Up next in 10
Iran's supreme leader has said his country will never surrender in its war against Israel. He added "any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage", slamming Donald Trump's "threatening and ridiculous statements."
James O'Brien asked his listeners if intervening in the Middle East, despite the controversy of the West's invasion of Iraq in 2003, is worth while.
0:0 John: ‘Iran condemned me to death, but I don’t want it bombed.’
5:59 Adam: ‘Why do we keep asking if Iran should have nukes? We do, and we’ve used them.’
12:29 Leah: ‘America and Israel could take Iran and change the regime.’
According to reports from American news outlets NBC and CBS, Trump is considering joining Israel in attacking Iran, as officials say the US president is considering a US strike on the country.
But, speaking on Wednesday, an Iranian spokesman warned American involvement could lead to "all-out war" in the region.
The spokesperson added Iran would not hesitate to attack the US if it joined Israel.
One possible location the US President is considering striking is Fordow, an underground nuclear site which Iran allegedly uses to enrich uranium.
The site is believed to be at the heart of Iran's nuclear programme, according to sources who spoke to CBS, which include senior US officials.
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
I was condemned to death in 1994 by this regime in Iran, by this government in Iran
0:07
But that doesn't mean I want my country bombed to smithereens and I want to have the same thing that happened in Iraq
0:15
What happened in Iraq? When it's 2003, as you said correctly, now we are 22 years after that
0:23
Iraq still doesn't have electricity, even ports from Iran. It still doesn't have proper infrastructure
0:28
so what happened to all that rebuilding do we want in iran iran recently opened the biggest mall
0:34
in the in the world it has shopping centers it has hotels it has problems lots of problems i agree
0:40
but what i'm saying is we don't want the country because what happens if there's no military yeah
0:46
if there is no police yeah all the structures collapse what happens then you get chaos and the
0:53
rise of radicals and extremists. Abolition, arms, and then you get instability
0:58
you get ISIS, you get Al-Qaeda, and the problem with Iran. You're going to have the same thing
1:03
And you asked the very correct question, that none of these regime change wars
1:08
result in instability. They always result in crisis. Yeah, I can't think of one
1:15
People are welcome to come up with suggestions, but I can't think of one. What were you sentenced to death for
1:22
Sorry? What were you sentenced to death for? Because I was a student in London
1:27
and I was against the continuation of the Iran-Iraq war and whatever, so I got targeted
1:34
And things happened. But then, you know, after the revolution, there was lots of hotheads in the government
1:41
There was lots of people. But it's changed, you know. It's 47 years. And now, you know, Iran elected a reformist president
1:47
and we want to negotiate. And the thing is, Iran has always said
1:51
we want to have good relations with the West. But, you know, one of the things that I would like to point out
1:57
is like you pointed out earlier. If you dehumanize the other side
2:02
that's a way to get public support, you know? Always. Yeah, and yesterday they had the Iranian ambassador
2:09
in the Foreign First Committee in Parliament. I don't know if you saw it or not
2:13
It was live on Sky and BBC. And they were attacking him, and they kept calling him regime
2:18
mullers ayatollahs you know they sort of want to make them feel like these people are not worthy
2:23
you know and you do you describe the regime in those ways and somehow you you almost by a sort
2:29
of process of of osmosis the entire population becomes dehumanized alongside them a word if you
2:35
would while i have you on the um line that is um coming into the studio from people uh who
2:43
very much fit into the category we described on monday or everything israel ever does will always
2:48
be justified so here's david in wembley talking about me not you john he says you poor man you
2:52
really have lost your mind iran's stated aim is the destruction of israel um and in david's mind
3:00
that justifies everything that israel is currently doing this i know that i'm a dinner jad back in
3:05
his administration talked about the necessity of wiping Israel off the map
3:12
And it is very much the line I'm hearing from people who are in favor of everything that Israel is doing to Iran
3:19
How do you deal with that? You're a rational person. If Iran, let's say, you believe these new cons
3:27
Iran has one nuclear bomb or 10, yeah? America has 7,000. Israel has 400
3:33
Pakistan has, God knows how many. Do you think even if Iran had one, it would go and hit Israel with it
3:40
It would be suicide. I mean, to me, that seems fairly self-evident
3:45
But we talked a lot about fig leaves in the aftermath of the October 7th attack by Hamas
3:51
and how people who are in favor of inflicting epic and utterly unjustified carnage
3:56
upon either Palestinians or, in this case, Iranians, they just need a fig leaf
4:00
They need to be handed something by the sort of gatekeepers that allows them to justify their own bloodlust by saying something like
4:11
Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. You've got no way of proving or disproving it, except, as you say, the likelihood of..
