxing wealth. Freezing rail fares and reducing energy bills is a first step in recognising the cost of living pressures facing people. But stopping short and not introducing rent controls and confronting the price gauging by supermarkets on basic foodstuffs will leave families struggling to cope.
The increased taxes on capital gains, dividend income, corporation tax allowances and £3 million properties fall short of an effective overall wealth tax but at least lean into Keir Starmer’s commitment that the heaviest burden will fall on the broadest shoulders.
The problem is that freezing the tax thresholds overall wipes out many of the benefits of the budget. The Office of Budget Responsibility’s analysis forecasts the increase in disposable household income falls from 3% to one quarter %. This means that people’s living standards are at a virtual standstill and for many there will be an ongoing cost of living crisis.
Nevertheless, the budget is the first concrete evidence that the government has recognised its political and economic strategy is not working. The obvious question is why it has taken nearly 18 months for this administration to take the first small steps to acting like a Labour government.
The Chancellor and Keir Starmer have changed tack to secure their positions given the almost desperate dismay that has seized the Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour’s supporters. It is likely that it will buy them time and hold off a threatened leadership challenge for the time being but that threat will come back with a vengeance if in May next year the local elections in England and the elections in Scotland and Wales are a disaster.
This gives this administration six months to go further in demonstrating it is a Labour government. The lesson is: listen to our supporters who have been proved so right on the two child limit, the Winter Fuel Allowance and the disability benefits and who have saved this government from itself.
It wouldn’t take much to raise people’s confidence in a Labour government.
Start by making a commitment now to tackling the grotesque levels of inequality and poverty in our society that no Labour government should tolerate by consulting immediately on the design of an effective wealth tax to be introduced in next year’s budget.This will put the money in people’s pockets that will not just raise living standards but will be the driver of growth in our economy.
The message is clear – just be Labour.
This article first appeared as Just be Labour, 26 November 2025, on Labour Hub Photos: House of Commons Flikr, John McDonnell website
Until recently, the war in Ukraine was set to enter its fourth year with no prospect of peace on the horizon and loss of life on both sides mounting. President Trump’s 28-point plan looks like an important step towards bringing the parties to the table. President Zelenzky has said he’s willing to work with the US on it; President Putin has said it is a basis for a final settlement. Already, separate back channel talks with Ukraine and Russia have resulted in a modified 19-point framework for negotiations.
European leaders are less happy with the framework. Their focus and that of the European media has emphasised the proposals mean Ukraine making territorial concessions, reducing the size of its military, and agreeing never to join NATO. The framework, however, also includes security guarantees for Ukraine, fast-track EU membership, and assistance with reconstruction, although the US will undoubtedly profit financially from the latter as it did in Iraq and elsewhere.
Peace negotiations are urgently needed. War weariness among the population of Ukraine is increasingly evident – as opinion polls, open criticism of the government, and the growing tide of conscription-age men leaving the country all attest. It is reasonable to assume that Putin will also be quietly satisfied to see the start of negotiations to end a war which is taking a heavy toll on Russian lives and the Russian economy.
The Ukraine war represents the most serious nuclear flashpoint in the world today. The original framework also includes points which should please all of us who want to see nuclear tensions dialled down. The 29 points include commitments that:
Nato will not expand further to Russia’s borders – something CND understands is a significant driver in Puttin’s invasion of Ukraine.
that Russia and the US will extend treaties on non-proliferation and nuclear arms control, including the START Treaty, which is due to expire in February 2026, and
that Ukraine will be a non-nuclear state ‘in line with’ the TPNW, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The Russia-Ukraine war is feeding international tensions, which the negotiations will also help ease. The peace and anti-war movements will have to fight to make sure that all the implications of ending the Russia-Ukraine war are understood, as well as the interests of the US and Europe, which shape their approach to ending the war.
We reproduce below an introduction CND Vice President Kate Hudson gave at a CND conference a few days after Trump’s 28-point peace plan was made public. As she points out, if we don’t understand and fight on the politics, ‘things will keep on going wrong’ and the world could be on course for war in Europe and the possibility of a nuclear conflict.
KATE HUDSON Global impact of the war
There is not only a European element to the war in Ukraine, it also has a global impact. I want to touch on a few of those global elements including the economy and the climate crisis.
The war is pushing the cost of living up There is an enormous impact on the global economy. That’s what’s making our energy and food prices higher here in the UK. But of course, it’s making them higher and scarcer across the world as well, resulting in increased inflation, slower growth, disruption of supply chains, and economic uncertainty. Actually, these cone on top of the negative aspects of the COVID-19 economic experience which we saw resulted in the massive inflation at the time. The war, coming almost directly after, has doubled down on a lot of those economic problems.
