Reform and the War

Some notes

In 2017, Nigel Farage, alone among the British right, condemned Trump’s bombing of Syria. This led to Farage being sidelined in Washington D.C for several years. It was a genuine sacrifice on the part of a careeristic and ambitious man. It reflects, in all likelihood, where his heart really stands on the issue. Rupert Lowe, Sargon of Akkad, Tommy Robinson and the late Pete Whittle made no such sacrifice.

I can find absolutely no grounds excepting spite for the decision of the Israeli-American coalition to bomb a girls school in Iran, with absolutely zero military value, killing 30 students. Even if it was being used as a ‘human shield’ – so what? Sometimes human shields exist for a reason and sometimes it is your job to use discretion. You never hear of any actual soldiers being caught up in the destruction of these human shields. Violently ending 30, innocent young lives because it might mildly inconvenience the logistics of an enemy army is plainly disproportionate. The thought of a classroom of children who read Faridudin and Rumi being forced to suffer horribly, the barefaced lies which followed not even affording the victims the basic courtesy of shame … I find this all leaves a bad taste.

It is true that Israel wants America to go to war with Iran and perceives itself as benefiting from it but this does not mean the Israeli lobby are the sole drivers. Like many ultra-nationalist regimes, the Likudniks are not necessarily good judges of their own national interest; their desire to demolish every vaguely independent government in their region is not grounded on any rational strategy, it is a spasm of paranoia to compensate for the fact they are unable to defeat the two groups with whom Israel is actually at war: Hamas and the Yemeni Zaydis.

What, then, is the cause of the war? It is the same reason America wants Europe to start paying for NATO. The basic strategy of ‘Trumpism’ is for America to reduce the ability of regional actors to short the petrodollar by gold, and other strategic resources, by introducing a new demand for their currency through tariffs. America is now a net oil exporter and so it benefits from generally screwing around with global oil bottlenecks. Destabilising the Gulf of Hormuz means China has to buy more gold and Europe more overpriced Texan slop courtesy of our genius Whitehall policy bods. The argument proffered by some, that Britain has some kind of ‘national interest’ in Iran is true insofar as we are interested in Iran defending itself against random attacks like this. At least, that is, if you calculate our national interest by quantifiable metrics which apply to all of the population like the cost of living. The idea that Iran, on getting nuclear weapons, would immediately attack Israel is as absurd as the idea that Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to annex the entire country up to the Polish border.

Britain’s policy in this world has to be, before even determining what it does abroad, building energy independence at home through nuclear power. Otherwise, everything we say is basically oinking. It is irrelevant. Britain (arguably, I’m not convinced) benefited from the two Gulf Wars because when oil prices rose, fat Americans in SUVs were forced to pay the Saudis and the Saudis, in turn, parked their wealth in London hedge funds who brought the mortgages of the fat Americans and sold them to a German called Rudolf and a Spaniard called Montego. These days, the people who work at those hedge funds are the ones who pay the Americans to keep the lights on and the Saudis dump their money in NEOM and crypto. This is, even if humanitarian and nationalist arguments prove unconvincing, the reason ‘Neoconservatism’ is wrong in Britain: it is LARPing. The conditions of the world are simply not what they were in the 2000s. The deep state has decided American Empire is going to benefit America alone and not German manufacturers or City bankers. Our future lies in automation, remigration, embryo tailoring and nuclear power.

Reform U.K gains very little from adopting an aggressively pro-interventionist line. Every time the Right has failed electorally, it has been because it has started a foreign war. Leftism is always unpopular, whether it is called Politically Correct or Woke or Multiculturalism, unless it is tied to a heroic anti-war movement as in the late 2000s where it brought Woke back from its late 90s recession. There is a vocal anti-Islam contingent on X who get excited by this kind of stuff but I simply do not believe they are an important demographic of voters, they certainly won’t be voting Labour or Tory on those grounds alone. The idea that MAGA will refuse to talk to Nigel Farage if he simply doesn’t comment on this war does not seem very credible. Donald Trump is friendly with Keir Starmer, who has actively undermined him; this sort of behaviour, rather, suggests sycophancy which Trump does not respond well to. At the very least, be silent.

If Elon Musk does give money to Restore Britain, it will almost certainly be conditioned on Tommy Robinson playing some sort of formal role in the party from which he will rapidly become de facto leader. For whatever reason, Americans are convinced this man is Britain’s equivalent of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Tommy is far more popular in Washington than Lowe himself, let alone his spurious backroom boys and, having attacked Farage for wisely keeping him at a distance, they will have no grounds to stop him joining Restore. He will bring his own team of loyalists and bot-farms with him who have worked with him for several decades as well as hundreds of thousands of followers. Tommy will, with the skill of a man who has finessed hundreds of far-right movements, effortlessly outmaneuvre the cowboys and ensure that Restore adopts the brand of politics he has pushed his whole life, both because he is paid for it and because, in all likelihood, he believes it is true: neoconservative civic nationalism.

I suspect some of the more intelligent cowboys will take Tommy’s side and purge the ‘Nazis’ with Catholicism as the rhetorical justification thereof, much as Nick Fuentes did the same thing to ‘The Daily Shoah’: saddling Restore with an explicitly religious domestic policy as fallout. That Rupert Lowe himself is far closer to Tommy when he isn’t being managed, like Joe Biden, via the autopen, makes this all the more likely.

Restore Britain is a Conservative Party op. It is irrelevant to debate their ‘policies’ with fat internet Americans because none of these policies will be implemented. All of their current staff are drawn from a think-tank with close ties to the Conservative Party, several of whom have written pieces explicitly advocating for a ‘reformed’ Conservative Party as a better alternative to Reform in 2023-4. Conservative party staffers are cited in their deportation papers almost verbatim. It is a Mathematical certainty that if Restore Britain polls at 5% nationally on election day: Reform will enter a coalition with the Conservatives.

For this reason, it cannot be laughed away as an irrelevance. Reform have to realise, as much as it may annoy the NatCon contingent, that they have to appeal to the young male, online demographic as much as the BBC. Remaining silent on foreign affairs is a low cost way to do this, the British left-wing media is not going to upset their own base by demanding Nigel Farage commit to an invasion of Iran. Senior party figures openly expressed scepticism about the Ukraine war in August 2025, and Nigel Farage has endorsed revisionist histories of the World War on national television, so it is unwise and illogical for Reform to punish more junior people when they say the same thing. Farage adequately handled allegations of treason back in October 2025 when he simply said that he’d ‘shoot down Russian planes if they invaded British air-space’; this is attention-grabbing but doesn’t actually compromise an anti-interventionist posistion. This sort of thing should be ‘the line’ rather than conformism to SW1.