The Collapse of Trump's Operation Epic Fury

This is going to be an absolute case study of how hubris and ego and lack of foresight and mixed messaging leads you further and further into a terrible, terrible place. And I think that's where Trump is right now.

It's just so difficult to explain why he's doing something that is so clearly not in the US national interest.

He's provoked a conflict over which now nobody seems to have much control, least of all him.

This is probably the most dangerous moment we've had for many, many decades.

Do you think this is potential World War territory? I think we might be in it.

Welcome to the rest of this politics with me Rory Stewart.

And with me, Alistair Campbell. So Rory, we're going to talk about Iran, inevitably. We've had the big build-up to Donald Trump saying he's going to be demolishing Iran's energy infrastructure. And we've then had the big seeming climb down based upon his claim that they'd had these productive talks with Iran. We'll talk about that.

We'll talk about the development since then. And we'll most importantly try to work out why on earth this is happening and why on earth it's in the mess that it's in. We're also going to talk about assisted dying which I suspect may lead us to an agreeable disagreement but if some of these peers were in the room Rory it would not be

agreeable. No you'd be pretty cross. I'd be very very cross but we'll talk about that. Let's start with Donald Trump. So a few hours ago, we were stuck in a situation in which Donald Trump had announced that unless the Straits of Hormuz was open within 48 hours, he would attack the critical infrastructure of Iran. In other words, he'd attack the electricity infrastructure, presumably water infrastructure. And it felt as though he'd completely backed himself into

a corner. And by the way, that would be a war crime.

And it would be a war crime because if you take out the electricity and water, you're taking out the hospitals, you're taking out all the stuff that supports ventilation. All the stuff that Putin has done in Ukraine. Absolutely. As Shoshana said, why on earth does he do this? It'd be like saying to a classroom of three-year-olds, don't you do that because if you do that, I'm going to get very cross. And of course, it seemed inevitable that they would continue to stop Straits of Hormuz. He would then launch his attacks on critical infrastructure. They had signaled long in advance that if he attacked the critical infrastructure, they'd go for desalination plants in the Gulf. And desalination plants in the Gulf, the majority of Riyadh's water comes from turning salt water into drinking water. So

effectively, you would create a humanitarian crisis throughout the Gulf. Those places really struggle to function without desalination plants. You would then have refugee flows. So there would be people moving out of the Gulf to try to get somewhere where they can actually

get new drinking water. And I was talking to someone in Saudi this morning who was talking about the fact that he bought a huge amount of water. He's got his car full of petrol. You would have refugee flows out of Iran because as soon as you

start hitting the water and electricity infrastructure, you're pushed out of Iran, and that will go into Turkey, that could go into Afghanistan, that could spill over from Turkey into the broader region. And we haven't even begun to think through what that means for Gulf, what that could mean for Jordan, what that could mean for Iraq, what that could mean for Lebanon, what that could mean for Israel. However, you have just come to us with the breaking news that rather oddly, rather than having blocked himself into a corner in the way that one might assume, so his ego allows no way of climbing down, he has, and this was a tip-off I got a few hours ago from an official in the Gulf

who said, don't worry, Trump's not going to follow through on his threat. And that is probably because somebody has explained to him the size of the hole that he's now in. And of course, what he's been trying to do, probably since day one, is to think about how do I turn this into a version of Venezuela? And this is not us being very clever because lots of people said it, but we said it on day one. Iran is not Venezuela, Iran is not Iraq, Iran is not Libya, Iran is bigger, stronger, and the sense you get is that they've been planning for this a lot longer than Trump has. We might like to think that for 47 years the Americans have thought about how do we do this, but

actually they haven't. They've been doing what Karim Sajjadpour, when he was brilliant on our special question time we did last week, and he was basically saying what the world has been doing is containing. Iran has been contained. It's not been great, it's not been perfect for the Iranian people, but that's been what they've been doing. What Trump has done with Netanyahu's support and active encouragement, because Netanyahu has wanted to do this forever, is he's provoked a conflict over which now nobody seems to have much control, least of all him.

So for him to come out as he did, when he came out and said that thing, if you do that, I'm going to go after all your energy infrastructure, it shows you two things. There wasn't even any debate so far as I could see about, would that be again would that be a war crime do you really want to commit war crimes and signal that's what you're doing and then what did the Iranians say if you do that then we know where those desalination plants are we can literally make things even worse for you regarding your oil price with the production that's going on look we could be wrong

but I think this is going to be an absolute case study through history of how hubris and ego and lack of foresight and mixed messaging leads you further and further into a terrible, terrible place. And I think that's where Trump is right now. This episode is brought to you by Fuse Energy.

Energy policy rarely stays in Westminster for long, usually arrives for the bill. And from the 1st of April, 75% of renewables obligation costs will come off electricity bills and move into general taxation.

So if bills are meant to fall from April, why would anyone bother switching?

Because policy sets the floor. The saving itself is automatic. What suppliers offer beyond that isn't and that's where real

competition operates. Fuse goes beyond the mandated saving. Customers who switch save around an additional £200 on average. In the Fuse Energy app you can see exactly what you're using and what it costs with 24-7 support if you need it.

Listeners to the show will also receive a free Trip Plus subscription when they switch.

