The case for Trump's war in Iran

This is a Global Player original podcast. United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation. From threatening America. What? There absolutely was an imminent threat and the attacked and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. Hãy subscribe cho kênh La La School Để không bỏ lỡ những video hấp dẫn that the Ayatollah has been killed. The mission is a little bit more than a little bit. Focused. Obliterate Iran's missiles. Or we can't do it.

Yeah. It has been a dizzying three weeks in a dizzying war. There is so much that is so strange about the Iran conflict. So many unbound threads just hanging in the air, so many mysteries. about the biggest, most consequential Middle Eastern war for a generation. Principally and incredibly Why is it happening? What are its objectives?

For many Americans, for much of the wider world for that matter, it seemed to descend from nowhere, remarkably enough, given, you could say, there had been a forty seven year preamble. Yet Trump and his administration could not even tell a story about that, had prepared so little of the ground. Taken so few of their countrymen and women with them, did not even brief his closest allies, let alone convince them a master of marketing suddenly without a song to sing.

And when he has put forward a rationale or a reason or set of objectives, they are no sooner put than changed or rejected, sometimes by the very mouths that had said them. In short, there have been few, if any, articulate proponents of why this war is happening at all, which partly explains why, unlike at the start of previous conflicts, there has been so little public support.

Briefly, the lack of voices in favour did change this week, at least in one unlikely quarter. A Doha based academic, doctor Muhanad Salun. Professor of International Politics and Security at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, also a fellow at the University of Exeter's Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies. A few days ago he wrote a piece. for Al Jazeera, entitled The US Israeli Strategy Against Iran Is Working.

In it he argues that the prevailing narrative across much of the Western media and politics is wrong, that there is a plan, that there is an end game, and it will succeed. It seemed to articulate an argument better than anyone in the Trump administration has been willing or able to do. It lit up the MAGA online world and much

of the online right, including commentators in the UK who started sharing it, arguing that it showed that the dreaded lily livered libs were wrong. There was method to the Trumpian madness, after all. So much so that President Trump himself shared it on Truth Social to be retruth thousands. of times. Again with the article's title The US Israeli Strategy Against Iran is Working. It's not often that Trump shazelink from Al Jazeera.

Now, if you've listened to our coverage of the war these last three weeks, and if you haven't, where have you been? You'll know I think it's fair to say that we've all been a bit sceptical about the war's provenance, its aims, where it's going. So we thought BBC impartiality still in our bones. We wanted to bring you a different taste. So this is my conversation with Dr. Saloom from Doha, the case for the Iran War in a way that Trump could perhaps never say. Welcome to the news agents.

The news agents. Well we're joined now from Doha by Dr. Muhammad Saloon. Doctor Saloon, thank you so much for joining us on the News Agents. Um since before we get into the um I just thought giving you our in Doha, it might be worth just giving the listeners and the viewers a sense of what life is like there at the moment and what it has been like over the last three weeks because

Although in this piece you are arguing for the logic of the war, you and all of those around you, of course, are living with the brunt effect of it.

Indeed. Um well thank you first for having me. And here life is by large uh normal. Uh I would say unusually normal. Once or twice we have these missiles flying over our city going to their uh targets and being intercepted mostly most of them I I wouldn't say that it's it's something that we like to have or something that people can get used to or want to use to.

But that is the reality that we have in a very uh in a usually uh otherwise very um peaceful and quiet city. But obviously presumably a great deal of concern. from the Qataris and the Qatari government about these uh attacks that we're seeing on Qatari energy infrastructure. Mm-hmm.

So they are far from here. We don't see them. Despite the fact that some uh social media and with the AI and everything, you we you can see that as if the city is as you know, uh is having some kind of fire in the background. Uh there is nothing like that. Um the b y these installations, uh the uh oil infrastructure is far away and we don't see that. We just like uh you are in London, here in Doha, we see these on on T V or Al Jazeera or any any other station or through social media.

Um let's turn then to to your piece because it it's got a lot of attention and and um uh h has an arresting argument in it. This this a narrative which has been commonplace um across much of the Western media, which is this is a war without an end game, this is something that Trump has fallen into, that it's proving disastrous. Why that is, in your view, misplaced or wrong?

