Speaker 1: Jiaoda.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. In a
Speaker 2: move called Operation Midnight Hammer, the US has attacked several
Speaker 2: key nuclear facilities in Iran. The strikes mark a significant
Speaker 2: escalation in the ongoing Israel Iran conflict, with President Donald
Speaker 2: Trump saying Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must
Speaker 2: now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will
Speaker 2: be far greater and a lot easier. He's also calling
Speaker 2: for Iran to myga make I ran greater game. In response,
Speaker 2: Iran's foreign minister said Washington crossed a very big red line,
Speaker 2: and its parliament has also reportedly voted to shut the
Speaker 2: Straitu or mass where a fifth of the world's oil
Speaker 2: consumption flows through the advancements saw Our Foreign Minister, Winston
Speaker 2: Peters quickly called for diplomacy and dialogue, while also announcing
Speaker 2: government personnel and a Hercules aircraft be deployed to the
Speaker 2: Middle East to help get stranded Kiwi's home today on
Speaker 2: the front page to help us make sense of this
Speaker 2: crisis and what this heightening of tensions means for the
Speaker 2: rest of the world. We're joined by University of Otago
Speaker 2: International Relations professor Robert Patman. The news of this bombing
Speaker 2: came through around midday on Sunday. What was your first
Speaker 2: reaction to the news, Robert dismay.
Speaker 1: And also, I think with the President holding out the
Speaker 1: prospect of a diplomatic solution up to the point where
Speaker 1: the Israeli started attacking Iran, which was about ten days ago,
Speaker 1: I thought it was still possible that there could be
Speaker 1: a way in which this issue could be resolved on
Speaker 1: several fronts. I'm dismayed because, first of all, a strike
Speaker 1: of this nature is inconsistent with a rules based order,
Speaker 1: it's illegal, is inconsistent with the UN Charter. But it
Speaker 1: also is probably going to be a catalyst for Iran
Speaker 1: to develop the nuclear weapons capability. After all, the lesson
Speaker 1: that the Iranian leadership will take is that they've been
Speaker 1: denied the possibility. They are a member of the Non
Speaker 1: Proliferation Treaty, and yet both Israel and the United States
Speaker 1: have been effectively denying them something which has allowed other countries,
Speaker 1: which is the ability to develop nuclear energy for civilian
Speaker 1: purposes without developing nuclear weapons. I mean, that's certainly the
Speaker 1: case in countries like Germany and Japan and many others
Speaker 1: where people have a nuclear energy sector, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: translate into weaponry, and that's what they said they always wanted. Now,
Speaker 1: I think the secrecy of the regime has probably worked
Speaker 1: against them. But it's no secret that mister Neetna, who
Speaker 1: has been campaigning for the best part of thirty years
Speaker 1: to take preemptive action to develop what he has described
Speaker 1: as a nuclear weapon in Iran. But I'm dismayed because
Speaker 1: the President, I think should have shown a lot more
Speaker 1: independence from Israel on this issue. I think many Americans
Speaker 1: feel that. My reason I'm dismayed is because I don't
Speaker 1: think what the Americans have done actually helped solve the problem.
Speaker 1: I think it actually makes it worse.
Speaker 2: Well, Trump said he was going to give around two
Speaker 2: weeks to negotiate. He barely gave them a weekend. What
Speaker 2: do you think changed over that time.
Speaker 1: Oh, clearly this operation had been planned for a long time.
Speaker 1: I think he wanted to keep the Iranians guessing and
Speaker 1: maybe lull them into a false sense of security that
Speaker 1: America will give it another two weeks up he said.
Speaker 1: He get you know, in his defense, mister Trump would
Speaker 1: say I never committed to going to the fall two weeks.
Speaker 1: I said we would have up to two weeks before
Speaker 1: America had to take I think the term he used
Speaker 1: was decisive action or something like that. I'm not sure that.
Speaker 1: One of the things I worry about the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: it seems to be operating and an information and bubble.
Speaker 1: US intelligence warned mister Trump there was no evidence that
Speaker 1: the regime in Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The International
Speaker 1: Atomic Energy Agency that i AA, I should say, they've
Speaker 1: indicated in the last week there was no evidence that
Speaker 1: Iran was developing nuclear weapons. So, in a sense, mister
Speaker 1: Trump has made a decision based on his briefings from
Speaker 1: mister Netniya, who who he's very close to, and he's
Speaker 1: gout instinct, and I think what he has done has
Speaker 1: been I think that this will prove to be a
Speaker 1: fateful step.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: It's it's an old saying in military circles, you can
Speaker 1: initiate the application of force, and that's quite easy to
Speaker 1: do that, particularly when you've got a lot of military
Speaker 1: capabilities at your disposed of, like the United States, But
Speaker 1: you can't always bring that process to an easy halt.
