truth

AN eye-watering amount of cash is stuffed into suitcases, with Katie Price’s husband Lee Andrews’ name printed onto a label stuck on top of the thousands upon thousands of $100 bank notes.

But rather than a show of his apparent wealth, today The Sun can reveal Lee’s boastful videos share the hallmarks of high-level scams – with his ex-fiancee Alana Percival warning that his time evading the heavy hand of the law may be running out.

Former glamour model Katie, 48, flew back to Dubai over the weekend to join Andrews, 41, in the country at a £36million mansion which he claims he bought in cash.

It will be the first time she has seen the businessman since he boasted he was buying a majority stake in Chelsea Football Club for £2billion.

The shameless brag, like most that come from his lips, is not true and the London football club have had no dealings with Andrews.

No doubt, like many women, Katie may have seen the suitcases stuffed to the brim with what appears to be millions of pounds in cash.

His alleged vast fortune is, he claims, from complex deals with foreign embassies and treasuries that he’s spent the past nine years developing.

Sharing the two videos with The Sun to prove his “wealth”, Lee alleges he ships the cash to Africa for institutional investment.

However, our analysis found that the clips are almost identical to the dubious proof-of-funds videos often used by fraudsters to convince people they have large sums of money.

In one video, Lee’s name is written on a sheet of A4 paper along with the date, while the man filming references a fictitious code that The Sun has discovered does not exist in the real world banking system.

The wads of $100 notes are bound by plain bands labelled “BEP” (Bureau of Engraving and Printing).

To the untrained eye, it would seem Lee is sitting on a fortune.

But those BEP labelled bands are most commonly found on film sets, binding together fake wads of cash seen in blockbuster movies.

Authentic BEP bands include the institution’s name, a routing number, and a branch ID.

Andrews’s bands include none of those.

The videos are known as “Black Money Scams” – and are often seen in fraud cases.

Metal briefcases, locked with padlocks, labelled “FRAGILE – HANDLE WITH CARE” — are designed to look like a secure, official shipment of cash.

Stacks of $100 bills are then laid out in an open case with a note to make it look personalised and real.

In fact, where these scams exist it’s all faked – the money is not real.

Andrews’ former fiancee Alana has warned the net may be closing in on him and claimed last week that a warrant was out for his arrest in Dubai.

And now those close to Katie tell The Sun they hope she can finally start to see what is happening.

“Alana is saying a warrant is out for Lee’s arrest in Dubai, he still appears to be taking money off women, but Katie still can’t see what he’s doing,” a friend tells The Sun.

“It’s exasperating. Those around her think Lee is bad news.

“The brags about his wealth, the videos of the fake cash, the claims he’s bought a £36million mansion in cash – it’s all laughable.

“Kate is usually shrewd but when it comes to matters of love, she thinks with her heart and not with her brain.

“It is painful for her friends and family watching her consort with this man.”

Alongside the videos supposedly proving his income stream, Andrews also provided three documents.

One of these is a payment guarantee letter for a $100m transaction, the first payment of a proposed $5bn.

It is signed by Mr Sikakaew, allegedly from the Thai bank Kasikorn, who holds a “Supreme SSID License”—a term not recognised in banking, as SSID is actually a name for a Wi-Fi network.

In the document, a scanned image of Lee’s passport appears to have been digitally manipulated and features glaring mistakes such as an upside-down photo and backward font.

A second document is a Memorandum of Understanding, which is a non-legally binding statement of intent to work with another party.

It mentions a “UN license for a mixed currencies redemption program”, something that also does not exist.

The letter, which outlines the transfer of $5bn to the Royal Thai Embassy in Kenya, is signed by American Joseph John Garrity, with no record of such a person being involved in high-level international finance.

The third document is a Capital Readiness Program prepared for Lee by Hachi Capital LLC — a business with no legitimate record.

A similarly named UK company called Hachi Capital Ltd was dissolved in 2013 and coincidentally featured Craig Boddington as director, the same name managing Lee’s account.

The program promises financial returns well beyond any realistic measure, claiming a 500 per cent return on investment per monthly cycle and as much as 100 per cent per 10-day cycle on “bullet trades”.

Further red flags include the business not being licensed or regulated by any major financial authority and has hallmarks of investment scams with six-figure set up fees designed to get clients to part with cash before realising any profits.

