Talk War

Ian Collins hosts a fierce debate on the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, after Sir Keir Starmer confirmed British bases can be used by Washington to target Iranian missile systems.Journalist and broadcaster Peter Oborne argues the intervention is illegal under international law, insisting there was no imminent threat and no UN Security Council mandate. He warns that removing Iran’s leadership could plunge the country into chaos, trigger civil war and unleash a refugee crisis affecting Europe and the UK. Drawing comparisons with Iraq in 2003, Oborne claims regime change without a clear plan risks repeating “catastrophic consequences”.In stark opposition, Iranian-British human rights activist Lily Moo says Iranians are “rejoicing” at the fall of senior regime figures and reject comparisons with Iraq. She argues the Islamic Republic has waged war on its own people for decades and insists support for Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as a transitional figure is real and widespread. Moo frames US and Israeli action as a “rescue mission” under the international principle of Responsibility to Protect, saying the Iranian people are ready for change — not civil war.

Ian Collins examines what happens next after US and Israeli strikes on Iran, asking whether this is the beginning of regime collapse or the start of a prolonged regional conflict.Security and intelligence expert Professor Anthony Glees warns Britain is “in a very weak place”, arguing the UK has alienated Washington, angered Tehran and offered mixed signals over the use of RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia. He cautions that removing senior Iranian figures will not automatically end the threat, describing Shia Islamism as a wider ideological movement that cannot be defeated with a single strike. Glees fears the conflict could become a “forever war”, with major consequences for oil prices, economic stability and UK security, particularly after a reported drone incident at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.In stark contrast, UK-based anti-regime Iranian journalist Niyak Ghorbani insists the Islamic Republic’s core support is minimal, claiming only a small percentage of Iranians back the regime. He says many inside Iran are celebrating the strikes and looking to Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as a potential unifying figure for democratic transition. According to Ghorbani, ordinary Iranians see US and Israeli action as a chance to end decades of repression rather than the start of another Iraq-style disaster.

On Talk War, Alex Phillips is joined by Rear Admiral Mike Hewitt, former US Navy officer, to analyse the escalating US and Israeli strikes on Iran, Donald Trump’s shift from diplomacy to military action, and the growing strain on the UK-US special relationship.Hewitt explains that negotiations in Oman ultimately collapsed over Iran’s refusal to give up uranium enrichment, which he describes as the core pathway to a nuclear weapons capability. He outlines what a true nuclear programme entails — enriched uranium, missile delivery systems and a functioning detonator — and argues there is “no doubt” Iran possesses key elements of that infrastructure. According to Hewitt, Trump even offered to fund a civilian nuclear energy programme for Iran, but the regime refused to abandon enrichment, making military escalation increasingly likely.

On Talk War, Alex Phillips is joined by barrister and UK Lawyers for Israel legal director Natasha Hausdorff to dissect the escalating row over Iran, US airstrikes and the UK government’s position on international law. The discussion centres on reports that the Prime Minister initially refused permission for US forces to use RAF Fairford or Diego Garcia for strikes on Iranian missile systems, before apparent backpedalling amid Iranian retaliation targeting British assets in Cyprus.Hausdorff backs the legal analysis set out by Lord Wolfson, arguing that international law permits force in the face of imminent threat and within the context of an ongoing armed conflict. She maintains that Iran’s long record of proxy attacks, direct strikes and nuclear ambitions provides a clear legal framework for collective self-defence by Israel and the United States. In her view, critics focusing narrowly on “pre-emptive strikes” are ignoring the broader reality of an entrenched conflict and misapplying international humanitarian law.