Because the focus here is basically on other places. Uh so for example, as we speak now, the focus is on this trait of hormones, which is a critical and important. for the uh world economy and also for the region. But that is not where the focus of the war is. And also, uh, as you mentioned and also I has argued in that piece.

there is um th you know th there is a focus on why this um campaign is pointless and it doesn't have a strategy. But I think what the US is doing They did have a strategy, they still do have a strategy, which is basically degrading Iran's uh capabilities, both nuclear and military, because um just prior to the war, the assessment of the US and Israel and and by the way I'm not advocating

Either. What I'm trying to say here is in military terms, as an operation and tactically, this war on Iran is delivering its set objectives. And the numbers show that as well, support this argument. When the war started we had hundreds of uh ballistic missiles flying over um G C C countries and or even to Jordan and to Israel. As we speak now the number has fallen uh quite sharply. Also, um, you know, when you look at um the war, yes it it feels forever, especially for us here in Doha.

It's only twenty days. Um, but in in military terms and in war terms, twenty days is not very long. And what is my comparative reference here? As Iraq in nineteen ninety one and in two thousand three both the the aerial comp um campaign to uh bomb Baghdad and other cities took more than uh five weeks, up to six weeks.

We are still twenty days on and the results speak for themselves. Again I am not cheering for for this war this campaign is delivering on its uh terms. The whole almost all of the leadership of of the Iranian um government has been uh de decapitated. as well as the Iranian government is struggling to replace them. The uh Iran as we speak now doesn't have a supreme leader. They do have one in name, who's Mujtaba, the son of the uh former leader of um of the IRGC.

And um but we haven't seen him or heared what he had to say. So Iran now is you know, that there is a massive disruption of command and control. And Iran, uh unlike any other regime in the region, they don't have uh a s like a normal government. So they have a president, they have um um they have also foreign minister and

uh a functioning government, but that government doesn't have a lot of power. As we speak now, the IRGC is in power, its leader is missing um or you know, we don't know where he is, and most of its um if you like uh com uh field commanders have been decapitated. So what we are looking at here is a country that is being attacked fiercely by a very Um powerful country which is the United States.

along with the with Israel. And maybe I will um address the point that, you know, Israel is leading this war. Or there is this insinuation that it was Israel who got the U.S. before before you get there, Doctor Zoom, I just wanna just be clear for the listeners and viewers, just just to put the this this part of your argument,'cause I think it is important.

uh crisply. Your argument is essentially that even if the US is not always stating its objectives especially cleanly, and indeed those goalposts have kind of been moved by the President President Trump multiple times Your argument is that in terms that there is a strategic aim, which is to permanently militarily degrade They are making um yeah, massive progress in that direction.

uh not only in terms of um their conventional military capabilities, Iranian conventional military capabil capabilities, but also in terms of controlling Iran's ambition to own a nuclear bomb. And today we hear the CIA director at the Senate hearing saying that Iran was intending on acquiring a nuclear bomb. And also they had the evidence um that Iran was planning to use that if

it had to. So uh that is, you know, now coming from the int intelligence uh community. And it's still these four hundred and fifty kilograms of enriched uranium They're being locked and monitored uh under the ground. They're in gas form in cylinders and it seems uh at least this is a from the information I have read that the United States and Israel are keeping a close eye on one narrow entry point into where these um four hundred fifty kilograms are kept.

But I suppose the the counter argument to that, Dr. Slim, would be to say that yes, of course, I don't think there can be much argument that the Iranian um Iranian military capabilities are being degraded. But ultimately unless You achieved the What the President said initially, President Trump, his aim was, which was regime change. Well at some point the Americans and the Israelis will stop bombing.

And if the regime is still in place and presumably its intent hardened more than ever before to survive then they can rebuild their miltr military capabilities and they can certainly n as you say, acknowledge yourself in the peace. They can't unlearn the knowledge they've gained with regards to a nuclear weapon. So on some level, you're back to square one, aren't you?

Well, you would be if the main objective is regime change. The regime has already changed.

Um as I started uh has it? Well when it's just some what definitely it has changed. Because you know, usually regimes when they are being targeted and decapitated on this level unprecedented, I don't think I have ever read or or you know, listened to anybody talking about a regime that has been successfully dec decapitated in this way, killing the leader, the top of the uh of the pyramid and also everyone else, including the director of intelligence.

