Loading summary
Transcript52 lines
- [00:00]
Paul Nuki
Foreign.
- [00:11]
Venetia Rainey
I'm Venetia Rainey and this is Iran. The latest. It's Wednesday, 17th of June, 2026, the 110th day of the war. On today's episode, we're going to be looking at what we think is the final version of the Memorandum of Understanding. We're going to be breaking it down and the timeline that it involves. Plus, we're going to be getting the view from Israel, the one country that is really set this peace deal. Will they act as a spoiler?
- [00:36]
News Reporter
Short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.
- [00:44]
Venetia Rainey
Today, President Trump says Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the attacks.
- [00:54]
Paul Nuki
The Pentagon is weighing a takeover of that island as a way to force the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do? Come on.
- [01:08]
Venetia Rainey
So we're two days out from the final official grand signing of the peace deal between America and Iran. And we think we've got a text of the Memorandum of Understanding. This has been published by Bloomberg. Some people are disputing the exact wording, but we think it's relatively close to what we're going to see. So I'm not going to read it out to you word for word, but what I have done is just break it down into a timeline of what we're going to see. So it's going to be signed on Friday. And then what should happen immediately is an end enter to the war, including in Lebanon. We're going to get more onto that later with our guest. And then the US Will lift the naval blockade in the Strait of Palmus and Iran will immediately start mine clearing and stopping all attacks on shipping. The US Will then also issue waivers on Iranian oil, petrochemical products, banking and other services. This is in lieu of sanctions being lifted further down the line, which we'll get to after the MoU has been signed. There are 30 days for maritime traffic to be fully restored in the Strait of Hormuz. That feels unlikely. If you want to hear more on why, go back to our episode from yesterday where Roland is speaking to the editor of Lloyd's List, Richard Mead. They dig more into the details about how that could all work. But okay, 30 days, that's what they're trying to do to restore full maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. They then have this 60 day period where they're trying to negotiate the final agreement. Final agreement. Think of that in capital letters. During this time, America will potentially Release some Iranian frozen assets. This is in line with progress towards the final agreement. And crucially, in the MoU, it says that this money can be used for anything that Iran wants. I think that's key. We're going to come back to that again a bit more later. So after 60 days, which can be extended if both sides agree, so get ready for an extension. That's just my read from here. But after these 60 days, hopefully we'll get to that final agreement. So what does the final agreement have to include? It's going to have to include financing of Iranian reconstruction to the tune of 300 billion. Not clear where that money's coming from, but that figure is in there, and it's for Iranian reconstruction. A schedule to lift all Iranian sanctions, a plan to deal with the enriched uranium and other nuclear bits in Iran's nuclear program that could enable it to build a nuclear weapon. Some kind of implementation mechanism to monitor the agreement. And apparently all of this is going to be approved by a binding UN resolution. So that's where they're trying to get to 60 days after signing the MOU agreement this Friday. That all sounds quite ambitious and the wording is still pretty vague, but that's where they're trying to get to. And then 30 days after that, the US will withdraw forces from the area. Again, that's quite vague, but I assume that means forces that are in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, not from the bases that are in the Gulf. But again, we don't have the actual details on that. So Trump has been at the G7 today, and the peace deal has also been going down really well amongst his fellow G7 leaders. You know, the ones who really didn't want to get involved in this war, but are clearly very relieved that the end is in. Insight, we had a statement signed by the leaders of the uk, us, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada. We welcome the announcement of a deal between the United States and Iran, secured under the strong leadership of President Trump, with the support of mediating countries, which provides a historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon and tackling the threats related to the regional and ballistic activities. We support and are ready to contribute to its implementation. Iron Even Trump critic Mark Carney, the leader of Canada, was singing this deal's praises. He said it was a game changer. He said it would lead to historic agreement on Iran's nuclear program. So everyone's very excited, clearly. But is this deal as good as all the leaders are saying at the G7? They're putting on a good show. But should we believe them? With me to discuss that is our Global Health Security editor, Paul Newki, who's joining me down the line from Tel Aviv. Paul, welcome to Iran.
- [04:58]
Vinny Shirani
The latest.
