The UK just proved it hasn’t learned Iran and Ukraine war lessons

Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: Iran: The Latest
Episode: Starmer ‘fudges’ defence spending to avoid Trump clash at Nato. Will it work?
Date: June 30, 2026
Hosts: Venetia Rainey (Iran: The Latest), Dom Nichols (Ukraine: The Latest)
Main Theme:
This episode centers on the UK’s newly released Defence Investment Plan, analyzing whether the promised increases in military spending are sufficient for NATO obligations—particularly in the eyes of Donald Trump—and what lessons, if any, have been learned from the ongoing Iran conflict and the war in Ukraine. The hosts critically examine the numbers, the politics behind them, the risks with future military strategy, and the potential consequences for transatlantic relations.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Headlines from the Middle East (06:06)

• Limited updates, with main story revolving around confusion over potential US-Iran talks in Qatar.
• Iran is pushing for the release of $6 billion in frozen assets, and Gulf states are considering their own deals with Iran, potentially sidelining the US ([06:06]).
  • Notable Moment: “Iran said on Monday that no meeting had been scheduled. So this might just be a semantic fudge.” (Venetia, [06:30])
• The Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint as parties negotiate security and financial incentives with Iran.

---

2. The UK’s Defence Investment Plan Released (03:58)

• Defence spending increased to £15 billion (up from £13.5bn), but still below the £18–28bn judged necessary to "fix defence for now."
  • Plan promises £5bn for drones and autonomous weapons.
  • Former Defence Secretary John Healey resigned, stating the original sum was inadequate and government is not serious about defence.
• Dom Nichols’ Take ([04:32]):
  • “If they'd spent as much on defense as they have on the smoke and mirrors that have gone around this whole defense, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.”
  • Plan seen as “fudge after fudge,” and the government is “trying to get away with it again” by creatively counting spending on defense-related infrastructure and energy security as “defense.”
  • “It’s all Mr. Fudgy McFudge from Fudgetown.” (Dom, [13:47])
• The government claims 4.2% of GDP is being spent on security, but this includes spending from other departments (e.g., energy, infrastructure) rather than strictly MOD budgets, making true defense spending closer to 2.7%.

Memorable Quote

“You can't just claim other government departments' money as part of the defence budget.” – Dom Nichols ([13:31])

---

3. The Domestic and Political Context (07:24 – 14:38)

• Starmer is positioning these figures for the upcoming NATO summit to avoid a public “clash” with Trump, who demands a 5% GDP spend.
  • “Starmer doesn't want one of the last photo calls... being Donald Trump, chest poking him, saying, why aren't you [paying more]?” (Dom, [14:10])
• Europe’s eastern members like Poland are spending 4.5% of GDP on actual defence, compared to the UK’s fuzzy 4.2%.
  • “Britain’s defence sovereignty does start in Eastern Europe, it does start up against the border with Russia and it is under threat.” (Dom, [15:35])

Starmer’s NATO Summit Positioning (Clip at [07:40])

“On the 5% commitment by 2035, today takes us to 4.2% towards that target. I will be very pleased to report that back to colleagues at NATO next week.” – Keir Starmer ([08:56])

• Starmer claims pride in the UK’s “nuclear capability” for NATO, emphasizing continuity and deterrence.

---

4. Technology, ‘Heavy Metal,’ and Military Risk (17:20 – 26:20)

Move Toward Drones and Autonomy

• The Defence Plan outlines a shift from traditional destroyers to fleets of autonomous vessels and drones ([17:35]).
  • “The government is saying that they're going to make a seismic change in the way that we approach the profession of arms at the sea.” (Dom, [17:35])
  • The physical capabilities of drones, especially their ability to replace core “heavy metal” radar and air defense, are questioned:
    • “You are taking a lot of risk there guys... if it goes wrong, then you’ve opened up the country to some significant threat.” (Dom, [22:05])

Lessons from Ukraine and Iran: The “Mass” Problem

• Criticism that the UK is investing in a few “exquisite” high-tech drones (e.g., 24 for Apache helicopters) instead of achieving the “mass” shown effective in Ukraine and Iran.
  • “Ukraine are building 24,000 drones a day... Mass is back.” (Dom, [24:19])
  • “We just keep adding to the requirement, which makes the program even longer and more expensive... Mass is back and we're talking about buying 24 drones for the Apache fleet.” (Dom, [24:35])

Memorable Analogy

“It’s like we’ve bunched together all the little bits of risk from everywhere about MOD and put it in one great big sort of bet on autonomous future maritime systems. It’s incoherent.” – Dom Nichols ([26:27])

---

5. Will “Fudge” Work at the NATO Summit? (26:49 – 32:38)

• Starmer’s main goal seems to be to avoid confrontation with Trump by using headline 4.2% figures, assuming Trump will not interrogate the maths.
  • “I think Donald Trump will be blinded by the 4.2% and some other ship’s bell… Yes, I think it will get through next week.” (Dom, [28:47])
• However, US defense officials and hard realists (like Elbridge Colby) might see through the numbers, but the political moment might still go to Starmer.

