WWI & the Lusitania


Posted originally on Jun 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

New York Times RMS Lusitania

COMMENT: Marty,

After reading AJP Taylor’s History of WW1 (an esteemed English historian), I realized that your statement about the Lusitania bringing the USA into WW1 is rather inaccurate: the Lusitania was sunk in May 1915; USA entered WW1 in April 1917, essentially two years later.

The real impetus was the unrestricted submarine warfare declared by Germany, which targeted US corporate profits that impelled the US to declare war on Germany, as Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917. Initially, this was a great success for Germany, but through the introduction of convoys, it failed dramatically, especially as it instigated the US ago enter WW1.

Hope you’re doing well,

LB

German Lusitania_warning

REPLY: In all analyses, you can never reduce anything to a single cause and effect. The sinking of the RMS Lusitania on May 7th, 1915, by a German U-boat was a major event during World War I, but it did not immediately cause the U.S. to enter the war. However, it significantly turned American public opinion against Germany and contributed to the U.S. eventually joining the conflict in 1917. Claiming that it was the unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in 1917 that instigated the war downplays the role of the Lusitania and the likelihood of those in the Deep State who sought war back then, counter to President Wilson’s neutrality position.

The Lusitania was a British passenger ship carrying 128 Americans (out of 1,198 total deaths). The attack provoked outrage in the U.S., but President Woodrow Wilson initially sought a diplomatic response rather than war. Germany argued the ship was carrying munitions (which was true, though it was primarily a passenger liner). The US was using civilians as cover for arms transfer to Britain when they pretended to be neutral. As shown here, the Germans even took an advertisement in the NY newspaper warning people not to sail on the Lusitania. Following international pressure, Germany temporarily halted unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915 to avoid further provoking the U.S.

Zimmermann Telegram & Final Push to War (1917):

The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917 (sinking U.S. ships) and the Zimmermann Telegram (a secret German proposal for Mexico to ally against the U.S.) were the final triggers for U.S. entry into WWI in April 1917.

The Lusitania was a significant factor in shifting U.S. opinion against Germany because it was carrying civilians. Still, it was not the sole reason for the United States’ entry into the war. The combination of continued submarine attacks and the Zimmermann Telegram ultimately led to the U.S. declaring war in 1917.

Wilson Woodrow

My main point about the Lusitania is that it was a Neocon quasi-false flag. After years of denying the German claims, the government lied as always to get us into every war. The CIA and Pentagon did not exist during the Lusitania incident. The relevant U.S. agencies were the State, Navy, and War Departments. These departments, particularly the State Department under William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), were aware of and concerned about the British practice of carrying munitions on passenger ships.

Wilsons Cabinet

The two members of Wilson’s Cabinet who were in a position over the question of war were the Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels (1862-1948), who was the last member of the cabinet to advocate for war in 1917, and the Secretary of War, Lindley Garrison (1764-1932), the Neocon who was replaced after the Lusitania. There is no evidence that Secretary of War Lindley Garrison authorized or had any direct involvement in the munitions shipment aboard the Lusitania. His department (War) was responsible for the Army, not naval shipping or maritime commerce.

The decision to load munitions on passenger liners like the Lusitania was a British Admiralty policy aimed at utilizing fast liners for vital war supplies while maintaining passenger service to generate revenue and improve public perception, thereby covering up their shipments. US covert involvement was limited to customs oversight and the controversial policy of allowing passengers on ships carrying munitions.

Garrison was a strong advocate for military preparedness before and after the sinking of the Lusitania. He advocated for building up the U.S. Army and National Guard to be ready for potential threats. His “Preparedness Movement” gained momentum after the Lusitania, much like Homeland Security was born from the WTC 911 attack.  While Wilson pushed for neutrality and diplomatic responses even after the sinking, Garrison’s Neocon views clashed with Wilson and congressional leaders who felt his plans were too ambitious or militaristic. Garrison was compelled to resign in February 1916 primarily over disagreements with Wilson and Congress regarding the scale and control of military expansion. He had wanted a standing army of 140,000, which he called the Continental Army Plan, vs. strengthening the National Guard. The sinking of the Lusitania hardened attitudes towards Germany among many Americans.

