This Radical Dispatch Newszine - below - is provided free for all subscribers.
At the top of this post, Resistance Radio presents our WARRIOR CREED video/audio podcast from Tuesday 3rd March 2026, with a transcript provided - Iran Replies to Israeli Strikes by Attacking Sunni Muslim Arabs & the UK.
This podcast can be set to either audiovisual, or just audio, and is for premium members of Radical Media only. To listen, basic members should upgrade to the premium service here:
Read on now for our free Radical Dispatch.
Cartoon by Thiago Lucas
Iran Replies to Israeli Strikes by Attacking Sunni Muslim Arabs & the UK
- A Radical Dispatch
1) Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei Killed
The US and Israel have launched an attack on the Iranian theocracy that resulted in the death of its Supreme Leader Ayotollah Khamenei, and the decapitation of the country’s entire leadership.
Our immediate statement from the day is presented below:
The Iranian theocracy announced the death of its leader as below.
Click to play:
Broadcaster: “The great nation of Iran, the high spirit of the great nation of Iran and the Islamic Ummah, the Imam, are waiting for us. Khamenei joined the kingdom of heaven by drinking the nectar of martyrdom in the holy month of Ramadan. The Supreme National Security Council has issued a statement to this city in this regard.”
Though Khamenei is dead, there remains much to do.
2) Reaction & Analysis
We were invited to present our immediate reaction to these developments on GB News America with Beverly Turner.
Here is our explanation of President Trump’s ‘strategic intervention’ approach to foreign policy.
Click to play:
GB News Host Bev Turner: “I’m delighted to say now though, the expert on this topic, political activist and journalist Maajid Nawaz. Maajid, thank you so much for giving us your time this evening on what will no doubt turn out to be a historic day. Maajid, your assessment of events of today and what does this mean now going forward? I know it’s a broad question, but I want to bring to this your own expertise and insight.”
Maajid Nawaz: “Well, thank you, Bev. And I want to also, first of all, begin by expressing my condolences to all those who have fallen victim to these strikes. It’s never the intention of any action that is ever taken to target anything other than military targets. But of course, sometimes the inevitable occurs in war. So there are some victims that we should consider.
Now, to the question, I think that what’s going on here is historic, and I confer with many of your previous guests, we’re in a moment that is truly historic. We could well be seeing the end of - not necessarily the Iranian theocracy, though possibly - but certainly the end of the current incarnation of it. And what I mean by that is, of course, as happened in Venezuela with Maduro, and as happened in Syria with Assad, the way President Trump operates is he doesn’t make moves such as this without previously having struck a deal on the inside. If we have learned anything about President Trump when it comes to military action, he’s not a neocon warmonger, but neither is he a hippie with flowers in his mouth, Bev. The man believes in strategic interventions. If you remember the ‘mother of all bombs’ (MOAB) that he dropped in Afghanistan, if you remember the limited US strikes in Syria to destroy and obliterate the ISIS leadership under President Trump. The man believes in strategic interventions, and the strategic intervention in Venezuela in the taking of Maduro captive, is another recent example of that. But what happened in Syria is a more opaque version of the same thing. A deal was struck, the Russian Navy withdrew and abandoned Assad, and Syria exchanged hands from the Iranian, theocratic and Russian sphere of influence into the NATO sphere of influence. So with all of that said, Bev, I think that that’s precisely to say that President Trump works with that kind of strategy, that’s precisely what’s happening here. Of course, it’s bad. Of course, there are victims and we feel terrible for anyone that loses their life in war. And that includes those that Iran randomly decided to attack after this. And that includes all of the Sunni Arab Gulf countries, that the Iranians, for some reason, have decided are legitimate targets. Of course, they struck cities that didn’t have U.S. military bases. So that excuse doesn’t stand up when it comes to what they did in the Sunni world. And we condemn that action entirely. So back to what Now, what could be going on is that with the death of Khamenei, as appears to be the case, is confirmed. And we’ve just heard it from yourself as well the president confirmed it. If we enter into a post-Khamenei Iran, then a deal, as happened in Syria and Venezuela, could have been made, for example, with the vice president, First Vice President Arif to take the position the regime stays intact as happened in Venezuela as happened in other areas of strategic intervention like Afghanistan with the Moab, the regime stays intact, but the tone of that regime is renewed by the leader that replaces it. So as with Venezuela, they started opening business ties with the U.S. It could well be that the first vice president Arif, comes to terms with Israel and with the United States on whatever it was that they couldn’t agree on in these peace negotiations. And all of this, Trump would have known prior to action because he does not believe in all-out war. And the last thing I’ll say, Bev, and I’ve spoken a lot here, forgive me, I do not think, do not believe the black pillers. We are not going to enter WWIII. That’s not going to happen. We are not about to enter Armageddon, nor the end of the world. There are plans in place for moments like this. And I believe what we’re witnessing is the execution of such plans. What we could end up with on the other side of this is a regime that comes to terms with the demands of the U.S. president in terms of nuclear non-proliferation. And we end up with a grand regional settlement because the only obstacle to this was this regime. The Saudis themselves have now come to that as well, and have declared all support to the U.S. efforts, including war if necessary, because of Iran’s absolutely absurd reaction after the strike. So that’s, I think, a fair summary of what, in our view, is going on.”
