Matthew Syed

Journalist, broadcaster, table tennis champion.

Back in February, we had the Times writer and former Olympian on to discuss the shockingly-controversial cousin marriage issue and debate the merits and drawbacks of diversity. It was one of our favourite interviews of the year, and we knew then that we had to have a round 2.

Frankly, we didn’t expect to have Matthew back so soon. But with the ever-developing situation in the Middle East and the looming prospect of a hot war between Israel and Iran, we needed an expert to lay it all out. Having written extensively about Islam and the nature of its theocracies, we knew Matthew was up to the task. And the conversation proved even more fascinating - and alarming - than we could have possibly anticipated.

What did we learn?

The last three years of geopolitics have seen their share of nuclear scares. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we braced. On October 7th, we braced. Now, as long-standing tensions between Israel and Iran boil over, we’re bracing again.

Do we have cause to be alarmed? It might sound absurd, but this isn’t the first time we’ve been warned of an all-out war that never comes (or was never even likely). Besides, speaking from Britain, why should war in the Middle East concern us anyway? Matthew explains.

”Even a relatively small nuclear conflict would not be localised. It would lead to a nuclear winter that could kill hundreds of millions. We don’t think enough about that risk.”

That might be true, but does Iran pose a unique threat? Several countries have enough nuclear firepower to wipe out the population of Earth several times over, so why hasn’t it happened? Well, it’s the fundamental principle of ‘peace through strength’: mutually assured destruction. By promising our foes annihilation, we can appeal to the self-preservation instincts of our enemy. You try and wipe us out, we’ll wipe you out - let’s keep our fingers off the buttons entirely.

As Matthew explains, we can’t trust this mechanism now. At least not with Iran. The same rules don’t apply. Why?

”They’re religious fanatics … Anyone who disagrees with them are ‘infidels’, and they glorify martyrdom. They believe that if they take out infidels, they will go to Heaven and be blessed for eternity … It is effectively a death cult. If they got a nuclear weapon, it is likely they would use it. I could envisage an ageing fanatical leader initiating the first strike. [Unlike the Ayatollah], I don’t think that’s true of Vladimir Putin.”

But haven’t we heard this before? As we speak, the Trump coalition is fracturing along these very lines. The hawks argue that Iran presents a threat to America and its regime needs to be overturned to protect American interests. The non-interventionist argument asserts that this line of thinking has ‘justified’ every Middle Eastern war of the last 25 years, and, looking back, none of those seem to have been worth the trouble. Is the West in danger of changing down a path we already know leads to oblivion?