4:19
My uncle is in Iran now, in Tehran, yeah? His mother-in-law has got dementia and Parkinson's
4:25
They cannot move out of Tehran because she cannot be moved and then you get this idiot Trump going on social media Leave Tehran 12 million people How are they going to leave Tehran Yeah I mean they don think about the human suffering of people there
4:41
And it's not like, you know, not everybody in Iran supports the regime
4:45
but they also, they like to think we have our own government
4:50
We make our own decisions. You know, nine months ago, a year ago, the president's plane crashed
4:55
I don't know, helicopter, they chose another guy, and he's a reformist guy, he's a heart surgeon
5:01
you know, he's an educated person. He said, we want to negotiate with the rest
5:05
and they're negotiating for... But what I wanted to say that no media reported in England
5:11
25th of May, Kemi Badenoch goes on TV and has an interview and says
5:17
this is a proxy war for Britain. Israel is fighting a proxy war for the UK, yeah
5:23
You refer to Ahmadinejad saying that stupid thing. So why, you know, because Kemi Badenok said this Israel is fighting for the UK
5:32
does that justify Iran attacking the UK? No. Yeah, well, I think one area in which..
5:39
It doesn't justify attacking a country, does it? Well, no. I mean, I think probably one thing on which everybody can agree is that
5:46
Kemi Badenok has never intervened in any situation and made it better
5:50
but that if you and i've got no reason to doubt your recollection that would be an intervention of
5:55
particularly um epic stupidity why do we keep having this conversation about should iran should
6:03
iran not have nuclear weapons at the end of the day we do and we're the only side that's actually
6:08
ever fired once so why should the people who see themselves in affinity with um those who were
6:14
decimated by a lot of the things that these our country has done around the world um
6:20
not have the kind of nuclear deterrence as you just touched on, right
6:24
I mean, we all sort of... Well, that ties in with John's point
6:29
And I don't have the knowledge or the qualifications to comment on this
6:33
But if you portray the administration in Iran, and for my money, whether I'm right or wrong
6:38
I'm going to tell you my honest opinion, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and some of the ayatollahs
6:44
have very much seemed to enforce this notion that the place is a theocracy, is a crazy corrupt theocracy
6:51
where you can never say with any confidence that they won't do crazy, crazy things
6:56
So you don't want crazy people to have a nuclear weapons program. North Korea does, you could come back and point out to me
7:03
but two massive wrongs or two massive crazies don't necessarily make a right
7:08
Yeah, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I suppose you could also look at it from the perspective that
7:13
however crazy we may perceive these people to be. They're not the ones who have been invading people around the region
7:21
They're not the people who have actually been at war through the majority of their history
7:27
We can make whatever sort of assessments that we want. Yeah, I mean, they have proxies
7:34
They've bankrolled terror organisations. They bankroll Hamas and Hezbollah. They offer support to organisations like that
7:41
But then so does Qatar, and they get to host the World Cup. So it's not exactly a world of consistent standards, is it
7:47
Precisely. And I think that's the point, isn't it? Is that our perspective here might be
7:51
OK, this group is a terrorist organisation, that group is, but theirs is not the same perspective, right
7:56
And they're obviously a sovereign country who has the right to make that assessment
7:59
They see these as resistance groups, which is one perspective. I mean, even if we look back in history
8:04
we could see that Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist. And my mum remembers very well the way that he was portrayed on the..
