Speaker 1: You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks,
Speaker 1: EDB and.
Speaker 2: Yes Yesterday, Our time, about now. Actually twenty four hours ago,
Speaker 2: the Israeli Defense Force carried out multiple strikes on Iranian
Speaker 2: military targets, killing four soldiers. Israel's army has said the
Speaker 2: attacks are in retaliation to continuous attacks from Iran. The
Speaker 2: President of the United States, Joe Biden, says someone optimistically,
Speaker 2: I think that he's hopeful that this will mark the
Speaker 2: end of a month's long cycle of escalation, but many
Speaker 2: experts are concerned this is going to worsen the conflict.
Speaker 2: And with me now is geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Miller Jeffrey Good.
Speaker 3: Afternoon, Good afternoon, Tim.
Speaker 2: Was this a valid response from Israel?
Speaker 3: Well, Israel will see it that way. It was a
Speaker 3: carefully calibrated response. It targeted mainly military sites in Iran,
Speaker 3: around twenty different sites and three different locations, so it
Speaker 3: was significant. But what it did not do was target
Speaker 3: oil facilities or nuclear facilities. And there's been a lot
Speaker 3: of talk and concern that Israel would seek to do
Speaker 3: that would seek to undertake a large scale a strike,
Speaker 3: just given what Israel's been doing particularly in Lebanon in
Speaker 3: the last few months, we just had every reason to
Speaker 3: think that with the large scale response from Israel, I
Speaker 3: think there was a significant response, and in the wider context,
Speaker 3: it was a very big response by Israel yesterday. But
Speaker 3: I think Israel also to some degree stepped back from
Speaker 3: the brink here and it didn't go for that for
Speaker 3: those nuclear facilities, oil facilities because of UIs pressure behind
Speaker 3: the scenes, and I think Ben and men who decided
Speaker 3: to just step back a little bit and not go
Speaker 3: too far.
Speaker 2: What was it specifically in retaliation too, in terms of
Speaker 2: what Iran had been doing, because that's part a bunch
Speaker 2: of missiles at Israel, aren't they.
Speaker 3: That's right. Looks hard for everyone to keep keep up
Speaker 3: here because we've had so many exactly so many responses
Speaker 3: and counter responses and rounds of escalation this year. It's
Speaker 3: hard for anyone to keep up. But yesterday's strikes by
Speaker 3: Israel were in direct response to an attack by Iran
Speaker 3: on Israel on the first of October, in which Iran
Speaker 3: sent around one hundred and eighty ballistic missiles towards Israel
Speaker 3: and did some significant damage on Israeli military facilities. It
Speaker 3: was more significant than actually was publicized immediately after those strikes,
Speaker 3: and so that was what Israel was responding to yesterday.
Speaker 3: And in the past month or so, the Israel Israel
Speaker 3: has been given the use of a new defense air
Speaker 3: defense system from the United States, a very advancedment called FAD.
Speaker 3: And there's some suggestion, you know, no hard evidence, but
Speaker 3: that that might have been part of the deal. The
Speaker 3: US supplied a more high tech edense system there's only
Speaker 3: six of them in the world to Israel, and in response,
Speaker 3: Israel did not go for the jugular with yesterday with
Speaker 3: Iran and undertook a more moderate response. And one might expected.
Speaker 2: What's the name of that their defense system again.
Speaker 3: It's it's called farn THHAA D is an acronym. Don't
Speaker 3: don't ask me to spell out all the words. That
Speaker 3: something begins with terminal and then high altitude.
Speaker 2: There are terminal high altitude defense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I think something like that.
Speaker 2: Is that something that's like the iron dime two point
Speaker 2: zero or is it something completely different?
Speaker 3: I think it's it's it's that on that spectrum. I
Speaker 3: so there are only half a dozen of them in
Speaker 3: the world. There was one station number of years ago
Speaker 3: in South Korea that really angered China quite significantly. So
Speaker 3: it's clearly got an awful lot of capability. It's got
Speaker 3: a lot of high tech radar capability, and you know,
Speaker 3: in some ways it's surprising that hasn't been stationed in
Speaker 3: Israel already, but it just shows that the thread is
Speaker 3: quite severe from Israel's perspective, and they've showed themselves up
Speaker 3: with that new system. Perhaps in exchange, they didn't as
Speaker 3: if they undertake a more widespread of attack yesterday.
Speaker 2: Because Iran has its only a defense system. How much
Speaker 2: of the of Israel's attack was actually repelled. Do we
Speaker 2: know what sort of proportion of missiles got through?
Speaker 3: I think very little. I mean, Israel's technology is you know,
Speaker 3: it is very very it's a very high standard, and
Speaker 3: that's because it's largely developed in coordination with the United States,
Speaker 3: and they have one of the most advanced militaries, if
Speaker 3: not the most advanced military in the world. Iran simply
Speaker 3: does not. So Israel did significant damage to air defense
Speaker 3: facilities in Iran yesterday, going by the reports, and that
Speaker 3: will be significant if Israel wants to undertake future attacks.
