Speaker 1: Kiyota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Tensions are
Speaker 2: high in the Middle East as Israel and Iran continue
Speaker 2: to trade strikes. It comes after Israel launched a surprise
Speaker 2: attack last Friday against multiple targets in Iran, including nuclear
Speaker 2: and military sites. Iran has retaliated and this back and
Speaker 2: forth shows no signs of stopping. Instead, both sides are
Speaker 2: threatening to escalate the conflict, with major international players now
Speaker 2: weighing in how big could this get and will.
Speaker 1: New Zealand have to pick a side? Today?
Speaker 2: On the Front Page, University of Otago International Relations Professor
Speaker 2: Robert Patman is with us to take us through the
Speaker 2: history and future of this complicated relationship. Robert, can you
Speaker 2: give us a brief overview of the tensions between Israel
Speaker 2: and Iran?
Speaker 3: Basically, the tensions have been long term and since at
Speaker 3: least two thousand and six. Mister Netna, who has been
Speaker 3: a prominent figure in Israeli politics for the last two
Speaker 3: and a half decades, has been one of those Israeli
Speaker 3: leaders that has denied the prospect of political self determination
Speaker 3: for the Palestinians, and Iran has tried to act as
Speaker 3: a sort of counterweight to Israel in the Middle East,
Speaker 3: if you like. Has presented itself as the leader of
Speaker 3: the resistance front and has supported groups like Hezbullah in
Speaker 3: Lebanon and also the Hooties in Yemen. In sure, it
Speaker 3: has regional ambitions to spread its influence beyond Iran, but
Speaker 3: it also has presented itself as a regional counterweight to
Speaker 3: Nesuna who's ambitions to settle Israelis in occupied territories, and
Speaker 3: under international law those settlements are illegal, so Netiya who
Speaker 3: has seen Iran as a bit of a target. And
Speaker 3: then there's been the nuclear factor Iran. It should be
Speaker 3: explained that during the Obama period there was quite a
Speaker 3: successful deal between Iran and the United States which postponed
Speaker 3: the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 3: In return, all sanctions were lifted, and unfortunately, when mister
Speaker 3: Trump came into power in his first term in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 3: responded to pressure from the Nestinyahu government and withdrew from
Speaker 3: that deal, which meant that Iran was no longer bound
Speaker 3: not to develop nuclear weapons, and Trump believed, I suppose
Speaker 3: he could negotiate an alternative deal, something he didn't do
Speaker 3: in his first term, and he hasn't succeeded in his
Speaker 3: second term. Although recently there have been negotiations between the
Speaker 3: ira leadership and the Trump administration, and the Trump administration
Speaker 3: has indicated that it was quite hopeful that a settlement
Speaker 3: between Iran and the United States could be reached. Two
Speaker 3: weeks ago, the leading negotiator for Iran said that it
Speaker 3: was quite prepared to sign an agreement where Iran never
Speaker 3: developed nuclear weapons in return sanctions being lifted, and also
Speaker 3: Iran having the capability like Japan and Germany other countries
Speaker 3: which have never developed nuclear weapons but have nuclear energy
Speaker 3: for peaceful purposes in other words, nuclear power plant. A
Speaker 3: sixth round of talks was scheduled Sunday, but before they
Speaker 3: could occur, Israel has launched an attack on Iran which
Speaker 3: can only be described as reckless, unprovoked, immoral, and illegal
Speaker 3: under international law. So that's where we're at at the moment.
Speaker 4: Israel's dome pummeled, bombarded by Iranian missiles, some punching through.
Speaker 1: Wave after wave retaliation.
Speaker 4: Strikes targeting Israeli military size, but also landing direct hits
Speaker 4: on densely populated areas of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, killing
Speaker 4: at least three and enduring more than sixty.