I think um uh yesterday and Lali Larijani as well. Uh they usually the the replacement would not you know, you they would not go for being hardened. They would try to survive. So they ha they would have a logic of survival. And as we speak now, they are fending for themselves, trying to protect themselves, whoever left of the leadership.

protecting themselves again. It's assassinations. Again, morally, legally, that that's a different argument. What I'm focused on in in in my work is is this working? It is delivering. And also the war is not over yet. Whether the United States and Israel have something, some kind of a plan to uh you know, for regime change and what kind of regime change? I don't know about that. I think the United States would have to make... But I suppose, you know,

It depends what your metric is, doesn't it? And and if the metric is to at any given moment in time, as we're speaking right now, or maybe for the next month or six months or or a year or who knows, to degrade Iran's military, th then fine, there can be no doubt that this operation will lightly succeed. But if your objective is to permanently neutralize Iran as a threat, Then it's not going to work, is it? Because all they will do is is rebuild their military capabilities.

Their ambition will, as I say, will be hardened, and actually if anything, this war presumably tells whatever is left of the regime that actually a nuclear weapon is absolutely what they need to guarantee their own survival. So as I say, just ultimately back to square one. That that you know, that that assumes that the regime stays the same. The regime is it does not stay the same. As I said, uh it has already been changed.

And the competition. Do you really think do we w do we do we do we what what's the evidence do we have that that whoever takes over now, and we've already obviously got the son of the Ayotollahs taken over, that their attitudes will be much different to that of the previous government if you can describe it in such terms? Great. Well um previous cases and also uh the regime itself, if we step back, you know, it's

I understand the ar you know, where you come from with this. And also I understand the argument that the regime, you know, might survive and they would be hardened and especially the sun. uh who supposedly taken over from his father would seek revenge. His father was killed, his mother was killed, and more of his family. Um but first we don't know if he's still alive. We haven't heard not his voice. We don't know where he is.

Secondly, the regime has changed fundamentally and the evidence to that if we step back now to twenty seventh of February and compare who's left of the regime today and we are on the nineteenth of march. I I think it would be very hard to to name a few of the people left, uh and I mean p leaders of the regime, because most of them have been decapitated and usually such regimes would need to recon configure themselves.

And they would need a lot of time trying to survive and rebuild, especially in a country where their legitimacy is being questioned massively, only like six or eight weeks ago they have a demonstration. But th yes, but those demonstrations have stopped because the regime is using the occasion of the war to tighten their internal control.

And there is no evidence as far as I'm aware at least of uh the whoever is going to take over having a fundamentally different disposition to those who came before and and as you say, you know, you could argue you're dealing with a slightly different regime and you could argue that this is worse than we had before, because we see a country which is now basically acting not like a state in war, but acting effectively like a large scale guerrilla group.

destroying key pieces of economic infrastructure which is going to create all sorts of economic and political consequences the world over. So is this any better than where we were three and a half weeks ago?

Great. So what is better, what is not, I think that's also another different argument. What we are looking here at is Iran that has been changed. fundamentally um a regime that has been weakened to a large extent and also I just want to focus on this you say that Iran has been changed fundamentally. H how can we know that? How how do we know that?

The leadership in Iran is unlike anything else. Um it's there are very few cases in the world that resembles the leadership in Iran. So for example, Ayatullah Khamenei, he wasn't a normal leader of a group. or because you know he was in the he was in the president. He is a he has a religious authority and this religious authority has been removed. That's why also proxies in the region they're acting out in in in ways that are not in line with Iran's interests.

