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