Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
After weeks of buildup, the United States and Israel have attacked Iran, killing long-time leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. How will the downfall of his regime reverberate throughout the Middle East and beyond?
Former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove and journalist Kate McCann (Political Editor at Times Radio) dive into the questions around the decision to strike Iran, what the death of Khamenei means for Iran’s future, and whether Iranian proxies in the region like Hezbollah have the strength to aid in retaliation.
Plus: Does China have a reason to step in and help Iran? Should Russian President Vladimir Putin be concerned that he’s lost an ally, or emboldened because of the United States’ split attention? What will the UK’s involvement be in supporting the US and Israel in this conflict?
In this episode:
01:37 - The decision behind killing Khamenei
03:43 - Ramifications of turning Khamenei into a martyr
06:32 - Why a popular uprising in Iran is unlikely
08:50 - Starlink and the information war
10:25 - How the Ayatollah’s downfall may be the death knell for Iran’s regional proxies
12:28 - Who backs Iran now?
13:51 - Will China be a mediator?
15:48 - Putin’s lost an ally
19:18 - Consequences of Starmer’s hesitancy
22:36 - The lethal combination of Israeli HUMINT and the CIA’s advanced surveillance
Hosted by Sir Richard Dearlove (former MI6 Chief) and journalist Kate McCann (Political Editor at Times Radio).
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mccann: Hello, and welcome to One Decision In Brief, although a little bit longer today for obvious reasons. I'm Kate McCann. I am your cohost, and I'm joined by Sir Richard Dearlove. Hi, Sir Richard. So much to talk about today. There really is. And, obviously, the name of the podcast is One Decision, and the one big decision, maybe the biggest in recent times, is Donald Trump's to go to war in Iran. Some might say it came out of the blue. Others will say the military buildup of capability in the region was a pretty clear sign that something big was brewing. And you, Sir Richard, have certainly been calling it on this podcast over the last couple of weeks and saying that something was imminent. So I'm sure that it didn't fully surprise you.
Dearlove: Hi, Kate. It didn't surprise me at all. And I think all the evidence clearly points to a carefully planned operation, which was coordinated with the Israelis. That implies an awful lot of preparation. I think there might have been a timing issue. So intelligence told — well, we're told it was CIA, but CIA or Mossad — that the supreme leader was in his bunker with a whole lot of advisers. And I think that probably triggered the attack because, you know, in the first twenty four hours, they were all killed by numerous missile strikes on the site. And, yeah, that started it. I think the only thing that I questioned was exactly when this would happen, but I've been predicting, I think, for several weeks that I thought it was inevitable.
INTERVIEW
Mccann: Can we unpick some of the big questions that remain around this decision? Because, you know, there's a lot of context going on in this region. There's a lot of context with America and Iran. Can I start by asking you, why is the death of the Ayatollah so pivotal?
Dearlove: I suppose because of the symbolism and the fact that he has been such a dominant and disruptive presence in the Middle East, that he built this alliance, the axis of resistance, which was really the biggest destabilizer that you could imagine — the creation of Hezbollah, the support for Hamas, previously the backing of the Syrian regime, the Houthis. And you have a front there which was, you know, opposed largely to the Sunni world, although there is the complexity inside that of the whole Palestinian issue. But it is the symbolism, and the irony is that Iran was already talking about Khamenei's death or his departure given that he was elderly and not in great health. And clearly, there was already discussion of how he might be succeeded. So in a way, his departure, had it been from natural causes, wouldn't have been so symbolic. It would have been sequential, as it were. But because he's been killed by the Israelis, by the Americans in a military operation, I think it's hugely significant. And it is a point in the modern history of the Middle East which will be one of those lines in the sand with a before and an after. The question is, we know the before, but we certainly don't know the after.
Mccann: A lot of commentators, to your point just there, are suggesting that there is a hugely religious element to this, that it shouldn't just be seen as America taking out a leader of another country. There is the Sunni-Shia context and what that does to the wider region, and that's why we're seeing other countries drawn into this so early on. For those who don't understand that context fully, can you just give us a bit of background on what that means in the context of Iran?
