Speaker 1: I'm i Boris and this is straight Talk mcran. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to straight Talk. Mate.
Speaker 2: It's good to see you. Mark.
Speaker 1: Now, this is we're going to give this out today
Speaker 1: because it's pretty current, so we're doing this podcast now.
Speaker 1: We're going to rip it out later this afternoon. Obviously
Speaker 1: I'm wanting to talk to you about the Iran Israel
Speaker 1: USA conflict, but probably then then, of course, you know Katar,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a little bit of a skirmish and
Speaker 1: Qatar overnight. But then I just saw that there was
Speaker 1: announcement on truth by the President of the United States
Speaker 1: saying that there is a ceasefire. Oh my god, Like,
Speaker 1: how quickly you get brain damage trying to follow this.
Speaker 3: It's it's whiplash. I mean, the strategic environments moving very
Speaker 3: quickly at the moment. And that's modern modern war and
Speaker 3: modern politics written large. I think, you know, there's a
Speaker 3: very close relationship between war and politics, and that's what
Speaker 3: we've seen out in the last eleven days or so
Speaker 3: that this.
Speaker 2: New Israel Iran war has been going.
Speaker 1: Let's sort of go backwards as opposed to looking at
Speaker 1: the today's announcement and I'll come back to you on
Speaker 1: that one. But if when I just look at it,
Speaker 1: and I have no idea about warfare strategies and all
Speaker 1: that sort of stuff, but when I look at it,
Speaker 1: it looks like to me that this would have been
Speaker 1: planned months ago, probably alongside Israel, and maybe the plan was, look,
Speaker 1: we're just going to we're going to go and do
Speaker 1: this because we already know that they've got enough uranium
Speaker 1: to make a nuclear warhead, and you go out and
Speaker 1: sort of, Israel, you go out and start it off,
Speaker 1: and we'll sneak in over the top somehow, I mean,
Speaker 1: am I sort of being naive about this or that's
Speaker 1: probably how it did work.
Speaker 3: Firstly, this is an operation that will have been planned
Speaker 3: years ago. I mean, particularly the Israelis have been rehearsing
Speaker 3: out over the Mediterranean for a very long time, and
Speaker 3: there will have been talks with America.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 3: America would not have signed up to anything, but there
Speaker 3: would have been a variety of different planes with different
Speaker 3: levels of American involvement at least discussed over time, and
Speaker 3: a lot of these plans would have sat on shelves
Speaker 3: ready for the right moment politically and militarily. And it
Speaker 3: appears last week the President of the United States has
Speaker 3: commander in chief decided it was the right time for
Speaker 3: a limited military operation to achieve his political outcome, which
Speaker 3: was actually to end the war but also prevent Iran
Speaker 3: from gaining a nuclear weapon, which he has actually been
Speaker 3: very clear and forceful about over a long period of time.
Speaker 1: But that's interesting because I remember for the Iraqi War,
Speaker 1: we talked about chemical weapons that Satimassein. Everyone in the
Speaker 1: world was convinced through the media that Satamussein actually had
Speaker 1: these can be weapons of warfare. Surely, I think I'm
Speaker 1: correct that it turned out he didn't, but they went
Speaker 1: to war. Is that corecked?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I mean, there's been a lot of reviews in the
Speaker 3: US the UK about the Iraq War and the intelligence
Speaker 3: failures that led up to it, and without rehashing those
Speaker 3: old lessons, they are actually useful lessons because there's no
Speaker 3: such thing as one hundred percent certainty going into these
Speaker 3: kind of things. You can never be totally certain what
Speaker 3: the enemy's doing, what they're hiding, what they're building. Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: in the lead up to the Iraqi War, some people
Speaker 3: convinced a lot of us that we were certain and
Speaker 3: that just wasn't the case. So you know, we always
Speaker 3: need to be careful as citizens, as do politicians and
Speaker 3: military leaders. Do not think that there are any certainties
Speaker 3: in war. There are more uncertainties than not, and I
Speaker 3: think we've seen that born out in this conflict as well.
Speaker 1: So what do you think about the let's call it
Speaker 1: the certainties in inverted commas than in relation to enrich
Speaker 1: a certain level of enrichment relative to iranium uranium which
Speaker 1: needs to be done in order to build a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: There's a few steps after that, Richmond, of course, But
Speaker 1: how do you feel about that? When you first heard that,
Speaker 1: did you feel shocked or did you say, well, that's
Speaker 1: Elada MASI I expected that. What did you feel then?
Speaker 3: No, I wasn't really surprised by the latest International Atomic
Speaker 3: Energy Agency reports just before Israel kicked off its operations.
Speaker 3: I mean, Irean has has had a program for a
Speaker 3: very long time to develop the ability to build a
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: How close they.
Speaker 3: Were to that will remain subject to some conjecture for
Speaker 3: a while. There's disagreements between Israeli and American intelligence communities
Speaker 3: on that, but one thing is absolutely certain. Iran has
Speaker 3: been very clear about wanting to destroy Israel about wanting
Speaker 3: to perpetrate another genocide on the Jewish people. So you know,
Speaker 3: if you put those things together, if you're the Prime
Speaker 3: minister of Israel, how else can you act but to
Speaker 3: try and destroy your sworn enemies desire to destroy you
Speaker 3: and your people. I mean, Israel's a small place, It's
Speaker 3: uniquely vulnerable to a nuclear weapon. So you know, I
Speaker 3: understand the Israeli imperatives. The questions really are around was
Speaker 3: this the right time and how proximate was the threat
Speaker 3: of Iran building a nuclear weapon right now?
Speaker 1: So when Israel says the Iran Iranian regime, and I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about Iranian people, I'm talking about the theocratic
Speaker 1: regime that controls Iran and therefore controls the defense forces too,
Speaker 1: I guess when they say that they are an exexstential
Speaker 1: threat to us is what you sort of just explain.
Speaker 1: Someone says to me, mate, Mark, I'm going to come
Speaker 1: around and murder you in your household and all your family. Immediately,
Speaker 1: I would think that's an existential threat, whether or not
Speaker 1: it's right or wrong, where they going to do it
Speaker 1: or not? Right away, I'm immediately thinking, well, what am
Speaker 1: I going to do? So first thing you can do
Speaker 1: is you can play defense. So Israel has this so
Speaker 1: called Iron Dome. Do you mind explaining what that is?
Speaker 1: I mean, because we keep hearing the word, but I
Speaker 1: don't even know what it means.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Firstly, I mean Israel's whole strategy with dealing with Iran
Speaker 3: change fundamentally on seven October twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: I mean it.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't think Australians really understand the shock
Speaker 3: it caused to the Israeli society and to their military
Speaker 3: and to their government. So that fundamentally changes strategic calculus
Speaker 3: when it comes to defense. Obviously every country is, but
Speaker 3: you know, Australia wants to focus on defense rather than
Speaker 3: having to undertake offensive operations. So that's also a given
Speaker 3: in democracies, which means we often get surprised by our adversaries. Now,
Speaker 3: when it comes to the era and missile defense network
Speaker 3: that Israel has, it has multiple layers. The most basic
Speaker 3: layer is Iron Dome. It's really focused on intercepting short
Speaker 3: and medium range missiles that come over the border from
Speaker 3: places like Gaza from Hezbola territory in southern Lebanon. But
Speaker 3: it has other more capable missiles David sling and missiles
Speaker 3: that can intercept very capable enemy ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere,
Speaker 3: which have been used more widely in the last few days.
