Can Starmer Keep Saying No To Trump?

This BBC Podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

The rush of racing?

Nothing beats it, but Chumba Casino comes close.

Chumba's got fast spins, fun games, daily bonuses and all the action you can handle.

Now that's a ride.

Ready to hit the throttle?

Get in the driver's seat and head to chumbacasino.com.

Let's chumba.

Sponsored by Chumba Casino.

No purchase necessary.

VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law.

21 plus turns and conditions apply.

Craving the coffee flavor you love.

But without the caffeine, Kachavas got you covered with their newest coffee flavor.

This all-in-one nutrition shake delivers bold, authentic flavor, crafted from premium,

decaffeinated Brazilian beans.

Quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated.

Just two scoops of Kachavas all-in-one nutrition shake and you've got 25 grams of protein,

6 grams of fiber, greens and so much more.

Whether you're craving that coffee taste to kickstart your morning ritual

or as a nutrient-packed reward to round out your afternoon,

Kachava keeps you fueled and satisfied wherever your day takes you.

Plus, it actually tastes delicious.

No fillers, no nonsense.

Just the good stuff your body craves.

And for the times you feel like switching it up,

you've got seven flavors to choose from, all with the highest quality ingredients.

Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves.

Go to Kachava.com and use code news.

New customers get 15% off their first order.

That's K-A-C-H-A-V-A.com code news.

Hello, it's James in for Adam and the war.

In Iran, it's now well into its third week.

But things are moving fast because it seems just about a week ago

that Donald Trump was posting on social media saying

we, as in the US, don't need UK aircraft carriers to help us.

And now, he seems to have changed his mind.

He seems to want the UK and NATO to come and help

and help with the straight of Hormuz,

this narrow choke point for the fifth of the world's oil and gas supplies.

But what could the UK even do?

That's what we'll be discussing on this episode of newscast.

Newscast.

Newscast from the BBC.

Fat boys sliver me in the classroom during our violin lessons.

I was the tattletail in the class.

Can I have an apology, please?

I trust almost nobody.

That daddy has to sometimes do strong language.

Next time in Moscow.

I feel delulu with no salulu.

Take me down to Downey Street.

Let's go have a tour.

Blimey.

Hello, it's James in Glasgow.

And it is Chris at Westminster.

And joining us in the newscast studio

is friend of newscast Jane Corbin.

Hello, Jane.

Hello, it's good to be here.

Thank you for coming in to see us.

Yes, again.

Now, Chris, we've heard from both Donald Trump

and Keir Starmer today.

And we're going to get into the detail of some of what

they've been saying in a minute.

I think it's safe to say that they're not really

agreeing with each other at the moment.

Have we ever seen them so far apart on any issue publicly?

And now thinking, I'm sure we probably have.

What do you think?

Well, they are very much digging into differing positions.

And I think the other thing that is striking,

but perhaps not wildly surprising,

is how tempted the president is again and again in public,

even when he's not asked specifically about the UK

to make reference to his dealings with the Prime Minister.

And also to do some things that you don't often hear from leaders.

I mean, granted it's not exactly the greatest revelation

to say that we have in the White House right now

an unconventional leader in terms of how he prosecutes

arguments and discussions with allies.

But here you have a president who is quite happy out loud

to sort of talk about the specifics

of a notionally private conversation with another world leader.

You normally get, as we've talked about before,

a newscast after exchanges over the phone

between one leader and another, a relatively broad and bland

readout, as they're known, from each side,

leaving folk like us, reporters, decode the subtext.

You rarely need that with President Trump

because he just says it out loud in very understandable sentences

that don't need much decoding.

All be, obviously, is an account from his perspective,

not necessarily one you might hear from the other side.

And we heard from the Prime Minister first today

in a much more traditional format of a news conference.

And Chris, he was saying the UK will not be drawn into a wider war

but that he is going to work with allies

on a plan to deal with the state of hormones,

this choke point for a fifth of the world's oil and gas

coming from the oil-producing nations of the Gulf,

which is effectively closed, more or less closed at the moment.

We'll hear a bit more about that in a little while.

But first of all, do we know more about what that actually might mean

in terms of British involvement there in the Gulf?

The short answer to that is no.

The slightly wider answer is there is a conversation ongoing

within government here, but they're more broadly between the UK

and European allies and folk in the Gulf

about what that might amount to.