8:12
Although Nelson Mandela never masterminded murderous attacks that left thousands of people dead
8:18
I mean, you're right in the terms of the politics and the rhetoric, but we have to be careful not to let our Venn diagrams get too big
8:25
So this looks to you like a repeat of various points in Western history
8:32
post-Second World War Western history, like a manufactured rationale for bringing about a regime change
8:39
that will almost certainly leave the country, if it were to unfold
8:43
leave the relevant country worse off than it was before? Yeah, I think it will leave the whole region
8:48
and possibly the whole world worse off than it was before. I would say that actually even the weapons, the Iranian enrichment
8:58
it comes in the context of Iran being very heavily involved in pharmaceuticals right So this kind of enrichment that we see from Iran doesn appear to actually be weapons enrichment
9:11
It appears to be exactly on the line that Iran has always gone down
9:15
And to ask Iran to stop that completely is basically to ditch... Well, that's what the last treaty did
9:20
and it was Donald Trump, of course, who tore up the last treaty. I don't have the knowledge
9:23
Andy and Edinburgh are making the point that there wouldn't be many other reasons, or any other reasons at all
9:27
why you'd want to achieve that level of enrichment if it wasn't for a weapon
9:31
But a phone-in on why does Israel have nuclear bombs might be something we can do in the not-too-distant future
9:37
I mean, it's there, isn't it? That question of it's a deterrent
9:42
It makes people think twice about attacking you. So, you know, the question of why Iran might want one
9:47
as its capital city is being evacuated becomes relatively easy to answer, doesn't it
9:53
It's crazy. We're going to attack... I mean, listen, this is mad, right? Because we're going to attack Iran
9:58
Because we claim, and we've been claiming since 1992, but please don't mention that
10:02
that they're about to actually achieve a nuclear capability. But, of course, the reason why we have nuclear bombs
10:09
is to stop other people from attacking us. Yeah, exactly. Riddle me that
10:13
So that kind of, I mean, it kind of, the question is portrayed
10:18
the answer is portrayed by the question, right? Is that we are very much in that position
10:22
of we want to hold all of the cards and we want to be able to attack who we want when we want
10:26
And that has been our history, right? And that is why, yeah, and as soon as you use the word we
10:32
some of the pieces of the jigsaw slot into place in the context of both what happened in 2003
10:36
and what John suggested from Camden is likely to happen now. If I tell you something, do you promise not to laugh at me
10:43
Go ahead, mate. I googled perpetual war last night because I'd kind of forgotten exactly what it meant
10:49
and exactly what the rationale behind it was. And of course, I was reminded of the various dystopias in which perpetual war becomes a necessary, most obviously, I suppose, 1984 becomes a necessary tool of a regime
11:06
And then I stumbled across a piece I'd missed at the time by Simon Tisdall, who argues very, very persuasively that this is what Netanyahu needs
11:16
He needs perpetual war, not just to sort of keep the home fires burning, but also to stay out of jail
11:23
He's the Observer's foreign affairs commentator. And Trump's, in his words, Simon Tisdall's words, Trump's simplistic zero-sum world makes it easier
11:34
And maybe that's what we're looking at. In some ways, and many people have suggested this morning in my texts
11:39
that this was as much to do with public relations or public perceptions
11:44
as it was to do with imminent threats. And because Netanyahu has essentially lost the hearts and minds of previous supporters
11:50
when it comes to his actions in Gaza, he's just shifted the focus all the way to Iran
11:55
and talked about nuclear bombs and historic threats to wipe Israel off the map
12:01
and started bombing TV studios and residential areas and nuclear capabilities and taking out senior members of the administration
12:09
and he will get the support of, quote, the West again, end quotes
12:14
just as it was beginning to teeter in the context of Gaza, perpetual war
12:19
And of course the question of whether Israel ever intended to honour the ceasefire
12:23
in the first place, that it broke most recently, is pretty close to rhetorical
12:29
I'm an Iranian. I lived in Iran until 14 years old and then moved to Dubai with my family
12:36
At 18, I moved to UK, studied at my doctorate. Now I have a very successful tech company
12:43
And I believe, I'll just give you a background of myself. I'm Iranian and I traveled around
