Up next in 10
Ex-Head of British Army issues stark civil war warning as he sets out three 'strategic objectives' after Iran conflict
Mar 8, 2026
The former Head of the British Army has issued a stark civil war warning while setting out three "strategic objectives" following the Iran war.Speaking on the Camilla Tominey Show, Richard Dannatt said: "What happens next I think is a very open question. I think there are probably three things that we ought to focus on. Three strategic objectives if you like. "One is to erode and degrade the Iranians capability to launch ballistic missiles at Israel and US and UK bases in the Middle East, and that will be achieved, that degradation will occur. "Second, I think, is the attempt, quite rightly, to deny Iran having a nuclear weapon capability, and that almost certainly will be achieved. "The third issue is this vague notion of regime change. Now, as many people have said, this is not going to be imposed from the sky," Lord Dannatt said, echoing the words of Sir Keir Starmer.He continued: "It'll only come about when the Iranian people themselves decide that they want to have a different form of Government, a different form of governance in their country."The peer added the issue with the third factor is the Iranian opposition is "very fragmented", explaining: "There is a real danger that in the chaos that's being created now, the Iran will descend itself into chaos."WATCH THE CLIP ABOVE FOR MORE
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
Lovely to see you this morning, Sir Richard
0:03
My goodness me, where to start? It's been a pretty bruising week for the Prime Minister
0:08
He's been accused of being not Churchill, a loser, weak. The Chagos deal is woke
0:13
We've now got this latest Truth Social post basically saying you've offered too little too late
0:18
in your support of one of your key allies. What do you make of it all
0:24
Well, I think on that last point, Keir Starmer, in trying to do what he thought in his own mind was the right thing
0:31
actually missed the major point in regard to our relationship with the United States
0:36
We have to think about not just about today, but about tomorrow. And our relationship with
0:41
the United States has been extraordinarily important to the security of ourselves, this country, and also to the security of Europe. And by not allowing, on narrow grounds
0:51
the Americans to use the base of Diego Garcia and the bases in this country
0:56
It disappointed them, hacked them off in a major way at a time when they needed support
1:02
And whether or not that was narrowly the right thing for Keir Starmer to decide to do
1:06
it's ruined our relationship for the future with the United States. And when in his last Truth Social post, he said, Trump said, we will remember
1:16
Well, you know, this is so frustrating because America is an important ally of ours
1:22
They need us. We need them. And Keir Starmer standing on a narrow legal point has ruined that relationship
1:28
Yes, Lord Dunner, I was wondering what we will remember actually means
1:32
What's he saying there? The implication, of course, is if you're in trouble in the future, don't necessarily expect the US to back you up
1:39
I mean, do you think that's something he'd follow through on? Well, one hopes not
1:44
But, of course, it's a symptom of the wider view that Donald Trump has, part of which I agree with
1:50
And that is his judgment that Europe must stand more strongly on its own feet in terms of collective defense and not rely on the American nuclear umbrella and under the American conventional umbrella
2:04
So on that wider point, he's right that Europe needs to do more, particularly in the context of European security and the war in Ukraine and so on and so forth
2:11
But it goes back to my original point Making a decision on a narrow point about an immediate issue without thinking about the wider term implications was a bad bit of statesmanship
2:25
And Keir Starmer is going to have to reflect on that. So there's the use of the bases issue. There's also this quite extraordinary situation that's unfolded with regard to HMS Dragon, seemingly our only available warship, still in Portsmouth Harbour, not due to leave there until Tuesday
2:43
How did it come to pass, Lord Dannett, that we only have one available warship and when it's needed, it's under, I suppose, surveillance, monitoring, maintenance and being welded at a crucial moment
3:00
Well, Camilla, you're absolutely right. And of course, you say it's the one available warship
3:05
Well, frankly, it's not available. If it was available, it could have sailed a few days ago or it could have sailed a couple of weeks ago
3:12
When the Americans are building up their presence in the eastern Mediterranean, we could have decided to reinforce even further our security arrangements in the eastern Mediterranean around Cyprus ourselves
3:22
But the whole issue of HMS Dragon and now the issue of whether or not they might send the aircraft carrier Prince of Wales
3:29
This really just illustrates the dire state of our defence capability. That, as we all know, for the last 30-odd years, since the end of the Cold War, successive governments from all political parties have hollowed out defence
3:43
They've taken peace dividend after peace dividend. And now when you come to a serious issue, a crisis moment like this, the risks have come home to roost
3:53
And the fact that we can't send just one of our Type 45 air defence destroyers on an important mission really speaks volumes
