Speaker 1: For more than a week. Donald Trump has ordered strikes
Speaker 1: against Iran in a worsening cycle of attacks, including on
Speaker 1: civilian infrastructure.
Speaker 2: We hit him very hard again tonight, and we did
Speaker 2: that in honor of the probably three. It's probably three,
Speaker 2: as opposed to too great patriots.
Speaker 1: Trump has defended the strikes as honoring the deaths of
Speaker 1: up to three American service members in an Iranian attack.
Speaker 1: But the real goal is to get the straight of
Speaker 1: Hamu's open again, something that looks increasingly unlikely. So with
Speaker 1: the region once again on a knife's edge, the US
Speaker 1: appears locked back into an escalating war unless the interim
Speaker 1: cease by a deal can be salvaged. I'm Ruby Jones,
Speaker 1: and you're listening to seven AM today diplomatic correspondent at
Speaker 1: notice Akbasha hid Ahmed on the threat of all out
Speaker 1: war and who is really in charge of what happens next.
Speaker 1: It's Wednesday, July twenty two. So act by the United
Speaker 1: States has now carried out more than a week of
Speaker 1: strikes on a run. American troops have been killed, Iran
Speaker 1: is attacking US bases and allied countries. Traffic through the
Speaker 1: strait of a Moose has almost completely stopped. So take
Speaker 1: us through what's happened over the past few days and
Speaker 1: how close things are again now to and all out more.
Speaker 3: It's really been stunning sort of spiral back into open conflict,
Speaker 3: not an unpredictable one. Certainly, whatever deal the US and
Speaker 3: the Iranians were able to reach in June was quite shaky.
Speaker 3: It depended on two sides that have more than forty
Speaker 3: years of enmity, right, and a lot of that blood
Speaker 3: extending well beyond the Trump administration. However, what's happened sort
Speaker 3: of in this standar period where now is really focused
Speaker 3: on one specific issue and one specific dispute between the
Speaker 3: US and Iran, which is the Strait of Hollows. That's
Speaker 3: that strategic waterway between the Arabian and Peninsula and Iran's
Speaker 3: southern coast through which a large proportion about a fifth
Speaker 3: of the world's oil and gas supplies travel in a
Speaker 3: normal time of peace. That Trump administration and Iran are
Speaker 3: arguing over how this should be operated.
Speaker 1: The battle to control the Strait of Removes continues as
Speaker 1: the United States launches its seventh consecutive night of strikes
Speaker 1: on Iran.
Speaker 3: Under no circumstances and in no way, we will allow
Speaker 3: the United States, as a foreign an extra regional country,
Speaker 3: to interfere in the strait of hole mood.
Speaker 4: Breaking news, the Pentagon says two US service members are
Speaker 4: dead and a third is missing after Iranian attacks in Jordan.
Speaker 3: It comes another wave of strikes against Iran, marking the
Speaker 3: tenth consecutive night of attacks. Explosions have been reported. So
Speaker 3: it's pretty been a bit of an escalating tit for
Speaker 3: tap and that's what experts are contects are really worried
Speaker 3: about in a period like this where you just can't
Speaker 3: wind things downd, you only keep ratchting up.
Speaker 1: And so tell me a bit more about the target's hit.
Speaker 1: Because Donald Trump has long threatened the mass targeting of
Speaker 1: civilian infrastructure. Back in April, he threatened what he called
Speaker 1: power plant and bridge.
Speaker 2: Day, every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding,
Speaker 2: and never to be used again, I mean complete.
Speaker 1: So is that what we're saying here?
Speaker 3: Look, the Trump administration has been quite clear about that
Speaker 3: view of international law. International law, including the law of war,
Speaker 3: says you cannot target civilian infrastructure. However, President Trump has
Speaker 3: really openly said, well, I don't really think these rules
Speaker 3: applied to the US. I don't need international law.
Speaker 4: Do you feel your administration needs to abide by international
Speaker 4: law on.
Speaker 1: The global stadia?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I do.
Speaker 2: You know, I do, but it depends what your definition
Speaker 2: of international laws.
Speaker 3: And so, yes, we are now seeing the US target
Speaker 3: civilian infrastructure.
Speaker 5: The Iranians have come back though, and talked about several
Speaker 5: areas of civilian infrastructure that they say have been hit,
Speaker 5: including five bridges, an airport, and a railway station, and
Speaker 5: that eight people were killed in these attacks. The US
Speaker 5: has not commented on these allegations.