Speaker 3: With this have also been American high altitude ballistic missile
Speaker 3: interceptors the FAD system, as well as US Navy ships
Speaker 3: with their ballistic missile capabilities, which have been integral and
Speaker 3: crucial to not only intercepting many of these Iranian missiles
Speaker 3: targeted at Israeli cities and citizens, but in saving probably
Speaker 3: hundreds of lives over the last couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: So what does that mean, though, Do you mean that
Speaker 1: there are inceptor missiles, if that's the right word, sort
Speaker 1: of placed in strategic places all around let's call it
Speaker 1: Tel Aviv or Israel, in the ground, maybe next door
Speaker 1: to someone lives, or perhaps in the street. We just
Speaker 1: put the US naval stuff aside for a second, and
Speaker 1: then when the missile is sort of approaching somehow, it's
Speaker 1: detected by radar and then it sends a message to wherever,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, these missiles just come
Speaker 1: out of the ground and start firing off to intercept
Speaker 1: the missiles that are coming coming towards Israel. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to simplify it, but because we don't know
Speaker 1: what irondome means here in Australia, I've got no ideas.
Speaker 1: Is that sort of the setup.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Basically you have a detection network, which is a
Speaker 3: bunch of radars and other senses which go into a
Speaker 3: central command and control network. It's human lead but also
Speaker 3: supported by AI and other computer analysis systems. The first
Speaker 3: decision it makes is where's the missile going. Is it
Speaker 3: going to hit anything important or is it just going
Speaker 3: to hit in the desert or hit in the ocean.
Speaker 1: So does the calculation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, it calculates where the missile will land. If
Speaker 3: it's not going to hit anything, generally they ignore it.
Speaker 3: Why waste a million dollar interceptor that's something that's not
Speaker 3: going to hurt you. So that's the first big decision
Speaker 3: that's made. It has to be made in microseconds. The
Speaker 3: next decision is what kind of missile is it? And
Speaker 3: what have we got that can intercept it? And it
Speaker 3: can be a short, medium, or long range or outside
Speaker 3: the atmosphere missile that the Israelis and the Americans have.
Speaker 3: This is the kind of system that Australia does not possess,
Speaker 3: and that we are very vulnerable to. I mean, we
Speaker 3: just don't have the kind of air missile defenses or
Speaker 3: defenses against drones that the Israelis have developed over many decades.
Speaker 1: So, mick, but are those missiles where they originate from?
Speaker 1: Is that like, would it be in the middle of
Speaker 1: tele Avif somewhere, or is there army bases all around
Speaker 1: tell Aviv, for example, that they get fired from. Is
Speaker 1: it in the civilian area.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Generally these are located on military establishments and government establishments
Speaker 3: wherever possible. I mean I visited one when I was
Speaker 3: there in Israel last I spoke with an extraordinarily smart
Speaker 3: Air Force officer who runs an iron dome battery and
Speaker 3: about all the things they need to do to keep
Speaker 3: these things capable. These are generally held on military bases.
Speaker 3: I mean, they are very expensive, so they also need
Speaker 3: to be defended. So they don't want these sitting out
Speaker 3: on the street, and they're just located in the best
Speaker 3: places to intercept missiles from their most likely places of origin.
Speaker 1: And what I presume they do is they blow them
Speaker 1: up in the sky.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Generally, they hit them and they get either a
Speaker 3: proximity kill where the interceptor explodes and the fragmentation destroys
Speaker 3: the incoming ballistic missile, or they get a kinetic hill,
Speaker 3: which is where they actually hit each other, which is
Speaker 3: an extraordinary achievement when you think about it. The last
Speaker 3: time I was in Jerusalem, you know, I looked up
Speaker 3: and within a minute there'd been an interception right above us.
Speaker 3: So this is the kind of thing Israelis have become
Speaker 3: used to. Unfortunately it happens all the time.
Speaker 1: So have the arrangement. It looks like to me here
Speaker 1: we're looking at a technology war too, because clearly Israel
Speaker 1: is building incredibly fast microprocesses to make decisions about what
Speaker 1: should happen within split seconds, but equally Iran or any
Speaker 1: other enemy of Israel trying to make decisions about how
Speaker 1: can we evade that detection. So there sounds like there's
Speaker 1: a technology war. And by the way, everybody, not everywhere,
Speaker 1: a lot of people know that Israel's technological ability, not
Speaker 1: just in warfare, but just across the board is incredible.
Speaker 1: Do you see there is there a race between the
Speaker 1: two in terms of Israel vers anyone else in terms
Speaker 1: of their technology. Is this a race is to race
Speaker 1: itt Israel seems to be winning.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's certainly an adaptation battle. Each side is learning
Speaker 3: and adapting constantly. Each side every day is looking at
Speaker 3: the performance of the other side's technology and then changing
Speaker 3: the capabilities of both their defensive and offensive systems, whether
Speaker 3: it's software, hardware, human processes, political guidance to adapt to that.
Speaker 3: So this has been something that's been going on for
Speaker 3: some time. It certainly has a technological aspect, but there's
Speaker 3: a whole range of human elements about humans being willing
Speaker 3: to learn and change as quickly as necessary.
Speaker 1: So if if I look at what's going on in
Speaker 1: relation to the last skirmish is within Israel from Iran,
Speaker 1: they then decided to start sending drones, And of course
Speaker 1: we all we don't. I don't know if it's true
Speaker 1: or not. I've heard you heard that Iran supplied Russia
Speaker 1: the first lot of drones to go into the Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Iranswers me pre advanced, correct me if' wrong in relation
Speaker 1: to the drone technology.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, Iran is a fairly it was a
Speaker 3: well educated society. It's had a very strong industrial and
Speaker 3: scientific on R and D base for a very long time,
Speaker 3: it did provide the Shahaed drones to Russia, which Russia have.
Speaker 2: Used ever since.
Speaker 3: It now has, with the assistance of the Iranians, built
Speaker 3: factories in Russia. In fact, my last to Ukraine a
Speaker 3: couple of months ago, I was presented with part of
Speaker 3: one of these drones.
Speaker 2: I wasn't able to bring it in, of course, to Australia.
Speaker 3: But Russia now fires these by the hundreds every night
Speaker 3: into Ukraine to kill Ukrainian civilians. That is specifically why
Speaker 3: Iran gave them these drones, and it's specifically how Iran
Speaker 3: has used these drones against Israel over the last week
Speaker 3: or so.
Speaker 1: And of those drones more effective at avoiding the let's
Speaker 1: call it the idome or the defensive systems within Israel,
Speaker 1: is that one of the reasons they chose that.
Speaker 2: Well, they fly a different trajectory.
Speaker 3: But the the real thing with these drones is you
Speaker 3: use them in large quantities to saturate your adversaries air
Speaker 3: defense system, so they have to make difficult choices about
Speaker 3: which ones they intercept. Now the Ukrainians now have very
Speaker 3: cheap interceptors. The Israelis will clearly want to do something
Speaker 3: the same now, but they're all about saturating and overwhelming
Speaker 3: an air defense network. I mean, this is not the
Speaker 3: first time the Iranians have done this. I was in
Speaker 3: Baghdad in two thousand and five when the Iranians inserted
Speaker 3: very advanced IDs to the insurgents and helped insurgents against
Speaker 3: the Americans use these. I saw the impact of how
Speaker 3: Iran helps our adversaries. They've done it again with Russia.
Speaker 3: They've done it against Israel now, and if we don't
Speaker 3: stop them, they'll do it again.
Speaker 1: So that sort of covers off the defensive side of things.
Speaker 1: When you feel like there's an existential threat against you,
Speaker 1: let's just move on to the offensive side. Other words,
Speaker 1: strike first. When a nation like Israel decides that they're
Speaker 1: going to make this call, and you, as you said,
Speaker 1: they've probably been planning for these sorts of decision making
Speaker 1: for many, many years. It's sort of sitting there on
Speaker 1: the shelf. It's been you know, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse,
Speaker 1: plant plant plan. Now is the time to make the call.
