Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:04]
Peter Mansour
The telegraph.
- [00:09]
Jerry Insurance Advertiser
Are you noticing your car insurance rate creep up? Even without tickets or claims, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry handles the legwork by comparing quotes side by side from over 50 top insurers so you can confidently hit buy. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Jerry even tracks rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Don't settle for higher rates. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast today.
- [00:43]
Intuit QuickBooks Advertiser
This is Ndomic and Su from the no Free Lunch Podcast Ever. Feel like your workload is out of control? Like you're wearing every hat and expect it to be everywhere at once? Running a business means juggling books, payments, leads, payroll, basically everything. But with Intuit QuickBooks, your workload gets unloaded. QuickBooks gives you access to Intuit's powerful AI agents and trusted human experts who work together to handle the tedious stuff so you can get back to what actually grows your business. And because everything's streamlined on one platform, you, your customer management, accounting, expenses, and payroll all work seamlessly in one place. So go ahead, outdo it with Intuit QuickBooks get 50% off QuickBooks Online for three months. Terms and conditions apply. Feature availability may vary by product. Visit QuickBooks.com for details.
- [01:46]
Peter Mansour
Here. We are potentially embarking on a forever war. Because if you want to keep the Strait of Hormuz open by military force, that's a forever mission. A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.
- [02:05]
Dr. Horton Advertiser
If you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on earth, we will hunt
- [02:10]
Tom Cotterell
you down without apology and without hesitation,
- [02:14]
Dr. Horton Advertiser
and we will will kill you.
- [02:16]
Roland Oliphant
We were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action.
- [02:22]
Venetia Rainey
Now today, President Trump says Iran's supreme
- [02:25]
Peter Mansour
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attacks.
- [02:34]
Venetia Rainey
I'm Venetia Rainey.
- [02:35]
Roland Oliphant
And I'm Roland Oliphant.
- [02:36]
Venetia Rainey
And this is Iran. The Latest. It's Monday, March 23, 2026. Well, it's the 24th day of the war, and on today's episode, we're going to be looking at why and how Iran fired an ICBM and intercontinental ballistic missile at the British base in Diego Garcia over the weekend. Plus, we'll be speaking to a former US Colonel about what American troops in the Middle east might do when they arrive, from a ground invasion to potentially seizing enriched uranium.
- [03:02]
Roland Oliphant
Other news you should be aware of at the Time of recording so Donald Trump has walked back his threat to hit and obliterate all of Iran's various power plants, starting with the biggest one first. He had initially threatened to, within 48 hours do so if Iran hadn't fully opened the strait. That deadline was about to expire roughly 11pm UK time. So kind of late afternoon east coast time and I suppose kind of very, very early in the morning in Iran. He has, however, said, and I think it's worth reading it out, his entire statement out, he says, I am pleased to report the United States of America and the country of Iran have had over the last two very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East. Based on the tenor and tone of these in depth, detailed and constructive conversations, which will continue throughout the week, I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five day period, subject to the success of ongoing meetings and discussions. Thank you for your attention on this matter. President General Day Trump so in other words, a five day moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. That is not a five day ceasefire and it is not a five day cessation of hostilities. He has put off that massive threat and of course the context of that is of course, as soon as he issued that threat, the Iranians issued their own counter threat, saying they would obliterate any and all infrastructure belonging to American allies in the region as well. So we were headed for a pretty horrendous conflagration.
- [04:42]
Venetia Rainey
I've seen reporting in Al Jazeera that the Gulf countries basically went into overdrive after Trump issued that ultimatum. It's been Eid over the weekend, so normally a big holiday across the Arabic world, but apparently the phones have been ringing off the hooks to the White House. Various leaders trying to say this escalation doesn't serve anyone. And so we've seen that U turn now other stuff. So over the weekend the Americans struck Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment complex. They used bunker buster bombs apparently to attack the underground facility. This is the same one that was attacked during last year's 12 Day War and it was hit earlier this month. Satellite images at the time showed damage to entrance buildings. There's apparently no leakage of radioactive materials reported, although we keep an eye on that. Natanz is integral to Tehran's nuclear program. So this is part of America's aim to try and take out their nuclear program because they said they were heading for nuclear weapons and related to that the Israeli military said on Saturday that it had struck a facility embedded within Tehran University that they said was utilized by the Iranian terror regime's military industries and ballistic missiles array to develop nuclear weapon compone and weapons. So more attacks on that nuclear program that we're seeing.
