Trump's calculated rupture?; Minab tragedy; Russia's spy dossier explained

Hello and welcome, you are watching Faultlines, I am Gauri Devedi. This week we connect the dots behind four stories that expose the geopolitical faultlines redefining global power. First up, Donald Trump's calculated rupture at the NATO summit and what it signals for the future of the Western alliance. Next is the fresh intelligence that has come to light from Meena that suggests that the strike that hit a school despite clear indicators of its identity. Westminster's Kremlin shadow is on another story this week on fault lines after reports of Russian spying targeting British politicians over not just years but for decades. What does this mean for foreign interference allegations in the UK? And finally, Turkey's strategic dilemma as it pushes to acquire the F-35s while balancing its complex ties with both NATO and regional powers. It's a power-packed show, let's get started. Deal is very simple. If they shoot at ships, we're going to knock the hell out of them and it's that simple And that's the basic way it's going to work We have many ways we can win, but we've already won militarily have very little they have very little them The first story this week the us-iran ceasefire may be over but according to us president Donald Trump Well, there are many layers to it. The real story is what comes next. Does the collapse give Donald Trump more leverage over Iran or fewer options to America? Will Washington return to diplomacy, tighten the screws with sanctions or prepare for another round of confrontation? In our next Explore explainer, we decode Donald Trump's choices and what's at stake. But first up, listen in to what the president said. is very simple if they shoot at ships we're gonna knock the hell out of them and it's that simple and that's the basic way it's gonna work now the president maintains a lot of options I'm obviously not going to tell you exactly what's going to happen tonight but the president has said to them very simply the Strait of Hormuz is going to be open that means oil and gas is going to flow to the American people all right let's now tell you what exactly is likely to happen next what are the options in front of America with the ceasefire effectively over President Trump could regain several strategic advantages. First of that could be regaining military leverage, giving Washington greater flexibility in responding to developments. Second could be keeping the option open to block or maybe pressure traffic through the critical Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important energy choke points. The third could be increasing pressure on Iran, both militarily and of course diplomatically. The other gain for Donald Trump could be strengthening his priest through strength image, reinforcing his long-held position that military deterrence can be used alongside diplomacy. Now next comes the other aspect of what key options does the Trump administration have. It has effectively four broad options going forward and we are going to decode those for First up, option one, return to diplomacy. This could include pushing for a new nuclear deal, seeking strong guarantees in terms of security and using sanctions relief as leverage to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. The second option that Donald Trump may have in front of him is escalate military pressure, something that he is very prone to exercising. That could involve targeting Iranian military strikes, striking missile and drone infrastructure and expanding American naval operations in the entire region. The third option that if you look closely that Donald Trump has is return to maximum pressure. Now, this would mean tightening economic sanctions, curbing Iran's oil exports, isolating Tehran diplomatically and pressuring allies to join the sanctions campaign. All of it, of course, would start a larger chain reaction. The fourth option that Donald Trump's administration has is, well, have a limited conflict. Under this approach, the US would retaliate only if it is attacked, avoid a full-scale conflict, keep the military pressure high while leaving the door open for diplomatic talks. Normally people would think that this is the option that he would exercise, but well, in Trump land anything can happen. Let us now get you more details of what could happen next. Any escalation also carries significant risks. A regional war could widen. It could draw in more countries across the Middle East. Oil prices could surge. These are really real risks, something that the world could face. It could disrupt energy supplies. U.S. forces in the region could face retaliation from Iran or its allied groups as well. And global shipping lines through the Strait of Hormuz could be affected once again, threatening one of the world's busiest maritime trade routes and potentially disrupting global energy All right, moving on to the other story this week on Faultlines. What really happened before one of the deadliest U.S. strikes inside Iran? A shocking new report, viewers, is now claiming that American commanders may have gone ahead with the operation despite warnings that key intel was outdated, that the strike allegedly hit a girls' school in Minam, killing scores of young children and teachers. Did decision makers ignore this critical red flag and could this have legal consequences and could this have actually shaped the conflict in a different turn altogether? All these revelations and its impact are best told in this report that we have lined up The questions are getting louder, and the answers harder to ignore. According to reports, US military commanders signed off on airstrikes inside Iran, despite intelligence warning that information on several targets was outdated. Reports suggest those warnings were available before the bombs were dropped, but the operation went ahead anyway. One of the most controversial strikes hit the city of Minar. A girls' school was destroyed. The attack killed more than 160 students and at least 14 teachers, sparking global outrage and demands for an independent investigation. For months, Washington has maintained that it is investigating what happened. But the latest report suggests commanders may have had access to intelligence, questioning the reliability of the target before the strike was approved. This could have serious legal and political consequences. International humanitarian law requires militaries to take every feasible precaution to protect civilians. If commanders knowingly relied on outdated intelligence, difficult questions about accountability cannot be avoided. The Pentagon has not publicly accepted responsibility for the school strike, but the controversy refuses to fade. What happened in Minap is no longer just about one strike. It is now about the intelligence