Will the US and China go to war over Iran?

0:00When people turn to telehealth or weight loss, they're looking for real support. That's why more people are choosing orderlymeds.com. Orderly Meds connects you with real doctors and access to proven GLP-1 medications like semaglutide and terzeptatide. No guessing, just a more supportive experience. And all shipped directly to your door in discreet packaging. Do your research, ask questions, then visit orderlymeds.com slash podcast for an exclusive offer. That's orderlymeds.com slash podcast. Individual results may vary. Not medical advice. Eligibility required. See site for details.

0:33This is a Global Player original podcast. China has sort of essentially leapfrogged America to become the place that you go to sort out the problems of the world. If we're looking to China to be a guarantor of the sort of security and world order that we value as Europeans, I think we're going to be sorely disappointed. The lack of any strategic thought about what it could lead to. Suddenly you're seeing China as the sort of the central court in all this. Kirstama, a lot of talk about how you're increasing defense spending, but not a lot of action. Navy Worship 121, this is Sephan Navy Station.

1:07You must alter course and go back to the Indian Ocean immediately. If you don't obey my order, you will be targeted. Out. This is Coalition Worship 121, engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law. No challenges attended to you. US Navy warship transiting in the vicinity of Fodjei Airport and Oman Sea. This is Sepah Navy. This is Sepah Navy. Last warning, last warning, last warning. That was a recording made by the Iranians of a confrontation between the Iranian Navy, which apparently isn't completely sunk, and a US warship, underlining the stakes involved in the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

1:53We are now looking at a complete role reversal in world affairs. Could China end up getting dragged into the Iran war or could it be the voice of sanity in this whole mess? Welcome to the News Agents.

2:13the news agents it's john it's meatless it's lewis and we are in the next stage of american efforts trump-led efforts to try to force the iranians to open the strait of hormuz a strait that of course we must remind ourselves donald trump has throughout the war said is completely unimportant to the united states and is someone else's responsibility to fix. Clearly, that is not the case because the US has now imposed a naval blockade. At least four Iran-linked ships have crossed the strait nonetheless. And the interesting kind of development in all of this, you might say the sleeping dragon, has been China, right, which has been largely, I mean, look, it has been on a limited basis up to now in the war, sending some support to Iran in terms of logistics and so on.

3:01It is an economic lifeline to Iran, and it has been for some years because it buys huge volumes of oil from Iran. And of course, that means that they have a strategic interest in this blockade not going ahead. China's foreign ministry has overnight condemned the US blockade as dangerous and irresponsible, with their foreign affairs spokesperson saying it would only exacerbate tensions and undermine the already fragile ceasefire agreement. Blockade also being called a grave violation of Iran's sovereignty by Iran's ambassador to the UN. And of course, this has led some to wonder and to worry whether this could all lead to a new phase and new escalation of this war that opens it out from just a US-Iran-Israel conflict to a wider conflict.

3:54Because the nightmare scenario potentially for the Americans and for everybody else is if the chinese use their base they've got a base in jibouti which is not a million miles away to potentially say okay well we want these oil we want this oil we want these ships heading for china to open through the blockade what happens if the chinese decide to use their impressive naval presence potentially in the region to accompany one of these oil tankers through the blockade and what happens then the u.s turn around and go no you're not passing or do they allow them through? Well, I think that is absolutely the nightmare scenario, which is now a reality.

4:30President Xi has also said, you know, the world order is crumbling before our eyes and we must not be allowed to go back to the laws of the jungle. And that is clearly aimed at Donald Trump and the way that this is all unfolding or unravelling, depending on your point of view. And to listen to J.D. Vance yesterday, you get the distinct impression that is, well, if the Iranians can do it, so can we. Have a listen to this. What they have done is engage in this act of economic terrorism against the entire world. They basically threatened any ship that's moving through the Straits of Hormuz. Well, as the president of the United States showed, two can play at that game.

5:11And if the Iranians are going to try to engage in economic terrorism, we're going to abide by a simple principle that no Iranian ships are getting out either. We know that's a big deal to them. We know that applies additional economic leverage. And again, Brett, the president wants the Iranian people to thrive and succeed. He has had his negotiation team put on the table a serious proposal. The ball is in Iran's court. Did we make progress? Yes. But we're going to find out from the Iranians whether we can make that ultimate bit of progress that gets us to a big deal. So there you have J.D. Vance saying, well, if they're going to do it, we're going to do it.