What it isn't going to amount to,

unless there's a change of heart,

is British ships in the state of hormones,

Royal Navy ships involved in maintaining a free and open waterway

or creating a free and open waterway.

The timeline here for newscasters

is that the president was on a flight yesterday

over the weekend on Sunday,

was answering questions and expressing frustration

at what he felt were allies who weren't doing enough in his view.

There was then the conversation on Sunday afternoon evening,

slash evening,

between the president and the prime minister lasted about 15 minutes

in which this was discussed.

Then we had the prime minister's news conference on Monday morning

and then that was followed on Monday afternoon.

By the president doing his own news conference,

and so that's worth just setting those things out in order

because the way that the public statements play out

doesn't always give that impression,

but that kind of gives you some sense of how it would.

No, that's useful. That is useful.

And Jean, we're going to hear Donald Trump in a sec.

But before we do that,

Chris mentioned their other European allies,

and I suppose it's worth remembering

this isn't just about,

although we might be focusing on it,

Washington versus London.

There's plenty of other people throughout Europe,

plenty of other European leaders who are pretty concerned

about what Mr. Trump's up to.

Is that fair?

Yes, and you've heard what Chris Amher has said today.

And the German Chancellor, Friedrich Mertz,

has said very clearly,

this war is not a matter for NATO.

He's referring to NATO.

He's referring to Germany's taking a very strong stand,

even though Donald Trump's had said that it would be very bad

for the future of NATO

if allies didn't help to secure the strait.

The position of the French president,

Macron is a little different.

President Trump said this afternoon

when he was asked about the French president's position on this.

He gave him a score.

He said that his enthusiasm for helping America was eight out of ten.

And he then added,

but then he's French,

make of that what you will.

So I think we don't know whether the French president

has given some indication to President Trump

that he would be more inclined to put French ships into any such plan.

But the Germans know,

obviously the British know

and no other member of NATO has given any other any indication

that they would be willing to join this.

Yeah, well, let's have a listen to Donald Trump now talking

about his call for NATO allies to send assistance to the

street of Hormuz.

And President Trump was speaking at the Kennedy Center

for the Performing Arts

about which there's a whole other controversy involving it.

But we don't have time to get into that now.

Let's just hear a little bit about what he,

the president had to see.

Well, we want to know,

do you have any mind sweepers?

Well, we'd rather not get involved through.

I said for you mean for 40 years,

we're protecting you and you don't want to get involved

in something that is very minor.

Very few shots going to be taken

because they don't have many shots left.

But they said would rather not get involved.

And then he singled out secure

starmer directly and newscasters.

Let's have a listen to that as well.

I was very surprised with the United Kingdom

because United Kingdom.

Two weeks ago, I said,

why don't you send some ships over and he really didn't want

to do it?

I said, you don't want to do it.

We've been with you.

Our oldest ally and we spend a lot of money on,

you know, NATO and all of these things to protect you.

I mean, we're protecting them.

We're working with them on Ukraine.

Ukraine's thousands of miles away separated by a vast ocean.

We don't have to do that.

We did it.

Well, Biden did it.

I mean, I have to be honest with you.

It's three.

Biden got taken to the cleaners.

But we worked with them in Ukraine.

We don't need to work with them in Ukraine.

And then they tell us that we have a mine ship around

and they don't want to do it.

I think it's, I think it's terrible.

No, I was, I was very surprised.

I told him, you know, he, we requested two aircraft carriers

which they had and he didn't really want to do it.

And then right after the war essentially ended,

you know, meaning they were obliterated.

He said, I would like to send the aircraft carriers.

I said, I don't need them after the war is ended and one.

I needed it before the war.

So I was very upset with, not upset.

I was, I was not happy with the UK.

I think they'll be involved, yeah, maybe.

But they should be involved enthusiastically.

We've been protecting these countries for years with NATO.

Because NATO is us.

You can ask Putin.

Putin fears us.

He doesn't fear.

He has no fear of Europe whatsoever.

Jane, it's a decade since Donald Trump won the White House

or getting on for it.

And I think it is just worth pausing every now and again

to remind ourselves that this is not normal action

by a president in the context of any other president,

any of us has known in our lifetime.

Well, those remarks about Kirstama were really personal,

weren't they?

And there was a lot of contradictions in what President Trump

was saying, but he kept coming back to the stance of Britain

and the stance of Kirstama in that very, very personal way.