Get more than just lower rates. Switch today at fuseenergy.com slash politics using the

code politics and save around 200 pounds on your bills. Visit fuseenergy.com for full details and terms and conditions. One of the questions that I was getting out of people I was talking to in the Gulf today is they are really struggling to understand why Trump did it. They can completely understand why Israel wanted to do it. Their view is that the Israeli strategy, admittedly this is a pretty anti-Israeli position, but this is their view. Their view is Netanyahu thinks he wins every which way. Either it just establishes Israel as the massive regional

hegemon, whoever it has to be scared of, or you're forced to become an Israeli ally, stroke Israeli vassal, who just does what Israel says. So that's the strategy which says, we keep attacking Iran, we make things so uncomfortable that the United Arab Emirates have no choice. Whatever they think of us, they just have to team up with us to protect themselves against Iran. Or you just destroy all the economies of the Gulf, and that doesn't worry him either because there are people in Netanyahu's circle who say these Gulf countries have too much influence in Washington. They've been a countervailing force against Israel's interests.

It actually helps us if these countries are suffering economic damage. So that's the Israeli. Their question is, why on earth does Trump go along with it? And they're talking, as you can imagine, to the most senior people. So they're talking to Jared Kushner, they're talking to Steve Whitcoff, they're talking to Marco Rubio, they're talking to JD Vance.

And all of those people are saying, we have no idea. We're all telling him to stop, and he won't stop. So they're all beginning to get into conspiracy theories, very reminiscent of when you're looking at what on earth he thinks he's doing with Putin and Russia. People eventually end up saying, has Putin got something over him that he's doing this? And now with this, of course, the conspiracy theories in the Gulf are all, where has Israel got something out from? And why on earth is he... And the reason people ask these questions, I tend not to go down conspiracy theories, it's just so difficult to explain why he's doing something that is so clearly not in

the US national interest. Well, I think you and I agree that there are no real winners out of this, but insofar as you might think, you could say, well, they won, they've lost. The two that I think could say they're winning are Russia and Israel. Now, they might be the two countries that most of our listeners would not really like to be winning at the moment. Israel because of what they've done in Gaza, Russia for what they're doing in Ukraine. You said, was it a couple of years ago, I think, you first outed the idea that maybe we have to face the fact or a horrible truth that Trump is actually genuinely on Putin's side?

Is it impossible that the whole purpose of this has actually been to get Russian oil supplies flowing again? Just think about it. They go after Iran. Iran is a major oil supplier whose supplies, suddenly it's a lot harder to get out.

And Iran then reacts. This is maybe giving Trump too much credit, given we actually say he doesn't think through the next step. Iran then does what it does in the Straits of Hormuz and the oil price goes rocketing.

Putin suddenly is shipping out oil left, right and center. And Trump, this is incredible when you think about it. It wasn't even seen as a big thing. He lifts sanctions on Russia and Belarus and Iran. What he can do with the Putin thing, the reason why it wasn't screaming headlines, is because he can argue this isn't about a sort of geopolitical gift to my friend Vladimir, it's a case of market stabilization to keep the world economy going.

It's completely amazing. So I'm not buying into your full conspiracy, but I think where you're completely right is the reason why we're tempted to it. I'm trying to find a reason. we're tempted to it. Well, there's no doubt he's helping Russia, whether his intention is to help Russia, but you're completely right. Russia is getting billions of dollars of extra revenue, which it desperately needs to keep its war machine going. The number one defense of Trump on Ukraine was that he was putting pressure on the oil price, keeping down the

oil. It's a double whammy. It's sanctions lifted and the oil price has shot up above $100 a barrel. So Russia's making out like a bandit. And the defense of Trump was, look, you can say what you want. Okay. He's not supporting the Ukraine war financially, but at least unlike those cowardly Europeans, you know, he's putting pressure on Russian oil and that's what really matters. So that's all gone out the window. In addition, he is spending like a drunken sailor, the Patriot missiles and all the defense equipment that could be used to protect Ukraine against Russia. Now, President Zelensky is getting a loss of credit for turning up in the Gulf saying I'm providing Ukrainian defense and systems.

MW And Trump is very dismissive of it.

LR Yeah, I would also be very cautious of that, because in fact, the problem is Ukraine is going to be in a much, much weaker position, and it needs those systems domestically. Russia will be stronger. There will be fewer of these systems around and that puts it in a much more vulnerable position.

But that's the other means by which it helps Russia. I mean, Russia is the clear winner out of this and it's almost, you know, it is always worth asking that question when

these big international crises happen. Who is benefiting? Matthew Feeney Then let's look at who's really losing. Okay, so the first thing, of course, is the Iranian people. We can't take our minds off what's actually happening when thousands of missiles are fired into a country. Lots of people are being killed. We know about girls' schools, and a lot of infrastructure has been affected. We've had massive oil refineries going up in smoke, the revenue of the government collapsing,

and all that spills through into ordinary lives. But I don't think people have described fully or tried to bring to life what this actually means for the Gulf countries. We've talked quite a lot about Dubai because that's easy to get our head around. I think we've talked about the fact that if you're looking to make an investment in a new data center, let's say you're a European or American and you were about to make it in the United Arab Emirates. Are you going to do it now? If you think missiles are flying in and the desalination plant could be switched off? If you're buying property in Dubai and you're about to live in a 50-story building and you think the elevators aren't going to work and the water supply won't work?

MG Or if you're one of the tech companies in the United States. They're the ones that are going to have to invest all this money in energy. And if your energy costs are rising at the rate they've risen in the last month, then they're going to be hit by this as well. And I think what we're seeing is all are all these consequences coming through that I am absolutely convinced Trump and his people didn't even think of, or if they did think of it, there's been very little sign of it.

