Starmer agrees to support the US and Israel against Iran

This is a global player, original podcast.

Welcome, you may know by now how much I like to challenge my listeners

and how much I like them to challenge me.

We deal with the biggest news stories every day

and wrestle with some truly difficult questions.

But time and again, it's the callers that deliver.

Hear it for yourself on today's James O'Brien Day.

Of course, this is essentially the second time at Trump has either started

or indeed joined a war with Iran.

The last time was all those Eons epochs ages ago in June of 2025,

which led his ally Benjamin Netanyahu to declare a historic victory

which will stand for generations.

So where do you even start on a day like today?

I think the most important, there are two things

I'd begin with.

The first is the near impossibility of accurately analyzing activity undertaken

by terrible, terrible people and barefaced liars.

It makes it almost impossible to get a bead in a traditional sense

on what is going on.

You, even if you are politically opposed to past leaders,

you acknowledge the existence and the application of international law.

You acknowledge the ability to perceive tactical advantage

or tactical activity, tactical plans.

You can see the necessity of getting Congress to approve any action

like the one that Donald Trump undertook over the weekend

with just 21% support of the American population

according to the latest polls.

So it is almost, that's the first thing to bear in mind.

You can't stop trying to make sense of things,

but it is almost impossible to do when you are dealing with depravity

and or dishonesty.

So I don't know whether Netanyahu was lying through his teeth last June

when he claimed a historic victory which will stand for generations

or whether he's lying through his teeth now,

when he claims that this action was necessary

because, as they've been saying for about 30 years,

Iran was just moments away from a nuclear capability.

And the second thing that you have to bear in mind

at times like this is the fact that several things

can be true at the same time.

I think if you begin with those two blocks of understanding,

those two bricks of comprehension, it's very hard to get a beat,

especially in the early days of an assault like this,

when the perpetrators, the protagonists are so deeply dishonest

and depraved.

And the second thing that you have to bear in mind

is that several things can be true at the same time.

So this act is illegal.

It is undertaken without congressional approval.

It is unjustified by tactics and diplomacy.

The real estate moguls that were conducted negotiations

with the Iranian regime on Donald Trump's behalf

failed to understand both the intent

and the nuance of the Iranian position.

And there is no justification for what they have done

short of blood, lust, and self-interest.

But it can also be true, and indeed it is true, that many.

Many Iranians, particularly members of the Iranian diaspora,

whether they are in other countries by necessity

because they are dissidents or refugees or descendants

of refugees or whether they are in Iran itself,

will welcome the killing of the Ayatollah

for obvious reasons, a hideous and murderous regime.

But it is also true that he was 86 years old.

He had cancer twice and an awful lot of experts

on the ground cautioned against turning him into a martyr

because he was certain to die soon.

Very soon, some reports suggest that he didn't seek

the sort of security that he could have availed himself of

precisely because he felt that his courts would be better served

by martyrdom than by squirreling himself away

under a mountain somewhere and surviving this attack

in the same way that he survived the last one.

So several things can be true at the same time.

You can't really trust anything that Donald Trump

or Benjamin Netanyahu say, and the killing of the Ayatollah

will be welcomed by many Iranians.

So great call, when we talked about the last time

they claimed that they'd undertaken a historic victory

which will stand for generations.

I don't know, maybe a Netanyahu's world, seven or eight months

is several generations, maybe it's one generation a month

if you're signing up to his world view.

But I remember taking an extraordinary call

when we talked about the last attacks on Tehran

from somebody who effectively said

that if your children are being held hostage,

then you don't care if the person that rescues them

is a rapist, it's like a weird, moral hierarchy, isn't it?

I mean, in its purest, in most simplistic form,

it would be my enemy's enemy as my friend.

My enemy's enemy is my friend, I am so keen

as a patriotic Iranian to see this regime toppled

that I really don't care who does it.

That's the position and that can be true

at the same time as well.

So so far at nine minutes after term,

we're effectively just making a list of things

that can be simultaneously true

even when they seem sometimes contradictory.

But the people I am most reluctant to argue with,

and you know me, I'm rarely reluctant to argue with anyone,

are those people, the people said,

because that feels to me like a position

that demands skin in the game,

that most of us contemplating this carnage don't have,

I don't care who is responsible for liberating my country,

which of course hasn't happened yet,

because the liberation of my country is more important

than any other consideration,

whether it be international law

or the moral decrepitude of the men responsible

for this particular campaign.

And you can extend that to, I don't care

who was responsible for killing the Iatola,

because I wanted him to be killed,

so passionately and so deeply,

that I don't care about the identity of the person that's done it.

And when you begin that argument,

or when you begin exploring that position,

you lead yourself inevitably to the question

that David Petraeus, one of those successful US soldiers

of recent years, the question that David Petraeus

was famous for asking, which was, of course,

tell me how this ends.

And those words became extraordinarily prescient, didn't they?

As the commander of the US 101st Airborne Division,

he was talking about Baghdad in 2003.

The soldier asked a reporter called Rick Atkinson

of the Washington Post, tell me how this ends.

So for people celebrating the removal of the Iatola

from the world map,

that question is one that becomes simultaneously impossible

to answer and incredibly important,

but not today, tomorrow.

Tell me how this ends, but we can't.

Can you think of the top of your head of a regime

where the theoretical or autocratic

that was toppled by external pressure

and replaced by stability?

That's not a trick question, or indeed a rhetorical one.

I was trying to think earlier,

so Libya, essentially French, British,

and NATO forces accelerating the removal from Gaddafi,

Libya descended into hell.

Iraq, so down a zone removed by American

and some European forces,

of course, some European leaders demonstrated

during the Second Gulf War,

that you do not have to hand cuff yourself

to a bloodthirsty American president.

The French most obviously achieved that,

while Tony Blair essentially answered every question

from George Bush, George W. Bush with the response,

how high, how high.

So Iraq saw its regime, its hideous regime toppled

by external pressure and descended into hell.