And whoever takes over has to have that kind of authority. And his son does not have that. Even if if he's being elected. He's been elected by the IRGC, not by the Hausa, the religious The Ayatollah was Dr. Slum, the Ayatollah was an old man. I mean, frankly, he was an eighty six year old man and death presumably was coming for him in the near future, come what may. We didn't need

thousands of tons of American and Israeli bombs to achieve that. Yes, but uh the the war does not go only for him. He was killed. It's different than, you know, he passed away. And he had a lot of authority. And I would uh maybe take another example to compare. Look at Iraq. We have Sistani. Sistani is ninety plus years old. But he still holds a lot of authority in Iraq. Actually he's more fa powerful than the government in Baghdad. And it's the you know, because they come from a similar

House, which is the um the religious if you like center in Iraq and this they have a similar one in Khom. That is one. Two, the regime, you know, the demonstrations did not stop because of the war. The demonstrations stopped. Because the regime killed more than thirty two thousand people. uh of you know i Iranians and that is had to you know the the war had the sorry the demonstrations had to to stop.

And Trump himself says something. He said that the Iranian people, even though he called on them to rise against their own government and take over, later a few days ago I think he said that the Iranian the Iranian people are still weak. And they wouldn't be able to do that. to rise again against the government and we need to finish the job by weakening and dismantling um the Iranian government so that the people take over. And also I don't see the um the US administration really

um having that as their strategic objective. What they would go for is degrading Iran's military capabilities, making sure that Iran does not own a nuclear bomb, and then they will see uh where this goes. My I would say my assessment that over the next few weeks this will be uh intensive military campaign and then it would go into low intensity conflict. To be clear then, you do think that um in order for this Uh effort.

to be successful. On some level it will require a form of of regime change. I know you're saying, well to some extent perhaps that's happened already, but in order to basically escape the trap of degrading them militarily now, only for them to rebuild or perhaps try and obtain a nuclear bomb again in the future. You do accept that On some level there needs to be regime change. And and and if it is the case that the Americans and Israelis

conclude that whoever has taken over now, whatever form the Iranian government now has, if they conclude that actually it hasn't changed very much attitudinally by comparison to the old regime, then that logic necessitates actual regime change, doesn't it? So

uh more intense military force, perhaps even boots on the ground. I don't see the US sending boots on the ground. That would be um strategically un un attainable. It's it would be a massive mistake. thousands of of American s soldiers would be uh slaughtered in in Iran. Iran is a massive country with ninety plus million population. I don't and they and the US and its allies

had their experience uh in Iraq. But yes, they would have to go for the hard options, basically pressuring Iran more, bombarding Iran and that's you know, that explains maybe the next phase which was started already by uh targeting Iranian infrastructure. I mean and by the way, whether it's wrong or or right, that's you know, that's another

issue but the US would go for that for that phase. At this point what they are doing basically they decapitated the leadership and now they are degrading the military capabilities And they will move even further. Probably the US and Israel have also people on the ground. We have seen this last June that uh Israel and the US had people.

um you know the agents and people who are against the regime causing a lot of trouble for the Iranian um government and they they are still executing people and arresting people. Earlier today I read in in Iranian media that uh they have arrested a hundred thirty nine So called CIA agents and this very war that is start it started with uh a human source informing the CIA that uh of the location where Khamenei was. Stay with us. I will be talking more with Dr. Saloom after the break.

From a range of trusted voices and award-winning journalists. Good morning, I'm Nick Ferrari. It's time to get to your calls. The latest news and hear every side of the story. There is no question. Ending the war is the quickest way to reduce the cost of living. That is my first instinct, my first priority. petrol and fuel costs for Keir Starmer to say yes to President Trump and send the Navy to The fallout of the Iran War. Follow it live on LBC. Listen on our free. app or the LBC app.

The news agents. To suggest and I think perhaps this is something that um viewers and listeners will find surprising, because your argument is that not only is there a clear objective, but you think that there is an end game. And that that is uh misplaced commentary that there's been to say that Trump doesn't have an endgame. Why do you think he has an end game? Well you you don't go to war without an end game.

Don't you think? Did Putin Putin didn't have an end game, did he? Or uh did George W. Bush have an end game particularly in two thousand and three? I mean it wouldn't be the first he wouldn't be the first leader to go into a war without being sure how it ends, would he? Well I think every war starts with an end game, but whether they would arrive attain that or reach that end game that's a different story. So with with President Trump

and Israel um uh alongside him. They went with With the aim of not regime change, that would be uh, if you like, a bonus. But w they wanted to make sure that Iran does not pose a threat. I mean continuously Trump did say it was about regime change on the first day, of course. Well, uh maybe I wanted to address that earlier.

