Arts, Culture, Literature, Poetry

Poetry for Autumn: A collection

SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER

– note: intermittent and not always concurrent days.

12 November · ‘No One Cares Less than I’ · Edward Thomas

In this poem Edward Thomas can be seen to parody the opening lines of Brooke’s “The Soldier”. In response to Brooke’s notion that, should he die in “some corner of a foreign field”, that place shall be “for ever England”, Thomas responds that he doesn’t care whether he is “destined to lie / Under a foreign clod”. Here the poet warns the reader of the dangers of patriotism and the glorification of war. Thomas died on 9 April 1917 in Pas-de-Calais, France. He was thirty-nine years old.

‘No one cares less than I,

Nobody knows but God,

Whether I am destined to lie

Under a foreign clod,’

Were the words I made to the bugle call in the morning.

But laughing, storming, scorning,

Only the bugles know

What the bugles say in the morning,

And they do not care, when they blow

The call that I heard and made words to early this morning.

…

Edward Thomas’s short but powerful poem ‘No one cares less than I” (sometimes subtitled Bugle Call) is a poignant reflection on fatalism, wartime detachment, and the impersonal nature of conflict. Written during World War I, it encapsulates the stoic acceptance of death by a soldier – a sentiment that tragically foreshadowed Thomas’s own death in 1917.

The opening lines are a bleak declaration of indifference regarding his own survival:

“No one cares less than I, / Nobody knows but God, / Whether I am destined to lie / Under a foreign clod,”

This expresses a complete resignation to fate. The soldier is beyond worry, having accepted that his destiny is out of his hands and known only to God. The euphemism “foreign clod” refers simply to being buried abroad, highlighting the likelihood of a soldier’s death in France.

The most striking element is between detachment and the impersonal war: between the soldier’s personal words and the impersonal nature of the bugle call. The soldier makes his words to the call, imposing his private anxiety and acceptance onto an official, militaristic sound.

“Were the words I made to the bugle call in the morning.”

The bugles themselves, however, do not care. They are described as “laughing, storming, scorning,” suggesting a vibrant, chaotic, and unfeeling force.

The Indifferent Machine: The bugles function as a metaphor for the entire war machine. They know the reality of war, but they are completely indifferent to the individual soldier’s fate:

“Only the bugles know / What the bugles say in the morning, / And they do not care, when they blow”

The bugle call signals routine, duty, and the possibility of imminent action and death, but it has no humanity or empathy. The individual soldier’s life is merely a step in the larger, noisy, and uncaring rhythm of the military.

The poem is structured in a single stanza with a relatively conversational tone that belies the seriousness of its subject.

The rhythm is irregular, mimicking natural speech and the somewhat awkward fit of the soldier’s personal thoughts to the military rhythm of the bugle. The rhyming couplets (AABB for the first half, then a more complex CC DDEE pattern) creates a sense of simplicity and finality.

On diction, Thomas uses plain and direct language (“Nobody knows but God,” “foreign clod”), which contributes to the poem’s sense of stoicism and realism. There is no elaborate poetic flourish, just the blunt observation of a man facing the imminent possibility of death.

The poem stands as a powerful and understated example of WWI poetry, moving away from romantic heroism toward a stark acknowledgement of the soldier’s reality and the sheer cold indifference of the war.

11 November · In Flanders Fields · John McCrae

John McCrae was a Canadian doctor who served as a Lieutenant-Colonel in the First World War. The poem was published in 1915, and its immediate success led to it being quoted in propaganda as part of the war efforts. Its reference to the red poppies of Flanders led to the symbolic wearing of poppies on Remembrance Day each year. McCrae died of pneumonia during combat service in 1918, just eight months before the war ended.

1

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

2

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

3

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

…

“In Flanders Fields” is a powerful and enduring lyric poem written by Canadian military doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae in May 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres in World War I. The poem is written from the perspective of the fallen soldiers, speaking from their graves.

The poem starkly juxtaposes images of the natural world and life against the grim reality of war and death.

. Natural/Life: Poppies blooming, larks “bravely singing” in the sky, and memories of the dead who “lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow.”

. War/Death: “Crosses, row on row,” the barely heard sounds of the larks “amid the guns below,” and the soldiers who are now “the dead.”

The most enduring image is that of the red poppies growing over the graves. This image of poppy symbolism, inspired by the reality McCrae witnessed, became the global symbol for military remembrance. The poppies represent a commemoration of the fallen and the resilience of nature amidst destruction.

The final stanza shifts from sorrowful reflection to a command and a warning to the living:

. The dead pass a “torch” to the living, symbolising the continuation of the fight or the cause.

. The living are urged to “take up our quarrel with the foe.”

. The powerful warning, “If ye break faith with us who die, / We shall not sleep,” stresses the duty of the living to honour the soldiers’ sacrifice by ensuring their fight was not in vain.

