415. Iran, Israel, and Trump: War in the Middle East

0:00Thanks for listening to The Rest Is Politics. Sign up to The Rest Is Politics plus to enjoy ad -free listening and receive a weekly newsletter. Join our members' chat room again early access to live show tickets. Just go to TheRestIsPolitics .com. That's TheRestIsPolitics .com.

0:16The Rest Is Politics is efficiently powered by fuse energy. If you've got an electric vehicle or if you're thinking about it, fuse has a smart tariff with overnight charging for only five pence a kilowatt hour. And that's now available on both Apple and Android app stores and works with a wide range of charges, no faf, no filibustering, no unexpected U -turns. So quite unlike politics, and you don't even need a PhD in engineering. You just plug in your EV before bed, and it'll be ready before the headlines hit your inbox. So if you need a charge installed, fuse will sort the hardware, the fitting, and the setup often in under a week.

0:51And when you sign up, you'll get the trip plus members' deal completely free. Add free listening, early access to question time, bonus episodes, and pre -sale tickets to our live shows. So while your car recharges your podcast feed, gets a power boost too. Just head to getfuse .com slash politics, download the app, and use the code Politics. Smart tariff, Swift installation, no white papers, green papers, or red tape required.

1:28Welcome to the rest of this politics with me, Rory Stewart. And me, Alistair Campbell. So Alistair, I think today we're going to focus on two things. The first is the Iran -Israel conflict, and what's going on there, how the West is responding, how Trump is responding, and what kind of danger this poses to the world. And the second is we're going to look at the recent report after the break on grooming gangs in the UK. What the story is about, the horror of these grooming gangs, and what the government's doing about it. Yeah. So Alistair, over to you maybe first on maybe a little bit of an update.

2:00On what happened since we did our emergency podcast on Friday, we're now recording on Tuesday morning. What's happened since in terms of the war between Israel and Iran? I think people understand that this is a really huge thing for the world. It's very hard to know where to start. Maybe we should start at the G7, because Donald Trump has dominated it. Day one, the news that came out to the G7 Canada was Trump arriving and immediately saying it was terrible that Putin wasn't there, which I think took a lot of people by surprise. And then by the end of the day, he was announcing that he was leaving.

2:32To go back, he indicated to get himself more properly, more fully engaged in what's going on between Iran and Israel. I think another place to start, just before we started recording Roy, I watched Benjamin Netanyahu's interview that he did last night with American TV, ABC News. And whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of what's going on, and we will without doubt come on to those. If you want to see an absolute masterclass in communication in a time of crisis and conflict, you have to hand it to him. The guy is appalling on so many levels, but I tell you, it was a brilliant, brilliant piece of communication.

3:16I don't know if you managed to see it if it Roy. I did. I did. You sent it to me and I watched a bit of that. And what did you? What were your impressions? So the first thing I think I picked up on that clip that you sent me, it's a 25 -minute interview, is that the interviewer begins immediately by saying, I hear Iran is reaching out, trying to push for peace through intermediaries. Have they reached out to you? Netanyahu says, no, but I'm not very surprised because of course they want to keep this fake negotiation going while they continue to develop their two existential threats of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons against Israel.

3:49And of course, we won't continue to tolerate because we're not at the whatever it is. We're not at the twelfth hour. This is the very last minute in this whole thing. So yes, as you say, frames the whole thing like that from beginning. Let's just quick update for listeners on what's happened. So people who listen to our reporter immediately after the first strikes will remember that the strikes began with Israel launching attacks which hit the major enrichment facility. That's the enrichment facility at Nantaz, which is where, and we can get into a bit of the technicalities about this, but that's where a lot of these central futures for enrichment are located.

4:27And then attacks against the most senior figures, particularly in the Iranian military and security. So killing the head of the armed forces, killing the head of senior assinments who do research into nuclear stuff. That was then followed by an Iranian response which hit buildings in Israel. And as of last night, I think the figures were that 224 people had been killed in Iran, 1400 injured, and 24 people had been killed in Israel with 600 injured. And the striking thing is despite threats from the Iranians, they have not attacked the US, and it's allies they've not attacked other Gulf states.

