Intelligence Scoop: The Biggest Threats to Britain, Live From MI5
00:03For exclusive interviews, bonus episodes, ad-free listening, early access to series,first look at live show tickets, a weekly newsletter, and discounted books.Join the Declassified Club at the Rest is Classified.com.Are Russia and Iran escalating their attacks on the UK?Could artificial intelligence help terrorists develop deadly bio-weapons?And what really happened at RAF Fairford?Well, welcome to The Rest is Classified.I'm David McCloskey.
00:40And I'm Gordon Carrera.And it has been a very busy few weeks, lots of threats.And Gordon, you are quite literally just out of MI5 headquarters, which I guess begs the question,why did they let you in the first place?There's a good question.But once a year, the head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, does open up MI5 headquarters at Thames Houseon the river in central London to a select group of journalists to give them an overviewof the threats facing the UK does a speech on camera on the record.
01:12Some of the details of what happened inside the building are strictly off the record,although I did get special dispensation to reveal that the pastries were very, very good,a kind of Bisk off croissant.But anyway, that's probably not what people are really interested in.So the MI5 director gives it on the record speech that is also followed by a Q&A time.And you, I understand, Gordon, were one of the lucky journalists who waspermitted to ask a question.Yeah, that's right. And I asked him about Iranian threats to military bases in the UK.
01:43And that's obviously in the wake of this very interesting and mysterious story of what happenedat R.A.F. Fairford, an American airbase in Britain.And for those who haven't followed the story, it is an absolutely kind of wild tale about agroup of men who are arrested outside the base. And then a week later, 12 U.S. B1 bombers that had beenstationed at Fairford and that had been used to conduct strikes against Iran are essentiallyevacuated from the base in a very major hurry.Later in the episode, David, we'll be diving deep into what we know about what reallyhappened there and what the head of MI5 told me about the Iranian threats.
02:24But before that, we're going to look at some of the other threats that MI5 identifiedas facing us, including Russia, and interestingly, a lot about artificial intelligence.But first, a quick word from our sponsors at HP.This episode is brought to you by HP.In intelligence, you quickly learn that you are only as strong as the network around you.It's rarely a single major event that undermines an operation.It's the gaps between systems.That's where information leaks.
02:54It's the same in business.Leaders face a constant battle against strict timelines, mismatch tools,and the worry their security isn't as tight as they think it is.Which is why HP approaches technology, not as a collection of gadgets,but as an integrated system.And crucially, that protection is built in at hardware level.It runs quietly in the background, blocking threats without requiring constant specialist oversight.With the team of business advisors, HP helps businesses of all sizes find technology that fits their needs and budget.
03:29To see how HP helps businesses work securely and productively, visit HP.com forward slash classified.Trick listeners also benefit.from 10% off HP business technology with the code Trick 10.So, Gordon, what is the view from MI5 about the threats facing the UK?So there was certainly a message about the big state threats, as MI5 puts it.The head of MI5 Chemicallum said MI5 was devoting more resources to countering these state threats than during the Cold War.So caselo dealing with these things, which are espionage, sabotage, that kind of.of enemy action. That's quadrupled in the last 10 years, he said. Russia remains aggressor
04:18number one, in his words. Russia remains aggressor number one as Putin's Kremlin continues to lash outat the UK and its allies. Like a number of national leaders have recently highlighted,the Russian military and intelligence services are once again escalating their attempts at hybridwarfare. Basically trying to intimidate and also weaponise division, particularly through socialmedia and information flows. It's interesting. One of the major debates in the UK has been whether or notRussia interfered in the 2016 Brexit referendum. And I believe our counterparts on the rest ofpolitics, Rory and Alistair actually got Prime Minister Andy Burdham to essentially admit that they did.I've asked the question myself coming in to this role because I gave a speech to the UN recently
05:09on this very topic. I don't think we knew back then the extent to which there was state-sponsoredinterference in the British democratic process. But I asked the question coming into Downing Street,well, was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia? And I've had the clear answerthat yes, there was. And these things are important now to put clearly on the record.And I believe help voters in Germany and France understand that some of this politics,is instigated via our enemies, namely Russia.And that caused a bit of a stir, and that was the subject of some of the questions tothe head of MI5.
