Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:01]
Alistair Campbell
Thanks for listening to the Rest is Politics. Sign up to the Rest is Politics plus to enjoy ad Free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to the restispolitics.com that's therestispolitics.com the rest is politics is efficiently powered by Fuse Energy.
- [00:21]
Rory Stewart
If you've got an electric vehicle or if you're thinking about it, Fuse has a smart tariff with overnight charging for only five pence a kilowatt hour and.
- [00:29]
Alistair Campbell
That'S now available on both Apple and Android app stores and works with a wide range of chargers. No faf, no filibustering, no unexpected U turns.
- [00:38]
Rory Stewart
So quite unlike Politics. And you don't even need a PhD in engineering. You just plug in your EV before bed and it'll be ready before the headlines hit your inbox.
- [00:46]
Alistair Campbell
So if you need a charger installed, Fuse will sort the hardware, the fitting and the setup, often in under a week.
- [00:52]
Rory Stewart
And when you sign up, you'll get the trip members deal completely free ad free listening, early access to Question Time, bonus episodes, and pre sale tickets to our live shows.
- [01:03]
Alistair Campbell
So while your car recharges, your podcast feed gets a power boost too.
- [01:07]
Rory Stewart
Just head to getfuse.com politics download the app and use the code politics smart.
- [01:14]
Alistair Campbell
Tariff swift Installation no white papers, green papers or red tape required.
- [01:21]
Home Depot Advertiser
Fourth of July savings are here at the Home Depot. So it's time to get your grilling on. Pick up The Traeger Pro Series 22 Pellet Grill and Smoker. And now on Special buy for $389 was $5.49, smoke a rack of ribs or bake an apple pie. This grill is versatile enough to do it all this summer. No matter how you like your steaks, your barbecues are guaranteed to be well done. Celebrate 4th of July with fast free delivery on select grills. Right now at the Home Depot, it's up to availability.
- [01:54]
Experian Advertiser
You know that one friend who somehow knows everything about money? Yeah. Now imagine they live in your phone. Say hey to Experian, your big financial friend. It's the app that helps you check your FICO score, find ways to save, and basically feel like a financial genius. And guess what? It's totally free. So go on, download the Experian app. Trust me, having a BFF like this is a total game changer.
- [02:28]
Alistair Campbell
Hello, welcome to an emergency episode of the Rest Is Politics with me, Alistair Campbell.
- [02:34]
Rory Stewart
And with me Rory Stewart.
- [02:36]
Alistair Campbell
And I'm in Cyprus and Rory is in London, but I think we Both decided straight away this morning. Having said last week that we weren't going to just jump every time Donald Trump did or said something newsworthy into emergency podcast mode, I think this absolutely justifies it. My daughter Grace really keeps saying to me, what's going to happen? What's going to happen? And. And I, up till now, I've been saying, there's nothing to worry about, it's all going to be fine. Don't worry too much. But even I'm getting worried now. I think this is pretty cataclysmic stuff and I, I think the consequences hopefully won't be too serious, but I suspect that nobody really knows where this is going to go.
- [03:23]
Rory Stewart
Yeah. So, Alyssa, I think that's. You've put your finger on it, haven't you? So, just a quick reminder, the reason we're doing this podcast is that overnight Trump authorized the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and unleashed these very, very big attacks, which Israel would not have been able to launch with very specialized munition, particularly taking out the Fordow base, which is this place half a mile underground, and with bombs so big that it appears that they, despite the fact it was half a mile underground, they've collapsed it. Now, why does that matter? It matters for many, many reasons. It matters firstly for international law. So again, as we talked about in the last week's podcast, international law is based essentially on a bar room brawl. So you can preempt, you can hit the other person in a bar only if they are just about to hit you. So, first question, would the US have any reason to feel that Iran was just about to attack the us? No. Second question is, of course, around the Non Proliferation Treaty. So since the Second World War, we've been very worried about the Third World War. And of course, in order to prevent the Third World War, we've been trying to prevent lots of people getting nuclear weapons. And the way in which we've done that is we've created a very complicated treaty with weapons inspectors that go in. And what happened in this case is that Iran was still at least 12 months probably away from developing a nuclear weapon. There had been challenges to the weapons inspectors, but that process was not allowed to play through. Israel struck. And then Trump said, well, we'll go back to the negotiating table. And before anything could happen on whether or not Iran was going to return to the negotiating table or not, Trump has now struck back. Over to you.
