Why Trump's Iran Attack Is Even Worse Than You Think
What this covers
As Tehran launches retaliatory strikes against Israel and US military bases, how dangerous is this moment for the Middle East and the wider world? Has Iran's supreme leader Khamenei been assassinated? Are the attacks an attempt by Trump to shift attention away from the Epstein files?
Join Alastair and Rory as they answer all these questions and more.
---------------------------- The Rest Is Politics is powered by Fuse Energy. To sign up and for terms and conditions, visit https://fuseenergy.com/politics. ---------------------------- Get our exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ https://nordvpn.com/restispolitics It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee ✅ ---------------------------- To chat on our livestreams, sign up and become a member here👇 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsufaClk5if2RGqABb-09Uw/join ---------------------------- To sign up for our free newsletter, go to https://therestispolitics.com ----------------------------
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Trump and Netanyahu's military strikes on Iran are reckless and unpredictable actions driven by political calculation rather than strategic planning, risking catastrophic escalation and regional collapse while operating outside legal frameworks and international consensus.
- Iran's demonstrated military weakness and regime vulnerability have emboldened US/Israeli planners to underestimate the risks of destabilization and uncontrollable cascading effects
- The strikes occurred despite ongoing negotiations and lack of imminent threat, suggesting political motivations (Trump's poor poll numbers, distraction from scandals) rather than defensive necessity
- The complete absence of post-conflict planning mirrors Iraq, Libya, and other failed interventions, leaving outcomes ranging from civil war to refugee crises to terrorist retaliation entirely unpredictable
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
International law only permits military action when there is an imminent threat—analogous to punching someone in a bar only when they are actively picking up a bottle to swing it at you, not when you think they might do so in the future.
“You're only really allowed to punch someone in the face in a bar if they're actually picking up a bottle to swing it at you. You can't say I think he might in the future pick up a bottle so I'm going to smack him in the face.”
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states had recently softened their stance toward Iran following China's mediation of a diplomatic alliance with Iran and concluded that a weak Iran was less of a threat than chaos, but are now very angry that Iran struck their territory.
“Saudi Arabia, remember, um had slightly stepped out of the Iran conflict. China had negotiated a diplomatic alliance between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Most of these Gulf states, who had been against the Iran nuclear deal, with the exception of of the Emirates, UAE, Dubai, that remain very strongly anti-Iranian, went a bit softer on Iran. Seemed to have concluded that Iran was no longer really a threat. It didn't really have a big nuclear arsenal. A weak regime in Iran was less of a threat than chaos.”
Pessimistic outcome 3: Ethnic and sectarian divisions erupt; Kurds in western Iran (heavily persecuted, politically distinct, separatist-inclined) and Baluch in the southeast (on Pakistani border) could break away during regime transition, fragmenting the state.
“As with many of these countries, you could also imagine a scenario of big divisions which are ethnic and sectarian. So, the Kurds western Iran very, very badly disposed towards regime, completely different political views, heavily prosecuted now for 40 years. Mhm. And very, very interested in separatism. The Baluch down in the southeast on the Pakistani border, again could kick off.”
The US and Israeli military buildup around Iran over months followed the same pattern as the Venezuela buildup, where extensive naval, air, and marine presence preceded strikes by weeks or months.
“Much in the way that it did in Venezuela. So people remember there was a lot of false alarms around Venezuela, people very concerned that this enormous American military naval and air presence, marine presence had ended up around Venezuela, but for weeks nothing really happened. And then the strike occurred. And the same pattern roughly has been followed in Iran.”
The past reluctance to attack Iran under Obama and Biden was due to two main concerns: worry about Iran's proxies (particularly the 100,000-missile Hezbollah force in Lebanon) and the Houthis and Shia militias, plus fear of Iran's own missile response, nuclear program acceleration, and potential to unleash war in the Middle East.
