March 1, 2026 • 20 mins
The US and Israel have launched a massive assault on Iran.
Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the strikes will increase over the coming days.
Donald Trump has said that they “figured it will be four weeks or so” when asked about a potential timeline.
Iran has retaliated, unleashing its own strikes on US military bases, Israel and other targets across the Middle East.
The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and many of his senior commanders has left Tehran’s future leadership in question.
But questions are also swirling about the legality of the strikes.
Today on The Front Page, Waikato University international law professor, Al Gillespie is with us to discuss how we got here, and where to 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
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiaoa.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. The US
and Israel have launched a massive assault on Iran. Benjamin
Netanyahu has said the strikes will increase over the coming days.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Donald Trump has said.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
That they figured it would be about four weeks or
so when asked about a potential timeline. Iran has retaliated,
unleashing its own strikes on US military bases, Israel, and
other targets across the Middle East. The killing of Ayatola
al Jameni and many of his senior commanders has left
Tedan's future leadership in question, but questions are also swirling
(00:51):
about the legality of the strikes. Today on the Front Page,
Why cat Tho University International law professor Al Gillespie is
with us to discuss how we got here and.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Where to next.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
So our first off, give us a little background.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
How do we get here? Why is this happening?
Speaker 3 (01:10):
The animosity between Iran and the West is very long standing,
and the undue influence of the West and Iran goes
back to be twentieth century, but in betwenty first century
and especially since the Revolution in nineteen seventy nine. It's
become much more difficult, and the main cause is the
race for a nuclear weapon, which they began at the
(01:30):
beginning of the twenty first century.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So why is it ramped up all of a sudden now.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
There's a lot of opportunity of why you'd want to
strike now? There are significant protests, They are weak in
terms of the region with the proxies that they support,
and they are a repugnant regime in terms of the
human rights record. The problem is is that this doesn't
give you authority under international law to strike in as
the country. But the chance is the best it's been
(01:55):
for many years if you are trying to topple the regime.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well, from the perspective of international law, what is the
most significant thing that stands out to you in terms of.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
This strike without Security Council approval? There is nothing in
the UN Charter that says you can bomb someone who
refuses to negotiate with you, and so this is in
theory an illegal action. It's very similar to two thousand
and three with the intervention into Iraq, which is also
viewed as an illegal action. That the problem is is
that there's a very big gap between theory and practice
(02:28):
that even though in theory it might be illegal, in
practice there will be no repercussions. But the legality question
is also important domestically for mister Trump because he has
gone around the authority of Congress to do this military strike.
And in theory, their constitution says that for offensive actions
of war, as opposed to defense of you should get
the authority of Congress. Otherwise the president has too much power.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Right, So that echoes kind of what Helen Clark has
said as well. She's called the our government's response a
disgrace and she posted online about knowing full well the
international law has been breached, had any legitimate claim to
invoking a right of self defense? And be all this
chat about self defense?
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Does that like?
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Is that a loophole of something an international law to
allow you to strike another state?
Speaker 3 (03:16):
First off, the UN Charter works on the assumption that
every country has the right to self defense without having
to get Security Council approval. But it must be preemptive
or it must be in a situation where you're either
you will either strike or that there's no alternative to
defend in yourself. And so the question is here it
was there an alternative was you're an imminent strike upon
(03:37):
America about to happen or Israel, And the answer is
that's very unlikely. And that's because their nuclear capability had
been damaged recently with the American strikes and also over
the relationship that they've had with the international community trying
to curtail their build up, and so there was no
imminent risk that I can see. And so even in
theory that you've got to preemptive right to self defense,
(03:58):
you wouldn't have qualified for them. This is much more
of an offensive action where their issues to negotiate consistently
to be feared, that they are difficult negotiators and that
they do play cat and mouse with the international community,
and they've done it for decades. And mister Trump is
someone who doesn't have a great regard for international law,
and he's now brought the issue to ahead well.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
He has said that Iran's leadership waited too long to talk.
Luxel and Peters have said that New Zealand has consistently
condemned Iran's nuclear program and the repression of its people.
They've called for the resumption of negotiations and adherence to
international law. How likely is it, though, that their new
Iranian leadership is to seek out these negotiations.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Now, starting a war is very easy. Ending a war
is much more difficult, and trying to build a new
regime is just conjecture. At the moment, we don't know
how they will respond with the death of the Ayatola.