05:52When he was asked about those comments, the briefing, he said there was little doubtthat Russia had tried to interfere in Brexit back in 2016, the referendum, but he wasmuch more cautious about saying that it had an effect on the result.Now, it's interesting because one of the problems for MI5 is that it was pretty wary of gettinginvolved in politics after that very divisive referendum and of kind of trying to unpick itor be seen to doing so. And the politicians who kind of oversaw MI5, particularly after the referendum,also didn't really want that subject unpicked with people looking at Russian interference.So there wasn't much focus on it. And obviously, we now have a prime minister who is more
06:36focused on getting into a different relationship with Europe and is willing to talk about it in adifferent way. So it was quite interesting and it was quite difficult, I think, for the head ofMI5 to talk about this very divisive political subject. And one of the things he said was,well, look, Russia does try and do this, but we also have to not let them get into our headsand make them out to be more successful and more effective at influencing our politics than theyactually are. The whole aim of hybrid tactics is to try to intimidate us.So let's not fall into that trap.And we need to be kind of resilient to that risk and that danger of Russia trying to divide us.
07:14He probably pointed to the American example of how effectively we dealt with this during the 2016 election, right?Yeah. No fallout. No legacy.Keep Russia out of our heads, you know, and really just a perfect example of how the intelligence services managed to walk that fine line.I mean, it is, in all seriousness, now, it is a very interesting parallel to the 2016.16 case, which we, I mean, we did that series on the pod earlier this year on on Russianinterference in that election, the nature of it and how it quickly became politicized.So, I mean, I guess it does make sense that Sir Ken would be quite reluctant to dip histoes into that, into that pretty nasty.
07:55The morass.Yeah.So, yeah, he talked about Russia.Interestingly enough, we'll come back to Iran later.He talked about even with all these state threats, Chinese espionage, and he talked about,as well, still worry about terrorism, especially, I think, political violence, violence againstpoliticians, also growing extreme right-wing terrorism. I mean, at one point he said that MI5was investigating a radicalized extreme right-wing 13-year-old in the UK. So I think that remains
08:24a focus despite this kind of growth of the state threats. And he also spent a lot of timetalking about artificial intelligence, AI. Yeah, and I thought that was really interesting,because it's been there in speeches in the past, but never quite with the prominence it had at this briefing.And it was talked about in more specific ways rather than a general threat.For instance, the risk that it's turbocharging cyber threats, making it easier to hack into systems.There's the risk it can produce propaganda and radicalizing material tailored specifically to individuals.He also said that they'd seen terrorists seeking to exploit AI to improve reconnaissance.and attack methodologies, and even with AI-enabled drones adding a new twist.
09:10So I think you've got a sense there about some of the ways in which AI is being used tochange the way terrorists can carry out acts.But I thought it was interesting that he said that their biggest worry was artificialintelligence being used to create bio-weapons.Not yet realized, but the misuse case to which I'd attach greatest weight is AI's potentialto change the stakes on existing or even new bio-weapons.These risks are real.So for a long time, they've known that, you know, terrorist groups post-9-11 have wanted to get
09:43hold of chemical and biological weapons, things like that.But it's been pretty hard to get hold of them or to make them without a lab.And the fear is that AI could make it easier to either obtain the know-how of how to make themor even that AI at the next level could be used to engineer new viruses and pathogens,think about a kind of COVID virus made even more deadly.And he said, that is a worry, although he was careful to say, we're not there yet.Well, that's good.Few.
10:13Did he talk about killer robots?He did not specifically talk about killer robots.He did not use that phrase, although he did raise this kind of bigger question,the existential question about whether artificial general intelligence or super intelligence,I think that's what we're now supposed to call it, which is smarter than us,could outthink us. And he said, it's interesting. He said, this is genuinely novel and deservesthe serious attention it's getting, including in MI5, to that kind of threat of the AI taking over.So I guess it means that MI5 researchers are going to spend a lot of time reading what horrific
10:50sort of sci-fi novels, things like that. I mean, what...Nothing wrong with sci-fi novels.No, there's nothing wrong with sci-fi novels. But did you get a sense of what that actually meansinside MI5? What are they actually doing? Well, it was interesting because he was quite specificabout that. He said they've created a new AI threat assessment center. So they've had a terrorismanalysis center for some time, a state threats center for some time. And the new thing,I think, is this AI assessment center where they're going to bring together all the experts.And the idea is that they're going to be able to kind of provide an objective assessment of how
11:25serious that threat was. So I think what you get a sense,from him and talking about AI is at the pace at which some of these threats are changingand growing is worrying to him. And I think that was definitely one sense you got. But there wasone threat which I did ask him about, which was this threat from Iran, including to USmilitary bases in the UK, which relates to this pretty wild story about Fairford.So after the break, let's look deeper into what might have been going on there.The great game, strategic struggle between Britain and Russia.We assess a Prime Minister.
12:19With high confidence, it was Russian.Holding the Russians accountable is World War III.They took down a British passenger jet containing 350 people.Man in the Kremlin is playing, Alex.Got to ask yourself, do you want to play or not?You're the Prime Minister.You've done nothing!We would need to understand the...