The structure and form of the poem is a 15-line rondeau, a French form, though McCrae’s use of it is relatively free.

It is composed of three stanzas, each with a distinct focus:

Stanza 1: Sets the scene with the imagery of the poppies, crosses, larks, and guns – contrasting tranquillity with battle.

Stanza 2: Gives voice to the dead, reflecting on their lost lives and peaceful moments.

Stanza 3: Issues the poignant and challenging appeal to the living. The rhyme scheme (AABBA AABBC CCDDE) and meter contribute to an elegiac (mournful and sad) and stately tone, giving a sense of solemn rhythm appropriate for a memorial. The abrupt end of lines, as noted by critics, sometimes conveys the suddenness of the soldiers’ deaths.

9 November · Here Dead We Lie · A. E. Housman

Like Wilfred Owen and Rupert Brooke, A. E. Housman wrote some of his most famous poetry during the Great War. This poem reminds us that many of the soldiers were very young.

Here dead we lie because we did not choose

To live and shame the land from which we sprung.

Life, to be sure, is nothing much to lose,

But young men think it is, and we were young.

…

A.E. Housman’s short poem, “Here Dead We Lie,” (also titled “Here dead lie we”), is a powerful, elegiac epigram that captures the tragic irony of young lives lost in war, often perceived as a reflection on World War I.

The poem consists of just one four-line stanza, and is spoken by a collective voice of deceased soldiers.

The voice is a collective “we” – the dead soldiers themselves – speaking from the grave with a sense of stoic and bitter resignation. The direct address immediately establishes a sombre, reflective tone, setting the poem as an epitaph or lament.

The first two lines state the reason for their death: a choice not to live in shame. This points to the intense pressure of patriotic nationalism and duty prevalent during wartime. They died to avoid the perceived dishonour of being a coward or deserting their country.

“Here dead we lie because we did not choose / To live and shame the land from which we sprung.”

The emotional core of the poem lies in the final two lines, which present a stark, philosophical contrast:

. The Adult/World View: “Life, to be sure, / Is nothing much to lose,” – This line is brutally ironic. It suggests that, in the grand scheme or from the perspective of older, detached generations (or commanders), a young man’s life is expendable. This cynicism reflects Housman’s often-pessimistic worldview.

. The Soldiers’ View: “But young men think it is, and we were young.” – This is the tragic turn. The soldiers, now dead, realise that they, as young men, did value life immensely, believing it was everything to lose. Their noble sacrifice, made out of a sense of patriotic duty, is ultimately undercut by the tragic realisation that they gave up what they considered most precious.

The poem is remarkable for its brevity and clarity. Housman uses a simple quatrain (four-line stanza) with an AABB rhyme scheme (choose/lose, sprung/young) and a relatively consistent meter (often iambic tetrameter), which creates a controlled and epigrammatic style that makes the bitter message even more impactful. The simplicity of the language gives the poem a stark, universal resonance.

In short, “Here Dead We Lie” is an extremely concentrated expression of the waste of youth in war. It critiques the patriotic fervour that led young men to sacrifice their lives based on a belief in a value (“honour,” “shame”) that, from the perspective of the grave, seems tragically misplaced compared to the immense value of the life they lost.

7 November · from As You Like It · William Shakespeare

This song is sung at the end of the second act of Shakespeare’s comedy As You Like It, when the runaway gentleman, Orlando, and his old faithful servant, Adam, arrive at the court of an exiled Duke who is living as an outlaw in the Forest of Arden. Despite the song’s many references to human ingratitude and feigned friendship, the travellers receive a hearty welcome at the feast.

1

Blow, blow, thou winter wind,

Thou art not so unkind

As man’s ingratitude;

Thy tooth is not so keen,

Because thou art not seen,

Although thy breath be rude.

Heigh-ho! sing, heigh-ho! unto the green holly:

Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly:

Then, heigh-ho, the holly!

This life is most jolly.

2

Freeze, freeze, thou bitter sky,

That dost not bite so nigh

As benefits forgot:

Though thou the waters warp,

Thy sting is not so sharp

As friend remembered not.

Heigh-ho! sing, heigh-ho! unto the green holly . . .

Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly:

Then, heigh-ho, the holly!

This life is most jolly.

…

William Shakespeare’s work “As You Like It” primarily refers to his renowned pastoral comedy play. As a whole, it contains several significant poems and songs, most famously the monologue often referred to as a poem: “All the world’s a stage.”

Written around 1599, As You Like It contrasts the artificial and corrupt life of the court with the relative freedom and harmony of nature in the Forest of Arden.

This famous piece, “Blow, blow, thou winter wind,” is a song from As You Like It (Act II, Scene 7). It is sung by the character Amiens to Duke Senior and his exiled court in the Forest of Arden.

