March 22, 2026 • 18 mins
Iran has vowed to close the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely -- if the US follows through on President Donald Trump’s threats.
It’s after Trump gave Iran an ultimatum to open the passage before American forces "obliterate" their power plants.
But, if that happens, there’d be a large-scale blackout, resulting in widespread civilian harm - so, the question then becomes – would that be a violation of international law?
Today on The Front Page, Waikato University international law professor, Al Gillespie, is with us to take us through what could happen next.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Iran has
vowed to close the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely if the
US follows through on President Donald Trump's threats. It's after
Trump gave Iran an ultimatum to open the passage before
(00:29):
American forces obliterate their power plants. But if that happens,
there'd be a large scale blackout resulting in widespread civilian harm.
So the question then becomes, would that be a violation
of international law? Today on the front Page, why get
the University International law professor ol Gillespie is with us
(00:50):
to take us through what could happen next? So our
what do you make of Trump's latest threat to bomb
power plants?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Legally, it's a very difficult thing to do because you're
not meant to attack civilian infrastructure unless he's a clear
military objective. The problem is that Iran is doing exactly
the same threatening civilian objects as well around the Gulf
and also in the war in Ukraine. It's attactic that
Russia does, and so legally it's something that neither side
(01:22):
should be doing. But increasing everyone's doing that action. But
the wider problem is is that it escalates the war.
And this is exactly what Iran wants. They want to
make it more indiscriminate and disproportionate and put more countries
into it, and it will make it harder for Trump
to extricate himself.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Well, Trump posted on social media at eleven forty four
pm GMT that if Iran doesn't fully open without threat,
the Straight of hor moves within forty eight hours from
this exact point in time, the United States of America
will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with
the biggest one, first in Capital So the deadline will
(01:59):
end abut out midday March twenty four for US. First off,
what are the ramifications If the US does in fact
bomb Iran's power plants?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Legally, it's very unlikely they'll ever be how to account
because you're a superpower politically. The ramification is that Iran
wars respond in kind, and they will attack similar objects
around the Gulf, and so you could, I imagine you
will see power plants being attacked, desalination plants being attacked, attacked, airports,
(02:31):
and war is meant to have rules, But what you're
seeing and increasingly is that a lawless version of this
warfare breaking out, and that makes it more difficult to
find peace. But it also plays into Iran's hands because
as it becomes more lawless, the necessity for American support
boots on the ground to regain order will become higher,
and that's exactly what Iran wants.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Well.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Putting the entire legality of the war side for a second,
you mentioned it could be illegal to attack a country's
power plants, causing because large scale blackouts, disrupting hospitals, water pumping, sewerage,
civilians suffering would be significant in terms of the laws
of armed conflict.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
That is a civilian structure.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
But is it a good enough excuse being like, well,
they did it first.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
No, you cannot practice reprisals. A reprisal is where one
illegal act follows another illegal act. But that's exactly where
we are right now, where they're both threatening each other
to escalate the situation by putting in pain on civilians.
But that pain on civilians which Iran is practicing is
something which is not just around. But you attack on
places like power plant or oil and gas manufacturing, it's
(03:40):
also on civilian vessels where they're trying to block the waterway,
and the same rule applies is that the freedom of
navigation should be applicable for all boats which are civilian
and not caring contraband, and that includes oil tankers. But
Iran is violating that rule as well at the same time.
But the Iranian position is that this war was illegal
to begin with. If it's an illegal war, anything goes.
(04:02):
But that's wrong, that's not the correct answer.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Yeah, so what are the ramifications after all the said
and done, then.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
That it's likely that more countries will get involved. At
the moment, there's been a lot of restrained by both
the countries around Iran and also the Friends of America,
which will include Australia and New Zealand. And what you
saw on the weekend where nineteen countries joined a statement
saying that they're willing to look at the defense of
the waterway. I think is a pathway for our intervention.
