[00:00:00] Chris Carr: Hey everybody, it's Chris here. Hope you're well. Just before we begin, I just wanted to let you know that this episode was recorded just before President Trump announced that he was gonna take two weeks to decide whether or not to join the Israelis in military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. So, please bear that mind as we begin. [00:00:24] Announcer: Secrets and Spies presents Espresso Martini with Chris Carr and Matt Fulton. [00:00:44] Chris: Hello everybody and welcome back to Espresso Martini. Matt, how are you? [00:00:48] Matt Fulton: I'm good, Chris. How are you? What a week. I'm glad this wasn't one of our off weeks. [00:00:52] Chris: Oh yeah, I know, I know. What a week it is. It is, it is quite hard to keep up with it all, to be honest with you. I know. But, uh, but we're in the, I suppose, the luxury position of, um, at the moment at least being out of, uh, the danger zone of everything. 'cause watching all the events unfold, um, it's, it's, I don't know. I, I, I feel like a, a weird voyeur stroke spectator sometimes 'cause so many things where I've been in my living room for the last, like four years just watching Sky News live as all sorts of craziness kind of. Is unleashed in the world. Yeah. And there I'm sitting in my living room watching it all. It's just like, it feels a bit weird, if you know what I mean. Yeah, absolutely. But yeah, it's not entertaining, but it is very interesting. But it's kind of weird feeling. So yeah, I'm grateful that we're not the ones getting bombed at this time. [00:01:35] Matt: May we, um, maybe one day live in, uh, unprecedented times. [00:01:39] Chris: Yeah, [00:01:40] Matt: exactly. Yeah. [00:01:42] Chris: Yeah. Oh dear. Done enough if unprecedented. Yeah. Um, and also in London this week, it's very hot. Um, and, uh, yet again, a household debate about whether we should get air conditioning or not has, uh, come back and I'm losing that debate. So there we go. [00:01:55] Matt: Yeah. I, and we were, we mentioned this before we started recording. Yeah. It's, it's the same, it's, it's finally summertime here. It's, it's, it's pretty hot out. But, uh, of course we're, we're, we're equipped for such temperatures, whereas most indeed of you guys aren't indeed. Um, I remember that distinctly from my time over there. Uh, when I was, when I was, uh, in, in, in parliament, uh, one of the women that I worked with in, in, in the office, there was like, oh, it's like we're gonna have like a heat wave or whatever. And I think it was like she said, it was, yeah, it was going up to like 30 C, which is about 80 degrees Fahrenheit here in, we're fr we're. Where I'm from in like, you know, the Mid-Atlantic was like, that's a, that's just kind of normal summer. But no, when you're in that and you have no kind of like, escape, especially on the tube. Damn. I used to sweat my ass off down there. Oh yeah. With like a full suit on and everything. It can be, it can be pretty bad. [00:02:45] Chris: Yeah, the tube gets horrific and sometimes you on the older train, so it's actually 30 degrees at the moment. So what is that in Fahrenheit? That's about 80. Yeah. So it's hot. Yeah. Just in case anybody wants to see. Mm-hmm. That's what we're dealing with right now, with also the humidity that we always get in London too. So what is it here? [00:03:04] Matt: It's, it's, it's 86 here. [00:03:07] Chris: 86. Yeah. [00:03:08] Matt: Whew. Just a bit hotter, [00:03:09] Chris: but you got the air con. So I got the air conditioning. Oh. But yeah, the tube, uh, unless you get on one of the newer trains, the tube is a nightmare. So anybody who's visiting London, uh, from overseas, bear that in mind, take layers because you ever, thing about London is the weather's a bit unpredictable, so you have to take like half your wardrobe with you. We're kind of getting outta that point now where at least now it's just hot. Um, yeah. And what I tend to do is take two or three spare t-shirts. Now when I'm out for a long period of time, um, I take spare clothes. But there we go. [00:03:39] Matt: When I was on the tube, I used to try to get, um. By one of those windows, right at like the end of the car. So you have like the Oh yes. Like the wind, wind coming in and everything. Mm-hmm. And that was like somewhat manageable, but otherwise, man, it was brutal down there. [00:03:50] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. That wind's quite relieving, isn't it? Even though it's probably full of toxic, whatever. It does feel quite relieving on a hot day. But, uh, yeah. And New York, oh my god. New York subway. Yes. Oh, that's like standing in an oven. Yes. Yeah. Oh, I forget those. But there we go. Well, so we got, let's, we got [00:04:08] Matt: a, we got a lot to, uh, we [00:04:09] Chris: got a lot to cover today. We do, we do. So our first story is gonna be looking at, and probably our main story today is gonna be looking at Israel versus Iran. Mm-hmm. Then we'll be looking at new documents that show Russia's FSB considers China a threat. Then we'll look at MI six who have appointed their first female head of the organization, and then we'll be wrapping up looking at the death of author Frederick Forsyth. So Matt, I'm gonna hand over to you 'cause Iran is your area of expertise. [00:04:38] Matt: Yeah. So we're of course a week into the, um. A week into the conflict essentially. And, uh, I mean, so we're recording this, uh, Thursday, late morning here on the East Coast, so, you know, take every, take that into account with, with what we discuss here. It could, could be different by the time folks hear it. Um, but yeah. So here's, here's, here's where we are right now. So. Last Friday, June 13th, the Israeli military launched a sweeping air campaign against Iran's nuclear program and senior military leadership marking the start of what has quickly become the most expansive and direct conflict between the two nations in their history. The opening salvos of Operation Rising Lion began with precision airstrikes targeting nuclear facilities and killing top Iranian figures, including Chief of the general staff, Mohammed Bagheri, senior Commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC and key nuclear scientists continuing a campaign aimed at decapitating, Iran's war fighting infrastructure and leadership. Israel's strategy appears to have been months in the making involving not just air power, but covert action before the first jets took off. Israeli operatives inside Iran launched remote controlled spike missiles and sabotage drones, disabling key radar and air defense systems from within Iranian territory. I. Iranian authorities claim to have uncovered remnants of Israeli made weapons systems, remote launch gear, and even a drone factory operated by Masad in a suburb south of Teran. As the Air War expanded, Israeli pilots now operating with near total air superiority began striking dozens of missile launch sites and suspected enrichment facilities. More than 200 Iranian long range ball missile launchers have reportedly been destroyed. Analysts say the number of missiles Iran is now able to launch has dropped dramatically. Raising the question of whether the saturation attack doctrine that underpins Iran's missile threat has been blunted, at least for now. Mm-hmm. But the most fortified of Iran's nuclear sites, the Fordo fuel enrichment plant buried 80 meters under a mountain near the Iranian city of calm remains intact. Israeli weapons cannot penetrate it, and that's where the United States comes in. In the past 48 hours, president Trump has approved plans to join the war if needed, possibly deploying US aircraft to destroy fordo with 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs. But so far, he's holding off on giving the order. The delay comes as his Middle East envoy. Steve Whitcoff attempts to broker a last ditch ceasefire with Iran's foreign minister. Whether that diplomacy will succeed remains to be seen. This moment comes after months of internal division in the Trump administration, and a dramatic shift in posture. For most of the spring, Trump had resisted Israeli pressure to launch preemptive strikes, convinced diplomacy might work, but that changed. After Israeli intelligence presented a new dossier, claiming Iran had quietly crossed a quote point of no return. According to reporting in The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, Israeli officials say, Iranian scientists have hidden undeclared nuclear material, accelerated research on warhead design, and scheduled meetings with the IRG C'S missile command to begin the mating process, integrating a warhead with a delivery system. If true, it would suggest Iran was on the verge of weaponization. But that assessment sharply diverges from the longstanding consensus of the US intelligence community. American analysts acknowledge Iran has the technical ability to build a bomb quickly and is now just a week away from producing enough fizzle material, or I should say it. Could produce enough FSO material in about a week. Um, not that they are going to be in a week, uh, but they maintain that Teran has not made the political decision to actually construct a nuclear weapon. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard reiterated this view publicly in March, and officials have expressed concern that Israel may be exaggerating worst case scenarios to justify war inside the Trump administration. That divergence has led to a halting inconsistent response. The president initially distanced himself from the Israeli attacks, then shifted tone after seeing the strike footage praised on Fox News. As Israeli air raids gained traction, Trump began claiming credit behind the scenes, touting American intelligence support and dropping hints about deeper US involvement to come. Centcom Commander General Michael the Gorilla Illa, uh, has reportedly played a decisive role behind the curtain, pushing for a robust military buildup in guiding US deployments into the region. Illa and Iran Hawk nearing the end of his tenure at Central Command, has been instrumental in shaping Pentagon policy. Reportedly convincing defense secretary Pete Hegseth to green light, nearly every request for additional assets for fighter jets and tanker refueling aircraft to additional carrier strike groups amid the strikes. However, one group has been notably absent from Israeli in American narratives, the Iranian people. As the Atlantic's Rash, Azi reports many opposition activists inside Iran. People who once led mass protests against the regime are now terrified and disillusioned. Civilians have been killed in airstrikes, including artists, teachers, and members of the countries or reformist civil society. Even those who despise the Islamic Republic are struggling to view the Israeli campaign as a path to liberation. This war is not helping us. One young activist in Teran said, it is destroying us. It is silencing the very people it claims to save. For now, Tehran has hinted it's open to resuming nuclear negotiations at the Airstrike stop where the Trump will let Witkoff diplomacy play out or give the go ahead for us bombers to hit. Ford O remains one of the most consequential questions in global affairs, and the answer to that question will uh, echo for years to come. [00:10:23] Chris: Yeah. Yeah, I mean this whole thing can change the entire picture of the Middle East, which feels like stating the obvious, but there are quite a few people out there who've been asking me privately about like what the consequences of this war's going to be. And it could well be a big game changer. Could be. 'cause the biggest year in the Middle East, um, for many was 1979 when the Islamic Revolution, you know, uh, took over Iran. Yeah. And it kind of sent shockwaves through the Middle East and, you know, obviously Iran being, um, Shia. Saudi Arabia being Sunni, and it kind of created, uh, the beginnings of this sort of proxy war between the two that's led to the creation of like terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and Ices. You've had all the militias that, uh, that Iran have backed. Um, and it's just been an ongoing kind of thing, really. Um, so whoever, you know, if there is a regime change, um, then whoever takes over be interesting to know whether they swing she or Sunny and beyond that, to what extreme, whether they're moderate or whether they are kind of, yeah, all the more extremists bent. There's no guarantees that whoever takes over Iran if there is a regime change would be better than who's kind of currently in charge. So, um, I'm just gonna go a little bit into my sort of personal feelings and stance on things, and I'm gonna come back to you, Matt, for your thoughts. Mm-hmm. Because I think your thoughts will be more interesting than mine because you're more the expert in this area than I am, but, um. One of the things I would say, just on a sort of personal level, I'd love to see the current is, um, the current Iranian government fall. But I don't think this is the way to do it. Um, it obviously, it's easy for me to say that, but I think, you know, history and recent history with Iraq has shown when an external force try and top a government, it leads to a kind of terrible power vacuum and leads to a lot of uncertainty. The traditional way in the past, which is not necessarily better, but it's more controlled, is usually, um, if you are gonna top a government, you kind of have somebody in mind, in place already to kind of succeed. Um, but just toppling something and letting a power vacuum happen. I mean, look at Libya or um, look at Iraq, look at, to some extent Syria. Syria's still a messy picture. That's not quite, we haven't quite figured out exactly where that's going yet. So, you know, it was a. Syria was [00:12:38] Matt: a much messier picture for years. Definitely. Until definitely December. [00:12:42] Chris: Yeah, definitely. And the current current government, um, you know, seems to be a lot better than a SARS regime, but there's still a chance that, you know, it could become another regime of sorts, but I think there are quite a few people trying to make sure it doesn't happen. Mm-hmm. So we'll see where that goes. I will just say as well, obviously I can, I'm deeply concerned for Iranian and Israeli civilians are kind of caught in the middle of all this. Um. You know, I was reading a very moving piece by the BB, C the other day on a, a, a sort of phenomenon that's going on in Iran on social media moment where people are sharing pictures of their house just before they leave to kind of document Yeah. What may be gone by the time they get back. Um, yeah. And that, that's a horrendous thought, really, to think that your house will just be gone, but as a very, very big reality and swing, uh, you know, also, likewise for Israelis as well. I mean, just as I woke up this morning, there was news of, uh, Israeli hospital had been hit. There've been, you know, some missiles have got through the iron dome and caused casualties. I don't think there's been a huge death toll at this point, which, you know, I would say is a positive for Israel. I don't wish a huge death toll, but, um, certainly I think the Iranians have come off worse than, um, Israel has. Mm-hmm. In terms of the civilian killings. One other extra thing I just wanna add as well about kind hearts and minds and things, um, you know, obviously currently. Many feel Israel's become a global pariah over its disproportionate retaliation to October the seventh. And the destruction of Gaza, certainly in London, that comes up an awful lot. You know, the killing of potentially 55,000 people as the Israelis target Hamas, you know, and Hamas are embedded within the civilian population, has led to horrific death toll that has really made it, you know, really tarnished Israel's image, if you could say it had a positive image in the first place. Some have always hated Israel, but this has definitely done nothing to, um, make those who hate Israel feel differently. Um, and on top of that, you know. Israel's goal appears to be regime change over the, um, just specifically targeting the nuclear program. If you go by Netanya, who's kind of targeting of Iranian leaders and also, um, his sort of public speeches asking for the people to rise up against the kind of current government in Iran. So that violates international law, which then, you know, again, doesn't help, um, Israel's position. And that could also create problems for the US as well. And anybody who backs Israel, that could create some very legal dubious things. But obviously again, with recent history and Iraq America has a bit of a, uh, Britain does too, has an interesting relationship with inter international law. Um, and sometimes they ignore it and sometimes they kind of really hammered down on it. So, you know, we'll put that out there. Um, only history and time will tell what actually comes of all that. One last thing I was listening to, um, a really good podcast called Conflicted by a Amen Dean and, um, and a Amen. Dean was a former member of Al-Qaeda, who ended up becoming a covert source for British and American intelligence. Um, and I don't always agree with him. He's very pro-Trump. And I, and I and I, and he actually weirdly has a, is a phenomenon I've noticed with, uh, middle Eastern men. I personally know quite a lot of them seem to be really into Trump. Trump seems to play to whatever sensibility or whatever they like. So I do find a amen's feelings of Trump and thinking that Trump, um, he, he was saying that he thinks Trump's like a master strategist playing the good cop, bad cop with Israel. And I'm not quite convinced I could be wrong, but I'm not convinced that that's what's going on. I feel like Trump may have been, um, caught in the back foot a little bit by some of this. Mm-hmm. But we'll come back to that more in a bit. But one thing that he did say it was interesting was that, um. There are many Sunni Arab governments who are publicly condemning Israel's actions, but behind the scenes, they're not so concerned about Israel attacking Iran. That's true. And he said possibly that's because, um, you know, those governments been on the receiving end of Iranian proxies, such as the Houthis who've had a drawn out conflict with Saudi Arabia. But what I would say is, um, you know, civilians, uh, ordinary systems, I think there's a very different picture. I think a lot of, um, should we say a lot of Muslims and systems of the Arab world are quite pissed off with Israel and this action and are again, labeling Israel as a terrorist state for what it's doing. So yeah, that's the kind of my bit. So I'll come to you now, Matt. 