We're inching closer and closer towards the exact kind of
confrontation that countries have been trying to avoid since
the last World war. This was a difficult decision.
I know it it. There's a lot of peril in doing
this, but I think it was the right thing to do.
Yet again we see a war of choice.
No clear strategy, no understanding of the cultural
implication, no real effort to protect the people.
What is left at the end of this could be 10 times worse as a
consequence. Hello and welcome to the
Forecast. I'm Christian Guru Murphy in Tel
Aviv, where we have started to see Iranian cluster missiles
being intercepted by air defences here.
But a week into this war, the Middle East is on fire, Qatar is
warning today of global economic disaster, and the White House is
pumping out propaganda videos of Hollywood memes to try and get
its base enthused about the war in the face of some skeptical
opinion polls. Joining me today, General Sir
Richard Sheriff, former commander of NATO forces in
Europe, who this week described Trump and Hexif as a pair of
gung ho nutters. Professor Shimen Keitner is an
expert in international law and formerly worked at the State
Department as their international legal counsellor
during the first Trump term. And the former chief of staff in
the National Security Council, Fred Fleitz, also joins us from
the United States. Thank you all so much for
joining us, Sir Richard. At the beginning of the week,
you warned of your fears that this war could lead to a World
War Three, and you have also defended the Prime Minister from
jibes from Donald Trump about him not being Winston Churchill.
How do you feel about this war now?
I feel much the same as I did when I woke up on Saturday
morning and heard the news that that that a yet another American
president has has launched a war of choice in the Middle East
without any clear end state, no strategy, and no idea how this
war is going to end. Do you still fear that this can
lead to something much, much bigger, what you call the World
War 3? Yeah.
I mean, there are many like President Zelensky who said
we're already in World War Three.
And, and, and the reality is of course, that Europe is fighting
a covert war with Russia and Russia is fighting a covert war
in Europe. And we've talked about that
before in a separate context, but the potential knock on
effect of this war has already generated a regional war across
the Middle East and, and, and the potential for things to go
South in a very big way. Should China, for example, take
advantage of America and be America being fixed in the
Middle East to have a crack at Taiwan And, and who knows what
Putin might try to do to embarrass NATO at the same time?
I mean the the the the the the potential scenarios are
boundless. How do you feel about the
justifications that we've heard for the war this.
Week. Well, we seem to have
flip-flopped from regime change to destruction of nuclear
weapons without any real clarity about the objectives.
And so I, and then, and then on top of that, we get the, the,
the, the, the, the propaganda feed.
And let's be clear from a military, purely military
perspective, I mean, what America and Israel are doing in
applying military force on an industrial scale, as any
military man would tell you is impressive.
But it's more than that. You need to think about, you
need to have a thought. You need to think through the
impact of what operations, what your operations are doing on the
minds of the people among whom you're operating.
And if you alienate the people, if you are looking to change the
type dynamic of of what is a pernicious and vile regime in in
Iran, granted. But if you're trying to do that,
you probably want to find, have a be able to apply a little bit
of carrot at the same time as a stick.
And that doesn't seem to be happening.
And as a military man, are you concerned about the basis in
international law for this, or do you accept the national
interest? Trump's that?
You need to ask a lawyer, but but the basic say that you've
got to be prepared to you have a right of self defence and I, I
you then need to ask what self defence was being applied here.
And of course, as the dynamic of this war develops, and every war
has a dynamic of its own that develops because of that, that,
that that gets even more complicated.
But of course Iran is now launching missiles at our
British allies in the Middle East, launching missiles or
drones at British air bases in Cyprus and the right of self
defence applies there. But it's a very complicated
thing because the reality is as well that any organised, any
nation lining up alongside America and Israel in this war
is going to own the problem when the bombing stops.
And I think it's highly likely, frankly, that when the bombing
stops, Trump will declare victory, walk away, leave a
smouldering pile of Iranian rubble, and those countries that
have been alongside will be owning the problem for years to
come. Professor Keitner, let me bring
you in. I I'm sure you're more concerned
about the the basis in international law.
If you were in the State Department still, would you be
telling them they have a legal basis for action?
All right. Well, legal advice, of course,
depends on the questions being asked.
And unfortunately, if I were in the State Department now, I
don't think anyone in the White House would be listening to me.
But I would say that the legal framework that applies to going
to war, the UN Charter, we have Aun Security Council for a
reason. And unless the Security Council
has authorized the use of force, or the force is being used
against an imminent threat, there is no legal basis.
Let's bring in Fred flights then in the United States, I mean
criticisms on a number of fronts for you to pick up on there.