5:16So they haven't broadened the conflicts. And I suspect that it's because they want to make sure that this is very clearly them acting in self -defense against attacks from Israel responding to what's been done to them rather than broadening the conflict. Maybe the way to think of this is that Iran is trying to keep the United States sitting on the fence, whereas Israel is trying to make sure that America is very on -site. And the reason why I was so struck by that interview that Netanyahu gave, one was he did it with one of the channels that is not Fox News. It was ABC, the one that was recently in dispute with Trump.

5:54But he had several audiences. One of the audiences was Trump, and he was very flattering. He kept talking about Trump's amazing leadership in the first term and the importance of the Abrahamic chords, America's withers, Trump's withers, we have no greater ally. Obviously a major audience was the Israeli people for whom he invoked the spirit, the only mention of the Brit next to him is when he invoked the spirit of the Blitz in Britain. And that was what he was seeing amongst the Israeli people. He had an audience that was the Iranian leadership. And I think this business, this story that's doing the rounds that Netanyahu told Trump that they could take out the Ayatollah Khaminee, the supreme leader.

6:35And Trump said not to. I think that is a piece of absolutely amazing psychological warfare. And he continued with that. As you say, he also had these constant framing of this within a bigger battle in which Israel is basically fighting for the whole world. Now I know that there will be lots of people whose eyes will roll at that. But actually I felt that for those various audiences, he was signaling determination, strength constantly praising the operation, constantly praising his military and intelligence services who have done a pretty amazing job. And the other thing that made it very, very powerful is a piece of communication.

7:15And it just shows you had the agenda moves on. He wasn't asked a single question about Gaza. He wasn't asked a single question about the role of the ICJ, the International Criminal Court, which has indicted him in relation to Gaza. Not a single question about the United Nations or other countries views. Do you think this was agreed in advance with ABC, or do you think they would have been free to ask those questions if they wanted? I mean, because they got a pretty big scoop that they got an interview with Netanyahu in a hidden secret bunker. Yeah. So presumably these Israelis could say we're happy to do this, but you can't ask any questions about Gaza.

7:49They might be able to do that, but I'd be very surprised if ABC would go along with that. They might have done that and added to which, once you're into the interview, unless you've absolutely sold your soul, you can ask whatever questions you want. So when, for example, he framed it, this is a battle between good and evil. The interviewer would have been perfectly justified to come back and said, yes, but this is also a battle between international law and illegality. And you could have gotten to that way. So I'd be very surprised. I'd be very surprised. Yeah. Do you think I'd like to get on to one is the way in which this attack suddenly raises huge questions about what's going to happen in the Middle East.

8:29But the second one which you've tempted me into is this question about this very weird absence of focus on international law. What Israel has done would traditionally have been considered very, very dubious under international law. And in fact, from the point of view of many international lawyers entirely illegal. And people who want to read the international legal argument, there's a good piece of which we can share with subscribers written and guardian by an international law explaining why what Israel has done is illegal under international law. You can also see the statement from the international energy authority.

9:07So this is the UN's nuclear watchdog saying they are completely opposed to what Israel's done. So in the spirit, a Alistair of disagreeing I'm going to make the case for the mullers. Now, let me before I do this, just put on the record that I do not think there is a moral equivalence between Israel and Iran any more than I think there's a moral equivalence between the US and China. Orful though, truly awful though, the behavior of the US under Trump has been truly awful though, the behavior of Israel under Netanyahu has been. That doesn't make the moral equivalence. There are fundamental differences.

9:42Netanyahu is democratically elected in free fair elections by the Israeli people. There is a strong and dependent judiciary. There are changes in government. Iran is not like that. Iran is a proper autocratic, theocratic regime that funds hostile proxy terrorist groups around the world, oppresses its people is deeply unpopular. So let me just put that on record. But the point is not moral equivalence. The point is the legal argument. And the question with legal argument is Israel any more justified in attacking Iran in terms of international law than Iran would be in attacking Israel in terms of international law.