Afghanistan, where much blood was spilt,

is still controlled or is once again controlled by the Taliban.

So external pressure brought to bear

on the theocratic regime results,

carnage, chaos, hell, for the people that live there.

There might be other examples,

but I can't currently nail a couple.

I cost a vote, kind of,

but you can't really talk about cost a vote

outside of the context of the former Yugoslavia

and the idea that maybe you can, actually.

But the notion that you can somehow replace horrors

with pleasantness seems at the very best to be naive.

To be naive.

And then we come to Cirqueur Starmer

and his position on this, which is, I think,

I think you'll allow me to say this

because I've been fairly clear in my condemnation

of what has gone on, even as we acknowledge

that it will be welcomed by many people

who don't care what happens tomorrow.

They care only about what happens today

and they don't care about who is responsible

for a delivering what they wanted

because the desire for what has been delivered

will outweigh the disgust that who has delivered it.

And that's fine.

I'd be like that myself, I imagine,

if I was an Iranian dissident living in London.

But you come then to the question

of what Cirqueur Starmer has done.

And I think, and I'm here to be told otherwise

by you, as ever, on this program,

I think it's more nuanced than the initial coverage allows.

So he's getting a kicking in some new space

for this morning because the announcement

that they would be allowing UK bases to be used

in some very specific contexts.

But he's getting a kicking from the people

that told you the Iraq war would be an absolute cakewalk.

He's getting a kicking from the same people

that told you last June's attack on Iran

was a historic victory that would last for generations.

He's getting a kicking from people who can't help

but think whatever the situation, whatever the scenario,

pick a side first and think about things second.

And that's a, I mean, a terrible thing.

But what Cirqueur Starmer has done

is a response to the Iranian response.

Now, you tell me whether this sounds like splitting hairs

or not to you.

So Iran launches attacks upon the people

or the positions responsible for attacking Iran.

And that brings us and or our allies

into the firing range.

So he did not allow British bases to be used

in the first instance, whether Diego Garcia

or whether that the airport base in Norfolk

or Suffolk forgive me.

Lake and Heath, isn't it?

Is it Lake and Heath?

Anyway, he didn't do that in the first instance

but Iran retaliates to the attacks upon Iran

by launching missiles at our allies,

including Jordan and other countries.

And therefore,

Starmer concludes that we'll have a listen

to what Cirqueur Starmer had to say actually

because I think it's worth paying

a little bit more than lip service

to what he describes as a limited defensive purpose.

The United States has requested permission

to use British bases for that specific

and limited defensive purpose.

We have taken the decision to accept this request

to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region,

killing innocents of aliens,

putting British lives at risk

and hitting countries that have not been involved.

And so that's what he,

that's the pinhead upon which he,

the British Prime Minister, is dancing this morning.

We were not party to the offence,

which is probably illegal as the defense secretary,

John Healey sort of danced around repeatedly

while being interviewed yesterday.

I don't know if the probably in that sentence

is redundant really in a moral sense

or even in a technical sense,

but of course in a literal sense,

you can't conclude that it's illegal until the work has been done,

but of course it doesn't matter

when you're going to war with Benjamin Netanyahu,

international law is not something

that you're going to be particularly worried about.

That rulebook has already been ripped up and set fire to.

But Starmer's dancing on a pinhead whereby

he was not party to or complicit in

the original attack upon Iran,

but he needs to help defend our allies

and possibly even our own bases

from Iran's retaliation.

And I don't think that it indulges me for one moment more.

In terms of radio phonins,

which is what we do together every day.

In terms of radio phonins,

that is not as fruitful a question

as simply asking,

should Keir Starmer have helped or not?

But I think we owe it to each other

to be a little bit more responsible

than to ask the largely pointless,

but incredibly simplistic question

about whether or not Keir Starmer should have got involved.

He didn't want to and he didn't get involved

when it was an act almost certainly

of international criminality.

But when the target responds

by assaulting allies or even British bases,

then can you really sit there and say

that a UK Prime Minister should not be party to attempts

to minimize those and even neutralize those attacks?

And that is the nuance.

So we'll talk about this a lot today.

We'll come at it from lots and lots of different angles.

But I worry looking at some of the early reactions

to that speech from Keir Starmer,

I worry that we're all in danger

of going a little bit undergraduate

or going a little bit footballification.

As you pick a side,

and of course, if you were cheering last time,

they secured the historic victory

that will stand for generations,

you're probably lost to morality now.

You're not going to sit there and say,

hang on a minute, I can't be in favor of this one

without admitting that I believe the lies about the last one.

I don't know how you process information like this.

But for the rest of us who can recognize new ones

or can at least try to understand things

given that it's very hard to do

when the key protagonists are blatant and bare-faced liars.

Keir Starmer tries to walk a tightrope

and that tightrope today involves not being part

of the original, unprovoked,

and almost certainly illegal attack upon Tehran.

But being party too,

the attempts to minimise the consequences

of Iran's retaliation upon our allies and ourselves,

which is why he has done the right thing,

even though it feels and to a certain extent sounds

like the wrong thing.

Because here is what the alternative would be.

Iran launches missile after missile after missile

at our allies in the region,

and quite possibly at British bases,

and we are not part of either the defense

or the response to those attacks.

Provoked attacks,

crucial distinction number 307,

provoked attacks.

Iran's attacks upon enemy upon allied positions

or upon British bases are provoked attacks.

They are attacks provoked by the United States and Israel.

But what do you do?

Do you do nothing?

Do you say to the Americans,

you cannot use our bases to defend our allies?

Because you've just used them to attack our enemies.

You've just launched an unprovoked attack upon our enemy

so you can't use our bases to defend our allies

from their provoked retaliation.

And that's what I mean about it being suboptimal

from a phoning point of view,

because it's not just pick a side,

get your rattle and start waving your scarf in the sky,

furiously shouting about how the other lot are awful

and you're a lot of fantastic.

We can leave that to the other 80% of the UK media.

