Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 5 August 2025. © Richard Kemp

We have all seen pictures and videos of large-scale destruction in Gaza since the war began. The level of devastation has again hit the headlines after photos were taken from above by journalists on board the recent Jordanian humanitarian air-drops. I’ve seen it from the ground myself and the demolition is indeed truly horrifying; in places there is nothing other than piles of rubble where buildings once stood, as far as the eye can see. But this ruination should be no surprise to those who understand the way Hamas turned the whole of Gaza into a military redoubt disguised as a civilian population centre.

If you see pictures following any urban battle you will observe widespread destruction of buildings after opposing forces have fought a bloody fight to gain dominance. If there is greater devastation in Gaza than on some other battlegrounds, it can be understood by Hamas’s contemptible way of fighting. First, the tunnel network. Tunnels have featured in armed combat for hundreds of years. But nothing before has come close to Hamas’s utilisation of the 400 miles of tunnels it dug over 16 years as its primary military infrastructure, shielded beneath populated areas. The inter-connected network includes tunnels just beneath the surface and down to a depth of more than 200 feet. They are used for battle manoeuvre, weapons storage, command posts and living quarters.

The IDF estimates that Hamas excavated over 5,000 shafts to enter and leave the tunnels. Many of these were in ordinary houses, hospitals, schools, mosques and other buildings. To destroy tunnels or deny terrorists their use, it has often been necessary to blow up their exits and entrances. Many tunnel entrances have been booby-trapped with explosives, as have other sections of the tunnels, often concealed in the walls. Many IDF soldiers have been killed by them while entering or fighting through the tunnels.

As well as the tunnels, vast numbers of buildings of all types in Gaza have been used by Hamas as arms dumps, including in houses and apartments. In some areas every house, every other house or every third house contains weapons and explosives. I have seen boxes of grenades beneath children’s beds, rocket launchers in kitchen cupboards and rifles stashed underneath piles of clothing. So rather than blow up the buildings, why can the IDF not simply raid the houses and seize the weapons? Because it is estimated that some 40 per cent of buildings in Gaza were also booby-trapped to kill soldiers doing exactly that, and quite a few have died. The same applies to troops entering buildings to deal with terrorists within.

The IDF reports that of the total of 250,000 structures in Gaza, some 100,000 have been rigged with explosives. Many of these booby-traps are covered by covert cameras so they can be remotely detonated when the troops approach. An IDF soldier’s life is worth no less than anyone else’s, and destruction of a building is preferable to unnecessary death. Back in the 1980s, in Belfast during the Troubles, we discovered a house that was similarly booby-trapped by the IRA, with multiple concealed devices intended to kill soldiers and police. In that case, we also decided, rather than risk the lives of our bomb disposal experts, we would use explosives to do the job.

On top of all this, sometimes IDF precision strikes against a specific building have triggered secondary blasts as the shock-waves radiate outward and detonate Hamas explosive and missile stores, bringing down adjacent buildings as well. In other cases, an attack against a section of tunnel causes more extensive collapse, undermining the foundations of buildings above.

Many don’t want to accept that all of this devastation is by Hamas’s deliberate design. They transformed Gaza into an engine of war, harnessing the entire population, every building, every inch of land, along with much of the vast quantity of international aid poured in to help their people. Just as they blame Israel for the civilian death and hunger they themselves brought about, they also blame Israel for the physical destruction. They know this tactic works only too well, bringing international condemnation of Israel from governments, international bodies, human rights groups and the media. Those who are naive enough to walk into their trap simply validate Hamas’s horrific methods and ensure that, given the chance, they will be used repeatedly in the future.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 3 August 2025. © Richard Kemp

Despite calls from the Arab League to disarm, Hamas says it refuses to do so until an independent Palestinian state is established. By that the terrorist group means it will never disarm, because it knows that no Palestinian state will ever be established. Certainly not the state they envisage, which is a far cry from the two-state solution that Starmer, Macron and Carney seem to have in mind. Hamas want a one-state solution, an Islamic State encompassing the entirety of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Hence their slogan ‘from the river to the sea’, mouthed incessantly on university campuses and the streets of our cities by uncomprehending hordes. Hamas’s founding charter demands the annihilation of Israel and the death of Jews everywhere. Despite a cosmetic ‘revision’ and English language statements made to fool Westerners, this has never been repudiated and remains their unwavering goal.