The Ukraine war is making a big contribution to de-globalisation, which is something we’ve seen over the last few years, and a fragmentation of the global political economy. This kind of economic flux is affecting more than Europe; it’s having an effect worldwide. In some countries of course, which are very heavily reliant on imports, things like food and fuel are very much more expensive. In fact, we’ve seen a major increase in global food insecurity, with medium to long-term impacts on malnutrition and social unrest.
According to the UN World Food Programme figure, just in the war’s first year the number of people suffering from acute food insecurity in the 81 countries they monitor jumped by 17% – from 276 million to 323 million. That figure has increased by another 10% every year. So it’s an escalating problem, particularly for countries in the global south.
The war has generated more greenhouse gas emissionsthan several EU countries combined As well as the economic impact, there is a climate impact as well. I’m sure we’ve all got a general impression about that. There are massively increased greenhouse gas emissions, over 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the first three years of the conflict. That’s equivalent to the combined emissions of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
The source of those is the war itself, the military activity taking place. There is also the destruction of the infrastructure and subsequent need for reconstruction. In the reconstruction process, there will be carbon emissions too. There are terrible fires both from military action and damage to facilities like oil refineries. They are really pumping out carbon emissions too. There is also direct environmental damage like pollution, oil spills, threats to biodiversity and so on. Those have long-lasting effects on Russia and Ukraine, but their impact obviously spills out beyond.
The third impact I want to talk about is the very immediate risks that result from global polarisation. We see this all the time: the US and the Europe on the one side, the ‘liberal democracies’, posed against an increasing alliance between Russia and China. That is the kind of global polarization narrative we are seeing. The world is in a state of flux over this.
Trump’s 28-point peace plan includes asset stripping and war profiteering One of the things that really struck me about the new peace plan, is the possibility of improving US-Russian cooperation. It looks like Trump or his advisors are building in the kind of cooperation and reconstruction that is based on asset stripping and making profits from Ukraine! That is embedded within the 28 point plan. The narrative we have, which I think is correct, is that Trump wants Europe to deal with the problem of Russia, while he deals with the problem of China. That is an underlying dynamic within the peace plan.
At the same time, Trump seem to want to hedge his bets by doing deals and get better relations with Russia for himself and the US. Of course, that’s annoying Europe. It is not only a kind of flux in the global political economy, but in international relations. as well.
And finally, to touch on the wider global dynamic of the peace plan – as unfortunately, we tend always to focus on what’s happening in Europe and North America, a kind of western Eurocentric perspective. The attitudes from the global South are very interesting on this, I’m sure you’ve all have been aware of this. The approach of the global South has generally been one of active non-alignment or neutrality in the war. They have refused to sign up to the US condemn-and-attack approach to Russia or to participate in sanctions.
The global South is not buying into the US narrative I think it’s pretty obvious to this audience why: there is a big element of distrust of western motives, double standards, based on the experience of colonialism. The global South has a preference, as does CND, for a multipolar world, so they’re not buying into the US narrative. Many see BRICS as a route to a more just order.
For CND, the issue of how to move forward as a movement is a difficult question. As you probably know, CND has opposed NATO since 1960s when the great intellectual Stuart Hall moved a motion at CND conference. That’s been our position ever since, and it’s correct one for the reasons that we all know.
In my experience in CND, the Ukraine war has been the most difficult point for us. We are anti-war and pro-peace as is the peace movement and our allies across Europe. But the US and NATO does affects what you call the peace periphery and some of our allies too. There are two obvious examples. The Green Party, whom CND has always worked well with, have changed their position on NATO, I think largely in response to the government narrative.
The second is the TUC. Three years ago, we saw pro-military spending and strong support for Ukraine coming up. This has now been somewhat reversed at the recent TUC. As you probably know that there was a for the peace and anti-war movement with a motion against military spending. Nevertheless, that win was based on a welfare not warfare argument, not on the principled issue of NATO, and not about being against the Ukraine war continuing and getting a peace settlement.
CND has to get all the political implications across So in conclusion, although we’ve made some headway, and there is a growing desire for a settlement particularly among the people of Ukraine, we have to do a lot of work to do, to make sure the politics is understood.
So although we’ve made some headway and as people, as the speakers have said, the kind of strong desire, particularly in Ukraine for a settlement, we have to do a lot of work to fight to make sure the politics of it is understood. Because if we don’t understand and fight on the politics of it, then things will keep on going wrong.
In Labour CND’s latest podcast, Francisco Dominguez talks to Carol Turner about Trump’s military encirclement of Venezuela, and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the Latin America-Caribbean nuclear free zone agreement of 1967 promoted by Mexico in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Our podcasts are available Spotify, YouTube, and FB. Give us a listen, and if you like what you hear, give us a follow and please tell you friends. Back episodes include:
Andrew Murray on the TUC 2025 agenda
Sam Mason on the military bootprint astride the climate crisis
Alex Gordon on the defence jobs myth, and
Defence Economist Ron Smith on military spending and the Chancellor’s spring statement.
