Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year.
Thank you.
If you're a lineman in charge of keeping the lights on,
Grainger understands that you go to great lengths and sometimes heights to ensure the power is always flowing, which is why you can count on Grainger for professional-grade products and next-day delivery so you have everything you need to get the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger, for the ones who get it done.
Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Toby Seeley and Tom Noonan. After days of speculation, Israel has launched a major attack on Iran. 200 jets carried out airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites and targeted senior military figures. Israel says the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hussein Salami, is among those killed. The
Israel says it had to act to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon and argues this military attack was its only choice. Iran has responded by firing 100 drones which were intercepted by Israel and Iran's supreme leader says the Israeli attack is satanic and is promising severe punishment. To go through why Israel has acted now and what happens next is our guest today, The Times' Middle East correspondent, Samer Al-Atrish.
Just to start off, Samir, what was the aim of this Israeli operation, which they're calling Operation Rising Lion? Well, the purported aim is to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. What we've seen so far are the first few waves. There was another wave of strikes this afternoon. We can't really assess at this point how much damage they've done to the facilities, but it
It's probably superficial at this point because they are very much deep underground and some facilities haven't been hit yet. But Israel has indicated that this is going to roll on, roll over for a few days and that there will be more strikes. And Donald Trump has warned Iran to come back to the negotiations soon.
or face, in what he said, even more brutal attacks. So the aim is to cripple and or possibly destroy the nuclear facilities. Obviously, there are lots of questions swirling about whether Israel is capable of doing that. In fact, they're just setting it back. We've had Israel and Iran carrying out airstrikes on each other before. This isn't entirely new. But the last time was back in October. Is there something different about this attack?
Well, yeah, it's unprecedented. I mean, the previous attacks were fairly small scale, really. But we're talking here about residential buildings being leveled and their bid to assassinate Iran's top military leaders and nuclear scientists.
And Natanz, the main nuclear facility being bombed, airfields across the country being bombed, as well as widespread and coordinated attack on Iranian missile batteries and air defense systems. So it's unprecedented, really. It's a major and continuing air campaign.
Samir, Donald Trump says while he was aware these attacks were going to happen, he insists the US was not involved. Can Israel carry out this sort of attack without US intelligence or military support?
That's, you know, Israel's capable of conducting those. I mean, there's a question on refueling and how that might have taken place. There is intelligence sharing, certainly, between the Israelis and the Americans. You know, it would kind of stretch belief that there was absolutely no American intelligence sharing or coordination. But in terms of the U.S. taking part in the strikes or, you know, actively directing the strikes or helping with the targeting, I'm not sure that they would have done that.
Israel says Iran was days away from a nuclear weapon. Who else in the world thinks that is right? Who would agree with Mossad's assessment? I don't think anybody agrees with that. Iran has been quote-unquote days away from nuclear weapons for years in the sense that they have the know-how, theoretically,
And they have uranium that can be quickly enriched to weapons-grade uranium. So, I mean, that can be done within a week. But the actual creation of a nuclear weapon, weaponizing that uranium, stabilizing it, putting it in a warhead and assembling it, I don't think anyone thinks that that was imminent. But...
The status quo has been for some time now is that Iran has enough uranium to enrich very, very quickly to weapons grade uranium and possibly build a bomb in six to 12 months or more than one bomb in six to 12 months. I mean, I think that's a conventional wisdom from the UN and from Western intelligence agencies. And Israel says it had no choice but to attack Iran to stop it developing a nuclear weapon.
Is there any other viable way to stop that happening except for military action like this?
Well, I think proponents of the talks would say a deal with Iran that allows for more UN inspection would be one way to prevent that and sanctions relief. Because there's a debate about how wedded Iran was to an actual nuclear bomb. Did they want a nuclear bomb? Did they really want one? Or did they want to use the threat of a nuclear bomb for other concessions from the West? So that's...
an open question. With the military action, there is an argument that's being made as well that, okay, this might, you know, in best case scenario for Israel, destroy the nuclear facilities entirely. It's killed some top scientists. But
You know, Iran's nuclear weapons program can be contained really within a few sites and a few scientists. They have the know-how and this can all be rebuilt from scratch again. And that know-how is very, very hard to kill. You know, I mean, unless, you know, Iran is bombed regularly every other day for the following few years or there's a regime change.
