Speaker 1: Now on weekends the Sunday Sweet looking at the stories
Speaker 1: of the week. Yeah, wow, what a week on planet Earthday.
Speaker 1: Iran and Israel appear to be on the brink of
Speaker 1: a really large scale conflict, if that isn't already playing out.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister set to meet with Donald Trump at
Speaker 1: the G seven in Canada this week. I imagine that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump will say, hey, we're happy to help, but any
Speaker 1: chance you could do your bit in terms of defense
Speaker 1: and of course the Aucus, the alliance that underpins the
Speaker 1: future of our national security, is now under review. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? So who better to help us understand
Speaker 1: all of this than the founder and director of Strategic
Speaker 1: Analysis Australia, Michael shue Bridge, who joins me on the line.
Speaker 1: Morning Michael, Morning, Luke, very well, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for your time. Always enjoy our chats and I appreciate
Speaker 1: your expertise in all of these areas. I guess we
Speaker 1: start with Israel and run a new wave of attacks.
Speaker 1: Have seen the talks about nuclear canceled quite obviously. First off,
Speaker 1: was Israel justified? Were they right in starting something? Though?
Speaker 1: Living in the fear of Iran doing something out of
Speaker 1: control with nuclear they'd be on edge all the time obviously,
Speaker 1: if they're not on edge about a whole range of
Speaker 1: other things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, the Iranian nuclear program is decades old, so
Speaker 2: Israel has always wanted it to be ended, and the
Speaker 2: negotiations that the Americans were having when Iran were clearly
Speaker 2: not going to do that. And this same week that
Speaker 2: Israel began these attacks, the International Atomic Energy Agency formally
Speaker 2: declared Aramas in breach of all its reporting obligations and
Speaker 2: had enough nuclear material to make nine weapons. So I
Speaker 2: think the Israeli calculation was there was it's not going
Speaker 2: to be a better time to try and stop Iran,
Speaker 2: and that's why they've started. But it's still an incredibly
Speaker 2: hard problem. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now, the US, as I understand it, providing some assistance
Speaker 1: to Israel, protecting them from the missiles and the like.
Speaker 1: And we've seen Israel get some success, certainly around the
Speaker 1: nuclear plant, and I think today we're being told that
Speaker 1: they've had a crack at some of their other fossil
Speaker 1: fuel stores. And I guess this goes on for a
Speaker 1: matter of days or weeks or months. I guess I'm
Speaker 1: trying to ask you, Michael, if you put the crystal
Speaker 1: ball into this. What you end up with is there
Speaker 1: a time where Israel can claim victory? Is a regime
Speaker 1: change in a run, how does it play out? What's
Speaker 1: the endgame for both countries?
Speaker 2: Well, that is pretty hard to see. I would say,
Speaker 2: you're right, but this is not a matter of a
Speaker 2: war that's going to be over in a few days.
Speaker 2: It's going to go on at least for weeks. The
Speaker 2: prospect of regime change during the middle of a war,
Speaker 2: I think is very very low in history. When countries
Speaker 2: are at war, usually people sort of rally around the flag,
Speaker 2: and I think we'll probably see some of that. Even
Speaker 2: though the Iranian regime is deeply unpopular, it's different when
Speaker 2: you're being attacked. The Americans are trying not to get
Speaker 2: dragged into this beyond helping defend Israel. But from the
Speaker 2: Iranian point of view, if you're helping defend Israel, you're
Speaker 2: part of the problem. So that the prospects of an
Speaker 2: escalation are there, bringing the Americans in more. And the
Speaker 2: bit that still doesn't make sense to me is what's
Speaker 2: the Israeli plan to deal with the buried underground nuclear
Speaker 2: facilities that Iran has Because places like fourdoh An underground
Speaker 2: site and the tarns An underground and Richmond site. You
Speaker 2: can bomb the above ground bits as much as you like,
Speaker 2: but you don't damn underground.
Speaker 1: So what countries nearby are likely to assist Iran? I
Speaker 1: guess where I'm headed now is how far will this expand?
Speaker 1: Is there an obvious I mean, apart from the US
Speaker 1: trying to help Israel defend itself, who else gets involved?
Speaker 2: Nobody? Because since the seventh of October Hamas terror attacks
Speaker 2: on Israel, Israel has dismantled the proxies, the armed proxies
Speaker 2: that Iran had built to threaten Israel for decades. So
Speaker 2: Hamas and Hezbollah were its key weapons, and it had
Speaker 2: militias operating in Syria two that had Iranian missiles and
Speaker 2: rockets to specifically to attack Israel. That's all pretty much
Speaker 2: gone now. So the Iranians are by themselves, and there's
Speaker 2: no way countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar or the
Speaker 2: United Arab Emirates want to pile in on a run site. Here.
