Is Iran an existential threat?

While the US President Donald Trump's reasons and legality for striking Iran are tenuous there are some clear and present dangers that many people are ignoring.

It can reasonably be argued that Trump launched his military action in contravention of 'international law'. He did not seek prior approval from Congress or the Senate, nor did he consult other allies, except Israel with who it took part.

His reason however, is that Iran was nearing completion of building a nuclear bomb, and decisive military action was needed to eliminate the threat from the Islamic state.

Trump, nor indeed Israel, has failed to present 'proof' that Iran was close to developing a nuclear bomb. And this has left many allies reluctant to offer military support despite the effects on the flow of oil from the region that has resulted from Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

However, what cannot be disputed is that Iran has, for a long time, been developing projects which has produced significant quantities of 60% enriched Uranium 235.

The evidence for this lies with the International Atomic Energy Authority [IAEA] which calculated in its September 2025 verification and monitoring report that on the eve of the June 2025 attacks by Israel and the United States, Iran possessed 440.9 kg of uranium enriched up to 60% of the explosive uranium isotope, U-235 [Arms Control Center /  IAEA PDF]

Fearing that Iran was weeks if not days away from 90% weapons grade enrichment, the US launched a series of strikes aimed at sites where it was believed Iran was storing or enriching such materials.

On the 22nd June 2025, the United States Air Force and Navy attacked three nuclear facilities in Iran as part of the Twelve-Day War, under the code name Operation Midnight Hammer. The Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant, the Natanz Nuclear Facility, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center were all targeted with fourteen GBU-57A/B MOP "bunker buster" bombs carried by B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, and Tomahawk missiles fired from a submarine. 

Concerns grew over the weeks following the attacks that Iran may have moved some of their precious Uranium. Satellite pictures published later appeared to show lorries queueing at Fordow leading to speculation that Iran's enriched Uranium may have been moved to various secret locations around the country.

While the White House stated in June 2025 that there was no sign it was moved prior to the strikes with top officials suggesting it was buried under rubble, many news outlets raised concerns that Iran might have saved its nuclear material.

The Telegraph [Paywalled] reported in June 2025 that satellite images showed lines of trucks at Fordow before the US strikes, with analysts suggesting materials were frantically moved.

Other reports suggested the surgical strikes failed to completely destroy Iran's stockpiles and core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months [CNN].

And even if the facilities had been destroyed there were suggestions that Iran could retrieve the material buried under the rubble [BBC / NYT].   

Such reports are supposition and cannot be independently verified. But even a small amount of nuclear material could pose a deadly threat to Iran's sworn enemies.

The big question on many people's minds is whether the US had actionable intelligence to warrant its military action against Iran.

The concern too is whether Iran was or still is pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon. Iran claims it isn't and that all nuclear research is for peaceful purposes, such as medical research or energy creation.

However, given the continued rhetoric over the years and statements suggesting it might develop a weapon should it be attacked, the fear is that Iran was already developing a weapon, or worse already developed and produced one.

Taking it as fact that Iran was seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, and that it still has at least some of the 440kg of 60% enriched U-235, how much of a threat is Iran following Operation Midnight Hammer and the more recent ad ongoing Operation Epic Fury?

It is widely believed that to build a viable nuclear bomb, one needs U-235 enriched to 90%. While many bombs created use highly enriched U-235, often referred to as 'weapons grade uranium', it is in fact possible to build a bomb with U-235 as low as 20% enriched.

Take at least 780 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium 235, slam two non-critical mass chunks of them together in a gun type assembly and you have a crude nuclear bomb.

The more enriched, the less fissionable material is needed. Moreover, after you've surpassed the hurdle of amassing the U-235 the making of a viable device is relatively simple.

While most modern nuclear bombs are extremely complex in order to promote a high yield device, the first nuclear bombs were relatively simple 'Gun-type' weapons.

In basic terms this requires sending a chunk of U-235 at high speed down a tube toward another chunk of U-235.

With regard to the risk of proliferation and use by terrorists, the relatively simple design is a concern, as it does not require as much fine engineering or manufacturing as other methods. With enough highly enriched uranium, nations or groups with relatively low levels of technological sophistication could create an inefficient - though still quite powerful - gun-type nuclear weapon. 

Conventional thinking is that no-one would make a weapon with anything below 90% enrichment because the bomb would be too cumbersome.

Uranium must have a minimum of 20% U-235 in it in order to be useful in making a nuclear bomb. However, a bomb made with uranium at this minimum level of enrichment would be too huge to deliver, requiring huge amounts of uranium and even larger amounts of conventional explosives in order to compress it into a supercritical mass. In practice, uranium containing at least 90% U-235 has been used to make nuclear weapons. Material with this level of enrichment is called highly enriched uranium or HEU. The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, was made with approximately 60 kilograms of HEU. Highly enriched uranium is also used in research reactors and naval reactors, such as those that power aircraft carriers and submarines. The HEU fuel meant for research reactors is considered particularly vulnerable to diversion for use in nuclear weapons [IEER PDF].  

As little as 40 kg of 60%-enriched uranium can be used to build a crude nuclear weapon with a kiloton yield. While too large to fit on a missile, such a weapon could be delivered by shipping container.