Let's begin with with international law.
Are you not concerned that scholars and close allies like
Britain don't think the initial attack was legal?
Well, I, I first want to talk about the justification for the
war, which I think is pretty strong.
President Trump said the US has to stop Iran from getting
nuclear weapons, has to stop a missile program that by the end
of the year probably would have doubled in size and may have
constituted a missile shield. That's what Secretary Rubio said
this week that would have prevented pre emptive action
against the the Iranian nuclear program.
And President Trump is providing A pathway for the Iranian people
to take back their government. And for people argue about
international law, we all know nothing could be done about this
in the UN Security Council because of vetoes for the
Chinese and the Russians. So international law can't help
these people. Will 10s of thousands of them be
executed again, Trump is giving them an opportunity.
That's why the the Australian Canadian governments have
endorsed this operation. That's why hundreds of thousands
of Iranians in the Iranian diaspora have enthusiastically
celebrated with mass demonstrations in London and
Berlin, in New York, in Los Angeles, because they see
freedom, they see the end of an evil regime.
They see an American president who had the courage to do
something very difficult and not without giving the Iranians A
diplomatic way out. So I think this was a difficult
decision. I know it it there's a lot of
peril in doing this, but I think it was the right thing to do.
But what do you make when you hear a man like Sir Richard
there, a former NATO commander, effectively saying, you know,
he, he doesn't know what the strategy is, he doesn't know
what this is going to achieve and he's very worried about
where it's going to lead. Well, I think there's clearly a
strategy, which is one reason why we didn't start bombing in
January. After the massive crackdown on
Iranian protesters. There was some time taken to
plan this, but Joint Chiefs of Staff General Kane said
operations like this are planned over many years.
There's a lot of war gaming. There's a lot of planning done.
And I think we're simply seeing the very early days of a four to
five week operation to take out this regime, to destroy its
offensive capabilities, hopefully to discourse security
services, which will give the Iranian people an opportunity to
take back their government. But look, neither the general or
I know this full plan. The administration is not
admitting to exactly what it is going to do publicly because
they don't want to inform the Iranian regime.
So, Richard, what do you make of that?
Well, it was a bit to unpack there, isn't there?
I mean, pathway for the Iranian people to take back their
government? What is that pathway?
How are you expecting bombed, traumatized people to step up
against the IRGC and the Bazji, the Bazij militia?
How? And and then you think back to
the, the very action of assassinating Khamenei, who of
on the one hand, of course, he was the head of state, but at
the same time he is, he was a a revered Shia cleric.
And by doing that, what America and Israel have done is
immediately promoted him to the ranks of the martyred Saints and
alienated Shia Muslims right across the world.
And in doing that, what you're doing is most likely pushing any
moderate Iranian who might who might be fed up to the back
teeth with the with the theocracy and longing for a
change. But you're going to harden
opinion and most likely push them into the ranks of the the
hardliners. And if this is Billy basic stuff
that any anybody who served in that I'll starred operation in
Iraq would understand the need to get under the skin and
understand the cultural implications of what you're
doing. And instead of which we're
seeing mass industrial warfare thumping Iranian cities,
rubbling in very Iranian cities without any effort to try and
reach out to the population. On top of which we've just
heard, of course, that Trump is demanding nothing but
unconditional surrender. That doesn't sound to me like
reaching out to the Iranian people to help them take back
their government. And if I may, if if this nuclear
threat is so, so dire that by the end of the year, I think you
said the their, their nuclear weapons will double in size.
Why I didn't say that Trump missiles, I said missiles.
But why is it nevertheless? Why is it that America and Trump
were boasting that last June the nuclear threat had been a
liberal obliterated? If it was obliterated in June,
my goodness me, they've done a lot to get to the stage where
you've got to launch a war now to obliterate it once again.
Fred flies. Well.
I think the nuclear program was obliterated last June, but since
then the Iranian government has been rebuilding its nuclear
missile programs. I think their missile program
has been set back substantially more than U.S.
Government officials are saying the missile program has made
major advances. I think there's reliable
intelligence that Iran is making up to 100 missiles a month.
And according to Secretary of State Rubio, the plan for Iran
is to use its missiles as a shield to protect attacks of the
nuclear infrastructure, which might become impossible by the
end of the year. I think an Iranian nuclear
weapon is unacceptable and that Iran is determined to build 1
and that this may be our only opportunity to make sure that it
doesn't. And what?