On Iran and the Gulf Conflict

• The fundamental problem outlined: Iran’s inexpensive, asymmetric capabilities (drone boats, missiles) mean deterrence is extremely difficult, and traditional “deterrence” may be outdated.
  • “Militarily, you know, Iran has shown themselves to be almost undefeatable because all they need is one boat... enough to spook the markets and spook the politics.” (Dom, [31:29])

---

6. Should the War Have Gone Further? (32:38 – 35:35)

• Debate over whether Trump should have gone “longer and harder” in Iran to achieve regime change/top strategic objectives.
• Dom is highly skeptical: “The number of boots on the ground you would need to winkle out every one of these drones or missile launchers… you’re talking thousands on an almost enduring basis.”
• Asymmetric warfare, as seen by Iran, has upended traditional power calculations; lessons will be drawn by other actors like China and Taiwan.
  • “These drone boats and missiles are a way of blunting a superpower’s potential. Taiwan will be looking at this regarding China.” (Dom, [34:38])
  • “It’s almost like nuclear diplomacy at a super micro level.” (Dom, [34:04])
  • The JCPOA (nuclear deal) may retrospectively be seen as a better bet than renewed military conflict.

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “It’s all Mr. Fudgy McFudge from Fudgetown.” – Dom Nichols ([13:47])
• “Starmer doesn’t want... Donald Trump, chest poking him, saying, why aren’t you [paying more]?” – Dom Nichols ([14:10])
• “We’ve got a NATO summit next week where the UK is going to have to go and look its allies in the face and say are we pulling our weight? Are we?” – Venetia Rainey ([13:50])
• “It’s incoherent. I’m a bit nervous about this. I don’t know who's written this... cobbled it together very quickly because they were scared about John Healey resigning. And we’ve got NATO coming up and Donald Trump.” – Dom Nichols ([26:26])
• “Iran has shown themselves to be almost undefeatable because all they need is one boat... that's enough to spook the markets and spook the politics.” – Dom Nichols ([31:29])
• “Asymmetric warfare par excellence.” – Venetia Rainey ([33:55])
• “These drone boats and missiles are a way of blunting a superpower's potential. Taiwan will be looking at this. Regarding China, China will be thinking, oh ah yes, that's a lesson we'd do well to take on board.” – Dom Nichols ([34:38])

---

Segment Timestamps

• 06:06 – Middle East update and Gulf diplomatic maneuvers
• 04:32 / 07:24 – UK’s Defence Investment Plan, Starmer’s fudge, and numbers breakdown
• 14:10–16:40 – Political context: Starmer, Trump, and looming NATO summit
• 17:20–22:00 – UK’s gamble on drones/autonomous naval systems, risks
• 23:57–26:49 – Lessons not learned: Mass production vs. “exquisite” kit
• 26:49–32:38 – Will this fudge work at NATO summit; deterrence and Iran’s asymmetric threats
• 32:38–35:35 – Should the war with Iran have gone further? Lessons for global security

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a critical, detailed examination of the UK’s latest defence spending plan, revealing significant gaps between the government’s headline figures and actual effective military investment. The discussion underscores the political maneuvering behind budget presentations, the risks inherent in betting on future tech over proven hardware, and the strategic dilemmas posed by lessons from asymmetric warfare in Iran and Ukraine. Ultimately, the panel suggests that while Starmer’s “fudged” numbers might get him past Trump (and the NATO photo-op), they do little to answer the real strategic vulnerabilities facing the UK and its allies in an era of rapidly shifting threats.

Transcript

[Venetia Rainey]

The telegraph.

[Dom Nichols]

Thanks for joining our first ever support group for puppies. By show of pause, who's eaten a computer cable called a dongle? I ate a dongle before we had lemonade Pet insurance. So to avoid a vet bill, they waited for me to poop the dongle.

[Venetia Rainey]

You pooped a dongle?

[Dom Nichols]

I pooped a dongle.

[Venetia Rainey]

You pooped a dongle.

[Dom Nichols]

I pooped a dongle. I pooped a USB stick. Yeah, but he pooped a dongle with lemonade Pet insurance save up to 90% at the vet so you never have to find out if your pup can poop a dongle. Get a'@lemonade.com Pel.

[Venetia Rainey]

I'm Venetia Rainey and this is Iran. The Latest. It's Tuesday, June 30, 2026, day nine of the 60 day deadline to reach a peace deal between the US and the Iran. Now, on today's episode, we were going to be hearing from John Bolton, but instead we're going to be diving into the UK's long awaited release of the defence investment plan because it finally came out today. I'm joined in the studio by Dom Nichols from our sister podcast, Ukraine. The latest. We're going to be asking whether this is enough to stave off a clash with Trump at next week's NATO summit over the UK's lacklustre defence spending. And we're going to be asking if any lessons have been learned from the Iran war.

[Dom Nichols]

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Today, President Trump says Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attacks. The Pentagon is weighing a takeover of

[Keir Starmer]

that island as a way to force

[Dom Nichols]

the reopening of the street of Hormuz. Iran begged for this ceasefire and we all know it. The question before us now is how, how much more can we accomplish together? Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle east permanently?