A report from Labour’s National Executive Committee, 16 September 2025, by left CLP reps Jess Barnard, Gemma Bolton and Yasmine Dar, who stood for election on a party democracy platform committed to anti-austerity, peace, and nuclear disarmament.
Labour’s National Executive Committee on 16September was opened by Ellie Reeves, as Chair who thanked NEC members for supporting her as Party Chair and Campaigns Coordinator. She was sorry that she was no longer Chair but will remain NEC Chair till the AGM at Conference. She paid tribute to Angela Rayner’s work as Deputy Leader, as did other NEC members.
Obituaries were noted with tributes paid to Cllr Neil Wilson, Nicky Gavron, Lord Tom Sawyer and Pat Ireland.
Under the General Secretary’s report, Hollie Ridley thanked everyone for their support and noted what a busy time it was for all the staff with Conference, the Deputy Leader election and the by-election in Caerphilly. She welcomed the appointment of Anna Turley as Party Chair and thanked Ellie for her contribution and for her new role as the National Policy Forum Chair, which will continue. Hollie also paid tribute to Angela Rayner, and welcomed the contribution of women in senior roles in government including Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood and Rachel Reeves, noting that a women in leadership program has been launched for staff.
Questions were also asked about abuse that campaigners face when out campaigning and it was noted that there is guidance in regards to being safe on the doorstep.
The NEC received a report from the Treasurer, noting various challenges, including delays to the accounts, and a tough few months, which would be further discussed at the Away Day in November. Issues with lower income from reduced donations and lower membership were noted along with the need for tighter expenditure controls. There were discussions about the need for constituencies to become more self-sufficient, reducing reliance on the national Party and focusing on their own campaigns and training.
After lunch, the NEC discussed arrangements for Annual Conference. The Conference will start on Sunday at 11am and will conclude at 5pm Wednesday. The deadline for submitting emergency motions is 26th September. Conference arrangements will remain consistent with last year. The fringe programme has been finalised, and Conference services will be located at Monarch Quay near the Pullman Hotel. An accessible mini-guide has been distributed to attendees who identified disabilities. Pre-Conference materials will be sent out soon, and there will be BSL signers and a hearing loop available. There will be 32 accessibility stewards and a safeguarding unit, with details included in the conference materials. Crèche facilities have also been arranged, with spaces booked in advance. The conference will host 798 CLP delegates and 241 registered affiliates. Additionally, there will be 900 fringe events and 150 exhibition stands. Some events will be organised on the Saturday but there was no mention of the cancelled Women’s Conference, which seems to have been entirely swept under the carpet.
Nine names were put forward as Assistant Chairs for Conference, and a vote was held. Gemma noted that chairs should represent the diversity of the NEC, and it was also noted that despite several years more NEC experience than most reps, the Disabled Members’ Rep had never been appointed as Assistant Chair and was always told ‘next year’. Left candidates received around 10 votes compared to around 20 votes each for those elected.
A rule change that had been brought to the previous NEC meeting to reduce members’ rights by changing the election for CLP reps on the National Policy Forum from One Member One Vote to being elected at Conference was agreed for submission to Conference. If passed at Conference it would be a reversal of a gain for Party democracy over a decade ago, disenfranchising thousands of members and making the election deeply inequitable, given how inaccessible Conference is for most members – particularly those with caring responsibilities, disabled members and those in CLPs who can’t afford to fund delegates. We will be calling on delegates from CLPs, trade unions and socialist societies to reject this rule change at Conference. We were pleased, however, that the rule change to reduce trade union influence on the Conference Arrangements Committee was not brought back.
Leader’s Report Keir Starmer addressed the meeting, paying tribute to Angela Rayner’s work as Deputy Prime Minister and to Ellie Reeves, as the outgoing Party Chair. She will continue as the NPF chair and as part of the government as Solicitor General. Starmer said he was clear about being let down badly by Peter Mandelson and now wants to focus on what matters and unite.
Starmer discussed the far right demonstration organised by convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, and noted the need to challenge negativity, saying he was looking at a patriotic renewal. He noted the progress with the Hillsborough Law, with the Bill launched that day, and paid tribute to Margaret Aspinall and all the families whose loved ones had lost their lives. He also noted positive achievements with NHS appointments, the Employment Rights Bill and school meals.
On Gaza, Starmer said the situation was intolerable, with the killings of children and a human-made famine, noting the Doha attack will impact on a possible ceasefire. He continued to advocate a two-state solution, having spoken to counterparts in Canada, Australia and other places. However, when Yasmine Dar asked what further action the government were prepared to take to address Israel’s breaching of international law, the question was ignored.
