Sep 18, 2026 · 18 min · 9 segments
UN experts say there are grounds to believe US forces committed war crimes during strikes on Iran, as Donald Trump weighs whether to launch another major escalation or bring the conflict to an end…
Jaymie IckeHost
Now, we've spent a lot of time there, it feels like pretty much since 2001, but it seems to be getting closer to a head, let's say, with what's going on at the moment with Iran.

It's been a bit of a stalemate, there's been a bit of limbo for quite a while now, but it does seem to feel like something's getting closer, good or bad.



And obviously, you probably won't expect anyone to be seeing the Hague, anyone to be seeing the dock in the Hague, because war crimes in the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands is generally only for people who the West want to put out.

So war crimes are something that matters when Putin does them, supposedly, or matters when Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad or Colonel Gaddafi or any of these other leaders commit them, according to Western powers.

But when Tony Blair, when George Bush, when Donald Trump, when Netanyahu, when they commit them, well, doesn't seem to get the same response.

When if a war crime has a definition, then by very definition, whoever does that has committed war crimes and should surely face exactly the same consequences and penalties as the next person.

But unfortunately, we don't live in a world like that, do we? We don't live in a world that is objective.

Most people will see who is doing something before deciding whether they support it or not.

Because if something's wrong, if killing, if maiming, if attacking somebody is wrong, if war is wrong, then surely it's wrong regardless of who is doing it.

We live in a world where from the top down, things are acceptable to some and unacceptable to others.

Now, we've spent a lot of time there, it feels like pretty much since 2001, but it seems to be getting closer to a head, let's say, with what's going on at the moment with Iran.

It's been a bit of a stalemate, there's been a bit of limbo for quite a while now, but it does seem to feel like something's getting closer, good or bad.



And obviously, you probably won't expect anyone to be seeing the Hague, anyone to be seeing the dock in the Hague, because war crimes in the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands is generally only for people who the West want to put out.

So war crimes are something that matters when Putin does them, supposedly, or matters when Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad or Colonel Gaddafi or any of these other leaders commit them, according to Western powers.

But when Tony Blair, when George Bush, when Donald Trump, when Netanyahu, when they commit them, well, doesn't seem to get the same response.

When if a war crime has a definition, then by very definition, whoever does that has committed war crimes and should surely face exactly the same consequences and penalties as the next person.

But unfortunately, we don't live in a world like that, do we? We don't live in a world that is objective.

Most people will see who is doing something before deciding whether they support it or not.

Because if something's wrong, if killing, if maiming, if attacking somebody is wrong, if war is wrong, then surely it's wrong regardless of who is doing it.

We live in a world where from the top down, things are acceptable to some and unacceptable to others.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.