Speaker 1: I know you won't know the answer this, but just
Speaker 1: speculate around this. Given your experience, what would have been
Speaker 1: the reason that Israel felt more vulnerable a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago, would however, a long ago, thirteen days ago,
Speaker 1: when they first started their assault onto Iran in relation
Speaker 1: to the nuclear and the military capabilities of Iran, what
Speaker 1: would have been the thought process.
Speaker 3: Well, I think there would have been a bunch of
Speaker 3: things that contributed to the final decision. The first thing is,
Speaker 3: you know, just this long standing deep unease that the
Speaker 3: Iranians are moving towards the capability to assemble a nuclear warhead.
Speaker 2: So that's always there.
Speaker 3: You know, the IAEA report that came out two weeks ago,
Speaker 3: which indicated that the Iranians probably have more hidden facilities,
Speaker 3: that would have induced a fair amount of uncertainty and
Speaker 3: more unease in the Israeli leadership about Iran's capacity to
Speaker 3: build a nuclear weapon. I think too, that you know,
Speaker 3: the Israeli Prime Minister has been working on the American
Speaker 3: President about degrading Iran's nuclear program for some time. I mean,
Speaker 3: Netnya who's never been a great fan of negotiations, is
Speaker 3: more a fan of using military action. And I think
Speaker 3: that you know, Trump's statements about Iran not getting a
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon played into that. So these all came together
Speaker 3: and you know, we can't discount domestic political considerations of
Speaker 3: Netna who They're always part of his calculus. We shouldn't
Speaker 3: forget that. So all these things probably came together, and
Speaker 3: we don't know what other intelligence they might have seen,
Speaker 3: but they would have been key elements of the decision
Speaker 3: that the Israeli cabinet and prime minister would have made
Speaker 3: a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 1: So when the Israeli prime ministers, I mean, in your experience,
Speaker 1: what would happen the Israeli Prime minister and his cabinet
Speaker 1: makes it the call, They then instruct the generals or
Speaker 1: the military. But would he have sort of picked up
Speaker 1: the phone and said, listen, DJT Donald, mister Trump, we're
Speaker 1: thinking about doing this. I need your you know, your
Speaker 1: sanction or whatever the words are. Is that a normal
Speaker 1: thing or do they just say they we're doing this
Speaker 1: and we'll let them find it down the track.
Speaker 3: No, I mean there would have been a dialogue there.
Speaker 3: You know, as tough and forward leaning as the Israeli
Speaker 3: Prime minister is, even he would like to have the
Speaker 3: support of the Americans. So there would have been a
Speaker 3: die log gone on for weeks, maybe even months about
Speaker 3: this I mean, there are some reports we're seeing now
Speaker 3: on the Washington Post that this was a dialogue that
Speaker 3: went on for many, many months, So you know, the
Speaker 3: Americans would have been across the planning. You know, we
Speaker 3: saw the Americans start to withdraw dependence from embassies a
Speaker 3: couple of weeks before Israel commenced its operations, So they
Speaker 3: clearly had an inkling that it was very likely, even
Speaker 3: if they didn't know the exact timing of Israel's attack,
Speaker 3: and they probably weren't across the full details of the
Speaker 3: weapons that Israel had inserted into Arena over a long
Speaker 3: period of time to conduct these attacks on the air
Speaker 3: defense network in the first hours of the Israeli assault.
Speaker 1: So Micki, you saying that Israel had already got weapons
Speaker 1: inside Iran. I thought everything came out from Israel or
Speaker 1: from outside Iran. They were actually inside Iran already.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 3: They had inserted over many months and years, trucks with drones,
Speaker 3: remotely operated anti tank missiles, and other capabilities, intelligence agents
Speaker 3: on the ground, probably special forces, and what they did
Speaker 3: were the initial attacks that destroyed Iranian radars and air
Speaker 3: defense sites. That ensued that the following waves of crude
Speaker 3: Israeli Air Force aircraft could get into Iran conduct their
Speaker 3: attacks with minimal interference from the Iranians. I mean, this
Speaker 3: is one of the lessons of this and Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb,
Speaker 3: that our bases in our home lands are uniquely vulnerable
Speaker 3: to these kind of attacks and we need to pay
Speaker 3: very serious attention to this method.
Speaker 1: So they sort of stitched them up. Basically in Australian terms,
Speaker 1: they basically said, we're going to normal you, sorry the
Speaker 1: better word homble you before we even send our first plane.
Speaker 1: And so but how do they get away with that?
Speaker 1: I can't imagine. I mean, like, you know, you're in
Speaker 1: if some truck arrived here. As you know, we had
Speaker 1: a caravan here, which was bad enough here in Sydney,
Speaker 1: but a whole series of trucks were sitting in weird places.
Speaker 1: Someone who would say, well, what the hell is that
Speaker 1: truck sitting out the front of my house doing there
Speaker 1: or in that factory industrial zone because I would go
Speaker 1: past it every morning to work or whatever the case
Speaker 1: I be. How do they get how does that happen?
Speaker 1: Like this sounds crazy to me, like that they can
Speaker 1: actually happen without anybody asking a question.
Speaker 3: Well, it's happened in Russia and Iran in the last
Speaker 3: three weeks, and they're both authoritarian regimes that have restrictions
Speaker 3: on the movement of people internally. So if it can
Speaker 3: happen in them, in a democracy, this would be very
Speaker 3: easy to pull off.
Speaker 2: I mean, in.
Speaker 3: Democracies we're not inclined to pull over every truck and
Speaker 3: question the truck driver or search their bill of goods,
Speaker 3: and nor should we be. But you know, there is
Speaker 3: a vulnerability here to these kind of attacks because they're
Speaker 3: very easy to hide, and frankly, they're extraordinarily cheap. With
Speaker 3: you know, five hundred dollars drones, with a kilogram or
Speaker 3: two of explosive you can fly over the fence of
Speaker 3: an air base and destroy your really badly damage one
Speaker 3: hundred million dollar aircraft.
Speaker 1: So in a military strategic sense, what would various militaries
Speaker 1: around the world studying this consider they've learned.
Speaker 3: Well, I think they'll be learning about detection first and
Speaker 3: foremost of small drones that might be approaching or coming
Speaker 3: over the perimeters of their bases. I mean, the detection
Speaker 3: alone is a major gap. We need to be able
Speaker 3: to do that. Now it's not easy. But there are
Speaker 3: small short range radars which Ukrainians use in their thousands now,
Speaker 3: which are very good at this.
Speaker 2: And then the.
Speaker 3: Second thing is be able to destroy these things. Now,
Speaker 3: there's a whole lot, especially in Australia where we love
Speaker 3: bureaucracy at state and federal level, a multitude of different
Speaker 3: rules that prevent the ADF at the moment from using
Speaker 3: electromagnetic or kinetic ways of intercepting these drones. We're really
Speaker 3: going to have to have a hard look at our
Speaker 3: legislative underpinnings to allow our soldiers as well as our
Speaker 3: police to use weapons to destroy offensive drones that might
Speaker 3: be going against critical infrastructure, against military bases or major
Speaker 3: public events.
Speaker 1: So you said there's regulations, like, we have regulations that
Speaker 1: say we can't protect ourselves absolutely.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, just spectrum management in Australia is
Speaker 3: highly centralized. The Federal Aviation Authorities CASSA have a very
Speaker 3: hard approach to the use of drones and particularly countering drones.
Speaker 3: So there's a bunch of legislation about the use of jamming,
Speaker 3: GPS jamming, electromagnetic jamming in Australia.
Speaker 2: I mean, there should be.
Speaker 3: You don't want everyone doing it, but there's going have
Speaker 3: to be some carve outs for military and police forces.
