Talk War

Kevin O’Sullivan speaks to former British Ambassador to Iran Sir Nicholas Hopton about whether US and Israeli strikes can realistically trigger regime change in Tehran.Drawing on his time in post, Hopton says the Iranian regime is deeply unpopular but still resilient, warning there is currently “no sign” of a nationwide uprising despite isolated celebrations following the killing of senior figures. He estimates active regime support may sit between 10 and 20 per cent, but stresses that discontent does not automatically translate into revolution.He also cautions that while Iran’s military capabilities are no match for the United States and Israel in a prolonged conflict, Tehran could sustain staggered retaliation for days or even weeks. With oil markets under pressure and Gulf allies under fire, Hopton argues the key question is whether Washington has a clear endgame — and whether this confrontation ends in negotiation, escalation, or a drawn-out regional war.

Kevin O’Sullivan speaks to Rick Gates, former campaign chairman for President Donald Trump, about the escalating US action against Iran and Britain’s controversial response under Prime Minister Keir Starmer.Gates says there is “immense disappointment” in Washington over Starmer’s initial refusal to allow the US to use British bases such as RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia for strikes on Iranian targets. Although the UK later granted limited permission for what Downing Street described as defensive purposes, Gates argues the hesitation signals weak leadership at a pivotal geopolitical moment. He contrasts Starmer’s approach with what he calls Trump’s “decisive leadership”, claiming the President is willing to risk political fallout at home to pursue what he believes is global stability.The discussion also explores the future of the UK-US special relationship. Gates insists President Trump maintains deep respect for the British people but warns that relationships matter in global politics, particularly on trade, NATO and security cooperation. He suggests that backing away from full support could have diplomatic consequences, even if the long-term alliance endures.

Kevin O’Sullivan is joined by Talk’s International Editor Isabel Oakeshott, speaking from Dubai after Iranian missiles and drones were launched towards the UAE over the weekend.Isabel describes the shock of receiving late-night warnings to take cover as air defence systems intercepted the vast majority of incoming projectiles. Residents were sent to underground car parks, hearing “thudding” munitions overhead, while authorities reportedly intercepted around 92 per cent of missiles and drones. Despite a small impact near Dubai airport and moments of real fear, she says daily life has resumed in an “eerily normal” fashion, with most residents staying put and only some tourists seeking to leave.The conversation then turns to Sir Keir Starmer’s shifting position on allowing the US to use British bases, including RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia. Kevin brands it a “U-turn”, while Isabel calls Britain’s response an “international embarrassment”, arguing the UK cannot pretend to be uninvolved while allies in the Gulf come under attack. She questions whether Starmer is prioritising legal technicalities over moral clarity at what she describes as a historic inflection point in the Middle East.

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.