A number of women have spoken to The Sun after falling for such Andrews’ investment promises.

One woman, Crystal Janke, invested £123,000 in his Aura Worldwide Holdings Ltd, after being promised a return of up to £1m.

The money has since disappeared, with Crystal filing a police complaint in the US.

Andrews denies the claims but Crystal to date is still insistent she’s not had a penny, after sharing with The Sun her bank statements which prove the transactions into Andrews’ account.

Earlier this year The Sun revealed that his company, Aura Worldwide Holdings Ltd, was actually dissolved in 2024.

But Andrews is still claiming it is open, despite paperwork proving otherwise, and is pushing his schemes upon women he meets on social media and women he knows through business.

Last month, another woman came forward to tell The Sun she had invested $1,000 but still had no return.

When she confronted Andrews, she claims he fobbed her off and made excuses about the whereabouts of her funds.

A friend of Katie’s told The Sun: “Why Katie cannot see what is going on under her nose is scary.

“None of this is legitimate and everyone is just praying for the moment the penny finally drops and she gets the hell out of this marriage.”

Andrews previously denied all the allegations brought against him by The Sun.

He later claimed his inflated LinkedIn CV was the result of errors by his former assistant and swiftly removed some of his false work history.

Among them was that he was a Member of the Board of Advisors for the Labour Party and Director of Philanthropy at The King’s Trust.

He said: “I think that’s been hyped up and made to look better than what it is and it needs to come down.

“I can’t take the showmanship of it, but I’ll take the accountability.

“The PA no longer works for me now anyway, for other reasons — probably because of that.”

More recently he claimed to have made secret “back and forth” visits to the UK where he met wife Katie’s eldest children Harvey, Junior and Princess.

He told us: “People don’t know I’ve met Harvey and two of the kids, I haven’t seen the young ones.

“I’ve been back and forth, I just don’t f***ing tell anyone. I lead a very private life. I tell people what they want to hear, the rest they can make up, you know.”

A representative for Katie later told The Sun this claim was a lie and that Andrews had never met her children.

Emmerdale’s Moira Dingle actress Natalie J Robb has hinted her character could take a deadly revenge on evil Joe Tate in a gun showdown, and she ‘could kill him’

There’s dramatic scenes on the way on Emmerdale as Joe Tate is finally rumbled by Moira Dingle.

Robert Sugden confesses his part in Moira being arrested over Celia Daniels’ drugs and human trafficking crimes. When he explains what really happened, Moira finds out Joe was blackmailing him and Victoria Sugden.

But she’s left even more rage-filled when she realises Joe is a huge part of the reason she’s been in prison over a double murder she did not commit. Preparing to take revenge, it all leads to a gun showdown at Home Farm.

Will Moira end up in prison again though if she takes a deadly revenge on Joe? Actress Natalie J Robb has revealed what fans can expect from the moment, and what the future holds for Joe…

READ MORE: Soap spoilers for next week: Icon faces death, Swarla wedding and deadly stuntREAD MORE: Coronation Street Lisa and Carla wedding first look as Roy makes moving gesture

Robert tells Moira the truth about planting the documents. How does she react?

Robert starts to feel guilty because he finds out that it’s Moira’s birthday and everybody has kind of forgotten about it. She says that it doesn’t matter and then he gets really guilty about it.

Moira starts to get a little bit suspicious and thinks: ‘What’s going on here? This is odd’. He gives her some pictures that Holly did, and things like that, which he found in the attic.

And then he just says something and she says: ‘How did you know about that?’ Because he wouldn’t have known where the documents were hidden. Then of course she gets it out of him and he confesses that it was him and she goes ballistic.

She’s really hurt actually, because she doesn’t expect that of him. She actually thought he’d turned a corner and changed as a person. Then he admits that it was down to Joe Tate – that he forced him – and why he had to protect Victoria and it was down to Joe Tate.

Moira plots revenge doesn’t she…

I’m fuming then, so I go back to the house to tell Cain but he’s having a bit of an argument with Sam. He’s just not in the mood so I think, good old Moira style, she gets her shotgun and goes to visit Joe Tate.

And literally at that point, she’s going round there to kill him. She has the shotgun, she makes him sit down and try to confess. He’s trying to play dumb but she knows it’s down to him.