Given Iran has [or at least had in June 2025] an estimated 440 kg of 60% enriched U-235 it could conceivably make ten 1 kt bombs.

Loaded into shipping containers and exploding in major cities around the globe, the shock to the global economy and world order would be more catastrophic than the potential physical damage.

A 1-kiloton (kt) nuclear ground burst in London would cause severe localized damage, creating a crater and immediate lethal radiation zone within a few hundred meters, with moderate structural damage extending up to 1 kilometer. The immediate blast radius would be relatively small compared to the city's size, but radioactive fallout would pose a significant hazard [Arxiv]. 

Such scenarios are dismissed by many as being far-fetched and the stuff of Hollywood movies such as the Sum of All Fears. But fundamentalist, radical terror states have already been seen to carry out major atrocities.

Terror attacks by fundamentalist groups in the past three decades seen planes flown into buildings, trains and buses blown up or crowds targeted with vehicles used as weapons. The use of a nuclear weapon is not beyond the realms of possibilities.

But there are other just as nightmarish threats from Iran's possession of nuclear material. Even if it cannot assemble a nuclear bomb Iran possesses the technical expertise and access to many radioactive isotopes, such as Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 from medical/industrial sectors, to develop radiological dispersal devices. Some analysts suggest Iran might employ these through proxies such as Hezbollah or the Houthis for plausible deniability.

There are growing concerns that it could use what nuclear material it can salvage to construct a number of so-called 'dirty bombs', or radiological dispersal devices [Remm].

In the same way a small 1 kt nuclear bomb would not cause much physical damage, an RDD is designed less for mass destruction and more for contamination, disruption, and psychological impact.

Such concerns have long existed with many nations having conducted exercises to determine how they might identify or deal with such an event.

In London, around 20 years ago, part of the financial district was sealed off as authorities conducted several counter-terrorism exercises in the city to prepare for potential chemical, biological, or radiological attacks, including scenarios involving a "dirty bomb" or RDD [Guardian]. No similar exercises have taken place since.

An RDD attack is unlikely to kill large numbers of people in a short time. The problem instead is a potential cancer timebomb hanging over the affected area for a generation [BBC].

Clean-up would cost millions of pounds, but the perceived threat could linger even after authorities declare the area safe. Should such a device be placed in the centre of a major city it could arguably kill the economy of that city. Tourists would be unlikely to visit for years, workers would insist on relocation, and transport infrastructure would be decimated, cutting off links between parts of the city.

Delivery of such a weapon could be carried out in any number of ways. One threat is via missile. It is now widely believed that Iran has the capability of hitting any European country.

It is unknown what stockpiles Iran still possesses after three weeks of US bombing, but its inventory prior to Operation Epic Fury was far more extensive than most people realize [Iran Watch]. Media reports indicate growing concerns that Iran could resort to using a 'dirty bomb' [India Today / e-arc].

Iran's capability may of course be severely degraded, as the US president maintains. But there is another concern should Israel or the US hit the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, either deliberately or accidentally. Indeed there have already been some strikes close to the plant [Al Jazeera].

Any strike, deliberate or accidental, would result in the release of radioactive material. Given the prevailing wind patterns and maritime conditions in the Gulf, contamination would almost certainly drift westward, potentially affecting population centres and critical infrastructure across Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

As seen following Chernobyl and more recently, Fukushima, the regional consequences of a nuclear 'accident' would be significant and long-lasting.

There is another serious and overlooked threat. That is Iran's chemical weapons capability [Telegraph paywalled].

Although Iran is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] and has formally renounced the development and possession of chemical weapons, it has faced international scrutiny regarding potential covert chemical capabilities [FDD].

There are many - critical of the US and Israel - that have suggested military action is only likely to antagonise Iran into retaliation and that it would be unlikely to make a first strike deployment, be it with conventional, chemical or nuclear weapons.

The behaviour of Iran over the years would suggest otherwise.

It has since the 1979 Islamic revolution funded proxy terror group including, but not confined to, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has engaged in a sustained campaign of violence, terrorism, and clandestine operations against Western nations, primarily targeting the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, alongside Israeli interests. Using the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] and proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, Tehran has conducted embassy bombings, kidnappings, hijackings, and assassination plots.

Key Attacks and Operations (1979–Present)

1979–1981: U.S. Embassy Hostage Crisis: Iranian students, backed by the new regime, took 66 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for 444 days.

1983: Beirut Bombings: Hezbollah, with Iranian support, bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut (63 dead) and the Marine barracks (241 U.S. service personnel killed).

1984: CIA Station Chief Kidnapping: Hezbollah kidnapped CIA Station Chief William Buckley in Beirut, who was later tortured and killed.

1985: TWA Flight 847 Hijacking: Hezbollah hijacked a flight from Athens to Rome, murdering a U.S. Navy diver on board.

1985–1986: Paris Attacks: Hezbollah agents carried out a series of bombings in Paris, killing 20 people and wounding hundreds.

1996: Khobar Towers Bombing: Iran-backed Hezbollah Al-Hijaz bombed a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. airmen.

2003–2011: Iraq War Proxies: Iran provided explosives (EFPs) and training to Shia militias in Iraq, which killed hundreds of U.S. and coalition troops.

2011: Washington D.C. Assassination Plot: The US foiled an IRGC plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in Washington.