“the two stronger arguments why people didn't do it in the past. Um we're firstly that they were very worried about Iran's proxies. This very powerful Hezbollah force in Lebanon, which had about 100,000 missiles targeted Iran and the Houthis and the Shia militia. And secondly, that they were very worried about the potential uh response from Iran itself. Its own missiles, the way it would accelerate its own nuclear program, the way in which it would unleash war in the Middle East.”
Iran is an issue and country that has bedeviled US presidents and world leaders for decades, and only with some kind of joint cooperative approach can real progress be made, not through unilateral military action.
“Iran is an issue and a country that has bedeviled presidents and other world leaders for decades now. And it is probably only if we do have some kind of joint cooperative approach to this that we can make real progress.”
The pattern of US interventions (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen) has been consistently wrong in their predictions and outcomes, suggesting that even experts cannot reliably predict intervention consequences, yet Trump is proceeding without post-conflict planning.
“We got Afghanistan wrong. We got Iraq wrong. We got Libya wrong. We've got Yemen wrong repeatedly.”
Trump's fundamental misread of Iran is that he believes the theocratic leadership would fear US military capability and opt to surrender, when in fact the Iranian leadership fears surrender far more than they fear war, making military pressure counterproductive.
“Trita Parsi from the Parsi from the Quincy Institute, uh who seems to be a like Rob Malley something of an expert on Iran. He he he is he is adamant that most of the information flow that goes to Trump about Iran comes from Netanyahu and he's convinced Trump that one that Iran is a lot weaker than it was which is true. It is weaker than it was on the nuclear front, it's weaker economically... and so has persuaded him that a few big hits and a few big threats and Iran will crumble.”
Contested borders created by people drawing lines on maps at different times (Pakistan-Afghanistan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Iranian borders with Azerbaijan, Kurdish regions, Baluch regions) contain populations that believe they should be in a different country, creating ongoing conflict potential.
“Let let's take the Pakistan-Afghan border or the Ethiopian-Eritrean border. These are borders like the Russian-Ukraine border. These are contested borders which were created with people drawing lines on maps at different times and therefore there are populations on either side of those borders that think they should be in a different country. It's true for all of Iran's borders like the Kurds, the Baloch. Make the same comment about people up in Azerbaijan in relation to Iran, right?”
Israel has systematically degraded Iran's proxy forces and military infrastructure over the past two years through direct military action, reducing Iran from a regionally threatening power to a 'paper tiger' militarily by eliminating Hezbollah's leadership via pager attacks, destroying Syria's Iranian Revolutionary Guard infrastructure, and exposing Iranian air defenses as inadequate.
“They first started covering this when they attacked an Iranian uh consulate and killed Iranian diplomats in Syria. Yeah. And which was a change because actually the Iran-Israel conflict really since 2019 was a sort of shadow war. There were cyberattacks, there were a few assassinations, there were attacks on ships, but there wasn't anything absolutely open. Then there was the Israeli attack, which wiped out the whole of the top of Hezbollah. This was people remember, this was the pagers and the radio attacks where 1,500 of the top people of these Iranian proxies in Lebanon were were killed.”
Trump has not secured Congressional approval for the strikes, violating the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war, yet called the operation a 'major combat operation' in public statements.
“The American Constitution says only Congress can declare war. And he Trump actually called this war today. Uh now before he's been a bit careful on that. He's not talked about war because that is the American Constitution.”
Syria is a much smaller country than Iran with roughly 1/4 of Iran's population, yet civil war there produced 3 million refugees to Turkey, 1 million to Lebanon, 1 million to Jordan; if Iran collapses into civil war, Iran could produce tens of millions of refugees.
“remember when the uh civil war broke out in Syria, smaller much smaller place than Iran, I guess uh probably about a quarter of the size in terms of population, you ended up with 3 million refugees going to Turkey, a million to Lebanon, a million to Jordan. Ukraine, I can't remember what the statistic you gave us when you were in Kiev this week, but it was 6 7 million. Yeah. 4.7 million in Europe, yeah. Okay. Now, Iran is a gigantic population, right? It's a bigger population than Britain. You really could end up, if this thing goes wrong, with tens of millions of refugees on the move.”