Speaker 2: The friend that Iran does have turns out to be
Speaker 2: Vladimir Putin in Moscow, and that's because Putin has been
Speaker 2: supported by Iran with drones to fight in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I want to get to Orcus, and I guess we
Speaker 1: start by the obvious. How serious is the review by
Speaker 1: the US into Orcus. Should we be sitting here at home,
Speaker 1: knowing how reliant we are on the US saying oh,
Speaker 1: we've got a serious problem here.
Speaker 2: It is a serious review. The fact that it's meant
Speaker 2: to only take thirty days means it's not a deep one.
Speaker 2: But the issues are pretty obvious and clear, and you've
Speaker 2: put your finger on one of them. Luke. It's very
Speaker 2: hard to say, hey, we're one of your closest allies America,
Speaker 2: and we're so close on defense that we're spending two
Speaker 2: percent of GDP on defense while you're spending three and
Speaker 2: a half percent. But by the way, we would like
Speaker 2: nuclear submarines out of your our own navy when you
Speaker 2: don't have enough of them. I know we're still going
Speaker 2: to only be spending two point three percent in ten years.
Speaker 2: That is a pretty hard ask.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that beautifully put so at home because I
Speaker 1: want to have these plays out amongst Australian voters. If
Speaker 1: because you could say, couldn't you Michael, that we've I
Speaker 1: don't want to use the word bludging, but it seems like,
Speaker 1: you know, we've we've we've ambled forward knowing that if
Speaker 1: things got really serious, America would come and give us assistance.
Speaker 1: But as Trump's made clear in his America First policies,
Speaker 1: if that's the right way to put it, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll give you a hand. But you've got to be
Speaker 1: half faired inking yourself. But does the average Australian voter
Speaker 1: do you think are they persuaded by that? You know,
Speaker 1: we should be fair ink and we shouldn't just rely
Speaker 1: on the US.
Speaker 2: Well, I think this has all got bound up in
Speaker 2: a whole lot of Australians dislike of Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: a whole lot of the things he's done. And you know,
Speaker 2: you look at America with the riots going on, the
Speaker 2: big military parade, protest saying no King, and the kind
Speaker 2: of aggression towards America's traditional friends and partners, and you
Speaker 2: can sort of see why a bunch of Australians are saying, yeah,
Speaker 2: I love it when mister Albanezi talks tough and says
Speaker 2: he decides things and he's not going to be pushed
Speaker 2: around by this guy. But is it really a source
Speaker 2: of national pride to not do enough for our own
Speaker 2: security and say to the Americans, no, it's my right
Speaker 2: to spend two percent on defense and be even more
Speaker 2: dependent on you. So don't try to push me about this.
Speaker 2: To me, that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: No, that's excellent analysis. That's exactly right, because you're right
Speaker 1: to say that. He got up to say, you know,
Speaker 1: will decide, almost like John Howard talked when he talked
Speaker 1: about the boat paper, will decide what we'll spend on defense.
Speaker 1: In other words, we'll do just a little bit here
Speaker 1: and you will come. And I mean, if you're an
Speaker 1: American looking on you be going, huh, that's not tough.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely silly. I get so much from your analysis
Speaker 1: and our conversations, Michael, and I guess I'm stuck on
Speaker 1: a point that you raised before the break about Australia
Speaker 1: not doing enough and looking tough and saying that we're
Speaker 1: not doing enough. And I guess the question is how safe?
Speaker 1: Is how safe are we? I guess is where I
Speaker 1: want to get to here? Because people walk around thinking,
Speaker 1: you know, we're just go and get a coffee, everything's great.
Speaker 1: We hear everything that bad happens happens, it seems overseas.
Speaker 1: I guess many Australians think, you know, best country in
Speaker 1: the world, were safe? Here? Are we that naive? Is
Speaker 1: that fair enough?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think we are still the best country in
Speaker 2: the world. That's absolutely true, and we're lucky we live
Speaker 2: in a safe part of the world. But even our
Speaker 2: safe part of the world is more dangerous than I was.
Speaker 2: So if you read this government and the previous government's
Speaker 2: own documents, seems like the nation or defense strategy, you'll
Speaker 2: hear that China is building a massive military, building a
Speaker 2: large nuclear weapons stockpile, and it's not doing them for fun.
Speaker 2: It's already using it's a military aggressively against countries like Japan,
Speaker 2: the Philippines and Vietnam. And so the kind of you've
Speaker 2: got to burrow into those documents because you don't hear
Speaker 2: this from our political leaders. So the risks are real,
Speaker 2: and something you're reading them as well is that our
Speaker 2: geography no longer protects us as it did because of
Speaker 2: new weapons, and that's long range missiles, but it's also
Speaker 2: things like drones that can be used very creatively, as
Speaker 2: we've seen the Ukrainians and the Israelis do now, and
Speaker 2: China makes all of this stuff and supplies its military
Speaker 2: with all of it, and it does want to take
Speaker 2: Taiwan back, and it doesn't look like there's a peaceful option.