2012: Burgas Bus Bombing: Hezbollah bombed a bus of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, killing 6 people.

2019: Saudi Aramco Strikes: Attacks on Saudi oil facilities, widely attributed to Iran, caused major disruptions to global energy supplies.

2020: U.S. Base Attacks: Following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran launched ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq, causing brain injuries to over 100 U.S. personnel.

2024-2026: Ongoing Threats: Iran has escalated its use of criminal proxies to target Israeli and American interests in Europe and the UK. In early 2026, amid intense regional conflict, Iran was linked to over 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil [FDD / Wikipedia].

While there is some legitimacy to take the decision to wage against the rogue state, reasons and focuses keep changing. At first Trump appeared to point to regime change, but soon focused on the nuclear threat that Iran posed. As the war continued into its third week and Iran essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, the war threatened the flow of oil. As this threatens to trigger an global energy crisis, a slump in food production as fertilisers become unavailable and the risk of a global recession grows, Trump appears to have little if any plan as to how to proceed.

He claims to have forced Iran to the negotiating table but described Iran's negotiators as strange. Meanwhile, Iran have insisted they are not negotiating with the US. And in the meantime missiles continue to rain down across the region with no apparent end in sight, and with a growing risk the whole region could go up in flames. Worse still, the war could spread to other parts of the world with lone wolf terror attacks and growing economic fallout.


tvnewswatch, London,UK

Iran's top nuclear negotiator & de facto leader killed

Talks between Iran's top nuclear negotiator and key European foreign ministers ended Friday 3rd March 2006 without a breakthrough on Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the German Foreign Ministry office said. A British official in Vienna told CNN that Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, offered nothing new during the session, and that the European delegation reminded him that Tehran must stop uranium enrichment on its soil and come clean about its program.

Almost exactly twenty years later Ali Larijani was targeted by Israeli military strikes in an ongoing military operation that sought once and for all to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions and subjugate the tyrannical regime.

Ali Larijani was a longtime Iranian political insider who had an important role following the killing of Supreme Leader Khamenei on the 28th February 2026.

Taking up the role as secretary of Iran's National Security Council in 2005, Larijani's role was to draw up nuclear and other policies by Khamenei. He left the post in 2007.

In March 2025, US president Donald Trump sent a letter to Iran seeking to reopen nuclear weapons negotiations. The response from the supreme leader was stark. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later said, "Some bullying governments insist on negotiations not to resolve issues but to impose their own expectations," which was seen as in response to the letter. Soon after in late March 2025, Larijani said Iran would have no choice but to develop nuclear weapons if attacked by the United States, Israel or its allies.

On the 5th August 2025, Larijani was appointed by President Masoud Pezeshkian to become secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for a second time. Since January 2026 Larijani was the de facto leader of Iran and remained so as the supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was targeted and his son and successor Mojtaba Khamenei was believed seriously injured.

However, on the 17th March Larijani's career came to an abrupt end after he was targeted by an Israeli strike. It remains to be seen whether Iran's nuclear ambitions ended with the death of one of the country's key protagonists.

Larajani's demise cannot be underestimated. He has been front and centre of the Iranian power base for at least 20 years. He has obfuscated and impeded all efforts by the West to temper Iran's nuclear ambitions.

And it's those ambitions that are behind the reasoning of the allied US/Israeli military operation.

There are indeed many that have seriously questioned the US initiated attack on the regime, asking where the evidence concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions.

While no hard evidence has been presented to the world, all the signs indicate that Iran was pursuing to enrich weapons grade Uranium and build a bomb. Should it have succeeded, the West, and Israel in particular would face an existential threat.

Iran has made clear with its continued rhetoric that it sought the demise of the Israeli state and the US with chants of "Death to America" and anti-Zionist slogans.

Those that have called for the US and Israel to take a step back have been likened to Neville Chamberlain, who historically failed to see the threat that Hitler and Nazi Germany posed.

How long was the West, Israeli, or indeed their allies supposed to wait? Until Iran declared it had a bomb? Or until an orange glow and a mushroom cloud rose over Tel Aviv or a Western European capital?

What many appear to have failed to appreciate is that the Iranian leadership have, over the past forty years, funded an asymmetrical war on the West and its assets by arming Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

The destruction and dismantling of the Iranian regime was going to happen sooner or later. But perhaps better sooner, than after their perceived ambitions were realised.

Of course, there is a slim chance as some believe, that it may already be too late and that Iran had already built a viable atomic device. If true there may well be an imminent threat levelled against the West. This could be behind the reluctance of many European countries wanting to become involved in Trump's war, not least because of a concern that such action could light a fuse of home grown Islamic terrorist attacks.

This is a real and probable threat. However, ignoring Iran and hoping the problem would quietly go away was only ever going to delay the inevitable.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Starmer premiership becoming untenable

Upon his appointment as US ambassador in 2024 the UK PM Keir Starmer hailed Lord Mandelson for bringing "unrivalled experience" to the role.

His then Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Mandelson had "a wealth of experience in trade, economic and foreign policy from his years in government and the private sector".

Meanwhile the peer said he was deeply honoured, promising to "advance our historic alliance with the United States".

An unnamed Labour MP meanwhile said, "Mandelson is very good at making relationships, [he] has unmatched negotiation skills as shown in his EU trade commissioner role and has a trade union background which is overlooked. Trump is transactional, and Mandelson will be able to cope with this."

