Latest / UK Column Radio / Drawn Into The Wider War

Transcript

Drawn Into The Wider War · UK Column Radio

0:08
Speaker 1: Since the apparently unprovoked and unlawful attacks made by Israel
0:12
Speaker 1: and the United States on Iran. Since the end of
0:15
Speaker 1: February of this year, the Starmer administration has clung to
0:19
Speaker 1: the increasingly fragile narrative that any British activity concerning the
0:25
Speaker 1: actions by Israel and the United States is for defensive
0:29
Speaker 1: reasons only, and indeed that the United Kingdom will not
0:33
Speaker 1: be drawn into the wider war. This report seeks to
0:37
Speaker 1: interrogate that narrative, to ask specifically what is meant by
0:41
Speaker 1: the wider war and how much is the United Kingdom
0:45
Speaker 1: being drawn into it. We go, first of all, back
0:49
Speaker 1: to that weekend in late February early March when the
0:53
Speaker 1: action started. And these are the words of the very
0:56
Speaker 1: uncertain Defense Secretary John Healey, who was sent into bat
1:00
Speaker 1: against Laura Kunsburg of the BBC.
1:03
Speaker 2: Do you back what America and Israel have done. It's
1:06
Speaker 2: been condemned by the United Nations, Many countries have said
1:09
Speaker 2: it's illegal. Some of your colleagues have said it is illegal.
1:12
Speaker 2: Does the government back what they've done?
1:15
Speaker 3: Britain played no part in the strikes on Iran. We share, however,
1:20
Speaker 3: the primary aim of all allies in the region and
1:24
Speaker 3: the US that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon.
1:28
Speaker 2: Do you believe this action was within international law?
1:33
Speaker 3: Well, we played no part in the strikes. We just
1:36
Speaker 3: didn't participate, and it is for the US to set
1:39
Speaker 3: out the legal basis of the action that it took.
1:43
Speaker 1: Unsure of his brief, Heale was pressed further and this
1:47
Speaker 1: is all he could come up with.
1:49
Speaker 2: You don't know if it's legal. You don't have a
1:52
Speaker 2: view of sure whether or not these strikes were the
1:54
Speaker 2: right thing to do and within international law.
1:56
Speaker 3: So it's for the US to explain the legal basis.
1:58
Speaker 3: They're operating afrigetly.
2:01
Speaker 2: Other important allies of the UK have so Canada for example,
2:04
Speaker 2: Australia for example, close allies of viewers and of this
2:08
Speaker 2: countries have both said explicitly that they do back what
2:13
Speaker 2: America and Israel have done. And you're taking a different position.
2:18
Speaker 3: So I'm here as a British Defense secretary. Our first
2:23
Speaker 3: focus and all our action is defensive. It's within international law.
2:27
Speaker 3: It's coordinated with regional allies to make sure that we
2:31
Speaker 3: can reinforce and protect not just our UK personnel and people,
2:35
Speaker 3: but UK allies bases and partners in the region and
2:40
Speaker 3: we share that long term aim. We sure that determination
2:43
Speaker 3: that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon.
2:46
Speaker 2: And an answer to the question of whether or not
2:49
Speaker 2: you back these dramatic some would say audacious and courageous,
2:54
Speaker 2: some would say reckless and dangerous actions by America and Israel.
2:59
Speaker 2: Do you think think it was reckless or do you
3:01
Speaker 2: think it was right?
3:03
Speaker 3: Look, we played no part in these strikes as Britain,
3:08
Speaker 3: we can look that, we've said that already.
3:10
Speaker 2: But Secutary of State, this is a moment of history
3:12
Speaker 2: and everyone watching this morning will want to know, and
3:15
Speaker 2: we'll expect to know from their government. Is Britain on
3:19
Speaker 2: the side of those two countries who have killed Iran's
3:23
Speaker 2: supreme leader.
3:24
Speaker 3: So I think people watching, people like Fiona, will want
3:28
Speaker 3: to know now today that Britain is on top of
3:31
Speaker 3: what's necessary to do what we can to keep them safe,
3:36
Speaker 3: to reinforce regional stability, prevent further escalation. And that's my
3:41
Speaker 3: task and that's my priority.
3:43
Speaker 1: It wasn't until Monday in the House of Commons that
3:46
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister made a statement to the House in
3:49
Speaker 1: an attempt to join up the various dots of his narrative. Well,
3:54
Speaker 1: listen now to how he opened that speech.
3:58
Speaker 4: Mister Speaker of the United Kingdom, was not involved in
4:01
Speaker 4: the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel.
4:05
Speaker 4: That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way
4:10
Speaker 4: forward for the region and for the world is a
4:13
Speaker 4: negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any
4:18
Speaker 4: aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilizing
4:23
Speaker 4: activity across the region. President Trump has expressed his disagreement
4:28
Speaker 4: with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes,
4:33
Speaker 4: but it is my duty to judge what is in
4:36
Speaker 4: Britain's national interest. That is what I've done, and I
4:41
Speaker 4: stand by it. But mister Speaker, it is clear that
4:46
Speaker 4: Iran's outrageous response has become a threat to our people,
4:52
Speaker 4: our interests, and our allies, and it cannot be ignored.
4:58
Speaker 4: Iran has lashed out across the region. They've launched hundreds
5:02
Speaker 4: of missiles and thousands of drones at countries which did
5:07
Speaker 4: not attack them.
5:09
Speaker 1: There was a clear effort made at this point to
5:11
Speaker 1: conflate many different issues, but among them, the two most
5:15
Speaker 1: prominent were the idea that Iran presents a threat to
5:18
Speaker 1: other nations via a supposed nuclear capability, and of course
5:23
Speaker 1: the other one being that it is a state threat
5:27
Speaker 1: to the United Kingdom via actors that it might be
5:30
Speaker 1: employing within the United Kingdom. These are two things that
5:34
Speaker 1: we were going to pick apart.
5:36
Speaker 4: Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than
5:39
Speaker 4: twenty potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which,
5:44
Speaker 4: mister speaker, we have foiled. So it's clear the Uranian
5:49
Speaker 4: regime must never be allowed to get their hands on
5:52
Speaker 4: nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United
5:57
Speaker 4: Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately this
6:02
Speaker 4: will have to be achieved other the negotiating table.
6:06
Speaker 1: With confusion and conflation high on the agenda. It's important
6:10
Speaker 1: to consider that Starmer had only referred to the United
6:13
Speaker 1: States and not the actions of Israel. Now we will
6:17
Speaker 1: go back to the point in time where Marco Rubio,
6:21
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State for the United States administration, describes
6:25
Speaker 1: what happened at the outset of the conflict.
6:29
Speaker 5: If we stood and waited for that attack to come
6:31
Speaker 5: first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties.
6:36
Speaker 5: And so the President made the very wise decision. We
6:39
Speaker 5: knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.
6:41
Speaker 5: We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces,
6:44
Speaker 5: and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after
6:47
Speaker 5: them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher
6:50
Speaker 5: casualties and perhaps even those killed, and then we would
6:53
Speaker 5: all be here answering questions about why we knew that
6:55
Speaker 5: and did an act.
6:56
Speaker 1: In light of those remarks by Rubio, we'll take a
6:59
Speaker 1: look at those may by Benjamin mcnyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister,
7:03
Speaker 1: on the imminent threat posed by Iran's current nuclear program,
7:08
Speaker 1: not just this year and last year, but going back
7:10
Speaker 1: through the decades.
7:12
Speaker 6: If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in
7:16
Speaker 6: a very short time.
7:17
Speaker 7: It could be a year, it could be within a
7:19
Speaker 7: few months.
7:21
Speaker 8: They have the wherewithal, the stored up preserved knowledge to
7:25
Speaker 8: make a bomb very quickly if they wanted.
