Gregg Carlstrom: Middle East correspondent on the 'escalating' conflict in the Middle East

War in the Middle East is also becoming a war of words - as the conflict enters its second week.

Meanwhile, there's been reports Iran's new Supreme Leader could be chosen within 24 hours.

The Economist's Middle East Correspondent, Gregg Carlstrom, says the narrative of this war is constantly changing - especially from US President Donald Trump.

"A week ago, he was saying he wanted to give Iran back to the people of Iran, he wanted to free the people of Iran. Now he's talking about having a hand in picking the new Supreme Leader of Iran, which sounds rather contradictory." 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News Talks EDB.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
We spoke exactly a week ago, just hours after the
first missile strike. Has this escalated how you expected it might?

Speaker 3 (00:21):
I think it has thus far. I mean we've seen
in Iran, as you would expect, just continued American and
Israeli air strikes for a week. Both sides say they're
working their way through what they claim is a very
long list of targets that this might go on four
or five weeks, focused mostly on Irani and military and

(00:45):
security forces. And then we've seen Iran escalate both horizontally
and vertically in the region, so striking at all six
of the Gulf states, also at other countries which is
a bit unexpected, like Turkey and Azerbaijan, and then over
the past few days increasing its focus on high value

(01:07):
economic targets in the Gulf, so oil refineries, airports, things
like that. The volume of fire from Iran is perhaps
less than it was last Saturday when the war started,
but the focus is on these sorts of very prominent,
very important economic targets.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Trump has posted on his truth social media that Iran
will soon be hit very hard in a streightened to
expand strikes to new targets. He says he wants unconditional
surrender these streets in action. Will that help him get
what he wants?

Speaker 3 (01:38):
Do you think, Well, it depends on what he wants.
I think we've heard ten different justifications for this war,
ten different objectives for this war over the past week.
I mean, just a week ago, he was saying he
wanted to give Iran back to the people of Iran,
he wanted to free the people of Iran. Now he's
talking about having a hand and picking the new Supreme

(01:59):
Leader of Iran, which sounds rather contradictory to what he
said on the first day of the war. I think
this talk about unconditional surrender, I think it reflects a
frustration on the part of the Americans. I think they
went into this believing this might be Venezuela two point zero.
They might be able to find a pliant regime figure

(02:20):
who would take power after the death of the Supreme
Leader and then cut a deal with the United States.
And that hasn't happened. The regime has been very defiant
over the past week, and consequently we've seen Trump's messaging
shift towards this talk of unconditional surrender. But what that means,
what that looks like in practice, we still don't know.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
Obviously, the mixed messaging and the changing narrative is difficult
for the Americans to understand why they're there, But how
confusing is it for those in the Middle East trying
to work out what's going to happen next and what's
going on.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
It's every bit as confusing for people here, and I
think they have two simultaneous concerns right now. One is
that this is going to drag on for a prolonged
period of time and it's going to cause heavy economic
damage in the region. We've seen a week now of
flights being disrupted because of attacks on airport's business being disrupted,

(03:20):
huge ruptures in the energy industry, where oil and gas
companies are having to cut back on production because they
can no longer export energy through the Strait of Horn Moves,
which is essentially shut. So there's a fear that this
is going to drag on. There's also a fear at
the same time that because Trump doesn't seem to know
what he wants, that at some point he might just decide,

(03:42):
you know what we're done, We're leaving, We're going home,
and then countries in the region will be left with
a wounded, hostile regime in Iran. That takes a lesson
from this that, you know, attacking golf countries is a
way to compel America to change its behavior, and they're
going to be quite nervous then about what the future
holds having this sort of government still in power in Tehran.

(04:04):
So those two things might sound at odds with each other,
they might sound contradictory, but I think that reflects how
little input they had into this war in the first place.
They didn't want it to happen in the first place,
and the fact that now that it has started, there's
really no good conclusion to it.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
We are hearing reports that President Trump might be thinking
about putting troops on the ground. Is there any sign
of that happening in the region.

