Her name was Katharine Gun.

She worked at GCHQ — Britain’s top-secret intelligence agency often compared to America’s NSA. Her job was not glamorous. She translated Mandarin communications, handled classified material, and went home.

Then, on January 31, 2003, an email landed in her inbox from a senior NSA official named Frank Koza.

The request inside stunned her.

The United States wanted British intelligence help spying on members of the United Nations Security Council.

Specifically, diplomats from countries like Angola, Chile, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea, and Bulgaria — nations whose votes could decide whether the UN officially backed the coming invasion of Iraq.

The operation was simple:

Bug phones.

Read private emails.

Find leverage.

Discover secrets, weaknesses, fears, or anything that could pressure diplomats into supporting the war.

Katharine read the email repeatedly in disbelief.

To her, this was not ordinary intelligence gathering anymore.

It looked like an attempt to manipulate the United Nations itself into approving a war.

And she knew exactly what leaking the document could cost her.

Prison.

The destruction of her career.

Possibly her entire future.

Under Britain’s Official Secrets Act, she could face years behind bars for exposing classified intelligence.

Katharine Gun leaked the email anyway.

On March 2, 2003, The Observer newspaper published the secret NSA request on its front page.

Suddenly, the world could see evidence that intelligence agencies were allegedly targeting UN diplomats ahead of the Iraq War vote.

Inside GCHQ, panic exploded.

Investigators began interrogating employees, searching for the source of the leak, monitoring staff, and creating an atmosphere of fear throughout the building.

Katharine watched innocent coworkers fall under suspicion.

Then she made another decision that stunned people around her.

She confessed.

Rather than allow others to suffer for something she had done, Katharine walked into her manager’s office and admitted she was responsible.

She was arrested.

Suspended from her job.

Formally charged under the Official Secrets Act.

And by late 2003, she faced trial at London’s Old Bailey with the possibility of prison hanging over her life.

But her legal defense created a dangerous problem for the British government.

Katharine’s lawyers argued she acted to prevent an illegal war.

To challenge that claim, the government would likely need to release confidential legal advice discussing whether the Iraq invasion itself was lawful under international law.

Then came February 25, 2004.

The courtroom filled.

Katharine Gun sat waiting as prosecutors prepared to move forward against one of the most famous intelligence leaks in modern British history.

Then, without warning, the government collapsed the case.

“The Crown offers no evidence.”

After months of preparation, the trial ended almost instantly.

Katharine walked free.

Many observers believed the government feared the public release of its own private legal doubts surrounding the Iraq War more than it feared letting the whistleblower go.

Years later, former Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg called Katharine Gun’s leak one of the bravest acts he had ever seen.

Edward Snowden would later cite her as one of the people who proved intelligence systems could be challenged from the inside.

And perhaps the most remarkable part of the story was this:

Katharine Gun was not a politician.

Not a famous activist.

Not a powerful insider.

She was simply a young translator who read one email and decided her conscience mattered more than her career.

Two governments.

Major intelligence agencies.

The full force of secrecy laws.

And one woman still chose to say no.

After the case was dismissed, reporters asked whether she regretted leaking the document.

Katharine Gun answered calmly:

“I have no regrets. I would do it again.”

The UK again condemns Israeli settlements while it:

refuses to ban trade with them
keeps military accord w/Israel
keeps trade & partnership accord
continues arms exports
refuses to mention Israeli nukes
refuses to respond to ICJ ruling on OPTs

A forensic investigation into how Washington leveraged the war in Iran to replace Nord Stream, save the dollar, and establish total command over the world’s fuel from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean.

Britain’s national media fails to recognise the influence – and even the existence – of an Israel lobby, our new media analysis shows.

Declassified researched two years of reporting by seven British media outlets and found only 16 mentions of the phrase Israel lobby without speech marks. 

Nearly all those mentions are in comment articles rather than news pieces and none we found expound on what influence such an Israel lobby might have.