Speaker 3: Iran's air defense systems have been knocked out effectively, and
Speaker 3: yes they'll they'll rebuild them, no doubt, but that will
Speaker 3: take time. And that's what's what's in it for Israel.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess there are two ways of I mean
Speaker 2: from a layman's point of view, there's two ways of
Speaker 2: life looking at it. That they've softened up the air
Speaker 2: defenses so they can have another crack at them. But
Speaker 2: one might argue they've softened up the air defense system
Speaker 2: so they can simply say no more from you, Otherwise
Speaker 2: we're going to hit your harder and you won't be
Speaker 2: able to defend yourself. What is.
Speaker 3: I think as both of those A true term certainly,
Speaker 3: I mean that those attacks yesterday by Israel, they're destroyed
Speaker 3: missile production, missile launch facilities, air defense facilities. You know,
Speaker 3: this is significant in deterring future strikes by Iran. It's
Speaker 3: not crippling in the sense because it didn't go for
Speaker 3: you know, some of them, as I say, those other targets.
Speaker 3: It won't lead to a full scale war. Iran has
Speaker 3: played down the attacks, saying there's only limited damage, so
Speaker 3: they're not looking to undertake another round of retaliation here
Speaker 3: against Israel. And it's to everyone's benefit. And we've seen
Speaker 3: an awful lot of escalation in the Middle East over
Speaker 3: the past year, and I think it will do everyone
Speaker 3: good to take a breath and step back for a moment.
Speaker 3: And I think we need to go for diplomacy, dialogue
Speaker 3: de escalation here, and that's something that many countries have
Speaker 3: been working on over the past year. You know, it's
Speaker 3: all started with Gaza, it's expanded to Lebanon, to Syria,
Speaker 3: to Iran, to Iran. We all need to step back
Speaker 3: here and what's been happening. We've just seen a wave
Speaker 3: after wave of escalation and I think if anything we've
Speaker 3: learned anything over the past year is the escalation simply
Speaker 3: forgets more escalation. And sadly, I you know, we've got
Speaker 3: to look at the wider context as well. With an
Speaker 3: US election just around the corner, and you know, if
Speaker 3: the polls are right, Donald Trump is in the box
Speaker 3: seat to win those He is very anti Iran in
Speaker 3: his views and very much against Iran's nuclear program. I
Speaker 3: just wonder whether ben Aminetno's waiting and seeing look, Trump's
Speaker 3: in the box seat to win this selection. Let's do
Speaker 3: something bigger. On the other side of November, the.
Speaker 2: Well so Biden City t hope a little mark the
Speaker 2: end of a month's long cycle of escalation.
Speaker 3: What's your view, Well, look, I think you're a very
Speaker 3: brave person to think this is ever the end. We've
Speaker 3: just seen just wave and wave of escalation over the
Speaker 3: past year. If you just think where this all began
Speaker 3: on October the seventh, twenty twenty three, and where we
Speaker 3: are now, you know, we've gone from being just about
Speaker 3: Gaza to being about Lebanon has Bella. Who've seen just
Speaker 3: escalation throughout the Middle East no matter where you look.
Speaker 3: Israel says it's fighting a seventh front war because when
Speaker 3: you count up all the enemies it's facing from the
Speaker 3: Hooties in Yemen through to the West Bank, Syria, ir Araan, Lebanon, Gaza,
Speaker 3: you end up with seven fronts. And that's the situation
Speaker 3: we're in now. We're in a wider regional war. So yes,
Speaker 3: things could have been worse yesterday, But you know, I
Speaker 3: think they're bad enough as they are, and I think
Speaker 3: we need to just keep steaking out in favor of
Speaker 3: the de escalation routes. Apparently there are more ceasefire talks underway,
Speaker 3: and Doha again with Gaza, and I think we just
Speaker 3: need to go back to the political solutions because you
Speaker 3: won't solve this conflict with the military response.
Speaker 2: Do you think that Iran will respond.
Speaker 3: For now? I don't think they have plans to. From
Speaker 3: the messaging that's coming out, they're saying limited damage, saying
Speaker 3: that their Israeli response was weak. They had regular programming
Speaker 3: on state TV. They're not hyping things out, sort of
Speaker 3: brushing it off. Yeah, well, I think real damage was
Speaker 3: done to the military facilities, but they're not looking to
Speaker 3: make a big thing of it, which you would expect
Speaker 3: if they were planning on undertaking yet another round of retaliation.
Speaker 3: But remember this is the second tips attack, the escalation
Speaker 3: we've seen this year. The direct confrontation between Israel and
Speaker 3: Iran was one back in April, so it was only
Speaker 3: six months ago. So I think the way we should
Speaker 3: probably say this, you know, the current round is over,
Speaker 3: but there will be sadly, almost certainly future rounds of
Speaker 3: escalation unless we diffuse all of this through political solutions.
Speaker 2: Well, I was going to I was gonna, well, I
Speaker 2: am going to ask you. It feels like a rhetorical
Speaker 2: question because I almost think that there's the answer is no.