Yasmine also asked why the Government allowed far-right, racist figures like Valentina Gomez and Morten Messerschmidt, leader of Denmark’s Danish People’s Party, entry into the UK, knowing the real risk they pose of inciting hatred, division, and violence. Starmer responded that he would look into the question about these individuals coming here and speaking and inciting hate.
Gemma Bolton asked about what was being done to address the appalling treatment of Diane Abbott and when the whip would be restored. The poor behaviour towards Diane was acknowledged but the issue of the whip was brushed aside.
Finally, Anna Turley addressed the meeting as the new Chair, and spoke about her career and experience to date.
Emergency NEC Meeting, 8 September, on Deputy Leadership Contest Left CLP reps also attended the emergency NEC meeting to agree the massively curtailed timetable for the Deputy Leadership election. We were against giving MPs, CLPs and affiliates such a short timescale to nominate but were given no real opportunity to speak out or vote against.
We supported the campaign of Bell Ribeiro-Addy as she called for real Government action to address the genocide in Gaza, put forward an anti-austerity economic policy, challenged racism and put forward an agenda to restore members’ democratic rights and support the role of trade unions in the Party. We were disappointed that there was such a short time to have such an important debate about the future direction of the Party and such a limited range of candidates, neither of whom are currently addressing the issues members care about. We will continue to support efforts to democratise the leadership elections and oppose rule changes that will minimise the role of members and trade unions still further.
Since the last NEC, we have also attended meetings of the Equalities Committee and the National Women’s Committee, neither of which had any serious discussion about how to restore democratic structures that can engage women members or promote the democratic involvement of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic or Disabled members.
* NEC reports from the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance team of CLP reps are published by Campaign for Labour Party Democracy
The Labour Party Deputy Leader election currently taking place should be an opportunity for individual members and affiliates to debate the progressive policies the government needs to take Britain forward. Unfortunately, it most definitely is not.
Labour CND regrets the anti-democratic requirement that a candidate needs to attain 20% of nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party before they can enter the ballot, which meant Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill failed to make it onto the ballot. It means her anti-austerity and pro-peace views are not represented in this contest.
Who’s standing?
The recent rule change which raised the ceiling for PLP support has resulted in a contest between Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson, and Manchester Central MP Lucy Powell.
Bridget Phillipson is, explicitly, the candidate of the right – speaking at the Labour First and Labour to Win fringe meetings at conference, and appearing in Labour to Win social media posts, alongside re-tweets (RTs) of her campaign and other supporting organisations such as Labour to Win and Jewish Labour Movement.
Lucy Powell was Leader of the Commons and Lord President of the Council in Keir Starmer’s government until 5 September, when she was removed from government in Starmer’s reshuffle.
What choices for peace?
Needless to say, neither of these candidates represent the policies of CND or the wider peace and anti-war movement.
Labour CND, alongside the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Momentum, regrets the failure of the PLP to allow party members and affiliates a meaningful policy choice in this election. As Momentum points out: ‘It is clear that neither of the two candidates on the ballot, Bridget Philipson or Lucy Powell, are committed to making the case for the progressive policies and democratic changes our Party needs to succeed.’
Asked by supporters for advice on how members and affiliates might best use their vote in this election, CLPD is advocating for a vote for Lucy Powell. CLPD says: ‘A victory for Lucy Powell would be seen as a signal that Party members want the government to change what it is doing.’
Momentum also regards Lucy Powell as ‘clearly the candidate least associated with the leadership’. In line with its constitution, Momentum is balloting its members, with two choices:
— Momentum should not recommend a vote for either candidate, or
— Momentum should recommend a tactical vote for Lucy Powell, while making clear this is not a full endorsement
Momentum members have until midday on Tuesday 7 October to take part. If you are a Momentum member you can vote here.
Deputy Leader election timetable
The Deputy Leadership ballot opens on Wednesday 8 October, and closes on Thursday 23 October.The result will be announced on Saturday 25 October.
Both Labour Party members and affiliated trade union supporters, with at least six months continuous membership, can vote. Labour Party information on the Deputy Leadership election is available here.
Labour CND welcomes the UK government’s recognition of the state of Palestine, alongside Canada, Australia, and Portugal ahead of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) this week, and recognises France, Belgium, Malta, and others are likely to do so during the course of the General Assembly, which will discuss Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Labour CND supports all steps which highlight Israel’s illegal, unjust, and discriminatory treatment of the Palestinian people with the de facto support of the United States.