We don't know who a potential alternative leader could be.
We don't know what their system of government could be,
and whether it will be peaceful transition. I very much
(05:01):
doubt it's potentially quite likely to turn into a civil
war in which any future leadership will be contested. And
then what in an ideal world they would say, Okay, fairkop,
We're now going to change regime. We're at democracy, we're
a republic and will negotiate. In reality, you've got ninety
million people a deeply religious regime, and at least it's
(05:22):
a quarter of these people are going to contest and
potentially find very hard against their loss of power. And
so if you can achieve regime change just from it
bombing them, I'd be amazed. You're very likely going to
need boots on the ground to actually try to effect
this change, and then you look at all the history,
look at recent Afghanistan, look at Libya, look at Syria,
(05:44):
look at Iraq, and everyone's a failure. And now we're
about to try to multiply that on a bigger scale.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
And given that all attempts of the West four regime
changes have been failures in the past.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
I noted that Vice President JD.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Vance and the Defense Secretary there in the US, Pete Hegseth,
they both were pretty careful to publicly state that their.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Goal is not a regime change. They said, we are.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Not at war with Iran, We're at war with Iran's
nuclear program. At one point I think that was at
the weekend. But then Trump, on the other hand, has
completely contradicted them. He's posted on social media and I quote,
if the current Iranian regime is unable to make a
Ran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?
Myga m IgA make a run great again?
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Now?
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Is it important? Legally?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I suppose to differentiate between pushing for a regime change
versus we think that they have the nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Hence this is what we're doing.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
It's important ethically because it's one thing everyone gets the
idea that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, and that
that's correct. They shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, and it
because a veneer of support say we're trying to stop
the nuclear weapon. People can understand that.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Well, that's taken straight out of the two two thousand
and three playbook, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Yeah. Well, the similarities between two thousand and three and
twenty twenty six are quite striking because both are continder
about weapons of mass destruction. Both have a process of
negotiation that that's ongoing. The difference between two thousand and
three and now is that there was more un involvement
in two thousand and three than there is now. But
both end badly and when you get the intervention. But
(07:24):
once you've got the intervention, it's easy to intervene or
to strike. The hard part is trying to build a
regime afterwards. Think about Afghanistan, where you go in there,
you try topple the Taliban and it takes you twenty
years of warfare and you fail and you end up
coming out with your table between your legs. That type
of situation could be multiplied here. But it's not just
(07:44):
about the regime change. It's about the humanitarian conflict. That
will follow, and for the West, the surge of refugees.
The last thing in Europe wants right now is millions
more people coming towards its border. But that is potentially
what you're looking at for civil war breaks out, and
that is quite possible.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
And that's perhaps as well. I mean, in two thousand
and three the United States and George Bush had more
allies on board. Also, I'm thinking about Tony Blair in
the UK, for example, But now they do seem to
be quite alone in this battle, if you know, and
also with Israel as well. What do you make of
the other countries around the world their reaction to this?
Speaker 3 (08:24):
So fun that other countries in the region are showing
restraint because Iran is lashing out, sending out missile's left, right,
and center. And the one thing that the Middle East
all she is in common is a very deep memory
and they all have a lot of remembrances of violations
against their sovereignty and against acts of transgression that Iran
has done. Iran has been a bad neighbor to a
(08:45):
lot of these countries for many decades, but so far
America and Israel have stopped the other countries from striking back,
but I think there are a fair chance that some
of these countries will want to go in and have
a little bit of food pro quo for some of
the from actions that Iran has done against them. But
so far it's under control, but they have not intervened.
(09:07):
But I wouldn't be surprised if Iran keeps sending missiles
towards some of these countries that they too don't want
to join in giving them the thumping.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Yeah, one of the first reactions that I was seeking
out was from Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
But they've been quite quiet off the offset, haven't they.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Partly it's self interest to be quiet, but partly it's
also a question about waiting. And the challenge will be
if it turns to a civil conflict, the intervention in
Iran to try to get retime that they want, because
none of them are above meddling in each other's domestic politics.
But throughout the region, and you could see this with
the rise of Islamic state extremism and humanagering catastrophe go
(09:46):
hand in hand in that part of the world. This
is the easy part of the equation going in there,
starting to bombing a lot of high tech visuals. This
is easy. The hard part is what happens next, who
you negotiate with, and how you build a stable Iran.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
And how do you see that happening from here on out.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
I think at the moment this is a remarkable distraction,
and I think it will take a few weeks of bombing,
maybe up to four, until you've got a complete superiority
of American and Israeli air force over the region. But
the problem you've got is that this will not break
(10:25):
the spirit of the Republican Guard or the Revolutionary Guard.