12:42policy context. All the relevant context will be structured as a framework todayand disseminated into an operation order or Fragow. A Fragor that says to kill thepresident of Russia. Yes. New from Goalhanger. Who is going to be able to pull this off?You're my soldier are you? Sergeant Tom McDuff, Duffy. An audio drama journey like no other.Men like Duffy they are our most valuable weapons.devised as a technically rigorous geopolitical action thriller.We have two times friendly key.Where Britain plays its strongest hand.
13:20He's the best.Against its strongest foe.Bear Hunt.Available now wherever you get your podcasts.Hello, I'm Marina Hyde, host of the rest is entertainment.And let's face it, if you have heard me on the show, you will know that I am always on.Now, I have tried switching off and not listening to all the news or not watching all the videos on the internet.but unfortunately I just can't.
13:54So why not join me for my new show, titled Always On?It is home to my writing and also my new YouTube show.And each week I'm going to be sublimating all of my thoughts on culture, entertainment, politics, sports, media,into comment across YouTube, substack, marinahide.com and socials.So wherever it feels best to talk about something or to have a laugh about it, most importantly,I will be there.Imagine the bat signal going up.I don't know that we need this new superhero, but we've got it.
14:24You can subscribe now by searching Always On With Marina Hyde on Google.Always on YouTube, always on marinahide.com, always on with me, Marina Hyde.Never off, never off.Well, welcome back.We're not focusing on extinction level threats and killer robots.So let's go to Iran instead, Gordon, and what it's up to, including targeting U.S. bases in the UK.Yeah, it was interesting. So amidst these state threats, the head of MI5 said specifically when it came to Iran, there'd been more than 50 arrests linked to Iranian activity in the UK in the last year, things like targeting Iranian dissidents, Jewish communities in the UK, violence, arson, these kind of activities, which we've known about for some time, to be fair. But the shift that he specifically mentioned was Iran's ambitions to strike harder targets, including military targets.The other major shift this year has been a reigning ambition to come at harder targets like military sites.
15:31And I think that brings us to this story of RAFAF, doesn't it?Yeah, it does. And that is a, it's a U.S. airbase in, do I have the pronunciation right here, Gordon?Gloucestershire. Is that Gloucestershire? The Cotswolds.The Cotswolds. Yes, vacation choice of none other than J.D. Vance.And it is a U.S. air base that dates back to the Second World War.Believe it was it was created in 1944 in advance of D-Day, as home for gliders launched into France on D-Day.So it is a very old U.S. base in England.So just to kind of go back, I think, because the story itself of what actually happened there is quite fascinating.
16:16So what walk us back, Gordon, to how this all started.So it starts on the early hours of Sunday, September the 27th.And we wake up that Sunday morning with police having declared a major incident just outside the base.They have evacuated 85 houses.Three white vans have been stopped.Five people have been arrested.And the bomb disposal teams are searching those vans.So it suddenly looks like this is, if you like, a major plot.
16:45That's what everyone thinks.But then the mysteries and oddities start to this.And pretty quickly it becomes murkier.So, for instance, how did the police get on to these people?So a local farmer talks to the media the next day.And she's remained anonymous, but she says she's returning home from a party in the early hours of Sunday morning,which I thought farmers have to get up early in the morning to do the farming stuff.I don't know much about farming.
17:11Yeah.Are farmers partying in the Cotswolds until the wee hours?After midnight.Yeah.Anyway, but we shouldn't object to people going out. It's fine. But she comes back early hours of the Sunday morning. She sees a driveway blocked. And she says she sees 8 to 10 people in masks running and that she tries to call the Ministry of Defense Police who look after the base, no answer. And then at 1.36 a.m. on this Sunday morning, she calls the police on 999, the emergency number. And she will say she thinks she foiled the attack and she was the one who tipped off the police to what was happening to these.men who were arrested. But then it starts again to get a bit more complicated because thatdoesn't quite fit with the timeline of the police statement, which then comes out.Because they say they'd been called before that at 12.45 a.m. And then it turns out,
18:04eventually, that they were called by one of the five men inside the vans, which is kind of weird.And we might come back to what's going on there. But that already kind of makes you go,this is odd. And it looks like the farmer, she'd actually possibly seen the undercover policewho'd arrived in the area, who were kind of masked and on the move and trying to deal withwhatever situation was ongoing, rather than necessarily the men who'd been arrested.That's not entirely clear. Then the next thing that's weird happens is that the following day,the men are released on bail, but still under investigation. And now that's really unusualif they posed a major threat. Two more people since then have also been arrested.