'cause I, I feel like I, I'm taking up a lot of time, but I think there's some interesting things you'll talk to us about Uhhuh. I'm fascinated by the intelligence at the moment about the. The difference between us and Israeli assessments. So the Israeli assessments kind of saying that Iran could make a bomb shortly whilst America's kind of American intelligence, or at least via Tulsi Gabbard seemed to be saying that it's not as bad as, as the, uh, Israelis are pic uh, painting it. [00:17:34] Matt: Right. The long time assessment of the US intelligence community. And we have discussed this in previous episodes. I believe the most recent time this came up was back in April when Bibe came to Washington. Yeah. And was sort of, you know, prodding around, Hey, we should do this. Um, I think he would say, I think the Iranians are pushing towards a bomb. We had this intelligence. There was, um, stuff that came up at the time about them not being able to put to miniaturize a nuclear warhead to the extent that it could sit on top of a ballistic missile, that it would be some sort of a cruder device. We talked a lot about how I thought, how that was just very. Difficult for them to deliver, you know? Yeah. If they, if they push through that path. Um, Bebe's Bebe's wanted to do this for 20 years, you know, this is his, this is his dream right now. [00:18:24] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. There was a video compilation, wasn't there by the daily show that showed Right. The, from 2005 to now that Bebe's been saying it's, IM imminent that Iran will have the bomb. Yeah. [00:18:34] Matt: Bebe's been saying that Iran is a week away from building a nuclear weapon for 20 years. I think that is true. However, so the divergence in the intelligence seems to have really sort of begun, um, in December, in the fall, I should say. After, um, you know, the pager beeper attack and, and the sort of concerted wave of airstrikes that really crippled Hezbollah. Right. Um, that then led to. The collapse of the Syrian regime. Mm-hmm. And Ahad Al Shara, uh, once rebel leader taking over the country, Assad, uh, the Assad family moving into exile into Russia and perhaps Kazakhstan also, we think his brother might have been spotted a coffee shop in Kazakhstan. I dig digress. Yeah, I saw that. Yeah. Yeah, I saw that. Yeah. I, I don't know what to make of that anyway. Um, that, that then would have pushed, I think the strategic calculus of the Iranians, that the only sort of option they have left is to get really serious about building a weapon and, and putting it on a ballistic missile. Right. Um, at the time when this came up and we talked about it. That made sense to me is, you know, like, I don't know what else they would logically kind of turn to as like, well, what do we do now? You know, um, rebuilding the axis of resistance. Mm-hmm. The Iraqi militia groups that they're allied with are still largely intact, um, almost entirely intact. Uh, the, the US strikes against them after October 7th. Were very kind of limited. Um, but they're still largely intact. Hezbollah and Hamas are really poorly battered and I think the process to rebuild them, if it could be done, if. Israel would let them do it, especially not having that land bridge through Syria. How that, how that, how they would do that I think is, is really complicated. That's a, that's an open question of mine that I'm still very much interested in. So if you are unable to sort of rebuild that strategic deterrent, that Iran's axis of resistance represented for the Iranians, you know, what else would they logically go towards, I think would be building a nuclear weapon. Um, however, if you go into some of the details that were shared and, you know, we'll have links in the show notes to articles from the economists in the Wall Street Journal that talk about this a lot. Um, it, it still sort of seems to me to be that they got serious on the question of how quickly could we build a crude nuclear device and also maybe we should bring in the ballistic missile guys to talk about this stuff. Right. It still feels like. Research and like just asking questions rather than the supreme leader saying, go ahead and build a bomb, you know? Yeah. And that is in line with the consensus of the US intelligence community since 2003, after the invasion of Iraq that, uh, IO ham and IE um, shelved the nuclear program, but kept the option open to, to build one in the future. Right. So that represents a lot of, you know, research, academic study in the fields of like dual use technologies. Right. Um, you know, the question that I'm sure a lot of people, uh, listening are asking is, okay, well who's right are the, are the Israelis right? That this was sort of an imminent thing, that Iran was on the cusp of building a nuclear weapon and the Israelis wouldn't be able to stop it? Or, you know, is the US assessment. Still correct. And you know, this is sort of being cherry picked by the Israelis. A lot of group think Iraq flashbacks, WMD stuff. Well, yeah, yeah. WMD [00:22:29] Chris: thing always in people's mind. Yeah. Right. To, [00:22:32] Matt: to, to justify this. Um, the answer to that question is, I don't, I don't know. I think, um, you know, some have argued that the degree to which Israeli intelligence has clearly penetrated the Iranian security establishment to include the nuclear program. It, it must clearly, from what we've seen Right. Has much, has, has to be to such an, an extensive degree that, well, surely they probably have a better insight into the workings of the Iranian nuclear program than US intelligence agencies do. Mm-hmm. I think I can't, I can't disagree with that argument in principle. Yeah, yeah. Maybe. But I think it's also possible that I. There's a lot of group think and cherry picking and sort of worst case scenario catastrophizing by the Israelis post-OC October 7th, that has led to this. So I don't, I don't fully know what, what the answer is to like, who's right. You know, were the Iranians on the cusp of building a bomb? Were they not? I don't, I don't know, but I, I see indications on either side that that could ring true to me. Does that make sense? Mm-hmm. It does. It [00:23:37] Chris: does. And one thought I had for a while, I think we've talked about it privately. It feels like the Iranian regime has weakened in the last of two or three years, and I'm wondering whether the Israelis are seeing this window of, should we say weakness as an opportunity to do something about it? Do you think they're exploiting that? Yeah. [00:23:56] Matt: Yeah. I think BB. Bibi has Bibi Netanyahu has his personal self-interested reasons Yeah. To sort of keep this regional war going for a long time. You know, he's facing a lot of sort of like corruption, uh, legal issues and everything that, you know, once, once this crisis situation that Israel has been in, that began on October 7th and is still in almost, you know, 20, 20 months later, once that ends, you know, Bebe's gonna face some serious questions about how he stays in office. Right. And the longer he stays in office, um, the, the, he's sort of out of reach of these, of these investigations and everything. I think that is, that is true. But yes, I think to that point also, BB sees a once in a lifetime historic opportunity to just clean the board and, and get rid of these. Real strategic threats that Israel face in the region from the actis of resistance being Hamas, Hezbollah, um, some of the other militias throughout the region and ultimately the, the Iranians. I think, you know, this also sort of came up in the spring, the question of, you know, if there was ever a time to make I run at the Iranian nuclear program it is now. And I think that is just objectively, that is just objectively true. I can't disagree with that. Whether I think this is smart in the moment, whether this is good policy, whether the outcomes will be disastrous or not. Those questions aside, I mean, yeah, I think this, this was the strategically best time to do this if you were ever gonna do it. [00:25:30] Chris: Yeah. And if we cast our mind back a few weeks ago, it was reported that Mike Waltz angered Trump by his hawkish position on, on Iran and his coordinating with Netanyahu on military operations to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities without Trump's backing. And I, I get the impression, obviously, that this current Israeli action, um, was initially started without US support, and that Netanyahu gambled on Trump would support him if he made the first move. What do you, what do you think of that? [00:25:58] Matt: I think it's true. I mean, uh, the, the reporting suggests that. The serious planning for this began in December. Of course. I mean, the sort of intelligence legwork, you know, that Mossad would've done to get their forces, their equipment in place to do this. You know, like operating a drone factory in the suburbs of, of Teran. Also, the southern suburbs of Tehran are a pretty conservative regime, friendly place. Um, it's, you know, the northern suburbs are asserted the more well to do liberal affluent parts of the city. The southern suburbs are a lot more working class, um, conservative, loyal to the regime. So I'm just, just from an operational standpoint, I find it interesting that they were doing this in a, in, in a southern suburb. That stuff would've, would've, would've taken, would've taken years. I think, um, the, the legwork for sure began in, in December once the Syrian, once Assad's regime collapsed, and I mean, they had a clear. They just had a, they had a clear airspace to do this, you know, beforehand. Okay. This all Iraqi airspace is, uh, I mean, free for the taking for the Israelis and have been for a long time. Um, the Jordanians gets diplomatically complicated. I mean, I think the Jordanians would allow, uh, the use of their airspace to, in a, in a defensive posture, right, to swat away, uh, Iranian ballistic missile and, and, and drone attacks as happened, um, last spring and in the fall, of course. Um. However, uh, to, you know, Mount a, a concerted air campaign against Iranian leadership and, and, and the nuclear weapons program, I don't think that's something that Ians would at least publicly support. So, of course that then pushes Israeli war planes up through Syria and aerospace, which before Assad was gone, would present its own issues. So, yeah, I think, I think Hezbollah and then Asad going, were the two key dominoes that made this possible. And I think for Bibe and his calculus, just kind of irresistible. [00:28:04] Chris: And, and with regards to, should we say the