What I want you to talk to me about today

is whether or not Keir Starmer has got this right

by distancing himself from the unprovoked

and almost certainly illegal attack upon Iran,

which enjoys next to no public support

in either this country or the United States of America.

But responding to the retaliations from Iran

by contributing to the process of resistance,

it's complicated, right?

I mean, it's not so complicated that you don't understand it,

but it may have needed a little bit of explanation

from those of us who are paid to do this kind of thing.

I don't quite see what else he could have done.

To sit on his hands while British allies

and even potentially British bases come under attack

or to do what he has done

while distancing himself originally

from the unprovoked criminality.

That's it, that's the conversation I want to have first up to date.

Heading for a little break now, after that,

I'll try and shut up for a bit while you talk.

As if things were not complicated or nuanced enough,

that the intelligence suggests that the drone,

which was directed at RAF,

Akhratiri in Cyprus, the RAF base in Cyprus

that you just heard Dominic describe,

people being evacuated from.

The intelligence seems to suggest that it was launched

before Kirstama announced that UK bases

would be used to defend allies against Iranian attacks.

But it landed or it reached Cyprus after he had made the announcement.

That means it fits both arguments

and you can choose to believe or not believe accordingly,

but the official version of events,

and there's no reason to doubt it,

because these things are measurable,

is that it was launched before he made his announcement,

but landed after he made his announcement.

And his announcement was made, something else that you may have missed.

I'm asking you today to really focus upon something

that you probably weren't previously aware of.

Coverage in your newspapers this morning is behind the curve,

because most of them went to press before Kirstama made the decision

that he has made.

The number of messages I got when I sat down at 10 o'clock,

praising Kirstama for staying out of it,

suggests that you hadn't actually yet got yourself up to date

with the very, very latest developments.

I sort of double-triple quadruple take at my inbox.

So what I'm asking you to focus on is something

that you haven't had a great deal of time to process.

And in normal circumstances, I'd wait until tomorrow.

But these are not normal circumstances.

The British Prime Minister has announced alongside France and Germany.

Something else you may not have been aware of.

I didn't have the E3 group we are known as,

and all three members of the E3 group

and joint statement have described their readiness to take.

And I'm going to quote directly here,

necessary and proportionate defensive measures.

That's the end of the quote.

But the description continues to protect their interests

and those of their allies in the Middle East.

So it is a distinction between attacking Iran for no reason,

which is what Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have done,

and attacking Iranian positions,

because they are being used to attack us.

I use the word fairly loosely,

but it's best described by that phrase,

our interests and those of our allies.

And I mean, there's one wrinkle here that I'll share with you.

Why does they need our help now?

They didn't need our help to launch the initial attacks.

So why do they need British bases for the second wave?

To which I suppose one answer would be that it is not necessarily

in the US or the Israeli interests to dedicate much energies

to protecting our interests and those of our allies.

Or that there are two campaigns here.

There's the first unprovoked attack upon Iran,

and then there is the response to Iran's response.

And I don't currently see how the United Kingdom

or France or Germany can sit idly by while Iran provoked

most obviously attacks our interests and those of our allies.

And the more I think about it and the more I talk about it,

the more hard into my position becomes.

Sam is in Bromsgrove in Worcestershire.

Sam, what would you like to say?

I mean, I've got family and friends in every single country

except the weight that has been impacted by this.

Really?

And yes, everything goes around.

My brother is in Qatar.

Well, yeah, my brother is in Qatar.

I've got cousins in Bahrain.

I've got my in-laws are in Lebanon.

My brother-in-law lives in the Femme on total.

Femme and departments in Dubai.

Is he all right?

He's all right.

That's the one that got hit.

That's the one that got hit for people wondering why you've meant it.

Yes, that's the one that's got hit.

I go there every Christmas actually.

And we stay with them.

And so I've got friends and family usually invested.

I lived in Dubai for eight years.

And I typically with you, the British people did,

and then money back home because we did,

and all of my friends did, because they were coming up.

I've been quite scary.

I'm just pointing out a lot of people who've moved there.

I literally quite explicit about the fact that they've done so to...

They've done so to avoid paying tax back in the UK.

It doesn't mean that I was malleining you or your family.

But that's what most of the recent departures from this country.

They've done it for two reasons.

they lie about London not being safe and they don't want to pay tax because they don't think

that they benefit from taxes until, of course, someone starts firing missiles at them.

Yeah, no, I was always wanting to come back and so very well, very, very, very much invested

and I can tell you people like me who are in the UK who do have family in France say actually

Britain needs to stay out of this. Right. And my journey started in the Middle East after the

University, I moved to Jordan and I worked in the hotel which was bombed by terrorists attack

after the Iraq War. And they soon had did one bomb land in Iraq, did all the hotels become

full of oil companies. So we all knew, we all knew what that was about. And here we are again,

this is Israel's war and it's not British, you know, Britain's war, it's Israel's war. And

on the 17th of February, Nassami Nassati Bennett, I think that's his name. Yeah, he started talking

about bombing Turkey. So, you know, I'm not across that. Forgive me. I'm not, I'm not across that,

but I just, I mean, it was Israel's war in conjunction with Donald Trump who probably wouldn't be doing

this if the Epstein files weren't continuing to cause such, to garner such coverage at home and

abroad. But it, but it ceases to be Israel's war or Israel and America's war when Iran responds

by attacking the positions that you've already described. But then we have a duty, we have a duty

surely to minimize those responses. No? So obviously, we don't want any civilians to, to, to be

hit whether in Dubai or in Iran. I mean, thank you for mentioning that school. I mean, it broke my

heart to see, to see children. I mean, what's, what have they done in this world to deserve that?

What have they done? So, obviously, our under, because I'm watching some Arabic media, our

understanding, some of the media is saying that the American bases are being used and people probably

didn't know this, that Jordan has American bases. Dubai has American bases, Abu Dhabi. Like, you know,

it's, it's, it's a very, if you think about it, it's very, very strange that all these countries

are allowing to have, allowing America to kind of control some kind of the military in, in their

country. It is an odd situation to have that every one of those countries has American bases.

