418. Trump Bombs Iran: What Happens Now?

Thanks for listening to The Rest is Politics.

Sign up to The Rest is Politics Plus to enjoy ad-free listening.

Receive a weekly newsletter, join our members' chat room and gain early access to live show tickets.

Just go to therestispolitics.com.

That's the restispolitics.com.

The Restis Politics is efficiently powered by Fuse Energy.

If you've got an electric vehicle, or if you're thinking about it, Fuse has a smart tariff with overnight charging for only five pence a kilowatt hour.

And that's now available on both both Apple and Android app stores and works with a wide range of chargers.

No faff, no filibustering, no unexpected U-turns.

So quite unlike politics and you don't even need a PhD in engineering.

You just plug in your EV before bed and it'll be ready before the headlines hit your inbox.

So if you need a charger installed, Fuse will sort the hardware, the fitting and the setup often in under a week.

And when you sign up, you'll get the Trip Plus members deal completely free.

Ad-free listening, early access to question time, bonus episodes, and pre-sale tickets to our live shows.

So while your car recharges, your podcast feed gets a power boost too.

Just head to getfuse.com/slash politics, download the app and use the code Politics.

Smart tariff, swift installation, no white papers, green papers, or red tape required.

This podcast is brought to you by Carvana.

Buying a car shouldn't eat up your week.

That's why Carvana made it convenient.

Car buying that fits around your life, not the other way around.

You can get pre-qualified for an auto loan in just a couple of minutes and browse thousands of quality car options, all within your terms, all online, all on your schedule.

Turn car buying into a few clicks and not a full week's endeavor.

Finance and buy your car at your convenience.

On Carvana.

Financing subject to credit approval.

Additional terms and conditions may apply.

This podcast is brought to you by Carvana.

Got a car to sell, but no time to waste?

Hop onto Carvana.com to get a real offer for your car in seconds.

All you have to do is enter your license plate, answer a few quick questions, and if you accept the offer, Carvana will pay you as soon as you hand the keys over.

They even offer same-day pickup in many cities.

Save your time, score some cash, and sell your car the convenient way to Carvana.

Pickup times vary.

Fees may apply.

Hello, welcome to an emergency episode of The Rest is Politics with me, Aztec Campbell.

And with me, Rory Stewart.

And I'm in Cyprus and Rory is in London, but I think we both decided straight away this morning, having said last week that we weren't going to just jump every time Donald Trump did or said something newsworthy into emergency podcast mode, I think this absolutely justifies it.

My daughter, Grace, Rory, keeps saying to me, What's going to happen?

What's going to happen?

And

up till now, I've been saying there's nothing to worry about.

It's all going to be fine.

Don't worry too much.

But even though I'm getting worried now, I think this is pretty cataclysmic stuff.

And I think the consequences, hopefully,

won't be too serious.

But I suspect that nobody really knows where this is going to go.

Yeah.

And so, Anastasia, I think that's you've put your finger on it, haven't you?

So just a quick reminder.

The reason we're doing this podcast is that overnight Trump authorized the U.S.

bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and unleashed these very, very big attacks, which Israel would not have been able to launch with very specialized munition, particularly taking out the Fordow base, which is this place a half mile underground, and with bombs so big that it appears that they, despite the fact it was half a mile underground, they've collapsed it.

Now, why does that matter?

It matters for many, many reasons.

It matters firstly for international law.

So, again, as we talked about in the last week's podcast, international law is based essentially on a barroom brawl.

So you can preempt, you can hit the other person in a bar only if they are just about to hit you.

So first question, would the U.S.

have any reason to feel that Iran was just about to attack the US?

No.

Second question is, of course, around the non-proliferation treaty.

So

since the Second World War, we've been very worried about the Third World War.

And of course, in order to prevent the Third World War, we've been trying to prevent lots of people getting nuclear weapons.

And the way in which we've done that is we've created a very complicated treaty with weapons inspectors that go in.

And

what happened in this case is that Iran was still at least 12 months probably away from developing a nuclear weapon.

There had been challenges to the weapons inspectors.

But that process was not allowed to play through.

Israel struck.

And then

Trump said, well, we'll go back to the negotiating table.

And before anything could happen on whether or not Iran was going to return to the negotiating table or not,

Trump has now struck.

Back over to you.

Yeah, you said there that they've sort of taken out the Fordo nuclear facility.

We only have his word for that.

And I think given the way that he presents himself all the time, as everything he does is fantastic, everything America touches turns to gold.

The Iranians are claiming that they've vacated these places.

Now, I don't know if that's true.

I don't know what's going on.

But just a little bit on the actual these bombs, and they're called these bunk, so-called bunker busters.