[Keir Starmer]

Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do?

[Dom Nichols]

Come on.

[Venetia Rainey]

But first, a quick look at some of the headlines from the Middle East. There's not too much happening and the main story is this he said, she said over a U S Iran meeting in Qatar today. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff are flying into Doha for high level peace talks following the renewed spate of strikes over the weekend. Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday, Iran has requested a meeting. It will take place tomorrow in Doha. But, but, but, but Iran said on Monday that no meeting had been scheduled. So this might just be a semantic fudge. Iran is sending its technical delegation to Qatar this week. According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, a spokesperson insisted that this had no relation to the Americans visit and that no talks between the two sides were scheduled. But we did see previous reporting suggesting that a meeting would be held today to focus on managing the Strait of Hormuz issue and trying to de escalate tensions there after that tit for tat violence we saw over the weekend. We will report back tomorrow if anything comes out of that. But as Iran is pushing for that $6 billion in frozen assets in Qatar to be released ASAP, there is a lot of diplomatic back and forth happening in the Gulf. And on that subject, our co host Sophia Yan has written an excellent story about how countries in the Gulf are considering making their own deals with Iran and cutting out us altogether. From Oman to Qatar to Saudi Arabia, there's a dizzying amount of diplomatic activity underway with the Iranian regime. Discussions have so far covered how traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will be managed and what financial incentives the Gulf might provide Iran in exchange for possible security concessions. We'll put a link to that in the show notes. You can also catch yesterday's episode if you want to hear a very hawkish take from the Gulf about why some states think we might need more war. But let's turn to the Defence Investment Plan now, because here in the UK it's finally been released and it provides £15 billion increase in defence spending, up from £13.5 billion promised to former Defence Secretary John Healey. He resigned over those plans. So we've got another £1.5 billion and we'll be asking Don whether that is enough to paper over all of the concerns that John Healey had. The money includes £5 billion to increase the armed forces use of drones and autonomous weapons, which we'll be getting into shortly. But big picture, this money falls. Falls well short of what the MOD asked for. So, Dom, we finally got this plan. What's your initial reaction to it?

[Dom Nichols]

Well, happy dip day.

[Venetia Rainey]

Happy day to you too.

[Dom Nichols]

We've only been waiting for just over a year. If you remember to go backstage. The Strategic Defence Review came out just over a year ago. This was a very sensible document and it worked well. It was not totally independent of government, but far enough away to be able to not be totally resource unbounded was grounded in reality, but it was asked to think about the future. What's the. What's the proper strategic view of threats coming our way? Lord Robertson, who was the chief of the three authors himself, former General Sir Richard Barrons and Fiona Hill. Lord Robertson always wanted the Defense investment plan to be an annex to the Strategic Defense Review. So not quite. Here's all the work, here's the cost, banging it over the wall to mod. Just trot off and go and pay the cheque, but not a million miles from it. I mean, this is what it. This is what defense costs against the threats that we see. And then since then, there's been fudge after fudge. I mean, crikey, if they'd spent as much on defense as they have on the smoke and mirrors that have gone around this whole defense, we wouldn't be in the mess we are. We are today. So Defense investment plan gets, gets thrown all around the place. Figure we heard was anywhere between 18 and 28 billion pounds needed to, to fix defense for now. And that's as a, that's as a stepping stone to the future, but just for now. 18 to 28 billion. John Healey, the former defense secretary, was offered 13 and a half. He said that's just not on. You're not taking defense seriously. That really cutting line in his resignation speech about Prime Minister, you are unable and the treasury is unwilling to fund defence property. I mean, boom, gosh, if that's going to. That's going to come back to hit the Labour Party at the next election. So he said 13.5 billion was not enough. He resigned. Armed Forces Minister Al Khan's also resigned, so he was basically second in command at Defence. Also resigned. Fast forward a few weeks. New Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis, he's now announced and the Prime Minister sort of reaffirmed it today in this big speech that it's 15 billion. So still short of the 18 to 28 that John Healey said was needed and other commentators said was needed as a start point. So we're not really any further forward. And there's still, from what I saw this morning, still so much fudge. And the most disappointing thing for me, there's a number of areas where I think there's some real, very interesting questions. A lot of risk, huge amount of risk in this. But the overarching headline for me was the government trying to get away with it again. Keir Starmer threw out this figure of 4.2% of GDP. Now we've got to talk about this because we are. So the NATO commitment at the moment is 2% rising to by 2035, 5%, 3.5% on heavy metal, 1.5% on defense related Infrastructure. I mean, if ever there's a.

[Venetia Rainey]

Get out by 2035.

[Dom Nichols]

By 2035, yeah.

[Venetia Rainey]

I'm going to pause you because we had a question to Keir Starmer this morning by the Telegraph's Dan Martin.

[Dom Nichols]

Oh, this will be good.

[Venetia Rainey]

Let's hear that, Prime Minister.

[Dom Nichols]

How can you present this defence investment plan at the NATO summit when you're Prime Minister? In name only. And also, Donald Trump wants you to meet this 5% target of GDP by 2035. Do you think that's possible for the UK and what will you tell him at the summit?