So, American bases are being targeted because American bases are being used to target Iran.

So, what are they? And, and obviously, they're an easier target because Israel's got very strong

defense system. The Iron Dome is a very strong defense system. So, of course, if you're going to be

sending missiles from a target in Dubai, then you're making a distinction between an American base

and an ally of the UK. And if the American base is on the soil of our ally, then it's an attack

upon our ally. Even though it is simultaneously an attack upon America or an American base,

when Starmer has successfully disassociated himself from America and Israel's probably illegal

attack upon Iran, I don't, I don't think you have that luxury of saying. He's not attacking our

ally. He's attacking an, an American base. When the American base, and God forbid there be any

collateral damage, is on, is on an ally territory. And that's without even bringing the RAF base in

Cyprus into the conversation, which has already, we believe, been targeted. Yes, I mean, that obviously

needs a response. And that's what he's done. That is, that is definitely a British problem,

but I just feel that why are they letting them use their country? You know, why are they letting

them use the Israel's very close? Well, because they want to, why why? Why? Why? Because they want to,

they're sovereign, they're sovereign territories. And they provide, they, but they would claim,

if you had the luxury of chatting to the king of Jordan about it, or, or, or, or, or other

Middle Eastern. I like the king of Jordan. I really like the king of Jordan. I don't think he's not,

I don't think they're using the base. What happened in Jordan is very different, because in Jordan,

you have the missiles going to Israel and they're shooting them down before they get to Israel.

There is some, there is some, some, well, they've been, they've been deaths and casualties in

Israel as well. So no, no system is completely foolproof. No, but Israel is probably the best in the

world. No, but school of, there are, there are people in Jordan saying, why are you shooting

them down and putting our lives at risk as Jordanians? Aren't we number one to you?

That's the things for us. Obviously, something, a problem there as well, you know, because of the

debris that's coming out of the sky in Jordan. But doing nothing is not, doing nothing is,

and I think to answer, I don't know whether you were being rhetorical a moment ago, but the,

I mean, a large reason, presumably, for US military presence in the Middle East is to,

what they would say to sustain stability. God, I'm so late for the news. How dare you make me so

late for the news, Sam? I can't believe it. You've got me so engaged in this conversation,

but also to protect the oil industry. We'll talk again, because given that extraordinary

backstory that you shared, I want to know how you ended up in Brom's Grove, just up the road from

where I grew up. Paula is in Gainesborough. Paula, what would you like to say? I've never

wanted to call in before, but I do feel really passionately that Starmer's doing actually

do anything he can do. I think as a Labour Prime Minister, he'd have to be really sensitive to being

involved in an attack in the Middle East post-Iraq and how people feel about that still.

I live in Lincolnshire. It's a very R.A.F. heavy counter, we've got bases everywhere.

In fact, I'm going to work shortly. I run a support group for people who are socially isolated

and among them are former R.A.F. staff who are experiencing PTSD. So, you know, this is not

a, it wouldn't be an easy call for a Labour Prime Minister to make. No, I don't think it would.

No, and also the American government, let's be honest, they're not the best allies in the world

because they kind of say, look, you're with us, you're against us. There's no middle ground

with them. So, they don't think Starmer. That's in normal times. When you haven't got a super

ranuated psychopathic toddler in charge of things, it's only about last month. Was it that he

claimed we hadn't done anything in Afghanistan? We hadn't played a meaningful role in

our war dead. He literally insulted our war dead in regards to Afghanistan. So, if it's true at

the best of times that America can be an unreliable ally, it's true with an ever now.

Yeah, and I'm going to sit later today with people who were in Afghanistan and are still

suffering as a consequence of it. Gosh. So, you know, amongst ourselves, we call in the

Tangerine tantrum. We don't like him, but he is the Julia Lexed American President. He's made a

decision to do something. Whatever conversations may have had between Downing Street and Washington

or wherever it was decided, they probably had to say that we can't join you. We've got our own

public to manage. We can't do this, but we will be there with you for the defensive stuff. I think

they've had to be tactical here. And when you're dealing with someone that's going to

bomb a region anyway, no matter what you do or say, and isn't cognitive of all the nuances,

like, you know, the other toll of being a very sick man, who's probably like you to die soon

anyway, therefore why offer him martyrdom? I don't think any of that was factored in. I think they

just did it. And I honestly can't believe I'm saying this because it's never occurred to me before,

but I feel quite sorry for Kirsten on the today. I understand why he was in a vice. I don't think he

could, he couldn't, he's not going to be right, whatever he does, but as a prime minister of this

country, we expect him to protect our military personnel and all the expats and holiday makers

that are in that region. We expect him to do it. And we expect him to stand with our allies

if they come under attack, which of course now we want has reciprocated. Now our allies are

coming under attack. It's a different scenario. And if you felt sorry for him before, Paula,

you're going to feel sorry for him now because Donald Trump has just given an interview to the

Daily Telegraph in which he's attacked Kirstama for taking too long to change his mind and allow

the US British bases to, sorry, to, and allowed the US to use British bases to target Iran. And

here's a line that everything with Trump, I mean, the fact that he gave that speech and indeed

these orders from his holiday resort in Florida is just, you go to the war room, don't you go to

the situation, the least you can do is, is, is do your job in your office when you're sending people

to die on foreign soil, but not if you're Donald Trump. But this line here, he says, he's told the

Telegraph, it sounds like he was worried about the legality. Oh, perish the thought that a world

leader should be worried about the actual legality of, for example, and I know you'll be aware of this,

but some people perhaps won't be bombing a girl's school in southern Iran, 165 dead already,

according to state media. He was worried about the, as if that's a bad thing. And Trump's talking

to his audience there, he's probably talking to Camille Badernot. Oh, look at Kirstama, worried

about legality when we should just wait in there and kill as many people as possible without any

thought for the consequences. So yeah, I understand why you feel sorry for him.