And it is quite an operation because it seems that very few of these famous flight trackers pick these up.

And we're talking about 37-hour flight.

to some of these planes.

So several refueling missions en route from their base in Missouri.

Trump has come said said out and they quote completely and totally obliterated the nuclear enrichment facilities.

Iran says that is exaggerated.

They've immediately struck back and hit some Israeli targets.

And of course, now what people will be wondering and worrying is whether they retaliate further by trying to hit American bases

in the Middle East or close the Straits of Hormuz, which would have an immediate and pretty catastrophic impact upon the global economy.

So, and one other thing to report, I just saw the UN's nuclear watchdog says no increase in radiation levels have been detected.

And, you know, we talked, God, it feels ages ago now, but it was actually just a few days.

When Netanyahu first launched the attacks on Iran, we talked about whether we thought, and we don't know.

Again, we only have Trump's word for these things, and he changes his line all the time.

That's what's so confusing.

He will probably say that's part of his strategic genius.

So he has us thinking he's not, he doesn't want BB to attack Iran.

Then, when he does it, he says that I was with him all along.

He says he wants to go down the diplomatic path with Iran, give them two weeks, and then, no, I've changed my mind, I'm going now.

Netanyahu came out with absolute sort of joy.

And even the Israeli opposition, Yah Lapid, is saying that this is the right thing to do.

This is a real threat, etc.

So what do you think, what's your immediate instinct worry about what you think Iran might be feeling, thinking and planning to do beyond these immediate strikes that they'd whacked off?

Yeah, okay.

So exactly.

Let's do Iran first and then we'll do what it means for the rest of the world.

So the Iran thing, we talked about four questions when we discussed this three, four days ago.

And the questions were firstly, can it be done?

You know, is it possible to wipe out this nuclear facility?

Secondly,

how will Iran respond?

You know, will it cave in or will it fight back?

Thirdly, will it draw Iran to negotiate or will it back off?

And finally, will the regime collapse?

And of course,

each one of those four things could go in two ways, which means there's 16 possible

results, but we won't go through all 16 of those.

I think the most interesting one is probably

to look at what your estimate was, was probably the most likely.

But I think remember on this stuff that

we don't know with any of this stuff.

A lot of this stuff is very unknown.

But let's take a pretty decent guess, which I think is a good probability, which is what you were talking about four days ago.

So

your instinct was regime stays in place.

It's probably not greatly strengthened.

There's not a huge nationalist backlash in the favor of the the regime.

It decides that it wants to push ahead with its nuclear development, and it doesn't return to the negotiating table.

Now,

what are the problems here?

Well,

the problems are, and this is what encourages people like Netanyahu and Trump, is that in a very, very straightforward tactical sense, on the surface, attacking Iran is easier now than it was three years ago.

So when I was in these conversations, when I I was in the British government, National Security Council, we talked about these kinds of things.

We were very, very afraid of very extreme Iranian responses.

And they were twofold.

One of them was their use of proxies, so their use of Hezbollah, their use of the Houthis, their use of the Iraqi Shia militia, all these groups that Iran has funded and maintained for many, many years.

And the second was direct response from Iran, cyber attacks, attacks on satellites, attacks for terrorists.

There are still those risks, but

the big change is that Israel's attacks against Hezbollah, these were the pager attacks, mobile phone attacks, to remind listeners, wiped out the entire senior leadership of Hezbollah and was then followed up by attacks on the entire missile arsenal.

of Hezbollah, or almost the entire missile arsenal.

So we've gone from a world in which there were 100,000 missiles in Lebanon about to fire at Israel to a world in which that doesn't feel credible at all, and in which Hezbollah, in fact, has said that it is considering staying out of this.

And on the Iranian side,

it looks as though their air defenses haven't worked

and the regime is in a much weaker situation.

It's extremely unpopular.

I was talking to someone yesterday who's just come back from Iran about how much contempt there is for the regime.

So that's the pure kind of tactical sense, and that's what will have encouraged Netanyahu and Israel.

However, the big, however, is there's still an incredible amount Israel, sorry, Iran can do to strike back should it choose to do so.

So it could close the Straits of Hormuz.

It could launch cyber attacks against general infrastructure in the US and elsewhere.

It could attack other Gulf countries.

It could mount terrorist attacks against US allies around the world.

And ultimately, I suppose it could deploy troops across borders.

So anyway I'll pause on that over to you.

Let's just look at the the issue of the the the straits of of Hormuz.

So a couple of days ago

a member of the National Security Committee in Iran a guy called Beman Saidi said quote closing the strait is one of the potential options

there was then another lawmaker, Ali Yazdikar,

who said

Iran will continue to allow free shipping in the strait and in the Gulf so long as our vital national interests are not at risk.