About Sir Richard's point about the folly of the assassination
of the Ayatollah in the way it was done and and what what what
that does to the Shia population and moderate Iranian people who
who may be may be turnable. The Ayatollah is incredibly
unpopular in Iran, and the death of the Ayatollah is being
celebrated across the country. About 20% of the country support
this current regime. Most of them hate this regime.
It has been so brutal. It's destroyed the economy.
This is especially true among young people.
You know, I haven't seen any signs of a movement that that is
revering the hominy as a martyr right now.
I'm sure that there are. This 20% is very angry.
I don't dispute that. But this is a leader who is
destroyed this country. The vast majority of Iranians
agree with that. That's why they were out
celebrating after he was killed. So, Richard?
What? What would you say to that?
Well, you. You, you may be right and they
may have been celebrating, but of course they might be
celebrating. But now then they're almost
immediately taking cover from, from the mass bombings that are
going on. And I think that, you know, that
I, I, I stand by that principle that you have to understand the
nature or the impact what you're doing on the minds of the
people. And, and, and has that really
been thought through? And I think to assassinate a, a
major sheer figure during the holy month of Ramadan, as I said
earlier in an earlier interview, it is about as subtle as
shooting the Pope on the steps of Saint Peter's Cathedral,
Saint Peter's in Rome during Holy Week.
It doesn't smack of of sophisticated understanding.
Frankly, this is a. Country that's been at war with
our country for 47 years. It sent assassination squads
into into Europe to kill dissidents.
It sent teams in the United States to capture and spirit
back to Iran. Dissident journalist who had
criticized Iran. This is a This is a government
that's been trying to assassinate the president of the
United States. This is a government that is a
terrorist state on a different level than other adversaries
America has faced through history.
I agree with you. I don't like the prospect of
assassinating leader of another state and I, I, I think this is
something that, frankly, if there was another way to do it,
that isn't something I would have recommended.
But I do think this is a special case.
What? I'm concerned about is that what
we seem to be hearing are a lot of ex post talking points.
One of the important features of our legal system and our
international order is that countries have the ability to
make the case for why they think force should be used, what
diplomatic efforts have been tried, why those have failed,
and what we utterly lacked in the lead up to this really
surprise attack with any attempt at laying the foundation,
bringing allies on board and making the case.
So I'm really not persuaded by any of these ex post attempts to
justify different members of the administration have come up with
different rationales at different times.
It seems like they weren't even talking to their own negotiators
on the ground. We had a report right before the
bombing started. The negotiations were actually
making progress. That's why we have a national
security bureaucracy. I believe Fred was part of that
as well. That's why you have advisors,
including but not exclusively lawyers.
And we have no confidence and no basis for confidence that any of
that process either internally or externally took place.
And that should worry everyone. I mean there.
Was also a legal framework within the JCPOA, which Donald
Trump pulled America out of. They say it was failing, you
know, is that where the limits of international law meet
reality? Well, I I.
Don't think we have any basis in that assertion about what the
so-called reality was. Again, based on public
reporting, the military generals in Israel actually thought the
JCPOA was a great arrangement for going forward, or at least
many of them publicly said that they did.
What we're encountering here is not so much the limits of law,
it's the it's the unpredictability of politics and
the lack of long term strategic vision in the interest not only
of the United States, but of a largely peaceful world order.
Again, that the number of wars raging in the world would
surprise many people because a lot of them don't make the front
pages. But we have so far managed to
avoid a nuclear cataclysm. And what we're doing Russia is
now apparently providing intelligence to the Iranians.
China is behind the scenes. We're inching closer and closer
towards the exact kind of confrontation that countries
have been trying to avoid since the last World war.
I mean, there was as, as the professor says, a legal
framework. This was a choice to opt out of
it and and just go for a sort of a gung ho strategy.
Well, there's there's people who who believe and idealists who
think that there's ways to resolve things like this by
going to the Security Council and laying out your case.
But in the real world, that simply was never going to work.
I think that if you're you're going to talk about national law
and giving notice, the US did engage in negotiations with Iran
last year and this year. The Iranians would not agree to
negotiate in good faith. They would not give up the
uranium enrichment program, which is a weapons program.
I know there's people who claim that it is not.
But a nation with so much covert nuclear program can't be trusted
with the uranium enrichment program.
And the US refused to let them have an enrichment program
before the Obama administration. This was a bad concession by the
Obama administration, which is why the JCPOA was frankly a
fraud. And I'm glad that President
Trump withdrew. Well this what is something but
your. Belief is working.
