Speaker 1: As of the moment, we appear to have a cease fire.
Speaker 2: I look them in at the moment, we know that
Speaker 2: the it's initial announcement by US President Donald Trump that
Speaker 2: a ceasefire would begin around six hours and when he
Speaker 2: first stated on social media, and then of course we
Speaker 2: needed confirmation on you from Israel and of course Iran,
Speaker 2: and they've come out and they're.
Speaker 3: Kind of responded.
Speaker 2: But of course there's still information swirling around over the
Speaker 2: precise details.
Speaker 3: As I understand that.
Speaker 2: Iran will have to be the first twelve hours of
Speaker 2: the ceasefire, and then then after that Israel will commence
Speaker 2: their ceasepire stage. So I'm just trying to work out
Speaker 2: how that takes place, as to whether there is going
Speaker 2: to be ongoing, ongoing conclusions if he wants, and as
Speaker 2: to whether there is an enforcement stage. But there is
Speaker 2: a lot of details not yet confirmed yet. But as
Speaker 2: I understand it, Trump's announced it, and it's been number
Speaker 2: one headline pretty much last couple of hours.
Speaker 1: So what did you make of yesterday's strike by Iran
Speaker 1: on the American air bases and guitar and the fact
Speaker 1: that they apparently warned the Americans beforehand. This was going
Speaker 1: to happen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about this, and basically
Speaker 4: what we have is that you have these obviously response
Speaker 4: we know that we have choice words coming out from
Speaker 4: the Supreme leader from Iran, that there was going to
Speaker 4: be a response that of course the territorial integrity have
Speaker 4: been contravened and they were going to respond accordingly.
Speaker 2: As I understand, a twelve to thirteen missiles went to guitar.
Speaker 3: There was warning.
Speaker 2: But as I look at it, it's kind of almost
Speaker 2: like what we sometimes refer to as a Goldilock strike,
Speaker 2: Like it was almost like you want to be saved face,
Speaker 2: you want to be seen to be doing something.
Speaker 3: You don't just want.
Speaker 2: To sit back and absorb, So you make these strikes
Speaker 2: there of course thwarted, and then of course from there
Speaker 2: and then we see the ceasefly coming to the equation.
Speaker 2: So it's kind of like wanting to send a message
Speaker 2: sort of to your base, and you're not just letting
Speaker 2: it go, but at the same time you'd be sending
Speaker 2: a bit of a message. But and then of course
Speaker 2: we know Trump, you know, didn't he describe it as weak,
Speaker 2: And then of course he'd put his name all over
Speaker 2: the the you know, he branded his name as being
Speaker 2: the you know, organizing all that the ceasefire wasn't d
Speaker 2: taking place.
Speaker 3: So and then interestingly enough, you find out a few
Speaker 3: within half an hour.
Speaker 2: Of that announcement that Guitar was obviously involved in that
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister was involving contacting Iran and helping brokering
Speaker 2: the initial stages of the ceasefire.
Speaker 3: So really interesting developments that one.
Speaker 1: How successful did you think the bunker busting missiles were
Speaker 1: on the uranium uranium science?
Speaker 3: Well, look, I mean I.
Speaker 2: Think at this stage we can say that they've been
Speaker 2: pretty successful.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's hard to say.
Speaker 2: Trump's pr campaign have obviously said it's an unvriet of success.
Speaker 2: They've said they've hit Foder, which is obviously the one
Speaker 2: deeply buried, and they've hit and they hit that one.
Speaker 3: Significan with bunker busters.
Speaker 2: Obviously, they're hitting the tarns, and they hit Isvahan of
Speaker 2: course with a Tomahawk submarine or missile launched from a submarine.
Speaker 2: So as I understand that it's going to take a
Speaker 2: few days or even a few weeks before we ever
Speaker 2: really truly understand the extent.
Speaker 3: Of the damage.
Speaker 5: But the but just by the sheer fact that we
Speaker 5: have that sort of poundage hitting four to oh and
Speaker 5: the Tarns and Evensvahan.
Speaker 2: I think that you would argue that you can argue
Speaker 2: that significant damage has been done.
Speaker 3: Whether or not they're been able to move the.
Speaker 2: Already enriched uranium elsewhere has been subject for debate, and
Speaker 2: also just everyone's also been many commentators or analysts I
Speaker 2: should say that are pretty pretty well connected with nuclear
Speaker 2: issues have also argued that, you know, it's going to
Speaker 2: take a while before we truly understand the extent of
Speaker 2: the damage. But look at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: the sort of weaponry that was used, you would have
Speaker 2: to say the significant damage was done.