10:24And what do I mean by that? Well, the argument is about preemption. And the argument effectively is like a bar and brawl. If you think someone's going to punch you, you can punch them. But the only legal grounds for doing that is if you're very confident that they can punch you and that they're going to punch you, right? They need capacity and they need intent. In other words, if you're going after Iran, you need to prove that they are absolutely either have a nuclear weapon or about to get it. And they're about to fire it actually. Whereas in fact, the conclusion is that Iran is almost certainly 12 months, very best case scenario from the Iranian point of view, six months off getting a nuclear weapon.

10:59And there's so far no sense that there's any plan for them to drop it on top of Israel. Now let's put it the other way around. Preemption if you allow preemption of this sort of what Israel's just done. What is to stop hisbalah and Iran saying we have pretty good reason to believe Israel's going to attack us. And indeed, they would have been right to say that because Israel certainly has attacked them. And in the case of hisbalah, basically wiped them out. And therefore, in order to stop them back to the bar and brawl and to stop them, punch us, we're going to punch them first. In other words, what would be to stop them immediately after October the 7th launching every missile that hisbalah had in Lebanon and every missile that Iran had against Israel saying we're doing it because if we don't do it now, and if we sit tight, Israel's going to attack us.

11:45Oh Lord, Rorya, I think you've just slightly made the Israelis case for them there. Well, what do you mean by that? Because let me let me sort of get into a grip of this agreement here because what actually happened after October the 7th is that for whatever reason, and partly because there was a lot of US pressure on him, hisbalah were convinced not to release what were estimated at about 100 ,000 missiles which they had in Lebanon against Israel. And Israel went for that. They were convinced to hold back and they were told if you hold back, we'll restrain Israel. Some missiles came over, but many, I've tiny fraction of what they had.

12:19Again, Iran was convinced to stay out of that war. They did not do what Hamas once hid which was to follow up an attack Israel. And again, they were convinced not to do it because they were worried that if they did it in both cases, Israel would respond. Where the Americans support? The lesson they will have drawn is that by not using their missiles when they had the opportunity to do so, they just gave Israel time to organize themselves and attack them. So the real preemptive strike to defend yourself if it's completely justified in international law to attack an enemy before they attack you.

12:52Logically, they should have attacked Israel before they were attacked. Okay, I get that. So I fear incoming messages from those in Israel who tend to criticise as override discussions these things. So there's me explaining what an extraordinary piece of communication Benjamin Naniah who's interviewed with ABC was and there's you voluntarily basically saying you're putting the case for the madmullars as BB calls them. Exactly. And the one thing that is interesting in Israel is that even the most liberal Israelis, you know, even I was talking to Josh Hamal was just talking about this in relation to seeing somebody who's a Bernie Sanders supporter on the far left of Israeli politics being very strongly in favor of attacking Iran.

13:37I mean, the one big consensus in Israeli society is that Iran is an existential threat and should be hit. This is very popular within Israel. I don't think I did see this week, which I and I'd be interested in you will take on whether you think that the Americans and the Israelis care about this. It was a huge survey by something called Arab barometer which tries to assess public opinion across the Arab world. And it interestingly, obviously lots of hostility to Naniah who have a Gaza, lots of hostility to America. Basically though, accepts the right of Israel, but most respondents says recognisers' rules right to exist.

14:17But what has happened is that the favorability of United States, Britain, France is seeing a very, very, very substantial decline across the Arab world. I mean, really big numbers. So, I mean, I just don't know whether the politics of this in the region, we don't maybe understand the extent to which it doesn't matter in this context. The Arab barometer's headline was, you know, it was the sort of the unspoken piece of this, Jigsaw street Arab opinion about where this was going. Yeah, I mean, it is incredible the change that's happened, I think. And I think there's also a sense of I was just watching Obama's 2008 speech to APAC to the Israeli lobbying organization, US, in which he proclaims that the total unbreakable, unquestionable US support for Israel, whether a democratic candidate like Obama, 20 years later would talk in that language after what's happened.