I do, because a president who's, you know, kind of got a loud speaker to his mega bass,

who I would imagine, you know, they're more kind of, let's not have bureaucrats, let's talk more

action. You know, I get that that's how they view things, but in the Middle East there are so many

nuances. There are so many different ways this could play out, that just a little bit more

caution was probably the better option. Unfortunately, that horse is bolted now. We have to deal with,

I'm a pragmatic woman, we have to deal with the reality in front of us, not what we wish we had.

We now have a bit of a mess. Our prime minister is doing the only things he can do,

while signaling to everyone, because he can't publicly come out and criticize Trump,

not at this moment. But they can do it. They can do it in terms, can't they? They can say things

like the UK is not at war with Iran. You can send a secretary of state for defense to appear on

a Sunday morning television and not answer the question of whether or not this is legal or illegal,

whereas of course, you know, the obvious answer would be to say that it was legal.

To duck that question repeatedly, as John Healey did, leaves the door wide open for the conclusion

that the UK government thinks that it is illegal. It does, and I think they're signaling, as you say,

because I don't think they can actually say it outright. Not at this moment in time,

perhaps in a few days' time, I have no idea. I'm not part of a government never has been.

I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, what discussions are being made about which

basis things can be launched from, so on and so forth. There might be some very delicate

stuff going on, and if they come out publicly and say, actually, we think this is a wrong,

they might jeopardize something else, but maybe they're over more barrels than I realize,

and I wouldn't be surprised if they were. Do you know this is from Bob while you were talking?

So James, why is it that the callers who describe themselves as nervous are invariably the most

thoughtful callers you get? And he's got a point, actually, as Bob, that the official version of

events such as it is, is that Britain had denied the US permission to conduct strikes from bases

such as Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, citing international law. And then on Sunday night,

as you have said, when the situation has changed, he revealed, or he said in a statement that

we'll listen to again shortly, that he would allow the US access to Diego Garcia for specific

and limited defensive purposes. So it's the difference between attacking a country without

justification in law and attacking a country that's attacking our allies or our positions.

Put it like that, boil it right down. Now, don't want to oversimplify things, but at the very

least, as you've highlighted, Paula, it's an obviously very different question that he's answering,

both before and after the original, probably illegal attack upon Iran, and some people are determined

not to see that. They just don't want to, whether they're saying he's done too little too late,

they're ignoring that he's done a completely different thing from the thing they wanted him to do

first, and when they, when the other people in the other camp at the other extreme, and this is

why you feel sorry for him, because he's going to get it from both sides, saying he shouldn't

even have done this, then you would be sitting idly by while not only your allies and your own

people potentially came under attack, but France and Germany, your closest allies in this kind of

context, have both pledged support for defensive actions. What else could he have done?

Nothing. I don't, I honestly think that because this is, this has all gone off, it's happening.

Everybody now has to just fall into line, sadly, and at least be doing defensive things,

even though they didn't want to be in this position in the first place. We are dealing with,

you know, the biggest currently, the biggest military in the world that's decided to take action.

We might not like it, we might not agree with it, but it's already happening now. The best

that ourselves and our European allies can do is defend as much as we can, protect our people

where we can. Yeah, see what you're doing. See where the chips fall, which I don't like.

No, no, you don't have to like it. That's the point, isn't it? But what you're doing quite brilliantly,

you're highlighting the difference between, and I understand why some people can't come with you,

or me on this journey, but the idea that you're getting into bed with Trump on another illegal war

versus the idea that you are simply showing ally ship with allies in the Middle East and

maximizing protection of our own bases, but you can't really separate the two. You and I

can separate it intellectually or emotionally, but we're still watching the prime minister get

into bed with Trump's activities in the Middle East, if not all of them, then some of them.

That is what many people are going to struggle to do. I think wrongly, but, you know, who knows

where we'll be in a month's time, or six months time, or nine months time, which is roughly the

time scale between Benjamin Netanyahu claiming that he'd secured a massive victory that would be

relevant for generations. The last time they attacked Iran, and then fast forward to this weekend,

when apparently it was such an unsuccessful attack, the last one that they had to do it all over

again. Short break in coming, when we get back, we will continue discussing the biggest new stories

of the day. Let me rattle through some text and then get back to the phones. Are you

US and Israel rights? Alex have put us all at risk. Now we have to help them. Question mark,

we need to grow a backbone and learn how to say no. But of course, our politicians are complicit

and compromised. Again, I disagree, but it may be that I end up in a lonely corner this morning.

I've addressed this, Justin. The British base in Cyprus was only bombed after Stama agreed

to let the US use it for its illegal war. The intelligence is that it was launched before the

statement, but landed or was intercepted after or crashed into RAF, after the statement had been made.

So there is something that people are going to be wrestling over for months to come. It seems

like you're all forgetting, says Leicester, that Israel and America attacked Iran and Iran is

defending itself. If they'd been in an attack from another country in the region, then surely

it's legitimate for them to attack those countries. And Edward says there is no nuance, James.

Iran is firing back at the sites used to attack them. Stama has now justified Iran attacking the UK.

And quite sure, Trump will be grateful by again claiming that we didn't help at all while

simultaneously increasing tariffs. Win, win. So Jordan, a historic ally of the United Kingdom,

intercepting two ballistic missiles on Saturday, according to Reuters and the site of

US Air Base. The idea of us doing nothing while our allies are under attack is one that many

people can live with. But I think it's important to understand what it is that you're endorsing

and supporting. I mean, I don't know whether it's a breach of treaty, but it's certainly a breach

of trust. That is the problem with having reprobates in charge of entire countries, whether it's

Israel or the United States of America. And that the old frameworks and the old systems are still

in play up to a degree, albeit international, or has essentially been shot to pieces by these two

characters. But the old network of obligations and treaties still holds. And Stama and the German

leader and the French leader are meeting their obligations, their historical and diplomatic obligations.