That these people will continue to fight, but they will
wait for the opportunity for American boots or Israeli boots
to be on the ground and take the fight to them.
They can't win superior into the technology war right now,
but if they're drawn into the country, they have got
a chance of a long conflict that could be drawn out.
(10:47):
All of the regions of this part of the world
are experts to that type of warfare.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
They have waged war against civilis itself are resolved. Likewise,
that of Israel has never been stronger. America is now
again the richest most powerful nation in the world by far,
But the only reason we enjoy the quality of life
that we do, and the freedom and security is we
(11:18):
have done things that others are unable to do. But
it's because of warriors who are willing to lay down
their lives to do battle with our enemies, and they
do battle better than anybody.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
For months, they say that the Israelian American intelligence agencies
had been secretly watching the Supreme leader in Iran. Why
might that moment or the right moment be now for them?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
There's various things that they could be negotiating for, and
there's not much transparency over what was going on. But
the first one is to removal of a nuclear potential
that the second one is removal of ballistic missiles, the
third one is control of the proxies in the region,
and the fourth one is the right to protest. The
right to protest is what seems to have been the
(12:11):
catalytic event in recent times because of the repression of
those who have tried to express their descent against the regime.
There was a heavy handed response. It seems to have
been tempered, but then what happened is now it has
suddenly sparked up again, and mister Trump is hoping that
the people in Iran will rise up and take control
of their own destiny. The challenge you've got is that
(12:34):
those who want the theocratic regime will find very hard
against that. In terms of the timing and two considerations
here is you're seeing a lack of good faith on
the part of negotiators from America. First off, you should
not strike while you're negotiating. In second orf, you should
not strike the leaders because if you strike the leaders,
you break all good faith between countries. And you can
(12:57):
expect now that as much as their supreme leader has
been they will try to do the same to mister Trump.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I mean, surely I know that along with the Aar tooler,
there was a lot of his senior commanders that have
been reportedly killed as well. But when we see, you know,
in his history and going back to two thousand and three, Saddam,
Who's saying, wouldn't there be just someone else waiting in
the wings for these kind of regimes.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
People assumed that this is like Venezuela, where you can
go in and you can cut the head off the snake.
But this is not one head and one snake. This
is an entire ecosystem, and the ecosystem it's not just
based around power, it's based around religion. And water around
religion are the worst type of conflicts you can get into,
because people will fight to the death over what they
think is most important to them theologically. And so this
(13:46):
regime will fill the spaces and they will wait patiently,
and it's their time to strike. And it may be
that they will get degraded in terms of their ballistic missiles,
but then they will wait for people to come on
the ground and they will reply. That reply will not
to speak against external enemies or against internal enemies as well.
And so all of those who are currently expressing descend
against the regime are at extreme risk. If you see
(14:09):
that extreme risk, if you see through regime cracking down
even harder on protesters and those who express the light
at the aetol are being killed, then and you see
more blood on the streets, the pressure for America to
get involved in for boots on the ground and to
stop that will become very high. Even though mister Trump
is now in the exact opposite position of where he
(14:30):
started out, being they're trying to stop foreign wars, He's
now in the cusp. If they're in America into an
even bigger one.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Well, it's interesting as well.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I've read this piece and sorry to bring it back
to the comparisons with two thousand and three, but the
narrative on even getting the American public on board with
these strikes is incredibly similar.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
You've got a similar narrative like.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
A rogue regime, secretive kind of seced a looming nuclear threat,
you've got a ticking clock, you know, it has to
have and now. And then what you saw with two
thousand and three is that you know, Dick Cheney out
there saying, oh, there will be you know, parades in
the streets when American soldiers when their boots get on
(15:12):
the ground. But it did actually, nearly, you know, bring
the country into an all out civil war. What do
you think we have or haven't learned from two thousand
and three to now?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I think we've forgotten everything and are remarkably short. And
you've got the first off, it doesn't begin in two
thousand and three. It begins in two thousand and one
with the intervention into Afghanistan, and that's a twenty year operation.
