Up next in 10
Andy Burnham has continued the UK policy of allowing the US to use the air base for 'defensive strikes'. In response, Iran has said that it considers RAF Fairford a 'legitimate target' after the US used the base for bombing raids. James O'Brien says the decision to grant the US access to UK bases ‘doesn’t feel as right’ as it did back in March... What should Burnham do? LBC callers have their say: 00:00 | Caller Mo says that history is written by the victors and that Andy Burnham needs to decide whether the US are going to win the war, before he joins in. 09:34 | Peter believes that he may have Burnham’s get out of jail free card. Instead of using sanctions, Burnham needs to use beurocracy to delay trump in order to keep Britain out of the war. 12:00 | Caller Ash Maritime expert. He’s concerned about the impending food crisis due to this war, but he thinks the UN can use this to give Trump a diplomatic offramp by allow humanitarian corridors and aid to come through. 17:48 | Andrew says that Britain has to wake up to the fact that we can ‘no longer be sure that the US is our ally’. 19:32 | Chris says we should ‘sit it out until normality returns’, but unfortunately in world of world of ‘social media influencer presidents’ the horse has already bolted and that’s no longer possible. Listen to the full show on the all-new LBC App: https://app.af.lbc.co.uk/btnc/thenewlbcapp #JamesObrien #Trump #LBC #Iran #Iranwar #Burnham LBC is the home of live debate around news and current affairs in the UK. Join in the conversation and listen at https://www.lbc.co.uk/ Sign up to LBC’s weekly newsletter here: https://l-bc.co/signup
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
So it is technically, procedurally, intellectually correct
0:05
Why does it feel so wrong? In ways that for me, and you are almost certainly different from me
0:10
at least I hope you are, that are very different from when Keir Starmer puts himself
0:14
in precisely the position that Andy Burnham has now inherited. Mo is in Birmingham. Mo, what do you want to say
0:21
I'll be honest with you, James, there are so many different facets to this discussion
0:26
You could start down one path and go down a completely different route
0:30
Well, I think I did. It's a miracle my monologue was so short, quite frankly
0:34
and I didn't take a call until 10.34. Yeah. OK, I think this war is illegal
0:40
and I'm going to start this discussion based upon that premise, and I think and I believe that this government also thinks
0:48
that the actual premise of this war, the actual ignition of this war, was an illegal act
0:53
Well, that would be Chilcot Checklist 5. would it have been lawful for us to join in the original unprovoked attacks upon Iran
1:02
And they concluded that, well, they didn't do it, so we can speculate healthily that they probably concluded
1:08
it wouldn't have been lawful to join in, in that first instance. So, yeah, so we've got this premise now
1:15
I'm going to be cynical, but I'm going to use my cynicism based upon historical fact occurrences that have occurred
1:24
Illegality, in my point of view, only matters if you're on the losing side
1:31
OK. You know, that's how it's been, OK? Even if you include the Second World War or whatever
1:40
if you're on the losing side, you face the full force of justice
1:46
If you win, you could get away with almost anything. You're just providing a variation on the old adage
1:52
that history is written by the victors, aren't you? So yes, okay
1:57
Now, Andy Burnham needs to ask himself the question, is America going to win this war or not
2:07
Wow, you are being cynical. And what's the answer? I mean, I think..