case for bombing Iran nuclear facilities. Obviously there are people over here in, in the US who are kind of calling it a bit into question. Is it a case of the, with regards to maybe Netanyahu, um, that is sort of a case of the boy crying wolf too often to the point where now we don't believe in when it's an actual genuine problem? Or do you think it could be a bit overblown just for Netanyahu's political survival? [00:28:30] Matt: Maybe. Maybe. I, I, I think there's probably truth in both of those assessments. Yeah. You know, I mean, yeah, BB certainly has his sort of personal self-interested reasons to do this and to keep his going. Right. That's absolutely true. He has been saying that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon for 20 years. That is also true. Um, I think it is also true that following the collapse of Hezbollah and the Assad regime that the Iranians started asking. Themselves serious questions. They may not operational questions, but serious questions in terms of research and development on, okay, how do we push to, you know, how would we push to build a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible and put it on a ballistic missile. I think all three of those questions, the answer could be yes, and that's okay. You know, just ideologically like it's okay to say yes to all three of those questions. Right. Um, I think it's also probably, I, I think it's just subjectively true to some, to some degree. I don't think, I don't think it's entirely BS what the Israelis were saying. Um, I. Does it mean that their entire theory of the case, you know, that the Iranians were on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon and we were days away from being unable to stop it? I dunno that that's true, but I think the Iranians were certainly up to more activity, um, following the collapse of Syria and Hezbollah. Yeah. Yeah. And what [00:29:54] Chris: do you make of, sort of Trump's political situation moment? Because he seems to be, his stance is sort of fracturing his supports in the Republican party. So the, the MAGA supporters tend to be more isolationist whilst then, should we say the, I, i, I hesi hesitant, I'm hesitant to use the term NeoCon, but I couldn't think of a better description for the other side of the conservative coin in the US. [00:30:15] Matt: No's that's, that's, that's fair. I mean, that's just sort of a, a, a description that's the word that you use to describe their ideology, you know? Yeah. I definitely, definitely post the War on terror in Iraq and everything. It has sort of a negative, it sounds like a slur, you know, and has been used that way. Um, but that is, that is true. That is, that is the, the field of their sort of conservative doctrine, the foreign policy doctrine, that's what it's called, this NeoCon conservatism. Yeah. Um, so well let's back up here and say what the US strike would look like. Right. And, and the reporting has, has, has borne this out. And I think a lot of what we've seen on, you know, flight trackers and everything in the past week have definitely sort of suggest this, right? So the first option, right, or, or coa that, you know, they would say like in the tank where the, where the joint chiefs meet, uh, courses of action, right. Um, would be. Uh, extensive US intelligence and, and tanker support. Right. Which, um, a few days ago we saw this, um, huge fleet of aerial refueling tankers, depart bases across the continental US and move into Europe, right? Where there's still sort of sitting and there's an air bridge. Uh, there was last night I was watching it live this air. I keep [00:31:31] Chris: missing them. I keep missing them. It was really annoying. [00:31:33] Matt: Yeah. I think maybe we're, our, our timing's a little off, uh, time zone wise. Um, yeah, it happens for me. It usually happens later at night where Europe probably asleep. Mm. There's a consistent air bridge between Europe and, and, and the Middle East right now of, uh, us, um, tanker and, and, um. And, uh, airlift aircraft right now. So that would be to, uh, the sort of first step of, of options that were presented to, to the president would be extensive intelligence and tanker refueling support, right. To sort of keep up the tempo of Israeli strike sorties against targets in Iran, whether that's leadership or, or nuclear sites, what have you. Right. That then ratchets up to, um, a US strike on the fordo enrichment plant, which mm-hmm. As you said in the intro, that's, um, kind of their main enrichment facility that was disclosed to the IAEA in 2009. Um, has always sort of been like their main, their main site that if you're gonna take out the nuclear program, you have to get that too. Right. And that's buried 80 meters under, under a mountain. Um. The US possesses a weapon. It's the GBU 57 or a massive ordinance, penetrator or mop, and that's that 30,000 pound bunker buster. Um, that's been, that's been described as manufactured by Boeing. It's public. There's been, there's been so much written about this in, in, in the last week. It's publicly known to be able to penetrate as deep as 60 meters. Um, of course, you know, for Dough is thought to be buried 80 meters under the ground. So how do you make up that difference? Um, I. Offer that there are certainly capabilities that we don't know about that we, we civilians don't know about. Um, CENTCOM and the Pentagon are insistent that they could take out for do. I'm inclined to believe them 'cause they know things we don't know. Um, maybe if this attack happens, that could be proven to not be true. But right now I just, I have no reason to sit here and wag my finger and go, no, you can't take out Fordo with one of these weapons. If they're insistent that they could, I, [00:33:41] Chris: I guess the very least is you could block access to it. [00:33:44] Matt: Right. So you would, you would collapse. You would collapse, uh, the access tunnels. Um, you would suck the air out of the facility and kill anyone who's stupid enough to still be there. Like why would you, there's the last, there was the last place on earth that I would wanna be right now. There's [00:34:01] Chris: always a job's worth everywhere. [00:34:03] Matt: Yeah. Like, like the janitor who's just there. That poor guy. Um, yeah. I would not wanna be within five kilometers of four dough right now. Yeah. Trump's thinking is, okay, we're gonna do one strike on Forea, and I don't mean one airstrike, it would probably be a series of airstrikes, but we would really just focus on targeting and disabling forea, right? Mm-hmm. [00:34:23] Chris: The [00:34:23] Matt: strategic sort of assessment in the last week has been, if the objective is to take out the Iranian nuclear program, you cannot do that without taking out for dough, right? Yeah. And the Israelis don't have the ability, at least from the air, what commando raid. Yeah. They could do it, it would be risky. It would be, you know, yeah. The stuff of movies or spy novels, um, to, to, to do, um, but just subjectively, you know, is the operation to take out Iran's nuclear program complete wi while leaving Forough intact. The answer to that question is. Whether Forea could be, you know, disabled demilitarized, dismantled as part of some sort of, um, an, an agreement, ceasefire agreement to end the war. Yeah. I think that's also something that, that witkoff is, um, is, is dealing with right now. But, you know, that's, so, yeah. That's, that's the Trump thinking is, okay, I can just do this one operation to take out this one target, and that would be the end of it. Right. However, it is also very much true that, uh, you do not have the luxury of deciding, uh, you, you had the luxury of deciding when and how the operation begins. You do not have the luxury of deciding where it may escalate and where it may ultimately end. Mm-hmm. And it is also true of course, as we know, as anyone who has, you know, been alive and. The last, what, 25 years or whatever, that uh, much smarter men than Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have been drawn into catastrophic wars in the Middle East that they did not intend to get involved in. That is also true. Um, and as far as the political situation here, there has been a wide schism that's been opening up in Trump's coalition between, you know, the neocons who've been wanting to do this for 20 years, and this is like their wet dream that they're finally getting able to, to, to, to live out. Right. Um. Versus, you know, the isolationists who said, you know, well Trump campaigned on no more stupid wars in the Middle East. That is true. If there's two things that he's, three things that Trump has been consistent on since he came down that escalator in 20 15, 10 years ago. It's on that he's fucking awesome and the best at everything and is great at making deals. Uh, also immigration is bad and we shouldn't do it. And the third part is no more stupid wars in the Middle East. Those have been the three, um, planks of Trumpism that have held true. Right. And for him to betray one of those, I think if there's anything that could totally shatter his coalition here in the US that is kind of like unexpected. You know, it's that. Right. Um, there's broad opposition to this in Congress. The president is able legally to strike forea in a sort of limited, in a limited operation, right? Anything that goes days, weeks, beyond that and sort of the scope of the operation expands, right? Mission creep, that's where Congress gets involved and legally it becomes very quick, very tricky. There's the A UMF question, the authorization for use of military force and presidential war powers. I mean, this has been debated since nine 11 extensively. It's a continuing problem that we have. Um, I think Trump is also attuned to