GB News host Bev Turner: “You’ve been saying for, correct me if I’m wrong, but at least a year now that you think you were looking at a grand regional settlement. You think the Middle East is about to enter a period of prolonged peace, the likes of which we’ve probably not seen, well, we’ve not seen in our lifetime. Is that looking more likely or less likely tonight, Maajid?”
Maajid Nawaz: “Well, I’m going to say something counterintuitive, but you probably could predict my answer Bev, I think it’s looking more likely. And the reasons for that is that one of the unintended consequences of Iran’s calculated escalation, Iran deliberately escalated by attacking Sunni Muslim Arab Gulf countries who were not involved. Saudi Arabia had prohibited the US from using its air bases prior to this attack, which is why they’re so upset with what Iran did. So their calculated escalation was done in order to drag everybody else into the war, because when they’re fighting for their existential existence, it suits them to have as many parties for and against them in the war, because if you broaden the conflict, Russia gets involved, Iran has more supporters and therefore more chance of surviving. So that’s what they tried to do. What’s happened instead is because of the Pakistani-Saudi-Turkey joint military defence pact, when Saudi has said now that it would support the U.S. in any war effort necessary, because they’re so upset with what Iran, literally bombed them, right? So Saudi has said to America, we will support you by any means necessary, that drags in nuclear Pakistan because of the defence pact they signed about six months ago. Now, when you end up with that kind of escalation, Iran, I think miscalculated here, the only option left, and they are logical people, Persians can be very logical, right? The only option left does mean come to terms in a post-Khamenei context and agree a peace deal. I do think that’s what’s going to happen. Iran cannot oppose countries such as Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia when they come together, as they have done, in a mutual defence pact. It’s just too much for Iran to deal with.”
GB News Bev Turner: “I told you he’s the best person on this topic everybody Maajid Nawaz summing it up brilliantly, and hopefully giving people reason to sleep better tonight rather than worse, and that’s what I was wanting us to do is to allay the fears of people in the UK that this is the start of world war three. I know that everybody at home in the UK is incredibly worried about this situatio,n and thank you Maajid, I really appreciate it, what fascinating insight, my friend. I will speak to you very soon. Goodbye. Right. I’m delighted to say that my panel are here waiting very patiently.”
Our view appears to have been confirmed by subsequent reporting on the chance of deals being struck.
Meanwhile, the Iranians were already back-channelling negotiations.
3) UK Response
The UK’s response has been particularly weak under Prime Minister Starmer, who initially took the decision to not cooperate with Trump and Netanyahu on the strikes, only to embarrassingly backtrack after Iran decided to respond to the American and Israeli strikes by attacking the UK and Sunni Muslim Arabs.