Dearlove: Well, look, I'm not an expert on the religion of Islam, but I think it's important to be able to point out that after the death of the prophet, there was a split, and that split was Shia-Sunni. And the Shia, in a way, are a sect, but a very large sect, but much, much smaller than the Sunni. And the Shia have tended to be more successful politically and economically as a movement than the Sunni, taking a traditional view over time. But on the other hand, the religion is messianic and believes in the reappearance of the Mahdi, and there is also a sort of martyrdom cult within the Shia. And I think the irony of recent events is that Khamenei fulfills the martyrdom context because he is now being killed as a martyr seen through the eyes of his followers. So that has a certain religious logic, and that religious content, particularly this issue of the Mahdi appearing and, you know, dominating the world as it was conceived in the tenth century when the concept had its origins, is a very important part of the explanation of this contest. So in a way, it's reminiscent historically of the split in Christianity between Protestant and Catholic. And there is a clear parallel historically, which are the religious wars in Europe of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and early seventeenth centuries when you have this contest for power between Protestant Europe and Catholic Europe. It's a very, very similar — not culturally, but just in terms of the fierceness of religious belief and the differences between the separation, although they have a huge amount in common.
Mccann: Does that explain some of it?
Dearlove: It does indeed.
Mccann: And I think it's really important that we understand it in that context, especially the idea of martyrdom and sacrifice, because it's important when we're talking about the removal of a leader and touching on the idea of regime change. And I find this really fascinating. Donald Trump's statements, his public statements, often reference, okay, now over to you, to the Iranian people. Asked me to do this, and now I've done this. Now it's your turn to rise up. And I think we need to really understand the mindset of some Iranians, not all, but to be able to understand why that message alone may not be enough. I mean, it's unlikely to be enough, for example, if you're a member of the IRGC.
Dearlove: The problem in Iran is the eradication over a long period of any opposition to the regime and the fact that there is no leader, no party, no grouping that can call its forces out onto the street and then contest power with the theocratic government. And I think that means it's very hard to imagine how an uprising of the population will occur, particularly when social media is completely closed down, so there's no means of communication amongst the populace, or no easy means of communication. So you haven't got a situation where, you know, you can shove out general messages on your iPhone and millions of people come onto the street. That isn't going to happen. And I think the other point to make is that although we have this intensely religious government, religious leadership, Iran, in other respects, is a hugely secular society, and that secular strength is suppressed. And in a way, it's that clash between a population, particularly the younger people who are quite secular in their outlook, and the leadership which is strongly, strongly ideological and only sees the world through the optic of excessive religious belief.
Mccann: Do you think it would be a good idea or a relevant part of America to provide — because you mentioned the communications there and the difficulty of communications — for America to provide Starlink satellites to get communications up and running and to keep them stable? Do you think that's an important part of conflict now?
Dearlove: Well, it could be. I mean, the problem with Starlink is, you know, the subscription's pretty expensive. So unless Musk were to organize something where you could just log your iPhone on with no cost to Starlink if you're in Iran, that immediately would make a huge difference. I mean, we've seen, ironically, simultaneously in Ukraine where Starlink was denied recently by Musk to the Russian military that it's caused chaos in their command and control because they can't communicate with each other. So, you know, communication and media information, which has all been closed down at the moment because of the attack on Iran, is hugely important, particularly if you're gonna have an uprising of the population, which at the moment, you've got these incidents of people shouting out of their windows, death to the Ayatollah and cheering, and people, you know, surrounding cafes where there's a popular youth following. But it doesn't really amount at the moment to a row of beans. I mean, what you need is a million people on the streets with leadership.
Mccann: And why would you take the risk when 30 odd thousand people were killed just a month or so ago by the regime? Zooming out a little bit, we talked a little bit earlier about the regional powers and the way they are intersecting with one another. What's the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Yemen as well, actually, in this conflict at the moment?
Dearlove: Well, I suppose their role is arm's length expression of Iranian power. But, I mean, Hezbollah has been decapitated. It's been partially disarmed. You actually have a resurgence of Lebanese government authority. You have a resurgence of such military forces as Lebanon has. So I don't think there's a great deal that Hezbollah can achieve. And there was a ceasefire. The Israelis hadn't attacked them until yesterday since the ceasefire started. And, I mean, there have been incidents mounted by Hezbollah, and they don't really amount to very much. And you can be sure that the Israelis will deal ruthlessly with whatever happens. I mean, the Houthis are slightly different. I mean, they're not really in theater. Yemen is a long way away, and the problem with the Houthis has been mainly to shipping along the coast of Yemen. But do remember that the Israelis actually knocked out the Houthi leadership. I can't remember how many months ago. And the Houthis are more of a tribal movement, more involved in this civil war in Yemen between the Yemeni government supported by the Saudis and their own domination of the southern parts of Yemen. And I don't see the Houthis doing very much, although they still probably have some capability to disrupt shipping, but that's disrupted already because of the closure of the Straits of Hormuz.