(04:29):
And so even though we would not be part of
actually condoning the illegal war to begin with, we may
be part of the process of defending the waterway.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
We're pretty adamant that we're not going to have new
Zealand boots on the ground, right, But.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Does that mean offensively? What about defensively?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Is that a bit of a loophole that we can
actually get over there if we're defending the waterway.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
There's a lot of ways we can help with the
defense of the waterway. Sometimes it's about intelligence sharing and
it's what we're doing with the Red Sea. Other times
it's about replacing the vessels of us the country so
that they can be deployed to the region so we
might take up some of the patrolling duties of the
American boats. The last case scenario is where we put
our aircraft where our own vessels into that waterway, and
(05:10):
that's quite unlikely, but that is one line for the
defensive part of the waterway. The practical problem is that
to defend the waterway, it's not just about the water
it's also about the coastline. Because it's from the coast
that you get the vessels, you get bedroned, and you
get be sea mines, and so it's one thing to
have your boats in there. It's another thing to have
(05:30):
boots on the ground to defend that area. And that's
where you might find that there is a necessity for
some soldiers to be placed around those.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Coastal zoned what's the likelihood that those will be Kiwi soldiers?
Speaker 3 (05:41):
I think unlikely, But these things are very easy to
say no to it at the beginning. But if you've
really got to control the straight, and you have to
control the straight because of the economic consequences, the way
this plays out are unexpected and unforeseen at the moment.
So I think that they will have to be boots
on the ground. But you've also got to put boots
on the ground not just to control the waterway, but
also to secure the nuclear material which is currently in
(06:03):
the wind. And so the possibility of not having boots
on the ground to control the situation I think is unlikely.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
There's been a suggestion that Iranian missiles could theoretically reach
European capitals. How did this conversation even start?
Speaker 3 (06:19):
This isn't actually news. This has been known for quite
some time. In terms of technology, they have the capability
to have a much greater range than they're currently being utilized,
but so far it's been restrained, and I don't think
we're seeing everything which is in the Iranian kit. What
we've also seen is multiple reentry vehicles coming through whereby
one missile comes over and it turns into a number
(06:40):
of warheads. And so there are things that Iran has
not yet deployed, which I think they're probably holding up
this leave waiting for the right opportunity.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well, the caveat here is isn't it that these weapons
aren't incredibly accurate. They're about the size of a London
bus or something, aren't they.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, that's right, and that too the war crime and
so like, if you do use a missile, it should
be accurate and its impact proportionate, and you should not
be to firing them into cities. But that is increasingly
what Iran is doing. That they are indiscriminate into attacks
and that is illegal.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Well, it's also the IDF saying that Tedan has now
missiles capable of reaching the likes of London, Paris, Berlin.
How much weight should we put behind their word?
Speaker 3 (07:24):
I think it's probably accurate, but at the moment we
must be aware also that Israel has an interest in
trying to bring more countries into the conflict, not keep
them out. But I do think that the threat is there,
although the amount of weight we put onto that threat
is for each of us to decide. But this is
part of the reason that some countries and mister Trump
in particular, was saying he had to intervene to control
the ballistic missile threat. The problem is that to control
(07:47):
the ballistic missile threat requires a huge amount of oversight
of their infrastructure, which would require a much greater intervention
than is currently envisaged.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
I think we won.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
We We've knocked out their navy, their air force, we've
knocked out their anti air crab, We've knocked out everything.
We're roaming free. From a military standpoint, all they're doing
is plugging up the street. But from a military standpoint,
they're finished.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I saw that US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz.
He told CBS that no option is off the table
when it comes to Iran, and that includes bombing nuclear
power plants.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Does that change the game at all?