- [05:49]
Roland Oliphant
And off the back of that, Iran launched a strike in the town of Dimona and also Arad and southern Israel. Dimona is of course close to the nuclear weapon program that Israel definitely doesn't have, but everyone knows that it does have. It's close to the Negev Nuclear Research center, which where we believe Israel has the nuclear weapons that they don't have. That hits a residential area. The Israelis are talking about 180 injured over or 116 of them in Arad and 64 in Dimona. So really serious strikes there causing extensive damage. And of course these two missiles did get through, didn't hit the intended target, but it wasn't shot down by the Iron Dome or Israel's other interceptor systems. IDF say they're investigating why Air Defence systems failed to intercept both of those missiles. Of course, the question that neither the Israelis nor the Iranians nor anyone else will answer in this war is how many missiles and interceptor missiles they have left. This is a question that speaks to that conundrum. There was always a question about whether the Iranians would be able to overwhelm Israeli interceptor missile stocks or the other way around.
- [07:02]
Venetia Rainey
We had a really interesting chat on Friday's episode with missiles expert Fabian Hoffman, and we were talking about exactly that. He highlighted a video that he'd seen last week where one interceptor missile had been sent up to intercept an Iranian projectile. And he said that was interesting because it suggests that they're sending up one interceptor missile per incoming projectile, whereas normally you'd send up a few. It's not conclusive, but he suggests it points towards the idea that they're starting to ration their interceptor missile. So I think that all ties into that same discussion, that the longer this war goes on, the trickier it will be for Israel and the Gulf countries. And we've seen ongoing attacks on the Gulf countries over the weekend. I think the biggest thing to point out here is that the head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, he said that at least 40 energy assets have been severely or very severely damaged in the region across nine countries across the entire three weeks of the war. He also said that this conflict in the Middle east could spark an energy crisis worse than the combined shock of the 1970s. And he said it's comparable to the initial impacts of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. We are seeing countries outside of the Middle east now scrambling to figure out how to deal with the economic fallout here in the uk. Keir Starmer's chairing, I think, his third COBRA meeting to try and figure out
- [08:14]
Roland Oliphant
what to do in other theatres in Lebanon, Israel has hit the main bridge over the Litany River. Linking the southern part of Lebanon to the rest of the Litany is historically the kind of geographic benchmark used by the Israelis to demarcate zones of military action or occupation. We're told the Israeli military was ordered to destroy all crossings over the Litany river, which signals an escalation of operations in Lebanon. Lebanon was dragged into the war on March 2nd when Hezbollah started firing into Israeli territory. The Lebanese Ministry of health says that 1001 people in Lebanon have been killed since that date.
- [08:56]
Venetia Rainey
Something worth mentioning from over in America, the White house is seeking $200 billion in funding for the war in Iran. Trump says it's needed to replenish ammunition and other supplies depleted by the conflict and previous aid to other countries. Now this is in addition to the department's annual budget of $838 billion, which was approved by Congress back in January. We think that this might start to be a bit of a crunch point in America. They will have to go to Congress to get that money. And of course they didn't go to Congress to start this war. So they might start explaining the rationale behind it. We might start to see quite a lot more pushback. A reminder of course, we've got the midterms coming up in November, so parties will starting to be looking ahead to that and how popular this war will be with voters.
- [09:37]
Roland Oliphant
Since the war began, Beijing's view of all this, its intentions and its plans, is something that almost everyone we've spoken to has pondered and said may be key to the outcome. They're still biding their time, however. Premier Li Qiang, speaking at the government's annual Davos style forum over the weekend, has made a pitch pitch for China to replace the US as a safe and reliable ally, saying that the PRC is a cornerstone of certainty and a harbor of stability in the face of rising protectionism. Didn't name America exactly. That's according to a report in the ft. As noted, China is so far for the time being, trying to keep out of this. But 90% of Iran's oil was sold to China. All eyes on Beijing in the medium term.
- [10:26]
Venetia Rainey
And then one last update from here in the uk, four ambulances belonging to a Jewish community organization in North London in Golders Green were set on fire overnight. Counterterrorism police are now investigating that after an Iran linked group claimed responsibility online. That hasn't been verified, but they are investigating it. The group is Harakat Ashab Al Yamin Al Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of the People of the Right Hand. And it made the claim of responsibility on its Telegram channel earlier today, according to afp. So we'll bring you more on that if that does come out to be true. Now let's turn to our guests. We're starting with Tom Cotterell, our acting defence editor, who joins me now in the studio to discuss the attack on Diego Garcia base over the weekend. Tom, welcome to Iran. The latest. So we know a ballistic missile, an intercontinental ballistic missile was fired towards Diego Garcia sometime last week. Just tell us more about what we know has happened.
- [11:15]
Tom Cotterell
Iran fired two missiles. We believe it's overnight. I mean, there's no actual exact timings of this and it came out late during the weekend. But they fired of a couple two Khoram Shah four intermediate ballistic missiles. Now one of those apparently failed in flight and the second, so we understand, was intercepted by US forces, likely an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Now why this is important, these missiles have a range of about 4,000 kilometers. So what that means is it puts us squarely in the sphere, particularly London, of the far end range of Iran's potential capability.
