Yes, he's Australia overnight with the Pat Pernetta.
Australia overnight. Now, what will be the fallout from the US strikes on Iran? Our next guest is Professor Aiden Warren from Romot University. Now, this is changing pretty quickly, this crisis in the Middle East. But the time of recording this discussion, shortly before going to air, we know that Trump called the US to strike three nuclear sites in Iran using the American B two bombers and the
bunker Buster bomb. A few other details too to talk about with our next guest as far as what's happening now, including the ceasefire, how will Iran respond? We know there's been a hit on the US bas in Qatar. How successful were the strikes and will there be more bombing? To discuss it further, Professor Aiden Warren from the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies at Remt University. Hi there, Aiden, welcome back to the show.
Hi, how are you.
I'm good Now. I just wanted to mention that we're recording just before going to air because things are moving quite quickly. But yeah, well, you know, ceasefire is something we're looking at at this point in time. Those questions are interesting. How successful were the strikes, will there be more bombing, how will Iran respond? What's going to go with the ceasefire? Your thoughts and all this?
Please aiden, Oh boy, there's lots of unpacked there. Look at the moment we are at.
A ceasefire has declared, And initially it was declared this morning from Donald J. Trump that there was a ceasefire between he had broken a seaside between.
Israel and Iran, and then there.
Was more details that of course this was orchestrated or also broken by the guitar. President, I believe in the equation. And then from there on in the details a bit murky as to.
Whether Israel and Iran had agreed on the terms.
But since, you know, over the course of the day, Iran has come out and indicated that it has agreed with the terms of the agreement. In Israel has also said it agreed to US President Donald Trump cees fire proposal following its military successes in Iran. So obviously the this this cease fire has been announced obviously with a
with a time time frame. But in the meantime, Israel and Iran have been also you know, continue on with their various assertive bombing campaigns and so forth, trying to get a few few away before of course the ceasefire you know, comes into play, which in itself is a you know it always maccab thing about war the other thing I will say. So obviously this follows a long
procession of events, we know it. He really got to the point where, you know, obviously we have the the the Israel Iran flict or the Israel invasion of Iran.
That's you know, probably in this eleventh to twelfth day.
And then of course that went back and forward to the point where Trump of course came into the equation because obviously it was illustrated to Trump that Iran did not have the sorry, Israel did not have the capabilities to get into, you know, get those the requisite nuclear sites.
We saw the lead up to that.
Which of course was you know, you know, I mean like something out of a movie in a way, where you had a decoy couple of b B two bombers heading to Guam, and then you had another procession moving to the Middle East. Then you have of course bombers going in overnight and hitting those three sites. And then of course one the one submarine sending Tomahawk strikes into Isfahan, which is one of the third which is the third side the main sites.
Of course, we were definitely Photo and of course.
The Tans and so those who were with bunker busses.
Then there was a whole debate about, you know, whether or not Trump had the authority, and then there was a whole debate about, you know, did this is a big one that came to the four did those bunker busses actually really get inside and do the records of damage to really destroy the material or the sort of the infrastructure and the centrifuges and so forth, particularly in Photo in terms of the tons, of course, did that to what extent did they get did get inside the tons?
And then of course in Isfahan, to what extent was it.
Able to get the secured or a uranium that was already enrich And that led to another debate about did Iran actually have time to move that material.
So there's been a whole lot going on.
I mean, it's really been a and I won't say hours our proposition, but it's been really you know, every file four or five hours there's been something developing.
I mean, and the world has been waiting with beta breath.
Of course, so after those strikes from Trump in the United States, then everyone was waiting with beta.
Breath of what was Iran's response going to be?
And they responded, of course with their their sending twelve to thirteen missiles to Guitar.
Really what easily interceptor?
They also advised Guitar and I believe the United States station. No, they didn't advise the United States. They advised us how that these were coming. Nothing really was substantially damaged. I'm telling a why don't.
You asked a lot?
Did as very interesting?
Yes, yes, but basically, look that went through to the keeper.
Those those they were thwarted or they went they were inconsequential those missiles.
And then just on that.
To be warned and inconsequential to fire the missiles. Is that a bit of an active force from Iran to showcase what they're doing, But then they didn't really want to do as much damage as they could by warning people and easily intercepted. Is there something we can read into that situation?
Yes, you're then on the head.
Basically from my point of view, this is.
What I think is is really you know, it's sometimes.
Referred to as a Goldilocks strike.
Where you're just wanting to get it right. You're wanting to say face, You're wanting to if.
I was the supreme leader of Iran, really wanted to at least look.
Like I'm doing something.