that. I mean, so I, we we're talking about this before we started recording. We're, again, we're recording this on around noon on the east coast on Thursday. I thought for sure. We may see strikes Tuesday night. I mean, we were planning to record this episode yesterday. Yeah. And I said to you like, yo, this is gonna be totally, half of this is gonna be irrelevant by Saturday. Like, I really think we should wait. Right. I thought Tuesday night for sure, we would probably see attacks just reading the tea leaves and Trump sort of rhetoric, which I think has been wildly irresponsible. Just telling, you know, Toran a city of 10 million people, like everyone should leave. You know, like that's just dumb. Um, it [00:38:24] Chris: is because I mean, even if America or Israel don't necessarily bomb it, the civilian casualties just from the mass panic because they might think America might bomb it. Right. You know, imagine [00:38:32] Matt: everyone in London just sort of Yeah. Leaving their flats and getting on a train or in a car or however you can and just trying to leave the city. Right. Clusterfuck, you can't do that. It's dangerous. People will die. [00:38:45] Chris: Yeah. [00:38:45] Matt: Yeah. That, that, that said, I think he. Trump has been sort of attuned to the criticism that he's sort of getting from people in his base. I mean, there's been a lot of like conservative influencers and everything who've flat out said, yeah, there's boo on the ground. If we go to war in the Middle East again, like, I'm done, like, cut me out of this. Mm-hmm. You know? Mm-hmm. I made a mistake in, in supporting him. I think he's sensitive to that also. Um, so yeah, I, I, I, I'm very scattered to hear. I thought on Tuesday night, for sure, we may see strikes. There was a moment when I thought planes would've been in the air. Um, uh, that didn't happen. My gut, and I could be wrong, my gut as of noon on Thursday is that he's making a push with Steve Witkoff, his Middle East envoy to find. Some sort of deal that can be made here. I think it's true that at the same time, he wants to bomb fordo and sort of share in the glory of this military adventurism with Israel because he sees Fox News praising it and it looks badass and cool to him, and he doesn't wanna be left out. I think that's true. I think he wants to, I think he wants to bomb Forea. I think he's afraid that it won't be successful. I think he's afraid that it will drag him into the conflict in ways he's not comfortable doing. Um, I also think he wants to make a big, beautiful deal with the Iranians and also bask in that glory. I think all of those things are true. My, again, my gut right now, sitting here at noon on Thursday, I think if there's going to be a strike, an American strike on Forea, I think it would come next week sometime. I think whatever diplomatic push is going on in Oman right now, I think that would have to collapse. [00:40:31] Chris: Yeah. So let's say the US does strike four though. Um, what are the likely retaliation options for the Iranians? [00:40:40] Matt: Their asymmetric means are not what they were, right. Whereas, you know, Hamas, Hezbollah, um, the Iraqi militias are still largely intact. They have. They have assets in Bahrain, right where the US fifth fleet is, is headquartered all of those vessels that, there's British vessels there too. There's a British naval base at the same facility, right? It's a joint facility that we have, which with between the US and the UK in Bahrain, all of those ships have put to sea, they're underway in the Persian Gulf right now. It is true that warships are myth vulnerable when they're docked. Pure side. Look at Pearl Harbor. [00:41:17] Chris: Well look at Russia and Ukraine recently. [00:41:20] Matt: Yeah. Yeah. Um, yeah, right. Uh, even, you know, people talk about how like an aircraft carrier is like this big obvious target, an aircraft carrier out in the ocean when it does not want to be found is a very small target in a very big ocean. [00:41:34] Chris: Right? And they have smoke machines as well where they can visually hide themselves. [00:41:37] Matt: Um. Yeah, I mean, you're also talking about electronic com, uh, emissions and stuff, and cracking that on that. So that would be called like MCOM Alpha, um, which is where like there's like no radio signals that are being sort of emitted from these warships and make them much harder to find. Mm-hmm. Anyway, so the, yeah, the question on, on how the us, how, how Iran could respond, they've made it very clear that if we strike four dough, they're gonna do what they can to strike naval assets, US bases in the Middle East, and also probably diplomatic facilities could be as far away as Eastern Europe. Whether the Iranians are able to execute on those threats, they'll try just given their track records so far over the course of the last 20 months. I'm skeptical of that. You know, um, there's been rumors over the years of Iranian cells in the US Right. That would also activate and do various terrorist attacks in this kind of scenario. I'm skeptical of that also. You know, I, I just, um, they don't. If they've shown anything in the last 20, if, if the Iranians have shown anything in the last 20 months, it's that they were hyper-focused on, you know, beating Iranian women for not covering their, their hair properly and thinking that that was a greater threat than the Masad agents just devouring their shit like Swiss cheese. [00:42:59] Chris: Yeah. [00:42:59] Matt: You know? Yeah. Um, and I'm just, I, the Iranians are in a bad place here. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. The Iranians are in a really bad place here. The regime chain question has been talked about extensively. I think it could conceivably happen whether the US or Israel wants to affect that or not. Um, I think regardless of how this conflict ends, there will be challenges to the regime. I think they are, they've lost. The ability to assert themselves as a national heman. Right. Um, I think if, you know, look at the comparison with Syria, right? Okay. If there was a figure like Ahmed Al Shara, the rebel leader who's now running Syria, if there was a figure like that in Iran, there's never been a coordinated armed opposition against the regime. There have been protest movements, color, rev color sort of revolutions, um, but the opposition has largely been centered in civil society. Yes, there are Iranian separatist groups like, like, like Peja or, um, bolo, Stan Separatists, right. Uh, sort of, uh, near Pakistan. They're responsible for a terrorist attack in Iran last year. But they don't represent an exist. They've never represented an existential threat to the regime. To that point though, I think if there was a. Um, organized armed opposition to the regime. And a figure like Amad Al Shara, I think he probably would be in Tehran right now. You know, and the fact that there isn't, is a real issue and will prove to be far more fractious if the regime does fall. But regardless of how this ends, I, there's the regime faces real challenges to it, to, to its to, to its survival Going forward, I think they've lost the ability to assert that. They're unchallenged in their rule of that country. [00:44:50] Chris: Yeah. Is [00:44:51] Matt: there a, [00:44:51] Chris: a horrible, kind of drawn out scenario where, okay, yes, we've taken out most of Iran's nuclear facilities, um, but Israel does not succeed in, um, should you say, toppling the Iranian government, nor do the Iranian people. Maybe it is even an attempt, but the regime somehow clings on to power. What do you think could happen in that sort of scenario? [00:45:13] Matt: I think it's probably the more likely scenario. [00:45:15] Chris: Mm. [00:45:15] Matt: To be honest. Um, if I had to pick one, um, right now I. I don't really know what that looks like. I think it really depends on how quickly, okay. Let's say there is some sort of a settlement whether fordo is taken out or not, right? And the bombs stop, right? I think a lot of that, what happens after that depends on how quickly the regime is able to sort of reconstitute itself, um, and assert its authority with its people, with a country of 90 million people. Um, how quickly they're able to sort of regroup and show that, okay, we are intact. You know, we are able to sort of keep the trains running on time. You know, that's gonna be really important. To the extent also, this is another really important point that I sort of forgot to mention. Um, Israeli strikes have. They, they have struck infrastructure targets such as like oil refineries and everything. If, if the Israelis start hammering away at the Iranian, um, energy infrastructure, oil fields, refineries, uh, power, power stations, uh, water infrastructure, if, if they start chipping away at the Iranian government's ability to sort of just provide basic services for their people, that is gonna be really dangerous and, and, and destabilizing. I think if those, if, if the infrastructure, if the country's infrastructure remains relatively intact, um, but you know, the nuclear program goes, I think it's be much easier for them to survive in the short to midterm than it will be otherwise. Yeah. [00:46:46] Chris: And is there a scenario where a worse government could take over in Iran and it could be worse for Israel? [00:46:52] Matt: There's always, there's, there's always that, there's, there's. Always the devil you don't know who is potentially worse. I mean, that's why on this podcast I've said, you know, the sort of the um, the fantasizing about Putin sort of waking up dead one day or whatever. Be careful what you wish for. 