Speaker 3: There are some limited ones for major events, but we're
Speaker 3: going to have to have a more holistic approach and
Speaker 3: then look at, well, what can we do to intercept
Speaker 3: these things. If you have someone on a military base
Speaker 3: firing a weapon at a drone and the rounds from
Speaker 3: that weapon goes over the perimeter into civilian housing areas,
Speaker 3: where you have a problem. So this isn't exactly a
Speaker 3: simple problem to solve, but we've got to get ourselves
Speaker 3: on the path to solving it.
Speaker 1: And there's Australia somewhere that we are, given our proximity
Speaker 1: in the world, is a drone attack feasible for us.
Speaker 1: We're not attached to anybody's what I.
Speaker 3: Meant, well, we're very attached to the American Alliance and
Speaker 3: to our partners in places like Japan and Europe. So
Speaker 3: we're actually uniquely vulnerable to this because someone could do
Speaker 3: this against us without the fear of any kind of
Speaker 3: long range response from Australia. We don't have long range
Speaker 3: attack capabilities, we don't have weapons of masters struction. So
Speaker 3: as a way to curse the behavior of the Australian government.
Speaker 3: This could be a very effective way for a potential
Speaker 3: enemy to act against us.
Speaker 1: And are you saying that they would actually insert themselves
Speaker 1: into Australia similar to the way Israel has done in
Speaker 1: Iran with trucks full of drones for example, or are
Speaker 1: they going to do it from team or they were
Speaker 1: in Genetia.
Speaker 3: They would fly in people through Mascot Airport or Brisbane
Speaker 3: International Airport. They would go and buy trucks from a
Speaker 3: normal truck salesman. You can buy them without any problems.
Speaker 3: In this country, they would go buy a few hundred
Speaker 3: drones from the latest dji store, which I walked past
Speaker 3: at the shops all the time, and then they could
Speaker 3: probably pretty simply acquire a few hundred or a few
Speaker 3: dozens of kilos of explosives from criminal gains or mind
Speaker 3: sights around the country. That's all you need and then
Speaker 3: a little bit of creativity. This is why it's such
Speaker 3: a profound issue, because that's the very This is not
Speaker 3: a difficult or expensive undertaking. With a million dollars, you
Speaker 3: could pull this off without any problems whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's mad. That's well. Hopefully that there are people
Speaker 1: listening to you, are there more people like you forming
Speaker 1: groups who are actually reaching out to the government or
Speaker 1: reaching out to your counterparts, who are you know, sort
Speaker 1: of active in duty. I mean, do you guys talk
Speaker 1: about these things or how does it work?
Speaker 2: Well? A lot of people talk about it.
Speaker 3: You know, the government talked about it in the National
Speaker 3: Defense Strategy, but you know it's an extraordinarily weak document
Speaker 3: with you know, defense spending that's just not up to it,
Speaker 3: and our bases, unfortunately, are extraordinarily vulnerable to this kind
Speaker 3: of threat.
Speaker 1: When I look at what happened before the ceasefire announced
Speaker 1: today this morning, when I look at what happened leading
Speaker 1: up to that, I saw that Iran might have been
Speaker 1: a minister of Defense or Minister Foreign Affairs or something
Speaker 1: like that to Russia and sat down with Putin. What
Speaker 1: do you think about Putin's response or lack of response,
Speaker 1: or do you think he'd already been called by Trump?
Speaker 1: I mean, it just looked like a stitch up to me.
Speaker 1: In fact, when I was watching the engagement between the
Speaker 1: two across the table, I was watching it on Fox
Speaker 1: News last night. Because these things get you, they tend
Speaker 1: to occupy my mind. I was watching his body language
Speaker 1: when he was being spoken to by the Iranian representatives,
Speaker 1: and he looked kept looking down. He looked like he'd
Speaker 1: already made a decision. I'm not going to do anything.
Speaker 1: I'm just going through this process to for face and
Speaker 1: to make sure you still think I'm in your team.
Speaker 1: But dude, I'm not going to do anything. What did
Speaker 1: you think about that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Speaker 3: I mean, the Russians and Chinese have sent thoughts and
Speaker 3: prayers to Tayhran and not much else. You know, we
Speaker 3: know the UN Security Council as a two tiger. He
Speaker 3: really didn't result in anything despite Tyran's best efforts. You know,
Speaker 3: if you're Putin, you're looking at this situation at well,
Speaker 3: I've already got one war. I know Trump's pretty serious
Speaker 3: about taking these guys out, and he's not serious about me.
Speaker 3: So I don't want to align too closely with them.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not really in Putin Norge's interest to
Speaker 3: get too involved in this other than you know, sending
Speaker 3: good wishes to their authoritarian fellow traveler.
Speaker 1: Did at any stage did you think to yourself, make
Speaker 1: this could be World War three before today I'm talking
Speaker 1: about Well, I.
Speaker 3: Think it's been clear that we've we're probably in the
Speaker 3: early phases of what future historians might term World War three.
Speaker 3: I think that started February twenty twenty two. You know,
Speaker 3: it's not like World War One or World War two,
Speaker 3: but we are in the midst of a global conflict
Speaker 3: and confrontation between democracies and authoritarians. There are some violent
Speaker 3: parts of it, which is Ukraine and the Middle East,
Speaker 3: and there are some ideological parts of it which we
Speaker 3: see in the Pacific and elsewhere. So it's probably closer
Speaker 3: to the phony war that occurred in Europe in nineteen
Speaker 3: thirty nine than the full out war that occurred later.
Speaker 3: But you know, future historians might see what we're living
Speaker 3: through now was the early phases of what might be
Speaker 3: called World War three.
Speaker 2: In the future, we'll see.
Speaker 1: It seems to me that globally, in lots of respects,
Speaker 1: we have division. You know, do we look after Palestina
Speaker 1: or do we look after Israel or the Jewish community.
Speaker 1: Do we back Russia or do we back Ukraine. Do
Speaker 1: we back China or do we back in the US?
Speaker 1: Do we back Taiwan. It just seems to me there's
Speaker 1: this massive division everywhere. I wouldn't call it a Cold war,
Speaker 1: but definitely it looks to me as over there's division.
Speaker 1: Do you think the division is being ideologically driven actually,
Speaker 1: you know, made to happen, or do you think it's
Speaker 1: just the world dividing itself.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: I think this is an ideological struggle that's been going
Speaker 3: on for some time. The Chinese have been in an
Speaker 3: ideological struggle with US for decades. We just haven't noticed
Speaker 3: until recently. You know, only got to read G's speeches
Speaker 3: to see the struggle and conflict that he talks about
Speaker 3: against the West and how the East is rising and
Speaker 3: the West is declining. I think Russia, China are in
Speaker 3: a North Korea see an opportunity to undermine the system
Speaker 3: that we've all greatly benefited from since nineteen forty five.
Speaker 3: They're not proposing any better system, just that they hate
Speaker 3: the US led world order because they're not leading it.
Speaker 3: So we are in the midst of an ideological war.
Speaker 3: We're seeing it play out on TikTok and social media
Speaker 3: and other means around the world with misinformation, and we're
Speaker 3: seeing it play out on streets in Australia with some
Speaker 3: of these demonstrations that get out there and want to
Speaker 3: support hamas and other causes.