Then more people get involved. Obviously she doesn’t kill him. But she swears to him at this point that she will make it her priority to make his life a living hell. Or a non-living one…

Why does she decide not to tell Cain about Robert?

She thinks if he finds out, he’s going to go ballistic and do something stupid. She’s just got out of prison, the last thing she wants is for him to go to prison.

But that’s going to eat him up because he knows what she’s been doing for Robert as well. And the fact that he’s in my farm, it’s just a hard pill to swallow. But I’m trying to prevent something terrible happening and protect the marriage as well, because we’re dealing with something that’s a lot bigger than money.

When she has the shotgun, does it not enter her head that she might end up back in prison?

I don’t think she cares at that point. In that split second, she’s so angry because he’s [Cain] had to deal with the cancer on his own. He’s [Joe] kept me away from my children and she thinks: ‘Really? Are you really that horrible and that cruel? Are you really that greedy? It’s all about power’.

It’s a bit like the world we’re living in now, all about power and it’s not actually about being humane to people. And at that point she’s definitely going there to kill him and she nearly does.

Can you tease what’s to come for Joe?

Well I think he’s going to be under her radar, it might just be quietly. He might try to worm her round. But we don’t know how that’s going to pan out with the writing and which route they’re going to go.

But when I was filming the scenes, it was pretty certain that she was going to get him back in some way or another. And she does, she does team up with people to get him to suffer in a similar way, but that would be by him losing everything, so that he has no power. So we’ll see.

Would you like Moira and Kim to become friends after their recent heart-to-heart at the prison?

It’s nice that they don’t get on but they have that mutual respect for each other. You really see how Kim knows what that farm meant to Moira. And for her to do that for him, it really opens Kim’s eyes. Like: ‘Oh right, okay, it’s a proper love’.

She really respects that and it’s about family roots and values. So there’s that respect for each other. I think that’ll always be there in the background now but they’ll still have fights – probably because of Joe to be honest, he’ll be the main factor!

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 8pm on ITV1 and ITVX. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Claudia Winkleman explains it was a very emotional moment when she left Strictly Come Dancing with Tess Daly last year

They will be watching the new series of Strictly Come Dancing together. But Claudia Winkleman says she and Tess Daly decided to bow out from the BBC show because they worried about becoming complacent in their roles.

No one ever doubted the pair loved BBC’s ballroom series. But speaking in-depth about their decision to leave, Claudia says she started to see signs that they needed to go ahead with their pact to quit at the same time.

“You want to leave on a high,” says Claudia. “And you want to leave when you are loving it. We were tiny cogs in this huge sparkly, glittery thing. We were tiny as we had props guys holding Eiffel Towers, the amazing band, the dancers, the costume and hair and make-up and everything else and the lighting.

“We thought it was time to leave. Years earlier they said Gloria Estefan was playing in Blackpool and we were like ‘I cant believe it’. I phoned my husband and said ‘I have to practice the Conga’.”

By then end of their run though, even big names and learning new dances were commonplace. She explains: “We thought it was time to leave. You know, not that I was not excited at the end, but both of us were a bit like ‘Oh yeah…cool. Alright, so then I do that…(routine)’.

“It deserves ‘new’ (change). But what shocked me was, we did the last live show. All week was like ‘We are fine’ but I could not stop crying as it has been my entire life. You know sometimes when you decide something like ‘Let’s move house’. Then you pick up the final box. Not that you have done something wrong but it just feels big.”

For Strictly’s launch in 2026, it will be all change in terms of hosts but also with some things still be the same. Claudia and Tess will be together, but snuggled up away from the cameras.

“Tess and I have already planned. We are having jacket potatoes and I am having the salmon. She is coming to ours, her and Vern(husband Vernon Kay). I am not joking. I am going to set her up with a nightie and we are going to watch and support and love it.”

For many years now, pretty much every TV show Claudia Winkleman has touched turned to gold.

Her Strictly Come Dancing stint on the main show for 15 years, hosting The Traitors and now huge spin off hit Celebrity Traitors too, as well as smaller shows like The Piano which won critical acclaim for Channel 4.

For her other major project The Traitors, Claudia says it requires very different skills compared to fronting Strictly, where she says a lot of the credit should go to Tess.