Matthew 14. Well, Qatar, their daily revenue is dropping by billions of dollars a day because they basically can't export any LNG. Their costs are going up by hundreds of millions a day because of the defense deployments they have to make, the missiles they're firing, the people they need to mobilize, all the contingency plans they need to put in place.

Mason And it'll take years to rebuild that thing that was there last year.

David Absolutely. It's going to take five years to rebuild part of their gas facility. That is a permanent impact on these economies, maybe a 10, 15 year impact. What you'll see is trillions of dollars of investment that might have gone to the US from the Gulf will no longer go. But it'll also affect, actually, Europe.

Anybody who has been relying on partnerships with Gulf money will find that they're going to have to draw the money back into the Gulf to rebuild their own systems. They're going to be holding back on capital investment. They're going to be freezing new decisions. That's also going to have an effect on international development. So places like Qatar were some of the most generous contributors to different types of humanitarian emergencies, to some of the big international NGOs, but also the UN agencies.

All these people, lots of money from the Gulf has helped keep the international system going. That money is now going to be under strain.

No, listen, it's just on every level this is a catastrophe and then the other thing you haven't mentioned is just the economy for all of us. So you've got Keir Starmer on Monday chairing a Cobra meeting which will obviously go into all this stuff that we're talking about but actually the main focus is going to be the Bank of England and Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, explaining the potential impacts on our economy. Every government in the world is having that. This is what makes it so absurd that Trump, having launched this with Netanyahu and

basically said you're all a bunch of cowards because you didn't want to be part of it, now seeing the consequences of which these other European and other leaders warned him would happen and now saying it's up to you guys to fix it. So the Straits of Hormuz, you know, you lot have got to come in now and defend the Straits of Hormuz. It's not down to me. One thing I think

that we have to be very, very clear on is the UK must not, under any conditions, get drawn into this war. Because you will end up, if you're Kirstein, carrying the can for Israel and the US, committing war crimes, doing completely illegal, unjustifiable things. If you become a formal part of this coalition,

in any way, in any way, you will carry the can. I mean, imagine what it would be like. Let's say Kirstein got out of bed in the morning and thought, well, maybe I'm going to join a nice, you know, naval flotilla, which is going to help escort tankers through the Straits for me. And then you discover that actually, it's not as easy as it was in the 1980s, because these cheap drones and these speed boats can come up and they blow up one of your naval vessels and you then feel that you have to join Israel and the US in strikes against Iran and then your

partners, your coalition partners announce they're going to take out all the power infrastructure and the water infrastructure, commit a war crime.

You're part of that now. What about if, so you had a situation just a couple of days ago where, I don't know the background to this, but two people, one of them a Marine, were arrested trying to get into the Fazlane nuclear base. What about, you see, this is one of the things we said last week, this is the way that asymmetric warfare works. What about a kind of what will be seen as a terror hit on the UK mainland? What about if one of those bombs had

landed at Diego Garcia? What happened if one of those missiles did hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus? Well, the answer is you have to look at how the Gulf is dealing with this. And they're in a much more serious situation than we are. I mean, they quite literally have their citizens being killed, their central infrastructure being wiped out, their economy being wiped out. And their conclusion is, we do not get drawn into this. We're not doing it. Why? Because they'll be asking two questions. Number one, what can you really do which the US and Israel isn't actually doing? So let's say there were some attack in Britain, terrorist attack in Britain or one of our bases

were hit and we decided to join this. How exactly would the UK joining this bring that to a conclusion more quickly? What could we do the US and Israel? Secondly, are you actually increasing the threat to your citizens? Okay, so let's say some people were killed in an attack in the UK. How many people are you prepared to get killed in an attempt to respond to that?

Richard Dawkins Well, they're all big cause. They're all very difficult cause.

Daniel Disney But the Gulf is making this cause in a really tough way. So the Gulf, for example, has signalled Qatar will not allow the US to use its airspace or its bases at all. They can only be used for logistical purposes. Saudi claims it's not allowing airspace to be used, but airspace probably is being used. UAE appears to be providing more support, but all of them are being attacked.

Toby So the UAE, 352 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles and almost 2000 drones. That's just the UAE, 352 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles, and almost 2,000 drones. That's just the UAE. Yeah. And so, right, no, you're right. But all I'm saying is I think these are really, really tough calls. One of the pieces that really struck home this week, a guy called Phil Clay

in the New York Times, he said he was introduced as a novelist and a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war. You'll like his first paragraph Rory, even if I didn't that, but I'm gonna read it anyway. I have plenty of complaints about the war I served in two decades ago. The Iraq war was ill-conceived, hubristic, and marred by poor leadership at the highest level, but I did know why I was there. What exactly do our service members think we're trying to do in Iran? And he then goes through all the different reasons that have been given, you know, get rid of the regime, get rid of Khamenei, degrade their nukes, degrade their ballistic missile program, achieve peace

in the Middle East. I mean, I saw Scott Besant the other day, the Treasury Secretary, who I'm sure is in the same camp as these people, saying to him, what on earth are you doing? And he went on television and was asked about these soaring oil prices. And he said, I think 50 days of temporary price rises is worth it to get 50 years of peace in the Middle East.