Another suggested he would look like an angel! "In a room with Trump, Mandelson will look like an angel. But this is politics, hard politics." [Guardian]

Dubbed the "Prince of Darkness" during his years as New Labour's spin doctor, following the release of the Epstein files he was more like the kiss of death to the party, the government and the PM himself who had appointed him to the post. Not so much an angel as a devil in disguise.

Even before the Epstein files were released, raising issues concerning Mandelson's integrity, he had been a divisive figure in British politics over many years.

He resigned twice as a minister - once for failing to declare a home loan from a cabinet colleague, and a second time over accusations of using his position to influence a passport application. This should have perhaps raised alarm bells long before his appointment as US ambassador [BBC].

His appointment was specifically arranged by No.10 rather than following usual diplomatic procedures. This in itself was unusual. In fact Lord Mandelson's appointment was the first political rather than diplomatic appointment to Washington since Peter Jay, the former prime minister James Callaghan's son-in-law, in 1977.

Jay's appointment was far from controversial however, and he had a notable career both within politics and journalism.

At various times, Jay was also economics editor of the Times newspaper, presenter of ITV's Weekend World, British Ambassador to Washington, launch chairman of TV-am.

He was, by coincidence, the chief of staff to Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, socialite and, who alongside Epstein, was found guilty of child sex trafficking and other offences.

Robert Maxwell, a press mogul, fell to his death from his £15m yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, off the Canary Islands, aged 68. Even now there is talk of suicide, or murder – perhaps by Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, according to some theories.

Whether or not his death was an accident, controversy followed Maxwell's death. As his body was recovered revelations emerged of the squandering of pension funds.

For Oxford-educated Ghislaine, the youngest of his nine children, Maxwell's money had provided status and a ticket to the elite. She was dispatched to New York initially as a meeter-and-greeter, to pave her father's way when he bought the Daily News. After his death, she made it her home. She soon became part of Epstein's inner circle and remained there for more than a decade. The two were reportedly briefly an item and they remained close.

She is said to have facilitated Epstein's social contacts, flying with him on his private jet and organising dinners for influential people at his homes. One acquaintance described her as "half ex-girlfriend, half employee, half best friend and fixer". Epstein described her, in a 2003 Vanity Fair profile, as his "best friend" [Guardian].

Whilst Robert Maxwell was alive and hosting events, many attendees spoke of their being uncomfortable in his presence.

Among them was the Labour party's then director of communications, Peter Mandelson. "It was very strange because you'd simultaneously want to be at Maxwell's parties and at the same time shrink away from him," he remembers. "Because he was such a bully and so unpredictable. To be honest, I was frightened of his company. He had that ability to make you feel completely small and inadequate, and that just scrambled my head."

It is clear that he was far more comfortable in the company of Robert Maxwell's daughter's new associate, Jeffrey Epstein, as well as Ghislaine herself [Guardian].

But what did Keir Starmer know of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein at the time he was appointed ambassador?

In early 2024 the FT journalist Jim Pickard posed a question to Keir Starmer referencing a J.P.Morgan probe which suggested that in June 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein's lavish townhouse in Manhattan, while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor [Daily Telegraph paywalled / Archived]

Keir's response to Pickard was, "I don't know any more than you and there's not really much I can add to what is already out there I'm afraid" [Twitter X].

This was, of course before Starmer became PM, since he had yet to win the, as yet unannounced, 2024 election. But as leader of the Labour party the conversation should have surely registered in his mind before appointing Mandelson to his new post less than 12 months later.

Starmer's claim that he knew little about Mandelson's close relationship with Epstein is somewhat incredulous given historical articles that detailed not only the peer's friendship with the convicted paedophile but also that Starmer had likely been made aware of the reports.

Surely he can't have failed to have noticed photos published in The Sun in 2022 depicting Peter Mandelson in 2007 grinning as Jeffrey Epstein blew out the candles on a birthday cake soon after Epstein had been charged in an underage sex probe.

Blame might also be attributed to Starmer's advisers. Surely the likes of his Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald or his predecessor Simon Case should have alerted the Prime Minister to the likely pitfalls of placing Mandelson in the role of US Ambassador.

Or what of Morgan McSweeney who replaced Sue Gray as his Chief of Staff soon after Starmer took office. Indeed there are already accusations coming from the opposition benches as to what advice McSweeney might have offered concerning Mandelson.

Mandelson's historical reputation as a spin doctor might have been enough for some. But times have moved on from the days of Bush and Blair.

There will be many who will have forgotten the days when Blair was accused of being Bush's poodle. But such times have passed, and with Trump in the White House Mandelson was clearly not the right man for the job. One needed a rottweiler, much less a poodle, as Britain's representative in the White House, and certainly not the weasel that Mandelson turned out to be.

It can be argued that Starmer is as much to blame as his advisers and Mandelson himself.

He and many within the high ranks of government have proved themselves to be untrustworthy, sly, and possibly cowardly, manipulative and of evading all or any responsibility, whilst attempting to shift the conversation concerning their inept decisions to that of thoughts for Epstein's victims, as if one had forgotten.