Speaker 3: But whether or not have got everything, well that's another question.
Speaker 1: Well that's right, because satellite image is shown a line
Speaker 1: of trucks at four dough before the strikes, and there
Speaker 1: is concern that there's over four hundred kilograms of uranium missing.
Speaker 3: Well, that's right.
Speaker 2: I mean I think that I think they're even preceding
Speaker 2: the Israel attack, but definitely once the Israel attack commenced,
Speaker 2: I think there would have been significant shifts of that
Speaker 2: mobilization of that material. They would have known for that
Speaker 2: type of strike coming from Israel wasn't just a tip
Speaker 2: for TAG. This was a serious intervention from Israel, and
Speaker 2: they would have known that the time the clock was
Speaker 2: ticking and probably probably had moved moved you know, reasonable
Speaker 2: portions of the enriched uranium and would argue.
Speaker 1: So the Vice President of America, jd Vance has told
Speaker 1: NBC News that the administration has no interest in a
Speaker 1: protracted conflict. There's going to be no boots on the ground.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's going to be the.
Speaker 2: It's hard to say, but I mean, like, obviously something
Speaker 2: can come from this treat, to this cease fire. I mean,
Speaker 2: but then ceaspires have been pretty you know, have been
Speaker 2: pretty ordinarily a.
Speaker 3: Here too, if we look at Russia and Ukraine in
Speaker 3: recent times.
Speaker 2: I don't feel super confident in CEA spires at the moment,
Speaker 2: particularly from and I don't really necessarily trust both Iran
Speaker 2: and Israel.
Speaker 3: To adhere to those.
Speaker 2: But look, if a c spy I can stick, and
Speaker 2: then there may be some form of an agreement or
Speaker 2: some form of a proper agreements that where terms are
Speaker 2: agreed upon, maybe just maybe this might work. But look,
Speaker 2: I think that it was high risk I think going
Speaker 2: in there, you know, when the threat threat to me
Speaker 2: wasn't imminent, it was the thread was developing, but it
Speaker 2: certainly wasn't imminence. In terms of Iran having the requisite
Speaker 2: delivery systems I had.
Speaker 3: I had issues with that.
Speaker 6: I was worried about it going into a regional war,
Speaker 6: and I was worried about it turning into a boots
Speaker 6: on ground operation, which is what you're alluding to, which
Speaker 6: is what we've always feared when it comes to particularly Iran,
Speaker 6: and having particularly come out having just really come out
Speaker 6: of Iraq and Syria and dare I say, Afghanta and
Speaker 6: obviously Afghanistan and obviously Isis.
Speaker 2: I mean, they've all entailed some semblance of boots on
Speaker 2: the ground, and really, you know, the United States has
Speaker 2: proclaimed itself being as being war weary and war weary,
Speaker 2: and I would argue that, yep, that's true.
Speaker 3: But you know, you may decide not.
Speaker 2: To have a protracted conflict or protracted elongated conflict, but
Speaker 2: sometimes you don't have those decisions.
Speaker 3: And that's what I was worried about with this strike option.
Speaker 2: I was worried that you may think you can get
Speaker 2: in and outs and knock over the regime, or not
Speaker 2: necessarily knock over the regime, knock over the actual site
Speaker 2: that is causing issues at hand. But you know, the
Speaker 2: reverberations were always going to be concerning for me.
Speaker 1: Well, I was talking to somebody yesterday about regime change,
Speaker 1: but not necessarily the regime completely changing, perhaps getting rid
Speaker 1: of Vitol Ali Kamany, but you could also then have
Speaker 1: him replaced by hardliners, which would be even worse for
Speaker 1: the region.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: I mean, we've seen it in terms of you know,
Speaker 2: you can manufacture a replacement, whether it be in terms
Speaker 2: of Iraq or Afghanistan. You can top of the tyrant
Speaker 2: and you can orchestrate something that's artificial that you think
Speaker 2: the local.
Speaker 3: Inhabits will inhabitants will gravitate too.
Speaker 2: You may you may have elections, you may have the
Speaker 2: semblance of democracy, you may have people who are compliance
Speaker 2: and seeing decent people.
Speaker 3: But unfortunately, when you.
Speaker 2: Knock over a tyrant or knock over an actor, a
Speaker 2: power vacuum opens up. And you know, good actors may
Speaker 2: get in that power vacuum, but also bad actors and
Speaker 2: extreme actors will always be around to get inside that
Speaker 2: power vacuum. And so that's the thing that I always
Speaker 2: you know many, you know many, it's one international relations
Speaker 2: one O one. You know, you may everyone you know
Speaker 2: in some instance as many people get tempted by regime change,
Speaker 2: but you've got to be beware of what is the
Speaker 2: replacement again, And as you allude to, it could be
Speaker 2: another extreme hardliner who may go even harder in terms of,
Speaker 2: you know, cracking down on a local population. Or you
Speaker 2: may get someone who comes in there and is maybe
Speaker 2: too compliant with the West and gets you served, you know,
Speaker 2: seven eight years down the track.