'cause the alternative is not necessarily better. You know, what that, um, what that worst scenario would look like. I'm not entirely sure. I mean, I think it would be something along the lines of just like an outright military dictatorship, right? Um, but then there's this sort of. Theocracy that sort of underpins, um, the Iranian regime, this idea mm-hmm. Of, uh, Lia Faki, which is the jurisprudence of the supreme leader. Right. Sort of ideology. That means Ayatollah, he's the guy in charge. We follow him no matter what. That would have to collapse in some way for I think a military dictatorship to be possible there. But I think that could potentially be worse. I mean, it's also just like they're really pissed off. They're humiliated, they want revenge. Um, there is going to be the sort of technical know-how to build a nuclear weapon, right. There's going to be the industrial base to do so somehow. And I think that's also potentially really dangerous going forward too. But there's, there's so much, there's so many unknowns and, and just open questions to all of this. [00:48:11] Chris: Yeah. And, and you mentioned earlier because there's a piece you shared with me about, um, how the opposition in Iran feel that this isn't actually helping. What are your thoughts on that? [00:48:22] Matt: Um, yeah, right. That was a piece in the, uh, Atlantic. Um, I think it's true. I mean, there hasn't been so far that we've seen, there hasn't been the great rally around the flag sort of effect that I think a lot of people sort of claim. Yeah. The minute you bomb Iran, the opposition's just all gonna align themselves with the regime. That hasn't happened. I think they do know, and they're correct in their assessment that the regime put them in this place, you know, and I think that's true in, in many ways. I think the regime brought this on themselves. They've talked shit against much powerful countries for 45 years. Um, they have, uh, their, their OPSEC has been very much not clean, I think we'll say. Right. Um, and it's, I mean, it's a, it's a terrible human tragedy, what we're seeing over there in, in Teran especially, um. It could get worse. Yeah. No, no one wants to be bombed. I mean, I'm no fan of the Trump administration, of course. But if, you know, uh, if, if some foreign country started, you know, bombing us to get rid of Trump, I would not be happy about that. You know, like, don't, don't blow up my, I don't like Trump either, but please don't blow up my house. You know, that's just a very natural human, human reaction. Um, but, you know, where, where the opposition goes after this is gonna be a really interesting question. Like I said, it's, it's typically been rooted in Iranian civil society. Will there be some sort of organized armed opposition to the regime that follows this? I dunno, but it's, I'd be asking. I. Was in Mossad or Saudi intelligence or the CIA somewhere, that's certainly a question that people are asking. How can we, after this, um, is there a path forward for us to give the regime just that little push to, to create an Amed al Shara type of figure who could govern the country? Because like I said, I think if there was that sort of figure, if there was an organized armed opposition, I think chances are good. They'd be in Iran right now. [00:50:30] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. And they certainly aren't at this time. Is there anything else you wanna add? 'cause we can, uh, in a minute we'll move on to Russia, China, but any final thoughts? I [00:50:39] Matt: don't have a whole lot else right now. I think that, um, covers it. I'm 50 50 on whether there will be strikes a US strike on Forea. I think that really depends on how the sort of diplomatic push goes in the next few days, and also how much cold feet Trump gets from. Um, outcry within the MAGA base. That's a big question. 'cause he, he pays attention to that. He is attuned to that. Yeah. Tucker [00:51:11] Chris: Carlson's turned on him. It is amazing. You know? [00:51:14] Matt: Yeah, yeah. Tuck. Yeah. Worst person, you know. Makes a good point. Once in a while. Uh, heartbreaking news. Um, as that meme goes, uh, um, I mean, I, Tucker has his own. Tucker is an ideologue and a pro-Russian sto and paid for Tucker's an asshole. Um, the realist. Okay. The realist in me looking at the threat that the Iranian regime has represented to Western interests for 45 years, and looking at the potential of possibly World War III with China and Russia within our lifetimes. I think it is objectively true to take these people off the field. Right? I'm also very realistic to the dangers of doing so and the inexperience of the people with the reigns to do so right now. Um, and again, I go back to you have the luxury of deciding when and how an operation begins. You do not have the luxury of deciding when and how it ends. And again, I say much smarter men that Donald Trump and Pete Heif have been drawn into disastrous con conflicts in the Middle East that they did not intend to get into. So I am torn between all of these feelings right now. [00:52:41] Chris: Yeah, yeah. No, I agree with you on that. Yeah. And, and look, certainly the mood in Britain at this time, I mean the British government sort of just pushing the diplomacy card saying people should come together. Um, and certainly the sort of feeling on the street does tend to be kind of, at least in London, more anti-Israeli. Um, and unfortunately then it kind of, you end up in this position where you get people who are becoming pro Iran and, and becoming a bit, kind of blinded to the realities of Iran. [00:53:08] Matt: I think if you're just sort of going off social media vibes and stuff and you don't really know a whole lot about who the Iranians are, what the history of this is, all the consequences and stuff, complications and everything, I mean, yeah, I think it's, it's sort of natural to arrive at that position, especially if you are sort of more oriented on the left and have been rightfully opposed to, uh, Israel's conduct in Gaza since October 7th. [00:53:36] Chris: Yeah. Indeed, indeed. And yeah, as I said earlier, I don't think Israel winning any hearts and minds of all this coming back to what a Amen de was saying. And I mean, he thinks this is a historic moment where one could get rid of the Iranian regime, which has been terrible for its people. Um, and yeah, so we'll see. We will see what happens really. 'cause it, it, I, I don't know. I mean, uh, when we look back on this in maybe 10 years time, we will be able to better say whether it was a positive or a negative. [00:54:05] Matt: Yeah, that's entirely true. Whether the outcome of this, whether, whether it'll be good or bad, um, there's real reasons to be seriously concerned that it'll be bad. Um, we just, we just don't know. [00:54:18] Chris: No, indeed. Well, uh, unless you wanna say anything else, I think this is probably a good point to pause and just finish up really. Yeah. [00:54:26] Matt: We'll have more coverage on this going, um, forward. [00:54:30] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. Indeed, indeed. Well, let's take a break and be back with more. Welcome back, everybody. So we're gonna now just shift over to Russia and China for a little bit because, um, even though we are very focused on Iran and Israel currently, um, you know, one thing I've learned through running this podcast, there's no such thing as a singular issue or a singular threat. Um, and if anything, that's one of the things that's been a big educational point for me is just, um, fascinated by. How, I guess the general population seemed to think that when it's all about terrorism, it means somehow that conventional conflict with Russia and China doesn't master anymore, or, or the war in Ukraine means we don't have to worry about the Middle East anymore. And is that, unfortunately we have to worry about everything because there's a lot of things to worry about. And I suppose one of my goals of the podcast is always just for, help us keep an eye on other things going on as well as the kind of hot points right now. Mm-hmm. And this article from the New York Times about, um, some, uh, documents that were, were, well, uh, were sourced from, uh, the internet that point to, um, uh, tensions within the Russia, China relationships. I, I'll quickly summarize. So, um. While President Putin presents the China Russia relationship as UN an unshakeable strategic alliance, a secretive FSB units views China as a serious threat. Internal intelligence documents revealed that Russian counterintelligence considers Beijing an active adversary. Accusing China of espionage, territorial ambitions, and the recruitment of Russian scientists. The FSB alleges, the Chinese agents are spying on Russia's military, especially operations in Ukraine, so they can study Western weapons and tactics. China is particularly interested in drones, aviation technology, and even defunct Soviet era projects like the Anaplan, which I must admit is one of my favorite Soviet inventions. The Anaplan, and I think even the US are looking at Anaplan now, potentially for their Pacific, uh, ambitions. But we'll see. Yes. See what happens with that. It might not be a dead concept after all. Yeah. So maybe that's why the, the Chinese are looking at the Anaplan right now. Um, and if anybody doesn't know what the Anaplan is, is, um, I, I'll be honest, I can't explain the science behind it, but it's a sort of, um. Kind of aircraft or troop carrier that sort of uses, I think it's ground effects. It kind of mm-hmm. It skims along the surface. It's kind of below radar and some of the, if you ever watch, um, there's some documentaries on YouTube about them that were originally from the BBC Theran plan. They, they can be quite big. Um, and I think they could carry, I dunno, I think the largest Soviet one could care about 70 troops. It may be more or less mental land. It was