Starmer failed to remain in the House of Commons as the opposition and many amongst Labour's own ranks berated the government concerning Mandelson's appointment.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones was left to answer on Starmer's behalf as one MP after another demanded answers.

Alex Burghart, the Conservative MP for Brentwood and Ongar, called for answers as to who knew what and when concerning Mandelson and said "something has gone very wrong" concerning his appointment

Labour MP Emily Thornberry asked whether police might not be involved concerning Mandelson's actions, behaviour and accepting of monies from a convicted paedophile.

The Conservative MP for Christchurch Christopher Chope raised the question - given Mandelson's involvement, a well known homosexual - concerning Epstein's possible involvement in trafficking boys and young men, as well as girls and young women. Jones refuses to speculate but expressed the hope that it wasn't the case. Further, that was for Mandelson to answer.

Many also called for the peer to not only be stripped of his peerage but also face criminal proceeding after it emerged that Mandelson had "leaked a sensitive UK government document to Jeffrey Epstein while he was business secretary that proposed £20bn of asset sales and revealed Labour's tax policy plans" according to the Financial Times.

Starmer's calls for an inquiry, and moves to strip Mandelson of his peerage, might be too little too late.

The knives were already out before this latest fiasco, even within Labour ranks. This could be the final chapter in this latest political saga.


Beware the Ides of March.


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Zelenskyy under pressure over corruption scandal

The Ukraine President is facing a crisis on three fronts as he battles against a corruption scandal at home, a proposed iniquitous 'peace deal' drawn up between Russia and the US and continuing bombardment from Russian strikes.

On Wednesday 19th November reports emerged that US and Russian officials had drawn up what was described as a 'peace proposal'. However it has been criticised for being one of capitulation for Kyiv who would be forced to cede territory and reduce its armed forces should it accept the 'deal' [Axios / Guardian]. 

The plan contained terms that closely mirrored Moscow's longstanding demands, a senior Ukrainian official briefed on the proposal told AFP on Wednesday [Moscow Times]. 

Zelenskyy, who has been visiting Turkey on a new peace drive in recent days, is expected to meet US Army officials on Thursday ahead of the G20 in Johannesburg, South Africa on Saturday [Reuters]. 

The Trump administration will be hoping that Kyiv will accept the iniquitous deal seen by critics as one of appeasement rather than a peace deal. They may also be hedging their bets given growing problems  within Zelenskyy's own administration.

In recent months the Ukrainian president has faced a backlash over reports of corruption. The country has had a long history of corruption. But the recent reports could tear apart the cohesiveness of his administration which has otherwise been a core of strength in a four year long war.

The headlines make salacious reading with talk of 'golden toilets' and 'bags of cash' being smuggled out of the country. It is a scandal that could see the Ukrainian government being brought down as major figures stand accused of corruption and embezzlement.

According to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine [NABU] some £76m has been skimmed from Ukraine's energy sector by business leaders and officials. This has led to calls for Zelenskyy to fire his long-standing chief of staff Andrii Yermak [pictured above, left].

A former film producer, Yermak has served as the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine since the 11th February 2020. But while he has not been accused of profiting from embezzlement, he has been accused of stifling anti-corruption investigations.

NABU says it has uncovered a high-level criminal scheme at the heart of the government involving Ukraine's nuclear energy body, Energoatom, which runs three nuclear power plants supplying Ukraine with more than half of its electricity. The investigation alleges that insiders received kickbacks of 10-15% from Energoatom's commercial partners.

The issue is particularly sensitive as ordinary Ukrainians have to endure daily power cuts as a result of Russian attacks on the country's infrastructure.

The accused mastermind behind the scheme, Timur Mindich, a close personal associate and business partner of  Zelenskyy, has reportedly fled the country, just hours before NABU investigators arrived at his home where they found a bathroom fitted with a gold toilet.

Images of such excess will be difficult for Zelenskyy to explain. His enemies, both at home and abroad, will make political capital from the revelations. Political opponents at home will no doubt pressure Zelenskyy to sack key individuals from his administration, while seeking to secure stronger positions in the way Ukraine is run [Telegraph - paywalled]. 

Beyond its borders, Ukraine's enemies will seek to capitalise on the revelations. Russia will no doubt pressure the American administration to take advantage of a politically weakened Ukraine. The Trump administration may too see the advantage of exploiting the situation. A signed 'peace deal' - even one of attrition - would be welcomed by Trump as an achievement; another in a long line of conflicts and wars he has claimed to have ended.

The scandal will be an embarrassment to Ukraine's closest allies. While there has been no official or public comment from European leaders, many may well feel cheated by the revelations.

Conspiracy theories have long portrayed Zelenskyy as being corrupt and there have been accusations he has personally benefited from money given to the country to buy weapons.

One debunked theory is that the Ukrainian president bought luxury yachts with American aid money. The Russian disinformation plot was successful however. The false reports took off online and were echoed by members of the US Congress who were making crucial decisions about military spending [BBC].

But while those specific reports have been put to bed, the latest scandal - with headlines about gold toilets and bags of cash - do nothing to silence the critics and further bolster those who perpetuate conspiracy theories.

This latest scandal could be a turning point. It could all go south and see the country collapse and Russia ceding vast swathes of territory as the political turmoil ensues.

But it could see Zelenskyy grasping the nettle and turning the situation around.