- [04:59]
Paul Nuki
Thank you very much.
- [05:00]
Venetia Rainey
We just heard the sort of broad outline of the timeline of the Memorandum of Understanding as we understand it. I want to start with your reaction, not from the Israeli perspective, which we're going to get into on this episode, but as an editor of the Global Health Security Desk. You've been covering the impact on food security. You've been looking at the humanitarian situation. Is this a good deal? Was it so essential to strike a deal that this is what we needed to get things over the line, or does it leave loads of questions for you?
- [05:26]
Paul Nuki
Yeah, I mean, I think broadly speaking, it's welcome that a deal has been done. I'm not sure that it is a good deal, but what I can say with some certainty is that without it, the Strait of Hormuz would have remained closed and Iran would have kept its foot on the throat of the global economy. And no one should underestimate the damage that is doing both to global growth, but also specifically to countries across Asia, Europe and even America. They are struggling, and really without a deal, they would have continued to struggle and conflict would have emerged, et cetera, et cetera. There are plenty of prime ministers, presidents around the world who feel that without a deal, their populations will become angry and vote them out or worse.
- [06:14]
Venetia Rainey
Because June was supposed to be this crunch point. Right. If the Strait of Hormuz stayed shut, things to do with fertilizer, helium, all sorts of other related products was supposed to be a real crunch point for countries all around the world. Is that what you were finding? Or had we seen that actually the timeline was being extended because some boats were sneaking out along various routes?
- [06:33]
Paul Nuki
Yeah, I mean, the vast bulk of traffic through this straight upon moods has been stopped, stopped for a long time now. The World Food Program is also already saying that millions are suffering hunger now as a result of it. And the great fear is that if it dragged on, the crops being planted now and in the autumn wouldn't bear fruit and we would really have a major food crisis across the globe in addition to the energy crisis that has already hit.
- [07:03]
Venetia Rainey
And just put it to us plainly, like assuming the Strait of Hormuz does properly open on Friday, you know, all the various obstacles are lifted and, okay, it takes 30 days for full maritime traffic to be restored. That sounds quite optimistic. But let's assume they manage to meet. That does that solve some of the problems or is some stuff just baked in now?
- [07:22]
Paul Nuki
There's plenty of stuff baked in, and we're going to feel it feed through for the next six months. But it does remove Iran's chokehold, and eventually the world economy will reset.
- [07:34]
Venetia Rainey
Okay, well, let's dive into the specifics because you're in Tel Aviv, and we want to hear the Israeli perspective. We know the Israelis are super unhappy. Can you just outline what are the main objections to this deal from the Israeli perspective?
- [07:47]
Paul Nuki
Yeah, the Israelis pretty universally are unhappy. They feel that Trump has thrown them under a bus. They fear that wars will continue across the region. And most of all, they fear that Iran will become insurgent. It's a huge economy dwarfing Israel. And with the sanctions lifted, with reconstruction funds going in, they worry that it's going to become the dominant force in the region, perhaps now acting in a more pragmatic fashion, building ties with its Arab neighbors, Turkey, even Syria, and really becoming the dominant force in the region. And that's the absolute fear and paranoia here. It's important to remember that Israel went into this war actually with very different interests than America. And what we've seen here is those differing interests become apparent. It's in America's interest to clear the strait, to get the world economy moving again, to get back its allies in the Gulf on side. Israel doesn't have any of that. Israel's economy is not doing so badly. It's less reliant on the threat of Hormuz. But on the other hand, it faces this threat from Iran much more directly.
- [09:05]
Venetia Rainey
I want to pick apart the MOU a bit from an Israeli perspective. So number one feels like, to me, the Lebanon question, because Lebanon has been specifically included in this deal. We know there's ongoing fighting in southern Lebanon. Israeli airstrikes this morning, Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli troops intercepted. Hezbollah not party to this deal. And we haven't seen an official statement from them, although I believe the leader, Nam Qassem, is due to speak later today. So we'll keep an eye on that. We have had a statement from the leaders of the G7, and they've also called for a ceasefire in Lebanon. They say an immediate, robust ceasefire. The Lebanese leadership's efforts to achieve the disarmament of Hezbollah and the monopoly of arms and to protect Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty with the appropriate international security guarantees. So that leaves us in a bit of a bind. Right, because it doesn't mention the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. It just specifies a ceasefire. How is this all Going to work from the Israeli perspective, it's very difficult.