If the United States enters the war in support of the Zionists, Israel, it is the legitimate right of Iran, in view of pressurizing the US or Western countries, to disrupt their oil trades,

ease of transit.

And it's very interesting, a guy called Spencer Hakimian, who's apparently a hedge fund founder

and a sort of absolute far-out capitalist, but not a fan of Trump.

And he's on social media this morning saying that the most escalatory thing to do is not to bomb American bases, but to close the strait.

And he then posted a picture.

And we should, and all of us, by the way, should be aware of misinformation at this time because there is tons of it out there.

Not least, there's been some extraordinary

fake video circulating already of the sort of damage done on both sides.

But he posted a picture of 50 large oil tankers that he said, according to this graphic, were scrambling to leave.

And said it looks like the oil industry is expecting the strait to be blockaded.

Other people were saying things like that, you know, it's not as easy to close it as you think, added to which it will not be good for regime survival because it will hit them as well.

So we're talking, I think we're talking about something like 20 million barrels of oil a day that go through this between Oman and Iran.

And so I think that

they will feel, I was talking to somebody yesterday who has been in discussion with the Iranians and who

got the impression that one,

they were pretty philosophical about the Americans getting engaged, not convinced that they would do as much damage, do so much damage, and also um just not listening to all the horrible word off-ramp, to all the off-ramps that were being offered to them.

So I think what we're going to see is it a reaction, continued reaction of sorts.

I don't think they'll be terribly

conservative in how they go about that.

Because the whole point of their worries about regime change, on the one hand, you have the people who hate them, very, very numerous.

On the other hand, you have people who actually, if they show weakness,

they'll be

prone to falling.

So on both sides, I think they'll be feeling squeezed.

The Supreme Leader thus far has said nothing, so far as I can see.

Very worried about communications, not least because Netanyahu put out this idea that

they might take him out.

Yeah, just quickly to remind people about the Straits of Hormuz.

So if you look

at a map of the region,

the Gulf comes down like a wedge, and there is

the Gulf by which I mean in this case, Saudi, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain.

And there is then a gap between

the Arab Gulf and Iran, known as the Persian or Arabian Gulf.

And there's a particular point where

a little stick comes up to the north above Dubai.

And that

is then right up next to

the Iranian territory around Bandur Abbas.

So it's a little narrow strip that you've got to sail around.

And about 30% of all the seaborne oil in the world comes through that little gap.

And it's really important, for example, particularly to places that are near Iran.

Very, very significant for Bahrain, very significant for Oman,

but actually also extremely relevant to the United Arab Emirates.

So

that's the straight of Humi's point.

Now, just to develop that one point further, what are people worried about?

Well, of course, what they're worried about is that this is just the beginning.

Oh, there'll be a nice map that's been put up so you can see all it's it's there lovely i'm rather alarmed how close cyprus is it's right it's right there right in the heart of all this um well take take care alistair um uh although actually i think in in in the big big things we're worrying about your your security is not top of our no no

it is it is it is worth just uh pointing out that the um

and we'll get on to this of the whole thing about bases in the region but the fact is that a a

British citizen has been arrested here um on suspicion of spying for Iran at one of the RAF bases, the British air bases that are here in Cyprus.

So this is, you know, this is this is going to draw other people in, whether we like it or not.

Good.

Okay.

Well, just to develop this one one stage further.

So

this could mean, you know, oil could go up to $100, $130 a barrel.

So it could almost double in price.

And if there's an impact on, let's say, 15, 20%, the global oil supply, that can have very significant economic consequences for the whole world.

So that potentially is global recession.

And of course, the point is not just the macroeconomics around this.

It's also the way the financial markets react or don't react.

So that's, and the way in which actually

new

systems of trading, AI systems of trading can actually escalate and accelerate this kind of volatility.

So that's one set of risks.

The next set, which I want to get you onto, though, Alistair, is the US angle.

So we've talked about Iran's options.

More limited, perhaps, than they were three years ago, but still very significant.

And big calculations for Iran there, because, of course, if they do those things, stop the Straits Hormuz, mount a major cyber attack, it's the equivalent, really, of sort of international suicide bombing, because at that point, they will then trigger a very, very intense...

war reaction from the US and others, so big escalation risk.

Let's move to the US, though.

So what

is Trump's strategic end state, says he pompously.

How does he define victory?

What's his exit strategy?

And what are the limits?

I mean, this is really important for understanding whether the US is going to keep escalating this into war or whether this is the end of it.

Over to you.

Well, I think he, you know, let's just speak at the way that this thing has developed.