Unfortunately, that means, because Netanyahu and Trump are reprobates, that means

edging ever closer to people who've undertaken a war for no moral or legitimate legal reason.

I don't know if I can keep shouting new on Statius, but I do think it's a lot more complicated

than some of those messages allow. Boris is in Luxembourg. Boris, what do you reckon?

Hi, James. Thanks very much for taking my call. Did you get it right? I don't think he did.

And let me give you two very boring scenarios, and one positive scenario, why I think we should

really think over whether we're going to get sucked into this or not. Issue number one is,

with the assassination of the Ayatollah Khameini, we've not just had killed the head of Iran,

but we've also killed a person that is the head of the religion for 250 million,

some of them quite fanatic sheets, living all over the world, including 400,000 in Germany,

for example. I don't know how many in the UK. And we have to understand that the Khameini isn't

just the head of the religious, like the Pope equivalent, but even more than that, as I understand it,

the keeper of the hidden Iran, which almost makes him into a Jesus Christ-like figure.

And when I look at those figures of people mourning now for the next couple of 40 days, apparently,

in Iran, I just hope that I've got sufficient distance with my family, with anybody who's got

fanatical ideas about what to do as a result of that. So, it could have, rather than removing the

threat of terrorism, it could well have provoked and prompted more. But again, this is simultaneously

a really important distinction, Boris, but also an exercise in splitting hairs.

Starmer was not party to that assassination. Look, I agree with that. He was not party of

starting the war and he kept the distance. But before he starts throwing us, everybody in the

Western world, in Europe and the UK, again into this risk, he should be taken then to consideration.

So, you're right, it didn't start. We have taken it into consideration,

and the drone attacks reaching our bases in Cyprus are allies coming under attack from Iran.

It just explains to me how he could do nothing.

Of course he can, sorry.

Then we can talk about those drones. Second thing is, of course, with taking out Iran,

every single country, whether it's a democracy or whether it is a dictatorship,

we will now be looking at their own defense and we'll be thinking, do I need a nuclear weapon

myself? And this will happen. Not just in dictatorial regimes like Iran, but this will happen in places

like Germany, Japan, Korea. So, with Trump's foreign policy, this is just an escalation of nuclear

proliferation everywhere. That's going to be the biggest disaster and the biggest legacy that

Trump is going to leave behind. Now, my last and my positive point is the great thing about what

Trump is done here is by taking out the head of a state and and the rest of the cabinet and

officially targeting them. So, starting a war and saying, I'm going to kill the people that

run this country. He has now shifted international law and we the people, we should hold onto this.

From now on, anybody who is involved in a war or who starts a war should become a legitimate

target. And if Kirstaama goes down and gets sucked into this, he too should be a target.

Trump should be a target. Putin should be a target. Maybe when we get the people who are in charge

of starting the wars, responsible with their lives for starting the wars, maybe they're not going

to be so trigger happy before. So, those were my three points. We should, that last point,

we should be holding on because people will try to waffle about it again and say, oh no, there was,

you know, it was Iran, it was a special case. No. If this is now international law, they have no

more immunity. And that's fine with me. That's the way it should be. My, my should they sit in

their big beautiful palaces, safety when we take a 19-year-old kid, conscript them, put him in

a tent and then give him into the Ukrainian election war. Yeah, I said to an earlier caller, I wish

that we lived in the world that you describe and I'm going to say the same thing to you, but we

don't. So, you can't really use that as a camouflage for the difficult question that Kirstaama

has had to answer. You can't answer a question about the horns of the dilemma that he faced by

saying, well, the horns should never have existed or that people who, listen, I don't think international

law in the context of illegal wars, I don't think it's ever been weaker. Vladimir Putin must be

laughing all the way to wherever it is that he goes for downtime at the moment because what

America is doing is comparable to what Russia has done, albeit that Iran was a much more deserving

target of aggression than Ukraine ever was. James, I don't want to be, you know, but back to your

question terms of what other choices do you have, right? In this moment, of course, in the, in the

last 24 hours, the shift from the attack that he didn't support to the decision to support

responses to the attack that Iran has launched. And that is based on what? On two drones, suddenly

no, it's not. It's based upon missiles landing in Jordan, it's based upon attacks upon other allies,

it's based upon US Air Force bases that are on the soil that belongs to our allies. So it's

based upon the international network of obligations and treaties. I understand that. And how is

that different from Israel constantly bombing by root just because some people who are allies of

the Iranis start launching attacks, attacks on Israel from the land of Lebanon. How does that differ?

How does what differ? So you have a situation where where Iran is saying, I'm going to attack

these allies of you because you're using them. Oh, no, sorry. No, I understand your point, but

you're doing it again. You're doing it again because two drones don't make a right. I find an

awful lot of the things that Israel does are almost certainly in breach of international law,

up to and including genocide in Gaza. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Iran is doing

what Iran is doing and Keir Starmer's job is to respond. I agree, but I still maintain given the

given the risks and threats we have, given that this has clearly started out of the blue by

Israel and the United States. Yes. The thing to do right now for us in the Western world and

Western Europe, including the UK, get the beer and ice, get the popcorn on, listen to LBC in terms

of what happens and relax. And when British troops die and you will have to pay a little bit more

on the pump. And when British military personnel die? When because because two drones.

Do we change then? Well, if we have real facts about Cyprus being attacked, not by drones,

why would Iran fly through drones? Look at the map where Cyprus is. If we move it, if we move

into the realms of disputing the veracity of reports that we're receiving and there's three now,

then there's no point continuing the conversation. But three Americans have already died.

If some of the missiles that have been launched at installations in the Middle East had achieved

their goal, it's not beyond doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt that British military personnel would

also have been vulnerable to attack. And I presume your position, what we might describe

Boris as the popcorn position, I presume that would change the moment British blood was

spilled by Iranian retaliation to an attack that had nothing to do with Britain.