“Tess did all the heavy lifting on Strictly and I am grateful for it. But on Traitors I had to be strict. I was worried about that. I am in life a cheerleader like if my kids fill the dishwasher I am like ‘Lets film it’. So I am a cheerleader and I am able do that on Traitors when they do the missions. I want to feed them chocolate as I am on their side.

“But I have to get a bit strict like when my kids have not done their homework. I love the game so much so that is how I have to be. The producers did tell me to push it.”

Whilst she will continue to front the series, she admits it has made her more thoughtful about lying and deceit in real life.

“Traitors makes me cry. I am not that harsh. I want the traitors to win and the faithful to get them in equal measure. Also it is a lot of money if it is for charity or for them individually.

I have learned a lot of things that I wish I had not. It has made me realise there is no such thing as gut instinct. It is all about what you tell yourself afterwards. And I have learnt you can know the truth but you can persuade people to follow you and that makes me heartbroken. Will I do a children’s version? No.”

After referencing her kids, Claudia, at a charity Q&A event, is asked more about her own family.

She has been married to film producer Kris Thykier since 2000, and they have three children: Jake, Matilda, and Arthur. But there appears to be no risk of nepo babies in the Winkleman household.

With a grin Claudia says: “I told them to nepo up. One wants to work in hospitality, one wants to be a doctor and one wants to be a chemist. I said ‘I can navigate you work experience’ and they were like ‘No thanks mum.’ They are not interested in film (husband’s work) like they say ‘Not unless it comes in a test tube’. So no. That is not what they have asked for.”

Claudia was giving a rare interview to TV director Ben Winston at St John’s Wood Synagogue in London in aid of Lira Winston Fellowships, which focus on identifying and nurturing Jewish school educators

Asked about her thoughts on rising anti semitism, she said: “How do I navigate the industry? The industry itself does not feel anti-Semitic to me. That is my experience. But the growing anti-Semitism and the growing Islamophobia and racism that we see everywhere is really, really terrifying I suppose.

“I don’t want to say terrifying in front of my kids, but it is worrying. And that is why it is so important that we have got to look after each other and people from other communities.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Biblical stories like Jonah and the whale would be required reading for Texas public schools students under proposals that are putting the state at the center of another contentious wrangling over the role of religion in classrooms.

Religious leaders, teachers, parents and students spent hours Tuesday before the state education board arguing about the reading list for the state’s 5.4 million kindergartners to 12th-graders. The debate is part of widening efforts in the U.S. to incorporate religion in schools, mostly in Republican-led states, driving legislation and legal action.

Nationally, President Trump has pledged to protect and expand religious expression in public schools. And Texas, a red state that is home to about 1 in 10 of the nation’s public school students, often helps set the agenda.

Texas became the first state to allow chaplains, in 2023. And just last year, a Republican-led mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public schools took effect in the state, although around two dozen districts took them down because of a lawsuit.

But while the debate over Texas’ reading list could have national implications, to the speakers the issue boiled down to whether the passages are essential to understanding the nation’s history and morals — or unconstitutional.

“Our children need truth,” said Nathan Irving, a pastor and father of eight from Myrtle Springs, Texas. “Truth is the only currency that never devalues. Investing truth into our children is the most loving thing that we can do for them. This is the truth. This country and this state were founded upon a Christian worldview. Like it or not, it is true.”

Final vote on the changes still ahead

A final vote on the list is expected in June, and if approved by the Texas State Board of Education, the changes would take effect in 2030.

Several speakers cited the “establishment clause” of the 1st Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“This list is a tool of proselytization that has no place in our public schools,” Rabbi Josh Fixler, of Congregation Emanu El, a reform synagogue in Houston, told the board. “There is a difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion, and this list will force teachers to cross that line.”

Megan Boyden, a mother of three from Denton, Texas, described is as a direct attack on her private faith.

“As a Christian mother, it is my right and responsibility to teach our family’s religion,” she said. “It is not the state’s job to shed through the lens of a teacher who may not share the same beliefs I do. Will Bible passages be taught in conflict with my beliefs?

“What,” she asked, “of non-Christian students?”

The list stems from a state law passed in 2023, which called for the creation of a state-approved list of high-quality materials.

Third-graders would learn about the Road to Damascus, which tells the story of Paul’s transformation from an early persecutor of Christians into a follower. Seniors, meanwhile, would learn about the Book of Job, a story about a man whose faith is tested when he loses everything.