Click to play:
PM Keir Starmer: “I spoke to you about the situation in the Gulf and explained that the United Kingdom was not involved in the strikes on Iran. That remains the case. Over the last two days, Iran has launched sustained attacks across the region at countries who did not attack them. They’ve hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. This is clearly a dangerous situation. We have at least 200,000 British citizens in the region, residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. I ask all our people in the region, to please register your presence and follow foreign office travel advice. I know this is a deeply worrying time and we will continue to do all we can to support you. Our armed forces who are located across the region are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. Yesterday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain, narrowly missing British personnel. The death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran from launching these strikes. Their approach is becoming even more reckless and more dangerous to civilians. Our decision that the UK would not be involved with the strikes on Iran was deliberate, not least because we believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement, one in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon. But Iran is striking British interests nonetheless and putting British people at huge risk along with our allies across the region. That is the situation we face today. Our partners in the Gulf have asked us to do more to defend them. And it is my duty to protect British lives. We have British jets in the air as part of coordinated defensive operations, which have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes. But the only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source, in their storage depots, or the launchers which are used to fire the missiles. The United States has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose. We have taken the decision to accept this request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk, and hitting countries that have not been involved. The basis of our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies and protecting British lives. That is in accordance with international law, and we are publishing a summary of our legal advice. We are not joining these strikes, but we will continue with our defensive actions in the region. And we will also bring experts from Ukraine together with our own experts to help Gulf partners shoot down Iranian drones attacking them. I want to be very clear. We all remember the mistakes of Iraq. And we have learned those lessons. We were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran. And we will not join offensive action now. But Iran is pursuing a scorched earth strategy. So we are supporting the collective self-defence of our allies and our people in the region. Because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat and prevent the situation spiralling further. This is the British government protecting British interests and British lives.”
We then appeared on GB News UK with Michelle Dewbury to challenge Labour MP Barry Gardiner’s defence of Keir Starmer’s above weak response.
Click to play:
Barry Gardiner MP (Labour): “And of course, he was right to pay tribute to our armed forces. And he said in that statement that we owe it to our armed forces personnel that when we put them in harm’s way, they have the right to know that it is in pursuit of a lawful purpose. And I think that’s right. Sending young men and women into conflict is not something that any government should do lightly and they should not do it unless they are clear that what they’re asking them to do is lawful. Now, I think there is a concern, I have a concern, with the way in which he, in his published broadcast statement, talked about a defensive strike being allowed from UK bases, and he said that we didn’t participate in the initial attack but we were prepared to have the US use our bases for a defensive strike. Well, I’m afraid words have meaning in the English language, and defensive strike is actually two antonyms. It’s a contradiction in terms, a defensive strike. Because what you do have is you have something called a preemptive strike. But in any language, a preemptive strike is actually an attack. It’s an attack to stop an attack coming from the other direction, but it is an attack, and it’s that initial use of force. So I think there was a confusion in the position that the prime minister adopted, both saying that we won’t actually engage in the initial attack, and then saying that we will allow our bases to be used for a defensive strike.”
Micheelle Dewbury: “Maajid?”
Maajid Nawaz: “Well, I think a response would have been nice. I mean, if our, as is the case, our own base has been attacked by the Iranians and the Iranians seem to be attacking whoever they can get their hands on in the region, us, in Cyprus, and clearly their strategy is they’re seeking to expand this war and bring everybody else into it in the hopes that the wider the conflict, the more of a chance that they have to survive. If they can drag the Russians and the Chinese in, they get the big boys on their side, perhaps their regime doesn’t collapse. That’s probably what they’re up to. But frankly, if they’ve attacked our own sovereign base, then there does need to be some form of response. And just watching Keir Starmer and the way in which he presented, both before our own, and our allies, were attacked and after they were attacked, it looks incredibly weak, Barry. You’ve got to admit that...”
Barry Gardiner MP (Lab): “No, I think... I don’t think it looks weak, but I take your point about...
Maajid Nawaz: “There’s no response....after we have been attacked... What do you think we should do?”
Barry Gardiner MP (Lab): “There was one drone that attacked the Akrotiri base. And the Akrotiri base was not being used.”
Zia Yusuf (Reform): “But hold on, Barry. Two more were en route and about to hit that same base and were shot down by Cypriot defensive missiles. Not our own. So I’m sorry, that doesn’t hold water.”
Barry Gardiner MP (Lab): “Well, they were shot down going over, actually. So that’s not the point. But what I was saying here is that, actually the decision that Starmer had made to allow defensive strikes from British bases, I think was taken before those strikes happened. Now it’s convenient in a sense for him that subsequently that base was attacked in that way and therefore you can say ‘well all the more reason’. But at that point, you do say, well, what is the difference between saying that you have a defensive posture, and an attacking posture?”
Maajid Nawaz: “Sorry, this sounds very nice, right? But what do you think, as somebody that’s obviously a representative of our government, led by Keir Starmer, what should we do now that our base has been attacked by the Iranians?”