The song’s main purpose is to contrast the tangible, physical harshness of nature with the far greater and more enduring pain inflicted by human cruelty and betrayal. It is a melancholic comparison: the singer finds the harshness of the winter wind to be less unkind and less sharp than the emotional pain caused by human failings, specifically ingratitude and false friendship.

Stanza 1: The Winter Wind

The speaker directly addresses the winter wind, personifying it as an antagonist.

. Comparison – The wind’s “tooth is not so keen” as “man’s ingratitude.”

The wind’s harshness (“breath be rude”) is bearable because it is impersonal and unseen. It is simply nature’s way.

The bitterness of a cold, physical element is preferable to the visible, psychological wound of betrayal from a person you trusted.

Stanza 2: The Bitter Sky

The speaker challenges the freezing sky, and makes a similar comparison.

. Comparison – The “bitter sky” does not “bite so nigh” as “benefits forgot” (kindnesses that have been forgotten or ignored).

The metaphor is apparent: The cold can literally “wrap the waters” (freeze them), but its “sting is not so sharp / As friend remembered not.”

The pain of an ungrateful mind that forgets past help and friendship is a deeper and much sharper sorrow than any physical cold or frost.

The refrain, repeated after each main stanza, offers a cynical but ultimately resilient resolution to this painful truth:

Heigh-ho! sing, heigh-ho! unto the green holly . . .

Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly:

Then, heigh-ho, the holly!

This life is most jolly.

. The Green Holly: The holly, with its persistent green leaves and sharp thorns, is a traditional symbol of endurance during winter. It represents the resilience needed to face life’s hardships.

. Cynicism: The lines “Most friendship is feigning (false), most loving mere folly” express a profound disillusionment with human connection. The singer has concluded that loyalty in relationships is rare.

. The “Jolly” Twist: The final line, “This life is most jolly,” provides a jarring counterpoint. It is not an expression of genuine happiness, but a form of stoicism or resigned acceptance. The sentiment is: Since friendship and love are largely fake, one should stop caring, take life lightly, and force a merry outlook to cope with the inevitable betrayal.

A number of poetic devices are used throughout the song, namely:

. Personification: Giving human qualities to natural elements (“winter wind,” “bitter sky,” “Thy tooth,” “Thy sting”). This elevates nature to a moral force, contrasting it with human morality.

 . A-B-A-B-C-C Rhyme Scheme: The tight, musical structure makes the song memorable and contributes to the rhythmic and melancholic tone.

. Juxtaposition: The stark contrast between the physical pain of the cold and the emotional pain of ingratitude is the core device.

. Repetition: The repeated refrain emphasises the core message of resignation. The song serves as an integral part of As You Like It, providing a brief, beautiful moment of melancholy and realism amid the playful romance and idealism of the Forest of Arden. It echoes the cynical philosophy of Jaques, reminding the exiled court (and the audience) that while nature is harsh, human relationships can be even crueller.

4 November · Dulce et Decorum Est · Wilfred Owen

Wilfred Owen composed “Dulce et Decorum Est” while recovering from shell shock in 1917. The title is taken from a passage of Horace, the Roman poet, who wrote that dulce et decorum est pro patria mori: “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.”

While Horace meant to praise the bravery of the Roman army, in Owen’s poem the phrase takes on a bitter irony. Owen’s descriptions of war are not lofty and idealised but brutally graphic. He attacks the military propaganda of the time which encouraged “children ardent for some desperate glory” to serve in the war, setting the supposed sweetness of glory in battle in contrast with the horrendous reality.

– Some verses in the third stanza have been omitted

1

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

2

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

3

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

…

Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” is one of the most powerful and widely cited anti-war poems to emerge from World War I. Written while Owen was recovering from shell shock in 1917 and published posthumously in 1920, the poem directly challenges the prevalent patriotic glorification of war.

The poem’s title is the beginning of a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Horace: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori which translates as “It is sweet and proper to die for one’s country.”

Owen uses this patriotic slogan with bitter irony. By vividly depicting the gruesome and unsightly realities of a soldier’s death, he refutes this “old Lie” in the final lines, asserting that there is nothing sweet or proper about the suffering and senseless violence of war.

Owen employs intense, graphic, and immediate sensory imagery to convey the utter horror of trench warfare, forcing the reader to witness in fine detail the reality he experienced.

The poem opens with soldiers described as “Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,” and “coughing like hags.” These similes immediately strip the soldiers of any heroic glamour, portraying them instead as broken, exhausted, and prematurely aged victims.

The central event is a sudden chlorine gas attack. Owen uses stark, vivid, and unsettling (if not very upsetting) language to describe the dying soldier. The descriptions are unflinching and these disturbing lines have been omitted from this site.