about 70. Yeah. Yeah. The mental land troops and innovation. [00:57:25] Matt: Can't imagine why the Chinese will be interested in that. [00:57:27] Chris: Well, yeah, indeed, indeed. So maybe I can imagine why they want that for Yeah. The era of the Anaplan coming. Yeah. But, uh, yeah, so, um, apparently Beijing is, is targeting disaffected Russian scientists, and I have a feeling there's probably quite a few of them out there. Um, and they're also targeting former military employees for recruitment classified FSB directive, verified by Western Intelligence and leaked via cybercriminals outlines a detailed strategy. And it's code named the taunt for to resist Chinese espionage. While the FSB is actively collecting data, especially via apps like WeChat, it must tread carefully to avoid damaging diplomatic ties. So officers of the FSB have been ordered not to publicly named China as an adversary. So this release is probably quite embarrassing. Um, Russia is increasingly worried about Chinese intentions in key regions being the far east with uh, Chinese scholars are reviving historical territorial claims. Then you got Central Asia where Beijing is expanding soft power in former Soviet republics. And then we have the Arctic, which Chinese intelligence allegedly is. Using mining companies and universities to spy on Arctic development, especially as Russia becomes more reliant on Chinese support am Midwestern sanctions. Um, the documents show that despite the deep suspicions, Russia continues to prioritize its relationship with China out of a strategic necessity economically, diplomatically, militarily. Some analysts believe that the West could exploit the, uh, the internal distrust, but others argue Putin is too committed to the partnership to be swayed. So Matt, was there anything that sort of stood out for you in this, this obstacle? [00:59:09] Matt: You know, this, um. This conceit that Russia and China are and would continue to be equal partners in this, you know, axis of opposition to the Western, shall we say, US led. Uh, world order has always been a Russian fantasy. I think. Um, I mean, Putin needs to believe that the Russians need to believe that, but the contours of their relationship, especially since the war in Ukraine began, um, and Russia became majorly dependent on Chinese military equipment and help evading Western sanctions has always been tilted toward, um, Beijing. Uh, I mean, don't get me wrong, their, their friends, they're allied against us. But Beijing's ideal world order certainly places Moscow as a junior partner in a Chinese dominated eastern hemisphere. Russia needs China more than China needs. Um. Russia. Uh, but I mean, China also likely has great concerns. This wasn't really in, this wasn't spelled out in the article, but I, I think, um, China also likely has great concerns about what happens in Russia once Putin's rule ends either naturally, yeah, we will do actually right. Uh, yeah. Count uss among them, um, either naturally or through more kinetic means. If, if, if you catch my meaning, um, the fallout from that, you know, depending on how sideways it goes, uh, could absolutely create serious problems for China. The same problems they would create for us, of course, maybe we don't share a, you know, 2,400 I think mile border with, with Russia. Um, uh, I. Allies also do sometimes have good motivation to spy on each other for reasons other than seeking to harm or, or subjugate. We've talked about this in terms of the US trying to keep tabs on German political de uh, deliberations or how Israel has spied on the US extensively for decades. I mean, I think European countries right now have very good reasons to try to figure out what's happening behind the curtains in Washington. Right. Um, I would not be outraged by that news. I would be like, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. If I was, you know, Macron or Starer right now, and my intelligence agencies had the means to sort of give me what's going on in the White House behind the scenes, yeah, I would, I would wanna know if I was them. I couldn't, I couldn't fault them for that. Um. This campaign, however, uh, seems to be done with the, uh, seems to be done in the context of keeping Russia down and perpetually the junior partner. And in that regard, you know, I think there's, um, there's no honor among thieves. I guess I. But, uh, that's sort of what I think about that. I don't know if you had any [01:01:41] Chris: thoughts. Yeah, yeah. No, I, I echo that. I mean, yeah, we talked about it, we talked about it a few months ago, didn't we? About that kind of, um, power imbalance at the root of this relationship. 'cause Russia sees itself as a, a world power and possibly even a European power. Um, and if anybody ever a slightly kind of slights them or treats them as less than that could see the end of the Russian relationship with China. But obviously Russia is in a difficult place because of Western sanctions right now, and they need China because China basically at the moment has sort of saved Russia from total bankruptcy. So, um, yeah, so I think when maybe things change, that's where we'll start to see where their relationship, you know, how it really goes and they're in a kind of more confident position. But we will see. I was also interested about the origins of the document. Um. There was a kind of an additional article, um, linked to the New York Times article that we talk about, where they talked about how they got these documents. And apparently, um, in November, a crime group called Errors Leaks announced on Telegram that it was selling classified Russian intelligence documents. Now they're not cheap. If anybody's out there thinking about buying them at like 10 grand, a plus a pop. Um, if I had a lot of money, if I had won the lottery, I probably would've bought some, but I haven't. So there we go. Um, but the, uh, the group claimed that the, uh, records originated from inside the Federal Federal Security Service, which the FSB. Now, the New York Times refuses to pay for stolen documents, but they're happy to accept documents that are provided without castle or strings attached. So instead of buying the documents, they received a sample of these FS. Documents in question. Um, and they got that from Aries Leaks. Now, the New York Times, uh, then took those documents to six Western intelligence agencies, and all of them confirmed that the documents appeared authentic, uh, based on the kind of format and content. They also independently verified that the Russian government had in fact been conducting precautionary briefings with Russians who traveled to China for work. Um, so, uh, they feel that these documents are legit. And now how Aries leaks acquire these documents is unclear. The group apparently did not answer any, uh, requests, uh, from the NY, uh, New York Times to, to comment on how they got them. But Russian agencies have been hacked before. And it could also even be, um, an FSB officer mishandled these documents or that they were stolen, or an insider may have sold or leaked them for money. Um, and hes grabbed them, um, you know, from that person. Or they may have grabbed them from another criminal group, um, however it obtained them. The crime group now is advertising multiple trance, uh, tranches of Russian documents and also documents about North Korea and more about China, India, and other countries. Apparently he's offered the entire cash of Russian intelligence documents if anybody out there has money for $120,000, which I feels is kind of a bargain. Um, and it on an interesting note as well, it's, it, I find it fascinating how leaky Russia has gotten in the last few years. Um, you know, we've had the successes of Bell and Kat who's exposed the identity of f SB and GIU members who've been bought, who've been involved in hostile activity in the West. And even the CIA and MI six appeared to have benefited from Russian leaks, um, as they have, you know, managed to get a lot more insight about Russian intentions with Ukraine and the buildup to Russia's invasion that we even probably know about. Um, so despite all the risks there does appear, it is possible that there are people within the ranks of the Russian Intelligence Services right now leaking documents, uh, mainly for money. And I find that very interesting. So, yeah. Uh, so definitely want to keep an eye on, I think [01:05:21] Matt: you gotta be pretty motivated to, you know. Half peck the bullet in the back of your head in the basement of Luli Bianca or Lavo prison or something. But [01:05:29] Chris: yeah, or or poisoning abroad, I guess. I guess maybe whoever this person is, if they're not leaking it to an intelligence service, but to a criminal groups that maybe they think there's a higher chance they could get away with it. You know, maybe. Maybe they've rational. It's not quite the treachery. It is, you know, I dunno, it's, it's an interesting one. I would [01:05:47] Matt: offer though, that I can't imagine intelligence agencies aren't routinely monitoring the dark web for these stolen documents that pop up. Oh, they are. And, and buy them when they're available. [01:05:57] Chris: Yeah. Oh yeah. I'm sure. I mean, God, that $120,000 is a bargain probably for America and MI six, if you put their budgets into perspective, I'm sure I would love [01:06:08] Matt: to see the cables at Langley between like accountants and operations, people being like, Hey, we should pay this. And it's like, I don't know, I think 120 grand is a little bit steep. I dunno that that's in the budget. I mean, that's a totally a bureaucratic, nonsensical thing that happens in intelligence agencies all the time. [01:06:23] Chris: Well, we'll, we'll find out, I'm sure in, in the future whether they did buy 'em or