The list also includes classics like Dr. Seuss’ “The Cat in the Hat,” stories about the national folk hero Daniel Boone. And there are also works by famous African Americans like Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. and a book about Harriet Tubman of the Underground Railroad fame.

Texas has already approved optional curriculum that incorporates the Bible

The GOP-leaning board previously approved a new Bible-infused curriculum that is optional for schools to incorporate in kindergarten through fifth grades.

The board also is considering social studies standards that have been criticized as too state-centric, not focused enough on world events and rife with an undercurrent of American exceptionalism. They call for students to “identify the Texas flag as a symbol of Texas pride,” and recognize the state song “Texas, Our Texas.”

Students also are supposed to be able to understand stories about Texas Independence.

Curriculum debates crop up occasionally. Over the years, state boards in places such as Kansas have debated whether the teaching of evolution should reflect doubt about the well-established scientific theory — and leave room for arguments that the universe’s complexity points to an intelligent design.

Allison Cardwell, a mother of a fourth-grader and a fifth-grade social studies teacher, urged the board to rethink the standards. She said fifth grade would be the only time most Texas students would receive instruction in U.S. history until high school.

“We have to ask ourselves, how can we expect to create citizens who value liberty, responsibility, and the principles this country was founded on, if we don’t ensure that they truly understand those foundations?” she said.

Hollingsworth writes for the Associated Press.

Paul McCartney sauntered onto the stage of the Fonda Theatre, took in the 1,200 faces before him — “I can see the whites of your eyes,” he said — then offered up a brief history lesson about where we’d gathered Friday night.

The Fonda, he told us, opened 100 years ago; back then, he added, it was called the Music Box.

“Cool little place, innit?”

At 83, McCartney is well into his cool-little-place era.

Last year the rock legend played a string of concerts at New York’s tiny Bowery Ballroom while in town for “Saturday Night Live’s” 50th anniversary; a few months after that, he hit the Santa Barbara Bowl as a kind of warm-up for the latest leg of his Got Back world tour.

Paul McCartney and his band during sound check for Friday’s show.

(MJ Kim)

Friday’s underplay — the first of two instant sell-outs at the Fonda — came as McCartney is drumming up interest in a new studio album he’ll release in May. Outside the venue, a double-decker bus was parked with signage advertising the LP, which is called “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” after a road in his Liverpool hometown.

But that hardly seemed like the purpose of the show itself, which lasted about an hour and 40 minutes and didn’t even include a performance of the album’s lead single. The truth is that Sir Paul genuinely appears to get a kick out of these intimate gigs — out of standing right in front of a crowd and doing the magic trick that is a song like “Get Back” or “Jet” or “Got to Get You Into My Life.”

And why wouldn’t he?

If a Paul McCartney concert in an arena or a stadium is a finely honed spectacle of boomer nostalgia and industrial-strength charm, one of his shows in a club or a theater is a chance to play music, which after six and a half decades still clearly turns his wheels.

You wouldn’t say the shows remind McCartney that he’s a regular guy. (Those six and a half decades have made him anything but.) What they might do, though, is remind him why he became so widely adored — valuable self-knowledge for an artist whose great subject has always been the transformative power of love.

Here, as in Santa Barbara, he and his seven-piece band (which featured three horn players) did a pared-down version of the most recent Got Back set, opening with a killer one-two punch — “Help!” into “Coming Up” — that alone said plenty about McCartney’s range and endurance.

“Let Me Roll It” had a funky swagger, while “Getting Better” chugged with cheerful insistence; “I’ve Just Seen a Face” showed off the group’s crisp harmonies and “Lady Madonna” its tight rhythmic interplay. After “Let ’Em In,” McCartney asked his band member Brian Ray to show off the song’s all-important bass line: a single note plucked over and over and over again.

Friday’s show was the first of two at the Fonda.

(MJ Kim)

He did a few other comic bits, including a memory of Tony Bennett singing without a microphone as a way to demonstrate the excellent acoustics of a concert hall — the punch line was that he later saw Bennett do the same thing at the Beverly Hilton — and some gentle ribbing of the folks sitting up in the “posh seats” of the Fonda’s balcony. Among them, McCartney pointed out, was Morgan Neville, director of the recent “Man on the Run” documentary about McCartney’s life in the aftermath of the Beatles’ breakup.