The two-line third stanza shifts the perspective to the speaker’s lasting trauma, the scene forever etched “In all my dreams before my helpless sight,” emphasising the psychological toll, or shell shock.

The poem is structured into four stanzas of varying length, initially adopting a loose ABAB CDCD rhyme scheme similar to the French Ballade form, though Owen subverts the form’s conventions. The shifting rhythm and incomplete rhymes often reflect the chaos and disharmony of the battlefield.

With ingenuity and adept use of the language Owen uses powerful sound devices to heighten the experience. In the full third stanza, onomatopoeia is used unsparingly which make the dying soldier’s agony visceral and auditory. The device of alliteration is also used: phrases like “writhing in his face” intensify the dreadful imagery.

The final stanza directly addresses the reader (“My friend, you would not tell with such high zest…”), making the critique personal and accusatory.

The poem’s enduring power lies in its relentless dedication to truth and its refusal to romanticise death, making it the definitive rebuttal to the lie of wartime glory.

3 November · The Girl with Many Eyes · Tim Burton

The American Tim Burton is best known for his film-directing work that includes The Nightmare Before Christmas and screen/film adaptations of Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. He is also a writer and an artist, and much of his work reflects his quirky and fantastical imagination.

1

One day in the park,

I had quite a surprise.

I met a girl,

who had many eyes.

2

She was really quite pretty

(and also quite shocking)

and I noticed she had a mouth,

so we ended up talking.

3

We talked about flowers,

and her poetry classes,

and the problems she’d have

if she ever wore glasses.

4

It’s great to know a girl

who has many eyes,

but you get really wet

when she breaks down and cries.

…

The poem “The Girl with Many Eyes” by Tim Burton, first published in his book The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy & Other Stories, uses a bizarre character to explore themes of inner beauty, acceptance of difference, and the anxiety of being an outcast.

It tells of a narrator who meets a girl in a park described as “really quite pretty (and also quite shocking)” because she has “many eyes.” Despite her unusual appearance, the narrator strikes up a conversation with her, focusing on normal topics like “flowers” and “her poetry classes.”

The narrator’s willingness to look past the girl’s shocking appearance and engage with her suggests that inner connection and personality are more important than physical looks. The line, “It’s great to know a girl who has many eyes, but you get really wet when she breaks down and cries,” emphasises her humanity and vulnerability, suggesting that her unusual trait doesn’t override her basic emotions. The narrator sees her as “pretty” and “shocking,” indicating an appreciation that incorporates her oddity.

Like many of Burton’s creations (for example, Edward Scissorhands), the girl is a classic Burtonian outcast – a character who is physically different and therefore isolated or misunderstood. The poem is often interpreted as reflecting Burton’s own feelings of being an outsider growing up and his wish for others to break social conformity and connect with people who are different.

The final line, focusing on her tears, is a powerful reminder that despite her extraordinary nature, she experiences deep emotions. Her many eyes, perhaps a symbol of greater sensitivity or perception, also mean she “breaks down and cries,” showing her profound vulnerability.

1 November · No! · Thomas Hood

Thomas Hood was a nineteenth-century English author and poet. This poem is an example of a kind of extended pun, as Hood’s list of phrases beginning with “no” is revealed by the final line to be a list of all the negative characteristics of the month of November.

No sun – no moon!

No morn – no noon –

No dawn – no dust – no proper time of day.

No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease,

No comfortable feel in any member –

No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees,

No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds,

November!

…

Thomas Hood’s poem “No!” is a playful, yet a poignant depiction of the month of November. It primarily focuses on the dismal and foggy conditions of London and the accompanying sense of isolation.

The phrases are taken from the single, long, free-form list of negations. Almost every line or phrase begins with the word ‘No,’ emphasising the overwhelming sense of absence. This relentless use of anaphora (repetition at the beginning of phrases) mimics the oppressive and monotonous nature of the November gloom. The lack of traditional meter or rhyme scheme contributes to a contemporary, conversational, and almost rambling feel. The poem captures a spontaneous outpouring of frustration.

The core of the poem in its longer form is the heavy debilitating London fog. This obscures everything and makes the city unrecognisable.

. Natural World: The fog obliterates the sky and natural markers (“No sun – no moon!”, “No sky – no earthly view – No distance looking blue –”). The typical vibrancy of nature is absent: “No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees / No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds.”

. Urban Life: The dense fog makes navigation impossible (“No road – no street –”) and even hides architectural landmarks (“No end to any Row – No top to any steeple –”).

The poem in its entirety is based on the themes of isolation and disorientation. The bad weather keeps people indoors and apart, which commonly leads to a breakdown in social life. Familiar faces are unrecognisable (“No recognitions of familiar people”). The social spaces are deserted (“No park, no Ring, no afternoon gentility –”). Even communication is cut off (“No mail – no post – No news from any foreign coast –”).