The former president, Petro Poroshenko has called for the current cabinet to be sacked and for a government of national unity to be formed. This is unlikely to happen since Poroshenko was himself embroiled in a defence procurement scandal, which played a role in his 2019 defeat and which saw Zelenskyy winning on the back of a promise to clean up corruption.

Corruption is nothing new in Ukraine, and Zelenskyy has made inroads to clean up politics. This latest episode could be one that makes or breaks the wartime president.

Some observers believe the very fact the scandal even came to light is an indication that Zelenskyy has helped turn things around and that the country is slowly moving in the right direction. Oleksandr Abakumov, the head of NABU's investigating team, acknowledged his colleagues had "faced a lot of obstacles" pursuing an earlier case of corruption known as the Mindich case. "This isn't a story about corruption in Ukraine. It's about how the country is struggling with corruption, fighting with corruption." [Guardian]

Zelenkyy's biggest decision is whether he can step up to the plate and sack his right-hand man. Zelenskyy's chief of staff has amassed a level of power rarely seen in modern Ukraine. He is unelected and lacks popular support. This latest episode in Ukrainian politics could now be the final straw.

"We have to deal with him, he's Zelenskyy's man," a senior European official told the Kyiv Independent. "We don't have a choice."


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Starmer’s future in question as political storm rages

It all looks like a script from a political soap opera as the country heads to a nightmare budget before Christmas. On Thursday 13th November figures were published indicating growth had fallen to 0.1%, down from 0.3% in the previous quarter.

That all comes on the back of a nightmare two weeks in which the new Deputy PM and Justice Secretary had to deflect awkward criticism after it was revealed a convicted asylum seeker was mistakenly released from prison, only for an Algerian sex offender who was due for deportation, to also be accidentally released, just one of more than 90 prisoners accidentally released over seven months [Sky News]. Of course much of the problem was an inherited one, it wasn't a good look.

And this all on the back of a series of resignations, sacking and political manoeuvrings in the corridors of power.

Only last month a tabloid furore was building against Rachel Reeves after accusations of hypocrisy concerning her having failed to apply for a licence from her local council before letting out her south London home. On the eve of Halloween the prime minister declared the matter closed having accepted an apology from the chancellor who had said she had not known a licence was required [Guardian].

Emails then emerged showing that the letting agent for the property had told her husband that a licence would be necessary [BBC]. 

One email also purported to indicate that the agent would apply for a licence on behalf of the client. Within a day the letting agent which rented out Chancellor Rachel Reeves' family home apologised for an "oversight" which led to a failure to obtain the correct licence.

Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said the company's previous property manager had offered to apply for a "selective" rental licence on behalf of their client - but this never happened as the manager resigned before the tenancy began.

The story would no doubt have led to louder calls for her resignation but for the breaking news that Prince Andrew was to be stripped of his Royal titles and be known henceforth as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor [Guardian]. He would also, rolling media coverage informed the public, be required to move out of Windsor and slum it on King Charles III's Sandringham Estate where he would reside with the monarch bearing the cost personally. The decision came after long running criticism of Andrew's close connections with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Given how long the episode had been burning, the timing of the decision to strip him of his title seemed somewhat suspicious.

Even if just coincidence, Rachel Reeves would surely have been relieved that the media spotlight had shifted from her dubious financial affairs to the former prince.

While the details of the Reeves' financial affairs concerning her flat may be explained away by an oversight or failure of communication, it is not the first time the chancellor's expenses and financial affairs have been under the spotlight.

In February 2025 the BBC News reported that Rachel Reeves had exaggerated her online CV and had been investigated over her use of expenses while working at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) [BBC]. The reactions from Reeves and her colleagues were that the BBC reports were exaggerated and inaccurate. Of her expenses Reeves said they had been "signed off in the proper way" and "no issues were ever raised" during her time at the bank. Meanwhile the then Science Secretary Peter Kyle told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the reporting was "inaccurate".

While Reeves has so far survived media scrutiny, others have been less fortunate.

In the summer the Deputy PM Angela Rayner was photographed holidaying in Brighton, vaping on an inflatable kayak on the southern coast near Hove. It then emerged she had bought a flat in the seaside town, her third property which resulted in her being dubbed "three pads Rayner" by the tabloid media [The Sun]. The tabloid media had their claws out and the vitriol and criticism was loud and vociferous. "The hypocrisy of buying a second home when you also have use of a third home — at a time when your own department is waving a stick at second-home owners — does somewhat leave the mouth hanging open," the Sun proclaimed.

Within weeks Angela Rayner was giving a resignation speech, having admitted she underpaid stamp duty. The resignation on the 22nd October came despite repeated messages of support from her colleagues and the prime minister. On the 1st of September Keir Starmer said he was "proud" of his deputy, just days after The Daily Telegraph reported that Rayner saved £40,000 in stamp duty by not paying the higher rate reserved for additional home purchases. By the 3rd of September Rayner contacted the HMRC and referred herself for investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus, the prime minister's ethics adviser. That same day, shortly before Starmer was due to appear at Prime Minister's Questions, Rayner released a statement admitting she should have paid the higher rate of stamp duty when purchasing the Hove flat. Nonetheless the prime minister continued to stand by his deputy. The following day he repeatedly refused to say if he would sack Rayner if the standards adviser concluded she broke the ministerial code [BBC].