7:28
Speaker 7: To do it.
7:28
Speaker 8: The Iran is so dangerous weeks away from having the
7:32
Speaker 8: fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.
7:37
Speaker 9: They're very close.
7:37
Speaker 8: They're six months away from being about ninety percent of
7:40
Speaker 8: having the rich uranium for an atom bomb.
7:42
Speaker 10: Iran is gearing up to have to produce twenty five
7:45
Speaker 10: bombs atomic bombs a year, two hundred and fifty bombs
7:48
Speaker 10: in a decade.
7:49
Speaker 7: Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out. Iran will be
7:53
Speaker 7: capable of producing alone.
7:56
Speaker 4: Without importing anything nuclear bombs within three to five years.
8:00
Speaker 1: Given the absence of evidence, it would be appropriate to
8:02
Speaker 1: regard this as propaganda. Propaganda of course, that has also
8:06
Speaker 1: been promulgated by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office here
8:09
Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom. So we look back to the
8:12
Speaker 1: news program from the twelfth of February twenty twenty five
8:15
Speaker 1: and the remarks of Hamish Faulkner. The suggestion of any
8:18
Speaker 1: kind of threat has meant increasingly looking toward Iran. As
8:23
Speaker 1: reported at the time, both Mark Rowley and Ken McCallum,
8:27
Speaker 1: respective heads of the Met Police and mi I five,
8:30
Speaker 1: made completely unsubstantiated remarks about the state threat posed by Iran.
8:36
Speaker 1: Last year, this has been stepped up and not recently,
8:39
Speaker 1: with the very close parallels to the fabrication of the
8:42
Speaker 1: war narrative by the Blair government in two thousand and
8:45
Speaker 1: two and two thousand and three. Hamish Faulconer, Minister for
8:49
Speaker 1: the Middle East and North Africa responded to questions put
8:53
Speaker 1: to him on Iran on the fourteenth of January of
8:55
Speaker 1: this year, saying we are working urgently on measures to
9:00
Speaker 1: take the necessary action to deter the Iranian state from
9:03
Speaker 1: posing a threat to this country and the region. He
9:07
Speaker 1: goes on to say, it is regrettably true that Iran's
9:11
Speaker 1: nuclear program has never been more advanced and it threatens
9:16
Speaker 1: international peace and security. The media, in all its many forms,
9:21
Speaker 1: is a critical support to any successful propaganda campaign, and
9:25
Speaker 1: it should absolutely not be regarded as coincidental that this
9:28
Speaker 1: clip from Top Gun Maverick shows Tom Cruise describing a
9:32
Speaker 1: plan that was in effect put into place by the
9:35
Speaker 1: United States as part of the Iran has nuclear weapons narrative.
9:40
Speaker 1: We'll just take a look at how that unfolded.
9:43
Speaker 9: The target.
9:46
Speaker 10: Is an unsanctioned uranium and richment plant built in violation
9:50
Speaker 10: of a multilateral NATO treaty. The Uranian produce there represents
9:53
Speaker 10: a direct threat to where allies in the region. I'm
9:56
Speaker 10: planed to ganas task us with assembling a strike team
9:59
Speaker 10: and taking it out before it becomes fully operational.
10:03
Speaker 7: The plant sits in an underground bunker.
10:05
Speaker 10: At the end of this Valley said, Valley is GPS
10:08
Speaker 10: jammed and defended by an extensive surface to our missile
10:11
Speaker 10: array serving a limited number of fifth generation fighters, which
10:14
Speaker 10: in turn are backed up by a plentiful reserve of
10:17
Speaker 10: surplus aircraft, even a few old at fourteen's.
10:21
Speaker 9: Seems like we're not the only ones holding on to
10:22
Speaker 9: old relics.
10:25
Speaker 7: What's your read, Captain.
10:28
Speaker 11: Well Sir? Normally this would be a cakewalk for the
10:32
Speaker 11: thirty five stealth, but GPS jamming the gatestat a surface
10:35
Speaker 11: to air threat necessitates a low level laser guided strike
10:39
Speaker 11: tailor made for the F eighteen I F figure two
10:42
Speaker 11: precision bombs minimum makes it four aircraft flying in pairs.
10:47
Speaker 11: There is one hell of a steep climb out of there,
10:49
Speaker 11: exposing it all the surface to air missiles. When you
10:53
Speaker 11: survived that, it's a dog fight on the way home.
10:57
Speaker 1: Now, the reason that this is significant is that the
10:59
Speaker 1: United States, it appears to believe it's own propaganda. And
11:02
Speaker 1: we will look at the way in which Talsey Gabbard,
11:05
Speaker 1: the American Director of National Intelligence, was questioned on this
11:09
Speaker 1: very issue and exactly what did or did not constitute
11:13
Speaker 1: an imminent threat to the United States.
11:17
Speaker 9: Under the law, you are responsible for providing national intelligence
11:20
Speaker 9: to the President. Correct yes, And to the heads of
11:24
Speaker 9: executive branch departments and agencies. Yes, yes, And to the
11:28
Speaker 9: chairman of ad joint chiefs and senior military commanders across
11:32
Speaker 9: the ices, and to the Senate and the House and
11:35
Speaker 9: relevant committees. Correct.
11:37
Speaker 1: Yes.
11:37
Speaker 9: And the law states that the national intelligence you provide
11:40
Speaker 9: to Congress quote should be timely, objective, and independent of
11:44
Speaker 9: political considerations. Correct.
11:45
Speaker 10: Yes.
11:47
Speaker 9: And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling
11:49
Speaker 9: a statutory responsibility and that your testimony quote represents the
11:53
Speaker 9: IC's assessment of threats. Correct. That opening statement, as submitted
11:59
Speaker 9: to the committee in advance of this hearing, stated that
12:01
Speaker 9: as a result of last summer's air strikes quote, Iran's
12:06
Speaker 9: nuclear enrichment program was obliterated end quote. Correct. And is that,
12:11
Speaker 9: in fact the assessment of the intelligence community. So the
12:15
Speaker 9: assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment
12:18
Speaker 9: program was obliterated by last summer's air strikes. Yes. And
12:23
Speaker 9: the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night
12:25
Speaker 9: also stated, quote, there has been no efforts since then
12:29
Speaker 9: to try to rebuild their enrichment capability end quote correct, right,
12:32
Speaker 9: and that's the assessment of the intelligence community. Yes, the
12:36
Speaker 9: White House stated on March first of this year that
12:39
Speaker 9: this war was launched and was quote a military campaign
12:43
Speaker 9: to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.
12:47
Speaker 9: End quote. That's a statement from the White House. Quote
12:51
Speaker 9: the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Was
12:55
Speaker 9: it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was
12:58
Speaker 9: an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
13:03
Speaker 12: The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to
13:07
Speaker 12: rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment.
13:11
Speaker 9: Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there
13:14
Speaker 9: was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.
13:17
Speaker 9: Yes or no.
13:18
Speaker 12: Senator, the only person who can determine and what is
13:21
Speaker 12: and is not an imminent threat is the president.
13:23
Speaker 9: False. This is this is the Worldwide Threats Hearing where
13:26
Speaker 9: you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent
13:31
Speaker 9: of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's
13:36
Speaker 9: assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, and
13:40
Speaker 9: that quote there had been no efforts since then to
13:42
Speaker 9: try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence
13:47
Speaker 9: community's assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a
13:53
Speaker 9: quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Yes
13:56
Speaker 9: or no?
13:56
Speaker 12: It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what
14:00
Speaker 12: is and is not an imminent threat.
14:02
Speaker 7: That is up.
14:02
Speaker 9: Here's the problem volume it is. It is precisely, it
14:06
Speaker 9: is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat
14:11
Speaker 9: to the United States. This is the Worldwide Threats Hearing.