With everything obscured – from the sun in the sky to the street across the way – the speaker feels a profound sense of disorientation, a lack of reference points, and a feeling of being trapped (“No travelling at all – no locomotion, No inkling of the way – no notion –”).

While the subject is dreary, the tone is not a serious lament or a dirge. Hood, also known as a humourist, maintains a light-hearted, exaggerated, and satirical tone. The sheer scale of the complaints and the exhaustive list of nothings are designed to amuse as much as to reflect a genuine melancholy. This makes the poem an engaging and accessible piece of social commentary on the November blues.

Pages: 1 2 3
Standard
Iran, Israel, Middle East, Politics, United States

Israel’s attack on Iran: A perilous situation

MIDDLE EAST

Intro: The recklessness of the Israeli government and the incoherence of US foreign policy deepens the crisis in the Middle East

American presidents who believed they could easily restrain Benjamin Netanyahu have quickly learned their lesson. Bill Clinton’s expletive fuelled language after his first meeting with the Israeli prime minister warned the world that even America’s might as a superpower was no restraint against Netanyahu’s aims.

It increasingly looks as if Donald Trump, too, has succumbed to Israeli wishes. The US State Department quickly declared that the devastating Israeli attacks on Iran – which killed key military commanders and nuclear scientists, as well as striking its missile capacity and a nuclear enrichment site – was unilateral. President Trump had urged Mr Netanyahu to hold off, pending imminent US talks with Iran over its nuclear programme. The suspicion is that Israel feared that a deal might be reached and wanted to strike first. Israeli officials, however, have briefed that they had a secret green light from the US, with Mr Trump the only one to oppose it.

Iran, raging with anger from the attack but afraid of looking too weak to retaliate, is unlikely to believe that the US did not acquiesce to the offensive. It might suit it better to pretend otherwise – in the short-term, it is not clear what ability it has to hit back at Israel, never mind taking on the US. Mr Trump has made that harder still by threatening “even more brutal attacks” ahead, urging Iran to “make a deal, before there’s nothing left” and claiming that “we knew everything”. Whether Israel had convinced Mr Trump that this was the way to cut a deal, or he is offering a post-hoc justification after being outflanked by Mr Netanyahu, may no longer matter.

Israel has become dangerously confident of its ability to reshape the Middle East without pushing it over the brink. It believes that its recent pummelling of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s air defences have created an opportunity to destroy the existential threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme before it is too late. Russia is not about to ride to Tehran’s rescue, and while Gulf States don’t want instability, they are not distraught to see an old adversary weakened.

But not least in the reckoning is surely that Mr Netanyahu, who survives politically through military action, has only just narrowly survived a parliamentary vote in the Knesset. The Israeli government also faces mounting international condemnation over its war crimes in Gaza – though the US and others have allowed those crimes to continue. It is destroying the nation’s international reputation, yet may bolster domestic support through this campaign.

The obvious question now is the future of a key Iranian enrichment site deep underground at Fordo, which many believe Israel could not destroy without US “bunker busters”. If Israel believes that taking out key personnel and some infrastructure is sufficient to preclude Iran’s nuclear threat, that is a huge and perilous gamble. This attack may well trigger a rush to a full nuclear-armed status by Iran – and ultimately others – and risks spurring more desperate measures in the meantime. The implicit and more likely danger is that Israel will hope to draw in Washington, by persuading it that Iran is a paper tiger or baiting Tehran into attacking US targets.

At his inaugural speech before becoming president, Mr Trump claimed: “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” Yet, reportedly, he now seems unconcerned about a regional war breaking out due to Israel’s strikes. Few around the world will feel so sanguine. The current incoherence and incomprehensibility of US foreign policy fuels instability and risks drawing others towards fateful miscalculations.

ISRAEL has been warning the United Nations for more than a decade that Iran’s hardline Islamic regime was on the brink of developing a nuclear warhead.

The doom-laden rhetoric of the country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has become almost part of the global background noise. Like the attention-seeking shepherd-boy in Aesop’s fairytale, he has cried, “Wolf!” so many times that the reaction of most world leaders has been to ignore his false alarms.

The ancient fable, though, ends with a dark twist, when a real wolf attacks the sheep. And within the last few days the UN’s nuclear watchdog has finally sat up and taken notice, approving a resolution that accuses Iran of breaking its pledges not to develop nuclear weapons.

The country’s Islamic fundamentalist government has always claimed that its nuclear programme is simply about “clean energy”. But that is an obvious lie. Iran could always have simply purchased nuclear reactors from Russia and generated ample electricity – but without the plutonium fuel vital to the production of nuclear weapons being under Tehran’s control.