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Again, it's an legal act. You should not be targeting
nuclear power plants. They are certain objects have a particular
protection and international humanitarian law, like large dams which hold water,
or like nuclear power plants. And the reason we have
this is that even though you may destroy the plant,
the impact on civilians is catastrophic and the impact on
the environment is long lasting, and so you can expect
(08:56):
though that if the Iranian nuclear power plants are targeted,
Iran will respond in kind. And it may not just
be in terms of targeting, that may also be in
terms of tourism, because we've got to now control their
stockpile of highly enriched uranium to make sure that that
is not diverted or given to the wrong actors. Right now,
there is no good faith between these two sides, and
(09:18):
so America negotiated in bad faith and then they assassinated
their religious leader. And so the chance is that the
Iranian authorities are going to show restraint in the way
that they respond to America are I don't think they will.
I think they're going to look for the right opportunity
to inflict maximum pain. And it's what they're doing with
the straight right now.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
What if Trump doesn't follow through with this threat, it
makes them look weak.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
That's what I thought, and mister Trump is. But it's
very hard to know what mister Trump wants to achieve
because he hasn't even set out clearly what the objective
of the war is. I mean, on one hand, it's
about nuclear control and another hand it's about ballistic missiles,
then it's about regime change. Now it's about the Strait
of hor Moos. And so we don't know how until
(10:01):
you state your objectives, you don't know how long the
war will even last. But he is most dangerous when
he's got his back against the wall. And Iran knows this,
and so they know they can put pressure on mister
Trump by controlling for straight And they also know they
can make the war worse by starting a sectarian conflict
with its neighbors, and so Iran will thrive into chaos.
(10:22):
That's exactly what a despotic regime wants.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
It is incredibly interesting. I think with Trump, the change
in rhetoric. He was once all about peace. He wanted
a Nobel Peace Prize at one stage, and now he's
targeted his response to whatever Israel and Benjamin Etna who
want to do. Why do you think that is he
just desperate to secure a legacy before he.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Can't run again for president or something.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
I to find a contradiction in the way that he
wanted no more intervention of foreign wars, and now he's
gone head first into the most difficult conflict that was
seen for the last few decades. Why he's doing it,
I think partly legacy, and that's why his concern is
not just around Iran, it's also around Cuba and Venezuela.
And I think he's interested in being that president who's
(11:10):
remembered in posterity for the one who took down these
difficult regimes, the challenges, they're not easy to take down,
and it may end up that they end up taking
him down.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
The IDF has warned there are several more weeks of
fighting still to come, and that's in Iran and against
Hezbolla in Lebanon. What effect could this have on the
world's oil supply when we're talking about days versus weeks,
and perhaps than even months.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
A lot of countries are currently panicking right now with
regards to oil supply, and as contracts get voided because
of the conflict, the oil goes into the open market
to basic supply and demand, and this is driving up
price rapidly. Some countries will manage much better than others.
Always in conflict, the price of energy increases. The question
is how long the conflict is and how long it
(11:59):
takes to rebuild infrastructure. So we saw it in nineteen
ninety one. We saw it in two thousand and three,
we saw in twenty fourteen, in twenty twenty two. This
could take depending on the length of the conflict and
how bad it gets, and it could take years to
bring the price down. And if we get into the
point where we start knocking out each other's infrastructure around
the region, the pain will be longer rather than shorter.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
And speaking of the Hezbollah in Lebanon, people may think, well,
why has Lebanon entered the chat at all?
Speaker 1 (12:27):
What is the connection there?
Speaker 3 (12:28):
They are another one of the proxies for Iran, And
so it's not just the Hisbola and Lebanon that we
need to be watching. It's also the Huthi and Yemen
who have been suspiciously quiet for quite some time. But
this is part of the problem of Iran, that they
have a number of local groups that they support who
will to act on their behalf, often in an illegal way.
(12:49):
But having said that, Israel will also be taking the
opportunity to secure their own objectives that overlap with this
current war against their neighbors.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Lebanese President Joseph Ayon says that Israel's attacks on bridges
in the south of Lebanon are a prelude to a
ground invasion.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
What's the significance of that wording.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
That we can expect that this conflict is going to
get worse, not better. And as much as you're looking
at the possibility of boots on the ground in Iran
with a strong possibility that there'll also be Israeli boots
in Lebanon as well.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
And what is the risk of then it's spreading.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
It won't spread that much. But these groups want that,
they want to bring the opposition into these areas because
that's where you level the playing field, where you fight
street by street. You don't bomb them from the air.