So uh Trump, um, you know, and I think I mentioned that in the in in my article, that Trump communication is really it's really hard to analyse. So if you listen to Trump every day, the the narrative would be changing.

So he has not been doing very well in terms of communication. But this war has been a plan for decades. This is not a new and also Iran's defense has been a plan for decades. And both parties are talking about this. Everybody knew that Iran is a problem for the US and and Israel, and this has been done by Obama and other countries. Every president or administration had their own way.

trying to deal with this issue. Now Trump took the decision to go uh to Iran, supposedly based on the intelligence community um reporting that you know there is Iran is planning to um weaponize its its nuclear capabilities and I think uh Jared Kushner and um Barack, Tom Barak they said that during the meeting in Geneva Um Araqchi, the foreign minister of Iran, says something uh very direct to them at the very beginning of the negotiations. He said that we have four hundred fifty

uh kilograms of enriched uri uranium that would enable us to make ten nuclear bombs. And the these um um negotiations collapsed and um I think it was brokered by Oman. And so the this you know the ri the war did not come out of the cold. This has been built up over decades.

But I mean to be clear in terms of his end game, are you are you clear as to what it is? Even if you think the Americans on some level are are you clear as to what it is? Yeah, but a President Trump, um, you know, he's not leading the uh the the military operations on the ground. The it's consistent, the consistent message coming out of the White House is that what they want is degrade to degrade Iran's conventional military capabilities and to make sure that Iran does not

weaponize its nuclear uh capabilities. And these two To me they seem to be the main objective of this uh war and and the US and Israel al alongside it, they are progressing uh very well so far in that direction. But but again, i if it this is about let's leave regime change to one side. If this is about what it's always been about, which is an Iranian nuclear weapon. I mean you mentioned the missing Uranium

On what level? I mean and you say in your piece uh you mention this i in your piece, but on what Um on what level can we be assured that whatever replaces This Iranian government that has just gone will simply not resume what Iranian governments have been trying to secure for decades, which is an Iranian nuclear bomb. And that this war will have just convinced them more than any before.

or any period before that that is necessary. So by the end of this war, this the the result that the US is hoping for is that they will make it very expensive for any income regime to seek again developing or weaponizing their nuclear capabilities. And you know, again, I would rev uh uh refer to the uh case of Iraq after nineteen ninety one. Saddam wanted to resume uh uh his uh nuclear capabilities or also uh develop his military

uh capabilities. But you know, he he did not do very well. We understood from the Butler review, uh right of I mean, unfortunately many years after the um the invasion, that Iraq did not have these capabilities. And b why? Because the uh coalition made it very uh um prohibit um you know very expensive for the regime to do that and for Iran. even it it it would become really much more much harder. The reason is

Um, the neighborhood of Iran is not the same today and they would not help them. G C C countries they used to mediate. to prevent any kind of action against Iran. Now they are going the other way around, even though they did not, you know, choose to report this war. But as you yourself say in the piece, the answer i. e. to prevent the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon in future after this conflict requires a post conflict framework.

that does not yet exist in public, a verification regime, a diplomatic settlement, or a sustained enforcement posture. The US administration owes the American Republic and its regional partners a clear account of what that framework would look like. I mean the reason they haven't given a clear account, doctor, isn't it, is because it doesn't exist and actually no administration over many years has been able to come up with one.

The US administration owes this to the to the US and also to the world and to etc lies. Even here in the in the region, you know, many countries in the G uh G C countries and their governments they wonder what is the end game of this war. H when would it end? What is the timeline? What are the uh, you know, check uh checkpoints where we know where we are. But what I'm reading is uh you know, I'm reading into a war that is already ongoing.