- [10:01]
Paul Nuki
Of all the things Israel is upset about is the deal appears to place Lebanon right at the center. And by doing so, it gives Iran and Hezbollah additional power. Now, that may not be good for either Israel or indeed the Lebanese government, which has been trying to negotiate an agreement with Israel. That hasn't worked. It doesn't look like it's going to work. And so it looks like Trump has decided to do it in another way, and that is with Iran. He is essentially doing a deal that wraps Lebanon in to this whole equation. And that is so important in Israel. I mean, Israel. His politicians talk about concepts. Israel's concept for 20 years has been this piece through strength. We'll have a hugely strong army. We'll deter through that, we'll mow the lawn where necessary. Terrible phrase, but there we have it. It just hasn't worked. And so a new concept is being forced on them by the Americans, led by the Iranians. And it's obviously terrifying to Israel.
- [11:12]
Venetia Rainey
And do you think Netanyahu's government, which is facing an election in October and a lot of unpopularity with the way this war has ended, making him look weak on the international stage, which he's not used to, do you think they will listen to Trump? I know we've had a lot of harsh words and we'll get more into that later. What Trump has been saying about Israel had a lot of harsh words, leaked PH calls. Is the sense there that Israel will heed America's instructions.
- [11:34]
Paul Nuki
It's very difficult to know. There's no doubt at all that President Trump's attacks on both Israel and Netanyahu are escalating at an exponential rate. I did actually check yesterday to look at all the attacks over the last three years, and they're now happening daily where right at the beginning they were happening even with years apart. So that's escalating. Trump is getting good feedback on those attacks. It's pleasing his MAGA base. And Trump works on this feedback loop, so he's likely to do more of it. Most of it is directed at BB Net and Yahoo, some of it at Israel itself, or certainly Israeli policy now, which is quite a change. My feeling is that what we're likely to see over the next month or two is Netanyahu's polling coming down as the population begins to turn on him, as there are signs of. But I think that the Israeli defense establishment is likely to take the line that it should listen to America.
- [12:40]
Venetia Rainey
Let's hear what Donald Trump has been saying about Israel at the G7 summit this week.
- [12:45]
News Reporter
Without us, without the United States, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel because no other president was willing to do what I did. I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon.
- [13:04]
Venetia Rainey
Paul, what do you make of those comments? Pretty extraordinary things for an American president to be saying about such an old ally. Without me, there would be no Israel. I mean, what do you make of it?
- [13:17]
Paul Nuki
Well, you know, Trump is trying to make Bibi and Israel the lightning rod for the fallout in the Iran war. You know, there's no doubt at all that America has made a major mistake. It's launched a war without seizing the Strait of Hormuz, and it's being caught and it's having a climb down. Trump doesn't want to take the blame for that, so he's shifting it very effectively, in my view, to the Israelis. There would be long arguments about whether that's fair or not. Hillary Clinton I saw was on TV saying that she had resisted pressure from Netanyahu and near Israelis for years to do exactly this sort of thing. So we'll see. But that's what Trump's game is. He's making Israel a lightning rod, and Bibi in particular sort of fall out from the war.
- [14:06]
Venetia Rainey
And just finally, on the Lebanon issue, have there been any further comments about what Israel's plan is in southern Lebanon? Is there any pressure to withdraw?
- [14:13]
Paul Nuki
There's certainly pressure, and actually, over the last three or four weeks, Israel has pulled down the number of troops it has in southern Lebanon quite dramatically, although there have obviously been some pretty high profile strikes. The danger, of course, is Netanyahu tries to do what he did on Sunday, I think, which is to bomb Beirut, which in the new equation is now seen as equivalent to bombing Tehran. And if he does that, Tehran is obliged by the new equation to hit Israel, and through that mechanism, he could bring down the whole deal. America is obviously pretty much on top of that now. But Bibi Netanyahu is in a corner, and people know that when he's in a corner, he's prone to lash out.