Not only would that have been a far cheaper option, but it could also have led to the lifting of Western sanctions. This would, of course, have been a big win for most of the country, but not its supreme leader, 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei.

He has proved more than willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of his subjects, the people who suffer most from the deprivation resulting from sanctions, by choosing instead to pour billions into nuclear laboratories buried a mile or more underground.

And if the mullahs do succeed in developing nuclear weapons, they will unleash devastation on a neighbour they have long wanted to bomb back to the Stone Age.

Nothing less than a complete abandonment of uranium enrichment in Iran is acceptable to Washington and that is what the US will continue to seek to achieve of the Iranian regime.

The Americans have started calling the Ayatollah’s bluff by suggesting that they could facilitate the enrichment of uranium to the level required for electricity production, but not to a weapons-grade level, outside Iran under strict US control through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA, however, believes Iran could already have enough enriched uranium for as many as ten warheads, an estimate based on the copious traces of radioactive heavy metal detected at unofficial bomb-making facilities, deep underground in remote regions. The Ayatollah has made a pretence of condemning nuclear weapons research for more than 20 years. In 2003 he issued a fatwa (religious edict), declaring that Islam forbids the development, production, stockpiling, or use of such bombs. But the fatwa means nothing – because Shia Muslim law also permits believers to lie in self-defence, especially when they feel they are facing persecution.

And the real truth is revealed in a joint statement by Iran’s foreign ministry and its own Atomic Energy Organisation, announcing it will replace its current centrifuges, crucial for enriching uranium, with state-of-the-art equipment at Fordow, one of its main nuclear sites.

The IAEA’s resolution marks the first time in more than 20 years that it has accused Iran of breaching its promises. This time, they too believe the wolf is preparing to attack. The obvious target is Israel, which Tehran has repeatedly threatened to destroy. In 2005, the then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared “the occupying Zionist regime must be wiped off the map” – an explicit call repeated by many others over the years in Iran’s theocratic regime.

Ten warheads of a similar destructive power to the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 would be far more than the number required to obliterate Israel. Just three might be enough to wipe it off the map – one on Tel Aviv, one on Haifa, and one on West Jerusalem.

Those three cities contain about 10 per cent of the nation’s total population. But Israel is a tiny country, and radiation fall-out from three bombs could make the entire country uninhabitable.

Israel’s famous Iron Dome missile shield, as well as its David’s Sling, Arrow and Thaad air defence systems, are not impenetrable. Last month, Houthi rebels in Yemen hit Ben Gurion airport between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with what they described as a “hypersonic” missile – manufactured and supplied by Iran.

Until just recently, many observers thought Iran’s uranium facilities were less of a real threat than they seemed, because warheads and missiles are useless without a third component: the detonator.

Now, it appears scientists at the Parchin facility south of Tehran have successfully manufactured a trigger powerful enough to set off a nuclear explosion.

All the pieces are in place. For those praying for a negotiated solution to the crisis, and not a military one, is that Iran’s launching pads are out in the open. That will at least give Western politicians some hope.

Unlike China and Russia, which can covertly prepare their nuclear missiles for launch inside concrete bunkers, the Iranians have to position and fuel their weapons on the surface – a process that can take 40 minutes. In theory, that gives the West an opportunity to launch a retaliatory strike first, using conventional or nuclear weapons. The Israelis’ strikeback missiles are kept on permanent readiness, capable of launch within three minutes.

To wait until Iran is less than an hour away from hitting Israel is high-risk policy. Until now, the West has always baulked at the alternative – to approve a knock-out strike against Fordow and Iran’s other subterranean facility, Natanz, both in inaccessible mountainous regions.

Some protagonists in Israel believe a unilateral atomic strike is justified: using a nuke to stop the nukes. But this approach is likely to fail for two reasons. Firstly, most of the energy in a nuclear blast is confined to the surface. Whole cities can be vapourised but bunkers deep underground might well survive undamaged. Secondly, a worldwide escalation in hostilities sparked by such an attack would probably be unstoppable. Russia could feel emboldened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, for example.

More likely, and more effective, would be a series of bunker-busting bombs – blasting an ever-deeper crater until the enrichment facilities are destroyed, even if they are protected by concrete a mile thick.

Tactically, could this work? There are two problems. One is logistical: how does Israel get the bombs to the target? Iran’s air defences have scarcely been tested and might easily be capable of picking missiles or warplanes out of the sky. To launch a mega-attack and fail to damage the nuclear facilities would risk conflagration and all-out war.

The other difficulty is a moral one. Crucial segments of the Iranian programme are based in or near Tehran. The entire ten million population of the capital city is being used as a human shield. Could Britain and the US stomach civilian casualties, especially if it provoked a wave of terrorist reprisals?