5:44And we're going to blockade the Iranian ports on the Strait of Hormuz from being allowed to ship their oil. But, Lewis, there's one stage, I think, before you get to the stage of Chinese warships getting involved, which is what happens if it's a tanker, there's a Chinese tanker and it's heading to a port and it's flying under a Chinese flag. What are the Americans going to do? Are they really going to send patrol boats, helicopters, land aboard it, kind of put men on the ship and try to take control of it? Can I just contextualise that just to illustrate just how important this could be? I mean, China relies on Iran for between 13 to 14 percent of its total oil imports.

6:25That's about 1.3 to 1.4 million barrels per day. And over 80 to 90 percent of Iran's total oil exports before the war went to China. So they are symbiotically connected. You know, China is keeping Iran's very fragile economy afloat, keeping foreign currency flowing in. And likewise, Iran is a lifeline for China, which is consistently oil thirsty and relies on Iran for a really significant section or subsection percentage of its oil imports. Yeah. And there's some really interesting meetings going on in China today, one of which is with Spain's prime minister, Pedro Sanchez. Now, Spain is probably the closest European nation to China.

7:07And Sanchez has basically gone over there to petition China to get involved. After this meeting with Sanchez, Beijing basically said, look, we are the morally upright nations here. We have to work in cooperation to resist aggression against the law of the jungle. So you've got this place where China has sort of essentially leapfrogged America to become the place that you go to sort out the problems of the world. Who else is he meeting? Xi Jinping is meeting the Sheikh, the head of Abu Dhabi right this afternoon. So he's bringing in the Gulf states and suddenly you're seeing China as the sort of the central court in all this.

7:48The place where each of the, I guess, sort of representatives of different continents, whether it's the Gulf countries, whether it's Europe, are going to Xi Jinping and saying, you've got to get involved in this because that's what's going to actually end the blockade. On the other side, you have Starmer and Macron, who have also talked about hosting a summit on Friday. And they are looking in a very strange place now because they both befriended Trump. Unlike Sanchez, who was a vocal, vocal critic of Trump and has been for many months. You know, Starmer and Macron are the two who have tried so hard to cosy up to him, now realise that they are both irrelevant but deeply involved in the Hormuz-Straight conflict.

8:30and they're setting up their own sort of agenda with a summit on Friday, 30 more countries are going to that now, we understand. But I think that what China has done is by saying, by making that statement, the foreign ministry and what President Xi has said, is they're saying, okay, America, you've got a choice here. What happens? What are you going to do if one of our tankers is passing through the Strait of Hormuz? Are you really going to board it? Are you really going to turn it back? Are you really going to prevent it from leaving the port? and are you really prepared to take the risk of us getting involved?

9:05And if America lets the Chinese tanker through, then America looks like it is a paper tiger in terms of its military. An accusation that Donald Trump has made about Britain and NATO being a paper tiger. America would look a paper tiger. So Donald Trump wouldn't want that. But equally, is he going to, as the commander in chief, allow a confrontation with a Chinese vessel and want to bring China into it? And as you say, Lewis, they've got the Chinese have got a port in Djibouti, a naval base in Djibouti. They could be there quite quickly. Yeah, and this is one of the many problems, right, with this world that we're living in, which is so unstable and where order is breaking down, geopolitical order, that any given crisis, and this is how the First World War started, right, you wouldn't have thought the First World War would break out in the Balkans, but it did.

10:04because almost any theatre or any arena just can potentially light the touch paper. And before you know where you are, you've got great powers being pulled in in ways that at the start of a conflict, we might not have expected. I mean, I would just say, though, in terms of China and us looking to China for kind of preserving world order, I mean, I think people like Sanchez and whatever, we should be careful what we wish for. I mean, let's not... I mean, China is no defender of the kind of liberal order that we want, right? I mean, China... First of all, China might want stability in the Middle East, but we all know that they're preparing potentially for escalation in the South China Sea, you know, with Taiwan.