2:15
Ever since February the 28th, I have not seen one action the Americans have conducted
2:21
conducted and the Israelis have conducted which suggests that they are going to win and have done
2:28
everything in my point of view that has made that conclusion less likely. For one, Trump has never
2:40
defined clearly to his own public what victory looks like. Well he's claimed it, so he's
2:47
He simultaneously claimed it a dozen times, while also, as you point out, not telling them what it is
2:52
So it was regime change originally, do you remember? And now the Ayatollah, the dead Ayatollah
2:57
has been replaced by his own son. Sure, he was about stopping his nuclear programme
3:02
and now, only a day or two ago, he talks about bombing newly discovered nuclear sites
3:08
And also, who cares if they end up with some nuclear dust, because they won't be able to do much with it
3:12
I mean, it's impossible to exaggerate, and I still get the odd message, not many
3:17
I presume old Dick Littlejohn at the Daily Mail is one of them, not sending me messages, but still clinging to the notion
3:22
that there's any sense whatsoever in listening to a single word that Trump says
3:26
because he says the polar opposite at 10 o'clock of what he said at 9.59
3:30
So, I mean, it is insane to do this. I was speaking to my mum about it, and I described it
3:35
It's like he's going through a whole packet of Chinese fortune cookies. Yeah
3:39
And literally he reads off a new message every time he consumes one
3:43
And the markets respond and the troops are engaged accordingly and allies have to dance to the tune of the last message he read out
3:50
but it's a polar opposite to the next message he's going. I mean, it is insane. That's the only word for it
3:56
But that's where we are now. That's what's going on. And look, Andy Burnham is a logical man
4:03
I'd like to give him that benefit of the doubt. Yes. He cannot make a really important strategic decision
4:10
on the musings of someone who is acting completely illogically. And probably illegally
4:19
And illegally. OK. So, as I said, does he think he's going to win the war
4:26
And I'll be honest with you, there is nothing in my heart, my mind tells me, that America is going to win this war
4:34
And what we're stuck in at the moment is Trump knows that
4:39
Or the people behind him know that, but he refuses to crystallise the position
4:46
hence why he believes that escalation is his only solution. But it's an escalation to nothing
4:55
I'm really enjoying listening to you, and your mum's very lucky to have the benefits of such a big brain
5:01
at her permanent disposal, but you haven't actually, apart from telling me that he needs to decide who's going to win
5:07
and I can work out what the next bit of this is, but you haven't addressed
5:11
the jeopardy and peril of abandoning alliances and long histories of cooperation
5:21
For us to pull out now, and it will continue, is to send
5:26
messages to countries like Jordan and Oman and Israel which finds itself in a rather different category to all the other allies in the region of course Saudi Arabia Qatar Bahrain Kuwait
5:38
It sends a message to them that we are not quite as trusted an ally
5:43
as we were 12 months ago, doesn't it? I think the word is not trusted
5:49
Reliable? Doubty? In my opinion, it's a matter of news. I'm going to be now blunt
5:55
there is nothing in Britain's armory that can do anything in regards to influencing this war
6:04
We stop them using Diego Garcia or Fairfield. It would have an impact, but not an influence
6:11
It wouldn't... It's not going to change the arithmetic of victory or loss
6:17
No, it wouldn't. And ultimately, the risks of getting involved and potentially suffering blowback on it
6:24
and even if we do get involved due to the absolute capricious
6:29
nature of our American ally, because of Trump who one day will be congratulating
6:35
us for getting involved and then the next day be slagging us off
6:39
Yeah, this is really true attacking us for not doing enough and as you speak, I just need to share some
6:45
breaking news, the United Nations is urging as you speak Mo, that's a coincidence
6:49
by the way, it's not your fault 6,000 sailors currently stranded in the Strait of Hormuz
6:55
The United Nations is urging their evacuation. How many times has Donald Trump announced that it's open now
7:00
Well, as I said, it's... So I guess what we're nudging towards
7:05
is a question of whether or not the historical and diplomatic precedents
7:12
that form the network of obligations that keep us away from the worst-case scenarios
7:17
internationally and domestically, whether or not Donald Trump's moral depravity and idiocy actually changed the game sufficiently
7:26
for Andy Burnham to say, yeah, look, I know the Chilcot checklist and I know the history
7:32
and I know the importance of these alliances, but we are handcuffing ourselves
7:38
to uncontrollable and illogical rage. We are handcuffing ourselves to a kind of showerhead