Speaker 1: So when you look at what happened over the past
Speaker 1: thirteen days, particularly with what the USA did in their
Speaker 1: one endeavor, do you think militarily does that send a
Speaker 1: message to the rest of the world, because like China
Speaker 1: and North Korea and Russia, but probably the former two
Speaker 1: that the United States is still militarily not only significant,
Speaker 1: but probably superior. Was it enough the way it was organized, executed, planned,
Speaker 1: the planes they used, the bombs they dropped, is that
Speaker 1: a big enough signal in the world for other people go, wow,
Speaker 1: let's just pull back here and be careful.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it is a key message from the
Speaker 3: United States that despite the isolationist inclinations of the Marga movement,
Speaker 3: they're not fully disengaged from the world, and that they
Speaker 3: are prepared. They do have the will and the capability
Speaker 3: to act if it isn't in their interests or in
Speaker 3: the interest of their closest friends. So, you know, I
Speaker 3: think the US saw in its interest to ensure Iran
Speaker 3: did does not get a nuclear weapon, it would cascade
Speaker 3: into all kinds of problems in the Middle East and
Speaker 3: more broadly and in greater proliferation we must add. So
Speaker 3: you know, when the US sees it in its direct
Speaker 3: interest in lack, I think President g will be more
Speaker 3: worried about this than putin there is you know, one
Speaker 3: of the few things the American polity agrees on is
Speaker 3: the competition with China, and he will be looking at
Speaker 3: this goalon Okay, so Trump is serious. I need to
Speaker 3: rethink my decision calculus when dealing with the United States.
Speaker 1: Henceforwarth because a lot of people were saying, well, if
Speaker 1: this turns into a war, maybe this is China's opportunity
Speaker 1: to go assert its dominance over taiwan Is. In other words,
Speaker 1: US gets engaged in another place, So you know, the
Speaker 1: old diversion attack there over here will just go over
Speaker 1: there and do our best. Do you think though, make
Speaker 1: I don't have any sense of this, But is the
Speaker 1: US capability greater than everyone else in the world. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've looked at the number of planes. The US by
Speaker 1: far has many more fighter jets in any other place
Speaker 1: in the world as understand it. I saw a stat
Speaker 1: come out the other day like ridiculously more so much
Speaker 1: more that Mevini and I don't know if we know
Speaker 1: actually what China has but anyway, But in terms of
Speaker 1: the technological capability, is China clipping at the hills in
Speaker 1: days or is it a long way away?
Speaker 3: Well, when it comes to the size of the US military,
Speaker 3: remember the US has global commitments, so it can't concentrate
Speaker 3: its entire military in one or even two places. It's dispersed,
Speaker 3: whereas China and Russia can concentrate their entire military in
Speaker 3: a small swathe of the Earth's surface. So that's a
Speaker 3: challenge for the United States. Secondly, its industrial capacity has
Speaker 3: waned significantly since the end of the Cold War. Its
Speaker 3: ability to produce large quantities of military material at an
Speaker 3: affordable price has declined, as has Europe, although they're trying
Speaker 3: to turn that around. Russia and China have maintained the
Speaker 3: capacity to be what I call an arsenal of authoritarians.
Speaker 3: So these are two big problems. And then technologically, I
Speaker 3: mean Russia is not near the United States or even
Speaker 3: Europe technologically or even economically. But China is close to
Speaker 3: the United States economically and technologically. It is the most
Speaker 3: wealthy and technologically advanced competitor the United States has ever had,
Speaker 3: and that means that you know, there's no way to
Speaker 3: spend your way to victory against China. You've got to
Speaker 3: produce a lot of stuff, but you've got to outthink
Speaker 3: them as well, So you've.
Speaker 1: Got to Yeah, so you know, you see all these
Speaker 1: various technological advances in terms of the military capabilities. Is
Speaker 1: the US winning that war or winning that game? Because
Speaker 1: there there's another The second War is a technological war.
Speaker 1: That's the we can now think you war. And the
Speaker 1: United States always has been the technological leader in the world.
Speaker 1: But in terms of military do you think that China's
Speaker 1: slowly was surely sneaking up with US? And therefore any
Speaker 1: alliances they might have with Russia, Iran or North Korea
Speaker 1: sort of enables those countries as well.
Speaker 3: No, they certainly are very technologically sophisticated. The research and
Speaker 3: development base in China is extraordinary, and they can move
Speaker 3: with great speed in both researching and rolling out a
Speaker 3: new technology.
Speaker 2: But there are some.
Speaker 3: Critical technologies where China is behind or well behind the
Speaker 3: United States. I mean AI. The US is the undisputed
Speaker 3: world leader or the major companies doing AI research and
Speaker 3: development in the United States, and that is a very
Speaker 3: significant advantage not just for AI but for using AI.
Speaker 3: To research and develop other technologies, things like submarine warfare
Speaker 3: and stealth is an area that provides a very significant
Speaker 3: qualitative advantage for the US military forces and its allies
Speaker 3: that it will share those capabilities with.
Speaker 2: So I think that's important.
Speaker 3: And so I think those two things are very important.
Speaker 3: And you know, I think we should be very cautious
Speaker 3: about questioning US will. You know, we've seen before where
Speaker 3: America has preferred an isolationist approach, but if it is
Speaker 3: challenged in any significant way, it's the kind of country
Speaker 3: that can surprise us with how it can unify rally
Speaker 3: and build capacity to overwhelm and adversary. So we should
Speaker 3: never write off the American capacity to do that in
Speaker 3: the right circumstances. And the Chinese will have to be
Speaker 3: very very careful, indeed, if they want to make assumptions
Speaker 3: about American will in the future.
Speaker 1: So where do field Taiwan might be now or China
Speaker 1: the Taiwan or relative to Taiwan, do you think that
Speaker 1: they might have this whole event may have put them
Speaker 1: back a few steps, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think so.
Speaker 3: I mean, the Chinese have obviously watched the war in
Speaker 3: Ukraine closely, but they've watched all our wars all the
Speaker 3: way back to the Falklands War, so you know, they've
Speaker 3: been learning from other people's wars for some time. Some
Speaker 3: lessons from Ukraine would have given them heart, others would
Speaker 3: have given them pause, particularly quality of people and these
Speaker 3: kind of things. You know, the US policy for Taiwan
Speaker 3: is not to encourage independence for Taiwan and not to
Speaker 3: encourage a Chinese takeover. And you know, it hasn't changed
Speaker 3: that policy. It's still walking that careful line. But you know,
Speaker 3: I think there are enough signals there that if China
Speaker 3: was to do something militarily aggressive against Taiwan, America would
Speaker 3: certainly view that dimly and would probably seek to intervene
Speaker 3: to protect one of two large island democracies of twenty
Speaker 3: six million people in the Pacific, the other one being Australia.
Speaker 1: Of course, can we just quickly talk about the way
Speaker 1: the USA snuck up on Iran? They had sort of
Speaker 1: all these diversionory tactics going on, as sending B two
Speaker 1: bombers all around the joint. Maybe you could just quickly
Speaker 1: take us through that, because whilst some of us, some
Speaker 1: of us have read about it, we don't really understand
Speaker 1: what they were trying to do. It just sounds like
Speaker 1: the old curve ball. But maybe you just take us
Speaker 1: through that, Mick.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean a couple of weeks ago, ironically, I
Speaker 3: published a major report in the US on the future
Speaker 3: of military deception with my friend Peter Singer Wow, and
Speaker 3: we talked about these kind of things that, you know,
Speaker 3: contrary to the prognostications of the ten minute military experts
Speaker 3: that we often see talking about these issues, the battlefield
Speaker 3: isn't totally transparent. You can't see everything, and you can't
Speaker 3: always see what the enemy plans to do against you,
Speaker 3: So surprise and deceptions still matter. And the Americans with
Speaker 3: this bomber raid, I think employed the deception in a
Speaker 3: couple of ways. One at the political level by saying, oh,
Speaker 3: we're going to think about this for a couple of weeks,
Speaker 3: which induced the Iranians to think they had time, whereas
Speaker 3: they didn't. And secondly, on the military side, I mean,
Speaker 3: the Americans allowed word to get out that some bombers
Speaker 3: were heading across the Pacific when the real bombers had
Speaker 3: actually turned around out of sight and were heading across
Speaker 3: Europe towards Iran. So there are a couple of levels
Speaker 3: of deception, and in Iran, they as the Chairman of
Speaker 3: the Joint Chiefs outlined, they used decoy aircraft as well
Speaker 3: ahead of the crewed aircraft, just as a final measure
Speaker 3: to deceive any remaining Iranian air defense radars and interceptors.