Barry Gardiner “Yeah. I think we have a legitimate interest in self-defence and if we are under immediate threat, we have the right to defend ourselves and that would include by attacking Iran and joining...”
Maajid Nawaz: “So does this require a reply? If somebody lobs a bomb over at us, do we just sit there and do nothing?”
Barry Gardiner MP (Lab): “No, we don’t sit there and do nothing, and that’s not what I’ve said. I’ve said that we have, under international law, we do have the right to self-defence.”
Maajid Nawaz: “What does that mean? What do we do?”
GB News host Michelle Dewbury: “Let’s just cut to the chase. Do you think that the UK should be now striking back at Iran?”
Barry Gardiner MP (Lab): “I think we should be trying to stay as far out of this as possible because I believe that the whole operation was an illegal operation. I think what’s happened is that the Americans have then ensured that there is a response. Iran was attacked by the Americans. There was a response from Iran, which encapsulated all the countries in the region including including an air base of ours which is in the region. And at that point, one has to say that the Americans have precipitated that response.”
4) Sunni Muslim Arab Response
The Sunni Muslim Arabs of the region who were attacked by Iran were unified in their condemnation, with Saudi Arabia declaring that it would military support the US war if necessary.
Al-Arabiyya reports 1st March 2026:
“Saudi Arabia ‘expressed its strongest condemnation of the blatant and cowardly Iranian attacks targeting the Riyadh and Eastern Province regions, which were repelled,’ the foreign ministry said in a statement. ‘In light of this unjustified aggression, the Kingdom affirms that it will take all necessary measures to defend its security and protect its territory, citizens and residents, including with the option of responding to the aggression’.”
Iran’s miscalculation was to attack its Sunni Muslim Arab neighbours, in response to America and Israel attacking it.
BBC reports 1st March 2026:
Iran’s claim that they were striking back only at US bases does not hold up, not least because - in Arab lands and in the UK - none of the bases concerned were used in the initial joint US-Israeli strike on Iran. As the below list highlights, many of Iran’s attacks were also against civilian targets in Arab lands:
i) United Arab Emirates (UAE) - al-Dhafra airbase. One dead in Abu Dhabi from falling debris of intercepted missile.
Arab News reports 28th February 2026:
“Falling debris killed a Pakistani civilian in Abu Dhabi, UAE authorities said. Later smoke and flames rose from Dubai's Palm Jumeirah development after a building was damaged there.”
ii) Bahrain - US Navy Fifth Fleet HQ in Manama
The BBC reports 28th February 2026:
“Iran has targeted the US Navy base in Bahrain, highlighting gaps in air defences, which will worry Washington and its allies in the region. Videos appear to show missiles and drones striking the vicinity of the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.”
iii) Qatar - al-Udeid Air Base
Reuters reports 4th March 2026:
“Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told his Qatari counterpart Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani that Iranian missile attacks were directed at U.S. interests and not at Qatar. Qatar’s top diplomat ‘categorically rejected’ that claim and called for an immediate halt to Iran’s attacks, the Qatari Foreign Ministry said on X. Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman said his country would confront any aggression with its ‘right to self-defence,’ stressing that Doha has always been inclined towards dialogue and diplomacy conducted in good faith.”
iv) Kuwait - International airport
Asharq al-Awsat reports 28th February 2026:
“A drone struck Kuwait's international airport on Saturday, the civil aviation authority said, causing minor injuries as Iran retaliated across the Gulf for US and Israeli strikes.”
v) Jordan - Muwaffaq al-Salti airbase
The Guardian reports 1st March 2026:
“…In Jordan, fires blazed in the northern city of Irbid as missile shrapnel fell from the sky and caught alight.”
vi) Syria: Suwayda industrial zone.
Local eye witnesses report that the cause was intercepted missile debris from Iran. The state has downplayed this, perhaps to avoid pressure to join an all out war after just having come out of one.
Shafaq News reports 28th February 2026:
“Five people, including two children, were killed and three others wounded on Saturday when a powerful explosion tore through the industrial zone of Suwayda in southern Syria, as regional hostilities between Israel, the United States, and Iran spilled into Syrian airspace….The cause of the explosion remains disputed. Suwayda’s government media directorate said the detonation was triggered by a missile left behind by the former Syrian regime...A separate local source told Shafaq News the explosion resulted from debris of an Iranian missile intercepted in the sky, which then fell onto a building in the industrial district.”
vii) Saudi Arabia - Riyadh & Prince Sultan airbase in the East.