I don't know whether it's going to be 30 days. I don't know whether it's going to be 50 days. I don't know whether it's going to be 100 days. But to have 50 years, the peace in the Middle East.

The idea that this is taking us to peace of the Middle East, because the other thing that nobody's talking about is what's happening in Lebanon. We had a piece in our newsletter last week from the correspondent in the Sunday Times about what's actually happening in Lebanon. The Israelis are openly briefing that they're taking the same approach to parts of

Lebanon that they took in Gaza, in Rafa. Just wipe the place out. Richard Pinchot, MPH So in essence, what seems to be happening in Lebanon is an advance to the Litani River. So they will effectively be annexing southern Lebanon, then creating what seems to be a sort of free fire zone right way up above the Litani River, right the way to the edge of Sidon. So this is recreating Israeli boundaries that people were talking about 100 years ago. And they are doing an enormous sort of bait and switch where they're saying this is all the fault of the Lebanese government for failing to control Hezbollah.

This is a story we're going back to the early 1980s, right? The settler violence now happening. Horrible, horrible. But the reason this has a bigger ramification is that the fundamental demand from Iran is going to be, we will not accept being Gaza or Lebanon. So in these negotiations that they're trying to do with Trump and through all their intermediaries,

what they're saying is, yes, we can give up a nuclear program. That's the one thing, the one kind of win they can give Trump. Although they're complaining that Trump's team doesn't seem to understand the technical specificities. So there's a real demand actually from the Gulf for the Europeans to get involved and try to act as translators for Whitcoff and Kushner to understand what the Iranians try to offer here. They will give up the nuclear program, but their conditions are very tough. One of those conditions is they don't want any of these Gulf countries to continue to host US

bases, which is almost unimaginable for the Gulf countries. But the second thing is not just the US stops its operations, but the US undertakes to make Israel stop because what they're not prepared to have is a situation which is what they feel Israel did in Gaza, which is a ceasefire or what they did in Lebanon, which is to say, oh we're suspending hostilities, but any day when Netanyahu wants to get out of bed in the morning and bomb Iran, he gets to do it

with no warning and no justification. This piece from this guy Phil Klee, because he's struggling, he's sort of going through, well is it this and is it that and Rubio said this and Vance said this and I can't work out what they're trying to do. And his conclusion, he says that the one rationale that has remained absolutely clear and absolutely consistent throughout is a delight, particularly for Trump and Hexer in American domination and violence. He says, power does not grow out of the barrel of a gun. Cruelty is not the same as, and a politics built on such ideas promises ruin, delusion about the limits of our power,

and a betrayal of the promise of our founding." And there is something, when you watch Hexer doing those briefings, particularly wraps himself in God and starts reading from the Bible, it is a sense of the glorification of the violence per se. And I think that is why this idea from Besson that this is the basis for some sort of new Middle East peace process is literally for the birds. But these people you're talking to, are these the talks that Britain were partly involved in

largely through Jonathan Powell or are these the talks that Trump is referring to and say that's where we've made progress or are they one and the same thing? Matthew 14 There's a whole series of separate conversations going on and it's extremely difficult to the talks that Trump is referring to and say that's where we've made progress or are they one and the same thing?

Richard Pinchot, MPH, CETF, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, UKI, divide and rule. The Iranians are trying to do it. They haven't really struck Qatar in the last two days or Oman. They're saying Qatar and Oman are the good guys, UAE are the bad guys. They're trying to say you know because Bahrain is...

Toby And where are the Saudis in there?

Isaac Well Saudis they've been hitting harder which is making Saudi very angry and Saudis just explode.

Toby And where are they on this suggestion that the Saudis were quietly happy that this strike happened?

The initial strikes?

Richard Pinchot, MPH, Transcript Well, that the Saudis are now denying, I mean, I don't have any insight into the centre of their government. A lot of this is very centred around Mohammed bin Salman. If they did think that, they're certainly now denying it because think, is to think about what happens next. The likely scenario, I'm afraid, is the one that you're spelling out, right, which is that Trump returns to this war and that he's actually driven by Netanyahu back into this war. Toby Greenwood Or he's driven by events.

Matthew Feeney Or he's driven by events.

Toby Greenwood He's driven by the Iranians doing something, he's driven by mistakes somewhere else. You don't feel that anybody's in control here. I also think there's an opportunity. I mean, let me try something else on you. Is it impossible, do you think, for the leaders that we talk about a lot, Europe, Kani, Albanese, the new Japanese Prime Minister Takechi, South Korea, is it impossible for them to come up with some joint position and insert themselves more deeply somehow into these negotiations and the joint position starts from the premise that this war should not have happened but since it has happened we now all have to find the ways to bring

it to an end. So that means actually calling out Trump. Yeah, I think

calling out Trump's very important because I think one of the problems that Stahmer's got himself in is because he didn't speak clearly, he said I wouldn't participate, but he didn't speak clearly about his horror and condemnation. He's allowing himself to be portrayed as a coward, as though he's sort of weaseling out of it instead of taking a clear principle position. But the bigger point I think is a good opportunity is that the Gulf countries will be looking for partners after this. They're

not partnering with the US in the same way that they did in the past. They can't. Their view of these US bases has been completely changed from opportunities to risks and they really appreciate what Europe's done. They're very grateful. In fact, in many ways, what it's taught them over the last two weeks is that Europe actually has been quite a reliable security partner. There's been praise for the UK and its joint air force squadrons.