The leadership of Hamas are vicious, bloodthirsty terrorists, many of them multi millionaires enriched by decades stealing aid meant for the people of Gaza. But they are far from being fools. They understand that Israel will never surrender to them and they will never have the military power to drive the Israelis out. Their best shot was October 7 in 2023, which was supposed to be supported by an invasion by Hezbollah from the north and backed by rocket fire from Iran’s other ‘ring of fire’ terrorist proxies. They murdered, raped, tortured, kidnapped and burned but failed to achieve what they intended.

Instead their actions drove Gaza to ruin and decimated their own fighting strength. But they will fight on fanatically for as long as they are physically able to do so. Hamas is a miniature version of al-Qaeda. Like Hamas, Bin Laden sought an Islamic caliphate, but on a global scale. And like Hamas, he didn’t expect to achieve it in his life-time or even for generations. He saw his role as killing, destruction and economic damage. The purpose was to demoralise the West and ‘apostate’ Muslim regimes, creating strife and division around the world until eventually the caliphate would be established. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 19 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

The Foreign Office’s exposure and sanctioning of Russian individuals and organisations working against the UK demonstrates that we are a prime focus for Putin’s political warfare, which is the use of all means other than armed conflict to achieve the state’s objectives. Russia’s targets are worldwide, but it is obvious that Britain is a priority given our leading role in supporting Ukraine. Indeed, some have suggested that the UK is the number one target behind Ukraine, even above the US, as Putin still hopes to lure Trump away from giving his full backing to Kyiv.

Russian objectives include directly disrupting military aid to Ukraine as well as sowing division at home and inflicting greater costs on us through sabotage and cyber warfare. There have been repeated attacks in Britain and across Europe against infrastructure and transport hubs involved in shipping aid to Ukraine. A warehouse fire in London and an incendiary attack against a DHL hub in Birmingham are both likely to be the work of agents of the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service.

Cyber attacks have targeted media outlets, telecoms providers, political institutions, government bodies and energy infrastructure in the UK. The Ministry of Defence has repelled 90,000 cyber attacks from hostile states in the last two years. Many originated in Russia, usually via proxies. Espionage and disinformation are also critical elements of Russian political warfare. Earlier this year a group of six Bulgarians living in the UK was convicted of spying across Europe on behalf of Russia, and Moscow devotes immense resources into bot farms attempting to inject its anti-Ukraine narrative into social media sites.

Beyond sabotage, cyberwar and disinformation, Moscow’s political warfare operations include direct threats to life. Since Putin came to power there have been at least six assassinations or attempted assassinations in the UK that were likely the work of the GRU. Three of the GRU units the Foreign Office has sanctioned have been implicated in the failed murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018.

The cyber components of two of these units were involved in targeting Skripal and then sought to disrupt UK and international investigations into the events. The third unit, known as 26165, was directly responsible for the attempt on Skripal’s life. The same unit, in March 2022, conducted online reconnaissance on civilian shelters in Mariupol and Kharkiv, lining up artillery strikes which killed non-combatants sheltering there.

Despite its current emphasis on undermining Ukraine and its allies, Russia’s political warfare campaign goes much further, encompassing all areas of its national interests, including economic development, fostering allies and destabilising the West. A few years ago the head of Nato confirmed Russia had infiltrated environmental movements in Europe to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas. Since the start of the Gaza conflict in 2023, Russia has used armies of fake social media profiles to disproportionately amplify Pro-Palestinian voices in the UK to promote public discord and influence government decision-making.