10:36We also know that, frankly, you know, China has been the country which has helped keep Iran's theocratic, awful regime, the one that's been murdering its own people, afloat all these years by buying this copious amount of oil despite sanctions. So I think we know that the Chinese, they value order, but it's order very much on their terms, right? And it's not the sort of liberal democratic order that we would value. So I think if we I mean, look, we're very unhappy with the United States, obviously, at the moment. But I mean, if we're looking to China to be a guarantor of the sort of security and world order that we value as Europeans, I think we're going to be sorely disappointed.

11:12Exactly right. But I think that is why the morality vacuum matters so much. Right. When when America exits the stage, this is exactly what happens, that you start turning to these extraordinarily controversial bedfellows to bail you out of a problem. because, frankly, it almost feels like no one's got time for the morality. Nobody's got time to have a look at, you know, the human rights record of Saudi or China or all the countries that used to be, you know, the sort of the villains of sort of humanitarian peace because we're just kind of going, well, look, this is first and foremost a transactional problem that nobody's getting their oil out.

11:54Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a morality vacuum, because I'm never sure how much morality there has been in international affairs. There's always been kind of enlightened self-interest at very best. Morality, I think, is a stretch. What there is a vacuum of on the American side, which I think, you know, if you're in the West, you think, God, where is it? It's strategy. I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that Iran is an absolutely evil regime. It was responsible for October the 7th in its support for Hamas. it's you know unleashed an awful lot of terrible things in the world but what was the strategy in america launching this it was it was fine to the at the start but had they calculated what the effects would be on the strait of hormuz no it doesn't look like it and now that donald trump has said yeah we're going to blockade oh have they calculated what the what the consequences of that will be well you could suck china in i it feels to me you know you the other day emily They use the metaphor about Donald Trump puts his king in the middle of the chessboard and kind of has got no defence around.

12:54The idea that Donald Trump is playing three dimensional chess is just for the birds. Donald Trump is playing fast chess where you take a piece and then they take a piece and then you take a piece. But there is no strategy. Paintball, to be honest. Yeah. You were just firing things. And then they're like, oh, God, look at what's happened now. I'll fire something else. and there's the lack of any strategic thought about what could lead to what it could lead to is the thing that is missing and that has so weakened i think america's position in all of this i think the other thing is is that you know the chinese they don't want the iranians to have a nuclear weapon either right they don't want them to have a nuclear weapon they don't want the region to be destabilized not least because they're so dependent on on oil from the region So if the Chinese really did want to play more of a leadership role in this, there are things that they could do and there are things they could convene, not least, as I say, over the years.

13:48They might have considered not buying so much oil and getting around the sanctions regime, which the rest of the world has put in place. So, you know, the Chinese that there are I think this is the thing we see again and again with China is there are areas in the world where, you know, they are enjoying the fact that American power in the world is declining. To some extent, they are shooting themselves in the foot, as we're seeing right now unfold in Iran. China benefits from there being less of a unipolar world and more of a multipolar world from which it can lead. But at the same time, it only engages the world with the world on its terms and doesn't do the things that we might expect a genuine kind of new hegemon trying to keep order to do.

14:25It simply does it in a way that it benefits from. You talked a moment ago about the fact that Starmer and Macron are trying to put together this summit. Well, I mean, Starmer himself has come under withering criticism today from George Robertson, no less, former Labour Defence Secretary, former Secretary General of NATO and the person who wrote Keir Starmer's Strategic Defence Review last year and saying that, you know, Keir Starmer, a lot of talk about how you're increasing defence spending, but not a lot of action. And it was really a broadside fired at this government for kind of talking the talk, but not walking the walk when it comes to rebuilding Britain's hollowed out armed forces.

15:14Yeah, and I think particular aim at the Chancellor, her apparent lack of interest in defence. He mentions the fact that she'd only, I think, given 40 odd words in her spring statement to the question of defence. And he talks about non-military experts in the Treasury of vandalism. He says essentially that the budget that should be spent on defence is being spent on welfare. Now, that is probably, you know, a bigger and broader chat. But he's kind of pressing the alarm bells on this now and saying, how were you having that crazy debate about, you know, cutting the welfare bill, which obviously we all remember last summer ended in abject failure, and not even looking at what is coming at you every single day in the shape of Russia or China or Iran or, you know, the sort of multifarious enemies on every front that we are unprepared to fight.