14:15
Speaker 9: Where As you noted in your opening testimony, quote you
14:20
Speaker 9: represent the ICs assessment of threats. You are here to
14:25
Speaker 9: represent the ICs assessment of threats. That's a quote from
14:30
Speaker 9: your own opening statement. And so my question is, as
14:34
Speaker 9: you're here to present the ICs assessment of threats, was
14:39
Speaker 9: it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the
14:43
Speaker 9: White House claimed on March first, there was a quote
14:46
Speaker 9: imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Guess or no?
14:50
Speaker 12: Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs
14:56
Speaker 12: that make up this annual threat assessment. You want to
14:58
Speaker 12: answer the question nature of the imminent threat that the
15:01
Speaker 12: President has to make that determination based on a collection
15:05
Speaker 12: and volume.
15:05
Speaker 9: You're here at.
15:06
Speaker 12: Information Intelligence that he is created with You're here.
15:09
Speaker 9: To be timely, objective and independent of political consideration.
15:13
Speaker 12: Exactly what I'm doing.
15:15
Speaker 9: No, you're evading a question, because to provide a candid
15:18
Speaker 9: response to the committee would contradict a statement from the
15:23
Speaker 9: White House.
15:24
Speaker 1: If Gobalt's performance seems at best confusing and contradictory, to
15:29
Speaker 1: set the context, it would be worth considering the remarks
15:32
Speaker 1: made by General Wesley Clark in two thousand and seven
15:36
Speaker 1: in relation to a conversation he had back in nineteen
15:39
Speaker 1: ninety one.
15:40
Speaker 13: He said, but one thing we did learn, he said,
15:42
Speaker 13: We learned that we can use our military in the region,
15:46
Speaker 13: in the Middle Aged and the Soviets won't stop us,
15:49
Speaker 13: he said, And we've got about five or ten years
15:53
Speaker 13: to clean up those old Soviet client regimes Shiria, Iran,
16:00
Speaker 13: Iraq before the next great superpower comes on to challenges.
16:06
Speaker 13: And it was like, you know, I'm coming out of
16:09
Speaker 13: the Mojave Desert. I've been training troops, i haven't been
16:13
Speaker 13: thinking geo strategy for some time, and suddenly a guy
16:16
Speaker 13: just sort of shoves this nugget at you. Well, you
16:19
Speaker 13: remember it. It was a pretty stunning thing. You mean,
16:22
Speaker 13: the purpose of the military is to start wars and
16:25
Speaker 13: change governments. It's not to sort of deter conflict. We're
16:29
Speaker 13: gonna invade countries. And you know, my mind was spinning,
16:33
Speaker 13: and I put that aside. It was like a nugget
16:35
Speaker 13: that you hold onto. This country was taken over by
16:41
Speaker 13: a group of people with a policy coup. Wolf of
16:44
Speaker 13: Wits and Cheney and Rumsfeld and if you could name
16:51
Speaker 13: a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for a
16:54
Speaker 13: New American Century. They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East,
17:00
Speaker 13: turn it upside down, make it under our control. It
17:06
Speaker 13: went back to those comments in nineteen ninety one. Now,
17:09
Speaker 13: dB I ever tell you that was there a national
17:12
Speaker 13: dialogue on this? Did senators and congressmen stand up and
17:15
Speaker 13: denounce this plan? Was there a full fledged American debate
17:18
Speaker 13: on it? Absolutely not, and there still isn't. And that's
17:24
Speaker 13: why we're failing in Iraq, because Iran and Syria know
17:30
Speaker 13: about the plan.
17:32
Speaker 1: Crossing the Atlantic back to the United Kingdom. It would
17:34
Speaker 1: be worth considering Clark's remarks in relation to the threat
17:38
Speaker 1: update given by head of mi I five the Security Service,
17:42
Speaker 1: Ken McCullum in October twenty twenty five, and in particular
17:47
Speaker 1: on the issue of state threats, in which he said,
17:51
Speaker 1: turning now to state threats, I spoke twelve months ago
17:55
Speaker 1: about rising aggression on UK soil. Data on Five Lives
18:00
Speaker 1: operations extends that worsening trend. State threats are escalating. In
18:05
Speaker 1: the last year. We've seen a thirty five percent increase
18:08
Speaker 1: in the number of individuals we're investigating for involvement in
18:12
Speaker 1: state threat activity. That means espionage, including against our parliament,
18:17
Speaker 1: our universities, our critical infrastructure. But now states are also
18:22
Speaker 1: consistently descending into ugly methods. MI five is more used
18:27
Speaker 1: to seeing in our terrorism casework. My teams are routinely
18:31
Speaker 1: uncovering attempts by state actors to commission surveillance, sabotage, arson
18:36
Speaker 1: or physical violence. Right here in the UK. We're dealing
18:41
Speaker 1: with these threats every day. We wish we weren't, but
18:45
Speaker 1: we're rising to the challenge now. McCullum's threat updates should
18:50
Speaker 1: not be considered in isolation, because, of course it is
18:52
Speaker 1: absolutely there to bolster the legitimacy of the National Security
18:56
Speaker 1: Act twenty twenty five, and in particular the Foreign Influence
19:00
Speaker 1: Registration Scheme, which at its very heart is making a
19:04
Speaker 1: target of Iran. McCullum, in his threat update went on
19:08
Speaker 1: to say this about Iran Now to Iran, Iran's autocratic
19:13
Speaker 1: regime is likewise frantically trying to silence its opponents around
19:17
Speaker 1: the world, including in the UK. Twenty twenty five has
19:21
Speaker 1: required MI five to grow our counter Iran effort once again.
19:26
Speaker 1: Mi I five has tracked more than twenty potentially lethal
19:29
Speaker 1: Iran backed plots in just the one year since I
19:33
Speaker 1: last stood at this podium. The UK was among the
19:36
Speaker 1: first to call out this wave of Iranian transnational aggression.
19:40
Speaker 1: But we are far from alone. The points made by
19:43
Speaker 1: McCullum are built on by his counterpart at MI six,
19:47
Speaker 1: the Secret Intelligence Service, the newly installed Blaze Metroueli, speaking
19:52
Speaker 1: last year shortly after her new appointment. Of course worth
19:55
Speaker 1: noting that she is the granddaughter of a known Nazi
19:58
Speaker 1: collaborator and as a Matroweli that pointed towards the whole
20:03
Speaker 1: of society response against the looming specter of war.
20:08
Speaker 14: But the response to the increasing risks we face won't
20:11
Speaker 14: be delivered by the UK intelligence community alone.
20:14
Speaker 10: Why doer.
20:14
Speaker 14: Society has a role to play too. That includes work
20:18
Speaker 14: taking place in schools across the country so our children
20:22
Speaker 14: don't get duped by information manipulation. Let's all check sources,
20:27
Speaker 14: consider evidence, and be alive to those algorithms that trigger
20:30
Speaker 14: intense reactions like fear. It also means everyone in society
20:36
Speaker 14: really understanding the world. We're in a world where terrorists
20:40
Speaker 14: plot against us, where our enemies fearmonger, bully, and manipulate,
20:45
Speaker 14: and the front line is everywhere online, on our streets,
20:51
Speaker 14: in our supply chains, in the minds and on the
20:54
Speaker 14: screens of our citizens. We must all stand together against this.
21:00
Speaker 1: Both the Strategic Defense Review and the National Security Strategy
21:05
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five are prefixed on exactly this looming threat,
21:10
Speaker 1: and of course the response suggested by both documents incorporates
21:14
Speaker 1: what's described as a whole of society approach, and it's
21:19
Speaker 1: here that the door is opened to conscription. Now in
21:23
Speaker 1: considering conscription, of course, our eyes are turned back to
21:26
Speaker 1: the armed forces of the United Kingdom, and therefore back
21:29
Speaker 1: to that period in early March where the Starmer administration
21:33
Speaker 1: was deciding exactly what to say and what not to
21:36
Speaker 1: say about the involvement of the armed forces in the
21:39
Speaker 1: conflict with regard to Iran.