While the sinking of the Lusitania caused massive outrage, shifted public opinion significantly against Germany, and led to demands for a strong diplomatic or even military response, it set in motion the calls to enter war and blamed the Germans as they hid the covert use of civilians to disguise the US violating its pretended neutrality position. By itself, it was not the final act to compel the US to enter the war. Secretary of War Garrison was pushing for a standing army. Garrison advocated for intervention using military force overseas, clashing with Wilson. This surfaced regarding Mexico. Garrison advocated for American intervention in the Mexican Revolution to restore order. In 1916, Garrison supported a plan for expanding the US military, which he referred to as the Continental Army Plan. Garrison’s proposal would establish a standing army of 140,000 and a national, volunteer reserve force of 400,000 men. Garrison encountered opposition from those who believed his plan went too far in establishing a large standing army. Allies in Congress convinced Wilson to back an alternative strategy which emphasized not Garrison’s national volunteer force, but a continued role for the states’ National Guard. Garrison resigned in February 1916 over these differences. Garrison’s public stance was that of a Neocon. He left office nearly a full year before the US actually declared war in April 1917.

While the U.S. government publicly downplayed the munitions cargo initially to maintain moral outrage against Germany, there’s no credible evidence, as always, that U.S. departments lied to President Wilson about its existence. Secretary Bryan claimed he actively warned Wilson because he believed munitions were present and made the ship a target. With the Germans taking out newspaper advertisements warning against sailing on the Lusitania, it is hard to imagine that there were no conversations, even at the Presidential level.

There was no specific Senate or House investigation focused solely on whether President Woodrow Wilson knew about the munitions aboard the RMS Lusitania before it was sunk in 1915. However, the issue was examined within broader contexts by other official U.S. bodies and touched upon in congressional hearings. Just as the investigations into whether FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, no such committee will EVER admit the wrongdoing by the President that took the country into war.

Congress did not even launch a formal investigation specifically targeting Wilson’s foreknowledge of the Lusitania’s cargo. While there was significant public debate and congressional interest in the sinking and its role in pushing the U.S. toward war, no committee was empaneled with the primary purpose of investigating the President’s prior awareness of the munitions. They too, conspired to cover up the foreknowledge.

Mayer Julius Marshuetz Titanic Lusitania

The Mayer Arbitration (1915) was formed shortly after the sinking. The U.S. government initiated an investigation led by federal judge Julius Mayer, who was from the Second Circuit in New York City. He had presided over cases dealing with the Titanic. While primarily focused on establishing facts for potential legal claims against Germany, the investigation confirmed the Lusitania was carrying small-arms ammunition, claiming that they were non-explosive rifle cartridges and artillery shell casings (shrapnel shells without explosive charges). This information became part of the official record, meaning the government (including the administration) knew about the munitions after the sinking, but the investigation didn’t address what Wilson knew beforehand.

WILSON Woodrow

In the US, there were 67 claims for compensation filed against Cunard, which were all heard together in 1918 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Julius Mayer as well. In the Titanic case, he had ruled in favour of the shipping company. Mayer had a reputation for being pro-government in matters of national interest. The two sides agreed before the jury trial that no question would be raised regarding whether Lusitania had been armed or carrying troops or ammunition as part of the cover-up. Evidence produced by the British was presented only behind closed doors. The Defence of the Realm Act was invoked to protect British witnesses, ensuring that the truth would not be heard.

The decision was rendered on August 23rd, 1918, and Mayer’s judgement was that “the cause of the sinking was the illegal act of the Imperial German Government”, that two torpedoes had been involved, that the captain had acted properly, and emergency procedures had been up to the standard then expected. He ruled that further claims for compensation should be addressed to the German government (which eventually paid $2.5 million in 1925).

 After WWI, this U.S.-German commission handled claims arising from the war, including those related to the Lusitania. Its findings (1923) explicitly stated that the presence of non-explosive munitions did not deprive the Lusitania’s passengers of their neutral rights or justify the attack without warning. Crucially, it found no evidence that the ship carried high explosives (like the German government claimed). Again, this established the nature of the cargo officially but didn’t investigate Wilson’s prior knowledge.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings in 1916 on broader issues of preparedness and neutrality, leading up to the war. While the Lusitania was discussed, the focus was not on Wilson’s foreknowledge of its specific cargo. Critics of the administration questioned why Americans were allowed to travel on belligerent ships carrying contraband. Still, the hearings did not yield evidence or conclusions regarding Wilson’s personal knowledge before May 7, 1915.