They're praising what the French have done. They're praising what the Italians have done. And actually, there are other European countries who've done the Greeks have done stuff helping to defend the Saudis. So they would really like to come out of this in a world in which they really strengthen. And this goes back to your four cornered thing. They would like to come out of this in a world in which they really strengthen. And this goes back to your four-cornered thing. They would like to bet on Alex Stubbs with a sort of European vision. And so, there will be a huge opportunity to say, this is the moment to reach out to

Qatar, Saudi, UAE, and bind them more closely into a Canada-European-South Korean framework. But to get there, they're very, very complimentary about Jonathan Powell and what he's doing. They are horrified by the British Foreign Office and Yvette Cooper. For example, a statement was put out by the British on the Straits of Hormuz where they didn't bother to consult with the Gulf before they put out the statement. With the result, they put out the statement, then asked these countries to sign up afterwards and found that a couple of the countries would sign up, a couple wouldn't. There was no attempt to coordinate. This goes back to my

problem from the beginning of this, which is if these middle powers that have worked together, they've got to coordinate. They've got to talk to each other, show each other some respect.

Toby Cullen-Woods You know, we talked about because he was one of the first ones out there and he was kind of... Well, he sounded pretty pro-Trump. He sounded quite supportive and he's now in a completely different position saying we're having nothing to do with this. I just think that maybe there has to be, this has to become part of this sort of,

if we are genuinely going through, creating a new world order in which America is not a reliable ally and which international rules have to be rethought for and re-defended. I think it's very interesting this week, for example, Richard Herman, the Attorney General, who's probably the closest thing that Keir Starmer has to a genuine friend in the government, close friend going back years and years and years.

There's a piece in one of the papers today, and he's got a big speech this week where he's absolutely making the case for human rights, international law, and I don't know whether the speech is going to mention Trump by name, but it's very, very clear what he's talking about. He's talking about Iran. Now, I think that that is the right position to be in, but I think it's the opportunity to build. I mean, I'd love it if Keir Starmer and maybe got together with, I don't know, Mertz and Carney and Albanese and said, let's have an international conference on what we

mean by international law. And the Gulf, right? I mean, I don't want to leave the Gulf out because it's a miracle over the last 40 years what they've done with their countries. And they are vital to our security, they're vital to the global economy. They have so much to contribute. They're such important investors in our economy, it would be criminal not to include. But where I'm worried, there are two things. First, the British government would have to be interested in building institutional structures. So actually

thinking about how you coordinate and create structures to coordinate. MG So you've done it before. IPR We're on doing things ad hoc. Yeah, first thing. And that's, I think, the question with Jonathan Powell, who's been an incredible national security advisor, but can he move from being the firefighter who's in the negotiations, sorting out the things to designing the institutional structure and working out how Britain plays? And secondly, resources, the spending on our diplomats,

the spending on our international development, which we'll get onto in tomorrow's episode. But Britain's not going to be able to do this, create these institutions, do the soft power, unless it's prepared to put some resources behind it. And all the evidence, unfortunately, is that Stalmer both doesn't think in these big institutional terms. He doesn't like talking in big abstract vision terms, unlike Carney. But secondly, the evidence of the budget suggests he's not prepared to

put any money behind it. I sort of woke up in the middle of the night on this idea. Could we put together a coalition of the sensible to take on Trump? You know, the other thing that's not being…

But you've also got to stand up to him. I was really struck. You saw some people that we both know right at the center of our security establishment who said, and I was struck by this when we went off to see the Spanish Prime Minister, that one of them had said to you, well, what's going to happen to Spain when they get attacked? Is America going to help them? I then realized that that was exactly what the US Secretary of State shouted at the British Ambassador in Washington when Wilson refused to join the Vietnam War. This is a very old story. 55 years of the US saying, unless you come along with our illegal wars, we're not going to help you if you're attacked. And the fact that our security establishment is

still believing that line, which I thought had been exploded in 1968, tells you an enormous amount about how vulnerable we are to being bullied. And our inability to actually say clearly, this is a war crime, this is disgusting, we're not having anything to do with it, thank you very much, f off.

Look I think, I do think, I mean look you may not, you may have got very little credit for it, but I do think Keir Starmer has ended up in the right position and it's interesting, I was at three funerals last week and at one of them, this guy who's a former journalist, now retired, and he came up to me and he said, God, I can't stand that kid, I voted for him, but honestly, really gets on my nerves. But I'll tell you what, I'm glad he's there at the moment.

Matthew Well, it's definitely true compared to that. I mean, I definitely think I felt James Cleverley, the Tory, former Foreign Secretary was on the wrong side of this on television. Farage is so far, he can't decide whether he's in love with Trump or in love with Putin, he's all over the place. No, I think some is much closer to where he should be, which is heavenly good, but I think he could be much clearer

and if he talked more about values and explained why he's not there, it would be much easier to build these coalitions and mobilise. I'd quite like to hear him make the speech that Richard Herman is making. My final point before we go to a break, the environment. Five million tons of CO2 equivalent has been put into the atmosphere by the military activity so far. I think this is the bit that always gets lost in the heat, you've got those raging fires going on. So, anyway, I think we're in violent agreement here, Roy, that Donald Trump has made a complete arse of this and he's tackled, as they say.