‘The Kremlin should be in no doubt,’ according to David Lammy, ‘we see what they are trying to do in the shadows and we won’t tolerate it. That’s why we’re taking decisive action with sanctions against Russian spies.’ He is right to impose these sanctions, but even assuming many of our allies follow suit, they will have little impact. Nor will the detailed exposure of Moscow’s political warfare apparatus and some of its key players deter them. On the contrary, their activity will increase and become more sophisticated, especially with the development of artificial intelligence.

In this situation, we need to constantly improve our defences, both in cyber security and intelligence. There are opportunity costs to that though. A few months ago the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, admitted he had been forced to “pare back” on counterterrorism to deal with the growing threat posed by Russia and other hostile states. And don’t for one moment think that Putin is not exploiting the waves of small boat Channel crossings that are filling our country with people we know nothing about.

But defence is not enough: we must also fight fire with fire. The GRU, as well as the other Kremlin organs involved in attacking us have to be made to pay a price well beyond this sanctions regime. That means our own offensive political warfare campaign against Russia. Here, the Foreign Office sounds a hopeful note, claiming to be countering Russian attacks both publicly and “behind the scenes”. But do we have the capability, the legal freedom and the political will to inflict the damage that is required?

Image: UK Government

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 15 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

According to the anti-Trumpers, the president’s efforts to end the Ukraine war by mediation were a terrible betrayal and now his attempt to drag Vladimir Putin to make peace by stepping up military and economic pressure on Russia is not enough. These critics, especially the Europeans, would be more convincing if they had their own realistic proposals to end hostilities, but they do not.

Trump’s plan – to supply weapons to Ukraine but make the Europeans pay – is sheer genius, at least as a concept. It forces the EU countries and Britain to put their money where their mouth is, rather than allowing them to get away with weak pleas like “we would do more but we just don’t have the weapons”. It fits perfectly with his determination to make Europe shoulder more of the burden for its own problems. And it ought to play well to American voters, among whom continued US funding of Ukraine’s defence is not popular.

A key element of the proposal is to assist with the defence of Ukrainian cities from dramatically increased Russian missile and drone attacks. Trump said that Patriot interceptors would be sent – and these will likely either be purchased directly from the US or, if quicker, provided from Nato nations’ own stocks and replaced.

Boris Pistorius, the German defence minister, however, said it would take months before the first Patriots could be sent to Ukraine, which evidently means Berlin is not willing to transfer its own missile systems.

He must of course worry about Germany’s own air defence, so it is a balance of risk between a hypothetical threat and an actual constant barrage of attack. In any case, there is not an unlimited supply of Patriot missiles, which cost about $4 million a shot, and are not the answer to Russian drone swarms which have been doing the most damage. But his comments were a telling indication of where Europe’s priorities still lie, despite the continent’s supposed insistence that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine win.

A key element of the proposal is to assist with the defence of Ukrainian cities from dramatically increased Russian missile and drone attacks. Trump said that Patriot interceptors would be sent – and these will likely either be purchased directly from the US or, if quicker, provided from Nato nations’ own stocks and replaced.

Boris Pistorius, the German defence minister, however, said it would take months before the first Patriots could be sent to Ukraine, which evidently means Berlin is not willing to transfer its own missile systems.

He must of course worry about Germany’s own air defence, so it is a balance of risk between a hypothetical threat and an actual constant barrage of attack. In any case, there is not an unlimited supply of Patriot missiles, which cost about $4 million a shot, and are not the answer to Russian drone swarms which have been doing the most damage. But his comments were a telling indication of where Europe’s priorities still lie, despite the continent’s supposed insistence that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine win.

As far as we know, Trump has not yet committed to sending offensive weapons, but in a recent call with Volodymyr Zelensky, he reportedly asked if Ukraine could hit Moscow and St Petersburg. Perhaps Trump had in mind last month’s Israeli air campaign against Iran’s drone and missile capabilities. Zelensky’s response was effectively a Churchillian ‘give us the tools and we will finish the job’.

This is critical: imposing restraints on Kyiv against attacking targets inside sovereign Russian territory has been gravely damaging to Ukraine’s own fortunes. As important as protection of its cities is, the provision of large quantities of long-range offensive weapons and the freedom to use them would probably have the most decisive impact on Putin’s decision-making, both in the short and long term.