Lusitania on its side

Only during the 1030s, the Senate Special Committee Investigating the Munitions Industry (Nye Committee) investigated the arms industry and its influence on U.S. entry into World War I. It extensively documented the shipment of war materials (including those on the Lusitania) by U.S. companies to the Allies, often facilitated by the State Department despite U.S. neutrality. While it highlighted Wilson’s administration’s general awareness of and involvement in the arms trade with the Allies, it did not specifically focus on whether Wilson knew the Lusitania specifically carried munitions on that voyage before it sailed.

1981 Lusitania_divers_warned_of_danger_from_war_munitions

The U.S. government, particularly the State Department and Customs officials, was generally aware that British liners, such as the Lusitania, sometimes carried small arms and non-explosive munitions under the guise of passenger service, exploiting loopholes in neutrality rules. The government did everything it could to claim that President Wilson had no credible evidence that he received specific, advance warning about the exact nature and quantity of the munitions loaded onto the Lusitania for its final voyage before it sailed from New York. This was even though the German Embassy in Washington did place newspaper ads warning passengers that ships flying the British flag in the war zone were subject to destruction, but this was a general warning, not specific intelligence about the Lusitania’s cargo.

Wilson’s public stance after the sinking focused relentlessly on the illegality of attacking a passenger vessel without warning and the loss of civilian life, deliberately downplaying the munitions issue to maintain the moral high ground against Germany. While the fact that the Lusitania carried munitions was established by U.S. investigations after the sinking, and the broader policy of allowing munitions shipments to the Allies was controversial and later scrutinized (notably by the Nye Committee), there was never a dedicated Senate or House investigation specifically targeting President Wilson’s personal foreknowledge of the Lusitania’s cargo before its fateful voyage. Historians generally agree he likely knew such ships could carry contraband, but lacked specific, timely intelligence about the Lusitania’s final manifest.

Lusitania Wilson Calm 5 11 15

Wilson was acutely aware of the deep public divisions and his own desire to avoid war if possible. He pursued a diplomatic path. His demands to Germany were extreme, pushing the US and Germany to the brink of war. Germany, wanting to avoid US entry at that time, eventually offered concessions and temporarily scaled back unrestricted submarine warfare (though it resumed in 1917). It is UNLIKELY that Wilson deliberately sought a false flag to enter World War I. Nevertheless, nobody wanted to look too closely at the actors in the State Department and the War Department who were eager to take the US into war against Germany.

Wilson was president between March 4th, 1913, and March 4th, 1921. Newton D. Baker (1871-1937), who had played an essential role in Woodrow Wilson’s nomination in the Democratic National Convention of 1912, was appointed Secretary of War by President Wilson, replacing Garrison. He remained in the Cabinet to the end of Wilson’s term of office. Although he was, as he himself said, so much of a pacifist that “he would fight for peace,” he soon submitted to Congress a plan for universal military conscription. He efficiently presided over the mobilization of more than four million men during World War I.

The press was divided back then and not entirely under the control of the Neocons, as they are today, pushing for World War III. Congress, while angry, largely followed President Wilson’s lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution first. The event marked a significant step towards war, erasing the pretense of neutrality and laying the groundwork for intervention. However, the actual, decisive push for war came nearly two years later, primarily driven by the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmermann Telegram in early 1917.

A Note of Caution – Kevin O’Leary Talks About U.S-Canada Trade With a Massive Blind Spot


Posted originally on CTH on June 28, 2025 | Sundance 

CTH has continually said that almost no one in Canada has any grasp of what is about to happen within their economy, specifically because only a handful of people realize what President Trump intends to do.

This interview with Kevin O’Leary is a case study in what I have been warning about.  If you have any financial affiliation with O’Leary Ventures or ancillary investments that touch on a dependency therein, be forewarned.

O’Leary is only a few months away from exploding against President Trump in a manner that will make the Elon Musk statements about Epstein and Trump seem small by comparison.  As yet another Canadian financial voice that just doesn’t get it, O’Leary has no idea the USMCA is about to end. And when it does, oh boy… he will go bananas.