7:47
You know when the showerhead falls out of the bracket and it just bounces around on the floor
7:50
and you've got no control over who it sprays or where it goes. So these historical precedents do not apply
7:57
because of the absurdity and the insanity of the situation. And Trump and Netanyahu can share responsibility
8:05
for the absurdity and the insanity of the current situation. Yes. Yeah, OK
8:10
If he was a more consistent man, if we knew for sure 100% that, you know what
8:17
we're going to help him, he's going to win, we are going to get a piece of the victory dividend
8:23
on the back of it all, okay? But he can't do that, can he? But he can't do that
8:27
He can make promises and idiots can believe him or cult members can believe him
8:31
and Dick Littlejohn can write a column about what a great idea it is, this settlement
8:35
But to do that, you have to be willfully ignorant. You have to be willfully amoral
8:40
You have to completely ignore the evidence of your own eyes and ears and pretend that this time things will be different
8:45
For sure. And there is nothing that guarantees to me that we are going to benefit
8:52
No, and that is cynical. Or pragmatic, if you prefer. Cynical is a dirtier word than pragmatic, isn't it
8:57
But you're just describing pragmatism. And it's a new pragmatism born of new circumstances
9:03
And the new circumstances are Trump and Netanyahu really should not be followed into anything
9:10
despite historical alliances. and when there are new regimes in place or new administrations in place
9:16
in Israel and the United States of America, then the old order can be restored
9:20
But it wouldn't be Andy Burnham that was tearing up the old order by saying, for example, to the King of Jordan
9:25
we're not going to let them use our bases anymore because we just think it has to end
9:30
and we're going to do everything we can to make it end sooner rather than later. Peter's in Gillingham. Peter, what do you think
9:36
Good morning. I agree with everything you said about Chilcot, James. Yes
9:40
I disagree with the binary suggestion that, you know, you either go in with Donald Trump or you go against him
9:47
Yeah, well, so do I now, but that's all on Mo. The last caller
9:52
He set the context there, so thank you, Mo. Well, Keir Starmer did actually push forward a little bit on Donald Trump
10:00
and didn't get penalised for it. Andy Burnham is supposed to be able to walk on water, allegedly
10:06
No, he's not. Don't be silly. Well, we'll see. He'll do it at the weekend up in Manchester
10:11
On the Manchester Ship C, yeah. Yeah, exactly. So, politicians are really good at not doing binary when it suits them
10:20
They call it bureaucracy or dither and delay. Or diplomacy. I mean, I'm not going to police every word you use
10:25
because we're going to be late for the news, so crack on. Okay. So, he could simply apply, you know, sanctions in a way
10:32
without calling it that by saying, the British public need reassurance of what you're doing, Donald
10:38
Could you give us a list of what targets you're going for? We won't get that, obviously
10:42
Or even what success looks like. Give us a really clear ysis of what victory is
10:49
We need to be reassured that you're going to not do offensive bombing
10:54
So I need that for my people, because the first job of a prime minister is to defend the nation
10:59
So he could use some bureaucracy or diplomacy as it were Apart from that we need some trumpectomies going on to get rid of him Yeah well I mean you mean of course politically I have to just remind people of that
11:11
Well, it did. You know that, but the internet is a mischievous and dishonest place
11:16
I don't want people pretending that you meant something other than what you meant by using those words
11:20
No, absolutely. It's his surgical removal from power. Chilcott point six, policy and strategy, what does success look like
11:28
He's not answered that question. He's categorically not answered that question because he's answered it 100 times with 100 different answers
11:34
So how can you be part of something that doesn't fulfil Chilcot Checklist
11:38
Does that mean you've given Andy Burnham a kind of get-out-of-jail card there, haven't you
11:43
Absolutely. I think you have, and I don't know whether or not he can walk on water metaphorically
11:48
I'm pretty sure he can't literally, but I don't know if he wants to tear up that network of obligations
11:56
but I think an awful lot of people probably think he should. But for now, it wouldn't be a phone-in about Iran without Ash in Northampton, who has covered himself in glory thus far
12:06
Usually, with regards to the maritime implications, both in and beyond the Strait of Hormuz
12:12
Ash would have been aware before I was of that United Nations instruction this morning to evacuate 6,000 sailors
12:19
because he reminded us to be mindful of the ordinary men and women doing, I mean, not really extraordinary jobs
12:29