It wasn't. Working and and Iran was
cheating on it. We know we know that from
documents that Israel stole from the Iranians the Iran nuclear
archive in 2018. Iran was acquiring materials it
wasn't supposed to have for nuclear programs.
It was it was covertly developing advanced centrifuges
of why it jumped so quickly to 60% enrichment in 2022.
People who argue that it was working are are frankly lying.
It wasn't working. It was frankly delaying an
Iranian nuclear weapon, but they were still going to get one.
Trump is going to stop Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon.
And you can argue, well, the UN isn't blessing this.
I think justice for the Iranian people and stopping an Iranian
nuclear weapon are moral positive objectives that frankly
are worth doing even if the UN says we shouldn't do it.
I'm pretty. Surprised to hear accusations of
European leaders lying, but the you know, I think this is one of
an. American leaders, today's.
Media Environment Shaman. Kinda.
I mean, isn't the trouble that now, now that we're in this
world in which it's the law of the jungle, mice is right, You
can do whatever you want. You know, international law, who
cares? It's very difficult to then put
things back on a secure footing, you know, because how do you
then build a secure legal framework to create stability in
the future? I don't think that's the world
we're in yet. I think that's the world that
Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump are trying to create.
I think that's the world that Vladimir Putin would like to
live in. And I think the more that
powerful countries act as if international law doesn't
matter, the less it will. I never said that we would get
Security Council authorization. What I said is that countries go
and make their case ahead of time.
They lay out the arguments for the use of force.
Otherwise, if the basis for using force is potential
assassination attempts, that turns right back around and
gives other countries a green light to target the United
States. And so we can go down this
rabbit hole of, you know, discarding legal frameworks.
We also have very clear legal frameworks about the laws that
apply to targeting. And I was reassured to hear
Secretary Higgseth say that the United States does not target
civilians. That's a very important bedrock
principle. And there's absolute be no
reason to throw it out the door. And if we do, the United States
is going to ultimately actually be much the worse for it.
General Sir Richard, can I bring you in here on on the targeting
question? There are two very big incidents
and I wonder how you feel about them as a military man.
There is the school and it's not clear who who hits it, but it
looks like it might have been the Americans, but they say they
weren't targeting it deliberately.
And then there is the ship of Sri Lanka, which was on its way
back from a sort of diplomatic. Exercise with India there's some
suggestion it wasn't even armed and those sailors were killed
how do you feel about those two big incidents well that's.
That's the consequence of war. War is not a clean, clear, clear
cut business. It's a dirty, vile, ruthlessly
brutal, violent exercise and and sinking a ship and and and and
collateral damage or a failure to target correctly and, and if
there's you know, and and and and destroying the school.
If that was the case, other consequence of launching
launching an attack on a scale along the lines of the one we
are just witnessing. And if I may just pick up one of
the tread carefully into the legal world.
Of course, the national security of the United States has stated
quite explicitly that the international rules based order
is a cloud based abstraction. That says to me that that law
doesn't matter, that might is right, and that's the end of it.
That's the end of it I regret. I have another interview so I
have to run, but it's nice to be with you all.
I enjoyed this debate. OK.
Thank. Thank you, Fred Flights for
joining us. I'm sorry you have to go, but
thank you for your time. Professor Keitner, what is the
legality of these two big incidents that you can see so
far? We would need more facts in
order to determine for sure. As Richard says, mistakes do
happen in war. The targeting of the boat, it
was was clearly not a mistake. The targeting of the school
appears to have been. But I, I was concerned about
hearing this might makes right. And again, I, I don't understand
you to have been advocating that, but simply stating what
you perceive to be the current reality.
I mean, NATO troops, every country's troops are trained
meticulously in the laws of war, the laws of armed armed
conflict. And a war is never humane.
But we have long predating the United Nations system, very
clear parameters for targeting, particularly because civilians
can so often be the victims of war.
And So what I would like to see from the United States again,
and this is something that prior administrations have done,
whether or not you agree with the rationales they've put
forward, they have been very transparent or tried to be in
terms of explaining what happened, how it happened, and
then what they can do better next time.
And so I think what the public deserves, both the Iranian
public and all of those watching from around the world, are
explanations. And those explanations are going
to go a long way towards reassuring people that there
actually is some sort of plan here, some sort of long term
vision. Or it's going to reinforce the
perception that I think so many of us observers have that this
is wildly out of if I. May make it 100% clear that when
I say that the National security strategy, this is the American
National Security Strategy recently published describing
the international rules based order as a cloud based
abstraction, that is not my view.