Without US help, Israel would not be able to obtain the bunker-busters nor the heavy bomber aircraft required to strike Iran’s nuclear boltholes. These bombers could fly from British bases in Cyprus or the Chagos Islands. This raises the danger of terrorist blowback to “very high”, but backing off means giving in to terrorism and nuclear blackmail.

Israel may well have a brilliant undercover attack planned. Ukraine’s great success smuggling drones under Operation Spider’s Web for mass attacks, deep inside Russia, might be a model. Pinpoint bombing of the entrances and ventilation shafts at Fordow or Natanz, for example, could put a uranium facility out of action for months, trapping the scientists inside to suffocate or starve.

The nature of a nuclear war is horrible and grim. Every possible outcome is terrifying as the threat of full-scale war increases.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Politics, Society

Strategic Defence Review: New face of Britain’s military

DEFENCE

IN a stark assessment, the authors of Britain’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) have said that Britain’s Armed Forces aren’t ready to fight a war against a military with similar capabilities.

The report states that our forces are better suited “to a peacetime era” and are “not currently optimised for warfare against a ‘peer’ military state”.

The externally-led SDR, written by former NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, retired general Sir Richard Barrons and Russia expert Fiona Hill, was described as the most profound change to defence in 150 years.

While it leaned heavily into new technologies, it has also recommended an increase in the size of the regular Army from 73,000 to 76,000 in the next Parliament. This follows decades of the Army shrinking from 156,000 at the end of the Cold War. The review also includes a chilling list of the potential effects of conflict on the UK’s way of life and lays bare Britain’s overseas dependencies and threats.

In the event of war, Britain would be subject to attacks on its military bases at home and abroad, long-range drone and cruise missile sorties, cyber attacks crippling national infrastructure, and disruptions to economic interests and international trade routes.

The SDR highlights that the defence medical services couldn’t cope with a mass casualty event and that the military is suffering from a recruitment crisis which means only a small number of troops could be deployed.

The document added: “The UK is entering a new era of threat and challenge. The West’s long-held military advantage is being eroded as other countries modernise and expand their armed forces at speed.” The report also reveals that 95 per cent of the UK’s data is carried by undersea cables that are vulnerable to attack and sabotage and that the UK relies on imports for 46 per cent of its food.

It stated: “Undersea pipelines and data cables are critical for sustaining daily national life. The maritime domain is increasingly vulnerable. The Royal Navy must be prepared to deter maritime incidents similar to the sabotage of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and the cutting of undersea data cables in UK and international waters.”

In the year to September 2024, the UK suffered 89 nationally significant cyber-attacks. The Navy and RAF conducted 374 escorts of Russian Federation vessels between 2020 and 2024. In that same period there were 32 launches of RAF Typhoon aircraft for immediate interception.

The report added: “Defence must prepare for a much more difficult world of heightened competition, more frequent crises and conflict that sees conventional military attacks combined with intensified sub-threshold aggression.

“The UK is already subject to daily sub-threshold attack, targeting its critical national infrastructure, testing its vulnerabilities as an open economy and global trading nation and challenges its social cohesion.

“Changes in the strategic context mean that UK defence must plan on the basis that NATO allies may be drawn into war with – or be subject to coercion by – another nuclear-armed state.”

The SDR will bring about a transformation of the Armed Forces, including the development of a so-called Integrated Force, a coming together of the separate services.

While defence chiefs are determined to meet the Prime Minister’s challenge to become “war ready”, the SDR reveals they are also expected to make savings.

The Army is expected to deliver “a ten-fold increase in lethality” – but without a significant number of regular soldiers, although the report concedes there is a “strong case for a small increase in regular numbers when funding allows”.

The SDR suggests fewer paratroopers will be trained to jump. The report calls on the RAF to become more efficient and use civilian planes when a task “does not require military capability”. The Royal Navy is expected to move towards a “cheaper” fleet. Admirals are expected to use “commercial vessels” for transportation in non-contested environments and to share logistical challenges with allies.

The UK’s £7billion combined-cost aircraft carriers are expected to become more versatile, with adaptations to ensure long-range missiles can be fired from their decks and more unmanned aircraft. Defence Secretary John Healey said: “We must move to war-fighting readiness, to avoid the huge costs that wars create. We prevent wars by being strong enough to win them.

“We will establish a new hybrid-Navy, our carriers will carry the first hybrid airwing in Europe. We will create a British Army which is ten times more lethal, with an aim of 76,000 regular soldiers in the next parliament.

“We will increase the number of cadets by 30 per cent and develop a new strategic reserve by 2030.”

The SDR has made 62 recommendations which government ministers have pledged to implement in full.

Analysis

New face of our modern military

More submarines, soldiers and drones, along with an airborne nuclear strike capability and the exploration of technologies such as lasers, AI and robotics, are among the proposals in the Strategic Defence Review.