doing jobs that are quite normal and ordinary, most of the time now caught up in these hideous circumstances
12:35
stranded to all intents and purposes in the middle of a war zone. And there are 6,000 of them in the news headlines as we speak
12:42
But why did you pick up the phone today, Ash? Good morning, James. I wasn't going to phone in until you mentioned that
12:48
But actually it does, it ties together everything that you're talking about
12:53
And there is another aspect that I've been banging on about for the last couple of months now
12:56
which is the world food crisis that's going to come because of this
13:02
Because, you know, a large percentage of the world's urea, the world's fertilizers all come from the Gulf
13:09
So where does that leave Andy Burnham? Well, the UN at the moment seem to be crying out for somebody to lead it
13:18
Gosh. They want somebody to take this on board. The IMO aren't doing it
13:23
The ILO, the International Labour Organization, they're not doing it. The World Food Organization, they're not doing it
13:30
So what can Andy Burnham do? Well, those bases and that entire operation is quite a nice
13:39
and I hate to use that word because I don't like using words about warfare
13:44
but it's a nice bargaining chip for Donald Trump. What Andy Burnham can do is he can start to provide diplomatic off-ramps
13:51
by using the UN. so he can use the fact that there is a food crisis about to happen he can use the fact
13:59
that there is a huge labor crisis um about to happen in shipping um and he can labor or he can
14:09
go through the un lobby the un be the person who is going to try and force
14:15
humanitarian corridors and humanitarian aid to start getting through and that is what's going
14:22
to start the whole process and give the diplomatic off-ramps to both Iran and the USA
14:28
Are we still treating the USA logically, though, with this ysis? Everything that I'm looking at is that Trump is bored
14:38
Trump wants to move on to something else, and he can't... The longer this goes on, the closer it gets to the midterms
14:46
Yes. He needs to point to something to say, hey, I'm the greatest
14:50
at the moment he seems to be trying to do that through bluster propaganda war aren't we fantastic
14:58
aren't we big we're so bigly it's amazing what he what might work better is trying to become
15:05
i'm the president who stopped 11 wars again even though he started this one even though he started
15:12
it doesn't know i'm not being glib actually i'm saying it wouldn't even touch the sides of his
15:16
self-awareness, would it? Because there's not really any such thing. And what about
15:20
Iran? Why would they be up for this? Why would they be party to anything
15:24
that allowed Trump to emerge with credit, even if it was bogus credit
15:29
Yeah, everything that they put into the MOU, all of the articles
15:35
that they put in are still ex-tan. It's still stuff they want. They still want the money
15:40
unfrozen. They still want... MOU, for people listening, is the Memorandum of Understanding
15:46
the sort of precursor to any treaty or deal. Is that right? Yeah
15:51
And that's still expat. Like, they still have those wants. It's still on the table
15:56
Yeah. And so, you know, what's lacking at the moment is diplomatic off-ramps that make sense
16:02
Yeah, and of course, they can never make full sense in the pre-Trump sense of the word
16:07
because they have to accommodate his absurdity and his moral depravity. So what you're doing, essentially
16:12
is giving Iran pretty much everything they ask for while allowing Donald Trump to publicly claim
16:16
that they haven't got anything. Do we give them everything they've asked for
16:20
No, no, I said pretty much. Or give Iran enough for them to stand down
16:25
while allowing Donald Trump or, you know, just a bit like the pigeon playing chess
16:30
Donald Trump can swan around the place claiming he scored a glorious victory and it in the interests of allies to cooperate in that deception While everybody privately knows that the emperor got no clothes on
16:44
we all sit around going, oh, lovely clothes, president. Lovely clothes, Donald. Yes, it's what each regime can sell at home
16:52
And, you know, from Iran's point of view, you have to split that in three. You have to split that into the government, the IRGC and the clerics
16:59
are they getting what they need to secure their power base and show their superiorities and their internal power struggle
17:11
And you need to satisfy Trump. Yes, and Burnham, in the meantime
17:17
has to continue to allow the attacks to be launched from British bases but move, hopefully, the bigger picture towards a quicker resolution
17:26
via the messages that you, via the tactics that you describe. I think you said for the first time since this war started
17:33
you said something a little bit ridiculous there, Ash. You suggested that the United Nations had no leadership
17:37