21:42
Speaker 4: Aims to speaker, Our armed forces are also being put
21:46
Speaker 4: at risk by Iran's actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a
21:52
Speaker 4: military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were
21:57
Speaker 4: three hundred British personnel on the base, some within a
22:01
Speaker 4: few hundred yards of the stripe. Last night, a drone
22:07
Speaker 4: hit Rif Acriteriri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in
22:12
Speaker 4: this strike. Mister speaker, it is important for me to
22:16
Speaker 4: say that our basis in Cyprus are not being used
22:22
Speaker 4: by US bombers. I want to be clear the strike
22:26
Speaker 4: on Rif Acreteri and Cyprus was not in response to
22:31
Speaker 4: any decision that we have taken in our assessment. In
22:36
Speaker 4: our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement.
22:42
Speaker 4: Iran's aggression towards Britain and our interests is longstanding, and
22:47
Speaker 4: that's why we've always ensured that protections for British basis
22:51
Speaker 4: and personnel are at their highest level.
22:54
Speaker 1: Kist Arma attempted to walk the line between adhering to
22:58
Speaker 1: a defensive posture whilst at the same time committing elements
23:03
Speaker 1: of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force to
23:06
Speaker 1: tasks described as collective self defense. In the name of
23:11
Speaker 1: British interests and alliances and partnerships across the Middle East region.
23:17
Speaker 4: Moreover, it is my duty, the highest duty of my office,
23:22
Speaker 4: to protect British lives. That is why we put British
23:28
Speaker 4: jets in the air, typhoons and F thirty fives as
23:32
Speaker 4: part of coordinated defensive operations which have already successfully intercepted
23:38
Speaker 4: Iranian strikes, including mister Speaker taking out Wondrobe that was
23:43
Speaker 4: heading towards a coalition base in Iraq housing UK service personnel.
23:50
Speaker 4: I want to pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and
23:53
Speaker 4: women putting themselves in harm's way to keep others safe.
23:58
Speaker 4: And I know the whole house will join me in
24:00
Speaker 4: expressing our gratitude and our respect. But mister Speaker, it
24:05
Speaker 4: is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile
24:09
Speaker 4: and every drone after they've been launched. The only way
24:13
Speaker 4: to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source,
24:18
Speaker 4: in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US
24:23
Speaker 4: requested permission to use British basis for that specific and
24:28
Speaker 4: limited defensive purpose because they had the capabilities to do so.
24:36
Speaker 4: Yesterday evening we took the decision to accept that new
24:40
Speaker 4: request in order to prevent irun firing missiles across the region,
24:45
Speaker 4: killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk, and hitting
24:50
Speaker 4: countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the
24:55
Speaker 4: use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes.
25:01
Speaker 4: We are not joining the US and Israeli offensive strikes.
25:09
Speaker 4: The basis for our decision is the collective self defense
25:14
Speaker 4: of long standing friends and allies and protecting British lives.
25:19
Speaker 4: It is in accordance with international law, and we produced
25:23
Speaker 4: a summary of our legal advice which clearly sets this out.
25:27
Speaker 4: We will keep the decision under review.
25:31
Speaker 1: A critical part of qualifying or justifying his actions and
25:35
Speaker 1: decisions seem to be the most explicit acknowledgment to date
25:41
Speaker 1: of the unlawful nature of the Blair government's action in
25:45
Speaker 1: Iraq in two thousand and three. Just listen to what
25:49
Speaker 1: Starmer had to say about that.
25:51
Speaker 4: Mister Speaker, we all remember the mistakes of Iraq and
25:56
Speaker 4: we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always
26:03
Speaker 4: have a lawful basis and a viable thought through planned.
26:12
Speaker 4: I say again we were not involved in the initial
26:15
Speaker 4: strikes on Iran and we will not join offensive action now,
26:20
Speaker 4: but in the face of Iran's barrage of missiles and drones,
26:24
Speaker 4: we will protect our people in the region and support
26:27
Speaker 4: the collective self defense of our allies because that is
26:31
Speaker 4: our duty to the British people.
26:34
Speaker 7: It is the best.
26:34
Speaker 4: Way to eliminate the urgent threat, to prevent the situation spiraling. Third,
26:41
Speaker 4: and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best
26:44
Speaker 4: way to protect British interests and British lives.
26:49
Speaker 1: The British government is attempting to make a distinction between
26:52
Speaker 1: its actions with regard to Iran and those taken by
26:56
Speaker 1: the Blair administration back in two thousand and three. This
27:00
Speaker 1: speaks to the relationship with the United States and indeed
27:04
Speaker 1: the future and the role of NATO now. I spoke
27:09
Speaker 1: to General Sir Richard Shirriff, who formerly occupied the post
27:12
Speaker 1: of Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, one of the most
27:17
Speaker 1: senior military officers in NATO, and this is what he
27:21
Speaker 1: had to say about the alliance. You described Pete Hegsith
27:25
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump as gung ho nutters, and I don't
27:28
Speaker 1: think anybody listening will disagree with you on that one.
27:32
Speaker 1: A couple of months ago, in reference to the Munich
27:34
Speaker 1: Security Conference, you described a potential conflict where the United
27:38
Speaker 1: States might not be on our side, And here we are,
27:42
Speaker 1: having entered into, or at least being on the periphery
27:45
Speaker 1: of one such with Iran. Is the United States on
27:49
Speaker 1: our side?
27:52
Speaker 6: I don't think we can make any assumptions about that
27:54
Speaker 6: under the current leadership. No, I think rather than the
27:57
Speaker 6: benign Hegeman, in his inimitable way, has turned America into
28:04
Speaker 6: a predatory headman her German. And as far as the
28:08
Speaker 6: Alliance is concerned, well, only yesterday we hear that Trump
28:11
Speaker 6: has reinforced his previous declarations about potentially pulling out of
28:16
Speaker 6: the alliance. So no, we can make no assumption that
28:19
Speaker 6: America is on our side now, I'm afraid.
28:22
Speaker 1: General Sheriff went on to answer a number of questions
28:25
Speaker 1: about NATO, about his views on British government policy and
28:29
Speaker 1: indeed the way in which the armed forces are treated
28:32
Speaker 1: and are likely to be used if there is an
28:34
Speaker 1: escalation in the conflict, as well as their current and
28:37
Speaker 1: future capabilities. Do you regard the British government's position as
28:41
Speaker 1: being tenable or logical or cohesive?
28:45
Speaker 6: Well, it is absolutely right when Kirstaner says, this is
28:49
Speaker 6: not our war.
28:50
Speaker 7: We're not going to get further involved.
28:52
Speaker 6: But the fact remains, as I said earlier, our sleevers
28:54
Speaker 6: in the Mangol because the Americans are using British bases,
28:58
Speaker 6: and that puts it, as far as the Iranians are concerned,
29:02
Speaker 6: in the enemy camp, and it's going to make it
29:04
Speaker 6: much more difficult to negotiate if the Europeans come together
29:09
Speaker 6: as they appear to be doing. Hear Ivette Cooper is
29:12
Speaker 6: meeting today with thirty five nations to look at how
29:16
Speaker 6: the Strait of Humors might be reopened post conflict. If
29:20
Speaker 6: America walks away, that's pretty hypothetical frankly at the moment.
29:25
Speaker 6: But any sort of negotiation with Iran, and it's going
29:28
Speaker 6: to have to be a negotiation with Iran, is going
29:30
Speaker 6: to be made more difficult because of the extent to
29:33
Speaker 6: which we have we have supported, even if indirectly, even
29:38
Speaker 6: if minimal, a support to the Americans.