Speaker 1: In other words, mister Trump's taken actions which will have
Speaker 1: consequences which he cannot control. I think this is a
Speaker 1: destabilizing step for the region.
Speaker 4: For forty years around Hasman's saying death to America, Death
Speaker 4: to Israel, they have been killing our people, blowing off
Speaker 4: their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs. That
Speaker 4: was their specialty. We lost over a thousand people, and
Speaker 4: hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the
Speaker 4: world have died as a direct result of their hate.
Speaker 4: In particular, so many were killed by their general Cassem Solomony.
Speaker 4: I decided a long time ago that I would not
Speaker 4: let this happen.
Speaker 5: It will not continue.
Speaker 4: I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
Speaker 4: We worked as a team like perhaps no team has
Speaker 4: ever worked before.
Speaker 2: Has Trump basically broken every international law there is.
Speaker 1: Well today, mister Trump's actions seem to be inconsistent with
Speaker 1: you in Charter, they seem to be inconsistent with the
Speaker 1: Non Proliferation Treaty, and they seem to be inconsistent with
Speaker 1: international law. Because mister Trump claimed that there was an
Speaker 1: imminent threat, where's the evidence of the imminent threat from
Speaker 1: a country which does not yet have nuclear weapons. Let's
Speaker 1: put this into some sort of context. Chelsea. We had
Speaker 1: two nuclear weapons states, that is Iran, the US using
Speaker 1: military force against the country which doesn't have nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: to prevent it from having nuclear weapons. And the stumbling
Speaker 1: block in the negotiations, which were interrupted by the military
Speaker 1: action of Israel about ten days ago. But up to
Speaker 1: that point the Iranian leadership and the US leadership were
Speaker 1: making quite hopeful noises. But the stumbling block seemed to
Speaker 1: be that the US moved the goalposts halfway through, because
Speaker 1: initially they accepted, at least in principle, that subject to
Speaker 1: intrusive inspection, there was no problem around having nuclear energy
Speaker 1: for peaceful purposes. Halfway through they changed. According this is
Speaker 1: the Iranian a take on the negotiations. Halfway through that
Speaker 1: about the third round of negotiations, there were five rounds,
Speaker 1: so there was going to be a sick round before
Speaker 1: shortly before the Israelis intervene with their military attack. The
Speaker 1: Iranians claimed that halfway through the negotiations, the Americans suddenly
Speaker 1: decided they took on the Israeli negotiating position, which was
Speaker 1: that Iran can't either have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,
Speaker 1: and they certainly can't have it for weapons. So that's
Speaker 1: you know, that basically meant the negotiations were not going
Speaker 1: to progress as quickly as one hoped. But it seems
Speaker 1: that this step. One of the things that worries me
Speaker 1: a great deal is that the administration in Washington seems
Speaker 1: to be, as I said before, operating in a bit
Speaker 1: of an information bubble. Many of the top officials in
Speaker 1: the administration have been appointed on the basis of loyalty,
Speaker 1: not competence. And I was hoping that when Israel unilaterally,
Speaker 1: in the words of the United States, attacked Iran, that
Speaker 1: the President would show the backbone and the fortitude and
Speaker 1: the strength to do what President is how it did
Speaker 1: in nineteen fifty six, which was to denounce a unilateral
Speaker 1: action by a close ally, which was then Israel in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty six against Egypt. But mister Trump didn't. He's
Speaker 1: seemed quite relaxed about Israel sabotaging American diplomacy in relation
Speaker 1: to Iran, and we subsequent events shows why he was relaxed,
Speaker 1: because he joined in on israel side against Iran.
Speaker 2: There had been maga in fighting over whether or not
Speaker 2: to intervene.
Speaker 5: So I am not the Tucker Carlson mixed bird on Iran.
Speaker 5: You're a sayer who's calling the one about the country.
Speaker 6: No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the
Speaker 6: one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that.
Speaker 6: Who can't figure out to say it killed General Solamonia.
Speaker 6: You said they're trying to murder Trump.
Speaker 3: Yes, because you're not calling for military strikes against them
Speaker 3: in retaliation.