Mccann: And so given what you've just said there about Iranian proxies and their relative weakness at this point in time, is anyone coming to the aid of Iran? Does it have any allies that are strong and that are interested in getting themselves involved?
Dearlove: No. None. And this is why I've been saying, you know, effectively, the IDF, Israeli Defense Forces, have already defeated Iran militarily in terms of projection of Iranian power. So the IRGC is still probably powerful on the street in terms of shooting down the population, but the military capability of Iran is massively degraded. They've got absolutely no air defenses left. They're naked in front of the most formidable air armada that could be put together anywhere in the world. And I guess what the Americans and IDF now will knock out more and more and more of the military facilities, particularly those controlled by the IRGC. But it doesn't really change the situation internally in Iran because the IRGC and these Basij militia, the motorbike gangs, can still terrorize the population. So unless you can do something about that, it's difficult to envisage how the situation is gonna develop and change.
Mccann: What about the role of China in this conflict? I mean, we've seen China come out and say, hey, come on, everybody. Calm down. Put down your guns, your weapons, your bombs, and we'll mediate for you. What is China up to here?
Dearlove: Well, China has been attempting to build its influence in the Middle East and has had some success. Of course, it is strategically engaged in this situation because Iran is a massive supplier of undercut priced energy to China as a whole. And for a period, that supply is going to be cut off or diminished. And, of course, that's immediately gonna raise the price of oil, the price of gas, and will have a profound effect on world markets. We can already see that happening if you look at the indices online and the relative impact on stock markets, as we speak. And, I mean, the Chinese want a more influential role in the Middle East, but they're new arrivals, I don't think they're strongly set up, and they're certainly not going to come to the military support of Iran. I just don't see that happening. It's too far away. It's not what they would do. So I think the offer of mediation is a natural one, but I can't see anyone being enthusiastic. The Americans won't be. The Sunnis won't be. I don't see what immediate influence they can have on the conflict. They can certainly affect the economic aspects of it over time, and that will be important, but not in the next few weeks.
Mccann: And what about President Putin? I mean, there are any number of cartoons drawn in newspapers of President Putin sweating watching what's happening. It's not the first of people that he will have watched America take out or other groups take out in recent days, weeks, months. Will he be worried watching what's happening? Will he feel emboldened a little because he will think, well, if America is focusing on Iran, it's not gonna be focusing on Ukraine. Maybe the same can be said for Europe and the UK too. Will he be concerned? Will he be thinking, well, America is clearly serious? Maybe I need to start taking these talks more seriously myself.
Dearlove: Well, I think all of those considerations probably come up. I mean, Putin will be worried about losing an ally, and Iran has been a relatively important partner and, of course, has assisted Russia, particularly with its drone technology, but in other areas of defense as well. I think given that Putin is already somewhat beleaguered internationally, to lose an ally with a population of 90,000,000 is obviously significant. As regards Ukraine, well, obviously, it does distract attention. But on the other hand, in the last few weeks, interestingly, the Ukrainian army have been doing significantly better in mounting, I wouldn't say massive offensives, but in pushing the Russians out of certain areas. Okay. In terms of impact on the war, it doesn't change it hugely, but it does, as it were, give encouragement to the Ukrainians and makes the balance look different, which could affect future negotiations. But I think Putin will be very worried. There's a very interesting article by the American ideologue. He's very right wing, but he writes good sense sometimes. Oh, most of the time, actually. It's George F. Will in the Washington Post. I don't know whether you've seen this article.
Mccann: I haven't.
Dearlove: Read it. It's about the rebirth of American deterrence. And he's saying, you know, whatever you think of Trump, this deployment of American power in such a ruthless fashion is hugely significant globally, whatever happens in Iran, because it shows the ability of the United States to reach strategically. And I'm not talking whether you agree, you approve, you think it's under international law. It's just a fact. And I think the point that Will's making in this article is hugely important, and it will be read in China, and it will be read in Moscow. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's written for those audiences because he's a very important US commentator in respect of issues like this.