18:46rested. But it becomes pretty clear that no explosives have been found. There were no bombs in thevans, just some cans of petrol. So everyone goes, well, what was all that about? Maybe not somuch of a threat. I mean, when the story broke, we were actually messaging each other, you know,to try to figure out if we would, if we would cover the story on the day up. It just kept gettingweirder and weirder. And it was like the layers to the story kept piling up and so you couldn'tquite get to the bottom of it. We also had, I mean, to add one more layer, there were those strangecomments that Donald Trump made on the day of the arrests where he basically said, you know,that we'd been watching these guys for a while. I think he did this from a runway somewhere
19:31as he's getting off Air Force One and that the Brits had done an amazing job. So it suggestedstrangely that there was some measure of foreknowledge, that there was an attack in the works or thatthere had been a plot. And so that causes even more confusion. Yeah, because it didn't quitefit with the idea that the men had only been arrested when there'd been a call into the emergencyservices, into the police, and that had tipped them off. And in this case, it turns out by the men,one of the men himself. So that didn't kind of fit with the Trump comments. Now, it was,it was fair to say the immediate suspicion was Iran or that Iran might have been involved. Thatwas all the speculation, because it is a base that since March has been used for American bombers
20:14to go off and carry out attacks on Iran. I mean, Britain additionally resisted allowing basesto be used to attack Iran, and it then turned into allowing bases to be used for what are calleddefensive strikes. Defensive bombing.Which I think most people would think is a slightly odd legalistic term.that was used by the British government to get around the fact that they really annoyed President Trumpby saying they can't use the bases for offensive missions.Wasn't the idea that the strikes from British soil would be against missile and drone production facilities?There was a logic to it.
20:54Yeah, there was some legalistic division of kind of targets the US could strike from British soiland what was considered an offensive bobbing run.I also like that, I mean, so after this happens, the Iranians, of course, start threatening the UK and say that, you know, bases on British soil that are being used in these bombing runs are legitimate targets. They make veiled threats against, I like this term, the British monarchy regime. What American couldn't oppose, you know, resistance to the British monarchy regime, it's in our blood. But the threats, I mean, we should say the threats are very vague. They're non-specific. It's just kind of this general threat.against the UK in response to the UK letting the US conduct strikes from British soil.And so we're in this kind of messy period a couple of days after the arrests where the men arebeing released. It's not really clear what's happening. And then a week after, something reallysurprising happens, doesn't it? Because the US then pulls out these bombers. And it pulls aboutvery quickly to the point where I believe some of the plans and flight crews actually left
22:04while there were aerial refueling aircraft still being deployed to support their flight.So they fly these 12 B1 bombers back, I believe, to South Dakota to just, I mean, get them entirely out of the UK and out of Europe.And then there's additional confusion because Vice President J.D. Vance implies publicly that the bombers are withdrawn due to a threat, which would make sense, given how quickly they're evacuated.But then Marco Rubio says, well, this is kind of a routine reallocation of resources.And it is true that there are these kind of bomber deployments that move around quite frequently.I mean, the Air Force will send small groups of bombers to allied air bases for a few weeks at a time.They're called Bomber Task Force deployments.So there is a kind of, if you put aside the weirdness of all the guys being arrested, you know, outside of the base of the vans,
23:03There's on the face of it, some logic, I think, to Rubio's statements.But again, we have the arrest at the vans.We have Donald Trump's weird statements about how we've been watching these guys for a while.So, I mean, it raises this question, I think, of, you know, what was the plot?And was the plot, which I think it was, was the plot connected to the very speedy evacuation of these bombers from the base.Yeah, I mean, it becomes clear that security had been raised at the base in the run-up to the arrests of the guy in the van. So people seem to have known that something was up. You know, local people had talked about seeing increased signs of security. So all of that suggests that there was intelligence about a plot to strike the base in some ways. The report suggests that maybe mid-September this intelligence comes in, possibly from Israel.of a plan to strike US bases, including Fairford, although also maybe some in Germany,including Ramstein, one of the big bases.
24:10And it looks like there's no concrete details of what this might be.Now, I don't know what you think, but my guess is that this is perhaps intercepts or agentreporting from inside Iran where there's some kind of chatter going, you know, let's hitthese, let's hit U.S. bases in Europe.Let's try and strike them.but it's pretty nonspecific.And that is leading in the run-up to the arrest to that increased securityand the general kind of atmosphere of something's going on.
24:40And perhaps even explains Donald Trump's comments that, you know,we'd been watching them for watching something of concern for a while.But it's hard then to understand what leads to the sudden withdrawal then afterwards,isn't it?And how specific it was.You could just explain the withdrawal by the fact that these B1,I mean, each of them, so there are only 100 B-1 bombers that were built between, I think, the late 80s and the mid to late 90s.The cost of each of those aircraft in $1998, which is the source that the U.S. Air Force cites for the cost is $283 million, which today is somewhere between $500 and $550 million.
25:24So these are half-billion dollar aircraft.There's only $100.If you have 12 of them there, you're talking about over $5 billion of equipment.Yeah.And even if you have a non-specific threat, it probably makes sense to just remove them.The ability to defend the base is actually pretty limited.In some ways, it does make sense that you could have non-specific threat reporting.if you think it's credible, you know, it makes sense to remove the bombers quickly because
26:02you're talking about potentially hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of damage if thereactually is an attack.And I think in one theory that has emerged is that there was a kind of complicated Iranian plotunderfoot to strike the aircraft, to kill American personnel on the base, and that maybeit was going to look like Ukraine's Operation Spider-Web, which was.this amazing, you know, Ukrainian attack in June of 2025, where they had more than 100 dronesthat are smuggled in trucks into Russia and it launched near a Russian base to destroy their longrange bombers. So if that's a template, I think the withdrawal makes sense. I mean, what do you
26:44think? Yeah, no. I mean, if that's what you're worried about, that is something that would bevery serious. I mean, that Ukrainian operation destroyed or damaged about a dozen aircraft on therunway, including some of Russia's very advanced bombers of which they don't have very many,and which they thought were a long way away from Ukraine and therefore safe and that they weren't.So I think that seems to have been some of the report, or that possibility.I mean, it's interesting because since there is still some more information.I mean, on Monday of this week, Britain's Prime Minister, Andy Burnham said it was highly likelythat whatever happened was coordinated in Iran, directed by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
27:21He also suggested that the UK would crack down on the use of criminal networks as proxies.And we've seen this use of criminal networks and proxies.But in the past to carry out arson attacks.So for instance, we've seen attacks on Jewish ambulances in London, but those were peoplebasically being paid to do it.We also had an interesting incident where a proxy group claimed that the Israeli embassy in Londonwould be attacked by drones carrying dangerous substances.Now, they actually found some jars of powder nearby, but it turns out they weren't actually hazardous.
28:00So you suddenly also get a picture there of, well, if the model so far has been using criminal proxies, that is not necessarily that advanced.And where you have a threat even against the Israeli embassy, it turns out to be almost more of a stunt than a real threat.So you then have this kind of slight mismatch, I think, between this really advanced talk of a plot,spiders web with, you know, drones, explosive drones coming out of lorries and being able toblow up aircraft. And the kind of five guys who've been arrested, but we should say haven'tbeen charged anyway, who look more like low-level criminals or, you know, one of the thingsis you end up with this dissonance, you know, were they a distraction, a test of security,did they not know what they were doing? And is that why one of them then calls the police
28:46during the raid? Or was it part of something bigger? Or was it a stunt? I mean, or wasWas it nothing?I mean, it's very, very hard to say, isn't it?What's your view?I mean, how do you marry up this?Because you kind of have, you have these bizarre facts of you have a phone call from one of these guysfrom inside the van.You have the arrest.
29:08You have the fact that they don't have explosives in the van.They don't have drones in the van.And then you have their release a day later.I mean, so it feels like if there was intelligence implicates, it's.these guys directly in an Iranian plot that they wouldn't have been released, right?So, I mean, how do you square this information?Well, unless they were unwitting or not realizing what they were doing or thought they were doing somethingmuch more low level or like a stunt, maybe making a small fire.
29:44But it certainly is no...That wouldn't be enough to hold them in a UK context.if you imagine, hypothetically, you've got a bunch of guys driving around with petrol in their van near a US base.I mean, in itself, that's not criminal unless you can prove intent to do something.I think that's one of the problems.If you have explosives, if someone have explosives, it's much easier to kind of charge and entertain them.But some petrol in a can, you know, what's that?So I think, you know, there is a limit to what we can say, and the police investigation is underway, but there might be further updates on it.
30:13So I think we have to kind of slightly to put one side those men and what they were doing.ask more seriously, what else might have been going on? Was there some other intelligenceof a potential plot?And I guess it would be plausible. And again, this is speculation, that as soon as one of theseguys realized where they were and they're outside a U.S. air base, maybe he was unwittingof who ultimately had tasked them to do something or to drive around and then he realizeswhere they are and decides to essentially rat himself in the group out because he doesn't wantit to go any further. But again, I mean, that's speculation. I mean, you put the question, though,
30:59to Sir Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, right? To be, what did he say?Understanding that he can't comment that much about Fairford specifically, because that's underpolice investigation, my question to him was, does Iran have the capability to launch a complexdrone attack, like the Operation Spider's Web, one by Ukraine, using those kind of explosive drones,because that would be different from using disposable agents, criminals for hire,the kind of thing we've seen Iran do in the past.And his answer was interesting, because I could see him being careful in his choice of words.He said Iran was principally using hired criminals to do their bidding.
