Paul Adams

Russia has launched a large-scale military assault on the country.

Ukrainian politicians are describing it as an invasion.

I have medals for medicine.

Yeah, Matthew, before the latest reports of mass casualties emerged, he did indeed warn that there could be an American response and that it would be dependent on how the Iranian authorities responded. He also has spoken about his desire to rescue the protesters, as he's put it. Now, he flew back to Washington from Florida yesterday and aboard Air Force One. He said that he was looking at what he described as some very strong options.

He are expected to receive a briefing on those options tomorrow at the White House. But he also said that the Iranian regime had on Saturday reached out to Washington to try and negotiate. He again didn't say exactly what about.

He said the two sides were working on arranging a meeting, but he also said, and I'm quoting here, but we may have to act because of what's happening before that meeting. So clearly a strong warning that America might be poised to take action.

Matthew, I'm sure that's on his mind. Donald Trump has been ambivalent about this in the past. It has mostly obviously been about Iran's nuclear ambitions and America's keen desire, along with Israel, to curb Iranian activities around the Middle East.

Tiedän, että 12-luvun viikon jälkeen, kun Israel ja Yhdysvallat heittivät syrjään Iranin, Donald Trump laittoi sosiaalisessa mediassa sanan, että Iran on hyvä. Hän kertoi mahdollisuuden, että regiimikäytäntö oli hänen mielensä.

We've heard some of the similar rhetoric in the last few days. Just on Saturday he said Iran is looking at freedom perhaps like never before. The USA, he said, stands ready to help. He called the leaders in Iran violent. I don't know if you call them leaders. They rule through violence. The idea of removing that leadership I think is on his mind, although I'm sure that many, many voices in Washington will be advising him

Iran, vaikka sen monia viimeiset asetukset, on edelleen suuri, kompleksinen, tärkeä regionaalinen pelaaja. Uskon, että regime-muutoksen mahdollisuus on yksi, joka täytyy katsoa erittäin huomattavasti, koska uskon, että sen seuraukset voivat olla suurin piirtein epäonnistuneita, sekä Iranin sisällä, joka on kompleksinen etninen muoto, että myös alueella. Mikä olisi vaikutus esimerkiksi Irakan paikalle, jossa iranilaisuus on ollut suuri?

What would be the implications for Iran's various proxies around the region? Of course Israel would be delighted to see the head of the snake as it sees it defeated in the wake of the blows delivered to people like Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas and of course the end of the Assad regime in Syria. Iran's regional influence has been hugely dented.

and damaged by events over the past 18 months or so. And so there are strong voices, certainly in Israel, saying that it is time to finish the job. But I think the consequences could be so complex that I think the notion of regime change will be one that the Trump administration, even with its enthusiasm for taking abrupt and robust action around the world, will be fairly careful before embarking on.

Donald Trump at the time was trumpeting America's success, saying that Iran's nuclear program had been completely obliterated. I think all the intelligence assessments since then, or at least what we understand of those intelligence assessments, suggest that the damage was very significant, but not necessarily terminal. Iran's nuclear program, and indeed its entire military infrastructure, is quite diffuse. Elements of it are extremely well protected.

It is not thought that the nuclear effort kind of ground to a halt as a result of the attacks of last summer. So elements of it persist. Clearly, it wasn't just the operation, the 12-day war. The Israelis had already launched attacks before that, which had had a devastating effect on Iran's air defenses. And so Iran is in a very weak position, whatever the leadership may suggest.

And even though the US doesn't have a huge flotilla of ships and aircraft carriers and so forth in the region, it's got enough, and we know that it can do things from a distance, to deliver more blows. Not necessarily kind of Venezuela-style helicopter-borne operations to capture elements of the Iranian regime, but certainly the ability to destroy barracks, to go after the besieged militia that is responsible for so much damage.

of the repression on the streets and to launch kind of symbolic attacks that could even kill or target elements of the Iranian leadership.

It's a very difficult dilemma right now. I mean, look at Donald Trump's situation. He has spoken about his willingness to rescue the protesters. He runs a real risk now of doing nothing and being seen by a large part of the Iranian population as being full of hot air, but not willing to follow through with action and consequently experiencing a large loss of face, something that Donald Trump does not like doing.

of going in and doing too much and triggering huge levels of internal instability and regional instability too. And perhaps to create a kind of situation which might suck back

western, in particular, American militaries to a part of the world that, frankly, none of them want to go back to. That must be a specter that is in his mind. This is not an easy one. This is not Venezuela. This is a much, much more complicated situation. And so there will be people saying, think hard before doing too much. But also, frankly, given the rhetoric so far, you can't be seen to do nothing.

Kyllä, ja katsotaan, että tämä on hallitus, joka on hyvin ylipäätään ylipäätään ylipäätään ylipäätään ylipäätään ylipäätään ylipäätään