15:17That's what I'm not quite sure. I mean, is what's happening Gaza actually in the end going to be something that in the longer term will make it more and more difficult for people to stand up and say what Obama sent 2008, which is effectively there is nothing that Israel could ever do. They could do anything. Almost by implication, they could drop a nuclear bomb on someone we would still support Israel for the end. Just give you one point from this. One point of this survey, 84 % of Q80s said they boycotted companies that support Israel. 62 % have made donations to support the people of Gaza. 40 % say they've shared pro -Pastening messages on social media, 22 % have participated in public activities in solid narrative with the Guarasons.

15:57And of course, in a lot of these countries, protest is kind of, you know, quite difficult to organize. So I do think that this one thing that doesn't get much play, which we should occasionally keep our eyes on is what real public opinion in the Arab world is saying. The other point, which I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for people to make is if it is so abhorrent the idea that another country Iran in this case should have a nuclear weapon. Why does nobie have a question, Israel's position of nuclear weapons. That's used to be to be not even a part of the thinking here. And I know this is really getting into dangerous ground.

16:33But again, would it have been legitimate for Iran to attack Israel at the moment when Israel was developing its nuclear weapon? Would it have been legitimate if they had got information that Israel was about to create a nuclear weapon to attack those facilities before that nuclear weapon was created? Would it have been legitimate for Pakistan to launch attacks on India when India was building its nuclear weapon? Or for India to launch attacks on Pakistan when Pakistan was building its nuclear weapon? Would it been legitimate for the West to attack China when China was developing its nuclear weapon?

17:08Would it have been legitimate for China Russia to have attack Britain and France when they were developing their nuclear weapons. Are we in a world where we're saying that anybody developing a nuclear weapon is fair game and can be attacked? Or are we saying if our enemies develop a nuclear weapon, they're fair game, but if there are allies, it's absolutely fine. The answer to the question ought to be resolved by international law. I think the problem that we're wrestling with here is that the international institutions have been deliberately fundamentally undermined. We've talked a lot about how the United Nations has become virtue dysfunctional because of the major powers, the five permanent members, Russia and China, Vito, anything that America and Britain want to do.

17:52And now America undermining the United Nations, basically from day one, from term two, it wasn't that fond of it in term one, but undermining it term two. And then the other two, of course, are the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. So the post war, the Second World War, the post war order has been eroded. And by the way, I think Trump welcomes that. I thought it was fascinating yesterday. Let's just wind back a little bit to the G7. We'll come back to Iran Israel. But just think about this, he goes to the G7. America is clearly the biggest power within the G7.

18:28And the literally the very first thing he does is to complain that Russia was expelled. And he doesn't set the context of the fact that Russia invaded Crimea and that led to the expulsion. He basically just said, it really pissed off Putin. Brackets unspoken, so no one agrees going for Ukraine. And then day two, let's be honest, why has he left early? He may argue because Iran is rarely has to get more involved, etc. The truth is, you can do that from anywhere. Yes, it's better if you've got the people in the room, but you've got the communications you can do it from anywhere. I think he was deliberately saying, you lot don't matter as much as I do.

19:08I think he was saying that, I'm here for a bit, I'm causing you a bit of grief. I'm now going to go. I'm going to say nice things about you all as I go. But frankly, for the rest of the day, you're going to sit around thinking, what should we talk about now? So I think it's a deliberate undermining of any international institution. So the nation state can behave with impunity. So I've talked a little bit about the legal question. There's an ethical question, obviously, it's a moral question about when it's legitimate to do things and when it isn't. But there's also a practical point. Many listeners will strongly support what is railed and will be strongly opposed to Iran.

19:44And let me again re -emphasize, the Iranian regime is a horrifying, illegitimate regime hated by the vast majority of its people imposing extremely repressive, theocratic vision of the world through a horrifying police state. I know that. I walked across Iran. I was sometimes arrested or detained six or seven times in a day by different times of intelligence and security forces and Iran. It's a very sinister country. But the practical problem is that if you say international law doesn't really matter. So we don't care what the international criminal court says. We don't care what the international court of justice says, which is effectively what Israel is saying about rulings on what they're doing in Gaza, right?