Richard Pinchott We want him, in this case, to back out. In a lot of these situations, we want him to back out. And this taunting him every time he threatens tariffs or threatens to go into Greenland or is bombing Iran and says he's chickening out when he changes direction is really dangerous because the one thing that drives this guy is vanity and ego.

He will have absolutely hated the clip. Did you see the clip by a gentleman from the name of Ebrahim Zolfagari, who is the official spokesman for the IRGC? He went, Trump, you're fired. You're familiar with this sentence. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I think a bit of that doesn't do any harm with Trump.

Yeah, I think let's just finish on the final thing which is this is probably the most dangerous moment we've had for many, many decades. We are very close now to a serious global financial problem. We are very, very close to a wider conflict driving towards third world war stuff. We have leaders in Israel and in Iran and in the United States who find it very, very difficult to come to any kind of compromise, have a very absolutist narcissistic worldview. They're nationalists of a very extreme sort.

All the likelihood, as you say, unfortunately, is that we may lurch back into this and then it will deepen. The conflict will deepen because we'll start going deeper after desalination, or widen because we'll start hitting more and more critical infrastructure. And our only hope is that for some reason Trump manages to declare victory and go home. And then we have to make sure that peace remains, that Israel doesn't start it again, and that the Gulf and Europe create the institutional frameworks for peace.

But that's a hell of a, hell of a task.

I was talking to a member of a European, not British, intelligence agency and I said, do you think this is potential world war territory? And he said, I think we might be in it. And I think there's a very, very, that's my worry at the moment is this thing doesn't feel, there's not enough goodwill, there's not enough expertise,

there's not enough people who have the capacity to get this to a better place. And Trump, and do you know what you said about the Vance, Rubio, Kushner, Whitcoff, all thinking that he's wrong? I mean, it's just pathetic. It's pathetic if between them, they cannot get this into a

better place. And it still turns out that he seems to be right when he says MAGA is him, that 80% of MAGA still seem to be on his side on this. This episode is brought to you by NordVPN. Spring is the season of movement, travel, shared networks, systems that aren't ours. When you operate inside infrastructure you don't control, your vulnerability increases.

Mobility increases exposure. A cyber attack happens every 39 seconds in the UK hundreds of cyber enabled crimes are reported daily with around 4.5 million

pounds lost each day to cybercrime. Frictionless systems tend to hide their weaknesses bank details passwords boarding passes sensitive data moving

across networks we don't control. So that's why we've been using our friends over at NordVPN since it encrypts your connection, making your data far harder to intercept. It hides your IP address, reduces your digital footprint and keeps your personal details secure.

To get the best discount on your NordVPN plan, go to nordvpn.com slash rest is politics. You'll get four extra months free on the two-year plan plus a 30-day money-back guarantee. The links in the episode description. Now, Roy, the last time we talked

about assisted dying, we broadly disagreed. I am in favor of Cameron Leadbeater's dying bill. You were against largely because of your fear that people might be coerced. Yeah. Now, I think a lot of those concerns have been addressed in the bill as it's gone through the House of Commons but I'm more interested in what's happening in the in the House of Lords because I think it's an absolute abomination what is going on there. So and I think now this bill is dead it's not going to happen because what's

happened then there were major changes made as it went through the elected chamber and it's now going to fail because of the tactics in the Lords, which I think will damage the Lords and it's already very, very low reputation. So just on the process, it's got to complete all stages in Parliament by the end of April, okay? It can only be considered in the Lords on a Friday because it's a private member's bill. There are only two Fridays left. It's had 12 days of committee and it's only got to clause five of 60 clauses in the bill.

And I think the Labour whip in the House of Lords has said forget it,

it's not going to happen. And one of the reasons is that its opponents put down over a thousand amendments. And it's taken so long because Lord's procedure requires that every amendment has to be debated if it is not withdrawn. And because the opponents have been filibustering, talking endlessly,

making the same points again and again and again. I know you said when we were before the break that it was conservative opponents, but I've noticed even people like Dan Abbott are against

it. I'm not saying it's... I think the organ... This has been organized, okay? You won't be surprised to know that one of the chief organizers of this whole thing is the current editor of the Spectator, Lord Gove.

Lord Gove is very worried about this. I thought he was a very liberal wig who didn't particularly care about these kinds of things.

How he was described to me, and if I'm wrong, Michael, you can come on and explain yourself. I've not talked to Michael Gove about this, but how his position is presented to me by people who have, is he's not that bothered about the issue. He's not sort of, it's not one of those issues that he's going to go to the barricades for, the issue of assisted dying, but that he is very much in favor of the whole filibustering and the approach that they're taking to kill the bill. Why? Because Michael Gove loves

being at the center of political drama. Matthew 15 I'm slightly surprised by this whole thing, because I can see a particular kind of old-fashioned religious Tory feeling that there are strong religious or traditional oppositions. But Michael Gove, I never really saw in that category.

Peter So if you look at all these people, all of these hundreds of amendments, 56% have been put down by eight peers. The top three are Baroness Finlay of Glandaff, who I think is a crossbencher, followed by Theresa Coffey, who was the deputy prime minister under the Ludicrous Liz Trust, and then the former para-athlete Tanni Grey-Thompson. All very strong opponents. And okay, and one can respect their views. So these eight peers have put down 56%,

just to give you a flavor of some of them. So there's one down that everybody should have a pregnancy test before being allowed to have an assisted death, including men over 60. Don't ask me how that's going to work, but that is an amendment which clearly has to be debated. The death has to be filmed,

don't ask me. You should only be allowed an assisted death if you satisfy a panel of seven professionals and if they disagree you have to satisfy the High Court. Now, the bill has had more than enough time to get through because by the time this is all over, it would have had 16 days of debate over 100 hours, way more than most bills get in the Lords and more than it had in the Commons where a lot of changes were made. So these poor Lords have been getting dragged in night after night to listen to speeches

by, I'll give you the main offenders on the speaking front, Mark Harper. Remember him?