[Keir Starmer]

Well, I spoke to President TRUMP Just two weeks ago when we were at the G7 together at Great length about a number of issues, particularly the conflicts in Ukraine and the conflicts in Iran. And actually a very strong statement on Ukraine was put out from the G7, as you will have seen, showing the unity of that group of countries. This is additional investment today, on top of the highest sustained increase since the Cold war, since the 1980s. I talked through Mark Rutter, the Secretary General of NATO, talked him through this yesterday, talked to him very frequently on the phone as well as in person. Have a very good relationship with him. He is very welcoming of what we are doing here today because he knows what a contribution it makes to NATO. He also appreciates, and we must never lose sight of this, of the huge contribution that the UK makes to NATO, not just as a leading advocate, a member of NATO, but of course, we confirm our nuclear capability to NATO, which is an incredible capability which keeps us and the whole of NATO countries safe. And I'm very proud that we do that. So I'm proud of that work. I'm GLAD. On the 5% commitment by 2035 today takes us to 4.2% towards that target. I will be very pleased to report that back to colleagues at NATO next week. They will be very pleased to discuss this with us. And I'm proud of the record I stand on in relation to defence and security as I go into that summit.

[Venetia Rainey]

So, yeah, he mentions 4.2%. And when we were discussing afterwards, we were like, where, where did that number come from? You've done some crunching. And this is really key to try and avoid some kind of clash with Trump because he's been super clear. UK needs to pull up its BO bootstraps and start spending more and get to this NATO spending target. So, okay, 4.2. That sounds quite impressive.

[Dom Nichols]

It does. I mean, it's great, isn't it, until. Until you dig into it.

[Venetia Rainey]

Right.

[Dom Nichols]

So the 1 1/2% NATO commitment on defense related infrastructure. One of the first things that happened when NATO announced that was that Italy said we're going to build a bridge to Sicily and they got, they had their knuckles wrapped and sent to the naughty step for, for a little while because that's not defense related infrastructure. However, this specter of if ever there's a rug to sweep, all this maths under is the one and a half percent. And that I think is what's happened here. So let me just remind you, I mean you've seen the Prime Minister's statement but he said just this bit here at last year's NATO summit I committed to spend 5% of GDP on our wider security covering things like energy security and critical infrastructure as well as defence. The defence investment plan published today takes us to 4.2% under that commitment. So the words are under that commitment. So I'm looking, I'm usually alarm bells going, I'm looking at energy security and critical infrastructure. Hold those thoughts. So the defense, let's say defense at the moment we spend about 62 billion pounds on it, which is a circa 2.4% total government spend of about 2.6 trillion. So just yeah, rough maths, 4.2%. The Keir Starmer says we're going to be spending on defense amounts to about 110 billion pounds in today's money. So we have to find 48 billion from somewhere for this statement to be accurate. And of course when we talk about today they always spread these things over over different financial years. But let's look for 48 billion of which he announced 15 billion today. But there's still a bit of a hole. Now those two phrases he said energy security. Well where's energy security budgeted for in, in the UK system we have core energy security funding. This is the government document. Core energy security funding comes from the Department for Energy Security and Net zero. That's Ed Miliband's department. So surely that's where we should be looking for energy security. The last annual report from the Department for Energy security and net zero which was dated September 15 last year covering 2024-25. The latest, this year's report is not out yet. But the report from last year, I'm digging into the numbers. It's got a capital budget of 60 odd billion resource budget, the day to day costs 7 billion. It talks about the new Great British energy nuclear capitalization 8 billion. New nuclear power station size, we'll see 14, the warm home plan 13 billion and carbon capture projects 9 billion. So all that together is 53. So you could pick any bits and pieces of that you like and you could, you've already got to your 53, so you already got to your 48 billion.

[Venetia Rainey]

Any of that could be classified as energy security. Any of those energy projects.

[Dom Nichols]

Any of that classified as energy security. Please hold that thought. Put that in, put you in your pocket. Any of that can be classified as energy security. You then got infrastructure strategy. Well again there is no document. The government have a 10 year infrastructure strategy plan amounting to 725 billion. So loads of room, you could just take little nibbly bits there. They do outline 14 critical infrastructure sectors. So again, ahaha, this is where I'll get the numbers on how much money we're spending on critical infrastructure. No, they're still subject to a mapping exercise that the government says will be completed by, by the end of 2026. So we haven't even got a figure for what money we're spending on critical infrastructure. It's something in the 725 billion of this 10 year infrastructure strategy. So there's any amount of fudge you like there to pick little bits out and get to 4.2% for defense. But of course the things I've just outlined are other government departments. So you can't say well the defense budget is this, but if I take a little bit here from the Department of Energy Security and a little bit there for critical infrastructure, suddenly my defence budget has gone up to 4.2. So no, you've literally just counted someone else's money.

[Venetia Rainey]

So what is the defence budget that comes out of this, out of GDP? Where are we at? 2.6? You said 2.69 by the end of this parliament.