Speaker 3: Are these potential war crimes? Certainly international law experts and
Speaker 3: people inside the government ruby who I've spoken with are
Speaker 3: concerned about that risk that, yes, US officials may be
Speaker 3: implicating themselves in violations of international law on a daily basis.
Speaker 3: And this is that ratcheting up that President Trump has
Speaker 3: indicated part of that is what's making this escalation look
Speaker 3: so scary to observer US, because it looks like the
Speaker 3: pattern of US stripes is almost targeting Iran's ability to
Speaker 3: use its own forces within its territory, raising the question
Speaker 3: of not only are we breaking international law here, are
Speaker 3: we moving towards an American crowned invasion of parts of
Speaker 3: So is this targny of bridges about not just instilling fear,
Speaker 3: creating panic, all of that scaring the Iranians, but leading
Speaker 3: to a bigger war.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk a bit more about what the goal
Speaker 1: here might be, because Washington and the Trump administration's rationale
Speaker 1: it's been fluid this whole time. It was initially presented
Speaker 1: as preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, destroying its
Speaker 1: missile industry and navy, giving Iranians an opportunity to overthrow
Speaker 1: their government. What is the administration actually saying now about
Speaker 1: what it's trying to do, what it's trying to achieve.
Speaker 3: It's so important that you brought up this previous administration
Speaker 3: argument of freeing around and advancing principles of human rights
Speaker 3: and the idea of perhaps any other regime change away
Speaker 3: from this really autocratic regime in Iran, which of course
Speaker 3: has killed hundreds of their own people, if not thousands
Speaker 3: in protests just earlier this year. A lot of that
Speaker 3: language has been abandoned and said. What we've seen in
Speaker 3: this period is a race to the bottom by the
Speaker 3: US and also by Iran, by the way, which has
Speaker 3: targeted civilian infrastructure in Arab countries across the region, like
Speaker 3: water desalination plants really essential. So what we're seeing and
Speaker 3: said is it might makes right approach from both sides.
Speaker 3: So the Trump administration has given US reporters who are
Speaker 3: constantly pressing the White House in the State Department for explanations.
Speaker 3: The basic thing seems to be President Trump can't at
Speaker 3: go of the idea that more military pressure will lead
Speaker 3: to more concessions from the Iranians. Now, initially what he
Speaker 3: wanted concessions on was the nuclear enrichment. That's totally off
Speaker 3: the table now and that kind of speaks to the
Speaker 3: bigger moment of crisis we're in where now what the
Speaker 3: concessions Trump wants over the Strait of hor moves.
Speaker 4: And we've pivoted. Now what we're doing is assuring that
Speaker 4: oil and gas and other products can flow through the
Speaker 4: Strait of Horror moves whi or without Iranian cooperation, and
Speaker 4: we've continued to degrade their offensive military capabilities. The President
Speaker 4: is always looking for the diplomatic off ramp. President Trump
Speaker 4: wants to end it with a peaceful agreement with Iran, but.
Speaker 3: It takes so any sort of settlement would just address
Speaker 3: the street, leaving open those underlying issues and disputes between
Speaker 3: the US and Iran, and leaving open a question of
Speaker 3: would the US go back to an attack, which from
Speaker 3: the Iranian standpoint, they're saying, well, why not just escalatee
Speaker 3: fully right now rather than wait six months or a
Speaker 3: year for another joint US it's really attack over the
Speaker 3: nuclear program over there are other problems with US.
Speaker 1: So the administration says it wants to keep the straight
Speaker 1: upon moves open, and it says it can do that
Speaker 1: with or without Iranian cooperation.
Speaker 4: If they're ready to do that, that's the way it'll end.
Speaker 4: If not, we will continue to show a sure flow
Speaker 4: of traffic through the strait without Iran's cooperation.
Speaker 1: But shipping remains at a fraction of its normal level.
Speaker 1: So can the US actually for its way to having
Speaker 1: this straight open.
Speaker 3: Look, Ruby, I have been talking to a lot of
Speaker 3: military officials, service members in the region and American troops
Speaker 3: who are being deployed and more are traveling through the
Speaker 3: region at this moment actually to sort of ramp up
Speaker 3: the American presence. They are our feeling that they're equipped
Speaker 3: for the mission that the Administration is putting out there
Speaker 3: and sort of implicating them in and making them vulnerable
Speaker 3: in so a lot of people on the ground who
Speaker 3: are being told, yes, you're going to do this to
Speaker 3: sort of take back control of the Strait of Hormos.