I do remember Mark Harper.

Tory Chief Whip, lost his seat, gets bunged into the House of Lords as a consolation, he's been making dozens of speech. Sheila Lawler, know her? Right-wing think tank, stuck in the House of Lords by Boris Johnson. Claire Fox, right-wing libertarian, stuck in

the House of Lords by Boris Johnson. Presumably this isn't some great piece of Kemi Badenock's Conservative Party strategy. I don't know. I don't know. It wouldn't really sit like that. This is a private members bill, it's not Labour legislation. It's a private members bill.

This is a small group of people, I think, who have decided, I wonder if part of it is the religiousization of our politics to some extent, who have decided they're just going to stop this bill. Now they may have very strong views and they may have good reasons and they may have principles. That's all fine, but when it's gone through the Commons in the way that it's gone, and when it is then going through the Lords and it is that you literally

have people standing up making the same speech that they made before, and the difference of the Lords in the Commons, the speaker doesn't have that function to tell people to shut up. Or that it's repetitive. You can stand up and talk for as long as you want. That's what they've done.

Matthew 14 Is there no time limits in the Lords? I think there are time limits.

David 14

There may be time limits. And then you just get Theresa stands up, Mark Harper stands listeners need to understand is this is a private member's bill. It's not a bill which the Labour government got behind. It's not in its manifesto. So if the government was behind the bill, and it was part of manifesto commitment, it would have to go through the House of Lords on Parliament Act. And if the government really wanted to get behind it, they can force this through the House of Lords. They've chosen not to for perfectly honorable reasons, which is they've decided this is a question of conscience. In fact, the Labour cabinet split on it, where Streeting voted against, others voted in favour, and the opposition from the House of Commons,

I think they won by 31 votes, so it's relatively close to the House of Commons. Constitutionally, this is the type of bill which the House of Lords has the constitutional ability if it wants to block. The question is should it? Now I suppose I want to move it from the... are you confident that you can distinguish your personal views on the bill from your constitutional views? For example, what was your view when during Brexit the House of Lords was buggering around and

putting in lots of amendments to try to stop the House of Commons vote on Brexit? I probably was thinking, yeah, let's keep the debate going, but I think, no, I think I am able to separate it, because I think that this is a bill that's now gone through every stage in the Commons. It has been substantially amended. So, for example, you're worried about coercion. The measures in the bill now on coercion

are stronger than in any country that has assisted dying. The costs element to the National Health Service, which I think are way exaggerated, including I'm afraid by way of streeting. I think if you look at other countries where this has happened, there's not been that cost.

And the debate, the other big debate that pushed all the time is, we should be focusing much more on palliative care. The evidence of where assisted dying is now happening is that because it means people are talking more about death, that palliative

care services have improved alongside it. So I think it's a good argument for always for institutional reform of the House of Lords. Famously, the one thing I liked about the House of Lords, which is the hereditary peers, have been thrown out. So there's nothing really left. Why did you lie to me? Matthew It's the only reason for it. What was the House of Lords? It's called a House of Lords for goodness sake. I mean, what is it? It was a historical traditional inheritance. It was like the monarchy. It's just part of

our whole heritage.

Matthew I don't know if you know this,

Roy, but the monarchy was removed from political power. Matthew Feeney It has soft power, a lot of soft power. Richard Pinchot So no, I can't see the point at all of a house of a bunch of retired politicians. I would like to see something that was much more like the crossbenchers and I'd like to see it appointed and a proper scrutiny and genuine

human fair play. Matthew Feeney Come on then, tell me a great thing that

the House of Lords has achieved in the last five years. think what it does well is it escapes some of the party political stuff and it scrutinizes things more carefully. So during my whole time in the House of Commons, and I remember being attacked by Chris Bryant about this, he said to me, you know, I can't believe the Honorable Member is defending the House of Lords on the grounds that it's got more geopolitical expertise than, you know, the Honorable Member has geopolitical expertise, right? The quality of debate about geopolitics and strategy in the Commons was so much worse than the laws.

I agree it's better in the laws. I agree with that.

If you want to talk about war, defense, Iran, you want to be reading the speeches, because it's got ambassadors and generals and spy chiefs and security chiefs and professors. But that's what it should focus on, not a bunch of politicians. Well, so what is it supposed to do? It's supposed to be scrutiny, long-term thinking, consequences, deliberation.

And I guess our compromise is the government, if it really wants to do something, can force stuff through. And if it doesn't want to get behind it, well, it doesn't want to get behind it, well, it doesn't want to get behind it. I mean, why is Stalmer not getting behind this? If he wants to get behind it, he can get it

through the lords. No, listen, he could. And I'm hoping that actually, as I think this will, once this thing finally dies, I think there will be a reaction against it. And I think whether the government picks it up, the government can do things. I mean, this sort of constitutional niceties can go back. This thing still can be revived, but it won't be revived anytime soon. So I agree with you that the government could get behind it. Or might I suggest Rory, that this is a classic example of where when you've had the Commons vote for it, you then say,

let's have a people's assembly, a citizens assembly on this.