[Dom Nichols]

Yeah, thereabouts. Again they're adding on point one for the intelligence votes. Hang on, MI5 are paid for by their home office. MI6 and GCHQ paid for by the Foreign Office. So you can't just claim other government departments money as part of the defence budget. So it's all Mr. Fudgy McFudge from Fudgetown.

[Venetia Rainey]

And these are a lot of numbers. But these numbers do matter, right? We're in Europe, we've got countries like Poland that are spending I think 4.5%, is that right of their GDP on defence, on actual defence. And we've got a NATO summit next week where the UK is going to have to go and look its allies in the face and say are we pulling our weight? Are we?

[Dom Nichols]

Well I mean you may have noticed the notes I'VE made here Phoenicia. But I've got one, one large pink letter I've written Trump. And that is what this is all about. This, I think this is all about Keir Starmer leaving 10 Downing Street. He doesn't want one of the last photo calls that we see of him being Donald Trump, chest poking him, saying, why aren't you? Or whatever. Now he can say, Donald, we're at 4.2%. And as we know, Donald Trump not massively over the detail. If it's, if we, if we're being

[Venetia Rainey]

honest, he won't go as into depth as you've gone here.

[Dom Nichols]

Maybe not.

[Venetia Rainey]

So we could watch this podcast.

[Dom Nichols]

So he, he will, he will hear 4.2% with, with a beautifully sort of, you know, this is not the defense budget you're looking for, Mr. President. And he'll go, brilliant. Yeah, Britain doing their thing. I mean, it'll be, I think it'd be a crass national embarrassment if we see Keir Starmer next week going around talking about 4.2. 4.2. We've got Poland at this, Estonia at that. We're at four. Embarrassing. I mean, you saw Radisaf Sikorsky, Poland's Foreign minister, speaking to the BBC last weekend about Britain's national spending. And he said, you spend about 60 billion on defense, a huge number, much, much higher than that on welfare. He said, aren't you lucky? Aren't you lucky you have no threats? Aren't you lucky you don't have these submarines nibbling around your coastline, tapping into net cables? Aren't you lucky you don't have Russian assassinations on your streets? Litvinenko and attempted assassination, Skripal, aren't you lucky the Prime Minister's house isn't subjected to arson attack? You must be so lucky not to have any threats. And the point is that, I mean, he's right, but the point is that Britain's defense budget, when people say, well, we're not going to, you know, we're not going to come under attack from Russia. We, you know, we're too far away. We're part of NATO. So our front line, the edge of our sovereignty, if you like, in defense terms is the border with Russia. It's the Baltic states because we're in NATO, there's the mutual defence clause. And if you're saying, well, this whole an attack on one is deemed an attack on all, but, yeah, we don't really mean it, well, you've just undermined the entire nature of the NATO alliance. So I'm afraid Britain's defence sovereignty does start in Eastern Europe, it does start up against the border with Russia and it is under threat, let alone all these instances we've seen of us being attacked here in the UK by Russia. So I think it's just extraordinary that they've not closed with this and been honest with the public. That's just on the numbers. Before we even start talking heavy metal, which I hope we can in a minute.

[Venetia Rainey]

What do you think? Just because, you know, normally on the Ukraine, the latest. What do you think the Ukrainians are going to make of this?

[Dom Nichols]

So the one thing Keir Starmer has always been absolutely resolute on, as is his predecessor, and he acknowledges that, to be fair, is that Britain's support for Ukraine has not wavered. We've allocated billions each year and that has been repeated each year by successive governments. So the funding for Ukraine is not going to be affected. There's a number of joint projects now between British firms and Ukrainian firms, particularly in the area of drone development. So Ukraine might well be sort of slapping the forehead, like any sensible consumer of defence journalism, going, what are you doing? But actually it won't affect Britain's support for Ukraine right now.

[Venetia Rainey]

And there is quite a lot of discussion of drones in this defence investment plan, a huge focus on it. Autonomous crewed vessels that will surround destroyers and drones that will fly around Apache helicopters. What did you make of those plans?

[Dom Nichols]

Well, this is where I think there's real risk now. You know, I've just been quite flippant there about the 4.2%. We have a little giggle. It's very, very frustrating. This is very serious. This is the government saying that they're going to make a seismic change in the way that we approach the profession of arms at the sea. So destroyers, type 45 destroyers at the moment. Destroyers are designed to look up air defense assets. They see things that are coming from the sky, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and all the rest of it. Frigates look down and hunt for submarines. Broadly, that's kind of it. Now, we at the moment have six type 45 destroyers. They've had their own problems with engines and, you know, operating hot water and all that kind of stuff. And they're on their way out. That capability needs to be replaced at some point. Now the government is saying that we're not going to invest in, in a next generation type 83, it was going to be called next generation of destroyers. We're going to have the. A fleet of 90s, 1991-93, 94 these autonomous ships from which will fly drones and fire missiles all controlled by one. One mothership, one sort of crude C R E W E D. Although maybe

[Venetia Rainey]

that's an annoying homonym there. Yeah, go on.