- [05:14]
Alistair Campbell
Yeah, you said that they sort of taken out the Fordo nuclear facility. We only have his word for that. And I Think, given the way that he presents himself all the time as everything he does is fantastic, everything America touches turns to gold. The Iranians are claiming that they'd vacated these places. Now, I don't know if that's true. I don't know what's going on. Just a little bit on the actual, these bombs and they're called, these so called bunker busters. And it is quite an operation because it seems that very few of these famous flight trackers pick these up and we're talking about 37 hour flight to some of these planes. So several refueling missions on route from their base in Missouri, Trump has come set out and they quote, completely and totally obliterated the nuclear enrichment facilities. Iran says that is exaggerated. They've immediately struck back and hit some Israeli targets. And of course, now what people will be wondering and worrying is whether they retaliate further by trying to hit American bases in the Middle east or close the Straits of Hormuz, which would have a immediate and pretty catastrophic impact on the global economy. So one other thing to report. I just saw the UN's nuclear watchdog says no increase in radiation levels have been detected. And you know, we talked, God, it feels ages ago now, but it was actually just a few days when Netanyahu first launched the attacks on Iran. We talked about whether we thought and we don't know. Again, we only have Trump's word for these things and he changes his line all the time. That's what's so confusing. He will probably say that's part of his strategic genius. So he has us thinking he's not, he doesn't want BB to attack Iran. Then when he does it, he says that I was with him all along. He says he wants to go down the diplomatic path with Iran. Give him two weeks and then, no, I've changed my mind, I'm going now. Netanyahu came out with absolute sort of joy. And even the Israeli opposition, Yahya Lapid, is saying that this was the right thing to do. This is a real threat, et cetera. So what do you think? What's your immediate instinct, Rory, about what you think Iran might be feeling, thinking and planning to do beyond these immediate strikes that they've whacked off?
- [07:41]
Rory Stewart
Yeah, okay, so exactly. Let's do Iran first and then we'll do what it means for the rest of the world. So the Iran thing, we talked about four questions when we discussed this three or four days ago. And the questions were, firstly, can it be done? Is it possible to wipe out this nuclear facility? Secondly, how Will Iran respond? Will it cave in or will it fight back? Thirdly, will it draw Iran to negotiate or will it back off? And finally, will the regime collapse? And of course, each One of those four things could go in two ways, which means there's 16 possible results, but we won't go through all 16 of those. I think the most interesting one is probably to look at what your estimate was, was probably the most likely. But I think, remember, on this stuff that we don't know with any of this stuff, a lot of this stuff is very uno. But let's take a pretty decent guess, which I think is a good probability, which is what you were talking about four days ago. So your instinct was, regime stays in place. It's probably not greatly strengthened. There's not a huge nationalist backlash in the favor of the regime. It decides that it wants to push ahead with its nuclear development, and it doesn't return to the negotiating table. Now, what are the problems here? Well, the problems are, and this is what encourages people like Netanyahu and Trump, is that in a very, very straightforward tactical sense, on the surface, attacking Iran is easier now than it was three years ago. So when I was in these conversations, when I was in the British government, National Security Council, we talked about these kinds of things. We were very, very afraid of very extreme Iranian responses. And they were twofold. One of them was their use of proxies. So their use of Hezbollah, their use of the Houthis, their use of the Iraqi Shia militia, all these groups that Iran has funded and maintained for many, many years. And the second was direct response from Iran, cyber attacks, attacks on satellites, attacks for terrorists. There are still those risks. But the big change is that Israel's attacks against Hezbollah, these were the pager attacks, mobile phone attacks to remind listeners, wiped out the entire senior leadership of Hezbollah and was then followed up by attacks on the entire missile arsenal of Hezbollah, or almost the entire missile arsenal. So we've gone from a world in which there were 100,000 missiles in Lebanon about to fire at Israel to a world in which that doesn't feel credible at all and in which Hezbollah, in fact, has said that it is considering staying out of this. And on the Iranian side, it looks as though their air defenses haven't worked and the regime is in a much weaker situation. It's extremely unpopular. I was talking to someone yesterday who's just come back from Iran about how much contempt there is for the regime. So that's the pure kind of tactical sense, and that's what will have encouraged Netanyahu and Israel. However, the big however is there's still an incredible amount Iran can do to strike back should it choose to do so. So it could close the Straits of Hormuz. It could launch cyber attacks against general infrastructure in the US and elsewhere. It could attack other Gulf countries. It could mount terrorist attacks against US Allies around the world. And ultimately, I suppose it could deploy troops across borders. So anyway, I'll pause on that. Over to you.
- [11:34]
Alistair Campbell
Let's just look at the issue of the Straits of Hormuz. So a couple of days ago.
- [11:42]
Rory Stewart
A.
