0:00
I'm joined by Robert Clark, a fellow at the Yorktown Institute, Telegraph columnist
0:04
and perhaps most personally a former soldier who's deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Good morning to you, Robert
0:09
Good morning, Matthew. So, the legality of the war, at the moment, what is your take at present
0:18
Well, as you read out, I'm a Defence Research Fellow and a former soldier
0:23
so just as a caveat, I'm not an international lawyer and have no experience or background in law
0:27
but my understanding of this it's it's very separate to 2003 now i understand why a lot of
0:33
people are making the comparisons with the iraq war uh particularly in light of the highly contagious
0:39
legal aspects of that campaign um this i think is a lot different we're dealing with a existential
0:45
threat to israel for the last 46 years since 1979 islamic revolution uh and since that time
0:52
the Iranian regime have consistently called for the elimination of the Israeli states
0:57
Not the destruction of the Israeli government or the removal of the government in Israel
1:02
but the eradication of the state itself. So that's very separate to what happened in 2003 in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq
1:09
Separately to that as well, Israel and credible intelligence from Mossad have predicted the breakout time for the Iranian nuclear program, which does exist
1:20
Obviously, the JCPOA from back in 2016 was designed specifically to curtail Iran's nuclear program, to some success, but to a lot of weakness
1:31
And it's really the ability to try and limit the breakout time, which is estimated anywhere between two to three months
1:39
And a push could probably be taken within four weeks. The breakout time is really important because the technical detail in the Iran's nuclear programme is so advanced that it would only take, you know, we are talking a matter of weeks for them to develop interweapons grade enriched uranium to the 90% threshold, which will give around about nine nuclear weapons
2:01
Now, obviously, nine nuclear weapons is nothing on the scale of most nuclear-armed states
2:05
but that's still enough capability and intent to give Israel the self-defence clause
2:12
under the UN Charter 50 of self-defence when it is a perceived threat
2:16
But that's the big rub, isn't it? Because if I was to draw a parallel again with 2003
2:22
all we have is we have conflicting intelligence reports about the state of Iran's
2:27
not if it's a enrichment programme, but it's a nuclear weapons programme, with the head of US security saying there isn't a programme
2:34
And she was reporting that back in March. So she's since sort of backtracked to some degree
2:41
saying that she and Donald Trump are on the same page. But we are talking at the moment about intelligence
2:47
that doesn't seem entirely concrete. And with respect, that is exactly how the situation was in 2003
2:55
We were told there were weapons of mass destruction. We were told they were pointing at us
2:59
they were told they were ready to go in 45 minutes. It was the front page story on the sun, that line from Parliament
3:04
and they weren't there. Sure. In any issue like this, it's always going to be, as you said
3:10
conflicting intelligence. We're never going to have unanimous consent amongst all intelligence agencies and all countries
3:16
But we're not talking about our intelligence or American intelligence in the specific case for military action
3:21
We're talking about Israeli intelligence in the sense of they're the ones who are going to be conducting this campaign, this war
3:27
which they've already initiated on the basis of their own intelligence. So I would argue it is for the Israeli government to answer for their intelligence estimates
3:35
But Netanyahu has been making these assertions about Iran's nuclear program in detail since, I think, 1992
3:42
when Israel was going to be wiped off the face of the earth in seven months. And it after a while you know seasoned observers get a little tired of hearing about imminent threats that actually don transpire to be true So having heard Netanyahu talk about imminent threats for 30 odd years you can forgive someone like
4:02
myself for thinking, well, why is it more imminent today? Where's the proof? Where's the evidence
4:06
We've heard this story so many times before. So one of the big differences between now and 1992
4:12
over the last 30 years or so is the IAEAs, their own independent verifications, they've estimated
4:19
that Iranian nuclear enrichment is up to 60%. This was as of May, so only about four weeks ago
4:25
was their latest quarterly intelligence estimate. And even in that estimate, they acknowledged
4:30
that was difficult to ascertain any higher precisely because Iran don't communicate
4:35
or, you know, deal with the IEA in a way that is, you know, transparent
4:41
Neither does Israel, though, does it? Neither does Israel when it comes to its nuclear weapon programme
4:46