I have a soldier and they and and and the law of unconflict,
the Geneva Convention are all fundamental to the whole issue
of just war theory and the way this ghastly phenomenon of war
can somehow be, if not controlled, at least ensure that
the innocent do not suffer. But as soon as you start talking
about the international rules based order being an
abstraction, you're effectively divorcing yourselves from the
framework of the law of armed conflict on the Geneva
Convention. And that is a very dangerous
slippery slope the Americans are going down by doing so.
Because obviously British troops are being drawn in.
They're flying defensive missions rather than offensive
missions. I don't know what the difference
in, in real terms is. If they're shooting at, you
know, it's Iranian missiles and potentially positions in the in
the future. What do you think?
What do you think the British position should be in the next
weeks? Well, this is the opportunity to
pick up the line that Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada
articulated so inspiringly in a way at Davos a couple of months
ago now when he talked about about the, yeah, the
international rules based order may be fractured.
He talked about the rupture with the United States and he talked
about the need for the middle powers to come together on a
sort of pragmatic, values based approach.
And the middle ploughs are involved here.
And this was the opportunity for Canada, for Germany, for
Australia, for France, for Italy, other European powers to
come together to protect their interests in the Gulf, to
protect and to support their Gulf allies, but not to get
involved in the prosecution of the war.
Now it's got much more complicated because if there are
Iranian drones flying against British bases in Cyprus, then
you get the whole principle of self defence comes in and there
is a right to self defence. And if self defence means
targeting the missile launchers from which those drones or
missiles are launched, well that is a complication.
But I would try and put as much Clearwater as possible between
that role of self defence, that mission of self defence and
engaging with America and Israel.
Because I said, I said earlier, at the end of the day, Trump's
going to walk away from this. And anybody who has worked
alongside and been part of that US Israeli coalition will be
left owning the problem. And there's going to be a
problem for generations to come as a consequence of this.
Do you do? You think, do you wonder what
they've learned from Iraq? No, clearly not, clearly not.
And that's the point I'm making again and again.
But yet again we see a war of choice.
No clear strategy, no understanding of the cultural
implication, no real effort, no effort to try and build any form
of civil society. Reach out to civil society, no
effort to protect the people. And, and, and this has and, and
and you know, you're your your previous guest who's left us now
talked about the threat Iraq, Iran has been posing.
And yes, it has been a pernicious, vile terrorist
state. But what is left at the end of
this could be 10 times worse as a consequence.
Well, and. Just to to echo that Davos
speech, I think I've been very disappointed to see the Canadian
government throw its support behind the United States in the
absence at this point of a direct threat to Canada.
As Sir Richard says, I think the UK is in a much tougher position
because of some of Iran's recent targeting, which by the way,
also very much violates international law to be
targeting countries that are not part of this or the
installations of countries that are not part of this attack on
Iran to begin with. And the UK absolutely does have
a right of self-defense against those attacks.
So this is precisely the concern that we have about the out the
ripple effects of the United States starting something that
is as you opened this podcast with it really has not shown any
path towards how this could finish.
I mean. In terms of how it could finish,
I suppose Donald Trump is again talking about how he wants to
choose the Iranian leadership in the future.
I mean, how can there be any sort of legal basis for that
there? Isn't certainly.
If there were to be a negotiated peace settlement that could
involve various prongs, it could involve United Nations
peacekeepers. We've seen what different
arrangements there are for post conflict societies.
But just one more indication of the lack of forethought here is
that we've been told that a number of folks the United
States had in mind as potential success successors, again, not
for the United States to choose, were also killed in the initial
wave of bombing. And so, like Sir Richard, I'm
extraordinarily concerned about what we're going to see
internally. And it is not for any other
country to determine what the Iranian regime will be.
It is for other countries to identify threats, to push back
with all lawful means against those threats, and to support
democracy in Iran again through lawful means, led by the people
who are, who are actually there and who are actually affected by
this regime's actions just. Finally, Sir Richard, can I ask
you what you make of the communications and the language
around this? I don't know whether you've seen
any of the Internet stuff that the White House is pushing out,
but clips of Hollywood films, lots of sort of, you know, gung
ho clips, you know, pictures of bombs to music, Hex F talking
about Iran being toast. Has all dignity gone out the
window? Yes.
It's tasteless in the extreme. The.
Callousness and and nonchalance with which President Trump has
discussed both US fatalities, past and future is also really
unprecedented, I think and and is very much part and parcel of
the Hollywood ification of what is a real war with real impacts.
Professor. Shimon Keitner, General Sir
Richard Sheriff, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
That's the forecast. Until next time, bye bye.