- [11:42]
Alistair Campbell
Member of the National Security Committee in Iran, a guy called Beman Saidi, said, quote, closing the strait is one of the potential options. There was then another lawmaker, Ali Yazdikar, who said Iran will continue to allow free shipping in the strait and in the Gulf so long as our vital national interests are not at risk. If the United States enters the war in support of the Zionists Israel, it is the legitimate right of Iran in view of pressurizing U.S. or Western countries to disrupt their oil trades. Ease of transit. And it's very interesting a guy called Spencer Hakimian, who's apparently a hedge fund founder and a sort of absolute far out capitalist, but not a fan of Trump, and he's on social media this morning saying that the most escalatory thing to do is not to bomb American bases, but to close the strait. And he then posted a picture. And all of us, by the way, should be aware of misinformation at this time because there is tons of it out there. Not least, there's been some extraordinary fake video circulating already of the sort of damage done on both sides. But he posted a picture of 50 large oil tankers that he said, according to this graphic, was scrambling to leave and said it looks like the oil industry is expecting the strait to be blockaded. Other people were saying things like that it's not as easy to close it as you think. Added to which it will not be good for regime survival because it will hit them as well. But I think we're talking about something like 20 million barrels of oil a day that go through this between Oman and Iran. And so I think that the they will feel I was talking to somebody yesterday who has been in discussion with the Iranians and who was giving got the impression that one, they were pretty philosophical about the Americans getting engaged, not convinced that they would do as much damage, do so much damage and also just not listening to all the horrible word off ramp to all the off ramps that were being offered to them. So I think what we're going to see is it reaction, continue reaction of sorts. They will, I don't think they'll be terribly conservative in how they go about that. They, because the, the, the whole point of the, their worries about re. Regime change. On the one hand you have the people who hate them very, very numerous. On the other hand you have people who actually, if they show weakness they will, they will be, they'll be prone to falling. So on both sides I think they'll be feeling squeezed. The Supreme Leader thus far has said nothing as far as I can see, very worried about communications, not least because Netanyahu put out this idea that they might take him out.
- [14:37]
Rory Stewart
Yeah, just quickly to remind people about the straits for Hormuz. So if you look at a map of the region, the Gulf comes down like a wedge and there is, sorry, the Gulf, by which I mean in this case Saudi, uae, Kuwait, Bahrain. And there is then a gap between the Arab Gulf and Iran known as the Persian or Arabian Gulf. And there's a particular point where a little stick comes up to the north above Dubai and that is then right up next to the Iranian territory around Banarabas. So it's a little narrow strip that you've got to sail around and about 30% of all the seaborne oil in the world comes through that little gap. And it's really important, for example, particularly to places that are near Iran. Very, very significant for Bahrain, very significant for Oman, but actually also extremely relevant to the United Arab Emirates. So that's the Strait of Hilmet's Point. Now, just to develop that one point further, what are people worried about? Well, of course what they're worried about is that this is just the beginning. Oh, there'll be a nice map that's been put up so you can see homies there. Lovely.
- [16:01]
Alistair Campbell
I'm rather alarmed how close Cyprus is. It's right there, right in the heart of all this.
- [16:08]
Rory Stewart
Well, take care, Alistair. Although actually I think the big things we're worrying about your security is not top of ours, although it is worth.
- [16:17]
Alistair Campbell
Just pointing out that the, and we'll get on to the, the whole thing about bases in the region, but the fact is that a, A, a British citizen has been arrested here on suspicion of spying for Iran at one of the RAF bases, the British air bases that are here in Cyprus. So this is, you know, this is, this is going to draw other people in whether we like it or not.
- [16:40]
Rory Stewart
Good. Okay, well just to develop this one 1st. This could mean oil could go up to 100, $130 a barrel, so it could almost double in price. And if there's an impact on, let's say, 15, 20%, the global oil supply, that can have very significant economic consequences for the whole world. So that potentially is global recession. And of course, the point is not just the macroeconomics around this, it's also the way the financial markets react or don't react. And, and the way in which actually new systems of trading, AI systems of trading can actually escalate and accelerate this kind of volatility. So that's one set of risks. The next set, which I want to get you onto, though, Alistair, is the US Angle. So we've talked about Iran's options, more limited perhaps than they were three years ago, but still very significant. And big calculations for Iran there because of course, if they do those things, stop the straits for moves, mount a major cyber attack, it's the equivalent really of sort of international suicide bombing, because at that point they will then trigger a very, very intense war reaction from the US and others. So big escalation risk. Let's move to the US though. So what is Trump's strategic end state? Says he pompously. How does he define victory? What's his exit strategy and what are the limits? I mean, this is really important for understanding whether the US Is going to keep escalating this into war or whether this is the end of it over to you.