Speaker 2: Well, this latest attack by Israel feels like it's been
Speaker 2: a long time coming. They've been targeting around proxies in
Speaker 2: the region since the October seven attack. And people may
Speaker 2: recall there was a bombing of an Iranian embassy in Damascus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, why have they struck now after all of that, That's.
Speaker 3: A good question. Timing is important in politics. I think
Speaker 3: they believe that Iran has been seriously weakened because its
Speaker 3: proxies have been materially degraded by Israel's campaign. Hamas is
Speaker 3: an ally of Iran. It's a Palestinian organization, but it's
Speaker 3: been degraded. Has Bulla has been degraded by the Israeli
Speaker 3: invasion of Lebanon, and the Uti rebels has been degraded
Speaker 3: by a combination of American and Israeli strikes. So there
Speaker 3: may have been a perception that there will never be
Speaker 3: a better opportunity to go after what it sees as
Speaker 3: Iran's nuclear potential, It's potential to a nuclear weapon in
Speaker 3: the future. Of course, it could be argued that you
Speaker 3: can't obliterate the ability of a country to develop nuclear energy.
Speaker 3: Wants to know how is there. I think another objective,
Speaker 3: quite frankly, is regime change. I mean, the next you
Speaker 3: know who government doesn't make. If you look at these strikes,
Speaker 3: they're not just against nuclear facilities. They're attacking civil society
Speaker 3: economic assets like oil producing scites. There's over one hundred
Speaker 3: of them in Iran, and also they've attacked infrastructure. They've
Speaker 3: also assassinated nuclear scientists in these strikes, and much of
Speaker 3: the current leadership. And we know that Nesta, who recently
Speaker 3: asked permission just a few days ago to President Trump
Speaker 3: to assassinate the Supreme Leader. I told Holmeni that permission
Speaker 3: was denied. But that gives an indication of what the
Speaker 3: Israelis have in mind. But there's a couple of other
Speaker 3: motivations which get less less consideration than denuclearizing Iran or
Speaker 3: bringing about regime change, and that is deflecting pressure mounting pressure,
Speaker 3: deflecting the mounting pressure on Israel over the catastrophe in Gaza.
Speaker 3: The word catastrophe, by the way, is the word that
Speaker 3: mister Peters, the Foreign Minster in New Zealand uses to
Speaker 3: describe the situation, and I think another consideration here is
Speaker 3: that mister Nessigna, who, according to Israeli critics, needs a
Speaker 3: conflict to stay in power because he's facing significant corruption
Speaker 3: charges which are likely to be reactive as soon as
Speaker 3: Israel is at peace again. So while he can have
Speaker 3: the mantle of a wartime leader, those sort of issues
Speaker 3: don't surface too much, So you could say domestic politics
Speaker 3: has got a role as well. Chelsea.
Speaker 5: We are ready for any agreement whose aim is to
Speaker 5: prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, because that is our
Speaker 5: own doctrine. It is our own belief that nuclear weapons
Speaker 5: are forbidden and prohibited. But if the purpose of an
Speaker 5: agreement is to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights, then
Speaker 5: naturally we are not prepared to accept such an agreement.
Speaker 2: Do you think all hopes for a deal around those
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons is off the table now completely.
Speaker 3: Iran has been quite shrewd during this crisis. It has
Speaker 3: reiterated it will de escalate if Israel does. But the
Speaker 3: problem is we're not getting any leadership from the United
Speaker 3: States at the moment. The United States, after all acknowledged
Speaker 3: that it knew of Israel's plans, but he didn't warn
Speaker 3: Israel not to go ahead because the United States was
Speaker 3: conducting negotiations with Iran to end the prospect that Iran
Speaker 3: would develop nuclear weapons, and both sides seemed to think
Speaker 3: there was some progress going on.
Speaker 1: Well, he said on social media.
Speaker 2: Didn't he that the strikes occurred on day sixty one
Speaker 2: of a sixty day deadline he gave Iran.