[Dom Nichols]

Yeah, because we're all desperate not to say unmanned and uninhabited. Just sounds unpersoned. Exactly, yes. Non hominous or something. Anyway, but the point is that. Okay, fine, now that's a gamble on the future. I mean last, last year's SDR of course acknowledged that autonomous systems, drones are coming to the fore. The army has decided that it's going to really invest in. In this kind of stuff, splitting its capability sort of 40%, 20%, 20% across crude platforms and autonomous systems. But the point is that it better blooming work because if you're getting rid of all your destroyers and you're not going to have a sort of like for like and an incremental change, an evol. Revolutionary change, you've gone for the revolution. You're going to say right, we don't need heavy metal in quite that way again, we're going to go fully autonomous. Well, you better hope the physics works. And let's look at the physics briefly. So the Type 45 has all sorts of problems but it's. What's it there for? It's to hold on a big pole. The Samson radar. So the Samson air defense radar, which is absolutely amazing. That's what the type 45 is for. If you're coming up for summer, you've always got your summer holidays planned. You're bobbing around probably south of France somewhere. Captain Tea Venetia, big glasses, jacket.

[Venetia Rainey]

Sounds great. Yeah, sign me up.

[Dom Nichols]

You're at sea level, your eyes are at sea level. You can see how far away is it is the horizon. Obviously everyone knows this. We grew up, you know, without knowing all this. So the horizon is a mile away. When you're at sea level.

[Venetia Rainey]

That's it.

[Dom Nichols]

The horizon. Exactly. The horizon is, is a mile away. Roughly. Very roughly. For each meter above the sea level you can see another. Another mile.

[Venetia Rainey]

Okay, nice bit of math.

[Dom Nichols]

Yeah. So you walk on water clearly Venetian, you can walk onto it. So you. That nearly. Nearly sort of six foot. You could see two, two miles of the horizon. So the Samsung radar obviously because the curvature of the earth higher up there are the more you can see at sea level. So the Samsung radar is 40 meters above above sea level. So it can see about 40 meters above above sea level. So it can see out. You can see on the, on the horizon. Yeah, to about 60 miles because it's got a big dome, it can actually see. It can pick targets up about 400 kilometers away, 250 miles out, out in space. But sea skimming cruise missiles, it will see them about 60 miles away. Okay, that's a pretty good radar. Now a drone being able to do that in order to, to cue a missile to go and bring down the ballistic missile that's coming in. A drone that's able to see that far, I mean that's quite challenging. A drone that's able to see that far by day, by night, continuously in all weather states. The North Atlantic ain't a pretty place to be in January, February. So you know, drones are they going to. It just, I just can't see it now. So if they're saying this is the future by whenever these ships are going to come in 20, 30, only around the corner. And if you're saying that a pretty big robust type 45 destroyer, when they're fixed and you can get them out of Portsmouth, the Samsung radar is amazing. And if you're saying drones are going to be able to replace that capability, I just find that at the moment I find that a bit of sort of sucky teeth moments like ooh, you are taking a lot of risk there guys. The program only needs to slip a few years and suddenly we haven't got an air defense capability. Or if you suddenly go, you know what, we just can't make it work. We can't get a drone big enough to replicate a Samsung radar. We can't get drones that might have that capability to see out that far. But we haven't got enough of them to have a continuous watch 24, seven day night, months on end, all weather conditions. That is a big kind of oof, crikey. Now they might have got it right by the time these things come into service. This might be where the state of the art is and we might be going, what a brilliant decision. You know, you've absolutely got that right. We didn't waste our money on a like, for like evolutionary change of a type 45 to a type 83 air defense destroyer. We've leapt ahead. This is a huge quantum leap in capability. This is the future. But there's a reason that the military is a, is a small c conservative organization. Because you do these shifts, you know, with some risk and if it goes wrong, then you've opened up the country to some significant threat. And that's why it's very rare to really leap ahead with your imagination and your vision and, and your investment to make this thing happen. So if this comes off and we have these, whatever they call, these five drone ships and missile ships and autonomously working from some sort of mothership, fantastic. But I mean, you are putting the chips on red and hoping it doesn't come up black.

[Venetia Rainey]

We're going to take a short pause now. Coming up after the break, has the UK learned the lessons about mass drones from Ukraine and Iran? Welcome back. You're listening to Iran, the latest with me, Veneesha Rainey and Dom Nichols. There's another risk here, isn't there? And that's that they're focusing too much on what you called when we were talking, when I was talking to you earlier, these sort of exquisite items and not learning. One of the main lessons from Ukraine, that you need mass as well. And we've seen that lesson play out in the Iran war too. You know, Iran has fired a lot of drones. It's used them for surveillance, it's used them to probe air defence and then it's used them to actually attack targets and it's been really effective. Do you think this defence investment plan takes on board those lessons?