And if there's an advantage to be played, it's for
groups in Iran and groups in Lebanon to pull these
soldiers in. But if you want to control these places,
it's what you've got to do.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Well, that's exactly what you said as well, isn't it.
Iran actually thrives in chaos.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Iran wants a sectarian war with its neighbors. It wants
a theocratic problem whereby that they can justify themselves and
support their own regime, which is already very dubious and
repugnant in many ways. But the more that they feel
pressure from external enemies, and the more that they can
pull these enemies into their own homeland, the more advantage
they will get.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
In a statement online, I saw that the Iranian president
there masurd Pezeshkian says that US threats against around show desperation.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Would you agree.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
I think mister Trump is underestimating his opponents. These people
do not fear him like he thinks other people fear him.
They will often welcome the fight, and has threatening puts
himself vulnerable if he doesn't follow through. But if he
does follow through, he's going to escalate the situation, which
will be worse for America.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Is there any way that the US will ever lose
its superpower status?
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I don't think in our lifetime.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
It is Trump doing a pretty good job at going
down that route.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Mister Trump is going down a route which is causing
a lot of chaos in the international system, which is
undermine in a rurals based order, and he's creating a
problem which is pulling other countries into it. So in
an ideal world, this is something that would be would
have been an illegal war would have started, and it
would have been for Israel and America to deal with.
But because the illegal war is now responding with illegal
actions on the part of Iran, other countries which could
(15:17):
include ours, could get pulled in, and so we are
beginning to pay the price for some of his chaos.
That's not just at the petrol pump, which all of
us are currently feeling. It's also in the possibilities of
joining the military conflict. We don't agree with you.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
They've been properties from around all this time and that
out there creating chaos, capturing boats and all sorts of
pricy going on.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
It's sooner at him.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
You know, the world has says to itself, and even
the Middle East is saying to ourself, we've had a
guts full.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Do you think that we will join the military conflict
that we don't agree with anytime soon?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Given its election year.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
I think that the nineteen countries which went into a
statement over the weekend about needs to work collectively to
protect the International Waterway. New Zealand will be part of
that group, and that's the right place to be, because
we can't let countries just block international waterways or attack
daw use areas. But it's a paper war between the
illegal war that began and the legal actions that followed,
(16:20):
and we might find that where we are in a
month's time to be very different to where we are today.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
I think everyone's in agreement when they say the Iranian
regime is not a good one. Okay, But does attacking
a regime justify the negative ramifications on ninety one million.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
People they are a repugnant regime. I mean, we should
not mince our words. But the problem is is that
if you break this regime open that trying to contain
the ninety one million people underneath it will be very difficult.
There are ethnic difficulties, there are ideological difficulties, and there
are religious differences, and the possibility that the country could
(16:58):
split open its own civil war is quite strong. And also,
we must not use the criteria of people we don't
like as a justification for intervention, because for lists of
countries we don't like but don't intervene in, it is
quite a long list.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
And it's pretty safe to say that of those ninety
one million people who live in Iran, not all of
them would enjoy the regime that they're currently under.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
I think many of them don't enjoy that regime that
they're under. And I think one of my concerns is
that these people are at foremost risk right now, because
while the Iranians may not be able to shoot down
the American and the Israeli planes, they will be able
to turn their anger against their own dissidents, and these
people who have spoken out against their regime are at risk.
But the part of the problem is is that mister
(17:38):
Trump is trying to encourage these people to speak out
when it's not clear that they'll be safe to do so.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Thanks for joining us, ou You're welcome, Chelsea. That's it
for this episode of the Front Page.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
You can read more about today's stories and extensive news
coverage at enzidhrald dot co dot nz. The Front Page
is hosted and produce by me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky
is our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor,
and our executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front
Page on the iHeart app or wherever you get your.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Podcasts, and join us next time for another look beyond
the headlines.