- [11:51]
Venetia Rainey
Okay, let's talk more about that missile, The Coram Shaw 4. How certain are we that that's what it was? I saw lots going around on social media about it.
- [11:57]
Tom Cotterell
We're relatively sure. I mean, that's what the Israel Defence Forces said to us. And that's kind of what our intelligence analysts suggest is the likely missile they used. It's interesting because these weapons can carry a payload of up to a ton, which is quite a significant explosive amount. However, when you're carrying such a heavy amount of explosives, you can't go quite as far as a ballistic missile. So they can carry anything between a ton. Some missile experts said over the weekend they can carry up to 100kg, which means they can go that little bit further. But yes. So intelligence points towards the Karamshaw Four being the likeliest missile used against Diego Garcia.
- [12:32]
Venetia Rainey
What do we know about the range of these Khoram Shaw 4 missiles? Because there's some suggestion that they might have been rejigged slightly, right?
- [12:39]
Tom Cotterell
Yeah, that's right. They did mention 2200km as a potential range for some of these missiles, obviously this is significantly further than that. I mean, we're close towards the kind of 5,000 kilometre mark to Diego Garcia, not too far from that. But again, it comes down to what sort of payload these missiles contain. The heavier the payload, it means it can't quite go as far. So we're not entirely sure what the payload was for this particular missile set that they fired and indeed we're not sure why the second missile had a misfiring oversea and didn't reach its target. But the ranges can vary.
- [13:14]
Venetia Rainey
Just reading from my notes that I made over the weekend, it's thought to be derived from North Korea's Musudan BM25 missile, which is in turn based on the old Soviet R27, given the NATO codename SSN6 Serb. Iran apparently bought eight 18 of these back in 2005, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies Missile defence project.
- [13:32]
Tom Cotterell
Yeah, that's correct. I mean, Iran have been trying to, I guess rejig how these missiles operate and try to make them more sophisticated. In ballistic missile terms, they're relatively dumb missiles and this one is probably, it's not the most sophisticated missile out there, but what it does give Iran the option is to strike far, to strike hard. That's pretty crucial.
- [13:53]
Venetia Rainey
So I guess the big question, and you mentioned this right at the beginning, is are we now at risk in the UK or in Europe more broadly? Before we heard about this missile being fired, we had Abbas Araghi, Iran's Foreign Minister, threatening Britain. He said, Sir Keir Starmer was putting British lives at risk by allowing the US to use UK bases. We now know that they fired at one of those bases, Diego Garcia. And then since then we've had the IDF warning the Iranian terrorist regime poses a global threat now with missiles that can reach London, Paris or Berlin. And they shared a quite scary looking map with the range of these missiles covering all of Europe, basically. What's the defence community making of that warning?
- [14:29]
Tom Cotterell
So it's a mixed message. I mean, certainly they do on paper have the capability to reach London, but that is kind of at the extreme range. But realistically, do they have the capability to actually get there? It's unlikely. The reason why we say this is that there's a vast network of air defenses across Europe. So in the Eastern Mediterranean we've got our type 45 destroyer, HMS Dragon. Now that's specifically built to take down ballistic missiles, drones.
- [14:59]
Venetia Rainey
So exactly this kind of missile, the Type 45 could handle potentially.
- [15:02]
Tom Cotterell
Potentially it might be towards the top end of its capability of targeting. And again, it has a relatively short range, these missiles, interception range of about 75 miles. So you'd be reliant on this missile kind of flying directly overhead for a type 45 to intervene. But what we have along the way are we have other kind of American assets in Spain that provide that protection. So we've got four Arleigh Burke destroyers that are forward deployed out in Spain. We've also got missile defences in Turkey. So the Patriot missile system, again that's on the route to the uk. And likewise there are other defences across Romania and indeed Poland we've got the Aegeus shore based system which again fires the same missile that the Arleigh Burke destroyers would fire. So very capable, very useful bits of kit. So we do have a defensive shield now. Now, look, over the weekend the government tried to downplay the threat that the UK is facing. So the Housing Secretary said that they had no assessment suggesting Iran was looking to target certainly British soil. That's debated by the idf. And indeed Benjamin Netanyahu over the weekend came out and reinforced what the IDF said. But I guess it's the question, it's not necessarily British soil, the UK homeland that could be targeted, but more sovereign territories. So I'm talking RAF Akateri on Cyprus and again, as we've already seeing Diego Garcia, that is where the kind of key strike is. And we've already heard the kind of increasing rhetoric from Iran when it comes to the threats that the UK poses. They described us as an aggressor over the weekend. So it's ramping up and it's that concern that Iran could now target our sovereign assets, I think is the main point of issue. But when it comes to the defence community, they are concerned that back on the homeland we don't necessarily have enough air defences, particularly to target those kind of high end, sophisticated ballistic missiles. That's the key that they're concerned with.