Operation Epic Fury, the US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran, is underway with strikes hitting major governmental, cultural, and religious centers including Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, Qom, Kermanshah, and Lorestan, while Iran has counterattacked US bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan.
“Operation Epic Fury is underway... we're doing this live and some of these strikes are still taking place... we know that these strikes in Iran, and we can see this from mostly from social media footage, have hit uh the major governmental capitals, the major cultural centers of Iran, and the major religious centers”
Below the Supreme Leader in Iran's power structure are the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) which controls both the economy and the politics, a Basij militia set up throughout all villages and towns, and the military.
“There is a huge Revolutionary Guard infrastructure. There is a Basij militia, which is set up throughout all the villages and towns of Iran. And then there's the military.”
Ammar al-Shishani, interviewed by Aristes, is part of the anti-Iranian force and has taken over Syria from Bashar al-Assad, collapsing the entire infrastructure of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Syria.
“There was the change in Syria. So, Ammar al-Shishani, who we interviewed, um is very much part of the anti-Iranian force. Iran was backing Bashar al-Assad, the the old ruler in Syria. Uh and the whole infrastructure of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Syria has collapsed as Ammar al-Shishani has taken it over.”
European leaders have issued cautious or critical responses: von der Leyen emphasized 'maximum restraint' and 'respect for international law' (coded language for concern about US/Israeli illegality), while Starmer and Macron have remained completely silent despite the major escalation.
“Von der Leyen is closer towards the international law position. She says, 'Maximum restraint, protect civilians, fully respect international law,' which is much closer to coded language for, 'We're really worried that the US and Israel are again acting completely outside international law”
Only 20% of Americans support military action against Iran according to the most recent polling, indicating the strikes lack democratic legitimacy despite the administration's unilateral authorization.
“The last poll I saw was 20% support for military action against Iran. That's within amongst Americans.”
US negotiations with Iran through Omani mediators were ongoing and showing progress just two days before the strikes, suggesting the military action was not a response to failed diplomacy but a deliberate interruption of peace talks.
“And to think that just two days ago in Geneva there were talks going on and the Omani mediator was heading to Washington to report on progress. And now we are with some pretty major bombing underway.”
Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah, has been issuing messages that the regime is crumbling and the time to return to the streets may be approaching, urging Iranians to prepare while pleading with Trump to avoid civilian deaths.
“He's been out on social media today saying that the time to return to the streets may be approaching. Military there to defend the people, not the regime. Pleading with Trump to avoid civilian death and pleading with people to stay safe, but be ready. He's essentially saying the regime is crumbling.”
Tucker Carlson and other Trump-aligned figures are expressing confusion and apparent opposition to the strikes, suggesting the strikes are breaking apart the MAGA coalition that was elected on an isolationist platform.
“We're now in a very different world where this guy's moving the tiles. And you can see this breaking the mega coalition. You can see Tucker Carlson and people coming out saying, what on earth is going on? I thought you were meant to be this kind of isolationist who didn't want to get into wars.”
Pakistan is currently bombing Kabul and Kandahar in Afghanistan, targeting areas with Pashtu populations that ethnically identify as Afghan rather than Pakistani, illustrating the principle that border collapse triggers ethnic/cross-border conflict.
“So, the Pakistanis are now bombing Kabul and Kandahar. What's this about?”
US allies should have been consulted or involved in the decision to strike Iran, but Trump appears to have proceeded unilaterally, suggesting the operation was a deliberately isolationist US action rather than a coordinated Western response.
“It's not clear to me how many others I was reading Der Spiegel this morning. They said Marles had been informed and Marles is due to go to Washington this week. I don't know whether the Brits were informed. I don't know whether the I just don't know.”
Trita Parsi from the Quincy Institute argues that most information about Iran reaching Trump comes from Netanyahu, who has convinced Trump that Iran is much weaker than it actually is, both nuclearly and economically, based on recent massive demonstrations showing regime weakness.