I'm not just sitting there idol and not responding to those you know, significant significant attacks of course by the United States on those three you know, really significant pillars of the Iranian states in terms of those nuclear sites. And then of course, you know you want to at least be doing something.
You know your your power is waning, you know your your.
Missile your missile capacities has been diminished over the last week or so, and so you send this strike. It's almost like, Okay, I've responded, and then hopefully that will be where things are said or will example enough from the United States not to get think go hardcore back in their response. They let that go through to the keeper.
Israel of course, has still kept up its campaign hitting Iran and Iran vice versa to Israel, but it's probably allowed an opportunity, of course, where something was able to be broken. I mean Trump's of course said that he he's organized the deal between Israel and Iran.
But it's also come out that, as I've alluded to guitar, the leader.
Has come out and also helped broke or helped discuss with Iran coming towards moving towards a ceasefire which hopefully, hopefully can work towards coming towards a conclusion to this war. But remember the sea spires, that's face. So, without going on too much, cea spires in the context of if we look at it in the context of Ukraine and Russia, well, you know they can be easily contravened.
Well that's right, yes, yes, Australia have a night professor Aden Warren from Ramot Universities with US the US political exp Was there another way? Did it have to be this way? You know, diplomacy and Israel were concerned or the world was concerned about Iran and making nuclear weapons for a long time, and it's come to this. Was this the only way to sort of bring it to ahead and get in there and eliminate the production capabilities of these bombs? And here we are, Well.
From my point of view, yes, there was another option. I thought there was a good thing in tackle.
It was called the Iran nuclear deal that went from twenty fifteen to eighteen as one of Obama's signature agreements. It went a long way to mitigating Iran as the threats in terms of nuclear weapons.
And also so I thought that that was already in place.
Trump, of course in twenty eighteen got rid of that because you know, he wanted widen it to include other activities of the Iran States, and also he wanted it was an Obama signature agreement, so that there was probably pert all things from my point of view, that got you know, want him to get rid of it.
But if we.
Fast forward to now, from my point of view, I think that I think that going in, you know, the threat wasn't imminent as what is being made out.
They had a nuclear enrichment program.
They were enriching up to levels that were probably beyond that you know I have for nuclear energy purposes, but they were they were enriching. They did not have the delivery capability is a long way of having a delivery capability for a nuclear weapon, and that's.
The other thing that comes from the equation.
And excuse me, they had the and so that was that's the other thing that comes in the equation.
For me is they didn't have.
The delivery and and I really I think I had problems also with the notion that you know, invading another state to really and then and really going hard with with interventions and use a military.
Force is I don't think it's a way to go.
I think this is high stakes, high risk, and I wouldn't get carried away that he's Trump's pulled it off, you know, in terms of getting a ceasefly CPI.
Is one thing.
But now we have to nut out an agreements.
We have to nut out, you know, as Iran and Israel.
Accepting terms, and we have to hope that there is not any other skirmishes in between. And we also have to hope that there's not other any retaliation with other proxies of Iran than and other friends and allies of Iran in the region.
So there's a lot to play itself out. It's a good result now, but from my point of view, I think.
That I would have preferred, you know, there was we're off to the there was a Trump A fairness to Trump was his administration was in their fifth round of talks with Iran and they're about to have the sixth round of talks with Iran when Israel took it upon itself to attack Iran, and I thought that, you know those talks, you.
Know, people say they weren't going to yield.
Me think I think that there could have been a deal nutted out of that. But depends on where you are on the spectrum. I think that there could have been another option. I think it was high risk intervening.
In another state and potentially opening.
Up a regional war, even World War three.
Well one, double three six nine three, Professor Adam Warren's on the line, and if you want to comment, agree or disagree, that's our number here at Australia of n won double three six nine three. You said they didn't have the delivery capability, but wasn't it only a matter of time that would work it out though?
Professor Well, well that's the whole that's a very good question.
Look, when the around Nuclear Deal was signed and ratified and so forth, it expands it around nuclear breakout capacity from twelve to fort en months, and basically there was you know, there were sanctions that could have easily been snapped back into place, and there was International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors always inspecting sites at all at all times,
whenever they wanted to at will. When that was of course scotched by the trump of minister stration Iran, you know, regime started enriching up to other levels and higher levels into dangerous that it was also because you know, why would you be wanting to comply with the West when they're you know, they are the ones who walked away with that particular agreement.
That's that's the way you can look at it. But look, my.
View is that they were enriching up to a sixty percent level.
You need about ninety percent to even have the.
Requisite material, so probably about two to three weeks away from that if they wanted to.
But then they have to have the missile.