- [16:54]
Venetia Rainey
So what do you see coming out of this pressure from Iran and the news that we've had about this icbm? Do you see Keir Starmer being pressured to be more militarily engaged? Do you see more investment in defence spending here at home?
- [17:08]
Tom Cotterell
I think that's a tricky question for both the government and the treasury to answer. There's supposed to be the defence investment plan that's due to come out still waiting for. Well, yeah, exactly. It was due out in autumn and this is the kind of plan that sets out exactly what we're going to buy over the next 10 years and what that's going to look like now, we don't know. As part of the strategic defensive view, we're supposed to be putting a billion pounds into air defences. Likewise, we don't know what that equates to. There is a key about trying to reinvest in air defences. Military chiefs have said we've been waning, we're lacking when it comes to that. We haven't really invested since the Cold War, so we're coming towards 30 years or thereabouts since we've really invested into air defences. And currently all we have at the moment, realistically to take on ballistic missiles or our type 45 destroyers, we don't have any land based systems that can do that job. Now, the British army, they've got the Royal Artillery, indeed, they've got the Skysabre system. Great bit of kit. It can take out fast jets, it can take out slower cruise missiles and helicopters, but when it comes to the fast range ballistic missiles, it's ineffective against that.
- [18:11]
Venetia Rainey
Diego Garcia, a lot of our listeners will remember part of this Chagos Islands deal, which has been bouncing around for the past few months. Trump said it was a deal that stinks and then he supported it and then he changed his mind again. Do you think this latest attack will change the British government's thinking around the deal?
- [18:28]
Tom Cotterell
Honestly, I'm not sure if it will. You know, there's a lot of pressure, certainly from the Tory party in particular, who say getting rid of Chagos puts us at risk. It gives, it opens the door potentially to China.
- [18:39]
Venetia Rainey
And just to be clear, this deal that we're referring to involves Britain selling the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but then leasing the island with the UK base on for 99 years. And that's Diego Garcia?
- [18:50]
Tom Cotterell
Correct. The concern is that's going to cost billions of pounds for the taxpayer. It's still unclear as to what impact, if any, the Iran war is going to have on that deal. There's going to be a lot of discussion in Westminster, a lot of discussion in Parliament over it. But I think, realistically, in my own opinion, should we be leasing out that kind of base? Should we be giving up that bit of asset that is a crucial stepping stone kind of in between the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean? I don't think we should. I think it's probably not the wisest idea to be doing that, particularly this time. Also, as we've seen with Trump, you know, it signals that the UK is perhaps looking to move away from the us, potentially, whether that sours relationships further With a fairly volatile President Trump. Is that something Keir Starmer particularly wants to do? Jury's out on that.
- [19:36]
Venetia Rainey
Just finally, the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has been asking allies to help him reopen it. Is there any sign that the UK might be thinking of. They've said no so far, but is there any sign that the UK might be thinking of deploying military assets to the region to help with that?
- [19:49]
Tom Cotterell
So defence chiefs I was speaking to last week, they were suggesting. There is a lot of conversation about what they could deploy. They've increased the readiness on some ships. But does that mean we're going to be deploying them to the Middle east? Currently? Unlikely. You know, all we've got going out there at the moment is HMS Dragon, but that's not going down to Straight or Hormuz. That's staying in the Eastern Mediterranean to get to the Straight or Hormuz. That'll probably take another two weeks. On top of that journey, we've not deployed any further ships and there doesn't really seem to be any. Any major inclination. From the UK's perspective, and indeed other NATO allies who incidentally weren't informed or spoken to by President Trump about his attack plans, there doesn't seem to be any notion that they're going to be sending further forces out there, despite what President Trump is saying.
- [20:33]
Venetia Rainey
That was Tom Cotterell, our acting defence editor. Coming up after the break, we'll be speaking to a retired US colonel who is executive officer to General David Petraeus during the Iraqi surge. And we'll be asking him what all those Marines might be able to do in the Middle East.
- [20:52]
Jerry Insurance Advertiser
You know what's wild? Most people are still overpaying for car insurance just because it's a pain to switch. That's why there's Jerry. Jerry's the only app that compares rates from over 50 insurers in minutes and helps you switch fast. With no spam calls or hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year before you renew your car insurance policy. Do yourself a favor, download the Jerry app or head to Jerry AI Acast.