“Trita Parsi from the Parsi from the Quincy Institute, uh who seems to be a like Rob Malley something of an expert on Iran. He he he is he is adamant that most of the information flow that goes to Trump about Iran comes from Netanyahu and he's convinced Trump that one that Iran is a lot weaker than it was which is true. It is weaker than it was on the nuclear front, it's weaker economically and it's just had the biggest demonstrations, probably the biggest demonstrations that we've that we've seen in in recent memory.”
The UK did not participate in the strikes and has not endorsed the US operation, suggesting Britain has concerns about the legal implications of bombing Iran during active negotiations and has been reluctant to allow US use of British bases for military operations.
“The UK did not or this may be a reporting of it, the UK did not participate in the strikes. Keir Starmer will convene a Cobra meeting this morning.”
Trump tweeted in November 2013 that he predicted President Obama would attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly and lack of skills, suggesting Trump views military strikes as response to failed negotiation.
“this one, a year later, November 2013. Remember, I predicted a long time ago President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly, not skilled.”
Trump claimed in his State of the Union that Iran was about to develop ballistic missiles that could hit the United States, but the Defense Intelligence Agency's own assessment says that's not true, suggesting Trump may be fabricating imminent threat claims to justify strikes.
“Trump said Iran was about to develop missile ballistic missiles that could hit the United States. Whereas the Defense Intelligence Agency's own assessment the last one says that's not true. So I wonder whether he was actually trying to sort of generate the sense that we are about to get hit. Trying to set that stuff up.”
Anyone claiming to predict which outcome Iran will experience (optimistic democratic transition, pessimistic military takeover, civil war, ethnic fragmentation, etc.) is confusing themselves; the trajectory is genuinely unpredictable despite the stakes being enormous.
“I honestly do think that anybody who thinks they can predict which path this is going to go is confusing themselves. Yeah. We know so little about Iran. We've got so many of these countries wrong. We got Afghanistan wrong. We got Iraq wrong. We got Libya wrong. We've got Yemen wrong repeatedly.”
Trump and Netanyahu are operating within a post-truth political environment where populism, social media, and media control allow leaders to create new narratives and declare victory regardless of actual outcomes, increasing the likelihood of conflict because these leaders can pursue reckless actions without accountability.
“We are entering a world at the moment... leaders can do what they want. And then, if they have the base and they have the media control that they have, they then just create a new narrative if it goes wrong.”
Contemporary political conflict is no longer about domestic policy tradeoffs (sure start programs vs police spending) but is dominated by big radical plays (military strikes, constitutional challenges), reflecting a shift from technocratic to populist governance.
“This is not people talking about um s- uh you know, whether we're going with sure start programs for early education or whether we're going to be reducing spending on on policing or invest more in devolution. This is a type of politics which is all about the big radical play, you know, we're sending ice into Minnesota, we're dropping bombs on Iran, we're uh challenging the Constitution.”
The collapse of the post-WWII rules-based international order (evidenced by Trump allowing Putin to steal chunks of Ukraine, threatening Greenland, refusing NATO security guarantees, and conducting illegal strikes on Venezuela and Iran) is creating cascading conflicts across multiple regions as states test whether borders remain binding.
“Trump allowing Putin to steal chunks of Ukraine, threatening Greenland, refusing to provide security guarantees for NATO, and now getting involved in these illegal strikes, Venezuela, Iran, is so dangerous because we're just seeing the beginnings from Ethiopia to Pakistan of what could bubble into almost every continent in the world.”
The Iranian regime has killed tens of thousands of its own citizens during recent protests, has lost profound credibility, and is seen as evil and abhorrent by observers across the ideological spectrum.
“the Iranian regime is abhorrent, uh lost profound credibility, has been killing tens of thousands of its own citizens”
The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) nuclear deal done under Obama was a pretty good deal, and Trump hated it because it was done by Obama, reflecting Trump's narcissistic focus on himself rather than merits of policy.