We talked last week, early this week, about the extent to which the United Nations,

he doesn't even worry about it,

openly said

Iran's not interested in what Europe thinks.

They're only interested in what we think.

So deliberately pushing the international institutions to one side.

Rory's almost knocked his microphone off there, but I saw him rescue it.

He's pushed the international institutions one side.

I mean, I would let's see whether he even bothers to turn up at NATO or whether he'll do a bit like he did at G7, say, well, I'm so busy dealing with big stuff stuff that you guys aren't involved in.

But actually, he is going to have to keep NATO countries on board.

I mean, these alliances will matter.

But at the moment, he's in that state of, you know, I've done it, we've done it, we've completely obliterated them.

And if they come back with anything at all, we're going to escalate.

That's basically what he's saying.

Quick interruption here before you get onto the big strategy.

I mean, I also think that a really important theme here, which we often talk about, is the sense that he's the, in his own head, he's the hero of his own reality TV show.

And he constructs shows like the construction of a Hollywood movie, where you get more and more extreme crises, responses, to develop the sense of drama.

And as he feels he's losing his audience, the number one thing he cares about is being famous and also rich, but above all, famous.

And so, in a sense, there was a sort of driving logic to this, which was not anything to do with Iran, was purely to do with Trump, I guess, asking himself in the White House, what's going to make the great story here?

What's going to make me look like the tough guy?

Is it doing nothing or is it dropping an enormous bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility and framed like that?

Presumably, he's tempted to do it just because it suits the reality TV show.

On that theme,

and I really don't want to alarm my daughter or anybody else listening, but I think when we last talked about the reality TV concept, when we talked about it to Michael Wolf,

I made the point that, you know, the logical conclusion, the thing you go to at the end of the film is a nuclear war.

Now, I don't, even Trump, I hope, does not want that.

But, you know, let me just read you a post that he posted yesterday on his social media.

I'm very happy to report that I have arranged, along with Marco Rubio, a wonderful treaty between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in their war, which was known for bloodshed and death more than most other wars and has gone on for decades.

Representatives from Rwanda and the Congo will be in Washington on Monday to sign documents.

Great day for Africa, great day for the world.

I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this.

I won't get a peace prize for stopping the war between India and Pakistan.

I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the war between Serbia and Kosovo.

I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping peace between Egypt and Ethiopia.

And on and on and on he goes, No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia, Ukraine and Israel and Iran, whatever the outcomes, but the people know and that's all that matters to me.

What matters to him is this bloody peace prize.

How does it square with what he's now doing?

Well, maybe if I answered your question, maybe the point is that he's actually he wrote that tweet, decided he was never going to get a Nobel Peace Prize and thought, well, fuck it, if I can't get something for a peace prize, why don't I get something for being the biggest warmer?

But how in the in this moment right now, how can you talk about Russia and Ukraine in terms of his role as a peacemaker?

It's got worse.

This is now getting worse.

Israel-Palestine and

the tragedy in this two huge tragedies, both for Gaza and for Ukraine.

They get pushed out now.

But just on the strategy, Rory,

look, I could be unfair here.

I don't think there is one.

I think it's all about the presentation and the story, as you say, and the politics.

And interestingly, let's just watch these MAGA people, the Carlsons and the Bannons and all this guy.

It's already starting, by the way.

Matt Gates.

Trump wants this to be like the Solomani strike, one and done.

No regime change war.

Trump the peacemaker.

Charlie Kirk has come out.

We have to trust our commander-in-chief.

So all these people a few days ago were saying, we must not get drawn in.

We must not do it.

So this is like a cult.

And I think that if the strategy, you say what's the end game, he set out, this is the, I don't think the guy is very strategic.

He set out a few days ago another of his social media media posts unconditional surrender caps exclamation mark well

that's quite hard because if there is an unconditional resistance surrender they are finished now what this guy i was talking to has been talking to the iranians he did say the iranians have been unbelievably difficult totally um stuck in their in the you know they're kind of their old ways but ultimately

You're asking me what I think the strategy is.

I honestly don't know.

Well, let's take a quick break.

And in the second half, we'll come back.

We'll take some questions.

This is an ad from BetterHelp.

All of us, I think, often do find guidance in very unlikely places, an accidental meeting, seeing someone that we haven't seen for a long time.

But there's something quite different that you can get from a therapist, from a trained professional who has actually had the discipline and the experience to engage.

And BetterHelp has been doing this, finding the right matches between people and their therapists for over 10 years.

They start with a short questionnaire, which helps you connect to an experienced therapist whose expertise aligns with your needs.

And if the match isn't right, you can change it anytime at no extra cost.

It's entirely online.