- [18:19]
Alistair Campbell
Well, I think he let's just look at the way this thing is developed. We talked last week, earlier this week about the extent to which United nations, he doesn't even worry about it openly said Iran's not interested in what Europe thinks they're interested what we think. So deliberately pushing the international institutions to one side. Rory's almost knocked his microphone off there, but he rest. I saw him rescue it. He's pushing international institutions one side. I mean, let's see whether he even bothers to turn up at NATO or whether he'll do a bit like he did at G7, say, well, I'm so busy dealing with big stuff that you guys aren't involved in. But actually he is going to have to keep NATO countries on board. I mean, these alliances will matter. But at the moment, he's in that state of, you know, I've done it, we've done it, we've completely obliterated them. And if they come back with anything at all, we're going to escalate. That's basically what he's saying.
- [19:18]
Rory Stewart
Quick interruption here before you get onto the Big strategy. I mean, I also think that a really important theme here, which we often talk about, is the sense that he's the, in his own head, he's the hero of his own reality TV show. And he constructs shows like the construction of a Hollywood movie where you get more and more extreme crises responses to develop the sense of drama. And as he feels he's losing his audience, the number one thing he cares about is being famous and also rich, but above all, famous. And so, in a sense, there was a sort of driving logic to this, which was not anything to do with Iran, was purely to do with Trump, I guess, asking himself in the White House, what's going to make the great story here? What's going to make me look like the tough guy? Is it doing nothing, or is it dropping an enormous bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility? And framed like that, presumably he's tempted to do it just because it suits the reality TV show on that theme.
- [20:22]
Alistair Campbell
And I really don't want to alarm my daughter or anybody else listening, but I think when we last talked about the reality TV concept, when we talked about it to Michael Wolf, I made the point that, you know, the logical conclusion, the thing you go to at the end of the film is a nuclear war. Now, I don't even. Trump, I hope, does not want that. But, you know, let me just read you a post that he posted yesterday on his social media. I'm very happy to report that I have arranged, along with Marco Rubio, a wonderful treaty between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in their war, which was known for bloodshed and death more than most other wars, and has gone on for decades. Representatives from Rwanda and the Congo will be in Washington on Monday to sign documents. Great day for Africa. Great day for the world. I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this. I won't get a Peace Prize for stopping the war between India and Pakistan. I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the war between Serbia and Kosovo. I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping peace between Egypt and Ethiopia. And on and on and on he goes, no, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize, no matter what I do, including Russia, Ukraine and Israel and Iran, whatever the outcomes. But the people know, and that's all that matters to me. What matters to him is this bloody Peace Prize. How does it square with what he's now doing?
- [21:41]
Rory Stewart
Well, maybe if I answered your question, maybe the point is that he's actually, he wrote that tweet, decided he was never going to get a Nobel Peace Prize and thought, well, fuck it, if I can't get something for a peace prize, why don't I get something for being the biggest warmonger?
- [21:52]
Alistair Campbell
But how, in this moment right now, how can you talk about Russia and Ukraine in terms of his role as a peacemaker? It's got worse. This is now getting worse. Israel, Palestine, I mean, the tragedy in this, two huge tragedies, both for Gaza and for Ukraine, they get pushed out now, but just on the strategy. Rory, look, I could be unfair here. I don't think there is one. I think it's all about the presentation and the story, as you say, and the politics. And interestingly, let's just watch these MAGA people, the Carlsons and the Bannons and all this guy. It's already starting, by the way, Matt Gaetz. Trump wants this to be like the Soleimani, strike one and done. No regime change, war, Trump the peacemaker. Charlie Kirk has come out. We have to trust our commander in chief. So all these people a few days ago were saying we must not get drawn in, we must not do it. So this is like a cult. And I, I think that if the strategy, you say, what's the end game? He set out. This is the. I don't think the guy is very strategic. He set out a few days ago, another of his social media post, unconditional surrender caps, exclamation mark. Well, that's quite hard because if there is unconditional surrender, they are finished. Now what? This guy I was talking to has been talking to the Iranians. He did say the Iranians have been unbelievably difficult, totally stuck in their, in the, you know, their old ways. But ultimately you're asking me what I think the strategy is. I honestly don't know.
- [23:28]
Rory Stewart
Well, let's take a quick break and in the second half we'll come back, we'll take, take some questions.
- [23:38]
Alistair Campbell
This episode is sponsored by NordVPN now.
- [23:42]
Rory Stewart
Alistair online Privacy. My new pretentious idea is a bit like democracy. You trust it's there until one day it's not. And by then, someone's already reading over your shoulder.
- [23:51]
Alistair Campbell
So yet again, you bring the comforting touch of Orwellian dystopia to lift my challenged mood. But of course, you're right, as always, Rory, with our protection, your data is wide open. Emails, passwords, even your browsing history.
- [24:04]
Rory Stewart
Which is why I use NordVPN. It encrypts your connection, hides your IP and blocks trackers all silently in the background.
- [24:12]
Alistair Campbell
And the difference is immediate. Fewer ads, faster streaming, less digital noise. It's like decluttering your online life without touching a single settings menu. No pop ups, no worry, just peace of mind.