“the deal that was done was a very It was a pretty good deal. Trump hated it because it was done by Obama. Um but, you know, I I I just think that that that is part of the problem. We're dealing with somebody who feels that everything has to be about him.”
The recent large-scale Iranian domestic protests represent the biggest demonstrations against the regime in recent memory, involving middle-class, upper-middle-class, bazaari (merchant), urban poor, and some rural poor citizens across class lines.
“It's in a situation in which for the first time really you have the middle class and upper middle class uh Iranians now combining with the bazaaris and and more of the urban poor and even some of the rural poor to rise up against the regime. And a real sense that it's in the end states.”
The timing of the strikes coincides with Trump's poor poll ratings and a poorly-received State of the Union address, suggesting a 'Wag the Dog' dynamic where military action serves as political distraction rather than strategic necessity.
“he's we've had Trump just on his State of the Union address, longest in history, and didn't go down terribly well. His ratings are really poor right now. And there's a couple of historic tweets, Rory. October the 9th, 2000 2012, from Donald Trump. Now that President Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin, watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He's desperate.”
Pessimistic outcome 1: Top leadership is removed but replaced by a new strong Revolutionary Guard leader or military general, causing the Iranian people to rebel against the new strongman (who they know murdered tens of thousands), leading to continual street violence rather than regime change.
“number one, uh top leadership maybe's taken out, uh but a new form of top leadership takes over, which could either be a new strong strongman taking over at the Revolutionary Guard, or could be just a military coup, a military general taking over. And then the Iranian people are going to be very, very angry because tens of thousands of people have been killed by those figures, and they're not going to be content with the Venezuela situation where you just remove the top person and leave the rest of the regime in place, in which case you have continual killing in the streets.”
Trump may accept a military dictatorship in Iran (not democracy) as a victory outcome, as long as it removes nuclear weapons, stops threatening Israel, and opens oil exploration to US companies, valuing outcomes over governance style.
“I mean, the one Trump narrative we've seen before which could definitely play well here is a military general takes over who says, 'We made a mistake having a nuclear program. We're going to get rid of our ballistic missiles, but I'm going to run a military dictatorship. I'm going to open up oil for American oil exploration companies.' And Trump will say, 'Tick tick.' What does Trump care about? He doesn't want He wants to be able to say, 'No nuclear weapons, no threat to Israel, and great commercial opportunities for the US.'”
Iran is only going to damage the world through terrorist retaliation in response to these strikes, not because it was unilaterally preparing to attack; the strikes created the threat rather than responding to an existing one.
“in fact, actually, paradoxically, the reason this is happening is because it turns out Iraq is much weaker and less threatening than people claimed 2 years ago, right? In fact, the only way in which you'll Iran, sorry, Iran is much weaker and less threatening than it was 2 years ago. In fact, the only way in which Iran is going to damage anybody is going to be in response to these attacks. Right? Uh it's not that Iran was on the verge of launching these attacks unilaterally.”
A European diplomat expressed concern that 'starting a war is easy, controlling it, ending it much harder if at all possible,' warning against the hubris of assuming military action can be contained and controlled.
“'And so it begins. You recall my concern that starting a war is easy, controlling it, ending it much harder if at all possible. The Iranian regime is evil, yet I'm taken aback about the hubris and ease of the decision to attack. The world is becoming unshackled and our most atavistic instincts unleashed all the while backed by unprecedented technological ability. I fear we're entering an age of impunity and suffering with no one in control.'”
Rob Malley, Obama's and Biden's point man on Iran and lead JCPOA negotiator, predicted that by the end of a recent podcast either a nuclear deal would be announced or Trump would order strikes on Iran's military and political targets, reflecting the unpredictable binary outcomes of Trump's approach.
“Rob said, 'I would not be at all surprised if by the end of this podcast you tell me, "Oh, we've just had a news bulletin that a deal has been struck, a nuclear deal has been struck, and President Trump has announced that it's the best deal that's ever been negotiated with anyone anywhere for the last 4,000 years." Or if you told me at the end of this, "Oh, we've just got a news bulletin that President Trump has ordered strikes on Iran and strikes against military political targets."'”