29:41
Speaker 1: In the overall picture of the sort of threat analysis
29:44
Speaker 1: you've talked about Russia, which was of course the focus
29:47
Speaker 1: of last year's Strategic Defense review, and indeed pointing towards
29:51
Speaker 1: what's described as a whole of society response. Do you
29:55
Speaker 1: regard either the government or the armed forces as being
29:58
Speaker 1: on track with any of the documentation that's been put
30:01
Speaker 1: out in the last eighteen months.
30:02
Speaker 7: They're no, they're not.
30:04
Speaker 6: I mean, the Strategic Defense Review last year was a
30:07
Speaker 6: very good effort at aiming off to design British the
30:13
Speaker 6: British armed forces for the sort of war we might
30:17
Speaker 6: have to fight, particularly if the Russia Ukraine war escalated
30:22
Speaker 6: or at some stage in the future. This comes back
30:25
Speaker 6: to Trump if Trump gets the sort of capitulation deal
30:29
Speaker 6: with Ukraine that he's been cozying up to Putin to provide,
30:33
Speaker 6: which incidentally is another reason why America is a threat,
30:36
Speaker 6: because because the president of the United States is a
30:39
Speaker 6: friend of our enemy. Frankly, at the moment, the Strategic
30:43
Speaker 6: Defense Review, to come back to the point, good document
30:46
Speaker 6: lays out a clear plan. However, there's no finance for it.
30:50
Speaker 6: Where is the defense investment plan to support it? The
30:53
Speaker 6: government are still procrastinating about it, and that's not good
30:57
Speaker 6: enough at a time like this, they should be doubleing down,
31:01
Speaker 6: doubling down on the Strategic Defense Review, doubling down on
31:04
Speaker 6: increasing the capabilities the lethalities of the British armed forces,
31:08
Speaker 6: doubling down on home defense against the not only the
31:12
Speaker 6: Iranian threat, but the covert Russian threat as well as
31:15
Speaker 6: the potential for direct action against the UK by Russia,
31:19
Speaker 6: and particularly doubling down on engaging and building up our
31:23
Speaker 6: capability in NATO to offset the probability and the likelihood
31:28
Speaker 6: of an American withdrawal from NATO. However difficult that is
31:33
Speaker 6: going to be for America. The fact that Trump has
31:35
Speaker 6: stated it so clearly, so unequivocally, and the fact and
31:39
Speaker 6: the way he has treated other treaties and walked away
31:42
Speaker 6: from them, we have to assume that he will do
31:44
Speaker 6: so for NATO. So no, to your point, the British
31:47
Speaker 6: government needs to be doing much much more, and it's
31:50
Speaker 6: dancing around its handbag over the issue of increasing its capability.
31:54
Speaker 1: And you wrote recently a prediction that obviously nobody would
32:00
Speaker 1: want to come to fruition, but that the United Kingdom
32:03
Speaker 1: Armed Forces would be involved in a conflict within the
32:05
Speaker 1: next couple of years, if you if you were to
32:09
Speaker 1: be a little bit more precise on that prediction, and
32:13
Speaker 1: a state of conflict was entered into in a direct
32:16
Speaker 1: sense by by the Armed Forces. How do you see
32:18
Speaker 1: that actually manifesting.
32:21
Speaker 6: Well, I'm not going to be being down on dates
32:24
Speaker 6: and times, et cetera. Suffice it to say that in
32:27
Speaker 6: my key argument is that in order to avoid precisely
32:31
Speaker 6: that eventuality, in order to avoid war, the British Armed
32:35
Speaker 6: Forces must be must be strong and capable to deter
32:42
Speaker 6: That's that's going to take time, and the government has
32:45
Speaker 6: lost a year now with with by failing to get
32:50
Speaker 6: its shoulder really behind the Strategic Defense Review. So this
32:53
Speaker 6: is not going to happen for some time to come.
32:55
Speaker 6: If the worst case happens, it's going to be a
32:59
Speaker 6: come as you are party. We will just have to
33:01
Speaker 6: do the very best we can with the assets required.
33:04
Speaker 6: But it's going to require real sacrifice in order to
33:07
Speaker 6: build up as well. But that sacrifice, frankly, is much
33:12
Speaker 6: better than paying the sacrifice of going to war with
33:16
Speaker 6: the casualties and the catastrophe that can follow.
33:19
Speaker 1: Following his comments on the capabilities and the readiness of
33:23
Speaker 1: the British Armed Forces, I pushed him a little further
33:26
Speaker 1: with regard to the subject of recruitment, or more precisely conscription. Yes,
33:33
Speaker 1: I mean something that Patrick Sanders started talking about in
33:36
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two was the was mobilizing for a future
33:39
Speaker 1: war and the requirement for not just the financing like
33:44
Speaker 1: you mentioned, but also the increase in numbers across the
33:48
Speaker 1: armed forces. That doesn't seem to have been happening, and
33:51
Speaker 1: there has been a certainly quite a lot of background
33:54
Speaker 1: chatter about conscription or at least the encouragement of more
33:57
Speaker 1: and more people, particularly women, to join the armed forces.
34:00
Speaker 1: Is that something you can see happening.
34:04
Speaker 6: We've got to have the debate. I mean, the reality
34:06
Speaker 6: at the moment is the army could be recruiting many,
34:08
Speaker 6: many more people that it can bring in because of
34:12
Speaker 6: the failure of the government to fund it. So it's
34:15
Speaker 6: got a cap it. You know, there are volunteers out there,
34:18
Speaker 6: there are people keen to join, which is great, But
34:21
Speaker 6: I think to the wider point, I can't see how
34:23
Speaker 6: the armed forces can be ready, really ready for war,
34:26
Speaker 6: and that is what is critical if we are to
34:29
Speaker 6: deter war. Deterrence is about demon's demonstrably having a bigger
34:34
Speaker 6: stick than your potential aggressor so that he backs off.
34:37
Speaker 6: The only way you do that is with capable, strong
34:40
Speaker 6: armed forces ready for the worst case. And I can't
34:43
Speaker 6: see how the armed forces can be ready for the
34:46
Speaker 6: worst case without the necessary manpower.
34:49
Speaker 7: Now we're not talking about.
34:51
Speaker 6: Vast armies along the lines of what we had in
34:54
Speaker 6: the Cold War, three divisions, a core, all that sort
34:57
Speaker 6: of thing, but we are talking about a properly world
35:00
Speaker 6: fine force that is capable of meeting the need of
35:04
Speaker 6: future war. And again, that requires a degree of mass
35:07
Speaker 6: and capability, manpaw, people power, and I can't see how
35:11
Speaker 6: we're going to get that with volunteers. So I think
35:13
Speaker 6: we've got to have the debate about conscription. We've got
35:17
Speaker 6: to look at other models. The Finnish model. The Finns
35:20
Speaker 6: could produce an army of two hundred and eighty thousand
35:23
Speaker 6: at very short notice from their reserve force, well trained,
35:26
Speaker 6: ready to go. The Finns could generate one hundred or sorry,
35:30
Speaker 6: two hundred Leopard two tanks of the latest variant, again
35:33
Speaker 6: at very short notice. The British Army couldn't begin to
35:36
Speaker 6: do that. Or the Norwegian model, which is much more
35:39
Speaker 6: of a sort of a badge of honor type of conscription,
35:42
Speaker 6: in which young people recognize that a year spent serving
35:46
Speaker 6: in the armed forces gives them a cachet a ticket
35:51
Speaker 6: on their CV when the time comes for going into
35:53
Speaker 6: the job market after university. So there are other ways
35:56
Speaker 6: of doing it. We've got to get away from the
35:58
Speaker 6: notion that conscription means nineteen fifties style hairy battle dress
36:03
Speaker 6: bashing spuds in a sort of catholic Nesshart in a
36:07
Speaker 6: freezing wind from the North.