That's something that would be hard to mitigate. On the other hand, given how weak Iran is, the fact that Israel can pick apart its air defenses, and there are voices in Iran that are saying, well, this is why we need a nuclear bomb. So they could possibly, you know, one expert I spoke to warned that they could now start diverting the uranium to covert sites, and they could really start
trying to build a bomb. So next time around, you know, any country that wants to bomb them would have to think twice about it. So it's a double edged sword. That's what I'm saying. And it's unclear how it'll play out. Given, as you say, Samir, others don't agree with Israel's assessment about how close Iran is to a nuclear bomb, and the urgency of the situation doesn't appear to have changed. Why has Israel decided now is the moment to strike?
Well, Israel has been wanting to do this for some time now. So, you know, now has been the moment for the past few months, really. And this is something Israel has been wanting to do for years, really. But it's based more on the assessment that there's a window of opportunity to get away with it. Whereas, you know, in the future, that window might close. Iran is very weak, trailing.
Trump is very frustrated with Iranians over the lack of progress in the talks. So I think that informs the timing much more than Iran being allegedly a few days away from building a bomb, which I don't think anybody really believes as a plausible timetable for a nuclear Iran. But, you know, the timing has more to do with what Israel sees as a historic window of opportunity to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities.
We initially had reports three Iranian commanders had been killed, a number of scientists too. Where does this leave Iran?
Yeah, so it's more than three at this point. I mean, there's at least four senior ranking Iranian generals that have been killed and, you know, they have been replaced by now. But Iran, you know, is in a very tough position. You know, they either capitulate, as it were, to sort of very tough American demands on disassembling their nuclear facilities or they escalate. If they escalate, ultimately, you know, it could be suicide for the regime.
As you've said, Israel says this operation isn't over. What do we expect next from Israel then and any Iranian response?
Well, I think Israel is going to continue attacking Iranian nuclear sites. There are two major ones that haven't been attacked. They're going to continue trying to degrade any capacity by the Iranians to respond forcefully. So they'll be targeting missile sites and drone launching sites. That's going to be their focus and, you know, continue their attrition of Iran's command.
military command. And this could possibly escalate into political command as well. They haven't gone there yet. So that's, I think, what we can expect from the Israeli side. From the Iranian side, they are going to try to respond. Now, how much capacity they have for a response remains to be seen. Obviously, the first major response will be towards Israel. If they go down the path of escalation and they decide to let the region burn, we can see them attacking
possibly oil fields in the region. And they have said that they would hold the U.S. culpable for any Israeli strike. But they're also now in a very tough position where if they follow through on that, they will draw the U.S. into a direct military confrontation, which would guarantee this being a suicidal course.
All right, Samir, thank you. That's Samir Al-Atroosh, The Times' Middle East correspondent. Now, Israel's carried out these airstrikes on Iran after a year and a half fighting Hamas in Gaza, one of a number of Iranian-backed groups in the Middle East. But there's a danger for Israel that its offensive is leading to an outcome it really doesn't want, namely countries recognising a Palestinian state.
There's been speculation that that could be discussed when the French President Emmanuel Macron co-hosts a summit in New York with Saudi Arabia next week. And to find out more about it, listen to Wednesday's episode called Why France Might Recognise a Palestinian State. That's it from us. Thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. We'll see you tomorrow.
Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year.
But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to. It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs in
innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse. If you work as a manufacturing facilities engineer, installing a new piece of equipment can be as complex as the machinery itself. From prep work to alignment and testing, it's your team's job to put it all together. That's why it's good to have Grainger on your side.
With industrial-grade products and next-day delivery, Grainger helps ensure you have everything you need close at hand through every step of the installation. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click Grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger, for the ones who get it done.