- [21:19]
Strawberry Me Career Advertiser
Let's be completely honest. Are you happy with your job? The fact is, a huge number of people can't say yes to that. Too many of us are stuck in a job we've outgrown or one we never really wanted in the first place. But we stick it out and we give reasons, like, what if the next move is worse? And I've put years into this place, and maybe the most common one. Isn't everyone miserable at work? But there's a difference between reasons for staying and excuses for not leaving. It's time to get unstuck. It's time for Strawberry Me. They match you with a certified career coach who helps you get from where you are to where you want to be, either at your existing job or by helping you find a new one. Your coach helps clarify your goals, creates a plan and keeps you accountable along the way. Go to Strawberry Me Careers and get 50% off your first coaching session. That's Strawberry Me Career.
- [22:12]
Dr. Horton Advertiser
Your new home is now ready Dr. Horton, America's Builder has new homes that are ready today with new construction communities in Ellensburg and throughout the Greater Seattle area. Dr. Horton has the right home for you. At Dr. Horton, we're still building with flexible living spaces, smart home technology and two and three car garages. More communities and more homes available every day. Find your new home in Ellensburg now ready@drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.
- [22:47]
Roland Oliphant
Welcome back. You're listening to Iran, the latest from the Telegraph with me, Roland Oliphant and Venetia Rainey. Peter Mansour is professor of military history at Ohio State University. But before that he was a colonel in the United States Army Army. Significantly, he acted as General David Petraeus executive officer during the surge in Iraq, which turned that war around. That gives him a unique perspective on American wars in the Middle East. He joins us now from Ohio. I began by asking him how the military could unblock the Strait of Hormuz.
- [23:22]
Peter Mansour
Well, the war needs to continue until the objectives are achieved or one side or the other gives in and agrees to come to the negotiating table to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. We know how to do that. It's just very expensive and difficult. You're going to have to seize a base in the region and establish air defense assets there to be able to shoot down missiles and drones headed for the region. You going to have to destroy all the Iranian capabilities in the area that can interdict the strait. We've done a pretty good job with the naval assets, but there's still more to be done there in terms of their mine layers. And then you're going to have to destroy the missile and drone assets that can reach the strait. And that's very difficult because easier to do with missiles because they require more infrastructure and are more easily targetable. But with drones, they're very mobile. They've got a lot of them and it doesn't take that many to Keep the strait closed down because you're not dealing with merchant marine sailors who have to go in harm's way, like the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II. You're dealing with civilians who can say, I'm sorry, but a ship was hit a month ago and it's still not clear. And I'm not going in when you
- [24:44]
Roland Oliphant
say seize a base and set up air defenses whereabouts, because there's a debate about whether the Americans should take Casham island or Carg island as an economic target or actually land along the entire the northern littoral of the Strait of Hormuz.
- [24:59]
Peter Mansour
Taking Carg island would be a different strategy. That would be taking a economic target and holding it hostage for negotiations. Taking an island closer to the strait would be a defensive strategy where you're seizing a place where you can then turn it into a porcupine of air defense assets that can keep the strait clear. You base helicopters there, you can, you can base air defense missiles there, all sorts of things. The Ukrainians could probably help us with establishing a counter drone base there. The strait's a very small place and you have to be there to defend it. You can't do it from afar.
- [25:41]
Venetia Rainey
So those are the options. We've got 2, 500 marines heading over and I guess arriving shortly from California and another 2, 500 sailing from the Sea of Japan, who will take a bit longer to arrive. What realistically can Trump do do with those assets?
- [25:54]
Peter Mansour
Well, getting to Carg island in the very northern reaches of the Gulf is going to be very, very difficult. You're basically running the gauntlet of Iranian retaliation as they sail up the Gulf to, to reach that position. They can go in by Osprey helicopter slash planes. So there's that as well. But then resupplying them becomes difficult. It's hard to do that from the air, and we've already cratered the Runway there. So you know that that's going to be a tall order. Doable, but it's going to come at some cost. The seizing island closer to the strait might be easier to do just because you don't have to, like I said, run the gauntlet of Iranian drones as you sail up the Gulf and then establish a powerful air defense base there. And that gives you a positioning for further action in the region. I don't think the Trump administration wants to go in to Iran proper on the mainland, but if you want to open the strait, keep it open. You may have to seize points along the coast to be able to do that, and that sends this war into a different phase.
- [27:09]
Roland Oliphant
Okay, so you're saying there might have to be landings. In practical terms, if they want to do this, they might have to land on the mainland at points as well.
- [27:17]
Peter Mansour
Not with these two Marine Expeditionary Units. They're too small to do that. But if you did land on an island, create a base, and it didn't work, I mean, the next step, you got to go into Iran and start clearing out the drone positioning. You know, that's, like I said, going to take a lot more force. And it sends us into a new phase because now it puts US And Iranian troops face to face on the mainland.
- [27:43]
Venetia Rainey
Am I right in thinking that the US doesn't have any warships in the Strait of Hormuz? They've been holding their ships further back because they just don't want any sort of visuals of even like a minor fire being caused on board an American ship.