And we know that when this war against Iran started,

there was talk of Britain readying an aircraft carrier

to join in and help in a very much a defensive role,

which Kirstama for reasons of international law

and the legality has always been very careful to say

that it was only for defensive, not offensive reasons.

And then, of course, we suddenly heard

that the aircraft carrier wasn't being got ready.

So obviously behind the scenes,

there has been a huge amount of towing and froing us

to what the Americans want, what the British were prepared to provide

and then drawing back from that.

So we've actually got a situation now

where there is one British destroyer still headed

not for the Straits of Hall moves,

but for Cyprus, the HMS Dragon.

And that's the only ship that's gone there so far.

And what I find quite hard to understand

when I listen to what President Trump has been saying

is that at one moment he talks about hammering Iran

in the Straits of Hall moves,

taking out a hundred ships of those 30er mind-laying ships.

And yet, at the same time, he wants NATO to get involved

and he's being very personal about the British Prime Minister.

And it seems almost that it's a test of NATO's

alliance with America, rather than necessarily actually needing this

or wanting this at this stage in the war.

It's a test of loyalty.

That's what I read into this.

Chris, what strikes you about the President's remarks

and one specific thing in that,

it's interesting, isn't it?

Given how much Kira Starmer is not alone,

as Jean was just saying a few minutes ago

in his concern about American actions

and in his reluctance to get involved,

that the President keeps singling out.

So Kira, I mean, are Donings Street worried about that

or actually, do they think this is working out fine for them?

I think, well, both at the same time, I think.

So I think to unpick this a bit,

I mean, I think what we're seeing is President Trump

at his characteristic transactional approach

to so much of how he governs.

It's interesting to reflect

that plenty have been pointing out,

particularly when he cites NATO and NATO allies,

that there have been plenty pointing out

that NATO is a defense alliance,

rather than one that has any obligation for members

to join in a offensive conflict

that a particular member chooses to embark on.

I think there is a nervousness

about where this leads in terms of the relationship

between Donings Street and the White House,

but at the same time,

I think we have a Prime Minister

who is doubling down publicly

and I hear it articulated in conversations privately as well

on the strategy that he adopted

from the outset to this conflict.

He is trying to make political capital

out of pointing to what he sees

as the changing positions,

particularly of reform UK,

and to a degree, at least in emphasis

from the Conservatives,

going right back to whether or not the UK

should have allowed British airfields

from the outset for the Americans to use.

And he is making an argument

that says he thinks that he's called this right.

Equally, he is now having to weather almost daily

this public running critique

from President Trump,

which of course is awkward.

And you imagine,

or I allow myself to imagine,

what does the next encounter

with the two of them look like face-to-face?

When does it happen for a start?

And if and when it does,

how does it play out?

Because every indication right now suggests

it'll be wildly different, only,

from the ones that we've seen thus far.

That said, of course, with President Trump,

things can blow over, et cetera, et cetera.

Who knows where we end up?

You know, when days or hours

and under a Trump presidency

can seem like there are a long time, if you like.

You know, weeks and months, therefore,

can seem a long way off.

So I think that's kind of the psychology,

if you like, of where the Prime Minister finds himself.

And as far as this latest criticism

is concerned from the President,

who has suggested that the Prime Minister is indecisive,

you know, he said,

President Trump, as far as that phone call

on Sunday evening was concerned,

that the Prime Minister had said

that he would consult with his team

before deciding what might be done

as far as helping the straight-of-home news is concerned.

From what I hear within government,

they are making an argument

that that was actually the Prime Minister

talking about consulting allies,

consulting the military

about the practicalities of what can be done

to help in the straight-of-home news.

And the Prime Minister publicly, repeatedly this morning,

in that news conference that I was at,

emphasizing what he sees as the profound complexity

of maintaining an open straight-of-home news,

which seemed very delicately to be drawing a contrast with,

if you like, the more binary or black-and-white rhetoric,

at least, that we hear from the White House.

And actually, you know, as against his very personal remarks

about the British Prime Minister,

he has actually ranged widely today, President Trump.

He's talked about some countries being enthusiastic,

some are not enthusiastic.

The level of enthusiasm matters to me,

he said somewhat threateningly.

He's pointed out that less than 1% of US oil

comes through the straight-of-home news

and therefore other countries more widely should step up.

He pointed out that Japan gets 95% of its oil

from their China or through their China 90% South Korea,

35%.

And he says, we want them to come and help.

So the net is being thrown very wide.