If it is targeted, yes, if a bomb lands somewhere in, if it's collateral, if it's collateral,

then the same principle stands because you could have taken out the means by which that missile

has been launched and you have urged Kirsta Amin not to do so.

You are convincing and maybe you should have gotten that PhD instead of mine from the other team.

Yeah, I'll tell you what, maybe both of us could have done a better job than Steve Wittkov and

Jared Kushner, but it's not for us to say, Boris, thank you. I always enjoy talking to you.

Have a little listen to this. I think it's interesting from the UN Nuclear Watchdog Chief. That's

IAEA, I think. I'll turn into Donald when I start trying to remember the initials of the

international atomic energy authority, IAEA. Anyway, here it is, the idea that the, which I think

we found evidence of Netanyahu and his cronies claiming for the best part of three decades that

Iran was about 10 minutes away from developing a nuclear bomb. Again, why would you listen to the

experts? Why would you listen to the people with expertise and experience when you can just send

your son-in-law into battle on your behalf? But here is Rafael Grossi, the UN's nuclear watchdog chief.

This is my evaluation. It's an evaluation that is based on the fact that Iran has a very big ambitious

nuclear program that we do not have the accesses that we should have. At the same time, I have said,

I said it last year, before the June 12th day war, we don't see a structured program to

manufacture nuclear weapons. So that is the assessment of the agency. Then, of course, countries have

either other information or political considerations, which are not for me to validate, as I said,

or invalidate. So there it is. I mean, not only did they lie essentially about the capabilities

of Iran in the first place. They then lied about having destroyed them. That was just last June,

June of last year. I kid you not. You'd think that this was parody, wouldn't you? When Benjamin Netanyahu

declared a historic victory, which will stand for generations, and then less than a year later,

they're back, because they hadn't actually removed the threat that didn't exist. So they have to

go back now and remove the threat that's still, according to the head of the IAEA, the UN's nuclear

watchdog, the threat that still doesn't exist. I suppose every glimmer of good news in the current

landscape is to be welcomed. Simon Marx, after this.

Well, it is our duty, really, on days like this to try to wade through the misinformation and

propaganda, the tribalism and the binary nature of much commentary and coverage, never more so than

when you have a man as ridiculous and hideous as Donald Trump in the White House. And it is

to the United States that we turn next with that in mind. Simon Marx, our US editor, is there.

I mean, start wherever you want, Simon. I suppose we should begin with the appetite among the

American people for what Donald Trump has done over the weekend. Well, I think we should be

absolutely clear, James. Donald Trump has not prepared the American public for this war in any way.

I mean, they only saw him twice over the weekend, and they had to be up at 2.30 in the morning

on Saturday, if they wanted to see him the first time, or find it suddenly when they woke up

on Saturday morning to be rather surprised by the fact that the country was going to war in

conjunction with Israel against Iran. So in that first overnight message, Donald Trump talked about

major combat operations being underway against Iran, made completely contradictory remarks

instructing the Iranian people on the one hand to rise up and take power into their own hands,

and the time for action is now, except, of course, he then told them that the time for action was

not now because he told them they needed to stay indoors because it was too dangerous to go outside

because bombs were raining down on them. Then we didn't see anything of him until last night

when he was departing Mar-a-Lago and heading back to Washington, DC. He did engage in a handful of

individual telephone conversations with hand-picked reporters here in Washington during the course

of the day, in which again he offered completely contradictory storylines regarding the purpose,

duration, intent of this war, and gave no indication that he's got any plan for the day after. I mean,

he didn't even have a plan for the day of, much less the day after. But then last night, before he

left Mar-a-Lago, he did appear on camera in a pre-recorded series of comments. And first of all,

broke the news to the American people that they had already heard from US Central Command

that the first American fatalities had taken place in the theater. Let's listen to that.

Earlier today, St. Combs shared the news that three US military service members have been killed in

action. As one nation we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice

for our nation. Then he told the American people that while he can't say how long this war is

going to last, and in comments to a reporter, he said it might go on for a month or longer,

they need to brace themselves for more American fatalities. Sadly, there will likely be more.

Before it ends, that's the way it is, likely be more, but we'll do everything possible

where that won't be the case. That's the way it is. And the president went on to insist that

his war in Iran is right and justified. These actions are right and they are necessary to ensure

that Americans will never have to face a radical bloodthirsty terrorist regime armed with

nuclear weapons and lots of threats. And that was it. In terms of comments last night,

he arrived back at the White House, walked into the building, didn't say anything to reporters.

As we now know, he's given that unbelievable interview. I mean, except it's not unbelievable,

we should be pricing all of this in now to the Daily Telegraph once again,

fleeing the Prime Minister, fleeing the UK, even as British service personnel are putting

their lives on the line for his war of choice in Iran. But he is facing incoming here in the

United States. And it's coming, James, from his own core mega supporters, America first adherents,

who are overwhelmingly telling him that they not only have no appetite for this war, but they

believe that this is a new turn, a massive new turn by an American president. They elected

to disentangle America's military from forever wars and far off entanglements in the Middle East

about which the American public know very little. But this is a president who's just done nothing

to condition the environment here to support this. And now we're seeing I think three US

fighter jets that may have been brought down in Q8 by friendly fire. There's no evidence here

that the American public has the appetite for any of this much less for a conflict that could last

for a month. So here's the $64,000 question. And why do you think he's done it?

