In a lively discussion, three experts examined the US and Israeli attacks, touching on everything from the historical context and motivations to the political implications
A former CIA operative has delivered a blunt one-word assessment on whether the Iran conflict could trigger full-scale nuclear war. In devastating scenes that have unfolded since Saturday, February 28, as part of Operation Epic Fury, the US and Israel have launched strikes against the Middle Eastern nation of Iran in attempts to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
The attacks resulted in the deaths of military officials and most significantly, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime’s supreme leader, who was killed at his compound in the Iranian capital of Tehran; Iran has subsequently unleashed widespread retaliatory strikes across the Gulf.
As the globe grapples with the conflict, Steven Bartlett convened with former CIA operative Andrew Bustamante, nuclear war expert Annie Jacobsen, and global affairs analyst Benjamin Radd for an “emergency roundtable” episode of The Diary Of A CEO.
In what turned out to be an animated discussion lasting more than two hours, the specialists examined the attacks, exploring everything from the historical background and motivations to the political ramifications.
It’s hardly unexpected that the conversation eventually shifted to whether these strikes might spark a wider conflict, or even, in the bleakest scenario, nuclear war.
Steven questioned the panel about whether they thought the world is now “closer” to a nuclear war following the recent attacks.
Andrew stated: “One hundred percent. And I’ve got, like, there’s proof of that all over the headlines today because France is deploying air-launch nuclear warheads. Air-launched nuclear warheads. That means small warheads that fit on the ends of airplane rockets.”
“They’re deploying them all over Europe. That means France is now taking its nuclear arsenal and spreading it across its European allies. The more nuclear proliferation, the more risk of nuclear war.”
Annie countered that this had “nothing to do with Iran”, as Benjamin drew attention to the conflict in Ukraine, but Andrew suggested there might be more to France’s recent actions than meets the eye, claiming it occurred “two days after Iran”.
She elaborated on her point, asserting that the threat of nuclear war originates from the war in Ukraine and “comes from Russia”, as we have a superpower president who has actually “threatened the use” of such weapons.
Annie contended that Iran doesn’t possess a nuclear weapon, so it’s therefore “not a nuclear threat”, but Andrew, who previously worked in nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) operations, said he and Annie speak a “different nuclear language”.
He declared: “Russia is launching intercontinental ballistic missiles that can’t be intercepted. It’s got the Oreshnik. What the hell is it going to be afraid of? A warhead on the tip of an airplane. It’s not. That’s a tactical nuke. That’s a battlefield nuke.”
Annie asked Andrew what his point was, to which he replied: “My point is that the deployment of a nuclear weapon is nuclear war.” She noted that Andrew was referring to the “manoeuvring” of weaponry, but Andrew argued that this is the “definition of a deployment”.
