The Inevitable Truth: Paul Golding's Stance on the Escalating Middle East Conflict

As tensions in the Middle East reach a fever pitch, with an overt escalation between Israel and Iran now tragically unfolding, Paul Golding of Britain First has stepped forward with a stark, solemn assessment of the situation. His pronouncements, which many will find uncomfortable but undeniably direct, lay out a chain of events he argues was not only predictable but, in fact, inevitable.

Golding’s core assertion is unequivocal: "The current attack on Iran was 100% going to happen as far back as the October 7 2023 terror attack by Hamas on Israel". This isn't hindsight, he argues, but a logical progression for anyone observing the region with clear eyes.

The current attack on Iran was 100% going to happen as far back as the October 7 2023 terror attack by Hamas on Israel.
Iran funds and arms Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, who have all attacked Israel.
Israel first neutralised or crippled Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, now… pic.twitter.com/b5SpBeNzfN

— Paul Golding (@PaulGolding) March 9, 2026

The Genesis of Conflict: Iran's Web of Proxies

For Golding, the October 7th Hamas atrocities were not an isolated incident but a direct consequence of a well-established Iranian strategy. He points to a critical, often downplayed, fact: "Iran funds and arms Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, who have all attacked Israel".

This isn't merely ideological support; it's tangible, material backing that empowers these groups to act as Iran's regional proxies. Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah on Israel's northern border, and the Houthis threatening shipping lanes in the Red Sea – all, according to Golding, operate within a strategic framework dictated and supplied by Tehran. Their attacks on Israel, therefore, are not just independent acts of aggression but extensions of the Iranian regime's confrontational policy.


Israel's Calculated Progression: From Proxies to the Puppeteer

Golding then outlines what he perceives as a calculated and methodical response from Israel. He asserts: "Israel first neutralised or crippled Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, now it has turned its gaze to the initiator of the conflict, the Iranian regime".

This suggests a phased approach:

1. Hamas: The initial and primary target following October 7th, with ongoing operations aimed at dismantling its military and governing capabilities in Gaza.
2. Hezbollah: Continuous, targeted strikes against Hezbollah assets and personnel in Lebanon, aimed at degrading its capacity and preventing a full-scale northern front.
3. Houthis: While direct Israeli military intervention against the Houthis has been limited compared to US/UK actions, Israel has been impacted by Houthi missile and drone attacks and has seen the strategic threat to shipping. Golding includes them as part of the broader Iranian proxy network that Israel seeks to counter.

With these proxies, in Golding's view, "neutralised or crippled", to a significant degree, Israel's focus has inevitably shifted to the source – the Iranian regime itself. "This was always bound to happen", he insists, framing the current escalation not as a sudden flare-up, but as the unavoidable culmination of a long-simmering conflict driven by Iran.


Britain's Dire Warning: "Not Our War"

However, Golding's analysis takes a sharp turn when he brings the focus back to the United Kingdom. His message for Britain is stark and unambiguous: "But Britain is a small island in northern Europe that has been degenerated by decades of military cuts".

This assessment paints a bleak picture of Britain's current military readiness, arguing that years of underinvestment have left the nation ill-equipped to project significant power or intervene effectively in distant conflicts.

Given this perceived weakness and the nature of the conflict, he delivers a potent warning: "This is Israel's war. Britain should not get involved in any way. It's not our war, so we should not sacrifice the lives of ANY of our military servicemen".

For Golding, the distinction is clear: this is a regional conflict with deep historical and geopolitical roots, primarily involving Israel and its adversaries, notably Iran. Britain, he argues, has neither the capacity nor the national interest to become entangled. The lives of British military personnel, he concludes, are a sacred trust that should not be squandered on a conflict that does not directly threaten the nation's shores, unless of course we are suckered into being taken for granted by swathes of claims of asylum, ingenuine refugee claims, or asylum claims in unsustainable numbers.

In a world grappling with the escalating risks of global conflict, Paul Golding's perspective offers a hard-nosed, national-interest-first interpretation. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, his analysis forces a confrontation with uncomfortable truths about regional power dynamics and Britain's place on the international stage.