behind it, the decisions made in command rooms, and whether warnings that could have saved lives were ignored. With every new revelation, the pressure is growing for a transparent investigation into one of the darkest chapters of the Iran conflict. On that note, slipping into a very short break, we come back with more stories on the other side of Faultline. Stay with us. Now viewers, what if a foreign intelligence agency knew Britain's future leaders long before they came to power? A secret dossier has made extraordinary claims about Russia's alleged decades-long effort to profile some of the UK's biggest political figures, who was on Moscow's radar and why. We separate the claims from the facts in our next explainer and tell you why this is so important to understand. All right, let's tell you in detail why this is extremely significant. First and foremost, did Russia actually spy on UK politicians? Well, this is a big claim that has been made in a dossier that's been compiled by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele. Russian intel tracked top UK politicians for decades is what the dossier seems to have claimed. Detailed files were prepared, and this was built on their personalities. So clearly they were watching these young leaders who were set to take greater roles later. But why exactly would Moscow do this? This is important, because they were identifying future leaders. They were trying to understand their strengths and weaknesses, assess who could actually advance Russian interests in the UK political landscape, and build long-term intel profiles essentially targeting the politicians that would be most beneficial to Russian interests. That's what the larger premise of the entire spying network was, or allegedly. Now, who all were named in the dossier? Boris Johnson, that's the most important name, former prime minister. Then there was Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn, Dominic Cummins, and of course, the infamous Peter Mandelson, all high profile, big people and politicians who were there. Let's talk more about the Boris file. This file was opened when Johnson was at the Oxford. So remember, now you can see how far back in time Russian intelligence agencies were identifying future prospective British politicians and leaders and then chasing them. Russian spies believed that he could one day lead the UK and he was described as charismatic but not trustworthy. These are all of course details coming in from that dossier and these are also of course allegations. He was deemed unsuitable, Boris Johnson, as per some of the intelligence dossier details that were coming in and he wasn't really considered worthy of being an intel asset for Russia as per what those dossiers was indicating and details. Now, what does this really mean? Let's look at now the larger impact of this. First and foremost, let's point that out, there is no clear evidence that politicians in the UK were actually working for Russia at any point of time. These are allegations. The dossier though alleges long-term surveillance. That is what Russia has been doing and probably something that they are a master at. The debate has once again reignited a question and an issue that is at the heart of British politics, foreign influence. Earlier there were talks about Chinese, now there are talks about the Russians as well. How much of UK politics is actually now affected by foreign influence is a larger question, something that the Telegraph has also been pointing out in greater detail for the last couple of years. To talk more on this, we have Cormac Smith, who is a former British diplomat, some former communications advisor to the foreign minister of Ukraine with me on the broadcast. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith, for speaking to me. Let me start by asking you, are you shocked at any of these details coming to light from this dossier? First of all, hello and thank you very much for having me on. It's a real privilege to join you. No, I am not shocked. One of the things that I learned, you know, I spent two years as a British diplomat in in Ukraine as a senior communication advisor to their foreign minister, a man called Pavlo Klimkin at the time. And working at the heart of the Ukrainian government and working not just with their ministry of foreign affairs, but with other ministries, what I learned is that Russia takes a very, very long view. And they have a long developed system I would call of asymmetric or hybrid warfare. And part of this is influence operations. Now, clearly, and as you well pointed out, there has been very, very little proof of the people who have been investigated taking money or carrying out malign activities on behalf of Russia. However, a number of the people that have been involved have been very, very closely involved, for example, in the Brexit campaign. And while, again, the British government has been criticized for not scrutinizing close enough how much Russia influenced the Brexit campaign, there are those of us who believe there was very, clear influence. And the fact that Brexit is being mentioned now, nine years later, and reports are coming in, only only sort of proves the point that British politics, British media, British people are not paying enough attention to any of these allegations. Why so? I absolutely agree with you. I absolutely agree. And I think it's not just the British people, but I think our governments have been at fault. There was a there was a there was a Russian influence report published in 2020, but it specifically has been criticized for We're not looking close enough at what Russian influence there might have been around Brexit. Now look, the one thing that we know, a couple of things we know about Brexit, Brexit has severely weakened the UK. It's estimated now that it is costing the UK between £180 and £220 billion per annum. It has also, unquestionably, I think, weakened Europe, because it has taken Britain out of Europe, despite this fact that Britain has continued to be one of Ukraine's- Mrs. Smith, the argument that you're making there, if I were to just carry that forward, that a weakened Europe, a weakened UK, of course, benefits Russia, on the premise that Brexit was something that the Russians sort of influenced through some of these channels that we are talking. Well, there is that proposal and I would be among the people who would suggest that there had been Russian involvement, but I've got to say we do not have the evidential proof of that. Yes. But let me point something out. Look at four of the people of the five that you considered. Look at Boris Johnson, was key to taking Britain out of the European Union. Nigel Farage was key to taking Britain out of the European Union. Dominic Cummings was key to taking Britain out of the European Union. And finally, Jeremy