Speaker 3: Is still an important part of war, It's an important
Speaker 3: part of being successful and is vital to achieving surprise
Speaker 3: against an enemy. And the more surprise you achieve, the
Speaker 3: more successful you are, and the more of your own
Speaker 3: people you bring back alive, which is always important for
Speaker 3: military commanders.
Speaker 1: And particularly also politically. I think, to let get it,
Speaker 1: the political impact of no one getting injured or hurt
Speaker 1: is a big deal. And that's sort of what Trump
Speaker 1: would call success. You just hit on something, as I
Speaker 1: found quite interesting. So in terms of deception, the B
Speaker 1: two bombers were sort of, by the sounds of what
Speaker 1: you just said, they were sort of at the back
Speaker 1: of the parade. In other words, they sent out I
Speaker 1: think he is used to a decoy decoy aircraft. Were
Speaker 1: they Israeli or were they American?
Speaker 3: No, the Americans got very detailed brief on this yesterday morning.
Speaker 3: This was an entirely an American operation with about one
Speaker 3: hundred and twenty aircraft overall, dropping bombs and precision munitions
Speaker 3: as they went to suppress any Iranian defenses, as well
Speaker 3: as precision cruise missiles launched from American submarines. So you know,
Speaker 3: this would have been complex to orchestrate in time and space,
Speaker 3: but was an American operation where they basically said, the Israelis,
Speaker 3: get out of Iranian airspace for this time. We're going
Speaker 3: to do some stuff, and once we're gone, you can
Speaker 3: return to your previous engagements over Iran. So that's the
Speaker 3: rough details of how it all went down.
Speaker 1: And then the B two bombers did this so called
Speaker 1: Midnight Hammer, which I guess is dropping those thirty thousand
Speaker 1: pound bombs I think there was fourteen of them or
Speaker 1: something like that into these facilities. Is this ever happened before?
Speaker 1: Is this a thing? Thirty thousand pound bombs like sounds
Speaker 1: pretty big to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, it's pretty big. I mean, the last time
Speaker 3: weapons of this size we used was World War Two.
Speaker 2: I mean, the.
Speaker 3: British had some pretty big bombs they dropped on submarine
Speaker 3: panes and dms in Germany during the Second World War.
Speaker 3: But these bombs were designed and built specifically for this
Speaker 3: kind of target, primarily in Iran, but potentially in North
Speaker 3: Korea as well, because over the last twenty years been
Speaker 3: very clear that certain countries, in order to hide and
Speaker 3: to protect weapons of master stuck instruction programs nuclear but
Speaker 3: could be others, we would need to get through not
Speaker 3: hundreds of feet of rock and concrete to destroy them.
Speaker 3: And these weapons were designed and built twenty years ago
Speaker 3: for it, and this is their first real operational employer.
Speaker 1: So I was watching TV last night in anticipation of
Speaker 1: you and I speaking today, and they were showing vision
Speaker 1: of the places where they were some of the places
Speaker 1: where these three thousand pounds bombs had dropped. I just
Speaker 1: looked like it looked like they just knocked a few
Speaker 1: buildings out. But when you see it, maybe you could
Speaker 1: give us a bit more insight as to whether or
Speaker 1: not you thought it was complete destruction. So I kept
Speaker 1: seeing the myself, well, actually get what was going on
Speaker 1: underground or not?
Speaker 3: Well, it will depend whether these bombs were actually able
Speaker 3: to penetrate into the voids under these mountains where these
Speaker 3: facilities are. If they were, they would have caused very,
Speaker 3: very significant destruction that old scene from Armageddon when they
Speaker 3: talk about you know, you have a firecracker in your hand.
Speaker 3: If it goes off when it's open, no damage. If
Speaker 3: it goes off when it's closed, no more hand. You know,
Speaker 3: it's the same kind of things with these bunker buses.
Speaker 3: If they get into those enclosed spaces and set off
Speaker 3: all that explosives, the damage will be extraordinary. We just
Speaker 3: don't know yet whether that has occurred, because at the
Speaker 3: end of the day, you can't confirm this from space.
Speaker 3: You're probably going to need people on the ground to
Speaker 3: confirm this.
Speaker 1: So what would the next steps to be theymic would
Speaker 1: the ceasefire was sort of alluded to today by Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't think Ryan has confirmed it at this stage
Speaker 1: with whilst you and I are talking, nor Israel. Does
Speaker 1: the International Atomic Agency do they do someone say, well,
Speaker 1: we want them to have access going inside those bunkers
Speaker 1: and have a look at what happens next.
Speaker 3: Well, I would hope that Iran would allow the IAEA access.
Speaker 3: I mean, they're probably not going to get people him.
Speaker 3: They'll probably have to send robots or remote senses in
Speaker 3: to ascertain the status of these facilities, not just to
Speaker 3: see if they're working or not, but the degree of
Speaker 3: radiological contamination that might be present, well, clearly be monitoring
Speaker 3: the atmosphere for that, but they'll want to see if
Speaker 3: there's radiological contamination that's enclosed within these facilities, or indeed
Speaker 3: if these facilities have suffered damage. I think that's probably
Speaker 3: the way ahead for getting the best assessment, But that
Speaker 3: will be up to the Iranians whether they allow the
Speaker 3: IAEA to do.
Speaker 1: This, because you know, there the Iranian leadership probably is
Speaker 1: looking and feeling a little bit overwhelmed at the moment.
Speaker 1: I might imagine a either got surprised, be either got
Speaker 1: hit by the rings, which they weren't expecting Israel. I
Speaker 1: think there's another twelve hours of fighting between the two
Speaker 1: until the seasfire actually commences, So in Israel's already gone
Speaker 1: and given a good whack to them over the past
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. Anyway, would what normally happens there they
Speaker 1: sit down and have a meeting or something sounds ridiculous,
Speaker 1: but like they're in there trying to blast each other
Speaker 1: off the face of the earth. Then they go and
Speaker 1: have a meeting. Is that what happens after war season?
Speaker 2: Well, you have.
Speaker 3: Meetings all throughout war unless the animal attacks your meeting
Speaker 3: and you're all dead. But I mean, we shouldn't forget
Speaker 3: too that the Iranian leadership have been chased as individuals
Speaker 3: by the Israelis. There's a great report in New York
Speaker 3: Times today about how the Israelis have been emailing all
Speaker 3: the senior Iranian leaders saying, you have twelve hours to
Speaker 3: post a video renouncing the regime or we're going to
Speaker 3: kill wow. So they also have that looking over their
Speaker 3: shoulders as well, which will kind of coerce them to
Speaker 3: decide one way or the other. But you know, I'd
Speaker 3: expect that the Iranians would be keen to firstly project
Speaker 3: to their own people that they haven't lost, that it's
Speaker 3: not over. But secondly, they'll they'll want to conduct an
Speaker 3: assessment of just how much damage has been caused. It
Speaker 3: would have been hard to produce an accurate assessment of
Speaker 3: damage to the nuclear as well as conventional military capabilities
Speaker 3: of Iran over the last week or so. They'll want
Speaker 3: to do that just to see, well, what defenses have
Speaker 3: we got less. I mean, that will be one of
Speaker 3: the first couple of questions that the Eyatla will ask,
Speaker 3: is one do we still have a nuclear program in general?
Speaker 3: Do we still have a viable defense of Iran general?
Speaker 3: Is probably the first two questions they'll ask.