12:47
I believe this war could bring back stability, could bring stability to the Middle East
12:54
as Iranians, nation and Israeli be friends and policing in the Middle East
13:01
So there is no more extremist in Middle East. That's what I believe
13:08
And I don't know, I might be very naive to think this way, but considering Iranians are not Arabs
13:16
considering most Iranians now are against the regime and in favor of regime change
13:25
Can you think of an example from history of a country being bombed into stability
13:32
But there are currently as far as the news which I receive from Iran is that they are bombing locations which are not all of them residentials
13:47
So majority of them, they're targeting their army leaders or people like the Mullahs, basically, not civilians
13:56
Well, they've called for an evacuation of Tehran. Yes, because what I believe
14:04
if they want to take over Tehran, and taking over Tehran with Israeli armies or with Americans
14:10
that could, you know, gain power somehow and have the regime change
14:18
Which brings me back to my original question. And just because we may not be able to think of one
14:22
doesn't mean that the next one won't work. But can we think of examples from history
14:25
particularly in the Middle East, of regimes being bombed into stability? um again it's not being uh can we think of a war that can we think of a war in the middle east that
14:38
has increased stability in the region uh not i don't know i have to look at the history i don't
14:44
i don't know much about that but uh this one could be different it could and you know and uh
14:51
considering again iranians they have different culture different language and i love arabs by
14:57
by the way, just have lived with them, have lots of friends, and there's nothing against them
15:01
But I'm just saying we are different. We have, you know, when we were back in the school in Iran, we studied, we didn't even
15:10
study that much of Arabic. When we were reading Quran, it was in Arabic, and we didn't know what we were saying, what
15:14
we were reading. And we didn't get that, you know, attached to the words we were reading
15:21
And most people, most of my friends, anybody I know around me, they have denounced their religion and they don't want to be part of it
15:30
What we see in the TV. Okay, so I'll ask you a question that I asked in the early days of the attacks on Gaza
15:37
If we take your desire for regime change and your belief that it would bring stability
15:46
what would be a rough figure for the number of Iranians that you're prepared to see die in order to bring about what you desire
15:55
So I have no desire for anyone to die. But it's not going to happen unless they do
16:02
So what would be a rough estimate of what would be either acceptable or unacceptable to you
16:11
I can't comment on that. You kind of have to, I think
16:16
I mean, I'm not going to force you to, but I don't think you can be in favour of regime change
16:21
without acknowledging that it will involve a lot of death of Iranians, of your fellow Iranians
16:28
Yes, absolutely. I want them to be protected. I want them to be safe
16:32
But the Iranians regime has been killing them. They've been killing the Iranians
16:41
It's the millions probably if you want to go back since the regime
16:45
And that's why you come back. That's when we come back to the question of when regime change in these kind of contexts has actually brought about stability
16:53
Syria might actually answer your question. But of course that wasn't regime change that was imposed from outside
16:59
That was achieved from within. When Western powers or the allies of Western powers have gone into places and brought about regime change through force and through killing the people that live there, I'm not sure either of us can come up with an example of things going well
17:17
Syria, we should not forget, has been in war for many years
17:22
And they weakened Assad regime before this happened. So it is kind of, they've been in war
17:29
It's not like just one thing and another change, they have changed a regime
17:35
Well, I know, except it wasn't imposed from the outside. It was achieved from within, which would be desirable in Iran
17:43
Well, we do know. And we also know that the bloke currently in charge used to be in ISIS. So some of the sort of lazy distinctions and observations get blown to pieces
17:52
when you look at the Syrian example. But I find myself wondering quite where we would point in order to support the notion that this could be good for Iran
18:06
What example, what precedent we would cite? And I suppose you're perfectly entitled to say, well, I haven't got one, but it doesn't mean this won't work
#news