36:10
Speaker 1: As part of UK Columns coverage of the conflict, I've
36:13
Speaker 1: visited Ri F Fairford on a couple of occasions, and
36:16
Speaker 1: His Majesty's naval base at Portsmouth in order to get
36:19
Speaker 1: a better sense of the United Kingdom's commitment to the
36:23
Speaker 1: wider war. I'm now on the fence, having gone down
36:29
Speaker 1: the dead end track from Barston Mazie, and this is
36:34
Speaker 1: what I find. B one's parked up here.
36:38
Speaker 6: Now.
36:41
Speaker 1: Interestingly, I've just had a chat with a photographer who
36:48
Speaker 1: has been coming down here for the last few days
36:52
Speaker 1: and he's got no dog in the fight. In his
36:55
Speaker 1: own words, he's just here to photograph aircraft. But what
37:02
Speaker 1: was fascinating was to hear him say that last night
37:07
Speaker 1: he was down here at exactly this location and the
37:11
Speaker 1: Americans drove a load of vehicles up and pointed the
37:17
Speaker 1: headlights towards the fence in order to try to stop
37:20
Speaker 1: people from being able to take effective photographs. So there's
37:27
Speaker 1: no doubt that there is activity going on here, which
37:31
Speaker 1: obviously to me now it is completely visible. I mean
37:34
Speaker 1: I'm standing by the fence, there are no far from
37:36
Speaker 1: somebody just under the nose of that aircraft. There's no
37:39
Speaker 1: one around. Of course, what I should absolutely point out
37:43
Speaker 1: is that there are bombs on a carrier just behind
37:50
Speaker 1: that aircraft. Now, I'm just crossing Portsmouth Harbor from where
37:56
Speaker 1: HMS Brockleby, the Hunt class mind sweeper deployed into the
38:00
Speaker 1: Solent yesterday after completing sea trials. I've requested further information
38:06
Speaker 1: from the Ministry of Defense with regard to the Prime
38:08
Speaker 1: Minister's statement we will not be drawn into the wider war.
38:12
Speaker 1: But over my right shoulder, at His Majesty's Naval Bates Portsmouth,
38:17
Speaker 1: you'll be able to see first of all HMS Prince
38:20
Speaker 1: of Wales, the aircraft carrier that deployed to the Indo
38:22
Speaker 1: Pacific on an operation supposedly involving trade in twenty twenty five.
38:27
Speaker 1: Of course, there's been much confusion surrounding her likely tasking,
38:31
Speaker 1: as she was earmarked to go up to the High
38:33
Speaker 1: North on a NATO exercise earlier this year, but of
38:36
Speaker 1: course remains alongside and interestingly next to her is the
38:41
Speaker 1: Type forty five destroyer HMS Duncan, sister ship to HMS
38:45
Speaker 1: Dragon or indeed, as she should be known, drag On
38:49
Speaker 1: now in the Eastern Mediterranean. Duncan notable because she was
38:52
Speaker 1: deemed to be more seaworthy and at a higher state
38:55
Speaker 1: of readiness, and yet here she is alongside in Portsmouth.
38:59
Speaker 1: There are many aren't answered questions, says Charles Mallett on
39:03
Speaker 1: the ground for UK column in Portsmouth. Most recently, I
39:07
Speaker 1: attended to stop the war Coalition demonstration are a f
39:11
Speaker 1: Fairford and of the many people I spoke to, the
39:14
Speaker 1: two that I would single out are an Iranian gentleman
39:17
Speaker 1: who gives his views on what is happening in Iran
39:20
Speaker 1: and critically why, and indeed a plane spotter who happened
39:24
Speaker 1: to be there on the same day and by his
39:26
Speaker 1: own admission, is a consumer of mainstream media. And I
39:30
Speaker 1: think I would invite you to observe the differences in
39:34
Speaker 1: which these two gentlemen present their ideas to those people
39:38
Speaker 1: who say that reports of tens of thousands of Iranians
39:43
Speaker 1: killed by the Iranian regime. Do you believe those figures
39:48
Speaker 1: to be accurate at all?
39:49
Speaker 8: The figures are not that accurate. The figure Okay, they've
39:53
Speaker 8: been killed over three thousand people, did that, But why
39:57
Speaker 8: Trump said he's sent weapons, lots of weapons. Took Kurds.
40:04
Speaker 8: They send their agents in the middle of these protesters
40:11
Speaker 8: and they.
40:11
Speaker 9: Were shooting.
40:14
Speaker 8: The Iranian army, so they made sure they made sure
40:20
Speaker 8: they are in our army will shoot back, so that
40:23
Speaker 8: they shoot back and one bullet can kill three people,
40:27
Speaker 8: two people, wound five people because the bullet will pass.
40:32
Speaker 8: It's not like a human body is not like a metal.
40:35
Speaker 1: Here we are in Gloucestershire and not Iran. How do
40:38
Speaker 1: you know or how is it that you believe you
40:41
Speaker 1: know the truth when you're in the United Kingdom not
40:44
Speaker 1: in Iran?
40:45
Speaker 8: Because I you know, I we have people going and
40:48
Speaker 8: come back that they're troubling and it not just don't
40:51
Speaker 8: worry about the news. We have people although there's no plane,
40:55
Speaker 8: but they go by the land to Turkeyn come back.
40:58
Speaker 8: They will tell us all these plasses Uranian media. If
41:01
Speaker 8: you have a direct contact this killing on the Street
41:07
Speaker 8: because they were trying to do uprising people was was
41:11
Speaker 8: managed handled by Mossad and America. I know what, we
41:17
Speaker 8: know what goes on with these pairs, what they're here
41:19
Speaker 8: and what they're trained to do, and obviously there's people.
41:21
Speaker 15: Suffering from what happens with it.
41:23
Speaker 9: But something has to be done. We can't just let
41:25
Speaker 9: it happen.
41:26
Speaker 1: The line from the Prime Minister here in the government
41:28
Speaker 1: is that we're not going to be drawn into the
41:29
Speaker 1: wide war. And yet we've deployed a destroyer, we've deployed minehunters,
41:32
Speaker 1: we've got typhoons up with all the rest of it.
41:34
Speaker 1: What if I mean, you know, you've got a young
41:37
Speaker 1: man standing here with you. If there were to be
41:39
Speaker 1: young men drawn into action, perhaps just sorry, just put
41:45
Speaker 1: the microphone over to you. Say that again.
41:46
Speaker 6: I'd be the first person to put my hand up
41:48
Speaker 6: and go and defend the country.
41:50
Speaker 4: Of course, I would straight away give them.
41:52
Speaker 1: The small turnout at the demonstration at our A F
41:55
Speaker 1: Fairford recently, it seemed pertinent to ask General Shriff about
42:01
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom's policy with regard to allowing the United
42:06
Speaker 1: States visiting forces to have permission to fly from RAF
42:10
Speaker 1: Fairford and indeed what he considered the implications might be
42:16
Speaker 1: to the threat level as perceived by the United Kingdom.
42:21
Speaker 1: Talk me through the way that the British government is
42:25
Speaker 1: explaining with regard to the apparent defensive posture, the permission
42:30
Speaker 1: granted to the United States to use spaces like raf
42:34
Speaker 1: Fairford or laken Heath or indeed Prestwick, and indeed the
42:38
Speaker 1: capability at Filingdale's to prosecute what they are doing in Iran, well.
42:43
Speaker 6: I find it pretty difficult to do so, frankly, I mean,
42:46
Speaker 6: this is an illegal war.