You change the regime that it unifies the people against
the invaders, and eventually you are pushing out the other side.
(15:46):
You get to two thousand and three and you go
into Iraq, and the result of Iraq wasn't the change
in regime, it was the rise of Islamic state and
extremists who tried to fill the void. Well, then you
go into Libya and you again you end up a
broken and chaotic country in the aftermath, or you try
to get involved in Syria and you have a humanitarian
catastrophe which leads to the biggest refugee seurchs that we've
(16:09):
seen towards the West. And I think I am dumbfounded
that no one is saying, why are any of these
four examples good? Then they're all failures. And yet that's
exactly where we're going through right now. But to start
the war is easy to finish it that this could take.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Years or what tools realistically does the UN Security Council
actually have at this point because they're quite constrained given
one of their key parties as a permanent member with
the VETO.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
The good news about this conflict is that Russia and
China will not get involved and they are not allies
of Iran. So despite this being very scary, this is
not the third World War, and that's excellent news. The
problem you've got, though, is that both Russia and China
loaned by experience and by the precedents of other countries.
(16:58):
And so you already see Russia in Ukraine, and heaven forbid,
China will be thinking what would happen if we now
acted without Security Council approval into Taiwan, And so everyone
can see the problem of a lawless world. It's okay
when it's effectively our team, but what happens when it's
the other team and they start acting them the same way?
But the Security Council will You might get to a
(17:21):
point where the regime is crushed and you try to
get some kinds of legitimacy and some kinds of stamp
of approval from the Security Council, but that could be
a very long time coming, because your best outcome is
that you have a multilateral force that's based upon regional
peacekeepers trying to rebuild Iran with the consent of the
(17:44):
Iranian people. And the Iranian people have transparent democracy. They
elect the government they want and select the constitution that
they want. But if this is forced on them by
anyone else, you will get a very negative reaction, and
the Iranian regime is a particular thing, eucratic flavor, which
is antagonistic to a lot of similar religions in the region,
(18:06):
and they will find tooth and nail, as they did
in nineteen seventy nine, to protect their power.
Speaker 5 (18:17):
Let's be under no illusion. This was not a regime
that New Zealand has supported or been in favor of
for decades under successive governments. I mean, it's a regime
that's brutally repressing its own people, killing tens of thousands
of murdering tens of thousands of people. It's one that's
actually been arming proxies and terrorism around the world. And
we've had years of diplomacy to try and manage the
nuclear program, in the ballistic missile program as well, and
(18:39):
to no effects. So you know, we won't be mourning
the loss of this leader.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Do you endorse the attacks?
Speaker 5 (18:44):
Well, again, I understand why they're doing it, because they
are obviously, you know, making sure that Aram, which has
been threatening a lot of peace and security in the world,
is actually know that stops, and ultimately it's up to
the Iranian people now to determine what happens next and
where it goes to.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Lastly, our do you think that New Zealand's response to
this is a good one.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
I think it's tempered, and I think that the current
New Zealand approach is trying very hard not to offend
mister Trump. But we know that this is not in
accordance with the United Nations Charter, This is not in
supportive international law and this will only lead to more instability.
To call for more negotiation, to call for adherence to
the international humanitarian law and the rights of the Iranian
(19:26):
people is correct, but this is another breach to the
raw spased order. It doesn't make anyone safer.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Thanks for joining us OL, You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
That's it for this.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Episode of The Front Page. You can read more about
today's stories and extensive news coverage at zidhrald dot co
dot nz. The Front Page is hosted and produced by
me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky is our studio operator, Richard Martin,
our producer and editor, and our executive producer is Jane Ye.
(19:58):
Follow the Front Page on the iHeart app or wherever
you get your podcasts, and join us next time for
another look beyond the headlines.
Kiaoa.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. The US
and Israel have launched a massive assault on Iran. Benjamin
Netanyahu has said the strikes will increase over the coming days.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Donald Trump has said.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
That they figured it would be about four weeks or
so when asked about a potential timeline. Iran has retaliated,
unleashing its own strikes on US military bases, Israel, and
other targets across the Middle East. The killing of Ayatola
al Jameni and many of his senior commanders has left
Tedan's future leadership in question, but questions are also swirling
(00:51):
about the legality of the strikes. Today on the Front Page,
Why cat Tho University International law professor Al Gillespie is
with us to discuss how we got here and.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Where to next.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
So our first off, give us a little background.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
How do we get here? Why is this happening?