[Dom Nichols]

Well, if it has, it didn't make it obvious and it should have done. We've now got a National Armaments Director who is looking at this sort of stuff and should have, we are told, should have a budget of 11 billion pounds a year to buy this stuff and just keep churning over. If you think of a drone, a simple one way attack drone. Now just like a bullet, you fire it, you use it, you use another one, you throw it away. That's what drones, that's, that's how we should be thinking about drones now. We should be trialing them, exercising with them, breaking them, move on to the next thing, iterating each time there should be a ready pool of cash just to go and buy things, break them and learn from it. Whereas here there was no, no real mention of that at all. The only drones really that we talked about, you mentioned the Apaches earlier on. Apache is going to get sort of loyal wingmen of, of 24 drones. When I first saw that, I thought that was a typo, Genuinely thought it was a typo. 24 drones to operate alongside Apache. 2024. I mean Ukraine are building 24, 000 drones a day, right? That's the numbers because most of them are 3D printed. Quick software upgrade, off it goes. Hits Russian ew. Jamming. Electronic warfare jamming flies into a tree. That happens 100 times. Ah, but five get through and go and smash into an oil refinery. It's. Yeah, Mass is back. The 20th century has taught. It hasn't gone away. Mass is back and we're talking about buying 24 drones for the Apache fleet. And 24 drones to replace Watchkeeper was a failed army program that we're going to buy 56 quite large drones and they were going to be fantastic. Electronic surveillance and signals intelligence and all this kind of stuff. Trouble is, they were too clever. They just didn't work. Something was always breaking. So the program was cancelled. And we haven't really learned the lesson. In fact, we've gone even worse. We're replacing 56 watchkeeper with 24 something new. And it's like, okay, well, what happens when they break? I mean, it's just extraordinary, this idea. We can't get away from the exquisite kit of buying small numbers of really, really powerful stuff. Partly down to culture, partly down to military culture, of saying, well, let's have that. Oh, and stick a day night camera on it and a laser so we can designate for something else. Oh, and then something else. We just keep adding to the requirement, which makes the program even longer and more expensive. And there's other delays and so on and so forth. So I don't know why we haven't acknowledged that Mass is back. There's a culture problem of going for exquisite kit. And on the one hand, we're prepared to take no risk at all by still doing this sort of thing and just going for the same old. Just some really nice shiny thing. And on the other hand, it's like we've bubbled up, bunched together all the little bits of risk from everywhere about MOD and put it in one great big sort of bet on autonomous future maritime systems. It's incoherent. I'm a bit nervous about this. I don't know who's written this. It's almost as if they've just cobbled it together very quickly because they were scared about John Healey resigning. And we've got NATO coming up and Donald Trump. I mean, just my view. Just my view.

[Venetia Rainey]

Let's come back to that Trump dilemma, because as you say, this probably was scheduled, if not written, largely thinking about how to convince America that the UK is doing what it needs to do. Starmer actually mentioned the Iran war in his press conference today. Let's hear that clip.

[Keir Starmer]

I've also been clear since day one that we do this not because we want war, but because we want to avoid war. We lived through Iraq, we learned from those mistakes, and we don't want to repeat them. I showed that when I chose not to join the war in Iran. We want our people to be able to live in a world defined by peace, stability and the rule of law. But the paradox of peace is that when the world is arming and aggression is rising, the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. The best way to defend is to deter, to have the strength to make your adversaries think again before they act. And that is what we are delivering.

[Venetia Rainey]

There's two things I want to unpack from that. Are we creating a sufficient deterrent, do you think these sort of uncrewed vessels and drones and stuff, is that a significant enough deterrent or do we need more of this hard metal that you were talking about? And secondly, do you think this will be enough to paper over the very real fractures that have occurred in the transatlantic relationship over the Iran war? Trump is furious with all of his NATO allies. NATO itself, Russia's had several sort of groveling meetings with Trump trying to get past the fact that that NATO didn't want to come and help in this Iran war. No matter how Trump put it, how he threatened, maybe trying to convince them behind closed doors. Is this defense investment plan going to be enough to get Starmer through this crunch meeting next week?

[Dom Nichols]

Rather disappointingly, depressingly, I think, yes, because they're going to trumpet 4.2. Remember when the King went over, they presented the ship's bell from HMS Trump. I mean just some of these little bits and pieces playing.

[Venetia Rainey]

Flashy stuff.

[Dom Nichols]