It's not the choice of the region and it's probably not the choice of many uh c you know, uh allies of the US. But in terms of a of you know pure military um you know military and also um if you like um where where the US vis a vis Iran stands. It seems to me that this is, you know, going in the right direction. The data support this argument and also what is going on in Iran, you know, uh

I would go back to this. Iran has changed already, even though we are only twenty days into this war. But wouldn't uh it have been far better? N the f sensible people will all agree that Iran and the Iranian nuclear program was a threat. Wouldn't it have been far better

To allow the Amani talks which are Plenty of government sources around the world, including people from the UK government, said were showing real progress to come to their conclusion before launching a war where the consequences are uncontrollable and unknowable. That that's a very valid argument. But that is, you know, not w what I argued in my piece. W I talked more about the ongoing war, whether, you know, obviously it it would be always better to have

um negotiations instead of war. This region has already suffered enough. Too many wars. And as you said, many argue that these wars did not really deliver peace. or stability. Maybe we we end up with something like Syria. post Assad or uh Libya post Gaddafi. So that's that you know, that is on the on the table.

But in terms of the ongoing war on Iran by the US and Israel, whether that would be translated into uh you know um uh sustainable stability or maybe um you know the the would deprive Iran of its capabilities in the future or end the regime, I think um that's yet to be seen. Y your argument, um, which you've made, Dr Lumis, to basic is to say that um the effect of the war militarily on Iran will be so significant

as to hopefully bring whatever this regime is to to heel. And that the American power and Israeli power will have been so significant that it will basically force them to do that. Isn't there a quite different take right now in terms of what's going on in this war? Yes, you're right that militarily the Iranians are being pounded. But actually what the Iranians are showing is that they have potent and significant power over the United States.

over the rest of the world through which you dismiss in your argument but I think is imp in your piece, but I think is important through their exercise of power over the Straits of Hurmuz. And now they've done this Everyone knows that it is an effective deterrent that they might be able to use again. Great. In military terms, um the Iran does not have the power to really close this trade for a very long time.

Um what happened basically now why it's closed, because they have uh managed to deliver a credible threat. Took this a trape with minimal force. This is um unsustainable for a long term. And also a Why? Why is it unsustainable in a long time at the moment? They're doing it with a few drones, missiles and speed boats or the threats of a few drones, missiles and speed boats, won't that always be there? Uh no no always. The US and Israel, and especially the US, it has the capability

to go and deprive them of doing that on the other side of this trade. The strait, you know, has two sides, one with the G C C countries. The other side is in Iran. So they can't they haven't done it yet. Not yet. So that that's why, you know, the war is still ongoing. It's only twenty days in. Yes, it feels forever for us here. But it's still go ongoing and the US has uh massive military capabilities that has been tested.

I read um, you know, on the web that seven to six uh six to seven countries have already agreed to send their military vessels to escort

oil and gas out of the Strait of Hermes. So that is another option and but still the US has the military option to enforce that by securing the other side of the Strait of Hermes. And they with and they already started this phase by bombarding it with the Bunker Buster But if the Iranians um can survive, if the regime can survive, will it not be the case that on some level the world will know that it has some deterrent power over the Straits?

something which we could not know before, something it threatened before, but as a result of this war we have proof positive, which fundamentally empowers them in the future. If the regime stays the same without any pressure, yes. But the end game of this war is that to to deprive the regime of its capabilities and also deprive it of the chance to regenerate that leverage. And that would be by s the because the end of this war would be in in in different ways.

What the US is hoping and what is their strategic objective is surrender. So Iran has to surrender. and accept the terms of of surrender and this would be that they wouldn't pose a threat to the to the region. They wouldn't be able to use um um you know the the type of missiles they do have now. And as again we had that um experience in Iraq. Iraq had to limit its uh the ballistic missiles range.

to three hundred kilometers and other commitments. But you see, Doc this this is, I suppose, my my my point of critique really, Doctor Saloon, with your idea, which is that um

Absolutely. We can see the desirability of permanently degrading their military programme, especially their nuclear programme. And you write, you cite the comparison of Germany in the in the Second World War and that period particularly after nineteen forty four of of degrading its military capabilities.

But isn't that the point? Everything you're saying to me implies a much greater and longer term military presence and activity from the US and Israel.'Cause if we're gonna take your World War Two analogy, which of course will be imperfect, but let's just take it on its own terms, well of course

The durable outcome in Germany, where we defanged Germany, or the Allies defanged Germany, required twelve years of occupation, enormous military intervention, a massive reconstruction investment. I mean what could possibly be the equivalent in this case? I don't think the US has the same intentions with Iran. What they do basically is I don't think they're your example, you compared it to Germany.