- [24:24]
Rory Stewart
One account covers up to 10 devices, so that's your phones, your tablets, your laptops or whatever else you use. Alastair to track focus groups at 3 o' clock in the morning.
- [24:32]
Alistair Campbell
So whether you're traveling, working remotely or just logging on at home, Nord keeps you secure, quietly, reliably, exactly when it matters.
- [24:40]
Rory Stewart
To get the best discount, visit nordvpn.com restispolitics it's risk free with Nord's 30 day money back guarantee links in the description what is Dadication?
- [24:53]
Fatherhood Advertiser
The thing that drives me every day as a dad is Darion. We call him Day Date for short. Every day he's hungry for something, whether it's attention, affection, knowledge. And there's this huge responsibility in making sure that when he's no longer under my wing that he's a good person. I want him to be able to sit back one day and go, we worked together. We did a good job.
- [25:14]
Rory Stewart
That's dedication. Find out more@fatherhood.gov brought to you by the U.S. department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. Welcome back from the break.
- [25:26]
Alistair Campbell
Rory, before we do questions, before we get your questions, I'm gonna do that terrible thing which how many American troops roughly do you think there are the.
- [25:34]
Rory Stewart
Middle east at the moment? 40,000.
- [25:38]
Alistair Campbell
Not bad. Over 30,000. Just over 30,000. So just, I mean, I was looking through some of these, these numbers. So the American military have 1.3 million active duty members home and abroad and a quarter of a million stationed overseas. Japan, far and away has the most. Then Germany, South Korea, Italy, and then we're we're on about 10,000. And what's interesting about the where they are, Bahrain has the most in the region. Bahrain has about 9,000 US military and civilians. So you've got a lot of American bases around the place. And they will be obviously concerned about what the response might be. And the other thing I think is important to and again, we can only speculate the role we said, sort of half in jest, that silly parade that he did last week, that the soldiers didn't really look up for it and what have you. It will be interesting to see the American military will be unbelievably proud, I imagine, that they've been able to pull off this military operation as a military operation, but whether they actually want to get sucked in in the way that clearly hexith doesn't mind. Rubio seems to do just whatever Trump says. Vance. Interestingly, yesterday, JD Vans we should point people to the start of our miniseries on Vance, which isn't the rest is politics plus. But he did a very interesting little interview the other day. He basically said, whatever the president's instincts are, they will be right. I've never known anybody with such good instincts. But he's the guy. Don't forget, Vance is the guy whose basic messaging has all been about not getting sucked in to more wars. And one of the Democrats senators I saw, Jack Reed, the Armed Service Committee, he made the obvious point, it's easier to start wars than to end them. Cue lots of people say, what about Iraq? Which is fine. We can talk about that.
- [27:32]
Rory Stewart
Let's develop that. Because I think Jack Reed's got a really profound point there which needs to be unpacked a bit, which is that if you're right, and I'm sure you're right, that Trump hasn't got a strategy. He can't define what victory is, what an exit strategy is, and above all, what the limits are. The problem is that if Iran obviously just keels over, says, okay, we're giving up on a nuclear program, we're accepting every American demand and goodness knows what else, we're going to have a liberal democracy and we're going to stop our opposition to Israel, fine, but that's not very likely. In fact, the regime in Iran, its entire legitimacy now depends on trying to mount a nationalist backlash against the United States. Otherwise, it's over. I mean, 40 years of being the Iranian regime requires that. So then what does Trump do? And this is the key, and this is where the limits and end state come in. If Iran, as is likely signals defiance, mounts, counterattacks, says it's going to find some way of secretly pursuing its program, what does Trump then do? And almost certainly he will then feel insulted and feel he has to do more, at which point Iran does more, at which point he does more. And that's why the question of what this whole thing is about and where does it end, you know, is he trying to change a regime? That's clearly what many people in Israel want, or is he just trying to hit the nuclear program? And then he doesn't mind what they do, doesn't mind how they respond, doesn't mind who they attack. Back to you on that.
- [29:07]
Alistair Campbell
You made the point about the regime and the opposition. The opposition apparently having some big press conference in Paris today or tomorrow to and obviously they do want to sort of push for regime change. But what the MAGA people are clearly saying right from the world go, this is not about regime change. And interestingly, even though Netanyahu hints at it all the time, he's perhaps been reigned in a little bit by, by Trump on that. And it's interesting to see the international reaction pretty muted. But Guterres, the head of the UN Gravely alarmed. Dangerous escalation, direct threat to peace and security. Growing risk the conflict could get out of control with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world. And then, you know, Keir Starmer is fairly sort of low key. The US has taken action to alleviate the threat. Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat. Can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Situation in the Middle east remains volatile. Stability, the region. Priority call on Iran to return to the negotiating table. The problem with all of this, though, and this is, you know, maybe this is the strategy. When we talk about. When I say Trump doesn't have a strategy, maybe I'm being unfair to this extent. He has an objective which is to make his own power virtually insurmountable. And that is. And part of that strategy has been the deliberate undermining of the international institutions. And Jim Himes, the congressman who we talked to a while back, he's straight out saying that this is a unconstitutional act. Congress has to declare war, not the president. So, you know, it's. But I'd say. I'd say the international reaction so far fairly muted.