Speaker 6: If they really believed that carrying out military strikes today,
Speaker 6: you said Israel was right with our help.
Speaker 5: I said we Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.
Speaker 3: You're breaking news here because the US government last night
Speaker 3: denied the nationalis Curity Council spokesman Alex Favor denied on
Speaker 3: behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf
Speaker 3: in any offensive capacity.
Speaker 5: We're not barmbing, then Israel's barmbing. You just said we were.
Speaker 2: It's basically isolation versus intervention here. So why is the
Speaker 2: US trying to get involved again?
Speaker 1: I think there's always been a tendency within the United
Speaker 1: States to believe there's a solution to every single problem
Speaker 1: there's also a tendency in the United States to believe
Speaker 1: that military power can solve political problems. I think on
Speaker 1: both counts they're mistaken. As I say, if you hear
Speaker 1: mister Trump said in his speech yesterday to the American
Speaker 1: people that they had obliterated through these bombings through nuclear
Speaker 1: sites in Iran, they had obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities. But
Speaker 1: we've had no independent verification of that claim. We don't
Speaker 1: know whether that's true or not. But the assumption that
Speaker 1: you can bomb your way to eliminating Iran's nuclear capability
Speaker 1: does not sit comfortably with the realities of the world
Speaker 1: we live in.
Speaker 2: He also said he was trying to stop the nuclear
Speaker 2: threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.
Speaker 2: I mean, those are some words that we've heard before.
Speaker 1: Yes, Iran's position has been to oppose Israel in the
Speaker 1: context of Middle Eastern politics, and they've been I suppose,
Speaker 1: one of the most formidable supporters of the Palestinian cause.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that mister Nietnyahu does not recognize
Speaker 1: that the Palestinians have a right to political self determination.
Speaker 1: And while he denies that right, he's giving scope to
Speaker 1: authoritarian regimes like Iran to exploit that omission, and they've
Speaker 1: done that. They've provided alms to Hamas, they provided arms
Speaker 1: to Hesbula in Lebanon, and they have provided support for
Speaker 1: the Huti rebels in Yemen. That's not all to do
Speaker 1: with the palest Union issue. But what's interesting is that
Speaker 1: the attacks by Israel on Iran haven't been confined to
Speaker 1: nuclear facilities, which then raises the question why they're conducting
Speaker 1: attacks against economic infrastructure and other military capabilities. It raises
Speaker 1: the question of whether they're engaging in an attempt at
Speaker 1: regime change.
Speaker 2: What do you make of New Zealand's response so.
Speaker 1: Far, it's been very guarded and mister Peters, the Foreign Minister,
Speaker 1: said he was waiting for the four facts. He wouldn't
Speaker 1: have a rush to judgment. But we have to be
Speaker 1: quite careful because New Zealand as a country does depend heavily,
Speaker 1: in the words of the Department of Cabinet and Prime Minister,
Speaker 1: does depend quite heavily on a rules based international order.
Speaker 1: It seems to me that this type of action, and
Speaker 1: it's one of many that we've seen, not just the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, but going back, you know, we've got, the
Speaker 1: Russian invasion of Ukraine, China's outlandage claim to ninety percent
Speaker 1: of South China Sea, the US invasion of Iraq. The
Speaker 1: list goes on. We've had a whole series of episodes
Speaker 1: or events in the post nine to eleven period which
Speaker 1: have gradually eroded the idea of international relations being based
Speaker 1: on rules and process and principles. And that's the sort
Speaker 1: of world that New Zealand wants. So I think many
Speaker 1: people are expecting a country like New Zealand, which has
Speaker 1: championed non nuclear security, to have a position on this issue.
Speaker 7: The crisis in the Middle East is extremely concerning. We're
Speaker 7: worried about the developments and the consequences are through the escalation,
Speaker 7: including for newsielders. We acknowledge the developments of the last
Speaker 7: twenty four hours, including President Donald Trump's announcement of US
Speaker 7: at exil nuclear facilities in Iran. Zion continues to advocate
Speaker 7: for diplomacy and a dialogue. Ongoing military action in the
Speaker 7: Middle East is extremely worrying and it's critical further escalation
Speaker 7: is avoided.
Speaker 2: What more should we be doing on the world stage here?
Speaker 1: Well, I think, first of all, I think mister Peter's
Speaker 1: concern is to make sure he doesn't say anything or
Speaker 1: do anything that will complicate removing New Zealand citizens from
Speaker 1: the strife to l Middle East, which is a fair point.