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Iran has
vowed to close the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely if the
US follows through on President Donald Trump's threats. It's after
Trump gave Iran an ultimatum to open the passage before
(00:29):
American forces obliterate their power plants. But if that happens,
there'd be a large scale blackout resulting in widespread civilian harm.
So the question then becomes, would that be a violation
of international law? Today on the front Page, why get
the University International law professor ol Gillespie is with us
(00:50):
to take us through what could happen next? So our
what do you make of Trump's latest threat to bomb
power plants?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Legally, it's a very difficult thing to do because you're
not meant to attack civilian infrastructure unless he's a clear
military objective. The problem is that Iran is doing exactly
the same threatening civilian objects as well around the Gulf
and also in the war in Ukraine. It's attactic that
Russia does, and so legally it's something that neither side
(01:22):
should be doing. But increasing everyone's doing that action. But
the wider problem is is that it escalates the war.
And this is exactly what Iran wants. They want to
make it more indiscriminate and disproportionate and put more countries
into it, and it will make it harder for Trump
to extricate himself.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Well, Trump posted on social media at eleven forty four
pm GMT that if Iran doesn't fully open without threat,
the Straight of hor moves within forty eight hours from
this exact point in time, the United States of America
will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with
the biggest one, first in Capital So the deadline will
(01:59):
end abut out midday March twenty four for US. First off,
what are the ramifications If the US does in fact
bomb Iran's power plants?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Legally, it's very unlikely they'll ever be how to account
because you're a superpower politically. The ramification is that Iran
wars respond in kind, and they will attack similar objects
around the Gulf, and so you could, I imagine you
will see power plants being attacked, desalination plants being attacked, attacked, airports,
(02:31):
and war is meant to have rules, But what you're
seeing and increasingly is that a lawless version of this
warfare breaking out, and that makes it more difficult to
find peace. But it also plays into Iran's hands because
as it becomes more lawless, the necessity for American support
boots on the ground to regain order will become higher,
and that's exactly what Iran wants.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Well.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Putting the entire legality of the war side for a second,
you mentioned it could be illegal to attack a country's
power plants, causing because large scale blackouts, disrupting hospitals, water pumping, sewerage,
civilians suffering would be significant in terms of the laws
of armed conflict.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
That is a civilian structure.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
But is it a good enough excuse being like, well,
they did it first.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
No, you cannot practice reprisals. A reprisal is where one
illegal act follows another illegal act. But that's exactly where
we are right now, where they're both threatening each other
to escalate the situation by putting in pain on civilians.
But that pain on civilians which Iran is practicing is
something which is not just around. But you attack on
places like power plant or oil and gas manufacturing, it's
(03:40):
also on civilian vessels where they're trying to block the waterway,
and the same rule applies is that the freedom of
navigation should be applicable for all boats which are civilian
and not caring contraband, and that includes oil tankers. But
Iran is violating that rule as well at the same time.
But the Iranian position is that this war was illegal
to begin with. If it's an illegal war, anything goes.
(04:02):
But that's wrong, that's not the correct answer.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Yeah, so what are the ramifications after all the said
and done, then.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
That it's likely that more countries will get involved. At
the moment, there's been a lot of restrained by both
the countries around Iran and also the Friends of America,
which will include Australia and New Zealand. And what you
saw on the weekend where nineteen countries joined a statement
saying that they're willing to look at the defense of
the waterway. I think is a pathway for our intervention.