- [30:56]
Rory Stewart
Yeah, well. And very disturbing that, isn't it? Because this is a complete departure from the way in which we tried to keep peace in the world since 1945. So after the Second World War, the conclusion was that the way to stop New Hitlers, New Japan's rising was to have a United nations, to have international laws, to have legislative approval, to put all the barriers you could in the way of people just saying might is right. I've got some big bombs, and I can drop them on whoever I want whenever I want. Right. We've lost that totally. We're getting into a very, very muddled world in which we're making arguments which nobody would have made in the 50s, 60s, or even much more recently. I mean, it's shocking, actually, that Keir Starmer, who is a lawyer and who cares about international law and whose attorney general was signaling that he was pretty concerned about Trump moving planes to Diego Garcia because the UK Attention before the strikes said that it was very questionable whether there would be the legal right to do this strike after the event. They all come in behind him. And that was true of France. That was true of Germany last week. Now, what's the problem with that? The problem with that is we now move to a world which feels much more like the world before the First World War, where basically might is right. If you can strike someone, you will strike someone. And what does that mean? Well, that means that everybody else around the world, if you're China, Russia, North Korea, you draw the lessons from this.
- [32:34]
Alistair Campbell
Well, just on that, let's just take this question from Coles. How much does this increase the incentive for China to take Taiwan? The US has got tied up resources in two wars. There's less global moral high ground for the west in time of offensive war. And of course, after that, you and I both send Reesa Lake that although we don't think that Trump is necessarily serious about his threats to turn Canada into 51st state, that he is serious about Greenland. Now, if European leaders now are in fair play. Macron went to Greenland, and I think that's what pissed Trump off to leave the G7 early. But unless European leaders are staking out these positions on principle. But the politics for this, for people like all leaders around the world, the politics of this now aren't absolute nightmare. He's made it so much worse for all of them by cutting them out of the discussions and the decision making.
- [33:28]
Rory Stewart
But none of them are. None of them are standing up. None of them are standing up.
- [33:34]
Alistair Campbell
Guterres is, yeah.
- [33:35]
Rory Stewart
Guterres is, yeah. But what about the Europeans? I mean, it's extraordinary. I mean, traditionally, the reason why the US Built coalitions and alliances was to have international support. Trump has now accurately concluded that he's in a world where the European leaders are such wimps that he can do whatever the hell he wants whenever he does it. And none of them will criticize him. In fact, they'll all come in behind him and say it was terrific. Even if two minutes before he did it, they were saying publicly that it would be a bad idea to do. I mean, there's no consistency. How can Britain go from saying with the attorney general just a few hours ago, this is a potentially illegal action, to then coming immediately out and saying, well done, great. Well done, you, Mr. Trump.
- [34:13]
Alistair Campbell
He's not quite saying well done, great. He's saying. He's giving the explanation. He's essentially framing the Trump explanation for why he's done it and then sort of calling for de escalation, because they've been calling for de escalation since Israel went in in the first place. There's a question here. Ruth Fitzgerald, Rory, how will Putin react? Will he take any actual candy? Putin will be maybe sort of feeling he's further justified in what he's doing.
- [34:37]
Rory Stewart
Well, yes. I mean, so this is now. Will define the future, will be called the Fordow case. Every time somebody does something around the world, Russia, China, the U.S. goodness knows who else, they will say, well, it's like Forda, we're going to. We're doing preemptive. Oh, yeah, okay. It's 12 months off, but we're preempting. Let me just. The two things which I was really struck by. I've just been thinking about Eisenhower and Suez and how different the world was. And there were two points that Eisenhower makes which I think are really interesting, which show how much the world's changing and how bizarre this new world is and how dangerous it is. Eisenhower basically says two things. Number one, you cannot do things preemptively. Your excuse can't be, they're about to get me. And secondly, he's saying you can't have one rule for your allies and one rule for your enemies. Right? So here are his quotes. So this on preemption, he says this about Britain, France, and Israel had come to believe, probably correctly, that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Middle east and that until he was removed or defeated, there would be no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future. So that's the preemption bit. And then one more short one. We cannot, and this is about allies. We cannot in the world any more than our own nations subscribe to one law for the weak, another for the strong. One law for those opposing us, another for those allied with us. So Eisenhower would be saying, look, listen, I get it. Israel is our close ally. Even the US Is our close ally, and Iran isn't. But you can't have one law for Israel and the US and another law for Iran. Otherwise, it's not the law.