Two years of Israel’s war on Gaza, together with a growing number of forced and illegal seizures of West Bank land by Israeli settlers, backed up by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), are shattering Israel’s impunity. After decades of acquiescence in the barbarous treatment of the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and West Bank, the majority of the world’s states and international institutions are speaking up and speaking out.
Palestine is already recognised by 150 of the 193 UN members and has diplomatic missions in many countries including Britain. The Palestinian Authority has permanent observer status at the UN, which allows it to take part but without the right to vote. Yet Palestine does not have full control of its territory or people; it has no internationally agreed boundaries or capital city, and no army. Israel remains an occupying force which fails to recognise the human and political rights of the people of Palestine.
International opinion
The overwhelming support of UN member states for the recognition of Palestinian statehood is symbolic of the shift in international opinion which has taken place over the two years of Israel’s horrendous war on Gaza. Acceptance of Palestine as a UN member state would convey significant practical rights across the international arena. The weight of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) however, is a serious obstacle in the way of the majority will being expressed.
States are admitted into UN membership by a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly. Before this takes place though, the application for membership is first considered by the Security Council Two conditions must be fulfilled before a vote of the General Assembly takes place:
— Nine out of the 15 UNSC members must cast a positive vote for the recommendation.
— Even then, however, a recommendation for membership cannot go forward to the General Assembly if one of the five permanent members of the Security Council – China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK, and the USA – votes against the application for membership.
Trump’s obstruction
China and Russia have long since recognised the state of Palestine, the UK did so this weekend. If France recognises Palestine at the UN this week, as it has committed to do, only the US stands in the way of Security Council approval for Palestine’s membership of the UN. After the Oslo Accords of 1993 and ’95, which were opposed by a majority of the Palestinian people, the US recognised the Palestinian Authority (PA) as exercising limited Palestinian self-governance over the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The current administration, however, opposes even the most limited form of Palestinian independence. President Trump acknowledged this in a press conference with Prime Minister Starmer during the recent state visit.
Last week the US denied an entry visa for the Palestinian Authority delegation to attend this week’s General Assembly. In response, the UN majority has voted to allow the PA to submit a pre-recorded statement to be played in the General Assembly and participate via video conference. The US was one of only five GA members to vote against this procedure, ‘explaining’ its negative vote by claiming the Palestinian Authority undermines any prospects of peace and ‘rewards and incentivises terror’.
The procedure by which a state is admitted into UN membership means it lies in the hands of the Trump administration to block UN membership of Palestine, just as the ability to call a halt to the atrocities against the people of Gaza also lies with Trump.
Palestinian statehood is by no means the only occasion on which the US has frustrated the majority will of the UN. This happened in the case of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
The Nuclear Ban Treaty is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons. After decades of preparation, it was adopted by 127 votes at the UNGA in July 2017 and opened for signature that September. It came into force in January 2021, when 50 states had ratified the Treaty. To date, 94 UN members are signatories to the Treaty; 73 have incorporated it in into law. The International Red Cross-Red Crescent has championed the Treaty. Thousands of scientists across the world have signed an open letter in support, and many faith communities have called for its adoption.
When the UN voted for the TPNW in 2017, the US, UK, and French delegations issued a joint press statement rejecting the Treaty, saying they had not participated in the negotiations and did not intend to sign, ratify, or become a party to the TPNW because it was incompatible with nuclear ‘deterrence’. To date, no nuclear weapons state has signed or ratified the the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Time for change, time for action
The General Assembly is the only UN body where every member has a say. As in the case of Gaza, majority opinion can carry moral authority and exercise influence on a range of UN agencies. But its decisions are recommendations only. It’s time to recognise – and tackle – the anti-democratic practices that nuclear-armed states such as the US can exercise as permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Meanwhile though, the most practical and immediate pressure the UK can bring to bear to stop the genocide and starvation in Gaza remains that of ending all arms exports to Isreal – including so-called secondary arms sales such as the supply of 15% of parts used in building US F35 fighter jets which have bombed Gaza for the past two years. It should do so now.
Labour CND says Recognise Palestine ! End the genocide ! Stop Arming Israel !
In Labour CND’s latest podcast, Andrew Murray discusses the wages not weapons and Gaza motions on the Congres agenda, as well as the lack of action on defence diversification and the state of the TUC.
Labour CND podcasts are published on Spotify, YouTube and FB. Give us a listen, give us a like, give us a follow – and please tell you friends about Labour CND’s new venture into podcasting!
If this is the first time you’ve come across Labour CND podcasts, Alex Gordon on the defence jobs myth, and Samantha Mason on the military bootprint astride the climate crisis are also worth a listen. And what Defence Economist Ron Smith had to say about military spending at the time of the Chancellor’s spring statement is just as relevant as the autumn budget approaches.