42:48
Speaker 7: It is not our war. It is Trump's war.
42:50
Speaker 6: He's launched it, launched it without consulting allies, with no
42:56
Speaker 6: clear idea how the.
42:57
Speaker 7: War ends in Iran.
43:01
Speaker 6: And it's very difficult to explain why the British government
43:05
Speaker 6: has allowed Trump to use these bases to do that.
43:08
Speaker 6: I mean, the issue is here, of course, that because
43:11
Speaker 6: we are the government has allowed America to use these bases,
43:15
Speaker 6: our sleeve is in the mangle and we do not
43:19
Speaker 6: want to be left owning the problem. When and if,
43:21
Speaker 6: as is entirely possible, Trump Trump walks away, or even
43:25
Speaker 6: if he escalates, that is going to cause even more
43:28
Speaker 6: of a catastrophe.
43:29
Speaker 1: The United States visiting forces are of course using British
43:33
Speaker 1: territory to conduct these operations. What is that likely to
43:37
Speaker 1: do to the supposed Iranian threat?
43:41
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's going to ramp it up.
43:42
Speaker 6: I mean, you have to assume that Iran will target
43:45
Speaker 6: any state supporting American forces, any state providing basing for
43:51
Speaker 6: Americans forces, and so you know it is it will
43:56
Speaker 6: continue to ramp up. And I'm sure the Security Service
43:59
Speaker 6: is another agent. We'll be on their guard for that.
44:02
Speaker 1: At the outset, I suggested we'd be considering the question
44:05
Speaker 1: of what is meant by the wider war and as
44:08
Speaker 1: a part of that question, it seems pertinent to examine
44:12
Speaker 1: the way in which the nature of warfare is changing
44:15
Speaker 1: and has changed. And this is something that Brian Gerrish
44:18
Speaker 1: and I have been able to concentrate on to a
44:19
Speaker 1: certain extent in our Military Matters series. This is Brian
44:24
Speaker 1: giving his view on the matter several weeks ago.
44:27
Speaker 16: And America has been able over a great many years
44:30
Speaker 16: to deploy huge numbers of aircraft into a theater of operations.
44:36
Speaker 16: In many cases that one certainly two carriers would be
44:40
Speaker 16: delivering more aircraft than many air forces owned as a
44:46
Speaker 16: total thing, so they could bring those aircraft into theater,
44:50
Speaker 16: and they had the ability to dominate the air environment
44:55
Speaker 16: with surveillance and putting up the fighters and carrying out
45:00
Speaker 16: the attacks. This time, it's different for all of the
45:05
Speaker 16: Bravado that it's a huge hundred thousand ten the latest
45:10
Speaker 16: aircraft carrier out there, Abraham Lincoln. The reality is that
45:15
Speaker 16: it's facing weapons systems which can destroy it. Now, whether
45:20
Speaker 16: the Iranians have got those systems, and in particular I'm
45:25
Speaker 16: saying hypersonic missiles or very fast missiles which are capable
45:31
Speaker 16: of engaging a target at sea. Have the Iranians got those?
45:35
Speaker 16: We don't know. We may be about to find out.
45:38
Speaker 16: But if they have one hit ends the American dream.
45:44
Speaker 16: There's no ifsaw butts about it, because it says the
45:46
Speaker 16: era of the carrier is over. And I'm watching what's
45:51
Speaker 16: happening here, and I'm thinking, are we about to see
45:53
Speaker 16: a conflict where the whole nature of sea power is changed?
45:59
Speaker 16: Because the carriers demonstrated that, like the Battle of the Ship,
46:03
Speaker 16: they've lost their prime.
46:04
Speaker 1: I put the same subject to General Sheriff with specific
46:08
Speaker 1: regard to the nature of corporate control and the way
46:11
Speaker 1: in which that may be exerted on the battlefield. What
46:14
Speaker 1: considerations should we be going through with regards to the
46:18
Speaker 1: changing nature of warfare, but in particular the space domain
46:21
Speaker 1: and cyber and therefore the incredible amount of control that
46:26
Speaker 1: corporations are having to a greater and greater extent in
46:31
Speaker 1: the way in which warfare can be conducted by their
46:33
Speaker 1: development and sort of holding of either the assets themselves
46:37
Speaker 1: or the intellectual property.
46:38
Speaker 7: Well, it's a.
46:39
Speaker 6: Really interesting point, and you've only got to see how
46:41
Speaker 6: important stylink has been to the Ukrainians and indeed it
46:45
Speaker 6: was to the Russians until alone must pull it away.
46:48
Speaker 6: So we live in an area in a war of
46:52
Speaker 6: in a world of hybrid and asymmetric war, at a
46:56
Speaker 6: world in which partnerships are becoming even more important. And
46:59
Speaker 6: I think absolutely you make a really important point about
47:03
Speaker 6: the need for what would traditionally be pretty unconventional partnerships
47:07
Speaker 6: with the tech companies. But the fact is, if there
47:10
Speaker 6: are capabilities there, they need to be harnessed by the
47:13
Speaker 6: armed forces. So we need to be thinking outside the
47:17
Speaker 6: box about partnerships. And I know, I'm sure you know
47:19
Speaker 6: they don't need need me to tell them to think
47:21
Speaker 6: about the box.
47:22
Speaker 7: They're doing it already.
47:23
Speaker 6: It's recognizing that that, as you say, cyber artificial intelligence
47:28
Speaker 6: are all fundamental parts of modern conflict, and finding innovative
47:34
Speaker 6: ways to bring in the tech capabilities needed, all the while,
47:39
Speaker 6: of course, making sure that they're properly guarded, properly secured,
47:44
Speaker 6: the security considerations are taken care of, and the contracts
47:48
Speaker 6: are tied down probably pretty pretty tightly, in order to
47:51
Speaker 6: ensure that you've got the peak requirement when the time comes.
47:56
Speaker 1: Now, with corporate control in mind, as we move towards
47:59
Speaker 1: the end of this, we must of course examine the
48:02
Speaker 1: role of media in all of this. We've just looked
48:05
Speaker 1: at a clip of a man speaking from Arif Fairford,
48:08
Speaker 1: clearly of the belief that the Iranian regime has killed
48:12
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of its own people, and indeed that
48:15
Speaker 1: the only way to avert further crisis for the Iranian
48:18
Speaker 1: people is to conduct aggressive action. We look now to
48:24
Speaker 1: an exchange between Victoria Derbyshire of the BBC and Tucker Carlton.
48:30
Speaker 1: I have a number of clips here which I will
48:32
Speaker 1: play in succession in order to articulate exactly how it
48:36
Speaker 1: is that organizations like the BBC, although of course Worth
48:39
Speaker 1: pointing out that the BBC, as a de facto state organization,
48:44
Speaker 1: is in effect promulgating exactly the same narrative as the government,
48:50
Speaker 1: and indeed using anti Semitism as a way in which
48:54
Speaker 1: to shape public opinion.
48:56
Speaker 17: He is not free in this moment at all to
49:00
Speaker 17: do what he thinks is best for himself for his country.
49:03
Speaker 17: To me, no, he's well, he's not free. And we
49:05
Speaker 17: learned that yesterday when Donald Trump announced to ceasefire clearly
49:10
Speaker 17: with relief and made its terms or most of its
49:14
Speaker 17: terms public, and then that ceasefire ended within two hours
49:17
Speaker 17: because Israel intentionally violated the terms by attacking not just
49:22
Speaker 17: southern Lebanon but the city of Beirut.
49:25
Speaker 18: So to Benin Natanilhu.
49:29
Speaker 17: So I don't think it's as simple as he's under
49:32
Speaker 17: the control of Nen Yahoo, But you know, you could
49:36
Speaker 17: summarize it that way and you wouldn't be totally inaccurate.
49:39
Speaker 15: And again we know.