Mccann: And this is the global policeman argument that, you know, America is operating on the basis that it and it alone potentially has the power and the desire and the intent to go about trying to sort out some of these problems, however you look at it. And, you know, we can massively caveat the discussion about international law — it's played out in many other places, and we don't need to repeat it here. But what I will repeat here, and I'm interested in your view on this, Sir Richard, is the UK's role, because Donald Trump has rebuked Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the UK, pretty strongly. There's the so-called special relationship, but the two sides are clearly at odds over the use of British bases in the UK. Donald Trump says the prime minister was far too slow in recognizing how legitimate his aims were here. Was it a misstep, I suppose, to begin with, for the UK not to offer support sooner? And why do you think Keir Starmer sees this so very differently?
Dearlove: Well, I think the explanation is pretty straightforward. It's called government by human rights lawyers. And the prime minister is a human rights lawyer. That's his origin. His attorney general, Lord Hermer, is strongly of that view too. They were incredibly worried about the legitimacy under international law, if you are a believer, a full believer in international law, of the legality of the attack. So they havered over the first twenty four hours as to what to say, whether, you know, to express support or whether to condemn because it was a breach of international law. I think the mistake that the government made personally was not to see this as a moral issue rather than a strictly legal issue. And the problem is that also politically, the prime minister has just had a terrible by-election. He's the prisoner, to an extent, of the left wing of his party. He has to be very careful how he acts in relation to Trump and Trump's administration. And had they been more courageous, they would have said early on, you can use Fairford, the US Air Force Base in Gloucestershire, for the preparation of these attacks, and you can certainly use Diego Garcia. But strictly speaking, they didn't need permission to use Diego Garcia. But on the other hand, the convention is that you would ask the government because it's British sovereign territory. The government missed a trick. So they're now somewhat in the doghouse with the US administration, but changed their mind within twenty four hours when the Iranians fired a drone at a sovereign base in Cyprus. And we could say, well, we're doing this now defensively, but we're not doing it previously offensively. Look, this is angels on the head of a pin, and I think the government missed a trick. But they are human rights lawyers, so you can see the logic that caused them to hesitate massively and get the worst of all worlds by doing so.
Mccann: I mean, the suggestion is that that decision to allow America to use UK bases came actually before the drone hits on the base in Cyprus. So there's a suggestion that that's not even a cover for it. Can I ask you finally? And there are so many different directions we can take this in. But I want to ask you, with your background, to give us a judgment call really on who led this operation when we get down to brass tacks. Because when you actually speak to people, a lot of them say it's the Israeli intelligence that led the way here. It was Israel that understood that all of these leaders, the Ayatollah, they were gonna be in the right place at the right time. Why is Israeli intelligence so good? Because this isn't the first time that they've been able to launch a very precision-led strike on a very senior figure.
Dearlove: Yeah. I would say it's probably a combination. So Israeli human coverage inside Iran — we saw this in the twelve day war, the previous chapter of this conflict. And, clearly, their coverage has been phenomenal and really outstandingly strong consistently, but do not underestimate the capability of the United States. Why I say that is, okay, CIA are pretty good at human as well on the day, but their technical coverage now, and the sophistication of their technical coverage and their ability to follow individuals, to identify their vehicles, to identify, you know, faces even from satellite when there's a cloud cover. So I think if you put together that American capability, which has grown exponentially, as I'm told, over the last five to ten years, and then you put it with the Mossad human coverage, I'm not surprised that they knew exactly where these people were and when. And I've got a feeling that it was that meeting of them all being in the same place at the same time — how mad these people are not to understand their vulnerabilities — that that was the trigger for the attack. And, of course, now they'll be using the same capability to knock off individuals who will all be on Zoom because they won't dare to meet anywhere. But as someone said, can you imagine, a council of 88 mullahs meeting on Zoom trying to agree on a new leader? The mind boggles when you think about it. But and even then, you know, they'll be vulnerable to intercept. I don't think people really understand how hugely advanced these capabilities are. And, of course, AI has given them another dimension, which we're not fully familiar with, but you can guess how extensive and powerful it is as a tool.
CLOSING
Mccann: Yes. Indeed. Maybe we should get an Israeli intelligence expert on the podcast to come and explain to us exactly what it is that they're doing, in as much as they possibly can. So, Sir Richard, it's been great chatting to you. As you mentioned earlier, we've got a really great episode coming up this week. We're joined by retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling and John Bolton, the National Security Advisor in President Trump's first term and ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, both sharing their expertise on what happens next, the motivations and the long term, really, when it comes to America's intervention in Iran. That's it from us though for this episode of a slightly longer One Decision in Brief. For more conversations and discussions just like this one, you can check out onedecision.com and our YouTube page where there is plenty more like this. Thanks very much for joining us.
Dearlove: Yeah. Great, Kate. All the best.