- [15:02]
Venetia Rainey
Can you just also explain to listeners and viewers why is it popular for this war to continue in Israel, probably the only country where they want the war to continue?
- [15:10]
Paul Nuki
Well, you know, Israel has had 20, 25 years of constantly being told that the military solution is the only solution, and people are stuck in that narrative. There is no one here saying, actually, through diplomacy, we could do this, that or the other. Although there are quite clearly at the moment deals to be done. I mean, there's a security deal to be done with Syria, there's a security deal to be done with Lebanon, there's a deal to be done in Gaza, which in any normal outside take, they're not deals without risk, of course, but they seem to be deals that Israel could emerge well out of. But no one here, really, across a political echelon in the streets, is willing at the moment to think about diplomacy. Is a country still traumatized by October 7th, and that was a traumatic event, let's not forget. But it's also a country that has been a victim, in my view, to false propaganda from Netanyahu, from likud for almost 20 years. And it'll take quite a bit to change that round.
- [16:22]
Venetia Rainey
There's two more pieces of the MOU that I think we need to pull out. One is the nuclear question. It's very vague in the memorandum of understanding as far as we've seen it. It's basically an agreement to talk about getting to an agreement within this sort of 60 day period which can be extended if they need it to be. Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday, Iran has agreed to have a nuclear weapon. They had agreed to that. Technically, they'd always said they didn't want a nuclear weapon for years before that, and yet had continued to enrich uranium. What guarantees do you think can be got out of Iran on this nuclear question that we haven't been able to get to over the last more than 100 days of this conflict?
- [17:00]
Paul Nuki
I think we'll be back to the Obama deal that did a very solid job of restricting Iran's enrichment.
- [17:08]
Venetia Rainey
The JCPOA, the 2015 deal that Trump scrapped and has been criticizing repeatedly.
- [17:13]
Paul Nuki
Yeah, I mean, that deal ensured that there were inspections. It made clear that there could never be a nuclear bomb, and it made clear that enrichment couldn't happen at any considerable scale. It's only after that deal was scrapped that enrichment went through the roof again. So I think that ultimately that's where we're going to be back to. And I think Iran will ultimately be happy to sign up to the same terms again. And there's certainly nothing in this MoU that suggests that they're going further. The one thing I would say is that the times are different. You know, this war has dismantled much of Iran's military infrastructure, so it's weaker than it was when it was dealing with Obama. And this war has also taken out an older layer of the leadership that's a layer of the leadership who could remember the 79 revolution. So it may be that we're now looking at a slightly more pragmatic regime. I'm not saying it's a nice regime, but it may be, in a military sense, slightly more pragmatic and willing to trade political gains across the region, influence for military ones. It's a long shot. I mean, people in the security establishment here fear it could go the other way. I mean, some fear that the people in charge now are even more radical, even more dangerous. It's very hard to know.
- [18:42]
Venetia Rainey
And would Israel be happy with a sort of JCPOA 2.0 deal?
- [18:48]
Paul Nuki
Well, I don't think so. It wasn't happy with the first deal, is highly unlikely to be happy with this one, which certainly I think will end up giving Iran more power in the region. And it's also, of course, change the relationship between Iran and the Gulf states. The Gulf states, which were once seen as a sort of very stable grouping, are now obviously vulnerable to an Iranian attack. That's going to remain the case, just as it's going to remain the case that Iran can obviously close the Strait of Hormuz pretty much whenever it wants. So in some ways people are saying, well, look, with those things in its armory, it doesn't really need a nuclear weapon.
- [19:30]
Venetia Rainey
Let's take the sort of optimistic scenario that some kind of nuclear agreement is reached to deal with the enriched uranium and other nuclear facilities. Do you think Israel will continue its policy that we saw during the 2010s of assassinating nuclear scientists, you know, sort of soft targeting of Iran's nuclear program? Do you think it will return to that kind of thing, or do you think post this conflict it will be restrained from doing even that?