He also noted that his wife, Nancy Shevell, was in the house and dedicated “My Valentine” to her; truth be told, that one was a bit dreary, as was “Now and Then,” the so-called last Beatles song released in 2023 using machine learning to complete a scratchy demo left behind by John Lennon.

“Thank you, John, for writing that lovely song,” McCartney said afterward, which made it a little harder not to like.

In any event, there were more classics to come, not least a buoyant “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” and a “Let It Be”/“Hey Jude” twofer that inspired such a lusty singalong that McCartney probably could’ve gotten away with lip-syncing if he’d wanted to.

But of course he didn’t want to — that was kind of the whole point.

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.

WARNING: Contains spoilers about the Handcuffed final.

The sheer number of people who pulled out proves just how hard Channel 4’s Handcuffed: Last Pair Standing was: challenging 18 Brits to remain handcuffed to a total stranger. And not just any total stranger – one a team of producers have judged will create the most explosive TV possible.

Tonight, viewers saw Staffordshire porn star Rob, 32, and West Sussex homemaker Charlie, 44, make it all the way to the end, winning the show and a suitcase bulging with £100,000. Now, after the pre-recorded series, they explain whether they stayed in touch and just what they plan to do with the winnings.

The reality is quite sweet – with the pair very much in each other’s lives. Speaking about the moment they were uncuffed, Rob said: “It felt great! I just wanted to shout “FREEDOM” at the top of my lungs. It was a nice moment, but also a little sad moment knowing that my partner has now got to go.”

Charlie added: “It was a huge relief. We actually had to wait quite a long time! It wasn’t like we were instantly un-handcuffed. It was a crazy experience but a huge relief. It took a while to get used to doing things on my own, but that’s maybe because I was very overtired.”

But fans of the couple will be pleased to hear that they have stayed in touch in a major way. Charlie explained: “I’ve learned so much from Rob. He’s such a gentle giant and a kind person. It’s lovely now that we don’t have to keep our friendship secret.

“We can meet up and we’ve been texting a lot. He’s been chatting to my husband Simon! I’ve been chatting to his mum! He and his family are coming over to our house this Friday night to celebrate. I learned so much from walking beside him.

“It was a once in a lifetime experience. Rob was really keen that I didn’t put everyone else’s needs first and I’ve tried to implement that since. We talked about a lot of things! Rob is a very deep person and he’s a very good listener.”

Rob said: “One of the first things I’m going to do is a huge Costco run of food and drink and go out with Tilly to feed the homeless. I was very inspired watching what she did on the programme – I’d like to do a few acts of kindness. I’m also going travelling round South East Asia and investing in a new business. And then I’ll put the rest in savings for a rainy day.”

He added: “I learned a lot. I learned that money doesn’t always buy happiness. It’s important to spend a lot of time with your friends and family, and that I was putting work before everything. I was working too hard and not having an equal balance. And Charlie taught me how to make sourdough!”

Speaking about what they learnt about themselves during the programme, Rob said: “I learned that I need to take a little bit of a step back and prioritise different things in my life. And I want to get a bit more into baking and cooking.”

Charlie said: “That I can slow down, and be a bit more patient. And that I can take some time to rest and recharge, so then I can be my best for myself and others.”

Tonight viewers saw host Jonathan Ross taking the final pairings to Loch Lomond in Scotland to take part in a Mr & Mrs quiz to see who knew each other best. The final three – Charlie and Rob, Tilly and Anthony and Morag and Angie – all then competed in a handcuffed race from Scotland, to Wales and on to London.

Viewers saw Charlie and Rob scramble onto a bus where Jonathan was waiting with the key to unlock them – and a case full of the cash.

In these times when it is once again fashionable to accuse Commander Chávez of mistakes, whether real or imagined. As we mark 13 years since his untimely death on March 5, 2013, I would like to highlight the value of truth in his political actions. Truth was manifest in the responsibility he assumed for his actions; the consistency between his words and deeds; the acknowledgment of his own mistakes, when it is easier for most people to point out the mistakes of others; and his sincere efforts to correct them. To the above, I would add that when he had to make tactical and strategic shifts in the course initially set, Chávez always had the political honesty to explain in detail why he was doing so, and he courageously took responsibility for them before the people.