Speaker 3: Didn't say to Iran, if you get to the sixty
Speaker 3: day deadline, Israel will attack you. And I have full
Speaker 3: knowledge of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, where do you reckon? He sits here?
Speaker 3: Then he's sitting on the fence. He's demonstrating incredible weakness.
Speaker 3: The thing he should have done is what President Eisenhower
Speaker 3: did with the Israelis when they launched an attack on
Speaker 3: Suez Canal in nineteen fifty six. He denounced their action
Speaker 3: and said they must stop. But President Trump, he should
Speaker 3: have been furious that Israel had derailed the negotiations, which
Speaker 3: his negotiating team re engaged in, which suggests maybe the
Speaker 3: negotiations were a bit of a charade and that they
Speaker 3: were done to lull the Iranians into a false sense
Speaker 3: of security. But you know, quite Frankly, the United States
Speaker 3: comes out of this looking pretty poor, in sense that
Speaker 3: its diplomacy appears to be duplicitous. It says it was
Speaker 3: a negotiated solution, but it doesn't denounce an ally that
Speaker 3: has sabotaged that prospect. It also says it may come
Speaker 3: in on the side of Israel in the conflict that's
Speaker 3: now occurred. Need'st be quite clear. What Israel has done
Speaker 3: is preemptive and aggressive and illegal under international law. But
Speaker 3: you don't hear any American diplomats expressing concern about that,
Speaker 3: and that, of course has big implications for most countries
Speaker 3: in the world, including her own.
Speaker 2: The UK has already moved some fighter jets to the
Speaker 2: Middle East, and UK Prime Minister Sir Kiir Starmer is
Speaker 2: not rolling out helping defend Israel. China, meanwhile, has warned
Speaker 2: against Iran's sovereignty being undermined. Are we already seeing countries
Speaker 2: pick sides here? Well?
Speaker 3: I think the British position is indefensible. How can you
Speaker 3: possibly stand for a rules based order when an ally
Speaker 3: has just driven the coach and horses through the UN
Speaker 3: Charter as Israel has, and you're gonna you know, you
Speaker 3: can't be one eyed about this. As a sovereign state
Speaker 3: under Charter Article fifty one, Iran is fully entitled to
Speaker 3: the right of self defense. But I'm hearing nothing from
Speaker 3: the British about Israel's about Iran's right of self defense.
Speaker 3: It's not Iran that has attacked Israel, it's the other
Speaker 3: way around. So it's an extraordinary it's extraordinary twisted logic
Speaker 3: where British Prime Minister says he's prepared to move military
Speaker 3: assets to provide enhanced defense for a country which has
Speaker 3: just attacked a regional neighbor, which is Iran.
Speaker 2: Do you think it's hard for countries to pick sides
Speaker 2: because it is kind of evil versus evil, so to speak.
Speaker 1: So who's the bad guy here? Who's bad a.
Speaker 3: Well, look, one of the reasons we have un Charter
Speaker 3: and have rules is to help provide guidance in this situation.
Speaker 3: But at the moment, you know, we have a situation
Speaker 3: where there is hypocrisy and cowardice and Eisenhower President Eisenhower
Speaker 3: was the last president, but no President Reagan also stood
Speaker 3: up to an Israeli ally, But at the moment we're
Speaker 3: not getting much clear and courageous leadership. What mister Necno
Speaker 3: has done is extremely dangerous and it's reckless, to say
Speaker 3: the least, and a lot of innocent people are being
Speaker 3: killed as a result. And yet liberal democracies are remaining
Speaker 3: relatively quiet, and they're playing into the hands of authoritarian
Speaker 3: forces in doing so. So you know, there will be
Speaker 3: a reckoning for this, and never again will countries like
Speaker 3: Britain be able to stand up and lecture others about
Speaker 3: human rights when in fact they are complicit in undermining
Speaker 3: the process of state sovereignty and the country's right to
Speaker 3: self defense by their actions.