Speaker 1: No, is that something that might happen?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: Is that a reality? Is that something we cannot dismiss?
Speaker 1: And is that far away from happening? I mean, you
Speaker 1: hear from time to time the suggestion that it's imminent.
Speaker 1: When will if it's inevitable, China try to retake back Taiwan,
Speaker 1: We'll take back Taiwan.
Speaker 2: Well, this is interesting. I think the Chinese government, the
Speaker 2: Communist Party, wants to tell the world it's inevitable. But
Speaker 2: the reason they have to keep saying that is they
Speaker 2: know that's not true. So far, they've been deterred from
Speaker 2: doing it, and they've been deterred by American and allied
Speaker 2: military power and doubts that Jin King has about his
Speaker 2: own military. And both those things are still powerful. But
Speaker 2: the problem is America and its allies look a bit
Speaker 2: chaotic now and distracted. But the good news is China
Speaker 2: keeps purging senior people that it's three, which doesn't give
Speaker 2: them the Colgate ring of confidence. You know, I think
Speaker 2: it's all about It's a bit like what we're saying
Speaker 2: about mett Yahu and Iran. Will there be a better time? Is?
Speaker 2: I think the question in she's mind.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, fascinating. You talked about drones. Actually had a
Speaker 1: drone manufacturer, the boss of a company from Victoria, I think,
Speaker 1: on a few weeks ago, and they're doing great stuff.
Speaker 1: And you hear about, as you mentioned, drones in Ukraine
Speaker 1: and elsewhere. And I end up saying this to myself,
Speaker 1: why does it seem like we're spending all that we
Speaker 1: have on submarines on the never never when we could,
Speaker 1: like other countries around the world, arm ourselves with drones,
Speaker 1: drones that fly and drones in the water and seemingly
Speaker 1: be on the pace. Well what am I missing there?
Speaker 2: Well, I think what you're missing is our government and
Speaker 2: our defense is complete. This interest in equipping our military
Speaker 2: with these things. They spend all their time talking about
Speaker 2: why the time's not right. You know, anything I believe
Speaker 2: now might be obsolete. Look, you know, it's not proven
Speaker 2: how they'll be used best. We've got to develop concepts.
Speaker 2: But the actual problem is it messes with their plan,
Speaker 2: the defense plan that the government has endorsed and seems
Speaker 2: perfectly happy with. Is what you talked about. It's spending
Speaker 2: hundreds of billions of dollars on frigates and submarines that
Speaker 2: do nothing to help our security for decades, and under
Speaker 2: investing in a whole bunch of stuff that Australian companies
Speaker 2: make and supply to other militaries. Right now. It is mystifying.
Speaker 2: It is. It's the only explanation I have is that
Speaker 2: the current leadership and the government and the Defense Department
Speaker 2: don't believe their own words about the dangerous world wherein.
Speaker 1: Wow, Michael, thank you so much for your time. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it very much. Indeed, good on you. Good to
Speaker 1: talk with you, mate. Michael Schubridge, Founder and Director of
Speaker 1: Strategic Analysis Australia. You see, when you remove the politics
Speaker 1: from these discussions, and I know that's difficult to do,
Speaker 1: but when you do, when you talk about defense and
Speaker 1: you then you know, you get down deep into some
Speaker 1: of these issues. Like it is impressive, isn't it that
Speaker 1: we've got these nuclear powers and marines coming sometime from
Speaker 1: America our mate, and the UK or other mate, even
Speaker 1: though they're going to cost you know, maybe half it
Speaker 1: doesn't nds's you think, oh, well, that's got to be good.
Speaker 1: But the fact is that in the theaters of war
Speaker 1: right now around the world, drones and other things are
Speaker 1: a thing, Which is why I wanted to ask Michael,
Speaker 1: why aren't they think for us we make the damn
Speaker 1: things here? In fact, we make them here, we buy
Speaker 1: a few of them, but around the world they buy
Speaker 1: a heap of them. Well, what are we doing that's
Speaker 1: so smart? And that the point Michael makes, which I
Speaker 1: think is astonishing, is that they say the world's a
Speaker 1: dangerous place. And I mean, you look at the headlines
Speaker 1: today and of course do you think, yeah, well, bloody oath. Well,
Speaker 1: if it's such a dangerous place, why aren't you arming
Speaker 1: our army Air Force? Why aren't you doing something now?
Speaker 1: Why do we have to wait a decade for a
Speaker 1: couple of subs. I'm no genius in this space, but
Speaker 1: I like to think I've got a bit of common sense.
Speaker 1: And you look at what's in front of you, and
Speaker 1: I think you're entitled to go huh.