The prevarications were moot, and the following day Rayner resigned.

Rayner's stepping down resulted in Starmer being forced to shuffle chairs and pick a new deputy. David Lammy was drawn closer to the PM and placed in position of deputy prime minister and Justice Secretary. Meanwhile he sacked a number of ministers from his cabinet and elevated others to more senior roles. Ian Murray, the Scottish Secretary, was thrown out of the Cabinet and replaced with Douglas Alexander. The decision was treated with indignation by Murray who said he was "hugely disappointed" to be cut from the Cabinet. However it was apparently more than 'dissappointment'. A close friend told the Daily Record that Murray was "very angry and is still in the dark as to why he was sacked."

Gone too was Lucy Powell, Leader of the House of Commons, who was also unimpressed about being dismissed from her post.

However in a humiliating move for Keir Starmer she managed to place herself close to the inner circle after placing herself in the deputy leadership contest against Bridget Phillipson and winning [BBC].

Despite having secured a senior position Powell was not brought back into the Cabinet.

Political pundits have suggested that the PM might 'feel some unease about the outcome for a few different reasons' in that, according to Sky's Beth Rigby 'she has power and profile, but will remain an independent voice, free from collective cabinet responsibility [Sky News].

And so a little under three weeks after assuming her position as a political fly in the ointment, Keir Starmer was facing a wrath of stories plastered across many frontpages claiming that he might be facing a challenge to his own leadership.

Once again the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was forced to answer awkward questions in PMQs and address reports that rivals in his Labour Party were plotting to replace him as leader. It all came just two weeks before a government budget announcement that could worsen his already dire poll ratings, three weeks after Lucy Powell secured her position as deputy leader, and 10 weeks since his previous deputy leader and deputy PM Angela Rayner had resigned.

Late on Tuesday 11th November, several media outlets quoted Starmer allies as saying his job might be under immediate threat and singled out Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, as a challenger whose "ambition" was being viewed with "particular suspicion."

Ahead of an awkward PMQs, Streeting was on the media rounds busily defending Starmer and denying any suggestion he was behind any plot to oust the prime minister. According to one Downing Street source quoted in the Daily Express, "there is a pattern of Keir's team briefing against his own people – they did it to Angela [Rayner], Lisa [Nandy], Lucy [Powell], now it's Wes's [Streeting] turn. A circular firing squad won't help the Government out of the hole we're in."

During a tense grilling on the BBC, Streeting defended the PM and denied he was behind a coup, and said people should 'calm down'

BBC Breakfast host Jon Kay launched his interrogation with a graphic description of the likely scenes inside Number 10. "It sounds like people inside Downing Street think you are a potential problem yourself because we've had this extraordinary briefing overnight to the BBC from people close to the Prime Minister who seem to think they're worried about some kind of leadership challenge in the next few weeks, and they name you as a potential threat. Wes Streeting, are you a faithful or are you a traitor?"

Streeting responded, likening the whole episode as being like a soap opera. "Someone has definitely been watching too much Celebrity Traitors in Downing Street. I think they should be watching Countryfile instead and calm down a bit. I am a Faithful, what you're seeing from a silly number 10 source overnight is probably the worst attack on the faithful since Joe Marler was banished in the final." 

Another person in the spotlight is Morgan McSweeney, whose official title is Downing Street Chief of Staff. Starmer has come under intense pressure from a wide range of ministers and MPs to sack his chief of staff after No 10 was accused of an extraordinary briefing operation against the health secretary, Wes Streeting [Guardian].

But there is also a name that has failed to be mentioned in all this, that of Starmer's Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, appointed by the PM on the 16th December 2024, succeeding Simon Case.

Case had been in the role for the six months after Labour won the general election last year and was involved in the transition between governments but left with some questions over his stepping down, though health reasons were cited [BBC] .

Just as depicted by Humphrey in the 'fictional' political sitcom Yes, Prime Minister, the role of the Cabinet Secretary involves advising the Prime Minister, supporting the government's decision-making processes, and heading the Home Civil Service.

However, it seems clear that Starmer is either not receiving very good advice, or simply ignoring it.

From issues concerning the integrity of his cabinet members, choices concerning roles and public statements on his team, as well as policy, Starmer's leadership has been a litany of confusion, procrastination and prevarication.

This is in addition to increasing rumours concerning Starmer's personal life, details of which have been mostly hidden from the public to date.

Labour won an election on the back of a failed and failing Tory administration seen as corrupt and inept. It came in on a promise of 'Change', a single word that was emblazoned on its manifesto. In that manifesto it also gave unrealistic promises it would not raise taxes, something it is widely believed Reeves will break in her late November Budget. The manifesto also fenced itself in with promises that it would 'make Brexit work' and that Labour would not seek to rejoin the EU, the Customs Union or the Single Market, even if this were the only way out of economic oblivion.

The UK has continued to face low growth throughout 2025. The latest figures, ahead of a budget which is likely to dampen public spending yet further paints a gloomy picture for 2026 [BBC]. The EU economy in comparison was projected to experience moderate growth in 2025, with real GDP expected to increase by 1.1% in the EU and 0.9% in the euro area as a whole. Moreover EU growth is expected to rise to 1.5% in 2026. Hardly a celebration, especially given the likes of China which has seen its growth level at around 4.8% in 2025. Meanwhile, the US economy expanded an annualised 3.8% in Q2 2025, much higher than 3.3% in the second estimate, and marking the strongest performance since Q3 2023.