Speaker 3: So it's kind of one of those things that it's
Speaker 3: a precarious.
Speaker 7: Balance regime change. And even if you do regime change,
Speaker 7: are you prepared to be there for the long haul?
Speaker 7: If you're orchestrating, are you are you prepared to have
Speaker 7: your own troops on deck to maintain security?
Speaker 3: Are you prepared to pony up the money like what
Speaker 3: we've seen and then and then, and then of course
Speaker 3: you will.
Speaker 2: We see with Afghanistan the United States did that, but
Speaker 2: it was kind of like a life support system and
Speaker 2: once they jumped out, it just caved.
Speaker 1: And given the perceived success of this at this stage,
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump, how do you think that's going to
Speaker 1: bolster his position politically America. Do you think he'll be
Speaker 1: bolstered enough to act with impunity going forward.
Speaker 3: It's really interesting.
Speaker 2: I mean, I didn't think he would be this active
Speaker 2: in the foreign policy domain in Trump two point zero,
Speaker 2: but he's been very, very active.
Speaker 3: Obviously, he's lining up a few things.
Speaker 2: He's obviously, according to Pakistan, Pakistan just even tarted in
Speaker 2: the last you know, thirty to forty minutes or an
Speaker 2: hour that he should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 2: I know Trump really satiated by that notion. We're very
Speaker 2: tempted by that notion. I think he wants to try
Speaker 2: nine out a deal in terms of Ukraine and Russia.
Speaker 2: But he's been finding that that's been easy, he said,
Speaker 2: than done.
Speaker 3: And Putin's been schooling him a little bit in that regard.
Speaker 2: But you know, he may may just achieve that this.
Speaker 2: If he can pull this off, I'll be surprised. But
Speaker 2: you know, I've seen you never say never in international relations,
Speaker 2: and just maybe this is what it's taken. It's gone
Speaker 2: against my own views, but maybe just maybe you know,
Speaker 2: intervening and hitting a target like this and succeed out
Speaker 2: of it, even if it is illegal, maybe attained some
Speaker 2: sort of stability for the moment. I don't know how
Speaker 2: it's going to work itself out. In terms of the
Speaker 2: longer period of time, We'll have to wait and see.
Speaker 3: We don't even know what's going to happen in the
Speaker 3: next few days.
Speaker 1: How keen do you think Iran's allies are to be
Speaker 1: involved in this, like Russia and North Korea.
Speaker 3: Well, they're definitely not wanting to be involved. That's a
Speaker 3: really good question. A few people have asked me that
Speaker 3: I mean Russia, of course. You know, Russia and China
Speaker 3: both know where their bread's buttered.
Speaker 2: They're okay sticking to their own domains, but they've proven
Speaker 2: over the course of the twenty first century they don't
Speaker 2: like intervening too much in terms of other affairs.
Speaker 3: You know, China benefited immensely.
Speaker 2: When the United States was lost in the Afghanistan and
Speaker 2: Iraqi Wilderness.
Speaker 3: They benefited immensely.
Speaker 2: I would argue, and China and sorry, Russia, of course,
Speaker 2: you know it will say a few choice words.
Speaker 3: It's trying to strategically.
Speaker 2: You know, obviously met with Iran in the last twenty
Speaker 2: four hours or so, but it's got its eightful with
Speaker 2: Ukraine and trying to get that sorted. And we know
Speaker 2: proxies in the region have been deeply weakened over the
Speaker 2: last year and a half in terms of Iranian proxies
Speaker 2: and in terms of hes bele learned and obviously definitely
Speaker 2: harmicians and so forth. So this was probably an opportune
Speaker 2: time for Trump and and and definitely yet Nahu and
Speaker 2: and really it's kind of it's a really precariously based,
Speaker 2: you know, position of international affairs. I would argue, But
Speaker 2: it's a lot to play itself.
Speaker 3: Out, I would argue. But yeah, I would.
Speaker 2: Argue that at this stage the allies answer that question
Speaker 2: in a shorter fashion. Yeah, the friends and allies of
Speaker 2: of Iran kind of I would argue, Russia's got their
Speaker 2: hands full of China does not want to intervene, and
Speaker 2: the proxies are have been weakened over the last year
Speaker 2: and a half.