- [27:54]
Peter Mansour
They're holding them back just because there are going to be targets once they get closer to the strait. And although the ships can be protected, inevitably one would get hit at this stage anyway. Iran still has enough capabilities to, to, to get something through the, the defenses surrounding these various battle groups. So it's just too, you know, it's too dangerous for the commercial ships. It's also, unfortunately, too dangerous for the US Navy. Now, unless you're going to be willing to take. Take some hits and, and, you know, maybe they will be willing to do that if they deem it necessary to get a Marine Expeditionary Unit on shore.
- [28:35]
Roland Oliphant
That, that does speak to that risk, doesn't it? I was speaking to a former British admiral And a former U.S. marine, people who've worked on amphibious warfare who were saying, you know, one of the big things is the ships carrying these Marines are going to be massive targets. And one of the things both of them said to me was about your problem is sustaining them once they're on shore. It's one thing to do a kind of commando raid over a few hours or days, but if you want to sit there for some time, you provide a. A target for a counterattack.
- [29:04]
Peter Mansour
That's precisely it. So if you seize either Car island or a defensive base further south, you're going to have to defend it and you're going to have to resupply it, and all of those activities become targets, you know, so again, if the Trump administration is serious about clearing the Strait of Hormuz, it's going to take some time, and it's going to take a lot more assets than they have in the region right now. Now they wanted to go in and make this all about an air campaign and assume that hitting Iran hard enough would bring them to the table or maybe even cause regime change. None of that's happened and now they're stuck.
- [29:45]
Roland Oliphant
I think that's a really interesting point that you've made there, that we'll bear in mind and put a little note against that, that if they're going to do this, you think they're going to need more assets than they currently have, if that's the intention, and more than
- [29:56]
Peter Mansour
are on the way. The Marine Expeditionary units are 2,500 Marines per unit. Only about half of those are infantry. So you're talking a couple thousand boots on the ground. That's not enough to do all that much, quite frankly. Again, ABC is an island. But then again, sustaining it, sustaining that presence once you get there is going to cause a whole new set of challenges.
- [30:21]
Roland Oliphant
There's one other land operation that's being discussed, and this is the idea of sending troops from the Special Operations Command to secure and extract Iran's highly enriched uranium. We don't know much more about this except that the idea is being discussed. And Caroline Levitt, the White House Press Secretary, says retrieving the enriched uranium from Iran was an option on the table. Those are her words. I think they've meant to have 460 kg of 60% enriched HEU.
- [30:53]
Jerry Insurance Advertiser
You.
- [30:54]
Roland Oliphant
Does that sound feasible to you? And could you describe how that might go ahead?
- [30:58]
Peter Mansour
Again, I think it's dangerous, and I can't tell you if it's feasible, but there's a lot of, a lot of challenges associated with it. One, you got to know where it is with 100% certainty or at least 90% certainty. If it's buried underground because of the strikes back last summer, then you're going to need assets to dig it out, and that's going to take quite some time. And although JSOC can get in there and seize a location, it's got to defend it then against Iranian ground, counter attacks. And if you're talking about doing that over a period of days or weeks while the uranium is being dug out, I just don't see that as a viable course of action. If it's being held somewhere above ground, where you can go in, seize a warehouse, for instance, and, and get it out, that may be more practical. But my guess is it's being held in a very secure location, a very long way from anywhere. That's going to be a really tall order, even for the capabilities of jsoc. Although you know, look what happened in Venezuela with a very highly guarded compound. So never say never.
- [32:10]
Venetia Rainey
I guess the debate, the ideas, the worry that is circulating at the back of all of this is the shadow of Iraq, which is a conflict you know extremely well. Do you think we're at risk of getting bogged down, down not in another exact replica of Iraq, but a similar situation which drags in more American and I guess Western resources than we ever intended and becomes a quagmire.
- [32:32]
Peter Mansour
Yeah, I commanded a brigade, first brigade, first armored division in the first year of the war, 03 04, and then saw the bookend to that, the surge campaign, where I was at the very highest level working as executive officer to General David Petraeus. I've seen this in action and you know, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes and it's rhyming now. So when we went into Iraq, we were focused on destroying the Iraqi Guards Corps and we did the Republican Guards and we were focused on regime change. And that happened in short order. But then the question is, how do you stabilize the, the country in the aftermath? Math and that. We put very little thought into some of the planners put some thought into it, but at the highest levels, there was no discussion in the National Security Council and so forth as to what to do. And so again, once they achieved those objectives, they were kind of stuck. You know, what do we do now? And then it was improvising and it took, you know, four or five years to finally get it right. My contention during the surge, so we're at the same point now, we've had this air campaign ongoing for a few weeks and it's been highly successful, but that's a tactical and operational success. We've been destroying a lot of the capabilities of the Iranian military, and that's a good thing. But the assumption going in was that the bombing of their command authorities and their government would be severe enough that you would either cause regime change or they would come to the negotiating table, or you would have a change in leadership who would be more amenable, kind of a Delsey Rodriguez of Iran. None of that's happened. It's not clear that they had a, a branch or a sequel, call it Plan B, Plan C, to what to do when the air campaign didn't achieve those objectives. I think the administration thought it could just stop bombing and call it a day, but I don't think that's going to get it done. I think Iran will continue to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed until its objectives are reached and Its objectives are lifting of sanctions, a US Promise no longer to attack, and maybe, maybe even a withdrawal of US Forces from the region if they want to have a stretch goal. And none of those can be, be achieved if they agree to an immediate ceasefire. So we've entered, like I said, a new phase in this war which is going to be, I think, make it more longer and more drawn out.
