Speaker 1: So let's get to this. I had a chat with
Speaker 1: Dr Benzali yesterday. He's a senior lecturer in international relations
Speaker 1: at Monash School of Social Scientists, and I wanted to
Speaker 1: know what the update was from his perspective in the
Speaker 1: escalating Israel Iran conflict.
Speaker 2: Well, further developments as ever in terms of reprisals from
Speaker 2: both sides, of course, but the wider diplomatic circumstances is
Speaker 2: developing a little bit as well, in that President Trump
Speaker 2: has put out something on his social media account telling
Speaker 2: the citizens of Tehran, the capital of Iran, effectively, to evacuate.
Speaker 2: So that means we should expect further Israeli tax and
Speaker 2: obviously attacks on Tehran on this major population center. So
Speaker 2: it looks like the conflict is going to continue to
Speaker 2: escalate from here, at least for the next few days.
Speaker 3: How involved were America getting now, so this is a
Speaker 3: little hard to tell.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think the Trump administrations basic instinct on
Speaker 2: this is to appear to be at arms length, but
Speaker 2: they're clearly, very very closely in touch with the Israelis.
Speaker 2: They had advanced warning of the attack. Trump has not
Speaker 2: given public approval or sort of green the attack. As such,
Speaker 2: but also isn't criticizing the Israelis in so doing either.
Speaker 2: So they're clearly across the details of it, but they're
Speaker 2: certainly not involved. There's no American military involvement at this
Speaker 2: stage anything like that, and I expect that to remain
Speaker 2: the case. The other thing that has developed it over
Speaker 2: the days gone on. At this G seven meeting, it
Speaker 2: was actually the French President Emmanuel Makrong has said to
Speaker 2: reporters that apparently the Trump administration is trying to brok
Speaker 2: us some kind of ceasefire between the two, but we
Speaker 2: don't really have any details on that or any sense
Speaker 2: of the likelihood of that coming off.
Speaker 1: I read that the USS Nimitz was heading towards that region.
Speaker 1: Would that be used in a defensive role.
Speaker 3: That's my assumption.
Speaker 2: Yes, some other forces have also been moved towards the region,
Speaker 2: including some anti drone forces that were destined for Ukraine.
Speaker 2: They're really going to the region to shore up the
Speaker 2: defenses around US military bases and other military assets in
Speaker 2: the region, to ensure that in its response to Israel's
Speaker 2: attacks and its retaliations, Iran doesn't target US forces in
Speaker 2: the region.
Speaker 3: And we've seen UK support. How much more will they
Speaker 3: get involved?
Speaker 2: I think the British are in a very similar position.
Speaker 2: So they too have military bases in the region, so
Speaker 2: they're moving some forces there essentially for the same purpose,
Speaker 2: to effectively deter Iran from attacking anything other than Israeli targets.
Speaker 1: At this stage, what's the purpose of evacuating all of
Speaker 1: these Iranian citizens?
Speaker 3: Do you think?
Speaker 2: It's not entirely clear. Israel III has issued warnings today,
Speaker 2: not dissimilar to how it's issued some of the warning
Speaker 2: warnings ahead of bombings of Palestinian areas in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 2: This is really about trying to appear to be in
Speaker 2: minimizing civilian casualties. From one are very large scale attacks,
Speaker 2: clearly what they're going to be in densely populated civilian areas.
Speaker 2: So I think we should expect further fairly large scale
Speaker 2: attacks in the coming sort of hours or over the
Speaker 2: next twenty four hours or so.
Speaker 1: And do you think Israel underestimated Iran's ability to respond?
Speaker 3: Not so much.
Speaker 2: I think the Israelis will have anticipated this. Basically, both
Speaker 2: sides have known that this was a relatively likely outcome
Speaker 2: for years. Really, the Israelis have talked about engaging a
Speaker 2: military strike against Iran's nuclear program for years. They've been
Speaker 2: talked out of it by the Americans on a number
Speaker 2: of occasions. It also fits with a wider pattern of activity.
Speaker 2: The Israelis did this against a nuclear reactor in Iraq
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty one. They did it to Syria in
Speaker 2: two thousand and seven, so Israel has sort of always
Speaker 2: favored the use of military forces and sabotage and targeted assassinations.
