Donald Trump agreed to this plan because he had no choice. He had to back down from the genocide he threatened. But what if this “peace” is nothing more than a pause in a conflict that has not been resolved?

In this video, I examine the contradictions at the heart of this deal. The United States appears to have secured none of its strategic objectives. Iran emerges stronger, not weaker. Israel’s role is uncertain, and its compliance is far from guaranteed.

This raises a fundamental question: is this peace, or is it a retreat dressed up as diplomacy?

I also explore the wider implications — from the growing importance of the Strait of Hormuz to the shifting balance of power in the Gulf, and the weakening of US credibility on the global stage.

Markets may be pricing in certainty. But the reality is that uncertainty has increased, and the risk of renewed conflict remains very real.

This may not be the end of the war. It may be the beginning of something far more significant.

The Enlightenment gave us something extraordinary: the idea that reason, evidence, and the equal moral worth of every human being should guide how we organise society. Neoliberalism replaced that with markets. It reduced people from moral equals to economic actors, stripped public services in the name of efficiency, weakened democratic accountability, and narrowed the boundaries of political thought until Margaret Thatcher's "There Is No Alternative" became conventional wisdom rather than a political choice.

The consequences are now impossible to ignore. Careful reasoning is being replaced by crude slogans. Evidence is losing ground to belief. Nuanced debate has given way to hostility. And the backlash against neoliberalism's failures is not producing a return to Enlightenment values, it is producing the conditions for fascism: demands for loyalty over accountability, indifference to consequences, and the deliberate promotion of inequality for the benefit of an elite.

Thomas Hobbes warned us centuries ago about what happens when the social order breaks down. We are approaching that point. But as this video argues, the current path is not inevitable. Change is possible, but it requires us to recommit to evidence-based decision-making, rebuild democratic institutions, constrain markets, and put care, not profit, at the centre of politics. Can we do that still? That is the question.

Iran will claim moral victory simply by surviving as a functioning state, echoing the Viet Cong's defeat of US military power in Vietnam. That shifts the entire power dynamic in the Gulf.

Meanwhile, the USA faces a visible and humiliating strategic loss that will damage its military credibility, destabilise US domestic politics, and accelerate the decline of American global dominance.

The consequences will ripple out far beyond the Middle East.

NATO, the alliance that held Western unity together for 80 years, faces collapse as European nations begin to distance themselves from Washington.

The 80-year USA-Israel alliance is in jeopardy.

The United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF may all need to be rebuilt from scratch, just as they were in 1945.

The UK, clinging to a "special relationship" that is becoming untenable, will be left dangerously exposed without a functioning navy, an air force heavily dependent on the US, and a foreign policy with no clear direction.

Only China benefits. Its economy is insulated, its energy supplies are stable, and its relationship with Iran gives it a strategic foothold at the centre of the new world order. The Chinese curse that "may you live in interesting times" has never felt more appropriate. This is what the end of the American century looks like.

This video makes the case for a return to Smith's original insight: that care, empathy, and collective well-being must be the foundations of political economy, and not the pursuit of personal wealth at any cost. If we want an economy that works for everyone, we need to reclaim Adam Smith from those who misrepresented him.

The ideological roots of this agenda lie in neoliberal economics, shaped by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, and actively promoted today by organisations such as the Atlas Network and the Tufton Street network of think tanks. Their programme deliberately weakens social cohesion, normalises inequality and insecurity, and strips public services to the bone. The Tory government between 2010 and 2024 put this into practice as a matter of deliberate policy and Labour has done precious little to reverse it.

Economic stress fuels resentment, and the elite redirect that resentment toward scapegoats from minority ethnic groups, to women, and LGBTQ+ people, all to maintain their hold on power and wealth.

The result is the rise of authoritarian politics across the UK and beyond. It is profoundly revealing that recent polls suggest large numbers of Church of England attendees would vote for Reform, a party whose values are, in every meaningful sense, completely alien to the Christian tradition.

Easter's core command is not complicated: love your neighbour as yourself. That is not a partisan slogan. It is a universal ethical imperative shared across religions and humanitarian traditions alike. If Easter means anything, it requires us to choose renewal over division, to rebuild public services, to resist the politics of exclusion, and to name the forces that profit from our fragmentation.

What if everything you think about money is wrong? And does it matter for the UK economy if it is? Most people believe governments must tax or borrow before they can spend. That belief shapes every political debate, every austerity programme, and every argument that public services "can't be afforded." But what if that belief is simply false? In this video, I explain why modern monetary theory (MMT) is forcing a reckoning with economic orthodoxy, and why understanding how money works and how money creation actually functions is essential if we are ever to escape the trap of unnecessary austerity and constrained public investment. The parallel with Galileo is not accidental. Just as heliocentric astronomy was resisted by those with institutional power to lose, the truth about government spending and fiscal policy is resisted today by politicians, commentators, and economists who cannot afford to admit they were wrong. The cost of that resistance is paid by the rest of us: in underfunded public services, stagnant wages, and a UK economy that fails the majority. This is economics' Galileo moment. The choice is between a comfortable illusion and the truth.

Right now, a litre of petrol costs around 150p. Of that, 52.95p is fixed fuel duty and around 25p is VAT sojust over half the pump price is tax. The remaining cost is the oil itself, plus refining, distribution, and retail margins. If oil rises from $110 to $200 a barrel, which is an 82% increase, the most likely pump price is around 192p per litre, and it could hit 221p in a worst-case scenario. That could be a devastating hit to the cost of living when UK families are already struggling.

But let's be clear, this oil price crisis is not being caused by UK tax policy. Fuel duty and VAT are not the drivers of this price rise; the disruption to global oil markets is. But that means the government has a real choice because it could cut fuel duty, as other countries have already done, to stabilise prices and protect people. A cut from 53p to 30p per litre could make a material difference. On top of that, it could also look at rationing, speed limits, or other demand-reduction measures used elsewhere in the world.

The choices here are political. The question is whether the government will act.

Markets cannot solve this. When supply collapses, markets ration by income and those with money survive; those without do not. That is not a policy choice. That is a failure of government. The energy crisis and emerging food shortages demand an active UK state response.

Drawing on Lord Keynes's approach at the start of World War II, and John Kenneth Galbraith's wartime work in the United States, this video argues that the only credible response to this supply chain crisis is a combination of government-led rationing and a serious redesign of the tax system.

That means rationing oil, aviation fuel, heating oil, and food.

It means equalising capital gains and income tax rates, extending national insurance to investment incomes, and adding VAT to financial services.

It means government intervention in the economy at a scale not seen since the 1940s.

The alternative is leaving resource allocation to the market, which will transfer wealth upward, destroy social cohesion, and risk public unrest. That is not how to manage a war economy. That is a policy choice to let the poor bear the cost of a crisis they did not create.