20:28On the West Bank. On the West Bank. So the attempts to try to investigate what they're doing in terms of international law and the West Bank Gaza is completely rejected. And the US agrees with that. If you take that line, that makes for a much, much more dangerous world. Because of course, the obvious point is when you're allies are doing it, when Israel's doing it, when the US is doing it, it all seems fine. But what happens when everybody else starts doing it? So remember, the last people to claim preemptive rights, under I think it's article 50 of the UN defending themselves to just find attack, were Russia against Ukraine.

21:02That's what Putin said to the UN. He was doing what Lavrov said in his speech. He said Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russia. And therefore we are invading Ukraine. What will then follow on from that? Well, look at Africa. Ethiopia has got a longstanding claim to help itself to Eritrea. China obviously has a big claim to Taiwan. And that's just the beginning of things. If you completely give up on the idea that there's a rules based international order, if everything just becomes might as right. And if you think that your neighbor is any former threat to you, the only question is not should you do it, but can you do it?

21:40Which is where this debate is? And look, this isn't just the US. This isn't just Israel. There was basically as soon as Israel mounted this attack, the response from France and Germany was immediate condemnation of Iran, immediate condemnation of Iran. And I think Australia, our friend Albanese government, came out and said that everything that Israel had done was in accordance with international law. I don't know any international lawyer who believes that. Most they'd say it's ambiguous. The law of preemptions is getting dubious. The only leader of the G7 countries that came out critical at all of Israel was the Japanese.

22:17The other thing I think it's worth just reminding people, because of course, unsurprisingly, a lot of the arguments that we are now having were the arguments in a way that we took for granted at the time of the Iraq war. Now, I know that people who thought we did the wrong thing will roll the rise at that because in the whole Dominic, you didn't follow international law, because lots of people believe that. But actually, if you go back to that time, both us and the Americans admittedly under some girae, were absolutely determined to try to go down the United Nations route. And the argument, it is true, one of the arguments that we use at the time, that we believe that there was a genuine threat from Saddam Hussein, continue to develop weapons of mass destruction.

23:01And we all know that what flow from that. But that was one of the arguments. So ultimately, that went to the argument of regime change. And what you have here is essentially, there has been no attempt to keep the international community on board. There's not even really, we still don't fully know whether Donald Trump gave the green light to this or not. We both think that he probably didn't, and that he had his hand forced by Netanyahu. And I think, again, going back to this interview, if you want to see somebody who's absolutely putting drive and conviction at the heart of everything he says, it is there.

23:37Meanwhile, there's an issue 20 odd years on where we still debate it, still get criticized for it and so forth. But just to go into Israel, so you mentioned what's happening in Gaza. The, I think it was last January 2024, that the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, found evidence of what they called that Palestinians in Gaza were at risk of genocide. And they set out a number of measures that they asked Israel to implement to prevent that from developing. They didn't do it. May last year, they issued another ruling, ordering Israel to halt the military operation in Raffa, and also a calling on them to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations to get into the Gaza Strip.

24:24And then another advisory opinion, I think that was in July, certainly sometime around the summer, and then eventually that led to the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the then -defensiveness to Gantt. Now, they all failed. So what you see now, and this is my point about why this interview was so kind of interesting, that's probably the first time that ABC had done a long interview with Netanyahu since any of this, but none of it got raised. None of it got raised. Whereas I'll guarantee you, if totally Blair or I were doing an interview with most media organizations now about the Middle East, at some point we would get asked to justify what we did 20 years ago.

25:03So I think you've made a very interesting point, which is that whatever went wrong 22 years ago, the debate was still absolutely emashed in questions of international law. It was presentations to the Security Council. It was endless consultations with lawyers, endless attempts to try to make a strong illegal case as possible. Now, people would say you pushed it too far, that legal case didn't quite add up, but my goodness that was the focus, an enormous amount of energy went into it because people still believes in our rules -based order. What's interesting now is that the last group of people who should believe in this, which is the Europeans, seem to have abandoned it.