You can pause your subscription whenever you wish.

BetterHelp has already supported more than 5 million people worldwide.

And for many of them, a right match can guide them through not just the moment, but can make a real, real difference.

Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash restpolitics.

That's betterhelp.com slash restpolitics.

This episode is brought to you by NordVPN.

Summer.

The season of sunburns, sand in your suitcase, and unsecured hotel Wi-Fi called something like Guest123.

So from Cornwell to Croatia, people connect to whatever network is nearest.

No password, no protection, just you, your inbox, and a stranger monitoring your keystrokes in flip-flops.

That's a very good reason to use NordVPN, which is what I use.

It encrypts your connection.

NordVPN masks your IP.

It blocks unwanted trackers.

So it's not just safer, it's also smarter.

Whether you're booking last-minute flights or chasing end-of-season hotel deals, NordVPN keeps online prices honest.

It's the one bit of your setup that works exactly as it should, whether you're at home, abroad, or somewhere in between.

So, to get the best discount off your NordVPN plan, go to NordVPN.com/slash restispolitics.

Our link will also give you four extra months on the two-year plan.

There's no risk with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee.

The link is in the podcast episode description box.

After 8 p.m.

for $5.99, get a Cali Classic single, fries plus chicken stars.

Or get a spicy chicken sandwich, onion rings plus chicken stars.

This deal is stacked don't hit the sack hit the drive-through build your own bag just $5.99 only a girl's junior you build it you eat it order your bag on the app and unlock even more burgers insides available for a limited time at participating restaurants tax not included price may vary not valid in the offer discount or combo see out for details

Welcome back from the break.

Rory, before we do questions, before we get into questions,

I'm going to do that terrible thing, which how many American troops, roughly, do you think there are in the Middle East?

At the moment,

40,000?

Not bad.

Over 30,000.

Just over 30,000.

So just, I mean, I was looking through some of these numbers.

So

the American military have 1.3 million active duty members home and abroad and a quarter of a million stationed overseas.

Japan far and away has the most, then Germany, South Korea, Italy, and then we're on about 10,000.

And what's interesting about

where they are, Bahrain has the most in the region.

Bahrain has about 9,000 US military and civilians.

So you've got

a lot of American bases around the place, and they will be obviously concerned about what the response might be.

And the other thing I think is important to, and again, we can only speculate.

The role we said sort of half in jest, that silly parade that he did last week, that the soldiers didn't really look up for it and what have you.

It will be interesting to see.

The American military will be unbelievably proud, I imagine, that they've been able to pull off this military operation as a military operation.

But whether they actually want to get sucked in in the way that clearly Hexeth doesn't mind, Rubio seems to do just whatever Trump says.

Vance, interestingly, yesterday, J.D.

Vance,

we should point people to the start of our mini-series on Vance, which isn't the rest is politics plus.

But

he did a very interesting little interview the other day.

He basically said, whatever the president's instincts are, they will be right.

I've never known anybody with such good instincts.

But he's the guy, don't forget, Vance is the guy whose basic messaging has all been about not getting sucked in to more wars.

And

one of the Democrats senators I saw, Jack Reid, the Armed Service Committee, he made the obvious point.

It's easier to start wars than to end them.

Q lots of people say, what about Iraq?

Which is fine.

We can talk about that.

Let's develop that because I think Jack Reed's got a really profound point there which needs to be unpacked a bit

which is that if you're right and I'm sure you're right that Trump hasn't got a strategy he can't define what victory is what an exit strategy is and above all what the limits are

the problem is that if Iran obviously just keels over says okay we're giving up on a nuclear program, we're accepting every American demand, and goodness knows what else, then we're going to have a liberal democracy and and we're going to stop our opposition to Israel.

Fine.

But that's not very likely.

In fact, the regime in Iran, its entire legitimacy now depends on trying to mount a nationalist backlash against the United States.

Otherwise, it's over.

I mean, 40 years of being the Iranian regime requires that.

So then what does Trump do?

And this is the key.

And this is where the limits and end state come in.

If Iran, as is likely,

signals defiance, mounts counter-attacks,

says it's going to find some way of secretly pursuing its program, what does Trump then do?

And almost certainly, he will then feel insulted and feel he has to do more, at which point Iran does more, at which point he does more.

And that's why the question of what this whole thing is about and where does it end, you know, is he trying to change the regime?

That's clearly what many people in Israel want.

Or is he just trying to hit the nuclear program and then he doesn't mind what they do?

Doesn't mind how they respond, doesn't mind who they attack?

Very to you on that.

You made a point about the regime and the opposition.

The opposition apparently are having some big

press conference in Paris today or tomorrow to, and obviously they do want to sort of push for regime change.

