Israel confirmed the killing of Ali Larijani, Iran's top security official, and Basij commander General Soleimani in separate overnight strikes. Iran has responded by widening attacks across the region: missiles hit near Israel, Dubai briefly shut its airspace, Qatar intercepted a missile, and drones struck near the US Embassy in Baghdad. Iran has also closed the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic, sending oil prices above $100 a barrel. The US claims it has struck over 7,000 targets and achieved a 90% reduction in Iran's ballistic missile capability. Iran's Health Ministry reports over 1,400 killed and 18,000 wounded, though independent monitors put the figure considerably higher.

Right-wing Framing - Fox News, The Times, Trump administration
Supporters frame the operation as a decisive, necessary strike against a regime that massacred its own citizens and was pursuing nuclear weapons. Trump and allies point to the rapid elimination of Iran's leadership as proof of military success, arguing that Europe benefits from US power while refusing to share the burden. Conservative commentators largely back the war's aims, even as some raise concerns about the lack of an exit strategy.

Left-wing Framing - The Guardian, Al Jazeera, CNN
Critics have focused on civilian casualties, the destruction of hospitals and schools, and the humanitarian crisis inside Iran. Significantly, Trump's own senior counterterrorism official resigned this week, stating Iran "posed no imminent threat" when the strikes were launched. The IAEA confirmed it had no evidence of an organised Iranian nuclear weapons programme at the time. Left-leaning outlets warn that the conflict is pulling in neighbouring states that had no desire to be involved and that the Strait of Hormuz closure risks triggering a global recession.

This is the most significant US military conflict since Iraq in 2003, and it is moving fast with limited international consensus. The killing of Iran's top leadership removes figures who, whatever their politics, were part of any future negotiated settlement. The Strait of Hormuz closure is already hitting petrol prices globally. The resignation of a senior US official who says the war lacked justification adds domestic political pressure that will be hard to ignore. Whether this conflict can be contained or spirals further is the defining question of the coming weeks.

Trump declared that NATO is making a "very foolish mistake" by refusing to join the Iran operation or send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Speaking from the Oval Office, he said most allies had told the US they did not want to get involved, adding he found it "pretty shocking." Earlier, he posted on Truth Social that the US "no longer needs or desires" NATO's assistance, naming Japan, Australia, and South Korea. He also singled out UK Prime Minister Starmer by name, saying he was disappointed with him. Starmer had said the UK would not be "drawn into the wider war," and Canada confirmed it had not been consulted and would not join offensive action. When asked if he would retaliate against allies, Trump said he had "nothing currently in mind."

Right-wing Framing - Fox News, New York Post, Trump allies
Many on the right back Trump's frustration, arguing NATO allies have long relied on American military power while contributing too little. Some go further, suggesting the alliance no longer serves US interests in its current form and that a renegotiation is overdue. The argument is simple: the US is bearing the cost and risk of a conflict that, if successful, benefits European energy security as much as anyone else.

Left-wing Framing - The Guardian, France24, The Independent
Critics frame NATO's refusal not as cowardice but as a principled rejection of a war launched without legal basis or allied consultation. The Guardian noted Trump's threats reveal "a glaring absence of any strategy on Iran." European governments point out they were not consulted before the strikes began, and being asked to join the consequences of a unilateral decision is not collective defence. Left-leaning commentators ask what NATO is actually for if it can be invoked for offensive wars of choice.

NATO was built on collective defence, not collective offence. Trump's demand that allies join a war they had no part in deciding is a fundamental challenge to that principle. If allies comply, they set a precedent that the US can launch wars unilaterally and demand NATO participation after the fact. If they refuse, as they are doing, Trump's rhetoric raises the genuine possibility of a US withdrawal or dramatic restructuring of the transatlantic relationship. For the UK, Starmer's refusal while being publicly criticised by Trump puts the special relationship under visible strain at a delicate moment.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her Mais Lecture to announce that the government is developing a "roadmap for fiscal devolution," to be published at this autumn's budget. The plan would give regional mayors control of a share of national tax revenues, including income tax, to spend on local priorities. Reeves was clear the move would not raise taxes but would redirect existing revenues away from the central government. She also announced £2.3 billion in city investment funds focused on northern England and the West Midlands. The government has not yet specified how large a share of income tax would be devolved or which regions would qualify first. The backdrop is stark: London's share of the national economy has grown to 24% of GDP since 2000, while most other regions have fallen further behind.

Supportive Framing - Labour mayors, Centre for Cities, regional business groups
Supporters have welcomed it as a long-overdue step toward addressing England's regional inequality. Mayors like Andy Burnham have long argued fiscal devolution is the "missing link" in the devolution settlement. Think tanks point to Germany and France as examples where greater regional fiscal autonomy has produced less economic polarisation. The London Assembly called fiscal powers "the missing link" in a statement responding directly to the announcement.

Critical Framing - Conservative Party, Reform UK, some economists
Critics question whether the announcement is more optics than substance, given the detail does not arrive until autumn. Some Conservative voices have raised concerns about accountability and whether Labour-run mayoralties can be trusted with greater financial autonomy. Economists warn that devolving tax revenues without matching spending responsibilities could create fiscal imbalances, and that the government needs to be clear about what accountability mechanisms will accompany the new powers.

England is one of the most fiscally centralised large economies in the developed world. Giving mayors genuine control over tax revenues would be a meaningful shift in how Britain is governed. The question is whether the government follows through at the autumn budget, or whether this roadmap leads nowhere. The announcement also raises a democratic question: a structural change of this scale was unveiled in a lecture, not debated in Parliament.