Speaker 3 (01:10):
The animosity between Iran and the West is very long standing,
and the undue influence of the West and Iran goes
back to be twentieth century, but in betwenty first century
and especially since the Revolution in nineteen seventy nine. It's
become much more difficult, and the main cause is the
race for a nuclear weapon, which they began at the
(01:30):
beginning of the twenty first century.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So why is it ramped up all of a sudden now.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
There's a lot of opportunity of why you'd want to
strike now? There are significant protests, They are weak in
terms of the region with the proxies that they support,
and they are a repugnant regime in terms of the
human rights record. The problem is is that this doesn't
give you authority under international law to strike in as
the country. But the chance is the best it's been
(01:55):
for many years if you are trying to topple the regime.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well, from the perspective of international law, what is the
most significant thing that stands out to you in terms of.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
This strike without Security Council approval? There is nothing in
the UN Charter that says you can bomb someone who
refuses to negotiate with you, and so this is in
theory an illegal action. It's very similar to two thousand
and three with the intervention into Iraq, which is also
viewed as an illegal action. That the problem is is
that there's a very big gap between theory and practice
(02:28):
that even though in theory it might be illegal, in
practice there will be no repercussions. But the legality question
is also important domestically for mister Trump because he has
gone around the authority of Congress to do this military strike.
And in theory, their constitution says that for offensive actions
of war, as opposed to defense of you should get
the authority of Congress. Otherwise the president has too much power.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Right, So that echoes kind of what Helen Clark has
said as well. She's called the our government's response a
disgrace and she posted online about knowing full well the
international law has been breached, had any legitimate claim to
invoking a right of self defense? And be all this
chat about self defense?
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Does that like?
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Is that a loophole of something an international law to
allow you to strike another state?
Speaker 3 (03:16):
First off, the UN Charter works on the assumption that
every country has the right to self defense without having
to get Security Council approval. But it must be preemptive
or it must be in a situation where you're either
you will either strike or that there's no alternative to
defend in yourself. And so the question is here it
was there an alternative was you're an imminent strike upon
(03:37):
America about to happen or Israel, And the answer is
that's very unlikely. And that's because their nuclear capability had
been damaged recently with the American strikes and also over
the relationship that they've had with the international community trying
to curtail their build up, and so there was no
imminent risk that I can see. And so even in
theory that you've got to preemptive right to self defense,
(03:58):
you wouldn't have qualified for them. This is much more
of an offensive action where their issues to negotiate consistently
to be feared, that they are difficult negotiators and that
they do play cat and mouse with the international community,
and they've done it for decades. And mister Trump is
someone who doesn't have a great regard for international law,
and he's now brought the issue to ahead well.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
He has said that Iran's leadership waited too long to talk.
Luxel and Peters have said that New Zealand has consistently
condemned Iran's nuclear program and the repression of its people.
They've called for the resumption of negotiations and adherence to
international law. How likely is it, though, that their new
Iranian leadership is to seek out these negotiations.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Now, starting a war is very easy. Ending a war
is much more difficult, and trying to build a new
regime is just conjecture. At the moment, we don't know
how they will respond with the death of the Ayatola.
We don't know who a potential alternative leader could be.
We don't know what their system of government could be,
and whether it will be peaceful transition. I very much
(05:01):
doubt it's potentially quite likely to turn into a civil
war in which any future leadership will be contested. And
then what in an ideal world they would say, Okay, fairkop,
We're now going to change regime. We're at democracy, we're
a republic and will negotiate. In reality, you've got ninety
million people a deeply religious regime, and at least it's
(05:22):
a quarter of these people are going to contest and
potentially find very hard against their loss of power. And
so if you can achieve regime change just from it
bombing them, I'd be amazed. You're very likely going to
need boots on the ground to actually try to effect
this change, and then you look at all the history,
look at recent Afghanistan, look at Libya, look at Syria,
(05:44):
look at Iraq, and everyone's a failure. And now we're
about to try to multiply that on a bigger scale.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
And given that all attempts of the West four regime
changes have been failures in the past.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
I noted that Vice President JD.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Vance and the Defense Secretary there in the US, Pete Hegseth,
they both were pretty careful to publicly state that their.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Goal is not a regime change. They said, we are.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Not at war with Iran, We're at war with Iran's
nuclear program. At one point I think that was at
the weekend. But then Trump, on the other hand, has
completely contradicted them. He's posted on social media and I quote,
if the current Iranian regime is unable to make a
Ran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?
