What do you think we should make of the CIA director's recent visit to Moscow? Do you believe Putin could be genuinely considering an attack on a NATO country? We discussed it a little bit in the main episode, but I think it's worth talking about again because it's very unusual to send the spy chief You know, it means, as some have said, that actually diplomacy has failed and now emergency interventions are being made.

So a couple of things on that one.

It's a really, really good question, Ben.

And I think, first of all, I was deeply alarmed when I read this because there was a similar visit by the then head of the CIA to Moscow just before the full scale Ukraine invasion at the end of 2021.

And that didn't go so well.

And we know from that particular visit that the then head of the CIA basically warned the Kremlin, you know, don't go any further.

You know, we've got intelligence.

Sure.

Remind everybody his name, his job, and why this matters so much right now.

OK, so Dan Driscoll was the secretary of the army.

So he's the civilian.

He was also in the military before, but he's not a general.

He's the civilian in charge of the world's biggest army or certainly the most important army, which is the American army.

Roughly one million men and women.

Now, he has had and he's young.

And did well.

How accurate is that in your summation? Good morning.

Good morning, Nick.

Well, it's sort of accurate.

I mean, the trouble is that he's obviously also the commander-in-chief and he's able to push the button on any number of airstrikes, which is what happened in the last two nights in retaliation to what the Iranians did to their ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

But as he delivers actions, he keeps delivering commentary.

He's incontinent with commentary, which is not very helpful, especially when a lot of that commentary is either incredibly insulting.

I mean, to call a civilization, a country, scum and the devil while they're bearing the supreme leader that you have killed in an airstrike a few months ago is not a very good idea, especially when it's a proud civilization.

What do you imagine will be the reaction as the world watches on to the fact that Trump is so desperately out of control? And what are people saying at home, his voter base in the US?

-as they did at the time?

It might be more wishful thinking than wisdom.

I think we're not back to the worst days of March.

That was more intense.

But I think we are being reminded by both sides firing at each other, and the Israelis now saying that they might get involved, that this was always unfinished business, that the memorandum of understanding was only ever there to create a ceasefire, and then there would be substantive talks about the big issues like, you know, nuclear programs, ballistic missiles, Iran's spread across the region.

None of these things have been addressed, and meanwhile, both countries, both the US and Iran, are in, in a kind of, or at least their governments, are in a high-pitched state of both excitement and anxiety.

And, you know, a lot of it, of course, on the American side is down to how, you know, to, to Donald Trump's humors.

Uh, I mean, if people are trying to read the public statements as to some indication for where the diplomatic path might lie, they'd need a degree in semantics rather than international relations.

Why do you suppose that might be, Matt? Good morning.

Good morning, Nick.

Isn't it ironic that 10 years after we voted to leave the European Union, we're becoming much more like one of its member states? Actually, we're not like Italy.

Italy is far more stable than we are.

Italy has had four prime ministers in the last 16 years.

We're about to have seven in the last 10 years.

Giorgio Maloney, who's still the prime minister, has managed to rule for a whopping four years.

How would you respond to that?

What, what are the implications of that in your view?

Well, they're saying that it's not, uh, quite as dramatic a change as some people suggest, because they're still saying that those bases can only be used by the Americans in order to defend the Straits of Hormuz or to, to take on Iranian targets, uh, that are trying to, you know, attack the allies in the Gulf or shut down those straits, blockade those straits for the pass-- the passage of oil for good.

I mean, that's a, it's a slightly spurious and very thin legal line, which I think the Americans may cross in a whole range of ways.

But I think it's inevitable in a sense that the Prime Minister has got himself into this position.

I think it's not a bad position that he took, because remember, even though we were once upon a time, you know, long ago, three weeks maybe, uh, ago, we were America's closest allies, we were not consulted about this war, nor were America's allies in the Gulf, nor was Congress, nor the American public, nor the British public.

So I think it's quite understandable that this Prime Minister or any Prime Minister from whichever political party should be very cautious about jumping headlong into this adventure with the United States.

But what started as a war of choice for the Americans has become a war of necessity because Iran has shown that in its own asymmetrical way, even with its depleted-A stock of missiles.

Wh- when you, when you sort of walk around the streets and talk to ordinary Israelis, what, what, w- what's the atmosphere like? Are, are they sort of fee- starting to feel slightly cowed with this sort of deluge of missiles and drone attacks o- over the last few weeks, or is the resilience still there?