Then they have to have the harness that that particular technology into a light enough warhead to again be able to wage this sort of attack. So to me, according to and again according to other people in the nuclear domains, there was still ample you know, there was still ample time to go and look from my point of view, also again Iran is part of the Nuclear non Proliferation Treaty. It does not have nuclear weapons, It did not have a nuclear bomb. North Korea has nuclear weapons, is not
part of the MPT. Israel has nuclear weapons, is not part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or the MPT.
Pakistan does, India does, and they are.
Both also not part of the Nuclear Ompiliferation Treaty, and they yet afforded all sorts of concessions. So I'm not saying I'm a proponent of around having a nuclear weapon, but from an Iraan perspective, I think that needs to.
Be played itself out into the equation. You know, they're part of the Nuclear Opliferation Treaty.
Those four nation states that I mentioned, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea are not part of the Nuclear Nonpliferation Treaty and they have nuclear weapons and they do not allow inspections into their respective sites.
Yes, is the only difference, as made a good point there. But the difference might be the fact that, well, Israel are there, and it's easy for us to say because we're long way away and let's try to negotiate this way, and you're all over it. But if you're in Israel, maybe this is a political motive. It's a greater threat, and it's just next door and the Gaza thing and
it's all happening that's the difference in my mind. You mentioned these other places, but it's quite unique what we've been watching there in the Middle East in that threat just across the road there from Iran has meant that Israel has decided to try to stop them with whatever they were doing with nuclear weapons, and that's what's led to this. But your point is, what about those other countries.
I don't disagree with that. I mean, I think that, yeah, you're right.
I don't understand why from Israel's perspective, why they enjoy having the nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. So the only country in Middle East that has a nuclear monopoly right and has nuclear weapons and has you know, in between three to four hundred nuclear weapons. That's a lot and so therefore they probably don't want to be sharing that power with another nation state in the Middle East. But from I think, from from a rain perspective, how how I can understand.
I'm not condoning.
I would not want them to get a nuclear weapon, but I think they liked the fact that they had a little bit of nuclear ambiguity because it was their way of having a bit of a terrence.
It was their way of hope, hopefully making you.
Know, you know their threats, because we can't just assume that you know, Israel has threats, and therefore we always we're always got to look after Israel's perceived threats. There's other nation states in that region they feel under thread also.
Right, So it's the which is their tactic. And I'm not condoning those either.
I'm just saying, when you have dynamics, they don't just come, they don't just come born out of nowhere sort of so to speak.
Yes, everyone's playing their card and this in this you know, this thing that we're watching, this conflict that we're all holding our breath on. So I guess as we go one double three six nine three, I'm going to ask you where to from now? But we don't know, do it. It feels like a bit of a de escalation to me. Now we've had a flaring up and let's hope that it can just sort of settled down to be.
Well, I'm going to be optimistic about it, you know what I mean. I know I'm trying to I'm being quite frank and trying to.
Wave everything up. But you know, I think now that.
We're here, now that we've you know, we've we've we've gone right, We've gone right up to you know, how do I say this is high risks?
Maybe the mistaken about it. This is a high risk.
If Trump pulls a rabbit out of the heart, which you just might do, well, then you know we on the I'll be the first is hopefully you know, if this.
Means that Iran and we'll get maybe even some regime change with a decent regime in there. If this means that there'll be.
No more you know, there'll be Israel will settle down and I won't be just contravening other states as borders and doing what they will will If this means that other states in the region behave a little better and we can get some sort of you know, less tension in the region, I'll be the first to sort of say, hey, well done, but the rabbit's pulled. You know, he's pulled a bit of a rabbit out of having now. But let's face it again, anything can change.
By the time this goes to air.
This is a cease fire. Now we need to work out the terms of an agreement. Now we need to get both parties to agree to the agreement. And I know that Iran will be still wanting certain things going their way, and so will Israel and.
That's you know as well as I do. That's going to be really hard to broker.
And if they do not, and they do not come to terms, well then there'll be a return to escal there will be a return to missiles from both sides, and then you got again have us into the equation. So from my end, I know I'm talking a lot, but really there's a lot time play itself out. I'm very I'm stoked that there is a cease fire. I hope continues into an agreement that both parties agree on. I'd love to see regime change with a decent regime comes to the fore in Iran and.
Then hopefully go to everlasting peace in the Middle East.
That would be my ultimate goal.
You're being modest and kind saying you're talking a lot, and it's very sharp analysis. This is your world. You get it, and you can you know, you're watching it, and you're giving us your true insight, and it's very helpful for our listeners and for me to sort of hear what you've got to say, and of course we process it and think, well, you know, we see it on the news and what is Professor Adam warren't saying. So thank you for your time on Australia every night.
We'll talk to you soon again on the program.
Thank you anytime, Thank you very much.