Speaker 1: But I do think we should be pushing for reform
Speaker 1: of the UN Security Council. That seems to me a
Speaker 1: strategic thing that New Zealand should do because at the moment,
Speaker 1: the UN Security Council has been completely marginalized by the
Speaker 1: fact that five countries decide matters the war and peace
Speaker 1: in the world. Because they have the pair of veto,
Speaker 1: they can block anything they don't like internationally, and that
Speaker 1: means effectively that countries like the United States, Russia and
Speaker 1: China they can Basically they've got tremendous freedom of autonomy.
Speaker 1: They're not accountable. In short, who's going to hold the
Speaker 1: Trump administration accountable for what they've just done other than
Speaker 1: their own people within the United States and the reaction
Speaker 1: of the rest of the world in diplomatic terms. But
Speaker 1: I do think New Zealand should be looking at this
Speaker 1: most recent episode and weighing it against those other trends
Speaker 1: I've mentioned in the post nine to eleven world and
Speaker 1: saying I think New Zeum decision makers should get together
Speaker 1: with other small and middle powers which depend on a
Speaker 1: rules based order and say we need to strengthen the
Speaker 1: UN Security Council, We need to constrain the use of
Speaker 1: the VETO, and we need to make the UN Security
Speaker 1: Council capable of doing what it's supposed to do, which
Speaker 1: is being a barrier to war. And also for Phillip's
Speaker 1: responsibility of maintaining global peace and security. At the moment,
Speaker 1: that institution won't do its job. It's dysfunctional. That worries
Speaker 1: me a great deal because the rest of the world
Speaker 1: is paying the price for the fact that the three
Speaker 1: biggest law breakers on the planet are all permanent members
Speaker 1: of the Security Council.
Speaker 2: Well, that leads me on to my next question. I
Speaker 2: was thinking, what is the point of the UN Security
Speaker 2: Council and will there ever be any justice for what's
Speaker 2: been happening not only in Ukraine, Gaza and now Israel
Speaker 2: and Iran. I mean, will there be some kind of
Speaker 2: Nuremberg trial at the end of this, like who actually
Speaker 2: pays Well.
Speaker 1: It won't happen unless people push for it. And at
Speaker 1: some point the smaller and middle powers have to begin
Speaker 1: to assert themselves on the international stage, and that takes courage.
Speaker 1: Many liberal democracies are loath to do anything that was
Speaker 1: critical of the United States because they fear for that
Speaker 1: that would result in them being penalized economically or in
Speaker 1: trade terms, and so they're a bit reluctant to do that.
Speaker 1: But you know, your question is an appropriate one. In
Speaker 1: a region where war crimes are being committed by multiple parties,
Speaker 1: who's going to be held accountable for it? And let's
Speaker 1: be quite frank, let's be quite clear about this. The
Speaker 1: majority of countries are deeply unhappy about the fact that
Speaker 1: we're slipping into a world where the unilateral use of
Speaker 1: military power is becoming normalized. Traditional principles like non interference
Speaker 1: and domestic affairs, the principal states, sovereignty, and the invilability
Speaker 1: of borders, these are becoming steadily eroded. I know that
Speaker 1: mister Trump, Shi Jingping, and mister Poutin won't be too
Speaker 1: disturbed by that, because they probably see international law and
Speaker 1: a rules based international order as a constraint on their action.
Speaker 1: But that does not apply to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: So until we get leadership from smaller countries and middle powers,
Speaker 1: I can't see the situation is going to change greatly, Chelsea.
Speaker 2: And lastly, Robert, there have been a few moments in
Speaker 2: the last few years where it does feel like we're
Speaker 2: on the precipice of a World War three, and if
Speaker 2: you go on social media at the moment especially, people
Speaker 2: are acting like it is the end of the world.
Speaker 2: Do you think people should be concerned here?
Speaker 1: They should be concerned, definitely, But we have the keep
Speaker 1: a sense of aportion about this. And the thing that
Speaker 1: worries me a great deal is there is a great
Speaker 1: deal of concern amongst ordinary people. I don't see a
Speaker 1: great deal of concern amongst leaders in liberal democracies. How
Speaker 1: many liberal democracies have spoken out forcefully about the action
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration has taken. Many of them are
Speaker 1: furious in private, but are they saying much in public?
Speaker 1: Are they articulating the views of their own population on
Speaker 1: this issue?
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 1: 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 enzedherld 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. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front
Speaker 2: page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 2: tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.