Whichever way one cuts it, the UK's economic picture is bleak. And yet the government has boxed itself into one corner, with promises not to forge closer ties with the EU which would undoubtedly boost the economy [Numerous economic analyses by institutions like the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Centre for European Reform (CER), and others suggest that rejoining the EU, or even just the single market, would boost the UK economy compared to its current post-Brexit trajectory. ] Yet, at the same time the treasury department is willing to break other promises not to raise taxes in order to keep the ailing ship of HMS Britannia afloat.

And amidst all this, one is witness to a political soap opera with denials, rumours and infighting abound. The comedy and farce of it all would be hysterically funny if it weren't so serious.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Happy Halloween

Happy Halloween

Windows 10 support ends but it need not be doomsday

Today is the 14th October 2025, a date which marks the 'end of support' for computers running Windows 10. For the average consumer there has been a lot of disinformation and contradictory information swirling around making it difficult to decide what to do.

Updates are free for many, but even news websites are failing to publicise this.

The date has been marked as a kind of 'doomsday' for anyone running the Windows 10 operating system. Figures indicate that 40% of PCs running Windows are still using Windows 10, despite the introduction of its successor, Windows 11, in 2021.

One reason that many have not upgraded to Windows 11 is due to hardware compatibility. Many older PCs that are quite capable of running Windows 10, simply do not have enough memory of RAM to run Windows 11. Even laptops that Microsoft claims are capable of running Windows 11, are rendered almost unworkable after installing the newer operating system.

There are thus millions of computers potentially left vulnerable after Microsoft halts security updates for Windows 10 machines.

There are some caveats however. Security updates are patches applied to prevent hackers exploiting holes in the operating system. But even with such patches users still need to employ good security practices.

Good security involves not clicking on suspicious links, not downloading files from unverifiable sources and keeping anti-virus software up-to-date.

With regards to anti-virus software many people rely on Windows Defender. Some fear that the end of Windows 10 support will reduce protection from the built-in firewall. However, Windows Defender will continue to work and still offer substantial protection.

As long as users continue to employ good safety practices, as outlined above, and stay within safe spaces on the internet and not visit 'dodgy websites', then Windows 10 - even without continued support - is likely to be safe for at least the short term.

But fear will consume many users, some of whom will have already thrown their old PC into an ever growing pile of eWaste and purchased a new machine.

There is however a cheaper option, which will at least put to rest any major concerns for another year. Microsoft is offering another year of support for those who sign-up to receive them. This will ensure protection until the 13th October 2026.

There is a cost to most users however. Microsoft is charging $30 plus tax, or the redemption of 1,000 so-called reward points. [Microsoft Rewards points are a loyalty program that rewards users for engaging in activities such as searching with Bing, shopping at the Microsoft Store, and playing games on Xbox. These points can be redeemed for various rewards such as gift cards, sweepstakes entries, and donations to nonprofits.]

Many PC  users will quite understandably not have heard of Microsoft Rewards and be forced to change laptops or pay up.

There is however a little publicised alternative for those in the EEA, or European Economic Area. Microsoft backed down concerning its policy to charge those in the zone after pressure from consumer groups citing EU legislation [PCMag] . Thus anyone in the EEA is able to get free updates for another year simply by going to the Windows Update page in settings and registering with a Microsoft account.

Many Windows 10 users might not have a Microsoft account, instead signing in using a 'local account', however there is a facility to create an account in order to register for the free updates.

While technically outside the EEA post-Brexit, users in the UK are still able to sign-up for free updates. This may or may not be an oversight on Microsoft's part, the reason is not entirely clear.

What is apparent is that the swirl of information surrounding the 'end of support' doomsday is muddy and confusing at best.

Indeed at the time of writing this dozens of news websites are still offering erroneous or incorrect information. The Guardian points to the free updates but incorrectly states one has to 'sync settings'. This is only true outside the EEA. GBNews also alludes to this with scaremongering headlines that users who don't take action will almost immediately suffer from cyberattacks. The BBC is less sensationalist and warns that "computers may be at risk" should users not enrol for security updates.

Moreover it correctly states that people living in the European Economic Area will get them for free by registering. For other users, to update for free, "they need to have updated to the latest version of Windows 10, have a Microsoft account and backed up their PC settings" to Microsoft's OneDrive online cloud storage service. However, even the BBC failed to notice that users in the UK, despite it not being in the EEA, can still get free updates with no strings attached.

There are an estimated 600 million PCs in the world using Windows 10. And a large proportion of these otherwise working machines will end up as landfill in the coming days.

In the EEA it is estimated that around 22% of consumers still use Windows 10 devices. In the UK the number of computers that could conceivably be consigned to the bin is in excess of 21 million.

Microsoft is acting irresponsibly by consigning otherwise working machines to landfill. But media organisations are also failing consumers. With nearly half of all PCs in the world at risk of being dumped simply because people have been scared into doing so by scaremongering by Microsoft and the media, this could be one of the single biggest environmental eWaste dumping events in recent history.


tvnewswatch, London, UK