Two-thirds of the US's E-3 command and control aircraft have been sent to the region, which is strategic military equipment that would not be required for public relations purposes and indicates serious military intentions beyond mere posturing.
“some of the kit that has been sent as this build-up, 2/3 of the US's E-3 command and control aircraft, somebody said this would totally not be required just for PR in the way that some of the armada might be.”
Another scenario is an anti-regime technocratic US-backed government takeover, which could trigger an insurgency by former regime elements—the Iraq problem where Ba'athists kicked out then mounting insurgency against the new government.
“You have a anti-regime government takeover. So, maybe a technocratic US-backed government takeover, in which case you might have the former regime elements, right, the people who were lined up with the old regime, starting their own insurgency. That's the Iraq problem, right? The Ba'athists are kicked out, and then you have all the former Saddam loyalists mounting a tiny insurgency against the government.”
One can simultaneously believe the Iranian regime is truly evil and deserves to be overthrown, while also believing Trump's execution is reckless, stupid, ill-planned, and has very high probability of failing.
“Somehow we have to find a way of saying, 'I totally condemn the Iranian regime, but what Trump is doing is reckless, stupid, ill-planned, and has a very, very high probability of going wrong.' And even if he gets away with it, it'll be through fluke, not judgment.”
Israel's Channel 12 is reporting that Israeli officials believe Supreme Leader Khamenei, his advisers, and those responsible for the nuclear program have been assassinated, though the truth of this claim is unverified.
“somebody just sent me a uh a social media post quoting Israel's Channel 12 reporting Israeli officials believe that Khamenei, his advisers, and those responsible for the nuclear program have been assassinated. I have no idea if that is true or not.”
Khamenei's power structure is less a pyramid with him at the apex and more a series of pillars going in different directions, suggesting regime power is distributed among multiple centers rather than purely personalistic.
“I think Putin is an absolute dictator. I think Khamenei is the supreme leader, but I read somewhere recently somebody said it's less a pyramid structure, a more a series of pillars that's sort of going in different directions.”
If Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and top nuclear program officials have been killed in the strikes, this represents an immense change equivalent to removing Putin, Saddam Hussein, or Gaddafi, since Khamenei has personally controlled the Iranian regime for decades and is the linchpin holding the system together.
“somebody just sent me a uh a social media post quoting Israel's Channel 12 reporting Israeli officials believe that Khamenei, his advisers, and those responsible for the nuclear program have been assassinated. I have no idea if that is true or not.”
Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, were pressuring Trump to hold off on Iran strikes, with their preference being to avoid a major war breaking out in the region.
“Another argument was that uh the Gulf countries were holding off and that they didn't really want uh a war breaking out and that they'd put pressure on Trump to hold off.”
Supreme Leader Khamenei, 86 years old, is a true believer in the Iranian nation-state and sacred resistance who would not flee with his wealth like others might, representing the absolute linchpin of the regime that has run Iran since 1989 and kept the Islamic Republic in place.
“Khamenei has essentially run Iran since uh well, now for decades upon decades...And this man, 86 years old, is a true believer. He's not somebody that was likely to flee to Russia or head off with his loot. He's somebody who, to the end, believed strongly in the nation-state of Iran, in the sacred resistance, the fight against the US and Israel. And he is the absolute linchpin of that part of the regime.”
The most optimistic scenario for US-Israeli planners is that Khamenei's death will empower the Iranian people to rise up, the Revolutionary Guard and Basij will be unable to hang on to power, the military will support Reza Pahlavi, and Iran's parliamentary tradition will reassert itself in democratic elections.