Speaker 2: Well, Christopher Luxen arrives in China today for his first
Speaker 2: official trip there as Prime Minister. Would you expect this
Speaker 2: conflict to come up today in meetings?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would. I mean China has basically quoting the
Speaker 3: UN Charter and saying that Iran is the victim in
Speaker 3: this situation. It's the country that's been attacked and I
Speaker 3: would think that message will be conveyed quite rigorously to
Speaker 3: New Zealand and. To be fair, the New Zealand government
Speaker 3: I think has made some good statements in its response
Speaker 3: to what has happened. I think Christopher Luxen said that
Speaker 3: this was not a welcome development. There's no military solution
Speaker 3: to political problems. This is welcome words. But I think
Speaker 3: New Zealand also its interests are different to Britain and
Speaker 3: the United States. Both of those countries can exercise the
Speaker 3: VETO in the UN. We don't have a veto to
Speaker 3: protect our interests. We trade with more than one hundred
Speaker 3: countries in the world New Zealand and most countries in
Speaker 3: the world, that's the great majority of countries I would say,
Speaker 3: as high as one hundred and sixty one hundred and
Speaker 3: eighty somewhere in that region prefer international relations to be
Speaker 3: based on rules and principles and procedures. They do not
Speaker 3: like the unilateral and preemptive use of force.
Speaker 2: Where do you see this conflict going from here? I
Speaker 2: know it's early days, but both the USA and Russia
Speaker 2: have stakes in the region. Then there's nearby Turkey and
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia and also has BLA in Lebanon. There are
Speaker 2: a lot of key players that could get involved here,
Speaker 2: isn't there?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and China is a key ally of Iran, and
Speaker 3: China's been quite so far apart from saying that it's
Speaker 3: worried about the fact that the principle of state sovereignty
Speaker 3: has been trampled on which it has, of course, but
Speaker 3: let's hope cooler heads prevail. There's a G seven meeting
Speaker 3: coming up. I'm just disconcerted by the fact that we've
Speaker 3: had little leadership from countries which should be showing leadership
Speaker 3: on upholding key principles in relation. Let's be quite clear,
Speaker 3: if Israel is not sanctioned or faces any consequences for
Speaker 3: launching an unprovoked attack on another country, that sets a
Speaker 3: very bad precedent for anyone else in the international system.
Speaker 3: And unfortunately, in the twenty first century we've seen many
Speaker 3: other examples where countries have done similar things. We saw
Speaker 3: the Russian invasion of Ukraine and it made me chuckle
Speaker 3: actually when I saw mister Putin offer his services as
Speaker 3: a mediator between the Iran and Israelis, when in fact
Speaker 3: he's in no position to mediate because he's already trampled
Speaker 3: undermine the UN Charter of his actions in Ukraine. In short,
Speaker 3: we need much more authoritative international institutions to deal with
Speaker 3: situations which sovereign states are struggling to deal with.
Speaker 6: Look, it's very simple, not complicated. Iran cannot have a
Speaker 6: nuclear weapon. Other than that, I want them to be successful.
Speaker 6: I want them to be trum, will help them be successful,
Speaker 6: will trade with them. We'll do whatever is necessary. You know,
Speaker 6: I stopped a war between India and Pakistan, and I
Speaker 6: stopped it with trade. Nobody. I don't think I've ever
Speaker 6: seen a story written about it, but it's pretty pretty cool.
Speaker 6: They were getting ready, Pakistan was now was there, turned
Speaker 6: ahead and eventually they're going to go nuclear and I
Speaker 6: stopped it. I called each I respect each leader greatly,
Speaker 6: I know them, and I spoke to them and I
Speaker 6: talked about trade. I said, but you're not trading with
Speaker 6: us if you're going to go to war, if you're
Speaker 6: going to start throwing nuclear weapons around. And I said
Speaker 6: it to both of them, and they were both unbelievable.