But what the MAGA people are clearly saying, right from the world, go, this is not about regime change.

And interestingly, even though Netanyahu hints at it all the time, he's perhaps been reined in a little bit by Trump on that.

And it's interesting to see the international reaction.

Pretty muted.

But Guterres, the head of the UN, gravely alarmed.

Dangerous escalation.

Direct threat to peace and security.

Growing risk the conflict could get out of control with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world.

And then, you know, Kierstama has

fairly sort of low-key.

The US is taking action to alleviate the threat.

Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat, can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Situation in the Middle East remains volatile.

Stability in the region priority.

Call on Iran to return to the negotiating table.

The problem with all of this, though, and this is, you know, maybe this is the strategy.

When we talk about, when I say Trump doesn't have a strategy, maybe I'm being unfair.

To this extent, he has an objective, which is to make his own power virtually insurmountable.

And that is, and part of that strategy has been the deliberate undermining of the international institutions.

And Jim Himes, the congressman who we talked to a while back,

he's straight out saying that this is an unconstitutional act.

Congress has to declare war,

not the president.

But I'd say the international reactions so far are fairly muted.

Yeah, well, and very disturbing, that, isn't it?

Because

this is

a complete departure from the way in which we tried to keep peace in the world since 1945.

So after the Second World War, the conclusion was that the way to stop new Hitler's, new Japan's rising was to have a United Nations, to have international laws, to have legislative approval, to put all the barriers you could in the way of people just saying, might is right.

I've got some big bombs and I can drop them on whoever I want, whenever I want, right?

We've lost that totally.

We're getting into a very, very muddled world in which we're making arguments which nobody would have made

in the 50s, 60s, or even

much more recently.

I mean, it's shocking, actually, that Keir Starmer, who is a lawyer and who cares about international law and whose Attorney General was signaling that he was pretty concerned about Trump moving planes to Diego Garcia, because the UK Attorney General before the strikes said that it was very questionable whether there would be the legal right to do this strike after the event, they all come in behind him.

And that was true of France.

That was true of Germany last week.

So

now, what's the problem with that?

The problem with that is we now move to a world which feels much more like the world before the First World War, where basically Mait is right.

If you can strike someone, you will strike someone.

And what does that mean?

Well, that means that everybody else around the world, if you're China, Russia, North Korea, you draw the lessons from this.

Well, just on that,

let's just take this question from Cole S.

How much does this increase the incentive for China to take Taiwan?

The U.S.

has got tied up resources in two wars.

There's less global moral high ground for the West in time of offensive war.

And of course, after that,

you and I both said recently that although we don't think that Trump is necessarily serious about his threats to turn Canada into 51st state, that he is serious about Greenland.

Now, if European leaders now

are, and fair play, Macron went to Greenland, I think that's what pissed Trump off to leave the G7 early.

But unless European leaders are staking out these positions on principle, but the politics for this, for people like all leaders around the world, the politics of this now are an absolute nightmare.

He's made it so much worse for all of them by cutting them out of the discussions and the decision making.

But none of them are,

none of them are standing up.

None of them are standing up.

Guterres is.

Yeah, good terrorists.

Yeah, but what about the Europeans?

I mean, it's extraordinary.

I mean, traditionally, the reason why the US built coalitions and alliances was to have international support.

Trump has now accurately concluded that he's in a world where the European leaders are such wimps that he can do whatever the hell he wants.

whenever he does it, and none of them will criticize him.

In fact, they'll all come in behind him and say it was terrific, even if two minutes before he did it, they were saying publicly that it would be a bad idea to do.

I mean, there's no consistency.

How can Britain go from saying with the Attorney General, just a few hours ago, this is a potentially illegal action, to then coming immediately out and saying, well done, great, well done, you, Mr.

Trump?

He's not quite saying, well done, great.

He's saying he's giving the esplanade, he's essentially framing the Trump explanation for why he's done it and then sort of calling for de-escalation because they've been calling for de-escalation since Israel went in in the first place.

There's a question here, Ruth Fitzgerald, Rory, how will Putin react?

Will he take any action, Candy?

Putin will be

sort of feeling

he's further justified in what he's doing.

Well, yes.

I mean,

so this is now, will define the future, will be called the Ford outcase.

Every time

somebody does something around the world, Russia, China, the US,

goodness knows who else, they will say, well, it's like Ford.

We're going to, we're doing preemptive.

Oh, yeah, okay, it's 12 months off, but we're preempting.

Let me just, the two things which I was really struck by, I've just been thinking about Eisenhower and Suez and how different the world was.

And there were two points that Eisenhower makes, which I think are really interesting, which show how much the world's changing and how bizarre this new world is and how dangerous it is.