Speaker 3 (04:29):
There's nothing tangible. I mean, if that were to be happening,
you'd think we would start to see lots of American
military flights arriving at bases in the region. You would
see troops in the US or elsewhere getting orders along
those lines. We haven't seen evidence of that. That doesn't
mean that it won't happen at some point, but thus far,

(04:51):
everything that we can see from flight tracking, websites and
other things in the open source in the public domain
suggests that for now this is remaining an aerial campaign.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
How would that be received by the other nations in
the region if that was to happen, I think at.

Speaker 3 (05:07):
This point that would be received quite badly. I mean,
the Iranians would of course see that as an enormous escalation.
I think that might cause them to strike even more
widely at targets in the Gulf. Know, the fear in
the region right now is Aron won't just stop it

(05:27):
at attacking oil and gas infrastructure, that it might begin
to target things like power plants or what are desalination facilities,
the things that are crucial to life in a very,
very inhospitable region. And if the Americans were to make
this a ground war, then presumably the regime would feel
like this was a really existential threat and it would
have to remove any constraints on its behavior and it

(05:50):
might begin striking even harder at the Gulf.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
So we've got to talk about unconditional surrender. We've got
to talk about new leadership, potential regime change. Is that
going to happen? Is that possible Greek?

Speaker 3 (06:04):
I think it depends on what we mean by regime change.
I mean there is a change coming. There's a body
called the Assembly of Experts. It's a council of eighty
eight clerics which has been holding consultations over the past
week about the identity of the new Supreme Leader. We
don't know yet who it's going to be. There's some
talk that it might be Ali Khamani's son, the son

(06:26):
of the previous Supreme Leader, but nothing is confirmed yet.
So there will be a changing of the guard in Tehran.
But what does that mean if it's the son of
the previous leader. By all indications, he is a very
hard line figure, much more hardline than his father was.
He's extremely close to the Revolutionary Guard, which is the

(06:47):
regime's praetorian guard. And so you will have someone taking
power who is every bit is hostile ift not more
hostile to the United States, and aligned with the most
powerful military force in Iran. It's a change, but from
an American perspective, that would not be I think the
sort of change that they were wanted when they embarked

(07:08):
on this.

Speaker 2 (07:10):
Greg You've been reporting from the Middle East for over
a decade. Is this action any different from other action
that we've seen that's taken place in the region, maybe
over the last forty years. That suggests that we could
see substantial change. Will this action bring stability to the
region or new democracies or improve human rights?

Speaker 3 (07:27):
Do you think It's extremely hard to see how it
brings stability to the region. I think the most likely
outcomes here are either again a very hostile regime taking
power in Iran and a hostile leader taking power and
continuing to threaten other countries in the Middle East, or
it's a complete state collapse in Iran, that country tipping

(07:50):
into civil war, insurgency chaos. And so what we saw
in Syria or in Iraq in decades past, imagine that
on a much larger scale in a country of ninety
two million people. That's very bad. It's a very ominous
development for the region. And then the question of democracy,
I mean, no one is really even talking about that

(08:10):
at this point. Trump sort of alluded to it in
his initial statement about the people taking back their country,
but again when he talks now about wanting to choose
a new Supreme Leader for Iran. It doesn't sound like
at all there's any interest in democratic governance or in
a government that is responsive to the demands of Iranians,

(08:31):
responsive to the things that they have been protesting for
for many, many years now. It sounds like Trump just
wants a government in Iran that is responsive to American demands.
And if that is a theocratic government, if that is
an authoritarian military government, he doesn't much care about the
form that it takes.

Speaker 2 (08:50):
Interesting times is probably an understatement, isn't it. At the
moment Greek it is.

Speaker 3 (08:54):
I mean, this is really an unprecedented situation. You think
you've seen it all in this region, but this is
really something else. Greek.

Speaker 2 (09:01):
As always, thank you so much for your time. Much appreciated.

Speaker 1 (09:04):
Thank you for more on the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin.
Listen live to News Talks at B from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.