(04:29):
And so even though we would not be part of
actually condoning the illegal war to begin with, we may
be part of the process of defending the waterway.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
We're pretty adamant that we're not going to have new
Zealand boots on the ground, right, But.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Does that mean offensively? What about defensively?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Is that a bit of a loophole that we can
actually get over there if we're defending the waterway.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
There's a lot of ways we can help with the
defense of the waterway. Sometimes it's about intelligence sharing and
it's what we're doing with the Red Sea. Other times
it's about replacing the vessels of us the country so
that they can be deployed to the region so we
might take up some of the patrolling duties of the
American boats. The last case scenario is where we put
our aircraft where our own vessels into that waterway, and
(05:10):
that's quite unlikely, but that is one line for the
defensive part of the waterway. The practical problem is that
to defend the waterway, it's not just about the water
it's also about the coastline. Because it's from the coast
that you get the vessels, you get bedroned, and you
get be sea mines, and so it's one thing to
have your boats in there. It's another thing to have
(05:30):
boots on the ground to defend that area. And that's
where you might find that there is a necessity for
some soldiers to be placed around those.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Coastal zoned what's the likelihood that those will be Kiwi soldiers?
Speaker 3 (05:41):
I think unlikely, But these things are very easy to
say no to it at the beginning. But if you've
really got to control the straight, and you have to
control the straight because of the economic consequences, the way
this plays out are unexpected and unforeseen at the moment.
So I think that they will have to be boots
on the ground. But you've also got to put boots
on the ground not just to control the waterway, but
also to secure the nuclear material which is currently in
(06:03):
the wind. And so the possibility of not having boots
on the ground to control the situation I think is unlikely.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
There's been a suggestion that Iranian missiles could theoretically reach
European capitals. How did this conversation even start?
Speaker 3 (06:19):
This isn't actually news. This has been known for quite
some time. In terms of technology, they have the capability
to have a much greater range than they're currently being utilized,
but so far it's been restrained, and I don't think
we're seeing everything which is in the Iranian kit. What
we've also seen is multiple reentry vehicles coming through whereby
one missile comes over and it turns into a number
(06:40):
of warheads. And so there are things that Iran has
not yet deployed, which I think they're probably holding up
this leave waiting for the right opportunity.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well, the caveat here is isn't it that these weapons
aren't incredibly accurate. They're about the size of a London
bus or something, aren't they.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, that's right, and that too the war crime and
so like, if you do use a missile, it should
be accurate and its impact proportionate, and you should not
be to firing them into cities. But that is increasingly
what Iran is doing. That they are indiscriminate into attacks
and that is illegal.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Well, it's also the IDF saying that Tedan has now
missiles capable of reaching the likes of London, Paris, Berlin.
How much weight should we put behind their word?
Speaker 3 (07:24):
I think it's probably accurate, but at the moment we
must be aware also that Israel has an interest in
trying to bring more countries into the conflict, not keep
them out. But I do think that the threat is there,
although the amount of weight we put onto that threat
is for each of us to decide. But this is
part of the reason that some countries and mister Trump
in particular, was saying he had to intervene to control
the ballistic missile threat. The problem is that to control
(07:47):
the ballistic missile threat requires a huge amount of oversight
of their infrastructure, which would require a much greater intervention
than is currently envisaged.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
I think we won.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
We We've knocked out their navy, their air force, we've
knocked out their anti air crab, We've knocked out everything.
We're roaming free. From a military standpoint, all they're doing
is plugging up the street. But from a military standpoint,
they're finished.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I saw that US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz.
He told CBS that no option is off the table
when it comes to Iran, and that includes bombing nuclear
power plants.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Does that change the game at all?
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Again, it's an legal act. You should not be targeting
nuclear power plants. They are certain objects have a particular
protection and international humanitarian law, like large dams which hold water,
or like nuclear power plants. And the reason we have
this is that even though you may destroy the plant,
the impact on civilians is catastrophic and the impact on
the environment is long lasting, and so you can expect
(08:56):
though that if the Iranian nuclear power plants are targeted,
Iran will respond in kind. And it may not just
be in terms of targeting, that may also be in
terms of tourism, because we've got to now control their
stockpile of highly enriched uranium to make sure that that
is not diverted or given to the wrong actors. Right now,
there is no good faith between these two sides, and
(09:18):
so America negotiated in bad faith and then they assassinated
their religious leader. And so the chance is that the
Iranian authorities are going to show restraint in the way
that they respond to America are I don't think they will.