Making it harder for him to hit Ukrainian cities due to improved defences is not going to make him rethink. Smouldering military bases, government buildings and energy installations on a large scale might well do so. The Kremlin has pretty much made that concern clear, saying that Patriots do not cross a red line. But it angrily threatened Chancellor Merz that Germany supplying Taurus long-range missiles would bring it directly into the war.

Trump’s proposed new secondary tariff regime against countries that do business with Russia could also have a persuasive impact, with the Russian economy already under great stress. The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, however, said that Trump’s 50-day deadline for Putin to come to the table is ‘very long’. Perhaps Kallas, then, should immediately impose EU secondary tariffs, rather than shouting criticism from the sidelines? We all know that won’t happen.

Trump has correctly adjusted his policy towards Ukraine to account for Putin’s unwillingness to seek peace. It might be that the Russian leader will never accept a settlement, especially one clearly imposed by the US president. Could he even survive that eventuality, given the extent to which he has tied his own personal legitimacy with prosecuting a war to wipe Ukraine off the map?

But Trump’s latest gambit still has a chance of success, supposing that Putin believes that the Europeans are also serious about forcing Russia to the negotiating table. Sadly, they are failing to consistently indicate that they are. Do they really want to help Ukraine win its war, or do they just want America to do it for them?

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 9 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

Last week David Lammy proclaimed himself the first UK Minister to visit Syria since Assad’s retreat to Moscow. Renewing British relations with Damascus, Lammy proudly posed for a photograph with a smiling president Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa.

Lammy argues that a stable Syria is in the UK’s interests: it reduces the risk of illegal immigration, ensures the destruction of chemical weapons and tackles the threat of terrorism. Yet predictably he has not acknowledged that this possible move towards stability is solely down to a country he has vilified, scorned and accused of war crimes.

Assad hung on to his reins amidst years of violent uprising due to Iranian support backed up by Russia. Al-Sharaa was only able to seize power because Israel had smashed up Hezbollah, which otherwise would have stopped him in his tracks. Nor could the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ride to Assad’s rescue because the IDF would not have permitted it to do so.

Israel went further, dismantling Syria’s military hardware, Iranian bases and chemical weapons factories in relentless pre-emptive strikes following Assad’s downfall. Again, Lammy should be thankful for that, because however the situation develops in the future, neither al-Sharaa nor any other Syrian warlord will have the means to deliver extreme violence without rebuilding these capabilities.

Indeed, that calculation was probably decisive in the Foreign Office’s decision to send Lammy to deliver overtures to al-Sharaa, making the whole enterprise far less risky.

But immense risks nevertheless remain. As well as the Syria-focused Al-Nusra Front and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, Al-Sharaa’s jihadist credentials include Al Qaeda and the Islamic State by proxy, both of whom have of course targeted and attacked UK interests at home and abroad. The same is true of many of his long-standing henchmen now in the interim government. As well as fighting to establish an Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Mirror, 7 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

Twenty years ago today these four men killed themselves and 52 others when they detonated their bombs on three trains and a bus in London in the first Islamist suicide attack on UK soil.

A further 770 people were injured in the 7/7 bombings, which signalled the start of a new era of terrorism in Britain. There is now an ever-present terror threat, and with ever-changing weapons would-be attackers are adapting.

But, in the shadows, MI5 and counter-terror police are surveilling terror cells and lone wolves, building up evidence and striking to prevent attacks.

They have seen terrorism up close and understand what the public do not see – that evil is out there and another attacker could strike at any time.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 4 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

Visiting Israel during the recent Iranian attacks, several times I saw Israeli interceptors hurtling single-mindedly through the night sky over Tel Aviv towards an unseen Iranian ballistic missile. I’d been in active warzones before, but even so, in my experience it is a uniquely reassuring sight.