And we'll have to see what happens

because at one point he refused to name the countries

that weren't going to help.

But then at another point he said

that the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio,

would be naming seven countries.

So, you know, we haven't heard the end of this

and it could go anywhere, really.

And there's also the question of what the UK

and other NATO allies might actually be able to do,

practically able to do in the straight of hormones.

And a little earlier today,

I've been speaking to the economist, defense editor,

Shashank Joshi, to find out a bit more

about why President Trump might be so keen

on that NATO involvement.

Hello.

Hello.

Thank you for having me again.

Well, thanks very much for coming into explain

what's going on here because we thought

we would try to do this essentially thought experiment

to understand why President Trump has changed his tune

to the extent to which he needs the help of European allies

for the war in Iran.

So I suppose the question is,

the street of hormones, again,

is at the heart of this issue.

And it's blocked, but it's not literally blocked.

I mean, it's not something barricading it.

Is there a thing?

What sense is it actually blocked?

You're right, it isn't literally blocked.

And we know this because Iran has been exporting

its own oil through the straight of hormones.

We know that India negotiated a couple of Iranian tankers

worth of oil coming to its own ports.

There's also another ship that's gone through.

And what's happening is Iran has basically threatened

shipping through a variety of means,

including mines, naval drones, drones from the air,

missiles, and various other things

if they pass through against its will

without its permission.

And so basically lots of ships

that would normally go through this incredibly important

waterway, I think about 20% of global oil flows

go through hormones are basically frightened.

They are not going across.

Traffic has I think dropped almost to zero,

though not quite.

And you have 150 ships and could outside the straight.

So it isn't physically blocked,

but basically ships are afraid to pass

for fear that they will be struck as a few have

with sailors dying and their cargo

going up literally in smoke.

Donald Trump is commanded and chief

of the most powerful military on the world.

So has he not been able to do anything

to try to open the straight himself?

Well, they probably are doing something

in that if you think about the range

of options I just outlined for Iran,

America is attacking some of those.

So they're attacking mine storage facilities.

You saw that in a big attack a couple of days ago

on Hog Island, which is a massive island,

a very important oil terminal for Iran

at the northern side of the Persian Gulf.

So they're trying to degrade Iran's stock pile of mines.

They're trying to blow up the mind-laying vessels

that can lay those mines in the Gulf.

So that's another way they're trying to block Iran.

And then of course they're bombing Iranian missile launches

all across the country.

But the problem is Iran's a very, very big country.

It's enormous.

And so you really can't stop every last drone,

every last missile.

America has been busy elsewhere in Iran.

And it only really takes one naval drone attacking

a tanker or one Shaheed 136 aerial drone coming over the air

for ships to be paralyzed with fear.

So unless America is going to basically invade

and occupy a huge chunk of Iran's coastline,

which would be a really massive undertaking,

you can't bring that risk down to zero.

You can bring it down, but you can't bring it down to zero.

And that is the problem America's facing today.

So I suppose that brings us to NATO then.

Donald Trump's had a bee in his bonnet about NATO for years

and what he perceives to be its lack of diligence

or lack of funding or lack of commitment

from NATO allies, which lots of them would dispute.

But specifically here, can NATO help?

Could NATO help?

What would NATO actually be able to do

that the US can't?

Well, a lot of focus right now is on what we call MCM,

mine countermeasure capabilities.

And what that means is basically ships

or helicopters that can clear mines from the water.

Their specialist vessels America doesn't have enough of them.

It has I think three of them devoted to the Middle East

of which I think two have,

and I'm a little baffled here myself,

turned up in Asia in the last couple of days.

And so this is a huge problem.

Europe does have mine clearing vessels, it has others

so they could contribute some of those

to clear any Iranian mines.

But the problem is the issue isn't just mines.

In fact, it's not even clear

whether Iran has actually laid any mines

in this conflict so far.

The problem is missiles and drones coming in.

And so Europe could do a couple of things.

It could bomb those Iranian launches

to try to stop them from firing at the ships.

That's very, very hard to do.

You need extremely good intelligence.

You can launch a Shahed drone from the back of a truck.

So how do you spot that in the mountainous terrain

on Iran's coastline?

And so the more realistic option

is what Europeans have done in the things like the Red Sea,

which is escorting tankers.

You escort them through these waters.

The problem, of course, is that this is actually

in even harder job than it was in the Red Sea,

where there was a really difficult threat

from the Houthis who were an armed group back by Iran.