Yeah, it's like shiny ball. Shiny or don't look at the shiny board, Donald, you know. Yes, I think, I think it will get through next week, I think. But will it get past Elbridge Colby who's the basically the, the second in command of the Department of Defense slash war? Probably not. He sees no interest in Ukraine whatsoever. Supporting Ukraine, he's all about China. But he looks through the lens of hard real politic. He will see this for what it is. Whether or not he is able to influence Pete Hegseth, who probably can see it when he's not doing press ups, he could probably see this as well. And whether or not they influence Donald Trump, I don't know. I think Donald Trump will be blinded by the 4.2% and some other ships bell, something like that, I don't know. So I think they will get passed next week. Whether or not it's going to deter an adversary like Iran. Well, probably not, but Iran knew this anyway. So Iran in any war game to do with Gulf security. The first enemy action was they closed the straight Hormuz. I mean, it was always number one. This shouldn't be a shock to anybody. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we know his advice to Donald Trump was, this is going to happen. If you take this action, straight Hormuz will close and then we can have a discussion about what a downstream economic effect that's going to have. Now, advice is only advice, and the Commander in Chief can take or ignore that advice as he or she wishes. But something is so fundamental as this. I was disappointed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did not resign. This is such a fundamental issue. So we all knew all Iran had to secure was a couple of missiles, a little drone boat, anything that could threaten a ship in, in the Gulf. And this is largely now out of Donald Trump's hands. It's largely in the hands of the, the insurance sector, because if they're not happy to underwrite the risk of putting tankers through the street Hormuz, they won't insure it and therefore nothing moves. It's irrelevant largely what Donald Trump says or not. It's the confidence in the insurance sector now. And as long as Iran every now and again just sends out one little drone boat, then they'll go, oh, not ready yet, not still, still not, not secure enough for us. So all they've proven is that they, they can invest in all these intercontinental ballistic missiles because they want to keep throwing them at Israel and what have you, but they just need a few drone boats just to get the world's attention. We all knew this, we all knew this. And there was a tacit understanding that that's what they had in their back pocket. And it was never, bar the oil, the tank wars back in the 70s, it was never actually brought out as a serious threat that this was going to happen. The JCPOA was rumbling on and it didn't really come close to, we're going to do this if it doesn't go in our, in the direction we want it to. So the gene is out of the bottle now and there's very little you can do. These things are hidden in caves in little bays they're under. They would snuggle away in the mountains of missiles. We've got drones and you only need, like I say, you only need one or two to get through and create a bang. And suddenly everything shuts down again. So it's an absolute, it's a wicked problem that Donald Trump has walked into here. And for the United States, Britain, any other nation really Gulf nations, there's not a lot they can do to deter Iran now in that regard. What they can do is they can say, well, we've got such capability that you can have a go at us if you like, but we'll shoot everything down, and then we'll take other economic and political action against you. But militarily, you know, Iran has shown themselves to be almost undefeatable because all they need is one boat. All they need is one boat. They don't need a carrier strike group. They just need something to go bang on the side of an oil tanker, let alone an American gray ship, a warship. And that's enough to spook the markets and spook the politics.

[Venetia Rainey]

Well, then I think I know your answer to what I wanted my last question to be is going to be, but I'll ask it anyway. We've been debating a lot over the last few days. We've had different points of view about whether this war needs to restart, whether these negotiations are a dead end. And actually, Trump stopped bombing Iran too early. And if he'd just gone longer and harder, then he'd be able to achieve his strategic objective of, I guess, toppling the Iranian regime, for example, if you want to be very extreme or at least getting them to submit. On the nucleophile, from a tactical point of view, do you think that's true?

[Dom Nichols]

I mean, what a, what a task. We went into Iraq. Another great, great misadventure in my life. But, you know, with however many thousands of troops that, that didn't work out, I mean, the number of boots on the ground, you would need to winkle out every one of these drones, drone boats hiding in a little cave, any one of these missile launchers, I mean, you're talking thousands on a, on an almost enduring basis because they're quite easy to get hold of and, and develop that capability. And like I say, you only need one. It's just tipped things up on, on its head. It's, it's almost like sort of nuclear diplomacy, but in a super micro level. They only need one weapon to get through or the threat, the credible threat of one getting through. And then we'll think twice. Any, any potential adversary, as in US

[Venetia Rainey]

Asymmetric warfare par excellence.

[Dom Nichols]

I mean, it really is, it's, it's the, it's. Well, crikey, I mean, it's not counterinsurgency, but we are not built for this type of enduring commitment. And I wonder if now policymakers in the US Are thinking, actually, you know what, for all its flaws The JCPOA was possibly the best vehicle to try and get something and if they could try and inch their way back to that, that might be a good thing. Whether Iran will allow it, perhaps the release of the Iranian funds to get them back to that stage. But the one big lesson from this is these drone boats and missiles are a way of blunting a superpower's potential. Taiwan will be looking at this. Regarding China, China will be thinking, oh ah yes, that's a lesson we'd do well to take on board. I mean it's just extraordinary if the, if what's happened to Ukraine has ripped up the nuclear non proliferation treaty because any medium sized power now thinks, you know what the one thing I know we need to get hold of nuclear weapon and then we should be okay. This also is, is pretty similar. Let's just develop huge amount of drone capability with everyone understanding if you don't get any more, any more messages from center, if Tehran's down, you don't hear from us, you know what your mission is, just see a ship and hit it doesn't matter what it is. And if everybody understands that then you, you basically got to destroy every single piece of military capability and kill every drone operator there is. Which in a country the size of Iran is quite some undertaking.

[Venetia Rainey]

Dom Nichols, A pleasure to have you on around the latest.

[Dom Nichols]

Thanks for having me. Venetia, nice to be here. I love your digs.

[Venetia Rainey]

Thanks very much.

[Dom Nichols]

I like what you've done with the

[Venetia Rainey]

place and to our listeners and viewers. If you want to get more into the European side of the list events investment plan, please tune into our sister podcast, Ukraine the Latest. They will be covering that in depth as well. That's all for today's episode of Iran the Latest. We'll be back again tomorrow. Until then, goodbye. Iran the Latest is an original podcast from the Telegraph created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Vinny Shirani and Roland Olyphant. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Iran 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 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.