.

[BACKGOUND STORY]

HOBBS: “The Mainstream Media In Ireland Is The North Korea Of Europe.”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: June 28, 2025, at 2:00 pm EST

Rep. MTG: “Republicans CANNOT Pass Another Bloated Bill That Betrays The Agenda Americans Voted For”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: June 27, 2025, at 2:00 pm EST

Interview: Terrifying Iran War Prediction (PREPARE FOR THE WORST)


Posted  originally on Jun 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

The NATO Summit


Posted originally on Jun 27, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

NATO North Atlantic Terror Organization

A source from inside the NATO summit reported that Trump has correctly stated that Article 5 is voluntary, not a binding commitment. He has said that the US will sell and supply weapons, intelligence, and support to NATO and NATO members if a NATO member is attacked by other countries that are not NATO members. That would not include Turkey vs Greece – two NATO members. However, the US itself will not get involved in the actual fighting with boots on the ground. This is what I have been told by some key people close to Trump, so this is from two directions.

As far as Europe’s desire for war against Russia, Trump stated that the US will not get involved on the ground, and they will not stay engaged in prolonged peacemaking indefinitely. He did not rule out supporting the UK’s coalition to lead Europe into war. However, they seem to think that they have two years to prepare and expect World War III by 2027. They realize that this is now a drone war, and they need 2 years to prepare. Everyone is ready for conscription, including Canada, and that includes Turkey, which has the largest standing army in NATO after the US. I had that same idea from the Vienna Peace Conference. What clearly surfaced was that all members have adopted a war footing. There were no pacifists.

Asd far as Israel vs Iran, the consensus seems to be following the Neocon view that the Iranian regime will implode. As always, there is no consideration for what that would look like, and they also appear to fail to comprehend that this is a religious war. The assassination of the Supreme Leader would turn him into a Martyr, and would have untold consequences.

Sooner rather than later

The summit was meant to be mainly about Ukraine and Russia, but was sidetracked heavily by Israel and Iran. Still, with Russia and China supporting Iran, they did not seem even to consider how quickly WW3 could unfold. They are unprepared for war. The question becomes, why should an enemy wait for them to arm themselves? The time to strike would be sooner rather than later.

Dollar – Debt- War & Crypto


Posted originally on Jun 26, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Fake News Headline

Bloomberg and the other Fake News outlets that hate Trump and want more EQUALITY, following the very same philosophies as Stalin imposed in Russia. All we hear is the danger of wealth disparity. When there is no wealth disparity because people are not allowed to invent or become rich, you get economic stagnation and widespread poverty. But these FAKE NEWS outlets constantly push the same nonsense over and over again. The de-dollarization is all because of Trump, so we better overthrow Trump and bring in Kamala so the Neocons can really help the economy with uncontrolled, endless war spending and a reduction of the population to reduce government obligations.

BRICS De Dollarization

While the FAKE NEWS and the perpetual GOLD-ONLY crowd promote the de-dollarization with BRICS, that means in time of war, you are buying Chinese yuan, Russian rubles, and the country most in debt – Brazil. Their perpetual promotion of BRICS and even the latest absurd forecast for Bitcoin at $21,000 by 2046 suggests that these individuals appear to know little about the world economy, the business cycle, or war. They refuse to consider two critical factors: (1) the sovereign debt crisis, and (2) the war.

Interest Expenditures as % of GDP (Top 30 Economies):

  1. United States: 1.9%
  2. China: 1.2%
  3. Japan: 2.0% (despite high debt, low rates keep payments manageable)
  4. Germany: 0.8%
  5. India: 3.3%
  6. United Kingdom: 3.5%
  7. France: 1.7%
  8. Italy: 3.9%
  9. Brazil8.5% (highest among major economies)
  10. Canada: 1.4%

The sovereign debt crisis is brewing, but outside the USA FIRST!!!! Canada’s interest expenditures are on track to exceed healthcare expenditures. While people continue to discuss the US debt as a reason for de-dollarization, consider the BRICS; they are paying more in interest as a percentage of GDP than the US, and Brazil is the worst. Britain is in a precarious state, comparable to Italy, and Starmer’s policies are pushing the UK over the edge. Germany has just abandoned austerity and is now going to inflate to prepare for war. The Sovereign Debt Crisis is UNSUSTAINABLE, but it will break FIRST outside the USA. The United States will be the last standing.