Speaker 1: Do you reckon it? Actually the ceasefire what probably isn't
Speaker 1: going to be a SEISFI makes sense? But do you
Speaker 1: actually if the Iranians come out and confirm what Trump
Speaker 1: has said today, do you actually believe that it is
Speaker 1: a It's not called it permanent, but do you would
Speaker 1: you believe it will ennure for the benefit of the
Speaker 1: whole world for years to come? Or if this is
Speaker 1: just do you think the Iranians are just going to say,
Speaker 1: We'll just say we're there's a ceasefire and we'll start
Speaker 1: to rebuild.
Speaker 3: We'd all like to hope for the former, but we
Speaker 3: probably have to plan for the latter. I mean, the
Speaker 3: Iranians have been pretty unreliable when it comes to declaring
Speaker 3: the full scope of their military and nuclear programs. The
Speaker 3: only thing they've been reliable in is their dedication to
Speaker 3: the destruction of Israel. So it's hard to see them
Speaker 3: giving them giving up on those objectives. But despite desire,
Speaker 3: hopefully the last ten days has taken away their capability
Speaker 3: to do that for some time.
Speaker 2: To come.
Speaker 1: But surely they would. I mean, the concept of total
Speaker 1: destruction of this of Israel in order to no longer
Speaker 1: be a threat somehow, you'd have to convince the regime.
Speaker 1: We'd have to believe that the regime has actually moved
Speaker 1: away from that concept. And I don't. I would have
Speaker 1: thought now, after having had the crap be bombed out
Speaker 1: of them and sort of being completely made legless and
Speaker 1: ashamed in front of their own people, that that would
Speaker 1: actually galvanize the regime, the current regime into what they've
Speaker 1: always believed and get rid of Israel altogether. The Zionists,
Speaker 1: devil or whatever they call them. Can you see it,
Speaker 1: like you know, you've had a lot of experience in
Speaker 1: these regions, can you see them actually changing their conceptual
Speaker 1: view the philosophy around Israel.
Speaker 3: No, in a word, I don't see anything that's happened
Speaker 3: that will change their view of Israel and their desire
Speaker 3: to exterminate the Jewish state from the face of the earth.
Speaker 3: It's and I think the Israelis accept that they're never
Speaker 3: going to change the Iranian calculus unless there's some fundamental
Speaker 3: political shift in that country and another change, a regime change,
Speaker 3: and even then you've got to be careful with regime change.
Speaker 2: One.
Speaker 3: We're not very good at it, as we've proved in
Speaker 3: the last twenty five years. And sometimes you can get
Speaker 3: a regime that's even worse, not one that's better. So
Speaker 3: you know, by beware if you want to go down
Speaker 3: the path of regime change, because it could work out
Speaker 3: much much worse than you anticipated, not much much better.
Speaker 1: They're saying that better the devil, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've seen a regime change in Syria. Has that been
Speaker 1: for the better? Do you think so far?
Speaker 3: It's hard to tell. It's probably too early to tell.
Speaker 3: In some respects Israel has newed Syria's conventional capabilities, but
Speaker 3: whether Syria becomes a chaotic, unstable state that's a breeding
Speaker 3: ground for terrorism remains to be seen. I mean, that's
Speaker 3: certainly one of the potential future scenarios for it good.
Speaker 1: I noticed that because I follow Trump on X but
Speaker 1: Trump said on truth rather, Trump said something like he
Speaker 1: wanted to thank prior to the ceasefire announcement, or Trump's
Speaker 1: cease fire announcement, I should say he said that he
Speaker 1: wanted to thank the Iranian administration for pre warning the
Speaker 1: United States that they were going to hit Katah with
Speaker 1: at a military based US military base, and that allowed
Speaker 1: the US to get everyone out, so to speak, So
Speaker 1: there were no casualties personal casualties. Would that be right doing?
Speaker 1: What's the point of doing that? What's the point of
Speaker 1: Iran signaling that they're going to go and hit a
Speaker 1: military base and I'll get all your people at because
Speaker 1: we just want to bash your base up. What's the
Speaker 1: point of that?
Speaker 3: No, that there's a certain logic to Iran doing that. Now,
Speaker 3: the mechanism by which it did that could just be
Speaker 3: openly missiles and stuff like that. But you know, I
Speaker 3: think it's Iran signaling to the United States that, Okay,
Speaker 3: you know, we're.
Speaker 2: Kind of done in this round.
Speaker 3: We're happy for it to be over, but you need
Speaker 3: to allow us to demonstrate to our partners and our
Speaker 3: people that you know, we've at least responded ceremonially to
Speaker 3: what's gone on here, and that's what's happened. So you
Speaker 3: know that there's always a performative elements in many of
Speaker 3: these these attacks. You know, it's not just about in war.
Speaker 3: Its not just about winning the war. It's winning the
Speaker 3: story of the war and the Iranians with this attack
Speaker 3: on Qatar a engaged on winning their version of the
Speaker 3: story of the war.
Speaker 1: Sort like saving face a little bit. So we did respond.
Speaker 3: That's a that's a term to use, but it's the
Speaker 3: Ranium way of building a story around their their war
Speaker 3: against Israel and America, who they still call the Great Statan.
Speaker 1: Of course, yes, if we just come back home domestically
Speaker 1: for a moment. I mean you've sort of highlighted you've
Speaker 1: done this in the previous times and a lot, you know,
Speaker 1: you've said a lot over a long period of time
Speaker 1: about Australias vulnerability. What do you think given that you
Speaker 1: know Albanese is now out there needing to speak about
Speaker 1: August to the United States President. I mean, obviously now
Speaker 1: we know why the president was so busy. What do
Speaker 1: you think August. Where do you think August stands? Now?
Speaker 1: What effect or if nothing at all, perhaps, but of
Speaker 1: all this last week or so, what effect would that
Speaker 1: have on the Aucust agreement?
Speaker 2: Well, I think a lot of people will look at it.
Speaker 3: You know, it's a very expensive undertaking, and because the
Speaker 3: government is unwilling to really substantially increase defense spending, certainly
Speaker 3: not beyond the impacts of inflation. AUCUS is being a
Speaker 3: much much larger part of the defense budget, which means
Speaker 3: the rest of the Australian Defense Force becomes less capable,
Speaker 3: less ready, less lethal. So you know, in a decade
Speaker 3: or so, you know, it could well be that we
Speaker 3: have three second hand American nuclear submarines and two dogs
Speaker 3: in the Australian Defense Force. There's a skewing impact of
Speaker 3: the Orchestra program on both force structure and budgets which
Speaker 3: needs to be addressed if we want to have an
Speaker 3: ADF and nuclear submarines. The only way to address that
Speaker 3: is more money, because we clearly need more in the
Speaker 3: ADF than just three submarines. There's a whole range of contingencies, challenges,
Speaker 3: military and otherwise that the ADF need to be ready
Speaker 3: for that. You know, the budget is less and less
Speaker 3: able to meet. So you know, the three to four
Speaker 3: percent range for GDP is about right according to pretty
Speaker 3: much every defense expert in this country.
Speaker 1: So we should be spending three to four percent of
Speaker 1: our GDP on defense. What are we currently spending.
Speaker 2: About two percent?
Speaker 3: You know, sometimes it edges open to two point one,
Speaker 3: sometimes just under depends on exchange rates and inflation. But unfortunately,
Speaker 3: most of the defense increases we've seen have been entirely
Speaker 3: absorbed by inflation. You know, Marcus Hellier's work on this,
Speaker 3: I think is both substantial and very well informed. So
Speaker 3: we need to get beyond this and start looking very
Speaker 3: seriously at the kind of force structure one that is
Speaker 3: required to defend the Australian homely particularly from missile and
Speaker 3: drone attacks, but as well from other Chinese coercion, like
Speaker 3: you know the Chinese naval circle work around Australia that
Speaker 3: occurred a little while ago.
Speaker 1: Well during the election period that was actually not that
Speaker 1: far long ago, yes.