- [36:28]
Alistair Campbell
Yeah, well. And that debate is, I think, one of the reasons why the international response is kind of quite fragmented. It's feeling quite weak. I think at some point, these leaders have to make a stand about the importance of American alliances. And, you know, when we announced that we were doing this emergency podcast, there were people, as ever on Twitter in particular, saying, who the hell wants to hear from you? You started a war in Iraq. Da, da, da, da, da. Unusual stuff. But as we were saying the other day, this feels so different. I can remember a weekend, I think it was a weekend when Tony Blair made I can't even remember how many phone calls to the presidents of. I think it was Chile and Mexico because they happened to be two of the sort of swing states on the rotating United Nations Security Council. And he was absolutely determined to, you know, at one point we're talking literally about doing a day trip. I think it was Mexico to go and see Vincente Fox. And in the end we didn't. But it was because he was working flat out with George Bush and others to try to take the thing down the United nations route. You mentioned Richard Herman, the Attorney General, you know, the various inquiries that we've had into the Iraq war. I mean, how much scrutiny was there on the discussions that we were having, Tony Blair was having with the Attorney general? And it feels in this one as though all of that has just been pushed to one side. It's a whim. And if when the Vice President says, you know, we just trust his instincts, then where is international law? Where are the alliances? Where are the risks? What assessment was actually being done?
- [38:11]
Rory Stewart
Yeah, this is coldharbour's question. There's been no mention of US legal basis for getting involved. Will there be repercussions from the UN? What is the UN's role in this now? Well, I would argue we're now in a world in which the UN is entirely irrelevant. I think what the US has just done a few hours ago is the end of the United nations as we know it. Now, as you've pointed out, it's been getting weaker for a long time, but this is actually the end. Guterres now sounds like a lone voice in the wilderness. He sounds like he's speaking 10 years ago. We're now in a world in which Russia claimed preemption to go into Ukraine. That was their reason. They said we're going in because Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russia, so we've got to invade. Now, America has said Iran poses an existential threat to the us, so we've got to go and hit them when those two big members of Security Council do that, and when Britain and France, the other two members of Security Council, back them in doing this, or in this case, back the US in doing it. We're now in a world in which there isn't any international law. And as you say, the smaller countries, medium sized countries don't matter. Nobody's consulting them. So what does this then mean? Well, look, let's play through one scenario that's not implausible. Let's say that there is a dispute about an island in the South China Sea. So there's an argument at the moment, real argument going on, between China, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan about some of these islands. Let's say Vietnam or the Philippines suddenly decides to seize one of these islands. What does the international community do? I can't apply to international law. Presumably Philippines, Vietnam, just say, well, this is an existential threat. We need to get the island. And then what happens when China drops a big bomb on that island and blows it up? What can the world say? I mean, if we have literally got ourselves into a world in which we just say the instinct of the leader and the most powerful country can just do whatever they want whenever they want, we have gone a very, very long way back in time. We haven't just gone back before the First World War. We've almost gone back before the Treaty of Westphalia. I mean, we're going back into a world where there isn't any international law at all.
- [40:25]
Alistair Campbell
And it's also the. The absolute disrespect with which this stuff is meted out. Even his own national security advisor, who is Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who was basically. And she wasn't, it seems to me. I've seen a list of the people in the Situation Room. It seems that she wasn't one of them. White House counsel was there, by the way. Question a comment here from, from Jim commented a question. Jim G. This shows the difficulty of the politics of this for every government. But he's obviously British talking about Keir Starmer. Ken Starmer's response is despicable. He says Israel has the right to defend itself, but Iran should return to the negotiation table. Israel attacked first. If someone bombed us, would Starmer negotiate? I mean, these questions are going to become very, very difficult for European governments and, of course, the NATO summit. NATO is, you know, we all talk, we often talk that NATO has been this formidable alliance that has kept Europe safe. Okay, well, Europe isn't safe at the moment because Putin is taking step by step trying to take over Ukraine and has got his eyes on other countries there beyond that. And meanwhile, NATO, which has depended upon United States leadership, is another of the international institutions which Trump deliberately and willfully undermines. Now, sometimes he's got a point, he's got a point about spending, and a lot of them are responding on that. But these institutions that have sort of basically allowed your generation, my generation, to live through relative peace and prosperity. That, I think, is what we're putting at risk here. And the fact that it's America that is leading in that it's pretty big. It's very, very difficult to handle psychologically.