Corbyn, who was leader of the Labour Party, who was supposedly leading Labour's push to stay in. Jeremy Corbyn absolutely refused to give his personal support in a battle where it was personalities and powerful personalities like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage in particular who were so effective at swinging the British vote. So I would suggest that through his very, very hearted support that Jeremy Corbyn, of course, you know, did very, very little to help. And there are other connections. There are other circumstances. and there are other circumstantial… Let me ask you on just those points, Mr. Smith, the other connections that you're referring to. You know, for the last better half, better part of the last decade, one has been hearing about foreign influence in the UK. There was Chinese, there's Russian, but I want to understand from you that while all of these are allegations, what is really happening on ground? How is the government really now addressing some of these very serious charges, Very serious allegations. Any inquiry, any probe, anything to that effect? Well, no, there isn't. And you know, the current Labour government has been in power for two years. And I would say we are still waiting for the current Labour government to probe this effectively. You know, in 2018, when I returned from my posting to Ukraine, I joined the national security communications team. And this was at the time of the Skripal poisonings, and it was very interesting that the British government under Theresa May at the time came out very, very early to say that we were absolutely clear that this was a Russian state assassination attempt. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party at the time, was the first to put his hand up in Parliament and say that there was no proof to that. Jeremy Corbyn has a long history of parroting Kremlin lines. So I think you ask a very, very good question. I think there needs to be far more scrutiny in the United Kingdom as to just what the Russian and Russian interference in our political life is. Because as an individual, I can say that I'm 100% sure having got my experience of working at the heart of the Ukrainian government, and it's the Ukrainians who understand the Russians better than anybody, and then coming back and working at the heart of our government for nine months, that we were very clear there was Russian interference, there was Chinese interference and Iranian interference as well. But of course, from my point of view, it was Russian interference I was most concerned with. Smith, very quickly, I'm running out of time there. You know, for a country that has not been able to have a prime minister serve his full term or her term in the last 10 odd years, this is something that is going to be very low on priority for the government because they really don't sort of need to run the ship, so to say. Is that something that makes any of these possibilities that much more easy for a Russian, for a Chinese spy network to be able to operate, given the political fluidity and volatility that the UK has been experiencing? Well, look, it does. And the fact that Britain is about to have its seventh prime minister in 10 years, the same 10 years that has marked the first 10 years of Brexit, which I, because I am a former diplomat, so I will tell you my own assessment, Brexit has broken Britain. Brexit has weakened Britain and Brexit has weakened Europe. It has played into the hands of the Kremlin. So it is absolutely incumbent on our government and our next Prime Minister is almost certainly to be Andy Burnham and I hope that Andy Burnham will put defence at the top of his priority list. He has said he will, but defence is not just about rockets and tanks, it's about intelligence and it's about really looking at where the influence is. I'm going to leave it there, Mr. Smith. Thank you so much for speaking to me on Faultline. It's a pleasure. Thank you. Well, shifting focus now to the other story this week on Faultline. The battle over the world's most advanced fighter jet is no longer just about military hardware. It's now testing the relationship between three key players, Washington, Ankara and Jerusalem. Donald Trump appears ready to reopen the door for Turkey to acquire the most advanced aircraft there is, F-35. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued a blunt warning saying this will reshape the entire dynamics of the region. How much will that reshape and whether that will affect Turkey's decision to purchase F-35, this report tells you more. a stealth fighter and a not so stealthy diplomatic showdown. As Donald Trump travelled to Turkey for the NATO summit this week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu made one thing clear, Turkey should not be allowed to get F-35s or even engines for its combat aircraft. He described Turkey's leadership as a regime infected with the Muslim Brotherhood that hates the US and warned that arming Ankara would be a strategic mistake. But Donald Trump appears to see things differently. The US president has signaled that he is open to restoring defence ties with Turkey, including a possible F-35 deal, after years of strained relations over Ankara's purchase of the Russian S-400 air defence system. Some reports suggest the US is expected to send Turkey six F-35 fighter jets as part of an initial transaction. But the deal is contingent on Trump reversing the ban on Ankara's purchase of F-35s. Turkey was removed from the F-35 programme in 2019 over concerns that operating the Russian S-400 alongside the stealth fighter could compromise some of aircraft's sensitive technology. For Israel, the issue goes far beyond one fighter jet. The F-35 is central to Israel's military edge in the region. Americans fear that selling the aircraft to Turkey could alter the balance of power at a time when relations between Ankara and Jerusalem remain deeply strained. The disagreement also exposes a wider divide. Trump is looking to strengthen ties with NATO ally Turkey. On the other hand, Netanyahu wants to preserve Israel's strategic advantage. And caught in the middle is the F-35, an aircraft that has become as much a diplomatic weapon a military one. This NATO summit viewers was making news for all the different reasons as well as this time around members thought that they should in fact skip next year's summit altogether to avoid any more of the headwinds with Donald Trump who in the end of course said all is well. All isn't well as far as the NATO is concerned. F-35 is only just one aspect of a very tense summit that pretty much comes at the very heart of the Western Security Alliance and its architecture and whether it will survive another year of Donald Trump and his unpredictability. Till then, we wrap this up on this edition of Worldlines. Thanks so much for watching.