- [35:14]
Roland Oliphant
I was wondering, there have been contingencies about a potential war with Iran for years and decades. If we go back to the Iraq war, when you were fighting, there was all that debate, you know, about is Iran next? And there were definitely things on the
- [35:28]
Peter Mansour
shelves about part of the axis of evil.
- [35:29]
Roland Oliphant
Right, part of the axis of evil, all of this. So we know there have been plans and war games and contingencies on shelves in the Pentagon about this for years and decades. I'm wondering if you were ever privy to any of that and whether what you're seeing unfold now is something you recognize from the plans that used to exist.
- [35:49]
Peter Mansour
No, unfortunately I was not in on any of the planning for an Iranian contingency. But let me say that it's unlikely that this is a failure on the part of the Pentagon to plan for this contingency. They've been focused on it for quite some time. The chairman briefed the President, said that there's, you know, potential for depletion of munitions in a longer drawn out conflict as we'll have to take them from other parts of the world. The fact is we didn't have the assets in place to keep the straight open. I mean, that's pretty evident. And I doubt that's a failure on the part of the military. I think it's more likely you could point the finger right at the White House. There's one person in charge of this war. It's his name is Donald Trump. And he likely believed that the bombing alone would achieve his objectives as, as it has done in all the previous uses of force in Syria against Qasem Soleimani, the targeted assassination in Venezuela with the short raid there. Everything he's done has come up space and done, you know, the military's done very well. And I think that the President just miscalculated the degree and severity of the kind of war he was embarking upon. You know, what Carl von Clausewitz would say is your, your cardinal sin, not to recognize the kind of warrior you're embarking upon and mistaking it for something else. And I think Trump mistakes this conflict for the other times he's used military
- [37:27]
Roland Oliphant
force I was wondering if I could ask a slightly personal question. I suppose you were deeply involved in the war in Iraq. I imagine you lost friends and soldiers you were commanding and all of that. And we all remember how horrifically difficult that all was. And Iran was a real problem there. Right. They were supplying shaped charges. They were directing things.
- [37:52]
Peter Mansour
They were definitely responsible for the deaths of five or six hundred American service members through the explosively formed penetrators that they provided the Shia militias.
- [38:03]
Roland Oliphant
Is there a part of you that is really pleased to see America finally get to grips with this enemy who is responsible for so many American deaths?
- [38:13]
Peter Mansour
100%, in my view, Iran is getting justly rewarded for. For being at war with the United States since 1979 and all the death and mayhem they've caused. The Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon in 83, we can add that to the.
- [38:30]
Roland Oliphant
The list.
- [38:31]
Peter Mansour
Khobar Towers. And so they're getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, it may not end there. Although part of me is gratified to see them pay the price, the bigger part of me is like, okay, what. What have we unleashed here?
- [38:48]
Venetia Rainey
What do you make of the way Pete Hegseth has been handling this war? We speak a lot about Donald Trump. You're shaking your head there and closing your eyes. We speak a lot about Donald Trump going back and forth. And is he unpredictable? Does that deter the enemy? Does it not? But I'd be interested to hear your take on Pete Hegseth. He's been doing near daily, very bombastic press conferences, releasing lots of clips of various targets being struck. What do you make of the way he's heading up the Pentagon?
- [39:11]
Peter Mansour
He sounds like a junior major who's been elevated to head the Pentagon on focused on tactics. It's all about lethality, bombing things, hitting them while they're down. This is not a strategic leader, and it's not a serious strategic leader. He gets in press conferences that are intended to thank the families of the service members who've been killed in action. It takes them 10 minutes to get around to that. Meanwhile, he's talking about how great we're doing. I'm sure it's got it. It plays on the morale of the forces to hear that the chairman, you know, is doing much better in this regard.
- [39:51]
Venetia Rainey
Dan Kane.