Speaker 2: But anyway, would return of the hostages make any difference?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 2: Or are we well beyond that now?
Speaker 3: I think it would make some difference. I mean a
Speaker 3: return of the hostages as part of a cease fire deal.
Speaker 3: I think a cees fire and Gaza would be fantastic.
Speaker 3: I think cees fire and Lebanon would be fantastic. Israel
Speaker 3: has met an awful lot of its objectives by now,
Speaker 3: and you go back to April, Joe Biden told Vinamayahnah
Speaker 3: to take the win after the round of escalation then
Speaker 3: with Iran, and I think perhaps those words take the
Speaker 3: wind should be the message to Israel right now, just
Speaker 3: given what's happened. They've killed Yahya Sinhwa, the head of
Speaker 3: Hamas and Gaza. They've killed Ismail Hanair, the political leader
Speaker 3: from US. They've killed Tassanas brother, the leader of his
Speaker 3: the Llah. They've caused an awful lot of damage in
Speaker 3: Lebanon and Gaza. Forty two thousand people in Gaza have
Speaker 3: been killed, two and a half thousand and Elebanon. At
Speaker 3: some point, I think you need to quote unquote take
Speaker 3: the win and just stop and go for a political solution.
Speaker 3: Go for cease fires, go for diplomacy. I think that
Speaker 3: should be the message for Benamantno, who right now, I'm
Speaker 3: not sure if he's willing to hear it. I think
Speaker 3: he's looking ahead and he's seeing Donald Trump is in
Speaker 3: the block seat to be in the White House, and
Speaker 3: an awful lot more could play out under a Trump presidency,
Speaker 3: that's for sure.
Speaker 2: All right. So do you think that if Trump didn't
Speaker 2: doesn't make the White House that there is more of
Speaker 2: a prospect of success in a securing peace.
Speaker 3: Well, yes, and Noah, because Joe Biden certainly hasn't been
Speaker 3: very successful over the past year overall, and in convincing
Speaker 3: Ben Mietno to set a step back, I don't think
Speaker 3: there's any guarantee at all that Kamala Harris would be
Speaker 3: more successful with Ben at all. So, yeah, the situation
Speaker 3: is pretty bleak. But yet I think we always have
Speaker 3: to be We have to be even as when it
Speaker 3: seems so bligue. We have to be hopeful, we have
Speaker 3: to be optimistic. We have to keep trying for peace
Speaker 3: and keep trying that diplomatic route. And I do think
Speaker 3: New z Eden can play. It's just a small part,
Speaker 3: but a significant part in that global picture, and I
Speaker 3: think Winston Peters would do well to head to the
Speaker 3: Middle East at some point. He's only had a very
Speaker 3: brief stop in the Middle East over the past year.
Speaker 3: I think New z Eden could play a small part
Speaker 3: in those overall piece efforts by working together with friends
Speaker 3: and partners in the Middle East and outside the region, get.
Speaker 2: Winston to go, they give him a good telling off.
Speaker 2: Just one last cynical question, letting Yahoo up. And before
Speaker 2: all this happened, was facing corruption charges? Is there? And
Speaker 2: cynically speaking, if I was just having a cup of
Speaker 2: coffee with someone, I'd say, well, he's not going to
Speaker 2: resolve it because as soon as everything's over, he's in trouble.
Speaker 2: So it's it's almost an his vested interest to continue
Speaker 2: with this stuff, isn't it.
Speaker 3: It absolutely is. Indeed, the day the war ends, Beniminnea,
Speaker 3: who's career ends effectively and he goes back to fighting
Speaker 3: all these corruption charges, I think from anything's perspective, he's
Speaker 3: probably that he's redeemed himself. There was that huge security
Speaker 3: failure over October the seventh that allowed that massive attack
Speaker 3: by hamas On on Israel, but since then, particularly the
Speaker 3: various assassinations of the leadership of Hamas and his Billah,
Speaker 3: the destruction of so many his BLA facilities in Lebanon
Speaker 3: and de Route and his BELA infrastructure and south southern Lebanon,
Speaker 3: the destruction of Hamas and Gaza. You know, he probably
Speaker 3: feels he's redeemed himself, but yet he is only going
Speaker 3: to face an awful lot of trouble if he resigns
Speaker 3: or is sacked as PM. So he's got every reason
Speaker 3: to continue for as long as as humanly possible. I mean,
Speaker 3: I think he's seventy five now, so he probably feels
Speaker 3: that he's still got a lot, a lot, a lot
Speaker 3: to play for.
Speaker 2: Taken him out in the box. Hey, Jeffrey, I really
Speaker 2: appreciate your time this afternoon. Thanks so much for your insight.
Speaker 3: He very welcome to him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we got thanks that as Jeffrey mill here is
Speaker 2: a geopolitical analyst, and yeah, actually that's fascinating and fascinating
Speaker 2: insights into the whole thing.
Speaker 1: For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Speaker 1: Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio.