 Since the crisis in Gaza erupted amid a Palestinian counter offensive, the reactions from purportedly Western rule-respecting democracies have sparked global shock due to their glaring hypocrisy. As Israel commenced its bombing campaign in the Palestinian enclave, the West conspicuously overlooked the plight of innocent civilians ensnared in the conflict. Others indiscriminately struck homes, schools and UN shelters, while starvation was wielded as a weapon of war, yet the West remained indifferent to these atrocities. Notably the West even furnished the Israeli regime with munitions, essentially contributing to the transformation of Gaza into a wasteland. Such behavior was particularly jarring. This inconsistency was further underscored by the West's tacit endorsement of Israel's allowing it, carte blanche, to suppress Palestinians for the foreseeable future. Led by the United States, the West repeatedly exercised its veto power to thwart UN Security Council attempts to hold Israel accountable and prevent further harm to innocent Palestinians. However, what truly astonished independent observers was the recent characterization of Iranian retaliatory measures following the deaths of seven of its top generals in Damascus, purportedly due to an Israeli warplane operation from the occupied Golan Heights. Now the West is dubbing this evident act of self-defense as an attack on Israel with media narratives attempting to portray Iran as instigating a major regional conflict in the Middle East, conveniently overlooking Israel's initial aggression. One hypocrisy was laid bare when David Cameron faced pointed inquiries. Through various interviews it became evident that Western attempts to obfuscate their lies and double standards had crumbled before a global audience. The West's conduct, in contradiction to its professed values of upholding a rule-based international order, democracy and non-aggression, has become increasingly shameful and embarrassing. The façade of moral superiority once projected by the West has been eroded by events in the Middle East, leaving it exposed to scrutiny. The destruction of a foreign embassy constitutes an act of aggression against the host country. Yet the West, purportedly committed to a rule-based international order, failed to condemn this act or hold Israel accountable, instead opting to escalate military support. In the eyes of the world, the West is unraveling, unable to maintain the moral high ground it once claimed over its adversaries. David Cameron's deceptive response regarding the consequences of an embassy attack only serves to highlight the depths of this hypocrisy. I totally understand those in Israel who want to see more, but I think this is a time to think with head as well as heart and to be smart as well as tough. I think the smart thing to do is actually to recognise that Iran's attack was a failure. And we want to keep the focus on that, on Iran's malign influence and actually pivot to looking at what's happening in Gaza and getting those hostages released, including of course the British nationals who have been there over six months. The US has reaffirmed its ironclad commitment to Israel. How far does the UK's commitment go? We are a supporter of Israel and a supporter of Israel's right to self-defense. Our role in the military operations, as it were, was very much to backfill for the United States in the operation we do jointly together against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. So we provided planes to do that so the Americans could do more over the skies of Israel. But at the same time, we said that, look, if there are drones coming from that region into all missiles, into Israel, we'll shoot them down and that's what our very skilled pilots did. And we'll do that again? If there was another Iran attack, Iran has said they're not going to attack again and after the failure of their attack, I'm not surprised, but absolutely, we'll always keep these things under review. We're trying to avoid escalation and the action we took alongside the Americans and others clearly has helped to stop that escalation because the Iran attack was an almost total failure. Do you think Netanyahu has sound judgement? I've known Prime Minister Netanyahu for over 20 years. We've had many arguments and disagreements, but it's our job to work with the Israeli government to support them in their campaign to get rid of Hamas. And I think that's right. You can't expect Israel to live next door to a territory that is governed by people that carried out the October the 7th attacks. But our job is to work with the Israeli government. We'll have our disagreements. We have some very tough conversations with them. For instance, about the need to get aid into Gaza, where I've been extremely tough with them about that. But I think rightly because the situation in Gaza is unacceptable. There are too many people going hungry. There are too many people that can't get water and medicine. Now the Israelis have now said 500 trucks a day, opening the port of Ashdod, getting more aid in. That's hugely helpful and we need to make sure that's delivered. Do you think he has sound judgement? Look, we have to work with the Prime Ministers and the governments that are there. And we have, as I say, he has good judgement on many things. But there are times that we profoundly disagree. And when we do, we should have frank conversations. That's what friends do. What's his bad judgement been of late? Well, I think the letting more, not letting more aid into Gaza, that I think was a mistake. We were very frank with the Israelis all the way through that they needed to open up the crossing points. They needed to let more trucks in. They needed to make sure there was proper deconfliction so that aid workers could get around Gaza and we wouldn't have, you know, further incidents like the terrible killing of the world's central kitchen workers. I think it was a bad judgement not to open up Gaza to aid earlier. And we had that argument with him. He's now said that's going to happen. And I'm very pleased he said that. Is it bad judgement or good judgement to hit Iranian sovereign territory in Damascus? That was something the Israelis decided to do. We haven't made a, I know, let me answer the question, which is I can completely understand the frustration the Israelis feel when they look at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and they look at the terrible things that they have done all over the world, including the support they give to Hamas. And of course, Hamas were responsible for October the 7th. And that is where all of this begins. So you can completely understand the frustration. Yeah, but what about Iran's frustration at part of its sovereign territory being flattened? Well, I would argue there is a massive degree of difference between what Israel did in Damascus. And as I said, 301 weapons being launched by the state of Iran at the state of Israel for the first time, a state-on-state attack, 101 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles, 185 drones. That is a degree of difference. And I think a reckless and dangerous thing for Iran to have done. And I think the whole world can see all these countries that have somehow wondered, well, you know, what is the true nature of Iran? It's there in black and white. What would Britain do if a hostile nation flattened one of our consulates? Well, we would take, you know, we would take the very strong action. And Iran would say that that's what they did. Well, what they did, as I said, was a massive attack. So they were right to respond, but they overreacted, is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that the attack they carried out was on a very large scale, much bigger than people accepted. They were right to respond. Well, countries have a right to respond when they feel they've suffered an aggression. Of course they do. But look at the scale of that response. This particular segment from the video unveiled the glaringly hypocritical stance of the West, particularly when dealing with perceived adversaries. Iran, as a member of the United Nations, is entitled to the same protection under international conventions as any other country, including Israel. So why does the West struggle to condemn an attack targeting a diplomatic compound in Syria? Is Israel exempt from the norms of the rule-based international order? It begs the question, who is holding Israel accountable for violating fundamental diplomatic protocols on the international stage? The current international order seems heavily skewed in favor of certain nations, leaving others to bear the brunt of the actions of the privileged few. If the West truly aimed to uphold the integrity of the international order, it would press Israel to either compensate for its actions or face sanctions for its transgressions. Yet the West shielded Israel even when the Security Council called for condemnation. Such brazen hypocrisy tarnishes the international image of the West. Despite their impassioned speeches at the onset of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, one would have expected a different approach this time around. However, the West continues to treat Israel with a sense of exceptionalism, allowing it to act with impunity. This not only jeopardizes global peace, but also poses significant risks to stability in the Middle East. Witness David Cameron's live embodiment of this hypocrisy once more. Where are you on the Iranian view that this was only as a result of the bombing of the embassy in Dismascus? Is that something that you've called out, Lord Cameron? Well, look, I think if you look at the scale of what Iran was trying to do, in 110 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles, 185 drones, it sometimes portrayed this attack as a sort of drone swarm. But actually, the use of ballistic missiles in a state-on-state attack is a very significant move by Iran. Very dangerous, very reckless. Unfortunately, it was an almost total failure. But I don't think it was justified in any way by reference to what happened in Dismascus. But look, I think now the most important thing, the Israeli war cabinet has been meeting. They have every right to respond, and you'd understand that as an Israeli citizen, you'd be thinking, my country came under attack. We must respond. We're asking them, as their friends, to think with head as well as heart, to be smart as well as tough, to recognize Iran has failed. And the best way to de-escalate the situation is not to attack back, but instead to focus on Hamas' failure to release the hostages and the failure to agree to a pause in the fighting in Gaza because we badly need to get aid in there and get the hostages home. I will come back one last time to that question, though, if Israel was responsible for the bombing in Damascus, are you critical of that? Well, it's a matter for Israel. We haven't made a comment on it. The only thing I'd say is, of course... Why not comment, Lord Cameron? Well, I'll tell you why, because if you look at what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has done, they are the people that have been backing Hamas, who carried out the horrific October 7th attack. They are the people who've been backing the Houthis, bombing ships in the Red Sea, irrespective of what country they come from. They are the people that back Hezbollah, launching missiles into Israel and causing, you know, remember, there are about 100,000 people in the north of Israel who can't go to their homes because of Hezbollah. So, can I understand Israel's frustration with the IRGC? Yes, I absolutely can. Do I think Iran's response with this state-on-state attack was justified? No, it wasn't. Unfortunately, it was an almost total failure. But it wasn't justified to bomb an embassy in Damascus, was it? As I say, I'm not getting into what Israel has or hasn't done. Can we talk a little bit about the IRGC here in the UK? The former Home Secretary, Sir LeBron, was on this show last week. She believes it become a proscribed organisation. My understanding is that Labour says the same. Where are you on that, Lord Cameron? Well, we recognise what a dangerous organisation it is. We have sanctioned it in its entirety. We put in place a whole sanctions regime before the end of last year to do more of this work. I keep this under review, but the police and our intelligence services say they have the powers already to deal with IRGC action either here or elsewhere. And I'd make this additional point, which is... Look, I can't pretend that diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran are in a very good state. Of course, they aren't. But nonetheless, having those diplomatic relations means that we can deliver a direct message to the Iranians. As I've done speaking to the Iranian Foreign Minister twice in the last seven days, I don't have to ask my French counterpart or my German counterpart to sort of pass a message on behalf of Britain. I think it's in Britain's interests it makes Britain stronger and more able if we're able to have those direct conversations and direct messages to the Iranians. And I think we should keep it that way. You and other leaders around the world are urging a de-escalation. You obviously know Prime Minister Netanyahu well, not just from now, but from many years before. Candidly, Lord Cameron, is he the type of man or leader who would back down? Isn't he one who wants to come striding out to the crease and knock everything to six? Well, he has a reputation, quite rightly, for being very tough and for caring very deeply about security. But there are times where we have to be smart as well as tough, where we have to use head as well as heart. And I think this is one of them. You know, the fact is Iran has suffered a failure. In many ways, as I've said, a double failure. And so I think the best way to keep people in Israel safe is actually to recognize that an escalation now is not in anybody's interest, not in the interests of people in Israel. But I totally respect and understand how the Israeli system, they're an independent, proud, sovereign nation. They'll want to meet, they'll want to discuss, they'll want to think about it. And it is their decision. And it is their right to respond should they want to. But I think the smart thing to do, as well as the tough thing to do, is to take as well and focus back on Hamas in Gaza. If we look at these events and particularly the events on the weekend, you've referenced twice now the issue of hostages. How confident are you? What intelligence do we have that they are still alive, Lord Cameron? Well, it's obviously a very difficult situation. They've been in this hideous captivity now for over half a year. And we know from some of the hostages that were released after just 45 days, I've met some of them. We know the terrible things that were being done to them and the terrible position they were put in. I think what I'd say now is that Israel has put an offer on the table, which is incredibly difficult for them. They are offering to open up their prisons and release dozens of prisoners per hostage released by Hamas. They're offering a pause in the fighting. These are very difficult decisions to make, but they've made them and Hamas has rejected that offer. So anyone in any doubt who is responsible for keeping this conflict going, it's not Israel, it is Hamas. And the focus should be on them. Last couple of questions. Lord Cameron, we've talked about the need and the brilliance of the RAF in shooting down drones and missiles over Iraq and Syria. Why can't they do it over Ukraine? Well, it's a very good question. We've done more than any other country, I think individually to help the Ukrainians. We've trained 60,000 Ukrainian troops. We were the first to give them anti-tank weapons, long-range artillery and tanks. I think the difficulty with what you suggest is, if you want to avoid an escalation in terms of a wider European war, I think the one thing you do need to avoid is NATO troops directly engaging Russian troops. That would be a danger of escalation. So I've said both here in the UK, but more importantly to all our allies around the world, is do everything you can to support Ukraine in terms of money, in terms of diplomacy and crucially in terms of weapons. Giving them weapons to defend themselves, training their troops, those are absolutely the right things to do. And we've done more of that than anyone, but actually putting NATO forces directly in conflict with Russian forces, I think that would be a dangerous escalation. Why not shoot down unmanned drones, Lord Cameron? Well, we are doing everything we can to help Ukrainians shoot down unmanned drones, and that is what they've asked us to do. Well, actually what we're doing is an interesting question. What we're doing with respect to Israel is filling in for the Americans in terms of Opsheda and then using our jets if they can to shoot down missiles and drones. These individuals have become so accustomed to deception that they often neglect to adhere to their professed principles of the rule-based international order. Cameron's failure to provide a straightforward response regarding the UK's reaction to an attack on its embassy was telling. The pivotal question altered the entire discourse. Similarly, the struggle to maintain honesty was evident when Home Office Minister Laura Farris acknowledged the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, as a malign force, but stopped short of labelling it a terrorist organization to avoid disrupting communication channels with Iran. Yet, the government sanctions the IRGC hindering its participation in normal international affairs while endorsing Israel's aggressive actions against it. Nobody was denying that they are a malign force. We have repeatedly sanctioned both individual commanders and the IRGC more generally, so that puts very severe restrictions on their ability to move and on other freedoms that they would have had, and we're not suggesting that they're not a problem. I think I saw David Cameron was on your show yesterday. And one of the things he's been saying more widely is that at the moment we have a direct diplomatic channel, a direct line of communication to Tehran. Even though relations are difficult and those conversations are not always easy, there is actually something positive about being able to have face-to-face diplomatic relations. And at this point in time, there is something for that. But look, the Prime Minister said he made a statement at the House yesterday. He's been talking very closely with all his G7 counterparts. He spoke to Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday too. All of this stuff remains under review. All of it is part of what's being considered along with further sanctions. But should we be communicating in that way with a terrorist group, basically, which is what so many people are suggesting that they are? I'm not, as I say, I'm not suggesting that they're not a problematic presence. But there is something, and this is what David Cameron spoke about. And as Foreign Secretary, this is, I think, something that he'll have a direct sense of. There is something important about being able to have a direct communication even with the most difficult states. And, you know, one of the things, Kay, and you'll know this better than anyone, this is a unique moment of tension in the Middle East and for the wider region. Everything is focused on cool heads, avoiding de-escalation. And at this point in time, the Foreign Secretary has said he values having a direct channel of communication to Tehran. As I say, we already sanctioned them, though. More than problematic. Look, I accept that, but we already impose sanctions on them. It remains under review. So, you know, I don't think there's any disagreement on the principle of what you're saying, Kay, simply that this is something that is being worked through with the G7 partners. Liam Fox said last night that Iran orchestrated the crisis in Gaza because it didn't like the normalisation of relations between Israel and Arab states. In other words, they're poking the bear. Is that your view? Do you agree with what he's saying? Look, I think that is a sensible construction of some of the impulses that lay behind October the 7th. But it is extraordinary to see the seriousness of the attack on Saturday night. The, you know, more than 300 missiles were focused on Israel. If they hadn't been intercepted, they would have had catastrophic consequences or loss of life there were. But they did give 48 hours notice. They did, but if they hadn't been intercepted, that was ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, some of the most serious arsenal that you can possibly use. If they meant for them to cause significant harm, why would they have given notice? It is not guaranteed that the defence system would have worked perfectly. It is absolutely manifestly clear that if you fire 300 of the most serious arsenal at any state, it is an extreme act of aggression. I understand that. I wonder why they gave so much notice, do you think? Well, look, we know that this is an intensifying issue. That's why the Prime Minister has called for cool heads. He's... Everything is focused on avoiding an escalation. But it is very shocking. You know, Iran has done this in its own backyard. These are Middle Eastern countries that are now... So it was an act of terrorism, and yet, potentially, and yet you won't say that the IRGC is a terrorist group. Well, I've said that they are a malign force. We have been sanctioning them periodically since 2021, 2022, 2023. I was looking at the sequence of the sanctions. And actually, we know, for example, they had involvement in Russia and supplying weapons that were used in Ukraine. So we have been taking very tough measures with them. And this is not... But those that would do their bidding in the form of Hamas, who say that they are terrorists? Yes, but there's a different context there. Hamas isn't simply a tool of the IRGC. Hamas and Hezbollah have a different relationship with Israel, and that's something that has a slightly different context. But as I say, the effort within the foreign office and the MOD is all working closely with our G7 partners and with the state of Israel. Ultimately, the West's covert support for Israel has fueled the feared regional crisis that the world has endeavored to prevent for decades. Israel's attempts to directly target Iran through bombings have gained traction following retaliatory actions, prompting Iran to shift from strategic patience to a resolute stance against its adversary. If this cycle of retaliation escalates unchecked, it risks plunging the region into open conflict to the detriment of all, including the West. It's astonishing how diplomacy and deterrence have been relegated to secondary concerns. Thank you for joining us today. To expand our reach and amplify our message, we encourage you to like, share, and subscribe to our channel together, let's raise awareness and strive for peace. Until next time, stay informed and engaged. Peace.