- [42:14]
Rory Stewart
Look, there's so much more to do, and I guess we'll return to this in the main pod. But here's one thing that comes up a lot. Jeremiah593. How can anyone say that Israel attacked first when Iran has been using its proxies? Ridiculous. So this is a narrative that you'll hear a lot from Netanyahu, and it's a narrative which is really popular with a lot of Israelis. I don't know whether Jeremiah is aware of, of the history between Israel and Iran stretching back over 40 years, that this isn't something that just started with a recent use of proxies, that a shadow war has been conducted between those two countries for well over a decade in which Israel has been assassinating Iranians, Iranians have been assassinating Israelis for so long now that the question of who started it hardly makes any sense at all. But what is absolutely clear is, is there is a total difference between the type of damage which was inflicted in these shadow wars, where occasionally four or five people were killed in this place or that place, or one thing was fired, you know, a machine gun was fired in the streets of Iran, or Hezbollah landed some things in northern Israel compared to what's now happening, which is something on a completely different level. Completely different level in terms of the level of Israeli strikes against Iran. Completely different level now from U.S. strikes against Iran. And the idea that this is a reasonable response to that, more than 10 years of proxy war and standoff between them is, I think, very strange.
- [43:52]
Alistair Campbell
Yeah. Well, listen, Rory, you're absolutely right. I'm sure we will be talking about this when we record the main podcast on Tuesday. I suspect we'll be talking about this for years to come because of all the things that have happened since Donald Trump got back into power, I think this is right up there amongst the most consequential and also, I think, amongst the least predictable now as to what happens and where it goes. As you say, what does a win look like? He's already declared himself to have won because he's completely obliterated their enrichment facilities. Let's see if that's even true. But no, I think this is a pretty dangerous day for the world.
- [44:36]
Rory Stewart
Yeah. And you can see the incredible warmongering Tom Gould. Rory might as well run for the Greens in the next election, which I presume Means I don't know that because I'm trying to stand up for international law. I've suddenly become a green look. Okay, so let's just quick summary then just to make sure that we've got the main points if people are joining the podcast, the livestream late. So we touched on what this means for Iran and we looked at what impact it may or may not have on the nuclear program. Probably severe, but as you point out, still need to be found out what options Iran has to respond. Well, less options than it would have had three years ago in terms of its proxies, but definitely still huge potential to respond with cyber and the Straits of Hormuz. Then we looked at the question of Donald Trump and what his strategic priorities were. And as you pointed out, one of the dangerous things is it's very difficult to know what his limits or strategy are, which means there's a real risk of escalation if Iran strikes back. And then we moved on to this question of Britain, allies, international law and what on earth this means for the world. And I think, I really do feel this is a moment where we've more clearly than ever we see the end of the un, the end of the post war order and the beginning of something that feels very, very, very dangerous. Feels much more like the period before the first World War.
- [45:58]
Alistair Campbell
Yeah. Well, nice to see you. Unexpected pleasure in terrible circumstances. I do think looking at your dress, your. I think it's about time that we posted this meme. The one of him looking like Han Solo. Tell Jabba I've got his money. If people haven't seen it, there's Rory.
- [46:18]
Rory Stewart
It's all, it's all about the parse sex. It's how many parsecs I can travel at, I think is the key to that. So scene.
- [46:24]
Alistair Campbell
How many.
- [46:24]
Rory Stewart
What it has to do with. To do with how quickly you can travel through space and Star Wars. I sometimes think, Alistair, that you're always mocking me for not knowing about popular culture, by which you mean music and football. I'm beginning to worry with the Matrix and Star wars that there may be some blind spots in some of your knowledge of film.
- [46:43]
Alistair Campbell
100%. 100% science fiction has just never ever been by saying most real conventional films aren't quite good everywhere. At least we, we can, we. We just have to try and keep smiling. But see you soon.
- [46:55]
Rory Stewart
Thank you and Dr. Quieth, thank you for pointing out parsec as a unit of distance. All right, have a great day.
- [47:01]
Alistair Campbell
Bye bye.
- [47:01]
Rory Stewart
Bye bye, everybody.
- [47:11]
Alistair Campbell
Right, well done everybody who's still listening because that means you've listened right to the end of the episode. Thank you. Very impressive. But can I ask you something? Did you hear an advert on today's episode and did you think you know what, I'm sure the listeners would rather hear about my brand rather than all these other things they're promoting. Well you could be right but there's only one way to find out.
- [47:32]
Rory Stewart
That's right. You could be the next NordVPN or betterhelp put your brand in front of millions of like minded listeners by advertising on the Restless Politics and other shows across the Goal Hanger network. So who a Goal Hanger? Well they're the company behind this very show and if you're in the market to increase the value of your brand they want to hear from you. You can register your or your company's interest by going to goal hanger.com right now that's go H-A N G E R.com see you there.