49:40
Speaker 17: This because the single biggest mistake Trump or any American
49:44
Speaker 17: president in my lifetime has made was going to war
49:47
Speaker 17: with Iran in an effort to change its regime.
49:50
Speaker 15: It didn't work. It was obviously mistake immediately. He understood.
49:53
Speaker 15: Trump understood it was.
49:54
Speaker 17: A mistake immediately, and he tried to get out of
49:56
Speaker 17: it this week and announced we were getting out of it,
50:00
Speaker 17: and the Israelis prevented us from getting out of it.
50:02
Speaker 17: So that's the clearest possible example, right, he.
50:05
Speaker 15: Didn't allow it.
50:06
Speaker 9: There.
50:07
Speaker 18: On feb the twenty eighth, which was the day the
50:09
Speaker 18: US launched its action, the British Prime Minister told the
50:13
Speaker 18: country that he was not joining with the US because
50:17
Speaker 18: he thought it was illegal and that there was no
50:18
Speaker 18: viable plan. So clearly he made a sovereign decision, which
50:21
Speaker 18: he said was in the interests of the country. And
50:24
Speaker 18: I'm asking you do you think he made the right
50:25
Speaker 18: call there.
50:27
Speaker 17: Any government that bans criticism of a foreign government is
50:30
Speaker 17: not sovereign. The British government has banned criticism of Israel.
50:33
Speaker 17: Therefore it's not sovereign. It's acting on behalf of another
50:36
Speaker 17: country to the detriment of its own citizens.
50:37
Speaker 15: So let's just be really clear about that.
50:39
Speaker 18: The British government has not a sovereign country criticism of
50:41
Speaker 18: the Israeli government.
50:42
Speaker 17: It certainly has by banning Palestine action, which has nothing
50:45
Speaker 17: to do with Britain at all or its critical interests
50:48
Speaker 17: at all. And I often criticize Britain, but I love Britain,
50:51
Speaker 17: As I said, I have family there, and I don't
50:54
Speaker 17: think that Britain's understand just how badly they've been shafted
50:58
Speaker 17: by the United States, just the Israelis. I just want
51:01
Speaker 17: to be clear.
51:01
Speaker 18: I mean, I am going to point out I probably
51:03
Speaker 18: don't need to because our audience can see and hear
51:05
Speaker 18: for themselves pretty much everything that you've said in our conversation,
51:09
Speaker 18: Tucker Carlson, you have put at the door of the
51:11
Speaker 18: Israeli government. Now to some people, that will be evidence
51:15
Speaker 18: that you are anti Semitic. You are anti well, I.
51:18
Speaker 15: Know, I'm very anti Semitic.
51:20
Speaker 17: Condvantage Well, First of all, the State of Israel does
51:22
Speaker 17: not speak for all Jews at all, despite its claims
51:25
Speaker 17: it does not. There are many many Jews, many of
51:28
Speaker 17: whom I know, who don't think the Israeli government of
51:31
Speaker 17: Benjamin Netta who speaks for them.
51:33
Speaker 15: I'm speaking of the government, not religion.
51:35
Speaker 18: No. No, what I was suggesting.
51:40
Speaker 17: In this business longer than you and I understand what
51:43
Speaker 17: a slur looks like. And you're attempting to call me
51:45
Speaker 17: an anti Semite in a passive aggressive way. Some people
51:48
Speaker 17: would say that, well, I'm responding to your slur and
51:51
Speaker 17: saying that it's untrue. It does not apply to me.
51:53
Speaker 17: Doubts there are anti Semites who don't like Israel. I'm
51:55
Speaker 17: not an anti Semite. I don't hate Israel the Israeli government.
51:58
Speaker 17: This is documented and I saw it personally steered the
52:02
Speaker 17: United States into a war that hurts the United States
52:04
Speaker 17: and the world.
52:05
Speaker 15: I'm offended by that.
52:06
Speaker 17: I didn't want it, and I'm mad about it now.
52:08
Speaker 15: I have every right to feel that way.
52:09
Speaker 17: That does not make me an anti Semite despite your insinuation.
52:13
Speaker 17: And I think it's important that I say that. And
52:14
Speaker 17: by the way, I hope that you run this. I
52:16
Speaker 17: can't control whether or not you air this exchange. I
52:19
Speaker 17: hope that you will because I think it's important to
52:22
Speaker 17: push back against slurs like that, because they limit our
52:26
Speaker 17: ability to understand what's actually happening. This is not an
52:29
Speaker 17: attack by Jews on the United States. This is Benjamin
52:31
Speaker 17: Nenya who moving the United States to do something he
52:35
Speaker 17: thinks will benefit him, but that does not benefit us.
52:37
Speaker 1: It's that simple, Tucker Carlson. They're commenting on what may
52:40
Speaker 1: or may not benefit us. He does make reference to
52:44
Speaker 1: things being that simple. I think, after a thorough investigation
52:49
Speaker 1: of the evidence as we find it suggests that the
52:52
Speaker 1: situation is anything but simple. One of the things that
52:56
Speaker 1: we can perhaps be more certain about is that the
52:58
Speaker 1: relationships between the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel
53:02
Speaker 1: seem unlikely to change. The United Kingdom is dependent upon
53:07
Speaker 1: the United States to a great extent with regard to
53:11
Speaker 1: the use of its own nuclear warfare capabilities. We should
53:17
Speaker 1: add to that the very many tech provisions made to
53:19
Speaker 1: the British government and the reliance upon America for oil.
53:25
Speaker 1: That said, in considering the relationship trading relationship that China
53:30
Speaker 1: has with Iran, and indeed the position that China has
53:33
Speaker 1: taken on the conflict in Iran, it remains to be
53:37
Speaker 1: seen as to whether we are witnessing the waning days
53:40
Speaker 1: of the American Empire and indeed what that would give
53:43
Speaker 1: way to. With specific regard to China. As to the
53:46
Speaker 1: relationship with Israel, the influence upon the decisions that are
53:50
Speaker 1: made by the British establishment seems complete and there's no
53:55
Speaker 1: suggestion that that would change either. And of course it
53:58
Speaker 1: must be remembered that much of the British warfare equipment
54:02
Speaker 1: is entirely dependent upon is rarely built technological and communications platforms.
54:09
Speaker 1: Corporate control, as ever, plays a very very significant part
54:12
Speaker 1: in this, as indeed does the relationship that all of
54:15
Speaker 1: these nations have with the media. The media in all
54:19
Speaker 1: its many forms, and of course it will be the
54:21
Speaker 1: media that is used primarily as a tool to normalize
54:25
Speaker 1: the idea that conscription is a necessary and logical next step.
54:30
Speaker 1: The population of the United Kingdom need to consider the
54:33
Speaker 1: contents of the Armed Forces Bill and what powers that
54:36
Speaker 1: will grant the state with regard to the recall of reservists,
54:41
Speaker 1: and of course, running in the foreground which has obscured
54:44
Speaker 1: so many of the things looked at in this report
54:47
Speaker 1: is the constant pressure felt by the population of the
54:50
Speaker 1: United Kingdom with regard to the prices of petrol and
54:54
Speaker 1: diesel at the pumps. What is not clear are the
54:57
Speaker 1: many ways in which this emergency will be driven and
55:01
Speaker 1: manipulated in order to convince people to seed control over
55:05
Speaker 1: their own lives for the good of society. And it
55:10
Speaker 1: is this, among many other things, that UK Column will
55:12
Speaker 1: continue to keep a very close eye on The UK
55:16
Speaker 1: Column is very pleased to have announced the first issue
55:19
Speaker 1: of a print magazine, a quarterly called The Column, So
55:23
Speaker 1: please go to Shop dot UK column dot org to
55:26
Speaker 1: find out more and get your hands on a copy