It's never even confirmed it has them. I suppose the final question, Robert, again, it would be a very important one for British listeners
4:55
is even if we take everything you say as being absolute gospel truth
5:00
is this a conflict that Britain should be drawn into at all? Is this not a situation that's an existential threat for Israel
5:07
Israel receives $18 billion of armaments for the United States. Do they really need us getting involved in this
5:12
We've got the threat in Ukraine, which seems a pressing realistic danger to British citizens
5:19
Getting involved in a war in the Middle East looks like it would just add to cost
5:23
You go for tax on shipping lanes, rising oil. It doesn't seem like this. Is it going to be in our best interests
5:30
I mean, the first thing I'd say is, and this is a personal note, but it's worth remembering because it's quite often forgotten about
5:37
The Iranian regime, which is the same regime as it is now it was then
5:41
are responsible for thousands of US service personnel's deaths in Iraq and scores of British
5:46
That's well documented, that's evidence. So when we talk about the threat to Britain in terms of the Iranian regime
5:53
this is a regime that has direct British blood on its hands
5:58
In terms of the more important question for the here and now is, should we get involved
6:03
It's more of a question of can we and what options we would have. Now, obviously, America, they are Israel's prominent, preeminent ally
6:12
and they are the only ones who have the ability to destroy the nuclear program at Fordow
6:17
We could not complement that with our own military assets. What we do have is infrastructure in the Middle East, in Oman, in Dubai, and in Cyprus
6:28
which would help the Americans facilitate that. Then it comes down to a question, like you say, of legality
6:33
And whether this government, which is run by a former human rights lawyer, which takes a very dim view on military intervention more broadly, I think realistically, we probably won't get drawn into it, even if it is just to facilitate American, for example, refuelling in Cyprus
6:50
But that's going to be an incredibly tricky question for David Lammy and Keir Starmer to argue when they are trying to obviously cozy up to Donald Trump and the American administration a lot more
7:01
I think it would be in our interest to help America in this war against Iran
7:06
But like I say, I think that's going to be an incredibly tricky position for this government to take
7:11
If I may say that, that last point in terms of Britain's relationship with the United States
7:16
is one that I had not given perhaps enough focus to. And I'm in detritus for bringing it up at the end because I think it is germane
7:24
We sort of are involved in an existential war with Iran at the moment
7:28
You're asked that question, are we? Because if you think about it, the main provider of drones to Russia is called the Shahid drone
7:37
From day one in Russia those drones have been targeting civilian structures in Ukraine So to me that terrorism basically Now Russia basically is a supply of drones main supply of drones is coming from Iran
7:56
and Russia now is an assembly plant for the Russian Shahid drones
8:02
Yeah. So, and Ukraine's been proving successful in taking out the factories of those, not all of them, but a lot of them
8:08
I suppose by the same measure, though, then we're already involved in the conflict because we've been selling arms to Israel for years
8:14
well yeah i mean you know yeah i mean that is a statement of fact isn't it we've been we're
8:22
involved with one side financially but i'm i'm looking at in the ukraine perspective here yeah
8:27
and uh the uh the the one of the uh you know the indirect things about what's happening is
8:34
the whole manufacturing side of iran's shahid joint only had a joint an iranian joint commander
8:41
have taken down today, I think, as well. So, obviously, Putin is worried, because if he doesn't get these supplies, right
8:48
that's going to be a big factor in the Ukraine war. I see, I see
8:52
No wonder he's asking to become the mediator, yeah? And Putin is running out of allies, yeah
8:58
You know, he's got Iran, and obviously he's got a lot of smaller countries
9:02
but Iran and China are like his main allies. So this is going to be a major blow
9:06
I see where you're coming from. I see where you're coming from. And what you've got to ask yourself is, right
9:10
But Trump, it turned out to be like Putin's best mate. Putin sent him a happy birthday greeting the other day, right
9:18
So Trump is in a bit of a rock and a hard place now because, you know, obviously Putin's desperate to keep Iran going
9:24
What does Trump do? Well, I have to say that what I've seen Trump talk so far
9:30
with regards to this conflict just all seems to be about him, the two-week delay
9:35
You get the sense that he wants a two-week delay because otherwise it might look like Netanyahu is pushing him around
9:41
that it's not Trump making the calls. Do you know, right, you know the spiderweb operation, right