Gulf News reports 4th March 2026:
“Saudi Arabia has warned it reserves the ‘full right’ to respond to blatant Iranian aggression after a series of drone and missile strikes targeted Riyadh and the Kingdom’s Eastern Province.”
viii) Iraq - US Consulate in Erbil
Jerusalem post reports 3rd March 2026:
“Iran is seeking to pre-empt any uprising by Kurdish opposition groups in Iran by striking at their bases in the Kurdistan Region of northern Iraq, while also using its Iranian-backed militias in Iraq to increase attacks on US forces in the Kurdistan region and to threaten Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other countries.”
ix) Oman - Duqm commercial port
Gulf News reports 1st March 2026:
“Iran expanded its retaliation campaign across the Gulf on Sunday, striking Oman for the first time since the conflict began and targeting an oil tanker off its coast, in a dramatic escalation that threatens to widen the regional war. The attack on Duqm commercial port marks the first direct Iranian strike on the sultanate — a long-time mediator in US-Iran talks that had until now avoided becoming a battlefield in the crisis.”
The below article maps all the countries attacked and tallies the casualties so far.
The Independent reports 4th March 2026:
Of course, once the above list is presented in such a way, the anger of Sunni Muslim Arab countries at being attacked is easy to understand.
Inconveniently for Iran, even the Palestinian Authority has condemned them.
As has their neighbour, Pakistan.
And Turkey:
And of course, Syria:
Lebanon went even further, totally banning the Iranian terrorist proxy Hezbollah:
Iran’s calculated escalation backfired, instead unifying the Gulf Arabs behind the US led strikes:
A response to Iran from Saudi Arabia remains expected. Attacking the Islamic Holy Land is no small heresy.
So why did Iran attack its Arab neighbours if they hadn’t attacked Iran?
The overt justification is that Iran targeted countries hosting US troops in their military bases. But as our above list demonstrates, Iran attacked bases that were not used to attack it. Iran also attacked civilian targets.
This was a deliberate calculated escalation. The strategic aim is that by expanding the theatre of war to include its regional Arab Muslim neighbours, Iran’s regime - with little to lose if it’s fighting for its own survival - seeks to escalate the cost of conflict. This action seeks to force the US to choose between a region in flames with the prospects of a wider war, or to acquiesce in any future negotiations with Iran. Iran is goading escalation by calculating that it if it is forced to fight, then it stands a better chance of survival if other countries are dragged into this war, both for it and against it.
This is similar to Israel’s ‘Samson option’. If you force a regime to fight for its existential survival, then it may seek to impose this cost onto you too. Causing regional chaos and provoking all out war is still seen as better than a total loss. Netanyahu plays a similar game.
This is why President Trump is in a very difficult situation.
Contrary to the Western Regressive Left assumption, Israel is not the only country in the region with expansionist aims. Both Iran under the Shia-Islamists, and Israel under the Likudniks-Zionists, are ideologically driven to seek conflict. Managing this situation is incredibly difficult, but necessary, for America.
Click to play:
Maajid Nawaz for WARRIOR CREED: “We agree on the fact that the Likudnik Zionists and Israel currently under their leadership, led by Netanyahu, are ideologically driven for conflict. That part we agree on. Where we disagree and where the Western regressive left should frankly shut up, is that the Iranian theocracy is also ideologically driven. for war in the region. They are an ideologically driven power, such as the Likudnik Zionists. Their ideology instead is Shiite Islamism, not Likudnik Zionism. And Shiite Islamism believes in the supremacy of all Islamism, that is to say, synchronising law with any one given reading of Islam. That is Islamism per se. But it is on top of that sectarian, because it’s Shiite Islamism. So it believes in the supremacy of Shiites to govern any Islamist ideological entities that they go about creating in the region. And that’s what they did in Syria. They were artificially propping up the Shiite Alawite dynasty in Syria, in order to keep the Syrian Arab Sunni Muslim population under their grip. So Shiite Islamism isn’t just ideologically driven for conflict and war. It is also sectarian on top of it.”
As we have explained, as as the Western Regressive Left should note, Iran is no stranger to regional colonial aggression.
Click to play:
This may not end soon, but it will eventually end.
How? We take the view that…