There are countless examples which can be found in many of his speeches. I will mention just a few. Beginning with the day of his introduction to the Venezuelan people, February 4, 1992: “Unfortunately, for now, the objectives we set for ourselves were not achieved in the capital city, that is, we here in Caracas did not manage to control power… And I, before the country and before you, take responsibility…” Then in the streets and in the 1998 election campaign: “Let’s go to the Constituent Assembly,” and on February 2, 1999, in what would be his first act of government, he signed the decree calling for the constituent process, and we went to the Constituent Assembly.

In April 2002, he surrendered to the coup leaders, without thinking about saving his own “skin”: “I am an imprisoned president; you decide what to do with me.” After his release, with a cross in his hand, he stated that “it was necessary for all sectors of the country to make a greater effort, with all the goodwill we can muster, to be able to live together in peace, accepting the rules of the game.”

In 2005, he called for the Bolivarian Revolution to take on a socialist character. In the 2006 election campaign, he said, “Let’s go for socialism!” and explained in detail why this strategic shift was necessary. He outlined the characteristics of our socialism, 21st-century Bolivarian socialism, which, as he insisted until his last public words, had to be “essentially democratic” or it would not be socialism at all.

In the elections of December 6, 2006, Commander Chávez obtained the highest number of votes and was re-elected. In December 2007, while awaiting the results of the referendum on constitutional reform and hearing reports of a close count, he called a meeting of the party leadership in Miraflores. I said to him at that meeting: “President, let’s wait for the final count, and if we lost, we lost, but if we won, we won.” He replied with a sharp look: “I don’t want a victory like that, let’s go out and acknowledge defeat now.” And that’s what he did.

In September 2010, we won a majority in the National Assembly. Without a doubt, it was a resounding political victory. But Chávez identified a warning sign: in quantitative terms, the difference in votes between Chavismo and the opposition was minimal. Once again, he assumed political responsibility. In January 2011, he published the “Strategic Lines of Political Action,” a deeply self-critical document.

Late May 2011, he told me: “Elías, I feel like something is wrong with me.” June 2011, after undergoing the necessary tests, on national television: “Cancer cells have been detected in my body.” Easter Week 2012, during a mass in Barinas, broadcast live: “We must be aware that I have an illness that limits my life… Christ, give me your cross.”

On the night of December 8, 2012, in a public address, he raised the possibility of not continuing among us and explained in detail the constitutional procedures that would have to be followed if he were to be permanently incapacitated. That day, once again, he decided to tell us the truth, no matter how hard it was:

Some colleagues told me it wasn’t necessary, or have said in recent hours that it wasn’t necessary to say this. In truth, I could have said almost everything I said tonight from Havana… But I believe that the most important thing, what my soul, my heart, and my conscience tell me, the most important thing… has been this, Nicolás. The most important thing.

“The most important thing”: telling the truth, explaining the reality to the people, the decision he had made, and the steps that needed to be taken.

But that political honesty was not just an individual value. It was the political conviction that the people formed a collective wisdom, a conscious body that knew how to understand and draw its own conclusions about situations. That is why he was so careful to keep them informed at all times.

I once heard him say: “There are those who say that you shouldn’t speak plainly to the people, because then the adversary will seize on that truth and manipulate it against you.” That, Chávez said, is to think that the people are mentally eunuchs. The people understand, more often than not, more than some leaders. For Chávez, speaking the truth was always a decisive show of trust and respect for the people.

And “most importantly,” it was also to make clear for posterity his conviction about the democratic path of the revolution he had led:

In all circumstances, we must guarantee the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution, the victorious progress of this revolution, building the new democracy that is here mandated by the people in the Constituent Assembly; building the Venezuelan path to socialism, with broad participation and ample freedom, which are being demonstrated once again in this gubernatorial election campaign, with candidates here and candidates there. Freedom, complete freedom.

With the power of truth, the truth of his project and his life, Chávez managed to accumulate immense political strength based on the moral autoritas he gained by never peddling falsehoods or shirking his responsibilities, much less in defeat or when he made mistakes. That same moral authority comes not only from consistency between words and deeds, but also from trying to act despite difficult circumstances as well as from recognizing and explaining when and why it is not possible to achieve a certain goal. I stand by that way of doing politics. With Chávez forever!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: CEDES