I think they're going to look for the right opportunity
to inflict maximum pain. And it's what they're doing with
the straight right now.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
What if Trump doesn't follow through with this threat, it
makes them look weak.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
That's what I thought, and mister Trump is. But it's
very hard to know what mister Trump wants to achieve
because he hasn't even set out clearly what the objective
of the war is. I mean, on one hand, it's
about nuclear control and another hand it's about ballistic missiles,
then it's about regime change. Now it's about the Strait
of hor Moos. And so we don't know how until
(10:01):
you state your objectives, you don't know how long the
war will even last. But he is most dangerous when
he's got his back against the wall. And Iran knows this,
and so they know they can put pressure on mister
Trump by controlling for straight And they also know they
can make the war worse by starting a sectarian conflict
with its neighbors, and so Iran will thrive into chaos.
(10:22):
That's exactly what a despotic regime wants.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
It is incredibly interesting. I think with Trump, the change
in rhetoric. He was once all about peace. He wanted
a Nobel Peace Prize at one stage, and now he's
targeted his response to whatever Israel and Benjamin Etna who
want to do. Why do you think that is he
just desperate to secure a legacy before he.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Can't run again for president or something.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
I to find a contradiction in the way that he
wanted no more intervention of foreign wars, and now he's
gone head first into the most difficult conflict that was
seen for the last few decades. Why he's doing it,
I think partly legacy, and that's why his concern is
not just around Iran, it's also around Cuba and Venezuela.
And I think he's interested in being that president who's
(11:10):
remembered in posterity for the one who took down these
difficult regimes, the challenges, they're not easy to take down,
and it may end up that they end up taking
him down.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
The IDF has warned there are several more weeks of
fighting still to come, and that's in Iran and against
Hezbolla in Lebanon. What effect could this have on the
world's oil supply when we're talking about days versus weeks,
and perhaps than even months.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
A lot of countries are currently panicking right now with
regards to oil supply, and as contracts get voided because
of the conflict, the oil goes into the open market
to basic supply and demand, and this is driving up
price rapidly. Some countries will manage much better than others.
Always in conflict, the price of energy increases. The question
is how long the conflict is and how long it
(11:59):
takes to rebuild infrastructure. So we saw it in nineteen
ninety one. We saw it in two thousand and three,
we saw in twenty fourteen, in twenty twenty two. This
could take depending on the length of the conflict and
how bad it gets, and it could take years to
bring the price down. And if we get into the
point where we start knocking out each other's infrastructure around
the region, the pain will be longer rather than shorter.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
And speaking of the Hezbollah in Lebanon, people may think, well,
why has Lebanon entered the chat at all?
Speaker 1 (12:27):
What is the connection there?
Speaker 3 (12:28):
They are another one of the proxies for Iran, And
so it's not just the Hisbola and Lebanon that we
need to be watching. It's also the Huthi and Yemen
who have been suspiciously quiet for quite some time. But
this is part of the problem of Iran, that they
have a number of local groups that they support who
will to act on their behalf, often in an illegal way.
(12:49):
But having said that, Israel will also be taking the
opportunity to secure their own objectives that overlap with this
current war against their neighbors.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Lebanese President Joseph Ayon says that Israel's attacks on bridges
in the south of Lebanon are a prelude to a
ground invasion.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
What's the significance of that wording.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
That we can expect that this conflict is going to
get worse, not better. And as much as you're looking
at the possibility of boots on the ground in Iran
with a strong possibility that there'll also be Israeli boots
in Lebanon as well.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
And what is the risk of then it's spreading.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
It won't spread that much. But these groups want that,
they want to bring the opposition into these areas because
that's where you level the playing field, where you fight
street by street. You don't bomb them from the air.