when Donald Trump has already suggested that Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, should take over as soon as possible
17:44
Yeah. And I wish I was joking, mate. I wish I was joking
17:48
Another of my favourite correspondents is Andrew, who last time I checked was based up in Edinburgh
17:53
and who has a history in the diplomatic corps, he points out very, very wisely that within what's plausibly legal
18:01
the UK has its self-interest and ethical preferences to consider. This has been true of every war since 1945
18:08
So what's different about Iran? Answer nothing, except we're no longer sure that the US is our ally
18:17
Could be our adversary under Donald Trump. So historically, he describes it as a historically shattering shift
18:25
which endangers all the key foundations, military, economic, geopolitical, upon which the UK's survival relies
18:34
And we are all still very far indeed from coming to terms with that
18:38
So a little earlier as well, he put together some more thoughts
18:42
pointing out, and I have acknowledged this, I have corrected this, there's no treaty obligation on the UK to help the USA in military operations against Iran
18:50
NATO doesn't cover it, none of our other treaties do. Helping would actually be illegal, as Moe in
18:55
Birmingham suggested, if the US and Israeli war were one of aggression, which most of us think it
19:00
is, although the US continues to insist and Israel continues to insist that it has been self-defense
19:05
from the outset. So as far as helping the US or Israel is concerned, it's a fine line
19:11
If they did launch a war of aggression in the first place, then even assisting with the self-defense
19:16
could be illegal. Helping other allies is more clear-cut. We're back to the Chilcot checklist
19:21
And of course, I mean, it ceases to be clear-cut when you're talking about helping the US help other allies
19:27
Is that helping other allies, or is that helping the US, or is it both? I told you it was complicated
19:32
Some of your recent calls have kind of touched on it. I think where we have the problem is we have a fundamental shift
19:38
in the world order, in all the rationale that we've been raised
19:42
to believe and understand and rely on. is fundamentally shattered down to, ultimately down to
19:49
the narcissistic impulses of a fairly crazy man in the White House
19:54
who has essentially shattered everything. Yeah, Andrew actually puts it in quite scary terms
20:00
in the bit of the message I didn't just read out a moment ago. He puts, it's hard to credit
20:04
but it's nonetheless true. We're disturbed by war. We don't toss Donald Trump
20:08
And deep down, we even worry that at some point we could be on the receiving end
20:12
of US force while he remains in the White House. It goes that deep and that far, of course
20:19
and it is almost impossible to credit, but who would put anything past him
20:24
No, precisely. I mean, I think, you know, if you have a recent call, Ashford had the right on it with regards to logic
20:29
you know, is this war illegal? That's a good argument. At the same time, international order is, in essence, already gone
20:36
We want to hold onto it and follow that logic, but it feels like the horse has already bolted
20:41
and what Burnham is in a really unenviable position is trying to shepherd us through what is ultimately
20:47
a fundamental change in how the world functions. I don't think previous logic can be relied on
20:53
I think we are now in the world of social media-led politicians. I mean, we now have the world's first influencer president running the US
21:00
and he's just, whatever he reckons, whatever he picks up on his Twitter feed or Fox News
21:05
he'll just regurgitate, and that's his vision for the day. And then he'll change to something else
21:09
No, exactly that. So the idea that we sit it out until normality returns
21:14
should become more attractive as time passes, but it somehow isn't, is it
21:19
I think the challenge is, I think there used to be guardrails. So the United States, I think his second term
21:23
his first term, Trump, I think was less affected because he didn't know what the hell he was doing. I think this time round, he's had a plan to gut everyone
21:30
who steps in his way in any way. So now they don't have guardrails with the Supreme Court
21:35
anywhere within the internal organisations. They're all endless sort of Trump signals
21:39
And even when Trump goes, they're going to have to rebuild their entire infrastructure from scratch, it seems
21:45
All of their lawyers that were worth anything have quit. Their lawmaker, everybody has kind of been shunted out
21:51
And now it's just whatever buffoon Trump wants to put into place. And they're going to have to rebuild their whole infrastructure
21:57
And this has been, yeah, I mean, it would not be, even by the standards of this radio phone-in program
22:03
I'm not going to ask you what the new infrastructure would look like. Could you just redesign the world order for us, please
#news