- [39:52]
Peter Mansour
Yeah, General Kane. The United States, as in Britain, you're a system where the civilians are in charge. And unfortunately, the military can only do so much. They're following their orders, their legal orders. Our Congress is supposed to declare war, not the president. So there's that that. But, yeah, I don't think that Secretary Hagseth is doing a good job at all other than being lead cheerleader for the bombing campaign.
- [40:16]
Roland Oliphant
Do you think this war is legal? Or maybe you think that the questions of legality in war are slightly. Slightly asinine and. And to be left to politicians and propagandists? I don't know. And an irrelevance. But I was wondering if you. If you do have a view on that, because there's a lot of. There's a lot of debate about it.
- [40:33]
Peter Mansour
Well, I won't speak to the international law in play here, but I will speak to the US Constitution, which says that Congress has the authority to declare war and the President can use military force to defend the United States if it's attacked. Suddenly, some smaller uses of force, maybe the seizing of Nicolas Maduro falls under that, if you agree with his indictment in court. I mean, George H.W. bush kind of used the same reasoning to go in and seize the Panamanian dictator back in 1989 in operation just Cause. But this is a war. It's not a small operation. It was not a defensive operation, despite what the President says. And Congress needed to be involved either to authorize the use of military force or to declare war. But it's on the sidelines, and I do not think it's constitutional. I've said this from day one. The Congress needs to get involved.
- [41:37]
Roland Oliphant
The Great War on Terror obviously had a profound impact on kind of national mood and thinking about overseas wars in America also here, obviously, as well. And you saw that. I had the feeling that we saw that with Donald Trump winning this last presidential election and the presence of people like Pete Hegseth, like particularly JD Vance, who were veterans of that war who went through it, and especially in J.D. vance's case, kind of became an apostle for a real anger about that and kind of hoping never to get dragged back into this.
- [42:15]
Peter Mansour
Yeah, no more forever wars. Right. And here we are potentially embarking on a forever war. War. Because if you want to keep the Strait of Hormuz open by military force, that's a forever mission. The Americans are taking it two ways. Most Americans disapprove of this conflict. Only 25% are in favor. That is the MAGA base that will do whatever the President says, regardless. So Americans are united in opposing this war. That doesn't mean they want it to end today. Because a lot of those same people who say we oppose this war want. Now that it's. We've embarked on it, they want it to end. Successfully. It's not like we're cheering for the defeat of the United States. You know, you gotta, you gotta look at the broader mood in the country. I, I think a little bit down the line, though, we have elections coming up in November. This could definitely turn against the Republican Party in a big way. We got a president who says we don't do forever wars, and here we are. It's unfortunately head scratching. And if Congress doesn't get involved or isn't involved, then you've got one person deciding whether he's going to drag the nation into war. And that's just not right.
- [43:33]
Venetia Rainey
That was Peter Mansour, a professor in military history at Ohio State University.
- [43:37]
Roland Oliphant
That's all for today's episode. We'll be back tomorrow. Until then, that was Iran the Latest Goodbye, Goodbye Goodbye.
- [43:51]
Venetia Rainey
Iran the Latest is an original podcast from the Telegraph, created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Veneesha Rainey and Roland Olyphant. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following around the latest on your preferred podcast app. And if you have a moment, leave us a review as it helps others find the show. To stay on top of all of our news, subscribe subscribe to the Telegraph, sign up to our Dispatchers newsletter or listen to our sister podcast, Ukraine. The Latest we're still on the same email address battlelinestelegraph.co.uk or you can contact us on X. You can find our handles in the show. Notes the producer is Peter Shevlin. The executive producer is Louisa Wells.
- [44:32]
Boost Mobile Advertiser
You're locked into a lot of things you can't change. Weather, traffic. Hey, stay in your lane. Your wireless carrier's latest price hike. But you can unlock a better way. Unlock the savings at Boost Mobile and save up to $600 a year. Switch to the $25 a month unlimited wireless plan. No contracts, no price hikes and you keep your phone. Stop being locked into their games. Unlock the savings@boostmobile.com unlock based on average annual single line of payment of AT and T Verizon and T Mobile customers compared to 12 months on the Boost Mobile unlimited wireless plan as of January 2026. For full offer details, visit boostmobile.com okay,
- [45:05]
Tom Cotterell
caller one wins courtside seats to tonight' floor seats. You did. I've been calling for 13 months. Wait, Chris.
- [45:14]
Dr. Horton Advertiser
Yes.
- [45:14]
Tom Cotterell
I finally did it. What are you gonna wear? Men's Wearhouse. They've got today's looks for any occasion. And I need to look like a celebrity. Don't want to stick out. Exactly. They've got Chill Flex by Kenneth Cole Joseph Abood. And a tailor at every store for the perfect fit. Congrats. You can stop calling now. Not a chance. Get any look for every occasion at Men's Wearhouse. Love the way you look.