And if there's an advantage to be played, it's for
groups in Iran and groups in Lebanon to pull these
soldiers in. But if you want to control these places,
it's what you've got to do.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Well, that's exactly what you said as well, isn't it.
Iran actually thrives in chaos.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Iran wants a sectarian war with its neighbors. It wants
a theocratic problem whereby that they can justify themselves and
support their own regime, which is already very dubious and
repugnant in many ways. But the more that they feel
pressure from external enemies, and the more that they can
pull these enemies into their own homeland, the more advantage
they will get.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
In a statement online, I saw that the Iranian president
there masurd Pezeshkian says that US threats against around show desperation.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Would you agree.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
I think mister Trump is underestimating his opponents. These people
do not fear him like he thinks other people fear him.
They will often welcome the fight, and has threatening puts
himself vulnerable if he doesn't follow through. But if he
does follow through, he's going to escalate the situation, which
will be worse for America.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Is there any way that the US will ever lose
its superpower status?
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I don't think in our lifetime.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
It is Trump doing a pretty good job at going
down that route.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Mister Trump is going down a route which is causing
a lot of chaos in the international system, which is
undermine in a rurals based order, and he's creating a
problem which is pulling other countries into it. So in
an ideal world, this is something that would be would
have been an illegal war would have started, and it
would have been for Israel and America to deal with.
But because the illegal war is now responding with illegal
actions on the part of Iran, other countries which could
(15:17):
include ours, could get pulled in, and so we are
beginning to pay the price for some of his chaos.
That's not just at the petrol pump, which all of
us are currently feeling. It's also in the possibilities of
joining the military conflict. We don't agree with you.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
They've been properties from around all this time and that
out there creating chaos, capturing boats and all sorts of
pricy going on.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
It's sooner at him.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
You know, the world has says to itself, and even
the Middle East is saying to ourself, we've had a
guts full.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Do you think that we will join the military conflict
that we don't agree with anytime soon?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Given its election year.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
I think that the nineteen countries which went into a
statement over the weekend about needs to work collectively to
protect the International Waterway. New Zealand will be part of
that group, and that's the right place to be, because
we can't let countries just block international waterways or attack
daw use areas. But it's a paper war between the
illegal war that began and the legal actions that followed,
(16:20):
and we might find that where we are in a
month's time to be very different to where we are today.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
I think everyone's in agreement when they say the Iranian
regime is not a good one. Okay, But does attacking
a regime justify the negative ramifications on ninety one million.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
People they are a repugnant regime. I mean, we should
not mince our words. But the problem is is that
if you break this regime open that trying to contain
the ninety one million people underneath it will be very difficult.
There are ethnic difficulties, there are ideological difficulties, and there
are religious differences, and the possibility that the country could
(16:58):
split open its own civil war is quite strong. And also,
we must not use the criteria of people we don't
like as a justification for intervention, because for lists of
countries we don't like but don't intervene in, it is
quite a long list.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
And it's pretty safe to say that of those ninety
one million people who live in Iran, not all of
them would enjoy the regime that they're currently under.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
I think many of them don't enjoy that regime that
they're under. And I think one of my concerns is
that these people are at foremost risk right now, because
while the Iranians may not be able to shoot down
the American and the Israeli planes, they will be able
to turn their anger against their own dissidents, and these
people who have spoken out against their regime are at risk.
But the part of the problem is is that mister
(17:38):
Trump is trying to encourage these people to speak out
when it's not clear that they'll be safe to do so.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Thanks for joining us, ou You're welcome, Chelsea. That's it
for this episode of the Front Page.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
You can read more about today's stories and extensive news
coverage at enzidhrald dot co dot nz. The Front Page
is hosted and produce by me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky
is our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor,
and our executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front
Page on the iHeart app or wherever you get your.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Podcasts, and join us next time for another look beyond
the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com