not. Mm-hmm. Um, so just a couple of other things of note before we wrap up. So, uh, MI six is gonna get a, a new C, um, her name is. Well, yeah, she, yes. I know. It's interesting actually. So this, this, this, the new head of MI six is gonna be a woman, which is the first time an MI six is 116 year history that a woman is actually gonna be in charge of MI six. But popular culture has been ahead of MI six and really Judy Den has been head of MI six since 1995. In our hearts. Yes. In our hearts. Yeah. So, so, so, um, blaze Murli is the new, um, is gonna be the New Sea, and she's a, as I said, the first woman to lead MI six officially. Um, and she will succeed. So Richard Moore, later this year, in fact in October, she will succeed in, and she will become the 18th Chief or Sea of the Secret Intelligence Services. Uh, mur joined MI six in 1999 and currently oversees technology and innovation as Director General. So she's kind of the cue, she's cue of, um, MI six currently. Yeah. She's also held senior roles apparently in MI five and it worked and worked extensively across the Middle East and Europe. And she's known for her expertise in countering high tech surveillance and advanced covert ca and advancing covert capabilities. So, um, yeah, she seems like the right woman for the right time. Um, 'cause I think we, there was a, do you remember the talk between, uh, sir Richard Moore and Bill Burns? I think it was last year. Richard Moore made a comment about how, um, you know, not that MI six isn't taking technology, uh, seriously, but it has to go even further with technology. Technology's very much gonna be the name of the game going forward. So I think it's been a wise move to a appoint elli, um, because there were other candidates in the running, so there's a lady called Dame Barbara Woodward, who was the UK's, she's currently the UK's permanent representative to the United Nations, and she was a former ambassador to China. And she was reportedly in the running. Um, and she's a, you know, obviously a seasoned diplomat with deep expertise in Chinese affair, uh, affairs. But her candidacy was seen as a sort of bold external choice. Um, but she did face criticism mostly being nicknamed as Beijing Barbara by her detractors, who questioned her perceived cautions towards Chinese government during her ambassadorship, particularly around sensitive issues like human rights. And obviously she had no intelligence expertise either. And I think that you. Appointing her over Murr Welle could have been a, could have been a bad move. Um, especially with the whole sort of technology focus and things. I don't know. It's difficult to say, but, um, I feel like, uh, my, my feeling is murr wellI feels like the right choice on paper. She certainly has all the expertise and everything. Um, and she's only 47, so I'm like, crikey, I've got a bit of, um, envy there now. Yeah. She's doing well for somebody who's only 47 years old. Yeah. So there are only a few years older than me, so, yeah. Matt, any, any thoughts on the head of MS six? [01:09:30] Matt: Yeah, I'm, I, I, I agree. I'm always happy to see a career intelligence official take the reins of one of these agencies. I mean, I wish that's something we did for the CIA director, um, rather than them usually being more of a political appointee. I mean, there have been circumstances. Gina Hasell was a career, was a career, um, official, and I think by and large did, did a pretty good job under, during the first Trump, uh, administration. Um, but you know. Mentioned the technology thing, her background running Q branch essentially. Um, good point there. I mean, so much of, you know, how, how C-I-A-M-I six, how they deal with issues like, um, biometrics count, countering biometrics, or like, you know, just ubiquitous, uh, surveillance, um, social media that makes it, you know, really difficult for, um, human intelligence personnel to operate overseas, especially when you're dealing with like a non-official cover. You know, those, those technologies have made it really difficult on the, on the human side. Um. Totally agree there. I also think it's also good to see she has experience at, um, MI five, you know, um, so many of the threats the UK faces now and going into the future revolve around countering Russian and Chinese intelligence, um, disinformation and radicalization online and, uh, strategic sabotage, um, from, from, uh, the Russians. So I think having an MI six chief who knows these threats well and has faced them, um, rather than spending their career in an embassy far away from London, now, there's anything wrong with, with that, um, I, I think could be useful in sort of calibrating that cooperation, uh, between MI six and, and and MI five. 'cause so many of the UK's main security threats right now, um, are. Internal threats, you know, so how, how, how they work together there and having that sort of institutional knowledge and and relationship there could be really important. [01:11:28] Chris: Yeah, indeed, indeed. I just only hope that she has her own qbo, like from the, uh, the world is not enough. Her fishing, her little fishing boat. Yeah, a little fishing boat. Yeah. And if she doesn't, I hope she gets on by the time she finishes, so there we go. Um, I wish her luck. So, um, there we're, now we're gonna just wrap up. Um, just lastly on the death of Frederick Forsyth, who is the, uh, legendary novelist behind the day of the jackal. Um, I was very sad to hear of his passing. Um, you know, just a quick, uh, overview of his obituary. He was born in 1938. He served as one of the RAF's youngest pilots, later working as a journalist and war correspondent, and reportedly secret secretly worked for MI six for 20 years. Um. All of that, you know, when you now know that has obviously deeply informed his fiction. And I think that's why I've always enjoyed his fiction over some other authors because there always was this sense of authenticity and I think they even named it, um, faction, which is sort of fact and fiction merged together. And I've always kind of liked that, you know, for me. And I've said this before, I love a spy book to give me a sense of a peek behind the curtain. And for se work really did that. I think Day of the Jackal was definitely one of my favorites. I also really enjoyed a book called The Shepherd, which is all about this sort of ghost pilot who guides a, a lost, um, a lost pilot back safely to base. And it was a really cool one. And they even adapted that into a short film, um, on Disney Plus. And I think it was John Revolt that was in that, but, uh, that's a whole other thing. The book's really great, um, and very moving. So yeah, Forsyth died at the age of 86. I think. He, you know, did very well. And apparently there's a documentary coming out on his life called, in My Own Words, it's due to be released by the BBC. He has a final novel, the Revenge of Odessa, which has been co-written with Tony Kent, which will be published in August. So yeah, uh, you know, RIP to Frederick Forsyth. Um, I'll be honest, didn't always agree of his politics, but I, I very much enjoyed his work. [01:13:25] Matt: Brexit guy. Yeah. He was a [01:13:27] Chris: big Brexit, so, you know, always very interesting that Any, any [01:13:32] Matt: thoughts on Forsyth yourself? Matt Forsyth was a big, um, inspiration for me and in, in my own writing. I mean, sort of the Carre Cl and Forsyth or sort of within the genre, the big, the big three for me. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, yes. Good. Mount Rushmore. Absolutely. So spy fiction. Yeah, totally. Um, you know, uh, yeah, one of the, one of the all time greats, one of the best to ever do it. Um, rest in peace, sir. Um, I should definitely reread, uh, day of the Jackal at some point this summer. I haven't, I haven't picked that up in years. [01:14:00] Chris: You know, I've still not read the Odessa file and a few people who are commenting on it say Yes, his best book. So I need to read that. I really enjoyed one called The Deceiver. It's kind of a collection of stories, um, and not too dissimilar from the spy game about an MI six o uh, officer who's been kind of questioned about his past. Um, that's a really good book as well. The deceiver. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Well, I think that is us for today. So thank you everybody for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show. Please obviously connect us on all the socials except for X 'cause we're not really on that. That's been mothball, but we are on blue sky predominantly, and Instagram, so that's where you are usually find me. Um, and you know, if you enjoy this podcast, please consider becoming a patron on subscriber and you can get access to the ad free versions of this episode. Don't forget, you can also watch us on YouTube, so you can look at me and Matt chatting to each other, if that's what you're into. And hello there if you are on YouTube. So, uh, yeah, thank you again everybody for watching and listening. Uh, Matt, uh, you up to in exciting this weekend, [01:15:01] Matt: probably glued to the tv. Yeah. And, uh, and my, and my social media feeds as I, as I have been for the past, um, few days. Yeah. I really hope the first hour of this episode isn't totally irrelevant by the time it airs. I don't think it will. I think it'll be, I tried to calibrate it with that in mind. Um, I think. I think next week is the week to watch, though. That's my gut. Maybe this'll prove poorly by the time it airs, but who knows. Yeah. [01:15:25] Chris: Well, we'll keep an eye on things as uh, things go on. Well, thank you again everybody, and we will catch you on the next episode. Take care. Bye for now. Bye. [01:15:47] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and Spies.