These are the key ambitions outlined in the assessment:

Army to be “ten times more lethal”

This ambition relies on the harnessing of new technologies and weapon systems, particularly drones. Lethality is difficult to measure and the claim is strong on political rhetoric. Only a couple of months ago, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said the ambition was to double lethality by 2027 and triple it by 2030. The new Archer artillery system, the belated introduction of the Ajax vehicle and Challenger 3 tanks will increase lethality. But to what extent?

Three forces to be integrated into one

The Integrated Force, unveiled as part of the SDR, is not a merger of the Armed Forces, but they will lose much of the traditional independence as they are moulded into a centralised Integrated Force. The SDR suggested the services were “siloed”. The need for them to train together and prepare for war shoulder to shoulder was essential in the months and years ahead.

£15billion boost for nuclear warheads

Britain’s nuclear deterrent has long been in need of recapitalisation. The £15billion will pay for these weapons to be upgraded or replaced. It will also see the significant modernisation of infrastructure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, supporting more than 9,000 jobs at the Berkshire site.

Up to 12 new nuclear attack submarines

The as yet uncosted pledge to develop “up to” 12 new attack submarines has been welcomed by military observers but the first boat is not expected to enter service before the late 2030s. The submarines will support the AUKUS security alliance between the UK, Australia, and the United States, and will be used to protect the Pacific from Chinese aggression. Over the decades ahead, the boats will replace the Royal Navy’s current fleet of seven Astute-class submarines. They will be built at key sites such as BAE in Barrow-in-Furness.

Six new factories to make munitions

The SDR proposes at least six factories making munitions and energetics such as explosives and propellants for weapons.

The SDR recommends creating an “always on” munitions production capacity in the UK, allowing production to be scaled up at speed if needed. Britain’s military warehouses are bare after £5billion in weaponry and munitions was provided for Ukraine since the start of the conflict in 2022. The programme will create more than 1,000 skilled jobs, according to the assessment.

Robotics, cyber warfare, and AI

The review says AI will improve the quality and speed of decision-making and operational effectiveness for Britain’s military, its allies… and its enemies.

It should be an immediate priority to “shift towards greater use of autonomy and AI within the UK’s conventional forces”. This has shown to be transformational in Ukraine. Defence chiefs will launch a Defence AI Investment Fund by February 2026.

The report warns cyber threats will become harder to mitigate as technology evolves, with government departments, military hardware, communications, increasingly vulnerable. Hardening critical defence functions to cyber-attack is crucial. Directed Energy Weapon systems, such as the UK’s DragonFire, a world-leading laser ground to air system being developed at Porton Down, can save millions of pounds in expenditure on ordnance systems. The review also calls for the Ministry of Defence to seize the opportunities presented by technologies such as robots and lasers.

£4billion expansion of the drone force

The Government unveiled a £4billion investment package for drones and autonomous systems. Drones are dominating the conflict in Ukraine and in Russia, following the audacious Ukrainian attack on Russian airfields in Siberia just days ago.

They provide lethality at minimal financial cost and would spare the lives of British troops because they are not required to engage with the enemy at close proximity. Cheap to produce drones can be effective against “legacy” military systems worth billions of pounds and are necessary to protect and augment the UK’s manned military systems, such as aircraft, helicopters, and armoured vehicles.

Fighter jets to carry nuclear bombs

Britain is exploring the potential return of air-delivered nuclear weapons in collaboration with the United States. The US’s F-35A Lightning II is capable of carrying tactical gravity nuclear bombs.

The proposal marks the most significant shift in UK nuclear posture since the Cold War. Currently, this country’s nuclear deterrent is carried by the Royal Navy’s “bomber” submarines. The air-launched nuclear weapons would carry a much smaller payload. The lower yield B61 munitions are already integrated into US aircraft stationed on continental Europe and could be brought to Britain.

Thousands of new long-range weapons

At least 7,000 long-range weapons will be made to restock UK military warehouses and to prepare for an extended conflict against an adversary such as Russia.

Children taught value of the military

Defence chiefs will work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools, by means of a two-year series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends.

Schools and community-based cadet forces will also be expanded, with an ambition of a 30 per cent rise by 2030 with a view to the UK having 250,000 cadets, many of whom will go on to enlist in the forces.

More reservists and investment in them

To meet the challenge of engaging in a lengthy conflict, the report identified the need to boost the number of reservists.

These part-time personnel, many of whom are former regulars with operational experience, would join full-time troops on the frontline. The report identified the need to increase the size of the UK’s Active Reserve forces by at least 20 per cent “when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s”. The UK has around 25,000 Army reservists, 3,500 Royal Navy and Royal Marine reservists, and 3,200 RAF reservists. There have also been proposals to create a home guard to protect airports and power plants.

Standard