The IDF Air Defence Command shot down around 86 per cent of some 500 missiles Iran fired during the twelve day war, and stopped 99 per cent of over 1,000 drones. If drones are the future of warfare, they were a busted flush in this conflict, when faced with the most sophisticated air defence system in the world. That system is made up of a wide range of expensive and precisely directed and coordinated interceptors including Arrow, David’s Sling, Barak and Iron Dome, supplemented by US Thaad launchers and SM interceptors fired by US warships near Israel.

Ever since Saddam Hussein fired 42 Scud missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, Jerusalem has been working assiduously to defend its people against all forms of air attack. Thirty four years of research and development and tactical and technical innovation accompanied by heavy financial investment has more than paid off in the face of missile and drone attacks from Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Israel’s strategy is not just to meet threats from the air but to overmatch them, and the IDF continues to work flat out to maintain its qualitative edge as its enemies learn from their own failures.

Now I’m back home in Britain, and to be honest I don’t feel nearly as safe as I did in Israel under active attack. The UK has made almost no effort in this sphere and today we are undefended against all but the most limited forms of attack. What defences we do have are too few to cover much of our territory.

Our only protection against ballistic missiles is the Royal Navy’s six Type 45 destroyers, armed with Sea Viper anti-air missiles – just two of these ships are typically available for duty. Even their capabilities are limited compared to the Israeli equivalent: HMS Diamond did shoot down an Iranian ballistic missile fired by the Houthis last year, but Sea Viper is not meant to be capable of ballistic intercept and the enemy weapon was probably quite basic: of the type often dubbed ‘quasi ballistic’. If one of our aircraft carriers sails across the world, as is the case today, she takes a destroyer with her and we are down to one to protect the UK.

Aside from our one available destroyer, a few RAF quick response fighters can be launched to intercept enemy planes, cruise missiles and drones. The Army has a few batteries of short-range air defence missiles. We do not have any up and running airborne radar systems, meaning that we have very limited ability to detect low-flying incoming threats. Our combined defences don’t come anywhere close to meeting the threat we face today.

The UK homeland can easily be struck by a range of Russian missiles – ballistic, cruise, hypersonics and drones – fired from Russia itself or from its aircraft, ships or submarines. There is a man in the Kremlin who has proved his willingness to use the weapons against military targets as well as population centres, and has already ordered lethal attacks of a different type against civilians in our country.

I wonder if Keir Starmer realised that, and our inability to effectively defend against such strikes, when he led with his chin on heading a “coalition of the willing” against Russia. Perhaps he has realised now and maybe that explains why he’s gone so quiet. But it only gets worse. Within 15 years ballistic missiles fired from anywhere in the world will likely be able to hit targets anywhere else in the world: such systems have already been tested. Unless our capabilities improve dramatically, we will be comprehensively deterred from any unilateral action, no matter how vital it may be.

The Israelis also understand something else we seem to have forgotten: attack is the best form of defence. During the twelve day war they didn’t just rely on their interceptors but, using combat planes, ships and drones, they relentlessly struck at Iran’s launchers, knocking out at least half of them – as well as missile and drone stocks and production facilities. Meanwhile our Attorney General, Lord Hermer, reportedly advised Starmer that Britain’s participation in these operations would be illegal. Churchill received no such advice when he launched a 600 bomber raid against the German V-weapon missile development site at Peenemunde in 1943 and then, Israel-style, proceeded to pummel warehouses, storage facilities, rail tracks and launch sites connected with the V-weapons.

As well as re-discovering the political spine necessary to defend ourselves, we need to rapidly build up our missile defences. That’s not going to be achieved by decades of the glacial procurement processes for which the Ministry of Defence is infamous. It would be a good idea to follow the German example of buying Arrow off the shelf from Israel. But wait, the Government has an arms embargo against the Israelis.

Perhaps, however, we should not be listening to the pro-Hamas hordes on our streets (just four per cent of Brits supported Hamas in a YouGov poll in March, while over half said they had at least some sympathy for Israel). We might rather consider our own national security interests instead of performatively attacking an ally in need – an ally that can also help us.

It’s past time for joined up strategic thinking plus some Churchillian “action this day”.