Speaker 2: They also assassinated a series of Iranian nuclear scientists about
Speaker 2: a decade ago, so this is no surprise to the Iranians,
Speaker 2: who have obviously therefore been preparing their response, and therefore
Speaker 2: the Israelis knew that the Iranians would be responding as well.
Speaker 2: So in a sense, both sides of these attacks have
Speaker 2: been quite extensive and relatively devastating, but nothing I don't
Speaker 2: think will have greatly surprised either side, other than to
Speaker 2: say the initial attacks by Israel were probably a little
Speaker 2: more successful than the Iranians might have anticipated, particularly given
Speaker 2: Israel's ability to get its intelligence forces Mossad forces into
Speaker 2: an on Iranian soil beforehand to conduct sabotage operations. Against
Speaker 2: some of Iran's anti aircraft capabilities to ensure that the
Speaker 2: Israeli airplanes could fly in unimpeded and hit those targets.
Speaker 1: And this talk of the Iranian nuclear facilities being severely damaged,
Speaker 1: if not destroyed. But there's also talk and speculation of
Speaker 1: a dirty bomb. Do you think there's anything in that?
Speaker 2: To be honest, I don't. And so the idea of
Speaker 2: a dirty bomb is this is a conventional explosive that
Speaker 2: spreads radioactive material, so it's not a nuclear explosion, but
Speaker 2: it's just an explosion that basically has a nuclear material
Speaker 2: packed around it. I don't see the prospects of that
Speaker 2: in the short term. I think that's fairly unlikely in
Speaker 2: terms of the damage to the Iranian nuclear facilities. Look,
Speaker 2: Iran hadn't yet developed the nuclear weapons, so this is
Speaker 2: a preemptive strike to prevent Iran from doing so. Right,
Speaker 2: So it's not that nuclear weapons have been knocked out,
Speaker 2: But the question becomes how much damage of the Israeli's
Speaker 2: done to these sites? How far back has this put
Speaker 2: the program? So if Iran now like Iraq did after
Speaker 2: it was a taken by Israeli in eighty one, if
Speaker 2: it decides to really double down and really redouble its
Speaker 2: efforts and do the sort of the fast breakout to
Speaker 2: a nuclear weapons capability. The question is what's their capability
Speaker 2: to do that?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: How damaged are these facilities and a number of them
Speaker 2: are very deep underground and they've been hardened under multiple
Speaker 2: layers of concrete because the Iranians have been anticipating this
Speaker 2: for some years. So we won't know the answer to
Speaker 2: this for some time, and there are conflicting reports. The
Speaker 2: Israelis are saying they've destroyed lots and they've caused all
Speaker 2: sorts of damage to the underground facilities. There's been some
Speaker 2: statements from the International Atomic Energy Agency saying they've got
Speaker 2: no reports of that so far, and they're in touch
Speaker 2: with operators at the facilities.
Speaker 3: So we just won't know for a while.
Speaker 2: But that's going to be the kind of six million
Speaker 2: dollar question over the next couple of weeks, just how
Speaker 2: successful have those attacks been on the deep hardened underground facilities.
Speaker 1: The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the
Speaker 1: US is taking up a defensive position as this conflict
Speaker 1: rages on.
Speaker 3: Are they talking about a defensive position?
Speaker 1: Do you think for Israel or a defensive position for
Speaker 1: their own bases in the area.
Speaker 2: My sense is at the moment is the latter. They're
Speaker 2: just trying to defend their own interests here. At the
Speaker 2: same time that the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio
Speaker 2: has been making these repeated statements saying we're not involved
Speaker 2: in these strikes, and I think President Trump has repeated
Speaker 2: that as well. So I don't think the US is
Speaker 2: going to want to be seen to be aiding Israel directly.
Speaker 3: In that sense.
Speaker 2: I don't think they're going to see American forces being involved.
Speaker 2: It's possible that they may become involved at some point
Speaker 2: in terms of shooting down incoming rockets and so forth,
Speaker 2: but I think for now they're focused more on defending
Speaker 2: their own military assets in the region.