I compared it in terms of the degradation of the k the military capabilities, not the whole uh process because uh I I didn't hear the US talking or Israel for that matter, talking about democratization of um of Iran. I I d I don't think even the word democracy uh came across in in the whole but even but even to de fact leaving aside the post war reconstruction of Germany

To destroy the Nazi regime, we had to invade Nazi Germany and destroy its entire leadership. I mean that's what it required. So I suppose this is again comes back to the point. The logic of your argument and the Americans it seems to me implies More war for potentially far longer than anything we've experienced so far. The comparison with with Nazi Germany is um is I think is different.

And the reason is in terms of capability. And this is the main argument of my article that the US and Israel have superior capabilities, defense and attack the capabilities that they could cripple the Iranian um defence capabilities in shorter time. and also impose their terms on them by not only um, you know, attacking their military sides, but also by destabilizing their leadership um permanently. And I think they have delivered that so far.

um very successful in the I suppose the sort of um just uh in conclusion, I suppose the um thrust of what you're saying, in its own terms, it makes sense. I suppose that the question is is whether the wider the benefits of the Americans doing what they're doing in Iran in terms of degrading the regime militarily. Is it worth the externalities, the wider consequences that we're seeing, particularly economically and geopolitically around the world?

Especially when we cannot be assured, or the Americans cannot be assured, of it working long term in terms of preventing the Iranians From getting a nuclear weapon or fundamentally changing the nature, tenor and character of its regime? what I see from where I stand here in Doha is that the winds have changed so much against the current Iranian regime. And that it is now in the interest of almost all neighbors, at at least from the western side.

um and especially Saudi Arabia and and other GCC countries, it's in their interest that this regime has to change somehow.

It you know, th these countries did not choose to be part of this war, but now they are part and parcel of it. Because if this regime, as you um suggested and other many others, that the if this regime would survive and regenerate all all this p you know the power that it it it already has and also um understands that by pressuring the Strait of Hormuz and also by attacking G C C countries it can get whatever it wants.

then that would be uh I think it would hold the the whole region hostage and nobody here wants that. So I think the the effort is increasing against the current regime and that it has to change somehow. And the war is ongoing, whether these you know, these uh external of Iraq or additional uh players are in the game or not. And I think only time would tell if Israel and the US would get the results they hope for. Doctor Muhammad Salim, so grateful for your time. Thank you very much.

The news agents.

Well, there you have it. And though clearly Dr Saloum is articulate, clearly he is deeply learned, clearly he is right. As I've said all along, we've said all along on the show that Iran is a threat. It is no friend of the West. Its nuclear program has to be dealt with. But I still can't help but reckon with the idea that his logic When it worked.

And fundamentally, there is no answer that if regime change on some level does not come if the regime remains convinced that the West is its enemy, and frankly, why wouldn't they think that at this moment? If the regime remains convinced that the West is is its enemy, and frankly, why wouldn't they think that after the last few weeks? If the hatred still burns, the nuclear itch will still beg to be scratched. And we in the West will at some point

Need to deal with it. All back to square one. And in the meantime, with hundreds of billions spent, thousands dead, and consequences still unnecessary. He put the case, you may be convinced, with the humility we must all have, we do have to say we cannot possibly know the future. I can't say that I That is it from all of us on the Newsagents this week though. No John or Emily this Friday, alas. They're in fact off to Port Leach for a delayed Paddy's Day blowout to end all blowouts.

Lock up your newsstands. In the meantime, thanks as ever to our production team on the news agents Shane Fenley, Michaela Walters, Natalie Inge, Arvin Badawell, Anna Georgievich. Jess Williamson, Mikey Baggs and Lizzie Ward, our executive producer, Is Louis Dagenhart. Our editor is MIA Tom Hughes. If you do see a sort of 40 year old Dennis Demenace type.

With a Marlbur in one hand and a Canaginis in the other, please do let us know where he might be. Remember to tune in to my Sunday LBC show this Sunday from ten for the very best political interviews. And analysis if you don't love your Sunday shows, having all the energy of autopsies, you might just find that this is the show for you. News agency is presented by Emily Maitlis, John Sopel, and me Lewis Goodall. We'll be back on Monday. This has been a Global Player original production.