Speaker 3: This was ever an issue prior to this war. This
Speaker 3: was a war of choice in which the Trump administration
Speaker 3: chose to create a new status po in the region,
Speaker 3: fail to do so, and is now trying to go
Speaker 3: back to a pre war approach of free navigation that
Speaker 3: most analysts, most observist belief is not coming back. I
Speaker 3: don't think that the way the trade gets resolved is
Speaker 3: through some US application of pressure. It's most likely through
Speaker 3: a new deal between the US, Iran and some of
Speaker 3: the US aligned countries of the region or mand cutter
Speaker 3: unized our memirates that anything within that would not take
Speaker 3: us back to February twenty seventh, before Trump launched this war.
Speaker 3: So effectively, he's accepting a loss.
Speaker 1: Coming up. Donald Trump and the Madman theory. Akbay, You've
Speaker 1: reported on Trump's use of the mad Man theory, So
Speaker 1: the idea that Iran will concede because it can't predict
Speaker 1: how far he will go. Who is actually shaping policy
Speaker 1: inside this administration, and how much of this strategy comes
Speaker 1: down to Trump's impulses.
Speaker 3: The President certainly has a really strong conviction that a
Speaker 3: madman approach works. He thinks that it has made him
Speaker 3: successful in business, has made him successful in politics. If
Speaker 3: you look at a ideological shifts on so many issues,
Speaker 3: I mean, abortion, gay rights, a whole range of things,
Speaker 3: he's really flip flopped. People around him ruby are trying
Speaker 3: to influence his thinking that they're also very sort of
Speaker 3: driven by their own agendas, right, So you look at
Speaker 3: someone like Secretary of State Mark or Rubio and Vice
Speaker 3: President Shady Vance, who have differing views on the war
Speaker 3: to a degree, Advance being a little more skeptical of
Speaker 3: the war than Rubio. They're also both trying to set
Speaker 3: themselves up to take the mantle from Trump. So the
Speaker 3: question then becomes, are they giving Trump their best advice
Speaker 3: or are they giving Trump the advice they think he
Speaker 3: wants to hear to get his endorsement for the Republican
Speaker 3: presidential primary in the future. And these are kind of
Speaker 3: the factors that are drawing what's around him from people
Speaker 3: I know who are briefing him in the room with him,
Speaker 3: he is personally often more hawkish than those around him,
Speaker 3: including even Rubio, a longtime hawk on around Trump's kind
Speaker 3: of determination to Devin straightest strength is very very much
Speaker 3: driving the show right now. And then of course that's
Speaker 3: a sectary of defense speed. Heags at again very very
Speaker 3: interested in this idea of if we just apply more force,
Speaker 3: we'll get better results. But I really draw this out
Speaker 3: to kind of pre Trump patterns in US foreign policy
Speaker 3: in that presidents have not been asked to read in
Speaker 3: their war making power for a very very long time,
Speaker 3: especially in the kind of post nine to eleven era
Speaker 3: where wars have dragged on in places like Yemen, Pakistan,
Speaker 3: Somalia without any check and without any clear strategic rationale,
Speaker 3: while causing huge strategic and human cost.
Speaker 1: So when you look at what's happening and the fact
Speaker 1: that neither Iran or the US appear willing to accept
Speaker 1: the other's terms, is there still an off ramp here
Speaker 1: or are we looking at this escalating open ended war scenario.
Speaker 3: That's a real cost, you know. I mean, hundreds of
Speaker 3: Iranians have lost their life already, including many civilians including children.
Speaker 3: Iran is in a deep, deep economic crisis. So there
Speaker 3: are voices within Iran saying we need to reach some
Speaker 3: sort of concession with the US. On the American side,
Speaker 3: the price is not quite being felt yet. Yes, more
Speaker 3: service members have been killed. It's now come out that
Speaker 3: the Pentagon was not releasing some of the injuries among
Speaker 3: American troops. I think that's going to become a bigger
Speaker 3: story and a bigger concern of our Americans safe. It's
Speaker 3: raising bigger questions about US basis. But no, I think
Speaker 3: right now we're not in a season of an off ramp.
Speaker 3: While we do know that a new diplomatic framework has
Speaker 3: been proposed by Cutter, one of the regional mediators, there's
Speaker 3: no kind of indication that it's sort of feasible. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's no sense that either the Trump administration or Iran
Speaker 3: wants to be seen right now as shaking the other
Speaker 3: side's hand.
Speaker 1: And I found this isn't just the US's war. Trump
Speaker 1: has brought his allies, which includes Australia, with him. So
Speaker 1: how surprised do you that those relationships seem to be
Speaker 1: holding up despite the increased chaos and the changing objectives
Speaker 1: of this war.