There’s a lot the media isn’t telling us about US and Israeli relations with Iran. Carol Turner traces Trump’s approach, the controversial history of snapback sanctions, and demands an end to nuclear hypocrisy.
The fragile ceasefire that followed the US and Israel’s military assault on Iran is holding, for now at least, while Benjamin Netanyahu’s attention is focussed on his endgame for Gaza. The western media lens, which shifted away from Iran after the 12-day military campaign in June, recently returned with the announcement that Britain, France, and Germany (E3) are initiating snapback sanctions.
During the 12-day attack, Trump and Netanyahu claimed their aim was preventing Iran’s imminent development of nuclear weapons. President Trump has repeatedly insisted Iran is a few weeks away from having a nuclear bomb. Throughout the 12 days, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) insisted there was no evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons. He told the UN Security Council: “The IAEA can guarantee, through a watertight inspections system, that nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran.”
US and Israel’s strategic goals
Though militarily weakened by this and other recent attacks, and despite the economic strain caused by international sanctions, Iran is still a powerful obstacle to Trump’s strategic goal in the region. Trump’s goal being to normalise relations between Israel and its regional neighbours. Iran is also a chief obstacle in the way of Netanyahu’s attempts to quell Palestinian opposition and strengthen Israel’s grip on the Middle East.
Israel is explicitly seeking regime change, quietly supported by the United States. On day one of the June attack, Netanyahu appealed to the people of Iran to rise up against the regime, and he continues to do so.
The breadth of targets in June not only included nuclear research facilities, fuel enrichment plants, and nuclear power plants, but also Iran’s air defences, and other military and civilian facilities. Israel’s Defence Force (IDF) assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, politicians, and military leaders. Images broadcast by Iranian state media have exposed Israel’s covert operations inside Iran before the attacks – showing the deployment of Israeli agents and extensive use of small drones in the opening hours of the June offensive.
The Israel-Iran ceasefire may be holding, but the shadow war with Iran continues. In a StW-CND webinar during the military bombardment, General Secretary of the TSSA rail union Maryam Eslamdoust, speaking in a personal capacity, explained what this means. The bombardment, she said, was not only a military campaign but also a psychological and propaganda campaign.
Trump’s objectives
Trump’s so-called nuclear talks go deeper than Iran’s potential for a nuclear weapons programme. They seek to further limit the development of a civil nuclear power programme (which all nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories are entitled to pursue), end Iran expanding drone and ballistic missile capabilities, and its support for a network of regional proxies. Within weeks of taking office in January this year, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 2 (NSPM2) which turned those objectives into a directive to all offices of state.
Trump also announced a campaign of ‘secondary sanctions’ aimed at countries buying oil and gas from Iran, suggesting US businesses will not be allowed to trade with these countries. This campaign is mainly aimed – with little success – at China which accounts for around 90% of Iran’s oil exports. In April Trump also imposed secondary sanctions on countries importing oil from Venezuela, again aimed at China.
Trump’s approach to Iran’s nuclear weapons potential contrasts with that of President Obama, which resulted in the Iran nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), widely regarded as a successful arms limitation agreement. It lifted nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in return for a commitment by Iran to restrict its civil nuclear programme and permit rigorous International Atomic Energy Association (IAEL) inspections. Germany and the five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council – US, UK, China, Russia, and France – as well as Iran were signatories to the JCPoA.
The agreement was codified in UNSC Resolution 2231 of 2015. However, Trump effectively killed the JCPoA in his first presidential term by withdrawing the US from the JCPoA in 2018 and de-certifying UNSC 2231, claiming Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
Snapback sanctions
Multiple IAEA inspection reports at that time confirmed Iran was adhering to the terms of the agreement. These reports were universally accepted, including by US authorities. In 2020, however, even though the US was no longer party to the JCPoA, Trump invoked a ‘snapback’ mechanism in UNSC 2231, claiming Iran was failing to honour the agreement and calling for the UN to reimpose sanctions.
The UNSC president at that time blocked Trump’s attempt to activate snapback, citing a lack of consensus in the Security Council, after which Trump imposed US sanctions on Iran. A year later the E5 followed suit. Unlike the US, however, they remained parties to the JCPoA and UNSC 2231. Despite objections by other P5 Security Council members, a year later Britain, France, and Germany followed suit and reimposed sanctions.
The above events, in outline, are the basis for continuing claims by Russia and China that sanctions on Iran are illegal – a position they reiterated as recently as March this year. A joint statement by China, Russia, and Iran, called for restraint not escalation – emphasising their support for UNSC 2331 and the need to uphold the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Iran’s right to civil nuclear power as a signatory, and calling for the removal of unlawful sanctions on Iran.