Eisenhower basically says two things.

Number one,

you cannot do things preemptively.

You can't, your excuse can't be, they're about to get me.

And secondly, he's saying you can't have one rule for your allies and one rule for your enemies, right?

So here are his quotes.

So this song preemption.

He says this about Suez.

Britain, France and Israel had come to believe probably correctly that NASA was their worst enemy in the Middle East and that until he was removed or defeated, there would be no peace.

I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future.

So that's the preemption bit.

And then one more short one.

We cannot, and this is about allies, we cannot cannot in the world any more than our own nations subscribe to one law for the weak, another for the strong, one law for those opposing us, another for those allied with us.

So Eisenhower would be saying, look, listen, I get it.

Israel is our close ally.

Even the US is our close ally.

And Iran isn't.

But you can't have one law for Israel and the US and another law for Iran.

Otherwise, it's not the law.

Yeah.

Well,

and that debate is, I think, one of the reasons why

the international response is kind of

feeling quite fragmented, it's feeling quite weak.

And I think at some point these leaders have to make a stand about the importance of American alliances.

And, you know, when we announced that we were doing this emergency podcast, there were people as ever on Twitter in particular saying, who the hell wants to hear from you?

You started a war in Iraq, da, da, da, da, da.

Unusual stuff.

But as we were saying the other day, this feels so different.

I can remember a weekend, I think it was a weekend when Tony Blair made, I can't even remember how many phone calls to the presidents of, I think it was Chile and Mexico, because they happened to be two of the sort of swing states on the rotating United Nations Security Council.

And he was absolutely determined to, you know, at one point we're talking literally about doing a day trip to, I think it was Mexico, to go and see Vincente Fox.

And in the end, we didn't, but it was because he was working flat out with George Bush and others to try to take the thing down the United Nations route.

You mentioned Richard Herman, the Attorney General.

You know, the various inquiries that we've had into the Iraq war.

I mean, how much scrutiny was there on the discussions that we were having, Tony Blair was having with the Attorney General?

And it feels in this one as though

all of that has just been pushed to one side.

It's a whim.

And if when the vice president says, you know, we just trust his instincts, then where is international law?

Where are the alliances?

Where are the risks?

What assessment was actually being done?

Yeah, this is Cold Harbor's question.

There's been no mention of U.S.

legal basis for getting involved.

Will there be repercussions from the UN?

What is the UN's role in this now?

Well,

I would argue we're now in a world in which the UN is entirely irrelevant.

I think what the US has just done

a few hours ago is the end of the United Nations as we know it.

Now, as you've pointed out, it's been getting weaker for a long time.

But this is actually the end.

Guterres now sounds like a lone voice in the wilderness.

He sounds like he's speaking 10 years ago.

We're now in a world in which Russia claimed preemption to go into Ukraine.

That was their reason.

You know,

they said we're going in because Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russia, so we've got to invade.

Now America has said Iran poses an existential threat to the US, so we've got to go and hit them.

When those two big members of the Security Council do that, and when Britain and France, the other two members of the Security Council, back them in doing this, or in this case,

back the US in doing it, we're now in a world in which there isn't any international law.

And as you say, the smaller countries, medium-sized countries don't matter.

Nobody's consulting them.

So what does this then mean?

Well...

Look, let's play through one scenario that's not implausible.

Let's say that there is a dispute about an island in the South China Sea.

So there's an argument at the moment, a real argument going on between China, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan about some of these islands.

Let's say Vietnam or the Philippines suddenly decides to seize one of these islands.

What does the international community do?

I can't apply to international law.

Presumably, Philippines, Vietnam just say, well, this is an existential threat.

We need to get the island.

And then what happens when China drops a big bomb on that island and blows it up?

What can the world say?

I mean, mean, if we have literally got ourselves into a world in which we just say the instinct of the leader and the most powerful country can just do whatever they want, whenever they want,

we have gone a very, very long way back in time.

We haven't just gone back before the First World War.

We've almost gone back before the Treaty of Westphalia.

I mean, we're going back into a world where there isn't any international law at all.

And it's also the absolute disrespect with which this stuff is meted out.

Even his own national security advisor, who who is intelligence director, Telsi Gabbard,

who

was basically, and she wasn't, it seems to me, I've seen a list of the people in the situation room, it seems that she wasn't one of them.

Why House Council was there, by the way?

A question, a comment here from

Jim, commenting a question, Jim G, this shows the difficulty of the politics of this for every government, but he's obviously British, talking about Keir Starmer.

Kirstalma's response is despicable.

He says Israel has the right to defend itself, but Iran should return to the negotiating table.