Speaker 3: And the government did everything they possibly could to keep
Speaker 3: that from the Australian people. So you know, we need
Speaker 3: to have those kind of defensive capabilities as well as
Speaker 3: contribute to operations in the region where China might decide
Speaker 3: that the sobig to you of other nations should be challenged.
Speaker 1: Do you think our intelligence community, because all this still
Speaker 1: starts with intelligence. Intelligence first you got to find it
Speaker 1: what the hell's going on. So you know, moss AD's
Speaker 1: very good at this sort of stuff, and Israelis are
Speaker 1: very good of this, as are the US. But in
Speaker 1: terms of Australia. Do you think our intelligent capability is
Speaker 1: as much as it fits under that whole topic of
Speaker 1: defense is our intelligence community also need to have much
Speaker 1: more funding and much more training and much more attention.
Speaker 3: I think the Australian intelligence community in a qualitative sense
Speaker 3: is extraordinarily good. I mean, we certainly are able to
Speaker 3: there's one area where I think we do punch above
Speaker 3: our weight.
Speaker 2: To be honest.
Speaker 3: Could it be bigger, absolutely, Could it have more technology
Speaker 3: and more people, yes, But pound for pound, I think
Speaker 3: it's a very good intelligence community that's pretty straight with
Speaker 3: the government. And as you've seen with the head of ASIO,
Speaker 3: you know, I really welcome the public statements by him
Speaker 3: about the kinds of threats from countries and capabilities that
Speaker 3: Australia faces. So, you know, I don't think the problem
Speaker 3: in this country is our intelligence community. I think it's
Speaker 3: pretty good. It's the problem is responding to what the
Speaker 3: intelligence community are identifying and recommending to government.
Speaker 1: In other words, our ability to execute and I don't
Speaker 1: execute a person, but execute a strategy.
Speaker 3: Well, I think there's a couple of these. One the
Speaker 3: ability of the Australian government to have an honest conversation
Speaker 3: with Australian citizens about the nature of the threats we face,
Speaker 3: which is far more profound than the Government is willing
Speaker 3: to discuss with the Australian people. And secondly, their ability
Speaker 3: to have an honest conversation about the resourcing needed to
Speaker 3: respond to those threats. They are two things that are
Speaker 3: really missing at the moment.
Speaker 1: What do you think about our Prime minister's sort of
Speaker 1: lack of public commentary in relation to what's currently going on,
Speaker 1: particularly what went on the other night when the US
Speaker 1: dropped the b twodrop bombs dropped the thirty thousand pound bomb.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it's you know, when these kind of
Speaker 3: things happen, a lot of us go straight and see
Speaker 3: when is the government going to make a statement on this,
Speaker 3: When's a foreign minutter going to tweet out a state?
Speaker 3: When's the PM going to say something? I mean, the
Speaker 3: day long delay was very difficult to fathom other than
Speaker 3: they were doing a careful political calculus about is it
Speaker 3: domestically better for them to say nothing than to support
Speaker 3: our American allies in what was a very limited and
Speaker 3: successful military action. So you know, their considerations are all
Speaker 3: around domestic politics, as are most politicians, and I appreciate
Speaker 3: that the problem is their inclinations at the moment to
Speaker 3: lean back from the threat posed by countries like Russia
Speaker 3: and China is the wrong inclination. They need to lean forward.
Speaker 3: They need to engage in more deterrence against these threats. Otherwise,
Speaker 3: you know, an expensive bit of deterrence now will look
Speaker 3: cheap compared to what might have to be spent on
Speaker 3: defense in fetu.
Speaker 1: As a former major general in Australia and if you're
Speaker 1: let's say you're current, do people of your ilk and
Speaker 1: status get disappointed with the politics in relation to money
Speaker 1: allocated to defense. Things that are obvious, you know, the
Speaker 1: world has changed. Commentary by our leader relative to our alliances,
Speaker 1: even saying something like congratulations America, well done or something
Speaker 1: like that. Do people of your status who are in
Speaker 1: the currently in the in the army, for example, or
Speaker 1: in the military, and also former people who are like you,
Speaker 1: who are still active in strategic analysis and reports and commentary,
Speaker 1: do you feel a bit disappointed? Do your colleagues get
Speaker 1: a bit disappointed?
Speaker 3: Everyone has their own personal views on these kind of things,
Speaker 3: but it's important to note that in a democracy, civil
Speaker 3: military relations are about civil primacy. And you know, soldiers
Speaker 3: don't get to publicly disagree with the government for very
Speaker 3: good reason. You know, even if the government makes a
Speaker 3: stupid decision, it's still better that they make a stupid
Speaker 3: decision in a democracy than the military come out and
Speaker 3: says that. So, you know, this is something that Elliott
Speaker 3: Cohen calls the unequal dialogue. It is a very important
Speaker 3: principle in our democracy and others that the military gets
Speaker 3: to offer best military advice, but ultimately the government decides
Speaker 3: and acts on that advice. And that's a system that
Speaker 3: I strongly agree with. It's something that we should probably
Speaker 3: educate Austrayans about more. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: civil primacy is the most important and overwhelming principle in
Speaker 3: those kind of in those kind of discussions and negotiations.
Speaker 1: And what do you mean, Mick by that In terms
Speaker 1: of civil primacy, that means the civil the the the
Speaker 1: rights of the civilians, and the process of the civilians.
Speaker 1: She overrides everything that the military might want to do
Speaker 1: or might want to say. In other words, the military
Speaker 1: is basically an arm of the total. In other words,
Speaker 1: just doesn't the tail, which is the military doesn't wag
Speaker 1: the body. It's the body or the head decides what's
Speaker 1: going to happen down downstream. So to speak of it
Speaker 1: don't mean that being lesser downstream.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, you know, the democratically elected government of the day
Speaker 3: is the lead and the final decision maker. That is
Speaker 3: extraordinarily important in our democracy and many others. It's it's
Speaker 3: a principle that I strongly agree with and have supported
Speaker 3: through my own service over thirty five years, and it's
Speaker 3: the only way a democracy can function. Military can only
Speaker 3: act to achieve the policy and political outcomes of the
Speaker 3: democratically elected government, even if those outcomes don't see the
Speaker 3: size or capability the military that some of us would prefer.
Speaker 3: There's always tensions in this and that tension is generally
Speaker 3: pretty healthy because it leads to better and more creative solutions.
Speaker 3: And it's hardly a new problem. I'm pretty sure a
Speaker 3: couple thousand years ago to Russian, sorry to Roman soldiers
Speaker 3: standing on Hadrian's War were debating those politicians they didn't
Speaker 3: like in Rome. This is an old story for soldiers,
Speaker 3: but it is certainly an environment and a situation that's
Speaker 3: preferable to the alternative.
Speaker 1: Well, Mick Ryan once again, thanks for your insights. May
Speaker 1: have been fantastic. You've actually cleared up a lot of
Speaker 1: the nuances, but you've also cleared up a lot of
Speaker 1: the dust that's sort of floating around these sorts of
Speaker 1: conversations because media tends to get hold of it and
Speaker 1: it goes all over the joint. One good thing is, Mick,
Speaker 1: as we're sitting here now, at least we know that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is called for a ceasefire. And that's probably
Speaker 1: whether it depends what irrespect of what happens in the future.
Speaker 1: Sitting here right now today, that's a better position for
Speaker 1: you and I be in and for the rest of
Speaker 1: Australia being then it would be otherwise. So once again,
Speaker 1: thanks very much, Thanks for all your service, Thanks for
Speaker 1: everything you contribute to Australia, and you've never stop. You
Speaker 1: just keep contributing it and I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thanks Mark, it's great to talk to you again. And yeah,
Speaker 2: let's all hope this six five weeks.
Speaker 1: Goodnight,