Iran responded to the US and E3 sanctions imposed during Trump’s first term by exceeding the agreed limits on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium and enriching uranium in higher concentrations. It must be noted that these higher levels of uranium enrichment were not high enough for their use in a nuclear bomb, as the IAEA and other experts have pointed out. Nonetheless, increasing uranium enrichment has become the basis of current claims by the US and its allies that Iran is in breach of the JCPoA and on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons.
Under the terms of UNSC 2231, the JCPoA terminates on 18 October this year, at which point all nuclear related sanctions against Iran are due to end. However, on 28 August this year, the E3 notified the UNSC they were initiating snapback sanctions on the grounds of Iran’s ‘significant non-compliance’ with the terms of the JCPoA, These are due to kick in 30 days after notification of snapback, unless the UNSC adopts a resolution against snapback.
In a statement to the IAEA’s Board of Governors on 8 October, Grossi confirmed he had “continuously and systematically” reached out to restore the “indispensable cooperation” with Iran, and that “progress has been made” during ongoing discussions. It remains to be seen if this is likely to influence the imposition of snapback.
Iran’s response
Throughout Trump’s election campaign and his second term in office, Iran has repeatedly called for nuclear negotiations with the US to be resumed and, until the military attack in June, continued to permit IAEA inspections. The latter were the basis on which the IAEA Director General confirmed to the UNSC that there were no credible indications that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.
After the June attack, Iran halted IAEA inspections and threatened withdrawal from the NPT – a clear hint that a nuclear weapons programme might be pursued. This was widely reported in the western media. Since then, and noticeably less reported in the west, Iran has opened talks with the IAEA and remains a member of the NPT.
Limited military exchanges between Israel and Iran had already taken place in April 2024, and more extensive exchanges in September-October after an Israeli airstrike killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and others. Leaked US classified documents suggest CIA involvement. The Fars News Agency, controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released footage suggesting Israel was targeting Iran’s air defences in preparation for future attacks.
Against this background, talks between Iran and the Trump administration, which began in early March hosted by Qatar on behalf of the Gulf States, have floundered. Netanyahu’s relentless onslaught against Palestinians across the Occupied Territories have so far proved insurmountable in Trump’s attempts to gain Gulf state support for his campaign to lever Iran into an agreement which goes beyond nuclear weapons. On the contrary, there has been limited signs that the actions of Trump and Netanyahu have resulted in a partial thaw in relations between Iran and the Gulf states.
The military attacks of 2024-25 have by and large seen the Iranian opposition retreat from the streets. As with Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and many other examples across the world, the Iranian people have united for now against their foreign invaders.
End the nuclear hypocrisy
The mendacity of Israel, the US, and the E3 is clear from the events described above, and by and large, the abject failure of western media to report the full story surrounding Iran nuclear negotiations. It should come as no surprise that the events of 2024-25 have strengthened the voice of Iranian hawks calling for withdrawal from the NPT and the development of a nuclear weapons programme.
Most breathtaking of all perhaps, is the hypocrisy of the United States and Europe in failing to acknowledge that Isreal has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960s. Israel has never acknowledged it has nuclear weapons, and has never signed the NPT.
Isreal’s nuclear weapons were disclosed by Mordecai Vanunu, an heroic Israeli whistle-blower at the Dimona nuclear plant. Vanunu spent 18 years in Israeli jails, mostly in solitary confinement, for his disclosure. He was released in 2004, but his movements are still severely restricted.
Israel’s nuclear weapons are unacknowledged by the US and its allies, and rarely mentioned by a compliant western media.
The double standards applied to the treatment of Iran by Israel, the US, Britain, and Europe compared to the disregard of Israel’s nuclear armoury should be challenged as fiercely and as frequently by the anti-war movements across Europe and North America, as Netanyahu’s actions against Gaza have been.
Removing Israel’s nuclear weapons is every bit as important as preventing Iran from acquiring them, and indispensable to the long-term stability of the Middle East.
Read Maryam Eslamdoust’s description of the shadow war in an earlier Labour CND post here.
* This article was first published on Stop the War Coalition website, 10 September 2025
We reproduce below a speech by Maryam Eslamdoust, General Secretary of the TSSA transport union. Speaking in a personal capacity, she describes the impact of the US-Israel ‘shadow war’ on her father and the Iranian people. An update on the situation in Iran is available on our website here.
Hello everyone and thank you so much for being here today to discuss Israel’s attack on Iran. I am the General Secretary of TSSA. But today I’m not here in my official capacity. I’m speaking as a British Iranian woman and a daughter.
I haven’t heard from my father who’s in Iran for over 48 hours. The last time we spoke, he told me the roads out of Tehran were gridlocked. Millions of people were trying to flee the city. Petrol was gone; he couldn’t fill his car to leave the city. Millions were trying to escape Tehran. It was near midnight and I haven’t been able to get hold of him since.