6 25 25 NATO_allies_agree to 5

NATO to Accelerate Sovereign Debt Crisis

As the pressure on funding the war, NATO wants 5% of GDP for its Neocon War objectives. They are handing Ukraine another $40 billion that goes into the pockets of untold politicians and no doubt kickbacks even into NATO. This 5% is greater than the interest expenditures. NATO will not only take us into World War III, but they are also accelerating the Sovereign Debt Crisis.

This is NOT positive for the de-dollarization BS. Europe is highly socialistic, and this shift from social spending to war will lead to more civil unrest. NATO is a warmongering NEOCON retirement home. They have no interest in peace, for that would make them redundant. The only way they can keep their salaries and pensions is to insist on endless wars.

US GDP Q 5 1 25
EU_GDP Q 5 1 25
Canada_GDP Q 5 1 25 1

Just compare the economic growth rate of the United States to the exceptionally socialistic policies of Europe. There is no comparison. But the dollar is trash against everything else? When the bullets start to fly, capital controls will be imposed in the EU, and capital will be trapped. Compare even the GDP of Canada to that of the EU. Carney wants to join Europe.

We are looking at the pressure to raise taxes beyond income. In Australia, some leftists actually proposed that it is unjust for one person to inherit a fortune and another not to. They argued that upon death, everything should be given to the government in the name of “Fairness” and “Equality,” which is their favorite word. In Canada, discussions have been held about proposing a tax on unrealized capital gains on property. The argument is that this was like gambling. They earned this money by mere chance. Such proposals would absolutely destroy society and the economy. They are not likely. However, these extreme examples demonstrate how the LEFT cannot live in peace and always want to take what others have because they have more than they do.

Bitcon Q Tech 6 25 25

As for the absurd forecast that Bitcoin will reach $21,000 by 2046, that is the same emotional analysis used in discussions about climate change. Sorry, 2025 may be a significant high point. With war on the horizon, Bitcoin has been a great vehicle for transferring money from one country to another. It is not being bought as a fantastic store of wealth. In war, take out the power grid and watch what happens. I can attest to being in Florida, when a hurricane takes down the power, not even a credit card will work – CASH ONLY!

World Economic Forum Aims to Repair Relations with Schwab


Posted originally on Jun 26, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Schwab Klaus World Reset

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab stepped down from his chairman position at the organization on April 20, 2025, amid accusations of fraud. Our computer had forecast that the WEF would enter a declining trend with the 2024 ECM turning point. This staged coup happened about 37 years after the first Davos meeting (8.6 x 4.3). From our model’s perspective, this was right on time. Now, Schwab and the WEF are working to repair ties.

An anonymous whistleblower claimed that Klaus Schwab and his wife collaborated with USAID to steal tens of millions in funding. The whistleblower has always been anonymous, and it remains very suspicious that the very organization he created would turn on him after receiving an anonymous letter that they admitted may not have been credible. Something like this would never be acceptable in any court of law, especially if it’s anonymous. It would be the worst or the worst hearsay, where you cannot even point to who made the allegation.

Back in April, the WEF said its board unanimously supported the decision to initiate an independent investigation “following a whistleblower letter containing allegations against former Chairman Klaus Schwab. This decision was made after consultation with external legal counsel.”

Now, the WEF is attempting to repair its relationship with its founder ahead of the next Davos meeting. Bloomberg reported that the WEF would like to “normalize their relationship [with Klaus Schwab] in order to safeguard the forum and the legacy of the founder.”

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe has replaced Schwab for the time being, but is less of a commanding force. Schwab’s sudden departure has caused instability in the organization and its ongoing mission. Board members are concerned that support for the organization will begin to decline as this situation remains unresolved.

Davos is the Problem

The World Economic Forum’s annual revenue in 2024 was 440 million francs ($543 million), with the majority of proceeds coming from member companies and fees. Yet, the number of people registered to attend the 2025 Davos event is on par if not slightly exceeding the number of participants from the year prior.