31:38And the reality was that the level of capability then to carry out areally sophisticated drone attack like Spider's Web would not be possible with that group.Now, he said that if you look in the Middle East, Iran's Revolutionary Guards have shown morecapability of mounting complex attacks, which are more dangerous, more sophisticated.So he said he'd be foolish to be in his position and say they could never do it in the UK.But it certainly felt like he was saying he hadn't seen that kind of capability of launchingthat kind of sophisticated drone attack in the UK so far. So in other words, something you might worryabout, but not that they'd seen evidence of a really, really high-end capability by Iran to do that
32:26kind of thing. And I thought that was interesting because to me it tells you that maybe there'stalk in Iran, which is being picked up by intelligence agencies, maybe Israel, maybe the Americans,saying, we want to attack UK bases, we want to do a big attack, let's plan something big. But by thetime you get to what's actually happening in the UK, you've got either nothing or you've gotfive guys in a van with some petrol doing something much smaller, which isn't to say therecouldn't be plans for something bigger as well. But it's a murky picture, I think, isn't it?I guess it could be factually true that MI5 doesn't yet see the capability to do this in the UK.And yet at the same time, I think about the spider web example where my understanding is that
33:09the truck drivers in that case didn't actually know what was in the trucks and that those droneswere flown, I believe, via some sort of satellite uplink from Ukraine, if I'm not mistaken.I mean, correct me if I'm wrong there. But it does suggest that, and I believe the Russians,obviously, given the fact that that attack by the Ukrainians was successful, the Russiansobviously underestimated Ukraine's capabilities.I mean, we're talking about, I believe the base that was struck in that case was well eastof Moscow, right?Yeah, it's really remote.
33:46It's like you can have this case where the Internal Security Service, MI5, says, well,we don't see this capability yet.And yet the sort of the things that you need to kind of pull an attack like this off,it's not a particularly high bar.No.The counterpoint here is I think that the Western and in particular Israeli signals intelligence coverage of Iran and the IRGC is extremely potent.And it's probably much harder for the Iranians to pull something like this off without Western intelligence or the Israelis actually seeing it.No, which appears to be what they did.
34:27I mean, I do think it would probably be harder to get.the explosives and the drones into the UK, if you were the Iranians, that's right.That's right. That it was for the Ukrainians to get it into Russia over a land border.So I still think it's harder. But I guess what MI5 are saying is we can't not worry about this,but it's not what we've seen so far. But what I think so interesting about this as a case isno one's been charged yet. So those men might be entirely innocent. So put that aside,you've still got the fact that a dozen U.S. bombers have left their base, and it looks like they've been forced to do so by an Iranian threat.I mean, it feels to me that is almost the most significant thing, is the fact it's had an effect by even the possibility of this threat.
35:18And as you were saying before, it's partly the fact that we're learning, aren't we, that bases, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, but also maybe.in the UK are not as safe as people thought they were.Yeah.I mean, you're absolutely right.I mean, in many ways, it's an Iranian win, even if they did nothing, right?Even if there wasn't a, I guess, a credible or active plot with a whole bunch of disposableagents and, you know, trucks and drones and explosives that are already in the UK.I mean, the B-1s are back in South Dakota.
35:57It makes us look weak.It creates a bit of a strain on US-U-K relations,because in some ways, the withdrawal suggests that we don't trust you to defend the base.And I don't think this will have a particularly strategic implication on the conflict,but it also means that the logistical pipeline for those bombers to then,at least in the near term, for those bombers,to actually reach Iran is much longer, right?It's a more complicated thing now to actually conduct any runs, you know, with those B-1.
36:34So you're right.I mean, in many ways, you know, this is an Iranian win without firing a shot.I mean, I think it also, one of the major implications of it, you know, and to this point,we could talk extensively about what's been going on to the Middle East since the beginningof Operation Epic Fury is it does highlight this kind of on-border.going and persistent threat to U.S. bases, doesn't it? Because this is not just a UK story. I mean,this is almost an example in the UK of what we've already seen over the last eight monthsin the Middle East, isn't it? Iran, since the start of this conflict, deliberately target
37:10U.S. bases across the Middle East. I mean, multiple bases. And one of the interesting things is,I mean, we actually don't have that many details of what's been hit because the U.S. Department ofdefense-stroke war has been pretty sparse with its details. And so, of course, have been the hostingcountries. But we do know a lot of them have been hit. I mean, mainly not by drones, or thosedrones in some cases, often by ballistic missiles, but very specifically targeting U.S. basesto effectively drive the U.S. out of those bases. And quite a few, we think, have been renderedinoperable effectively, haven't they? Famously, we had the drone strike against the U.S.embassy at Riyadh, right, which actually hit the CIA station there, although I think.
37:52I think it's still unclear if the Arradiens were actually targeting the floor of the embassy that had the station or if they just got lucky.I mean, 18, I believe, U.S. service people have been killed by Aradian drones and ballistic missiles, the very significant number of, you know, civilian and military casualties.And, you know, I mean, it's interesting because going to your point on the Department of Defense slash wars kind of unwilling.to share details of this, because obviously it's not a good look for us.There was an estimate done, I mean, this is now a dated estimate from the spring,but there was an estimate done by the American Enterprise Institute that estimated that thecost of repairing damage to 11 bases or installations that had been hit in the regionacross, I think, seven countries was about $5 billion.
38:45And some of these are so badly damaged that it probably doesn't make sense to actuallyrebuild them. And so in some ways, Fairford is this kind of example of the Iranians kind ofpushing the U.S. footprint away from Iran throughout the conflict. I think, you know, an example ofthis earlier the conflict was the sort of push of the logistical chain eastward to Diego Garcia,right? Yeah.Out of the region. And Fairford is this kind of interesting example on the western flankwhere an Iranian threat pushes the U.S., at least temporarily, out of a base.of the UK and moves the bombers westward into the continental United States. So there's this
39:26kind of this story that has been percolating throughout the conflict, but rarely makes headlinesthat the U.S. footprint in the region, which, I mean, if you look at a map of the region andhow many bases and installations we have, it's probably more than any American would actuallysuspect. But many of these have been significantly damaged. We've had to sort of push the footprintout and away from Iran response to the fact that we can't stop these drones and ballisticmissile strikes. Yeah, and it's interesting, isn't it? Because it also raises a question forcountries hosting U.S. bases, particularly under the Trump administration, does hosting U.S.base bring you security, or does it bring you risk because you're going to be targeted because
40:05of that? And I think that is a kind of different equation for Gulf states, one that they'd nothad to think about in the past. And I mean, it would be very complicated for the UK. So it is clear,you know, this is a Iranian strategy to target these bases. I guess what's also interesting when youkind of look at Fairford, particularly, and the potential threat.So we say we don't know exactly what it looked like.It is hard to stop these drones, these drones, aren't they?You're looking at a base with a big perimeter within a civilian area where people can moveand drive around.
40:36It is quite hard in the new world of drones to be able to kind of defend against theuse of drones in that context.You know, it's different from the ballistic missiles and Iran might be sending.But even in Fairford, it's hard in the UK.Yeah, well, I think in Fairford, I mean, if you don't, if you don't have intelligence on the individual humans who are involved in the plot, or, you know, you don't have the plate numbers for the trucks that they might be using, you don't have an address.It seems like we have none of this at this point.If you think about what you have to do to defend an installation from, we're not talking about a drone or ballistic missile that's going to be.fired from outside the UK.
41:21In this case, we're talking about a kind of a drone, a small, probably commerciallyavailable drone that could be launched from somewhere around Fairford, laden with explosives,hit a B1 and do significant damage.The circle you have to draw around the base and the area you have to cover from a policingor internal security perspective is really large.And I think that's probably why you saw the evacuation of the bomber.is because there actually isn't a way for the UK to guarantee their security.So I think the best example of that is the Leipzig attack, which we talked about a few weeks ago,
41:58where you had a small, effectively a commercial drone, a quadcopter drone,with some explosive attached to it, which flew into, in that case, a cargo plane and didn't explode.But it was being locally controlled.It wasn't particularly high tech.It didn't require a lot of people.It required two people, it sounds like, were involved in that plot, which is a Russian plot.But you imagine trying to defend against that at a big base like Fairfoot where you've got these very expensive bombers.I mean, that is hard.
42:26I mean, it is really, really hard to defend against.And it is a kind of new threat, isn't it?It's a new worry about the vulnerability of these bases to that kind of specific threat.Yeah, and it's going to be an ongoing problem because the offense is much cheaper than the defense.You know, it's not a one-to-one comparison, but when you look at how expensive it has been for a Gulf country,to try to defend themselves against Iranian drone and ballistic missile strikes.I mean, it's absurd.You know, I mean, there's their estimates to suggest that the UAE, for example,
42:58spent at least $10 shooting down drones for every $1.1 spent on them.And I think the same economics apply, even at a slightly different case, inside the UK,where if you're using networks of disposable agents, if you're using cheap drones,if you're using explosives that are smuggled in and are not particularly complex,the offense is much cheaper than the defense. And you only have to, the defense has to be perfect.Yeah. The offense just has to get through once or twice to create, you know, a massive geopoliticalincident or to destroy a bunch of, you know, very expensive military hardware or to kill people.And it also makes me think I've been, you know, so there's this, there's this bigger implication
43:39about the security of U.S. bases, not just in the region, but in the U.K. And it makes me think also,Also, if you kind of tie it back to MI5 director's remarks, of what does this drone threat look like when you pair it up with artificial intelligence?One of the major threats that Ken McCallum is talking about in the remarks you heard this morning.Yeah, that's right.Because, I mean, one of the things we've seen already in the Ukraine-Russia conflict is that they are using artificial intelligence to basically allow the drones to fly semi-autonomously.So you might have electronic warfare jamming to try and jam the radio frequencies or stop a drone hitting a target.And that's one of the ways they try and protect places.But with AI, you can basically leave it to fly more autonomously and find its way or find a right target.
44:29You've got a quite scary future.It's not quite killer robots, but it is kind of AI-controlled drone swarms launched from somewhere, maybe a large number of drones.That sounds like killer robots.That sounds like more words to describe killer robots, Gordon.Yeah, it's not quite terminated, but it's kind of close.This has the potential to change military basing strategy, do you think?I mean, to be significant.Is that what we're seeing now, the start of?
44:53I mean, I think so.And again, I think the Petri dish for all of this is Ukraine, where you've seen, you know,the Ukrainians kind of moving to a strategy where they've got more dispersed bases, hardened bases,bunkers, smaller installations, right?It's having these kind of large, vulnerable bases is looking in,increasingly antiquated, I think.You know, and when you, you know, to kind of, I guess,peel out a bit of what what the actual AI plus drones threat is.
45:26I mean, it raises the prospect that, you know, to your point,you have more drones attacking all at once because they're autonomous or semi-autonomous.So there was a very interesting demonstration done in China earlier this yearwhere they actually televised a soldier who's actually supervising,I think more than a couple hundred autonomous drones, right?So you don't have, it's not one person fly, one drought.It's one person more or less in control or sort of directing hundreds of these things.So you have more drones.
45:56If they're sort of AI powered in thinking about the right attack vector, how you swarm effectively a target,you have more effective attacks, right, on that target, a base or whatever it might be.And it means that people can't keep up.How do you defend against that using, you know, even the existing technology that we have on,and put aside the kind of surface to air interceptors, but, you know, the Ukrainians are using droneinterceptors. I mean, how do you keep up with this? And the drones to that cost point, it's like a droneswarm is not, they're not using drones that cost millions of dollars, using drones that cost hundreds ofdollars. So we're sort of looking into this world. And I think Fairfrey's a good example of why this,
46:41why you get the B-1s out so quickly is because if you're facing the prospect of many dronescoming from somewhere you didn't anticipate, your ability to sort of defend against it from acost standpoint, to defend against it from a saturation standpoint, to jam the radio frequenciesof those drones, all sort of, you know, gets called into question. And we're like not quite thereyet, but that's where we're headed, which is, you know, I think quite, quite frightening.it is pretty frightening. And, you know, we don't know exactly what was planned at Fairford. We don'tknow exactly what the intelligence was and how firm it was and how clear it was about a plot.But the fact there was even the possibility of something which was enough to drive those bombers
47:27out, I think, you know, tells you a lot about this new world of drones, of AI and of threats,you know, that Ken McCallum was talking about. So I think that is a pretty interesting case study,really fairfoot of this, you know, the new world of transnational threats that we're facingand of how states can, you know, even when Iran is on the back foot, it can still find new waysof using technology to project risk, you know, even in to Gostasher. So I think that's a goodplace to leave it, David, in Gloucestershire. Listen out next week, next Monday for thepenultimate episode of our series on Kim Filby. He's reaching his end, isn't he, David?Killer robots, you know, makes Kim Filby look like sort of a, you know, a very quaint sort of threat, doesn't in corner?
48:16Those are the days.We've also got this series coming up soon, which is going to be terrific on the CIA Watergate.And don't forget, if you're a club member, you can hear some great bonus material related to Kim Filby,including a very interesting interview with Paul Greengrass, the film director of the Bourne films,talking about mole hunts and the legacy of Filby.So do sign up for the club, but the rest is classified.com for that.but otherwise we'll be back with more news as and when it happens and we'll see you next timewe'll see you next time
There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click any sentence in the transcript to leave one.