16:15The MOD and the Treasury are often at loggerheads. And I know from speaking to Treasury people in the past that they think that almost more than any other department, And to be fair, there is some, you know, long evidence for this. And, you know, that, you know, the MOD is a bottomless pit and its procurement program has been terrible over the years. Very, very often, you know, they buy equipment, they buy kit, they buy tech. It doesn't work. It's massively overruns, you know, and as far as they're concerned, they just don't really trust the MOD. Even if there was a mindset, which I'm not sure there is, to massively increase defence spending, I'm not sure that they particularly trust the MOD to actually deliver on it.

16:50Now, that is obviously in some ways pathetic and actually an indictment of the British state. And, you know, if we're in an era where we actually need more military hard power, then clearly that has to be sorted out. But I think that fairly or unfairly, that is the sort of Treasury mindset. And the second thing, though, is to say is that this crisis is demonstrating kind of how impotent you end up being when you don't have the hard power resources. And to be honest, that is, you know, that is kit, that is ships, that is men and women, service men and women and materiel to try and do something in the world.

17:21I mean, I'm very struck by this line that the prime minister keeps using. He says, we're not in this war. We're not in this war. We know we're out of this war. It's not our war. And of course, that is true. And I think as we talked about at the time, I think he certainly deserves praise versus other political leaders and other British prime ministers who I think would have involved us in the hot war. But we are clearly completely caught up in the war. We are in the war. We don't want to be involved, but we actually are. Exactly. And we are affected by it increasingly day by day. And, you know, the prime ministers today, you know, launched or created a new cabinet subcommittee to deal with the effects of the Iran war.

17:55Well, I'm sure that will be, you know, great relief. We're going to have a subcommittee. But the truth is, the truth is, is that that is the sort of thing to which we are forced to resort. Because ultimately, not only Britain, because it wouldn't just be Britain in this situation, but Europe as a whole does not have the hard power and strategic autonomy that it might need to try and affect to do something at source. And the truth is, is that these sort of conflicts or these sort of problems are likely to arise more and more in the future. You raise a really good point, which is where is the appetite for that?

18:29And I mean, Keir Starmer has definitely talked about the need to up defence spending. I mean, this was the whole, you know, sort of project of NATO last year and they all pledged to raise their defence spending. I don't know how much has happened there. But I think fundamentally around the cabinet table, there will be very few people apart from Healy, you know, in the MOD, who would actually want to see that prioritised at this point. But look, you know, you talk about how we're not involved in the war, but we are involved in the war. What if we did decide that we were going to get involved? I mean, isn't there a more visible metaphor of the hollowed out Royal Navy than HMS Dragon, which was sent to the go-to?

19:16I would go back one. You see, I would go back one and I'd say, you know, imagine having all the hardware, all the kind of military hardware you need and then finding yourself pulled into that because you could. And I think, you know, I think there were people around the table right at the beginning of this who said to Keir Starmer, don't touch this. This is not a war you need to be in. It's Donald Trump going off on one. Sure. And I think that is an important place for us to look at any military involvement. But we have got British interests in the Gulf. And we said, and of course we've got the RAF base in Cyprus.

19:48But you just talked about strategy. Isn't strategy far more important? than throwing our ships into the middle of it. No, but part of your strategy is that you are defensively there. You know, you've got to defend your interests in the theatre. And, you know, Cyprus was part of, you know, on the route for Iranian missiles. So we deploy HMS Dragon, the only warship we've got available to go at any moment. It takes a week to get it ready, and it's broken down before it's reached the eastern Mediterranean. And you think, well, that is not a great advert for the prowess of the Royal Navy. Sure, but we could have got dragged into a much hotter war at a terrible moment.

20:25I'm not suggesting that Keir Starmer made the wrong decision. I'm just saying that we sent a warship on a defensive mission to defend British interests in Cyprus. Is it there yet? But never mind, I mean, never mind Iran. I mean, you know, we could argue that even if we did have better ships or warships, like, you know, what could we do? The US Navy has been reluctant to try and do anything in the strait. So what would we do? I think that's a fair enough critique. But I think what Robertson is, I don't even think Robertson is talking particularly about the Middle East, right? He's talking about our territorial integrity at home.