WEF Schwab You Will Own Nothing

Schwab’s departure has damaged the Davos brand. There is a possibility that the organization is attempted to rebrand after Agenda 2030 failed. The WEF attempted to move away from its zero tolerance stance on ESG initiatives after they became widely unpopular among the big industry players and shifting governments. The brand has attempted to integrate the importance of digital transformation and AI to remain relevant as the tech gurus grow in power and popularity. Those who are familiar with Klaus Schwab know the phrase, “You will own nothing and be happy.” These words have been widely unpopular and caused a type of sinister chaos to surround the brand that was once respected as the high-brow institution of globalist elites.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde was slated to replace Schwab in 2027 when her term ends, and all reports claimed that he was prepared to remain in the chairman role for an additional two years to ensure Lagarde could take his place. What changed seemingly overnight that would cause the organization to discard Schwab before he was due to retire?

Schwab denies any misconduct and filed lawsuits against the whistleblowers, calling the accusations “calumnious” and “unfounded.” He believes “character assassination” was the premise of the claims.

WEC 2020 Arm v Schwab

I am no fan of Klaus Schwab, as everyone knows. I disagree with his theories from start to finish. Nevertheless, something doesn’t smell right here. This appears to be an internal coup, perhaps to distract attention from the question of alleged funds for the WEF from USAID, or to try to salvage the failed Agenda 2030. Perhaps they will claim that no misconduct had occurred since DOGE did not raise concerns or there is a possibility that those behind the internal coup are concerned that Schwab’s counter lawsuit could uncover new corruption. The investigation into Schwab has not concluded, but after only three months, the WEF would like to wrap it up. It appears that the WEF does not want to welcome Schwab back; rather, they would like to ensure an amicable resolution to maintain both the brand’s reputation as well as the founder’s.

Auto Pen Scandal Thickens


Posted originally on Jun 26, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Biden Signing Executive Orders

The House Oversight Committee has been investigating the autopen scandal under Joe Biden’s opaque presidency. Who was authorizing legislation of the president’s behalf? Neera Tanden, the former director of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, testified that she received authorization to direct autopen signatures.

Tanden admitted that she did not know who was providing final clearance. In fact, she said she had very limited interaction with Joe Biden directly and never received confirmation on who was providing the final approval to use the automatic signature tool. Members of Biden’s inner circle intercepted memos prior to approval and sent them back to Tanden. Who was at the helm of the decision-making process?

autopen

“I just spoke with the House Oversight Committee, Majority and Minority Council. I answered every question, was pleased to discuss my public service and it was a thorough process. And I’m glad I answered everyone’s question,” Tanden told reporters after a five-hour interrogation. She insists that there was no attempt to hide Biden’s mental health, and in fact, his mental health was not largely discussed.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor is due to appear before the committee. O’Connor, Biden’s personal family friend, was responsible for affirming that Joe Biden was mentally “fit for duty.” Dr. O’Connor claimed Joe Biden was a “healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.” Arthritis and sleep apnea were his only cited medical issues. The validity of his claims came into question when Biden revealed he had suffered from late-stage prostate cancer, a condition that would have been nearly impossible for his personal physician to miss during examinations. Every specialist has affirmed that Joe Biden undoubtedly has had cancer for years, with most stating it takes nine to 10 years for someone to develop this form of aggressive cancer.

They hid Biden’s physical and mental health from the American public. Someone in his inner circle was providing clearance and using Joe Biden’s signature without the approval of the chosen president, completely obliterating any resemblance of a democracy. Jill Biden and others are also set to testify in what may be one of the most disgraceful cover-ups in American history.

Britain Warns Its People Prepare for War


Posted originally on Jun 25, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Britain Big Ben Flag

The UK government has warned that the nation must “actively prepare for the possibility of the UK coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario”, following a tense 12-day war between Iran and Israel, which threatened to spill over at any moment. The UK has also acknowledged, as has the US Department of Homeland Security, that domestic terrorism is likely because of the Iran-Israel War, but also war with Russia. The UK government said that “confrontation with those who are threatening security,” with Russia’s war in Ukraine described as “the most obvious and pressing example of this.” They added “Iranian hostile activity on British soil” is to be expected and that they will attempt to disrupt critical supply lines and energy infrastructure.