- [19:56]
Paul Nuki
It's so difficult to say. What the experts here are telling me is that nothing is likely to change until the election. One expert told me, Seema Shain, that there would be no peace before the election because none of the parties are invested in a peace agenda. They're all competing on being, you know, tougher than the other. So nothing's going to happen before the election. Perhaps after the election there will be a more pragmatic coalition in power, one that is more willing to look at diplomacy rather than military might. But it's not at all clear. The people running in this election are, in the main, you know, pretty much aligned in security terms with the Netanyahu coalition.
- [20:44]
Venetia Rainey
We're going to take a short pause now. Coming up after the break, will Israel go it alone without America. Welcome back. You're listening to Iran, the latest with me, Venetia Rainey, and I'm speaking to our Global Health Security editor, Paul Newki in Texas, Tel Aviv. I think the final thing to pull out the MoU, which Israel and probably a lot of people in America are not very happy with, on the right of American politics anyway, is this idea of paying Iran in some regards. So we've got talk of release of frozen Iranian assets in line with progress towards a final agreement. We've got financing Iranian reconstruction to the tune of $300 billion. Not clear where that money is going to come from. We've got the idea of lifting sanctions on Iran, waivers on Iranian oil exports, all of this money to Iran and as far as I can see in the MoU, and in fact, it even says some of this money can be used for whatever the Iranian regime wants. I mean, that's just money in the IRGC's coffers, isn't is, I'm afraid.
- [21:52]
Paul Nuki
But, you know, we live in a world of realpolitik. America lost the war and the losers in war end up paying compensation. It's always been the case. The continue to be those who say that it's won militarily, but I just don't see it. Iran has choked off the global economy by escalating horizontally, and we're now seeing the results of it. I will try and look positively at it and say that Iran is a weaker Iran militarily and perhaps now an American administration can really do a diplomatic deal that brings a peace and a wider peace at that.
- [22:30]
Venetia Rainey
Does Israel feel like it's lost the war?
- [22:32]
Paul Nuki
Just as Trump is deflecting to Israel, Israel's deflected to Trump. So it's all about Trump having thrown the country under a bus. You know, I've got to say, Kel Supreme, I mean, what did they think? You know, all this business for the last year of Trump being Israel's greatest friend. Well, I mean, if Trump's your greatest friend and you really believe he's reliable, well, more fool you.
- [22:58]
Venetia Rainey
That was going to be my final question. I mean, what happens to the relationship between, I mean, currently Trump and Netanyahu? But I guess whoever, if he is replaced in the October election between Trump and the Israeli government, between America and Israel, feels like it's taken a bit of a battering. I mean, you know, we were talking about some of the comments. Trump's been calling Netanyahu crazy. Lots of profanity, lots of swear words coming out. It doesn't feel like American presidents have spoken to Israeli leaders like this previously.
- [23:25]
Paul Nuki
There have been blowouts in the past, Reagan and others. But it does feel different. There's no doubt. And as I've said before on this podcast series, my big worry, and there is a big difference here, is antisemitism is a real thing. It doesn't take much to ignite it. And the danger of Trump finding that he can make gains by attacking into Israel is that it accelerates out of its hands. There's a good part of the MAGA base that is prone to conspiracy theory, et cetera, et cetera, and one could see it accelerating. And that, I think, is the massive risk that Israel needs to be conscious of and to manage. It's hard to convey really, the amount of hate that is out there on the Internet concerning Israel. There's no doubt at all Israel has done some pretty appalling things over the last few years, but it's had some appalling things done to it. But the hate out there is off the scale and there's a real worry it could be properly ignited.
- [24:31]
Venetia Rainey
Can we talk a little bit about the sort of bigger security picture in Israel? Because it's not just about Iran and Lebanon. They also still have a military presence in Gaza. There's a low level conflict ongoing there against Hamas, which very much still exists. They have a presence in Syria, as you mentioned. There's a security agreement potentially to be done there. And the security situation in the west bank is incredibly tense. I know you've been reporting there over the past week. You've spoken to the father of a seven month old baby who was shot dead by troops. Can you just tell us about that story and what the father told you about those events?