20:56We heard John Healy the other day basically say, the Defence Secretary basically say, we certainly don't have enough resources to both be in the Middle East and defending British territorial waters against the Russians at the same time. And there are lots of analysts who say we probably don't even have enough to deal with the Russian threat at home. I mean, for example, and I do think this is sort of conversation that British politicians, the Cabinet, because I think it needs to be having with the public. I think you're right, Emily, that there isn't much appetite for it around the cable. But consider this scenario, which Healy was basically talking about the other day.

21:24The Russians decide that we are not strong enough anymore, that there isn't a sufficient deterrent to prevent them from sabotaging some of our underwater cables. Potentially massive effects in terms of internet access, in terms of all of the things, information access, all of the things on which our economy relies. It could be catastrophic. Or likewise, the gas pipelines that come over from Norway that keep us warm this winter. The cost of us not having a deterrent where the Russians will think twice about doing that is so much less than the effect of them actually doing it at some point. And I do think that, yes, that means that maybe spending will have to be cut in other areas.

22:04And we should look at welfare, as we've talked about before, but it's not just that. But that is an important conversation I think we need to have. because unfortunately we're just in a different world where the Russians are a serious strategic competitor who are out to get us. There is no question about that. And we're in that world which we have not been since the end of the Second World War where the Americans can't be relied on or put to be on our side. That's just a new world. In a moment, we'll be talking to the American lawyer who took on Meta, who took on YouTube over the addictive quality of their social media platforms and has won.

22:42From a range of trusted voices and award-winning journalists. Good morning, I'm Nick Ferrari. It's time to get to your calls. Find out the latest news and hear every side of the story. Our focus in the last few weeks has been on getting the Strait of Hormuz open because all the time it's not open for free navigation. That is impacting our economy and our energy bills. If you're Donald Trump and you have failed to convince an enemy to unblock a strait, The best thing you can do is announce that you're, it says here, blocking the strait. The fallout of the Iran war. Follow it live on LBC. Listen on our free global player app or the LBC app.

23:20When people turn to telehealth or weight loss, they're looking for real support. That's why more people are choosing orderlymeds.com. Orderlymeds connects you with real doctors and access to proven GLP-1 medications like semaglutide and terzeptatide. No guessing, just a more supportive experience. and all shipped directly to your door in discreet packaging. Do your research, ask questions, then visit orderlymeds.com slash podcast for an exclusive offer. That's orderlymeds.com slash podcast. Individual results may vary. Not medical advice. Eligibility required. See site for details.

23:54The News Agents. As David and Goliath battles go, I guess taking on Meta, the owners of Instagram, and YouTube would count as a pretty big act of boldness. But that is exactly what Matthew Bergman has done. A lawyer from New York representing a 20 year old woman who was awarded six million in damages. But this is a case that has way, way bigger ramifications for the huge social media companies that have seemed untouchable for so long. And Matthew, thank you very much indeed for coming to the Newsagent Studio. And I should say you're in London because you're briefing ministers and members of parliament.

24:45Is that right? That is correct, yes. And how has that gone? Well, very interesting and very rewarding. What sort of questions are they asking? Well, they're interested in how do we know that social media is dangerous? And the answer is their own documents are the best evidence that we have. We've talked about age gating and the benefits of that and also the legislative efforts that can be made across the pond here to support what's going on throughout the world in holding companies accountable. So take us through this case. I know this wasn't the first case and you've been involved in many because you set up the Social Media Victims Law Center.

25:21But take us through this case. You were representing a 20-year-old woman. and why is this case being seen as so important? Well, this is the first time in history that a social media company has ever been held liable in front of a jury for harming the mental health of a young person. This was four years in the making when we started doing this work. No one thought these companies could even be proceeded against. These cases were getting dismissed before they even got started and we were able to get the case filed and we survived a motion to dismiss. We were able to conduct discovery and find what these companies have known about their addictive products and how they're hurting kids.

26:04We were able to get past summary judgment and finally even start a trial, which was historical. And after eight weeks, a jury found not only that Meta and YouTube were negligent, but that they were malicious in designing a platform that they knew was going to be harmful to the mental health of young people. And when you talked about, just then about that these companies knew and the way to kind of deal with this stuff is to find out what the companies themselves think. What did that discovery process throw up? Well, it threw up that the best data is the data that's compiled by the companies themselves.