9:46
the one that took about 30% of the Russians, yeah, the one that Ukraine decided not to tell the Americans or anyone
9:54
thank God, they kept that to themselves. After that operation, Trump kept quiet for two days
9:59
There was nothing from Trump. I'm liking the laughter, John. Can you tell me when was the last time that Britain had a threat by a foreign country
10:12
I think what I can remember was the Falklands War in 1980
10:17
and we never had any imminent threat from anybody at all. And I think we shouldn't get involved in this one
10:27
British interests in the Middle East? Well, only for the reason of oil
10:33
But people should go and watch the YouTube that foreign minister in 1973, November 11th
10:44
who gave Copenhagen interview about before 1973, Americans were nicking the oil and not giving anything
10:53
So in 1973, Americans wanted to cut the oil production by 25 percent
10:57
and the oil minister said we'll cut it by 80% and Britain won't have any GDP or whatever
11:04
And then Americans and the British, one of the interviewers asked him
11:10
what if they take over the country? And he said, we'll blow the pipelines
11:14
and they can blow the pipelines. And the entire world will... So that is why we got 14 or 15 British and American bases
11:22
wrong to safeguard the investments. And why does Iran have to make their own nuclear weapons
11:31
They can go and buy from Putin. They only need, like this morning, somebody mentioned
11:36
we only need nine to blow up Israel if they wanted Americans got 7 or something And North Korea got 7 And no one knows how many Israel has
11:51
because it doesn't open up its facilities for scrutiny. If I may ask, you say you don't perceive any imminent threat
12:00
that you can see that if we were to get involved that there will be repercussions, and I share that view
12:05
But do you think Keir Starmer is mindful, mindful of the mistakes of 2003
12:11
and will approach this situation with caution? Yes, because we have to stand by the Americans
12:17
and give the air bases to refuel. That's all we have to do. We don't have to send any troops or anything
12:25
Nothing. We have to stay back. And you would be happy for the UK
12:31
to offer the US the opportunity to launch their attacks from UK air bases
12:37
We have no option. I suspect rather like my first guest, when I admitted I hadn't considered the UK's relationship with the United States when looking at this
12:50
I was looking solely at the UK and whether we should get involved in another dodgy conflict
12:54
But I have to say that your thoughts and his sort of confirm my growing awareness that, yes, that business is important
13:02
and we're doing business with the United States and we have to find a way of striking a balance
13:09
maintaining that trade and keeping ourselves on a legally sound basis with regards to Israel and Iran
13:18
They shouldn't really. Britain should not be involved in this war at all. I know they provide intelligence
13:23
And weaponry to Israel as well? So we've done that too. Of course
13:28
You see, we have intelligence about the war in Sudan that no one talks about
13:32
We have intelligence about other places of the world. So that is not a new thing
13:38
But my point is, Britain should not have boots on the ground. Britain should not be sending fighter jets to fight Iran
13:44
What about, which I think is the more likely scenario, Arne, is should Britain allow the United States
13:50
to fly bombing raids from UK air bases? Because we should allow that
13:59
Yes, you can allow that. I tell you for why. I can tell you for a while. Because, now, we're involved in a way
14:05
but the reason why you allow that is for... Iran will not say we're involved wholly, you know, by allowing that
14:13
But the fact of the matter is, we do not want Britain to be seen as one
14:19
When you say someone is involved fully, you're quite a joke. As I understand it, and this is really thanks to..
14:26
I'm going to put the responsibility on The Guardian, because they did a really all-encompassing sort of legal think piece about the conflict
14:33
There is a legal opinion that even allowing the US to fly jets from UK air bases
14:40
could put the UK in a dodgy legal position down the line
14:45
Of course, of course, that is true. But, Matthew, you make me laugh
14:50
Well, not just you in general, but the fact of the matter is there's no way
14:54
There's no cut sale on this planet where the United States, Britain, or even any European country, like France, Spain, or the big shots, will be taken to court and actually be..
15:09
Fair point, fair point. I mean, the Chilcot inquiry is about as bad as it got for Tony Blair
15:16
and Chilcot was damning of the poor quality of the intelligence that took us to war, that Tony Blair overstated the case
15:27
and Tony Blair basically said, yeah, I acknowledge the report but I can't ignore everything it said about it
15:34
And that was the end of the story. so I can't deny you're right there, I suspect