- [25:03]
Paul Nuki
Yeah, I mean, it's an absolute tragedy. The guy was driving with his family, his mum, his wife, his two children in the car from the family home in Bethlehem to the mother's home in Hebron, which is a flashpoint in the West Bank. They were driving slowly, nearly at Hebron, when a soldier stepped onto the opposite side of the road, raised his gun, the car came to a halt. Father put his hands up on the steering wheel, but two shots were fired, one hitting the bonnet, one the lower part of the windscreen that fragmented through the car, killed a baby with a fragment through its head and severely wounded his wife, who was left with a fragment near her heart. And they're still wondering if an operation there is possible. This happened, I think 12, 13 days ago. Now the Israelis are investigating. They say they're serious about investigating. On the other hand, the soldier's identity is known. The whole thing was caught on videotape. And there has not yet been an arrest. And people including the father, are very skeptical there will be an arrest. And that is for the reason that there have been thousands of incidents, not as severe as this, but thousands of incidents in the west bank over the last few years which have been subject to legal complaints. And I think only indictments have been brought in 1% of cases.
- [26:28]
Venetia Rainey
Yeah, because the sort of acts that we're seeing occurring being carried out. So this was by Israeli troops, as you say. We've also had a lot of settler violence and everything from setting fire to the olive groves, stealing sheep, to violent incidents where some people are injured.
- [26:43]
Paul Nuki
Even the outside of a mosque was set on fire this morning in the west bank with really disgraceful slogans spray painted over it. So that there is no doubt that the situation in the west bank, which Israeli newspapers describe as Israeli terror, is getting out of hand. But again, I don't see any quick end insight to that ahead of the election. That is a core part of Bibi Netanyahu's political support base. Those who want to see the west bank annexed, and beyond the extremist wing, there are some who want to see Gaza annexed in even parts of southern Lebanon.
- [27:24]
Venetia Rainey
Just draw the link to the bigger conflict for us, because I know we had a letter, I think, a couple of months ago now by former heads of the IDF, Shin Bet, Mossad, I think around 30 people writing to Netanyahu describing as Jewish terrorism, as you say, and saying that not only is it, you know, disgraceful for Israel's image on the global stage and is causing damage on the ground in the west bank, but is also playing into Iran's hands. Just explain how this sort of links up to the broader security situation for Israel.
- [27:53]
Paul Nuki
I mean, it is the most terrible extremism. These are pogroms. People in the west bank are absolutely terrified. And you know, that fear and anger is then picked up on by Iran, which uses it against Israel. And you can see Donald Trump is buying into this now. He's talking about Israel behaving disproportionately across the region. And that is, I think, starting to change the international equation. How Israel responds to it is going to be really important. And we can only hope that there's a government after the election that is able to bring it under control. I mean, you've got to remember at the moment, the person in charge of the police is Ben gvir, you know, who has convictions and who is, everyone agrees, racist and an extremist.
- [28:49]
Venetia Rainey
Before we let you go, Paul, I know there's been some joyful stuff that you've been witnessing or been able to report on while you've been in Israel. You were at the gay pride parade on Friday. Just tell us a bit about that, something to make us smile at the end of this episode.
- [29:01]
Paul Nuki
It was so, you know, gay pride happened for the first time in several years. It was a really big day on the beach on the Mediterranean Broadwalk, and people who went were enormously happy it had happened. There was some cynicism from those on the left calling it pink washing, and it's also true that there weren't many prominent politicians there to support it. But it was a real sign of vibrant life again in Israel. And it's important to say, I think that, you know, despite all the troubles around it, Israel is continuing to thrive to some extent, both socially and economically, although it has all sorts of problems international and domestic.
- [29:45]
Venetia Rainey
Paul Nuki, our Global Health Security Editor in Tel Aviv. Thanks for joining us on around the Latest. That was Paul Newki, our global Health Security editor, speaking to us from Tel Aviv. That's all for today's episode of Iran the latest. Just a reminder that we are now in full video Technicolor. Follow the link in our Show Notes to Watch us on YouTube and subscribe to our channel. Please leave us a review wherever you're listening. We'd love to hear your feedback. You can go to the main feed on Apple Podcasts or comment below this episode on YouTube, Spotify and other podcast players. That's all for today's episode. We'll be back again tomorrow. Until then, goodbye.
- [30:18]
Vinny Shirani
Around 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 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 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, battle linestelegraph.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.