That’s because Iran’s telecommunications infrastructure have been attacked by Israel. People can’t make phone calls. They can’t connect to the internet. They’re being cut off from the world. All the while missiles continue to fall, cars are being blown up in daylight and civilian neighbourhoods are attacked.
I’m hearing now that the Iranian banking system has been hacked. So overnight people’s savings have disappeared.
This is not just a military strategy by Israel or Donald Trump. It’s a strategy of collapse – to paralyse Iran, its infrastructure, and the morale of its people. And it’s not just physical, it’s psychological.
Yesterday Iran state TV was hacked live on air. Viewers across the country saw their screens cut to unfamiliar visuals and messages delivered in Farsi encouraging Iranians to rise up to revolt, misusing ‘women, live, freedom’ slogans. The day before that, at the state TV News building in Tehran, the same network was bombed while a woman presenter was live on air.
This is not just an air strike, it’s a message ‘we can get inside your buildings, your screens, your minds’. It’s an attempt to intimidate and destabilise – not just with force, but with fear.
Israel’s illegal attack on Iran is not about self-defence or security. This is about making Iran collapse as a state politically, economically, and socially. We have seen this before in Iraq, Libya, Syria. It’s the same script: isolate, destabilise, dehumanise, destroy.
And what is more alarming, it is unfolding on today’s media without any challenge. Twenty years ago, some journalists and some editors still had the courage to question war narratives. Today, far too many are simply repeating the government’s briefings and anonymous intelligence sources. This is no critical interrogation of the story. Sadly, the press is not holding power to account, it is echoing it.
There is a propaganda war, an information war. In recent days, I’ve seen social media flooded with posts in Farsi from IDF accounts using the Iranian language and the language of Iranian protest movements from two years ago, especially the slogan ‘woman, life, freedom’ to call for regime change. Those slogans were never meant to justify bombs. They were meant to highlight the suffering of civilians, Iranian women. Those who shouted them wanted dignity and justice, not war.
What I’ve seen from Iranians – both inside the country, and the diaspora – is a remarkable unity. This isn’t political unity, there are still very real debates about Iran’s future, its leadership, its systems. But right now, across the political spectrum, Iranians are united on one fundamental idea: foreign bombs won’t liberate us. Iranians don’t want their futures dictated by missiles, invasions, or destabilisation campaigns disguised as solidarity.
Let me speak about the issue that’s constantly weaponised by the western media, Iran’s nuclear programme. We’re being told once again that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapons programme, but the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, has been clear there are no credible indications that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. That was their official assessment before these escalations even began.
What has Iran done in response? It’s reduced, not stopped, voluntary cooperation with the IAEA. That was originally agreed as part of the JCPoA, the nuclear deal that Donald Trump tore up in 2018. For years after that, Iran continued to comply with the deal’s core provisions. But eventually Iran said if the deal’s dead, then why should we keep making concessions? Even so, Iran remains signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the IAEA still monitors its nuclear sites. There is no legal evidence of weaponisation.
There is one country in the Middle East known to have a nuclear arsenal, and that’s Israel. It has hundreds of warheads. It has never joined the NPT. It allows no international inspection and yet it is presented in the west as a responsible actor. That is double standards of the highest order.
The demands being made of Iran right now are surrender to compliance, to regime change. These are unrealistic and dangerous. There is no military solution to this crisis. Iran will not, and cannot, surrender to conditions it knows will only bring more pain.
So what’s the path forward? Diplomacy, but real diplomacy. Iran has repeatedly said it’s willing to accept limits on its uranium enrichment programme, allow extensive international monitoring, engage in regional security talks. That has to be mutual. It means an end to the sanctions the US has imposed that are strangling the economy and civilian living standards. and restoring Iran’s full participation in global, political, and economic life – ending the policy of permanent isolation.
If the West is serious about peace in the region, it must also hold all states accountable, including its allies, and that means finally addressing Israel’s illegal wars, its undeclared nuclear weapons, and its current actions in Gaza which the UN’s own experts have said may amount to genocide.
So what do we do now. We keep speaking up. We’re not just neutral, if we stay silent we are complicit. I’m asking you – whether you’re trade unionists, policy makers, academics, journalists, or just someone who believes in justice, please do three things.
Speak up. Say clearly that bombing Iran into collapse is not a path to peace.
Demand diplomacy. Press your government to stop fuelling war and start pursuing a deal, and challenge the narrative. Don’t let our slogans be co-opted; don’t let another war be justified on false pretences.
The Iranian people want peace, they want dignity, and they want the right to shape their own future. Free from bombs, free from fear, and free from foreign coercion. Thank you.
* CND’s webinar, No War on Iran, is available in full here * Maryam’s speech was first reproduced on London CND website