Speaker 6: Actually they understood it exactly. They stopped.
Speaker 2: Is there a moment we should be looking for, I
Speaker 2: suppose to indicate a bad turn of events.
Speaker 3: The current situation, to me, is unacceptable. It's unacceptable that
Speaker 3: the United States, the most powerful country in the world,
Speaker 3: is not giving a clear signal where it's stands on
Speaker 3: this issue. After allways, it's equipped and provided intelligence for
Speaker 3: an aggressive action. Launched by Israel on another country. I've
Speaker 3: got absolutely no brief at all for the government in Iran.
Speaker 3: It's a dictatorship and it doesn't treat its own citizens well.
Speaker 3: But you can't apply the formula because you don't like
Speaker 3: a government that you're free to replace it or try
Speaker 3: to replace it. After all, many authoritarian states don't like
Speaker 3: liberal democracies, and so you know, the world be reduced
Speaker 3: to absolute chaos if regime change was regarded as a
Speaker 3: legitimate tool of foreign policy. It's not. And ultimately, my
Speaker 3: concern about the current situation is that conflict will escalate.
Speaker 3: And my view is that the plight of the Palestinians
Speaker 3: has been it worsened by this situation. Israel has cut
Speaker 3: off aid again to the Gaza. The other thing here
Speaker 3: is and it needs to be openly discussed. There is
Speaker 3: no military fear for political problems. Why hasn't met and
Speaker 3: not been insisting on a meeting with hers leadership to
Speaker 3: try and sort these problems out. He can eliminate the
Speaker 3: whole of the Iranian government, but they will be replaced
Speaker 3: and many people will have memories of family relatives killed
Speaker 3: who didn't like the Iranian government but were nevertheless killed
Speaker 3: by Israel's actions. That's not going to generate good will
Speaker 3: towards Israel. And in short, there is not an engineering
Speaker 3: or military solution to political problems. Those problems can only
Speaker 3: be resolved through dialogue and discussion. They may be very
Speaker 3: tough talks to have, but the alternatives don't work very
Speaker 3: well either. We see escalating conflict with lots of civilian,
Speaker 3: innocent civilians being killed on both sides, and that is
Speaker 3: a terrible outcome. Yes, we should be worried about where
Speaker 3: this is going. None of us really know where it's going.
Speaker 3: I'm hoping that the efforts of countries like Saudi Arabia
Speaker 3: and Turkey will weigh I know that mister Erdowan and
Speaker 3: the Saudi government have spoken to mister Trump, and you know,
Speaker 3: it's important. I think that other liberal dromocracies speak out
Speaker 3: and don't just take the lead from the United States
Speaker 3: and the British because both of them seem to me
Speaker 3: very compromised on this issue. They're not disinterested observers, they
Speaker 3: are committed to Israel. Both of them have provided arms
Speaker 3: for mister Netnahu's campaign in Gaza. But there are a
Speaker 3: number of other liberal democracies like our own New Zealand
Speaker 3: consistently sought an immediate cease fire. On the twenty third
Speaker 3: of October twenty twenty three, we were the only member
Speaker 3: of the Five Eyes that voted for an immediate humanitarian
Speaker 3: truce in Gaza. We were subsequently joined in that mission
Speaker 3: or that quest, by Canada and Australia. Two months later
Speaker 3: they join New Zealand in demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Speaker 3: But it's very important, I think, I think that countries
Speaker 3: like New Zealand do make it clear where they stand
Speaker 3: because these are you know, at the moment, this situation
Speaker 3: is escalating, and the weaponry on both sides is horrific,
Speaker 3: and we do need to conduct international relations on the
Speaker 3: basis of rules and principles rather than a Wild West
Speaker 3: situation where the guys with the biggest guns feel they're
Speaker 3: entitled to do what they want to do.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzdherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 2: our sound engineer.
Speaker 1: I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
Speaker 2: behind the headlines.