You've already established how narrow Hormuz is.

So these escorts that the destroyers

and the frigates themselves would be at real risk

of hitting a mine or being struck by a missile.

They would need to take out very large numbers

of drones coming in.

They might run out of ammunition.

And I think, as we've heard from Boris Pistorius,

the German Defense Minister,

if America's navies incapable of doing this,

why do we think that European navies,

which are fairly smaller in size

and are much less capable,

particularly on air defense,

would be up to this job?

So I think there's a real question over capability here

as much as there is over political will.

And what about the British position here?

I mean, Britain does have destroyers and frigates,

built just a stone straw from me here on the Clyde.

Where are they, one sailing to the Mediterranean?

Right now, what is the British position here?

Well, I mean, I think you've seen Kirsten

walking a fine line.

He said he's working with allies

on a plan to reopen the strait.

He said it won't be an NATO mission.

And he's really tried to emphasize here.

Britain will not be drawn into the wider war.

That's the phrase he used.

And I think the problem is,

if you play defense,

if you're just batting away drones and missiles coming at you,

that is both an expensive and very risky way

to deal with the problem.

You have to go after the missile launchers.

But of course, if you were going after the missile launchers,

you are effectively being drawn in to a war on Iran

and a war that is very, very unpopular in the UK,

that would make Britain a belligerent to some degree.

I think it would be a real problem.

So you're trapped between what is efficient

and what is politically expedient.

But of course, the other thing to remember here is,

I won't be shocking you by telling you this,

Britain has incredibly low availability of its ships.

We have perhaps 13, 14 main frontline escort ships,

frigates and destroyers.

Very, very few of them are available at any one time.

You've got to have some of them in the Mediterranean

because you're defending Cyprus

against things like ballistic missiles and drones.

And really, you're looking at extremely

my new, at least, small numbers of assets here.

And in fact, with very, very bad timing,

Britain recently decommissioned all of its main

minesweeping vessels with the plan eventually

to replace them with uncrewed assets

and other things, very fancy technology.

But that's not really ready.

So we have this big gap in mine capability

at really the worst possible time.

Even if the UK wanted to get involved here,

they're all Navy is essentially,

you're saying not really in the position to do so.

Well, as part of a coalition,

if you included France and you included Germany

and you included many others,

you can see that you could begin to give

a little bit more protection to tankers.

The problem is the cost of those escorts

would be very high.

You know, I've read some estimates suggesting

the cost of escorts could basically be equivalent

to the oil that they're transporting

and helping to transport.

The second problem is, of course,

that I think Europeans would ask,

why are we bearing the brunt of this?

Well, actually, it's the Asian economies,

China, Japan, South Korea,

that depend far more on the export of oil from Hormuz.

And we are exposure is more indirect

through global gas prices.

So it still affects us, but indirectly.

But third, I think the problem really is also the risk.

We saw a German ship, for example, in the Red Sea.

In earlier operations, go up against Houthi missiles.

And I can tell you from all the press accounts

we've had, it didn't perform well.

And this is not like a big open ocean

where you have lots of warning time

of stuff coming over the water and you can track it.

We're looking at very, very short warning times here

for incoming missiles and drones.

And so if you haven't degraded those first,

if you haven't reduced those threats,

there is a really, in my view, significant risk

of ships being hit, sailors dying

and real, real casualties being possible.

And the politics of that, I think,

would be awful for Europeans

given the understandable opposition

to this American conflict.

So for Europeans, they are trapped here

because they do need the straits reopened

for their own economic security

to bring inflation down,

get those oil and gas prices down.

But I think they are also deeply stretched.

Russia is rearming.

And they are being pulled in these different directions.

So just quickly on that then,

I mean, is it your take that the Royal Navy

is not in a fit state for the modern world

that the UK just doesn't have enough escort ships,

even if it wanted to be involved in this sort of operation

and accept as many reasons why it might not?

I don't think you'd find a single senior Royal Navy officer

who would quibble with your contention

that the Navy is not in a fit state for the modern world.

Let alone its NATO responsibilities

in the North Atlantic area

for things like tracking Russian submarines,

tracking naval threats,

let alone being pulled into the Gulf.

And of course, it hasn't gone without notice

that we have one available operational active

nuclear-powered tech submarine

and that has been in Australia.

Now, I don't know.

Maybe it's now covertly deployed back into the Gulf of Oman

and maybe it's performing stealthy missions

in the Middle East again,

but really no one would dispute

that we are woefully, woefully under strength

for the range of problems confronting this country right now.

And in terms of the United States,

as we were talking about right at the start, Chashank,

you know, the US has this unbelievably powerful military,

the most powerful military that the world has ever known.

And yet, as Jeremy Bohn was telling us on newscast last week,

there's a lot of asymmetric warfare going on here,

Iran being clever in how it responds.

Has its actions in the state of Hormuz

put the US on the back foot here?

And is Donald Trump with his war aims in trouble?

And is that why we're seeing him sort of appeal to NATO?

I think that's absolutely right.

If Donald Trump had prepared for this possibility,

this would still have been a very hard problem.

But the fact is he hadn't.

If you were prepared,

you wouldn't see him deploy a marine expeditionary unit

from Japan to the Gulf.

You wouldn't see him insult the UK one week

and then two weeks later ask for assets

to be sent to the region.

You would have seen him mobilize, reserve,

mind-clearing helicopter units from the United States

to get to the Middle East, but you haven't.

You wouldn't have seen him end up with

mind-clearing ships sitting in Malaysia this week

when they're needed potentially in the Gulf.

I think that Donald Trump went into this thinking

that decapitating the Iranian regime

would give him a quick victory

and he'd be able to secure a Venezuela-type outcome.

In fact, the enemy gets a vote.

Iran is very badly bloodied, but it's surviving.

And it's been able to hold the global economy hostage.

And I think that Donald Trump is now scrambling

to find a way out of that problem,

having to enlist the support of allies

whom he has denigrated and indeed threatened,

if you think of Greenland, for months upon months.

And just to pick up on that point about the Marines,

Shashank sending more Marines,

what two and a half thousand, is that right?

Is that how many are going?

And I suppose there must be a concern in the United States

that the US might be further drawn in

as it has been in previous conflicts.

Well, on the subject of the Marines,

it's a Marine Expeditionary Unit,

which is about 2,500,

but more important than the number

is the nature of that force,

which is an amphibious ready force.

It's a force designed to go from ship to shore.

It also has some organic mind-clearing assets.

It has search and rescue assets.

So there's a number of things it could do.

But of course, Iranians will be wondering,

will this unit try to take Harg Island,

our vital oil export hub?

Will it try to take patches of coastal territory

to suppress missile launches?

But of course, a ground operation in Iran,

would I think further inflame those in America

who think this is exactly what Donald Trump

campaigned on avoiding,

including many of those in his administration,

like J.A.D. Vance, Pete Hexeth, Torsi Gabbard,

all of whom are veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now, I was really struck by comments by Joe Rogan,

who's a very influential podcaster

of the United States,

basically criticizing Donald Trump for this.

And you can see that it's more evidence

of the cracks in his MAGA base.

For Donald Trump, he has midterm elections approaching

in what is it, six months.

He not only faces the prospect of dividing his base,

but also higher energy prices, higher inflation,

and issue that he knows was deadly for Joe Biden's presidency.

So in my opinion,

whilst he will want to get the streets open,

he will want to deal with Iran's nuclear program,

and that will take weeks and weeks.

I am personally not sure he wants this water to go into April.

It's so interesting to hear all of your analysis,

as always, Shishank.

Thanks so much for joining us in newscast.

Thank you again for having me.

Jane, we heard there about how the Iranians

are undertaking asymmetric warfare,

this idea of unbalanced warfare,

where you know you're the weaker party,

but you find your ways to disrupt

and to cause problems for your enemy.

What would you think the feeling in Tehran will be

if they're focused on this at all

on thinking about the UK

or indeed other NATO allies potentially becoming involved here?

And this not just being about the US and Israel.

I think they've just got to get on with this war.

I mean, the strikes have not lessened Israel.

We haven't spoken about Israel,

but Israel has been hitting very hard

in the last few days.

They hit an intelligence headquarters in Tehran.

There've been waves of strikes from Israel

and not just in Tehran,

but in other Iranian cities.

And of course, the Americans have continued

to hit just as hard or according to President Trump.

They've been hitting hard since it began,

but it hasn't lessened.

So I think I suspect that I don't know

but I suspect that Iran has got its hands full

in just coping with a war on a day-to-day basis.

But one of the things that actually President Trump

pointed out today is that Iran has always thrived

on what he says is disinformation.

So I mean, it could be that we just don't know

what's happening with Iran's view

of where it is on this naval front

because this is what we're speaking about

with the Straits of Hormuz.

We know that they have different kinds of drones.

They have aerial drones that can attack shipping.

They have missiles that can attack shipping.

They have underwater drones that can attack.

They have fast boats filled with explosives.

We don't know where they are or how many they are.

We don't even know if mines have been laid by Iran.

They're indicating that they have, but we don't know.

So all of there's a sort of web of disinformation out there

in terms of what the real capabilities of Iran are.

We've seen pictures, for example, extraordinary pictures

of these fast boats hidden in tunnels

that have apparently explosives on them

can be directed at shipping the kind of things

that these tankers are very, very worried about.

And that's why they're not crossing in the strait.

So we just don't know.

And I think disinformation is a very large part

of what Iran has to do to try and protect itself

in this battering or hammering,

as President Trump has called it, of this war.

And Chris, we've been talking all the way through

this episode of newscast about the fine line

that Kier Starmer is having to walk here.

And you were saying earlier,

you were pointing out that they actually had a chat.

President Trump and Kier Starmer yesterday.

And as you were saying,

newscasters are very familiar with the idea of the readout.

Do we have the readout?

Do we know what more was actually discussed

in that conversation?

Well, let me pull out.

Let me just find it in my inbox.

This is classic newscast, isn't it?

I'm now scrolling through my inbox,

which is something of a bin fire.

Let me have a look.

It's near somewhere.

I get quite a lot of emails.

Hello, have we got it?

Yes, I found it.

Right, here we are.

This was sent at 20 past seven on Sunday evening.

Sorry, 721 on Sunday evening.

So this, there was two conversations.

The prime minister had at least once

that we found out about in terms of his conversations

with fellow international leaders,

one with President Trump and another

with the Prime Minister of Canada,

which is curious in itself,

because the Prime Minister of Canada,

Mark County was in Downing Street just a few hours later

on Monday morning.

So I'll read you what Downing Street said.

The prime, these things are often not wildly enlightening,

but here we go.

The prime minister spoke to the President

to the United States Donald Trump this evening.

The leaders discussed the ongoing situation

in the Middle East.

I told you about not always all that enlightening.

And the importance of reopening the strait of hormones

to end the disruption to global shipping,

which is driving up cost worldwide.

The Prime Minister also expressed his condolences

for the American service personnel

who've lost their lives during the conflict.

They agreed to stay in touch.

So there was a line in there

about the importance of reopening the strait of hormones.

But obviously there's sort of nothing in there

from the Downing Street end

that tells you anything about agreements, disagreements,

what the President wants,

what the Prime Minister was often willing to give, et cetera, et cetera.

Usually these things are matched

by something from the other side,

which again is usually fairly bland,

but occasionally points to what they would emphasize

is important talking points versus what they're

interlocutor on the other end might emphasize

is rather different important talking points.

But as I say, the reality of a President's like Donald Trump

is that he just tells you it in very unvanished terms.

Yeah.

I have a question here from Newscaster Catalan.

Jane, let's see what you think of this.

Catalan says one question for you all.

Why is Trump asking the NATO allies for help?

Why not tell the board of peace members?

That's the Gaza board of peace

to do what he is asking after all.

He is the chair,

and they have handed over billions

that could also help.

And Catalan puts it in quotes, peace.

Thank you, Catalan.

No, thank you, Catalan.

What do we think?

Yeah, I think a lot of people were quite surprised

that literally within weeks of setting up

the rather grandly titled Board of Peace

headed by himself, by President Trump.

President Trump then went to war against Iran.

And a lot of people have raised an eyebrow over this.

So we haven't really heard much from the Board of Peace.

We do know that some of their envoys

have been meeting representatives from Hamas in Cairo

because Hamas is very worried about the war in Iran

because Iran is the sponsor of Hamas.

Hamas is a proxy for Iran.

So we know that obviously there's things going on.

The Board of Peace isn't inactive.

But a lot of people suggested when the Board of Peace

was set up that President Trump's sites

were set further than Gaza

and that this was somehow going to be a blueprint

for a worldwide organization

that might challenge or even replace the United Nations.

I think that we obviously, that's all gone very, very quiet.

And the Board of Peace, as far as I know,

apart from this meeting in Cairo,

really hasn't been doing very much.

And yet the situation in Gaza is difficult.

The ceasefire is shaky.

And we don't know what's going to happen afterwards,

how it's going to be run, who is going to rebuild it.

So the Board of Peace has a big job on its hands

just with Gaza without, as the listener suggests,

getting involved in the Iran situation.

I hear from some, I hear from some Wags at Westminster

who would sign themselves up enthusiastically

to being a vociferous critics of Donald Trump

that perhaps we all misinterpreted Board of Peace

and it wasn't spelled B-O-A-R-D.

That's the other way.

I had that too.

Yes, yes, I see what they've done there.

Well, yes, Caroline, thank you for your question.

I was a very good question.

And Chris, talking of Westminster,

back to Westminster, just to finish.

Because we heard a little tease about this

with Laura at the weekend about the Prime Minister

indeed, the government in general,

saying that they were going to do something

to help people who rely on heating oil,

particularly in rural parts of the country,

a lot of people in that situation here in Scotland.

And those prices have gone through the roof.

What do we have a bit more detail

about what the Chancellor and the Prime Minister

are actually going to do to help?

Yeah, so this was the main domestic announcement

coming out of the Prime Minister's news conference.

And the first domestic policy offer,

if you like, in response to the consequences of the war.

So this is, as you say, for people who rely on heating oil,

primarily in rural parts of the UK,

with a particular focus on Northern Ireland,

a huge number of households in Northern Ireland are

reliant on heating oil.

It's a proportion of the overall population.

Two thirds of them.

Indeed, indeed.

So the government says it's putting

aside about 50 million pounds.

That will be accessible in England via local authorities

that will be for the devolved governments in Scotland Wales

and Northern Ireland to, at least in the first instance,

allocate it.

And it is aimed at what the government

described as the most vulnerable households.

The reason, there's two reasons

why those on heating oil are particularly exposed.

Firstly, what tends to happen is that when you're tank

in the garden or outside the house runs out,

you get it filled up in one go, probably from bottom to top

because there's a delivery charge as well.

If you happen to be particularly, unfortunately,

running out of oil just at the point the price spikes,

then you are clearly very vulnerable to a massive increase

in your bill.

Secondly, unlike gas and electricity,

it is not part of the energy price cap.

So that adds to a sense of vulnerability.

And certainly those in the sector,

there's been accusations that there's been price couch

and going on and people have been ripped off.

Those within the industry say,

look, they themselves are price takers.

They don't have significant storage facilities.

So if the price of the stuff goes up brackets,

it has closed brackets, then that price gets passed on

to consumers.

I think what's intriguing is this is a relatively small

intervention for a relatively small proportion

of the population at large.

Where do we get to if this war carries on for some time?

And if the implications of this war carry on for some time,

particularly when we've had,

and the former Chancellor Sir Jeremy Hunt was talking

about this to match early on five live today,

particularly when in recent years we've had

the massive state intervention during the pandemic,

the massive state intervention following the full-scale

invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

There has been a relatively recent sense

of the government's making colossal interventions

with huge consequences for the public finances

and the argument that Sir Jeremy and others make

is perhaps we shouldn't expect that again.

There are limits to what the state can do.

But when there's that recent precedent

and the argument for some others that will say,

surely this is what government is for to step in

where no others can,

where does that argument go if, and it remains a niff of course,

but if this war has a longevity to it

and a longevity of consequence to it

in the coming weeks and months.

Yeah, we're coming back to that.

I'm sure Chris, thank you very much.

Jane, good to talk to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Adam, it's back.

Tomorrow with that saw from this episode of newscast.

Bye for now.

Newscast.

Newscast from the BBC.

Thank you so much for making it to the end of newscast.

You clearly copy right, Chris Mason.

Ooh, stamina.

Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us

on BBC Sounds.

Don't forget, you can email us anytime.

It's newscast at bbc.co.uk

And if you would like to join our discord community

to talk about everything newscast related,

there is a link in the description of this podcast.

And don't be scared.

It's super easy to click on it and then get set up.

Or you can WhatsApp us on 033001239480.

And I promise you we read and listen to every single message.

Thanks for listening to this podcast.

Bye.

Crafting the coffee flavor you love.

But without the caffeine, Kachava's got you covered

with their newest coffee flavor.

This all-in-one nutrition shake delivers bold, authentic flavor

crafted from premium decaffeinated Brazilian beans

with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, and so much more.

Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves.

Go to Kachava.com and use code news.

New customers get 15% off their first order.

That's K-A-C-H-A-V-A.com code news.