Well, I think, I mean, as you and I have discussed, within the last week and weeks prior to that,

this is a man in need of distraction, in urgent need of distraction. I mean, he's got fresh

questions about the Epstein files, besieging the White House. He's got the Supreme Court

incinerating the tariffs that lie as the key pillar, not just of his trade, but also of his foreign

and national security policies. He's got record low numbers in the approval ratings. And he's got

an Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia

saying, come on, mate, we've got to do this. Let's give it a go. And it may well be that the

Israelis outplayed him by launching the first air strike and essentially forcing his hand. I mean,

if you listen to what Omani negotiators who had been shuttling between the US and Iranian

delegations in Geneva up until only Thursday of last week say they indicate that the Iranians had

given significant ground and that the possible compromise existed for negotiators, as they said,

they were doing, to take back to their respective capitals over the weekend to try and advance. But

then whether it was the Israelis simply saying, right, we're going in right now and we're killing

the Supreme Leader because we've got the opportunity. Donald Trump being cajoled into joining that

or enthusiastically joining it, seeing that he had an opportunity here to play geopolitical 52

card pickup and hope without any kind of a plan that may be the brute force of the American

military and the Israeli militaries might deliver him a better situation that he's been in

previously in Iran. I mean, I think it's for all of those many reasons that he decided to give

this a go. What then would given, as you've established, that the justification for it is at the

very least paper thin. The support for it is almost nonexistent. What would success look like

from his point of view? Well, I think it's also important to underscore James that the legality

in America is skating on the thinnest possible ice. There is a law. It was enacted in 1981 by

President Ronald Reagan that says American elected officials must not engage in the assassination

of foreign heads of states or other foreign government officials. And there's no way of looking

at what happened on Saturday in Iran and saying that the United States wasn't either directly

involved or clearly playing a significant supporting role in orchestrating the assassination

of the Supreme Leader. For whom, of course, we in the West have absolutely no sympathy given

his track record of brutality inside Iran and Iran's track record of terrorism and nefarious acts

on the world stage as well. But on the face of it, that action clearly was a breach of American law

and there's no justification that the Americans are putting forward for any of this under

international law in the same way as they ran roughshod over international law with the attack on

Venezuela back in January. What a success look for him? For him? I mean, in his description,

a polyanna world in which the Iranian people, the families of demonstrators whose loved ones were

cut down in their tens of thousands by Iran's Revolutionary Guard only within the last few weeks.

Those people go out onto the streets, put flowers into the rifles of the Revolutionary Guards,

engage in a chorus of Kumbaya and say, let's all get together. Us, the security forces,

the Revolutionary Guard, the Army, will get together and will form a new government. I mean,

that's the plan and it's clearly not workable. No, I mean, I feel like Donald Romsfeld contemplating

known unknowns and unknown unknowns and known knowns. But I mean, that question, as you will know,

General David Patreus, posed it back in 2003 in Baghdad, tell me how this ends. I'm going to play

you a clip. Actually, I'm going to play you two. The first one you will be very familiar with,

but I presume and you can tell me afterwards that this is going to be what's troubling the base.

Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate.

He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected

and assured you're sitting there is to start a war with Iran. I mean, talk about projection,

but more interestingly, Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Senator, who is one of the most,

how could we put it, enthusiastic, cheerly, dissolved Donald Trump? Was asked to really,

I mean, have I mean, I know you'll have heard this, but my listeners haven't heard it yet.

Been forward in a social media post Sunday, President Trump wrote this quote,

hopefully the IRGC and police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patreus and work together

as a unit to bring back the country to the greatness it deserves. Is hope the plan for the future

of Iran? No, the future of Iran is going to be determined by the Iranian people.

The new Iran, whatever it is, if for this a cleric or a representative democracy,

our goal is to make sure it cannot become again the largest state-sponsored terrorism.

That's a win for us. Is there a plan to make sure that happens, Senator? Is there a plan

does the president have a plan to guarantee that that happens? No, it's not his job or my job

to do this. How many times to have to tell you? Our job is to make sure Iran is no longer the

largest state-sponsored terrorism to help the people reconstruct a new government,

no boots on the ground. We don't own, you know this side there, you break it, you own it.

I don't buy that one bit. It's an America's interest to make sure the Iowa toilet is dead,

he's dead. Who's job is it to have a plan? What he's saying there is our job is to

screen fire in a crowded theater and it's up to the theater goers and the actors and maybe a

little bit of theater management then to figure out what to do about it, but we've done our job.

We've screened fire in a crowded theater and now we'll see where everything ends up. I mean

Lindsey Graham is increasingly a pastiche of himself, but I mean no sense of history. That

reference to you break it, you own it, which of course is a rule that exists in a popular

home furnishings shop here in the United States that was cited by Colin Powell when George W. Bush

was considering invading Iraq in 2003. It was an admonition to President George W. Bush,

you got to remember, you break it, you own it. That's not an option. I mean that is an

inviolable rule here that they're completely disregarding in the same way, by the way,

as the president in that interview with the telegraph, when he says on Starmer's refusal to allow

British bases to be used for strikes against Iran, he says that's probably never happened between

our countries before. It sounds like he was worried about the legality. Well, do you remember when

Barack Obama was thinking of going to war in Syria? And the British parliament didn't back it,

and that then forced Barack Obama to abandon his plans to go to war against Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

They have no sense of historical memory whatsoever, nor an understanding in the case of the president

about the legal complexities here. The British government was reportedly pulling intelligence

sharing because it was so concerned about Donald Trump's extrajudicial maritime campaign of

bringing death and destruction to people that he claimed without providing any proof were

Venezuela and drug traffickers heading towards American shores in speedboats. So these tensions

between the UK and Britain have a long and even recent history, and I just want to come back

James to to to MAGA and Donald Trump's problem with his core influences. Tucker Carlson,

the former Fox News host and now podcaster, who was in the White House only last week consulting

with President Trump, is furious about this war on Iran and told an ABC reporter by phone over

the weekend that he considers it absolutely disgusting and evil. That is the scale of the difficulty

Donald Trump is waking up to here this morning domestically. Well, we will be no doubt talking

again later in the week. Thank you. I've got quite a lot of love as always coming in for you.

I thought I'd done a decent job for two hours, but you just smashed out the park in 15 minutes.

Thank you Simon Marks. We'll speak later in the week.

Gosh, I hope you took as much from today's show as I did. I've said it before, but I'll

take again the standard of contribution from our callers now is absolutely extraordinary. Do join

us again tomorrow from 10 on LBC or right here shortly afterwards. This has been a global player

original production.