Speaker 3: I am truly as like a diplomatic correspondent in DC
Speaker 3: now for almost fifteen years. I'm truly shocked by the
Speaker 3: degree to which foreign partners are willing to embarrass themselves
Speaker 3: for Donald Trump's foreign policy. And I continue to be shocked.
Speaker 3: I mean, the cost that this war has had on
Speaker 3: the global economy, on growth rates is just tremendous. And
Speaker 3: certainly when I hear from officials is that's still resistant
Speaker 3: to the idea of openly challenging Trump. All of that said,
Speaker 3: I also hear that governments, including Australia are kind of
Speaker 3: quietly hedging their debts and building these relationships that are
Speaker 3: outside their US dependents, right, so not just relying on
Speaker 3: the US as their partner. And I think you'll see
Speaker 3: more of that if Trump, as expected, do very in
Speaker 3: the US midterms. I think you'll see more of allies
Speaker 3: kind of openly challenging him the way that that's Spain
Speaker 3: and some countries have so far. And certainly you've seen,
Speaker 3: you know, you've seen some European leaders speak up a
Speaker 3: little bit about international law, that it's been a position
Speaker 3: of fealty largely, and does.
Speaker 1: The level of unpredictability here mean we're in the most
Speaker 1: kind of unstable era of this conflict.
Speaker 3: At the moment, what's scary is that President Trump has
Speaker 3: genuinely considered a huge range of escallations. And also the
Speaker 3: Iranians have a lot of options for estallation that we
Speaker 3: haven't seen them activate so far. So of course Trump
Speaker 3: could go for ground invasion, he could go for even
Speaker 3: broader and bigger bombing campaigns, and the Iranians could pursue
Speaker 3: targets not just in the Middle East but beyond that.
Speaker 3: So yes, I think with the breakdown and with the
Speaker 3: real distrust, particularly on the Iranian side, and the kind
Speaker 3: of lack of direction on the US side, the US
Speaker 3: side just doesn't see to have a clear understanding of
Speaker 3: where they want to go. For a while, the idea
Speaker 3: was like in Venezuela, we want to pick a partner
Speaker 3: in Iran and work with them. But who would that
Speaker 3: be at this point when the US has been sort
Speaker 3: of perceived as a traitor on the Iranian side, And
Speaker 3: I think then the fundamental questions of kind of broader
Speaker 3: US policy in the region are still open, right, So
Speaker 3: you still don't see an answer to the US policy
Speaker 3: in Gaza and answered to the US policy in Lebanon,
Speaker 3: you see in Yenen where the Iran Bakthuti militia has
Speaker 3: opened up another front potentially by saying we're going to
Speaker 3: block the other key energy route out of the Middle East.
Speaker 3: So it's not just about the US in Iran. This
Speaker 3: is now actually a regional war and the US administration
Speaker 3: really needs to sort of take the reins of it.
Speaker 3: I spoke with one really well well connected official last
Speaker 3: week and I said, sort of, who is going to
Speaker 3: Who's going to deal with this? And they said, well,
Speaker 3: some grown up has to come out and take charge
Speaker 3: of it. And the question is who, And I think
Speaker 3: we're sort of reading for that answer.
Speaker 1: Akbar, Thank you so much for speaking with me.
Speaker 3: Thanks slut Ruby.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, analysts are warning oil prices
Speaker 1: could climb back above one hundred US dollars a barrel
Speaker 1: and hit Australians at the fuel pump as new fronts
Speaker 1: open in the Middle East. In response to Yemen's Hoothy
Speaker 1: rebels threat to block Saudi oil shipments, Saudi Arabia says
Speaker 1: it will keep the waterway open and respond to any attacks.
Speaker 1: Oil prices have already climbed to a one month high,
Speaker 1: with Brent krude settling at just under ninety US dollars
Speaker 1: a barrel, and Muslim and multicultural groups have welcomed parts
Speaker 1: of the Albanzi government's long awaited response to a national
Speaker 1: report on Islamophobia, but say it doesn't go far enough.
Speaker 1: The government has accepted thirty five of the report's fifty
Speaker 1: four recommendations, including an Edgecation task force, new requirements for universities,
Speaker 1: and expanded AFP community layers and teams, but it hasn't
Speaker 1: agreed to an independent review of counter terrorism laws or
Speaker 1: inquiries into Islamophobia and anti Palestinian and anti Arab racism.
Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.