Israel attacked first.

If someone bombed us, would Stalma negotiate?

I mean, these questions are going to become very, very difficult for European governments.

And of course, the NATO summit,

NATO is, you know, we all talk, we often talk about

NATO as being this formidable alliance that has kept Europe safe.

Okay.

Well, Europe isn't safe at the moment because Putin is taking step-by-step trying to take over Ukraine and has got his eyes on other countries there beyond that and meanwhile nato which is depended upon united states leadership um is another of the international institutions which trump deliberately and willfully undermines now sometimes he's got a point he's got a point about spending and a lot of them are responding on that but the the the these institutions that have sort of basically allowed your generation my generation to live through relative peace and prosperity that i think is what we're putting at risk here.

And the fact that it's America that is leading in that,

it's pretty big.

It's very, very difficult to handle psychologically.

Look, there's so much more to do, and I guess we'll return to this in the main pod.

But here's one thing that comes up a lot.

Jeremiah 5.9.3.

How can anyone say that Israel attacked first when Iran has been using its proxies?

Ridiculous.

So this is a narrative that you'll hear a lot from Netanyahu, and it's a narrative which is really popular with a lot of Israelis.

I don't know whether Jeremiah is aware of the history between Israel and Iran stretching back over 40 years, that this isn't something that just started with a recent use of proxies, that a shadow war has been conducted between those two countries for well over a decade in which Israel has been assassinating Iranians, Iranians have been assassinating Israelis for so long now that the question of who started it hardly makes any sense at all.

But what is absolutely clear is there is a total difference between the type of damage which was inflicted in these

shadow wars where occasionally four or five people were killed in this place or that place or one thing was fired, you know, a machine gun was fired in the streets of Iran or

Hezbollah landed some things in northern Israel compared to what's now happening, which is something on a completely different level, completely different level in terms of the level of Israeli strikes against Iran, completely different level now from US strikes against Iran.

And the idea that this is a reasonable response to that more than 10 years of proxy war and standoff between them is, I think, very strange.

Yeah.

Well, listen, Rory, you're absolutely right.

I'm sure we will be talking about this when we record the main podcast on

Tuesday.

I suspect we'll be talking about this for years to come.

Because of all the things that have happened since Donald Trump got back into power, I think this is right up there amongst the most consequential.

And also, I think, amongst the least predictable now as to what happens and where it goes.

And as you say,

what does a win look like?

He's already declared himself to have won because he's completely obliterated their enrichment.

uh facilities let's see if that's even true um

but no i think this is a pretty dangerous day for the world.

Yeah.

And you can see the incredible warmongering.

Tom Gould, Rory might as well run for the Greens in the next election, which I presume means, I don't know, that because I'm trying to stand up for international law, I've suddenly become a Green.

Look, okay, so let's just quick summary then, just to make sure that we've got the main points of people are joining the podcast at the live stream late.

So we touched on what this means for Iran, and we looked at what impact it may or may not have on the nuclear program.

Probably severe, but as you point out, still need to be found out.

What options Iran has to respond?

Well, less options than it would have had three years ago in terms of its proxies, but definitely still huge potential to respond with cyber and the Straits of Hormuz.

Then we looked at the question of...

Donald Trump and what his strategic priorities were.

And as you pointed out, one of the dangerous things is it's very difficult to know what his limits or strategy are, which means there's a real risk of escalation if Iran strikes back.

And then we moved on to this question of Britain, allies, international law, and what on earth this means for the world.

And I think,

I really do feel this is a moment where we've, more clearly than ever, we see the end of the UN, the end of the post-war order, and the beginning of something that feels very, very, very dangerous, feels much more like the period before the First World War.

Yeah.

Well, Rory, nice to see you.

Unexpected.

Pleasure in terrible circumstances.

I do think looking at your dress,

I think it's about time that we posted this meme, the one of him looking like Hans Solo.

Tell Jabber I've got his money.

If people haven't seen it, there's Rory.

It's all about the past sex.

It's how many past sex I can travel at, I think, is the key to that scene.

How many what?

It's

to do with how quickly you can travel through space and Star Wars.

I sometimes think, Alistair, that

you're always mocking me for not knowing about popular culture, by which you mean music and football.

I'm beginning to worry with The Matrix and Star Wars that there may be some blind spots in some of your knowledge of film.

100%.

100%.

Science fiction has just never ever been by say.

Most real conventional films aren't quite good.

Aria Rory, at least

we just have to try and keep smiling, but see you soon.

Thank you.

And Dr.

Queen, thank you for pointing out Parsec as a unit of distance.

All right.

Have a great day.

Bye-bye.

Bye-bye, everybody.