“Their most optimistic scenario will be the Iranian people are completely fed up with this regime that when Khamenei and the top leadership falls the Revolutionary Guard and Basij will be unable to hang on to power. The army will maybe uh be a more neutral force, more sympathetic to the cause from Reza Pahlavi. I mean, he himself might even want to feel that the military has some residual loyalty to the old Shah. But in any case, uh that Iran This is the optimistic story. Iran has a very strange, strong, and long tradition of parliamentary engagement going back to the beginning of the 20th century. Mhm. And uh that there are this highly educated, progressive population, particularly in the cities. And that what will happen is that it will be like 1989. Right, the old leaders will be kicked out, and this is the very optimistic scenario. Uh elections follow, and sanity returns.”
Benham Ben Taleblu from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has written thoughtfully about how the US with Iranian public support could bring down the regime, but the actual path from A to B is so complicated that it's unclear whether American force can successfully navigate it.
“Benham Ben Taleblu and he's a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies which I I think opposed the JCPOA so he's probably you know very very anti-Iranian. But he set it it was a really interesting thoughtful piece and it was setting out how America with the support of the Iranian people could bring down the regime okay. But as I read through it I thought God this is bloody complicated. This could go any which way on the route from A to B.”
Negotiations with Wick and Kushner regarding Iran were characterized as 'fake' and merely theatrical—the Iranians would show up, Americans would demand capitulation, Iranians would refuse, and they would leave
“one of the things I kept hearing in Ukraine was that these negotiations with Wick and Kushner are just fake. They're for show. And you sort of feel it's been the same with this. The Iranians turn up, the Americans tell them to capitulate, the Iranians say no, and they go away.”
A politician defending Trump's actions claims 'at least he's doing something rather than sitting in constant conferences saying a lot and doing nothing,' which the speaker characterizes as confusing action per se with good action
“There's a guy called Time Lord Jenkins who sort of echoes your anxiety. He's he's on the other side to you, but that this is what you're dealing with. He says, 'I'm not a fan of Trump, but at least he's someone who's actually doing something rather than sitting in constant conferences saying a lot and doing nothing. It it it's this very odd world that you want to say rationally, yeah, but what what's he doing? I mean, the mere fact that you're doing something rather than sitting in a conference is not great if what you're doing is causing chaos.”
Germany was informed about the strikes (according to reporting of Der Spiegel) and Marles was due to go to Washington, but it's unclear whether the British government was informed before the strikes occurred.
“I was reading Der Spiegel this morning. They said Marles had been informed and Marles is due to go to Washington this week. I don't know whether the Brits were informed. I don't know whether the I just don't know.”
Jeremy Corbyn has criticized the strikes as illegal, unprovoked, and unjustifiable, representing the European left position that international law must constrain military action.
“Jeremy Corbyn coming out saying as you can imagine this is illegal, unprovoked, unjustifiable. These are rogue states breaking international law.”
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has expressed strong support for the strikes, emphasizing Iran's nuclear program threat and proxies while framing Iran as an oppressive regime the Australian people should stand against, the closest thing to full-throated US endorsement among major world leaders.
“Anthony Albanese... Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression. And then it talks about the Iranian regime's ballistic missile and nuclear programs, support for armed proxies, brutal acts of violence and intimidation, attacks on Australian soil, um human rights. And it then says, 'We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Kaja Kallas, EU foreign policy leader, has stated that while the Iranian regime is evil and missiles are a threat, she is calling for a cool head, suggesting European anxiety about escalation despite agreement on Iran's threat status.
“Kaja Kallas, who's the EU foreign leader, says, you know, this is an evil regime, missiles are a threat to us all, but calling for a cool head.”
Audience polling (80% believe Trump will fail at regime change, 55% believe full-blown war will result, 84% think Keir Starmer won't join the US, 41% believe Iranian people will rise up) suggests public skepticism about the strikes' goals and outcomes.
“Will Trump be successful in establishing regime change in Iran? Our viewers and listeners think no, 80%, yes 20%. Will there be a full-blown war? Yes 55, no 45. Will Keir Starmer join the US in Iran? No 84, yes 16. Will the Iranian people rise up against the regime the regime in the wake of these strikes? Yes, 41. No, 59.”