4:01
And the current government and the previous government, they should hang their head in shame
4:05
They've known the security threats, both in the Middle East, particularly in Europe, and have spoken words but have knocked back those words up with deeds
4:14
And even now, going back to January in the Munich Security Conference, when Keir Starmer talked about moving to 3% of GDP by the end of this parliament
4:23
there's been no movement in that direction, no steps taken by the Chancellor
4:27
It just words And frankly words don buy you the military capability that we need to deter further aggression and secure our own people and our own infrastructure and our land I mean we know that you warned them We know that your Royal Navy counterpart Lord West
4:43
who writes in the Mail on Sunday today about his pleas for the future of HMS Lancaster
4:48
went unheard. So it's obviously a desperate situation when it comes to our military capabilities
4:54
On the other hand, some of those who oppose this intervention are making the following argument
4:59
which may be a cogent one. Okay, there was Operation Epic Fury. That was phase one
5:05
One of the problems here is that there hasn't been a phase two, three, four or five plan
5:11
What happens next, Lord Dannet? Are you concerned about that? Well, I think what happens next, I think, is a very open question. I think there are probably
5:19
three things that we ought to focus on, three strategic objectives, if you like. One is to
5:24
erode and degrade the Iranians' capability to launch ballistic missiles at Israel and US and
5:30
UK bases in the Middle East. And that will be achieved. That degradation will occur. Second
5:34
I think, is the attempt, quite rightly, to deny Iran having a nuclear weapon capability. And that
5:40
almost certainly will be achieved. The third issue is this vague notion of regime change
5:46
Now, as many people have said, this is not going to be imposed from the sky. It'll only come about
5:51
when the Iranian people themselves decide that they want to have a different form of governance
5:56
in their country. And again, as many commentators have said, quite rightly
6:02
the problem with that is that the Iranian opposition is very fragmented
6:06
It can't coalesce around one or two particular or potential future leaders
6:11
And there is a real danger that in the chaos that's being created now
6:16
Iran will descend itself into chaos. There'll be factional groups. There'll be civil disturbance, civil war, if you like, within Iran
6:26
And we run the risk of seeing the same kind of implosion as we saw in Iraq in 2003
6:32
four, five, when there was no plan for the morning after, no sensible plan for the morning
6:36
after we destroyed Saddam Hussein's military capability in 2003. So two objectives will be achieved
6:43
The third objective, I can't see how it's going to happen. Lord, Danit, while I have the benefit of your wisdom and experience
6:49
Can we just take this a little wider Do you think that what happened in Iran makes the prospect of a ceasefire in Ukraine more or less likely Well frankly Camilla I can see the basis of a ceasefire in Ukraine anytime soon
7:06
The positions of Zelensky and Putin are as irreconcilable today as they were on the 24th of February 2022 when this war kicked off
7:15
I can't for the life of me think why Zelensky would be willing to give up some of the land that the Russians are claiming
7:21
They haven't captured it on the battlefield. Why would he give up hundreds of thousands of his own people and that territory just to satisfy a demand by Vladimir Putin
7:30
even though Donald Trump is putting him under pressure to do so? So I can't see a ceasefire anytime soon
7:37
And there are dangers in a ceasefire, Camilla, because if there is a ceasefire
7:42
yes, the killing will stop and the destruction of Ukraine will stop. but it will give the chance for the Russians to reconstitute their forces
7:48
to decide to go again, either in Ukraine or elsewhere in the Baltics or in Scandinavia
7:53
So a ceasefire might seem a desirable thing, but a ceasefire without a peace agreement
7:59
and I don't see that anywhere on the horizon, I think it runs the risk of further dangers
8:05
And this is where I think parallels with Korea are not improper
8:11
That war finished in 1953 with a ceasefire. there's been no peace agreement and there's 25,000 US troops still in South Korea
8:19
guaranteeing that ceasefire. Putin, or shall I say Keir Starmer and Donald Trump
8:23
need to think about that in the context of Ukraine. And very, very briefly, because we're running out of time, do you think it makes
8:29
an invasion of Taiwan more or less likely, just bearing in mind the previously very close
8:34
relationship between China and Iran? I personally believe that the Chinese will not be tempted to invade Taiwan
8:45
I think there's another very sensible argument that the Taiwanese people themselves are split
8:50
If the Chinese are prepared to be patient, it may well be that a majority of the Taiwanese at some point in the not too distant future
8:57
maybe 5, 10, 15, maybe even 20 years away, will think that their future lies more with the mainland than with an independent Taiwan
9:05
So I don't see an invasion of Taiwan being brought forward just because of what's going on in Iran
9:11
Lord Dannett, thank you as ever for your time
#Military
#news
#Politics
#War & Conflict