Rory McKenna Citizens' Assembly.

Peter Robinson Classic. This is the sort of thing it should

be used for. I love it. If you're looking... Citizen's Assembly is the third chamber I'm with you. Rory. But institutional redesign I mean I'm... I was thinking more of a second

chamber before it needs to go to the House of Lords. Yeah. But let me tell you this if you're you saying that should be there for some long-term thinking and strategic and all this moral hazard. Okay if you're asking me to put together the John Paul George Ringo of forward thinking on strategy. I am not picking Mark Harper, Teresa Coffey, Sheila Lawler of one of those ghastly Tufton Street think tanks or dare I say, Claire Fox.

Matthew 14

Very good. Very good. Listen. Peter 1

So I am furious about this damn thing. Matthew 14 Look, I'm not defending the Hustlers in the current thing. I think the bit of it that I like basically are the Hustlers in the current thing. I think the bit of it that I like basically are the crossbenchers.

But do you still agree, would you still vote against it if this went back to the Commons and you were still an MP? Would you not think that actually the measures that have been put into it as it went through all its stages actually have strengthened it substantially because I do.

I think that you're absolutely right, it's strengthened substantially. It seems to be now better than Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, where there seems to be a rapid extension. I think the last stats I saw in one of those countries is almost one in 20 deaths is now assisted dying in one of those countries. So I believe this might have been more like an Oregon model. They're trying

to contain it more. Toby Cullen-The numbers who went to Switzerland last year have gone up. I think we've ended up in a terrible place because it's a

ridiculous institution. Yeah, well I think... Yeah, we'll take that as an agreement and we'll close. I think it's one of these horrible things where somebody in... there will be definitely cases of people in really, really miserable situations. And I've always been supportive, I think, and this is probably where people like me get in trouble, of doctors in effect helping people to die when things have got too bad. I mean, I think doctors were always expected, weren't they, decades ago to put a bit of extra morphine

in, etc. So I think the idea that you let people go when they're on their last legs and you don't make them go through unnecessary agony makes sense to me. I think creating a whole legal framework where, and this is where I slightly agree with Diane Abbott, poorer, more vulnerable people, now I'm sure the people who did this bill will explain why it won't affect them but I still can't bear the idea that someone might say I don't want

to be a burden and you know maybe I... So that's where I am.

Right, there we are. Just on this subject by the way, Tessa Jowell, much loved, much lamented, her daughter Jess has written a really fabulous book about Tessa and about their relationship. Jess was, her family was starting as Tessa was dying, so it's all that sort of sense of life and love and what have you. But I just sort of had, I just texted Jess and said, what would your mum be voting on this assisted dying bill?

I assumed it would be in favor, but I just wanted to check with Jess. So Jess is actually gonna do an interview with our newsletter, talking about these themes, big themes of loss and love and life and death.

Let me just finish my final pretentious comment, which is that one of the things that's connecting these themes is the question of how do governments deal with complicated issues. And you were talking about how everything seems to be in a credible hurry in Iran and lack of thought. And how do you design institutions that get the balance right? How do you make sure you get the proper amount of scrutiny, but you don't end up in what the populists sometimes complain about with reason, which is too much process, too much

filibustering, too much people getting in the way of making decisions and getting things done. And I think it doesn't matter whether we're talking about Iran, or whether we're talking about a sister dying, or whether we go on to talk about international aid, or immigration in Australia. We're really struggling to develop political systems which

get the right balance between getting on with stuff and having proper care, thoughtful process and accepting that the whole point about our democracies is we disagree. And we need to create structures which hold this very weird thing in play, which is that you and I can disagree about a lot of stuff. And the whole point about our democracy is institutions where we accept that sometimes I lose, sometimes

you lose, and we move on. But you know, then you have somebody like Trump who literally believes that it should all be done by him signing a signature. And that road lies some of the mess that we're in now. And by the way, I know I'm slightly living in my head, but his reaction to Robert Mueller's death, long-term public servant who, yes, he did the report on Russian influence on Trump in his first election campaign, and he died. And Trump's reaction was, I'm glad he's dead. I mean, that is... There are some people who I've crossed swords with in the past who, when they die, I won't

say anything.

But you don't say good.

But I'm not going to say, I'm really glad they're dead. I think that reveals a really horrible human being.

And then when Scott Besant was asked about this in this interview you were quoting, he refused I think three times to say

that Trump was wrong to celebrate the death of Ronald. I think only one Republican politician has condemned it. And just go back to Charlie Kirk's death, when if you didn't say this guy's a hero, then we're talking about throwing you in jail. I mean this is one sick fucked up

country I'm afraid. Right, question time tomorrow. Matthew 5 In question time tomorrow, we're going to return to some of the biggest issues of our age. So we're going to look at this whole question about how you get defence and international development balanced, in particular what's happening in the UK where we have cut international development to the bone. We're going to talk about the extraordinary victory of your friend and a man who's becoming one of my great heroes, Peter Malinowskis, Premier of South Australia, who's just won an extraordinary election but which has also revealed that Australian politics sadly beginning to look

a bit more like British politics with the right splitting between a far right and a less successful right. And we're also going to be talking about possibly rejoining the European Union, King Charles footpath and we've got some lighter and rather fun curveball questions to come.

See you then. See you then.

See you then.