Myga m IgA make a run great again?
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Now?
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Is it important? Legally?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I suppose to differentiate between pushing for a regime change
versus we think that they have the nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Hence this is what we're doing.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
It's important ethically because it's one thing everyone gets the
idea that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, and that
that's correct. They shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, and it
because a veneer of support say we're trying to stop
the nuclear weapon. People can understand that.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Well, that's taken straight out of the two two thousand
and three playbook, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Yeah. Well, the similarities between two thousand and three and
twenty twenty six are quite striking because both are continder
about weapons of mass destruction. Both have a process of
negotiation that that's ongoing. The difference between two thousand and
three and now is that there was more un involvement
in two thousand and three than there is now. But
both end badly and when you get the intervention. But
(07:24):
once you've got the intervention, it's easy to intervene or
to strike. The hard part is trying to build a
regime afterwards. Think about Afghanistan, where you go in there,
you try topple the Taliban and it takes you twenty
years of warfare and you fail and you end up
coming out with your table between your legs. That type
of situation could be multiplied here. But it's not just
(07:44):
about the regime change. It's about the humanitarian conflict. That
will follow, and for the West, the surge of refugees.
The last thing in Europe wants right now is millions
more people coming towards its border. But that is potentially
what you're looking at for civil war breaks out, and
that is quite possible.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
And that's perhaps as well. I mean, in two thousand
and three the United States and George Bush had more
allies on board. Also, I'm thinking about Tony Blair in
the UK, for example, But now they do seem to
be quite alone in this battle, if you know, and
also with Israel as well. What do you make of
the other countries around the world their reaction to this?
Speaker 3 (08:24):
So fun that other countries in the region are showing
restraint because Iran is lashing out, sending out missile's left, right,
and center. And the one thing that the Middle East
all she is in common is a very deep memory
and they all have a lot of remembrances of violations
against their sovereignty and against acts of transgression that Iran
has done. Iran has been a bad neighbor to a
(08:45):
lot of these countries for many decades, but so far
America and Israel have stopped the other countries from striking back,
but I think there are a fair chance that some
of these countries will want to go in and have
a little bit of food pro quo for some of
the from actions that Iran has done against them. But
so far it's under control, but they have not intervened.
(09:07):
But I wouldn't be surprised if Iran keeps sending missiles
towards some of these countries that they too don't want
to join in giving them the thumping.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Yeah, one of the first reactions that I was seeking
out was from Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
But they've been quite quiet off the offset, haven't they.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Partly it's self interest to be quiet, but partly it's
also a question about waiting. And the challenge will be
if it turns to a civil conflict, the intervention in
Iran to try to get retime that they want, because
none of them are above meddling in each other's domestic politics.
But throughout the region, and you could see this with
the rise of Islamic state extremism and humanagering catastrophe go
(09:46):
hand in hand in that part of the world. This
is the easy part of the equation going in there,
starting to bombing a lot of high tech visuals. This
is easy. The hard part is what happens next, who
you negotiate with, and how you build a stable Iran.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
And how do you see that happening from here on out.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
I think at the moment this is a remarkable distraction,
and I think it will take a few weeks of bombing,
maybe up to four, until you've got a complete superiority
of American and Israeli air force over the region. But
the problem you've got is that this will not break
(10:25):
the spirit of the Republican Guard or the Revolutionary Guard.
That these people will continue to fight, but they will
wait for the opportunity for American boots or Israeli boots
to be on the ground and take the fight to them.
They can't win superior into the technology war right now,
but if they're drawn into the country, they have got
a chance of a long conflict that could be drawn out.
(10:47):
All of the regions of this part of the world
are experts to that type of warfare.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
They have waged war against civilis itself are resolved. Likewise,
that of Israel has never been stronger. America is now
again the richest most powerful nation in the world by far,
But the only reason we enjoy the quality of life
that we do, and the freedom and security is we
(11:18):
have done things that others are unable to do. But
it's because of warriors who are willing to lay down
their lives to do battle with our enemies, and they
do battle better than anybody.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
For months, they say that the Israelian American intelligence agencies
had been secretly watching the Supreme leader in Iran. Why
might that moment or the right moment be now for them?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
There's various things that they could be negotiating for, and
there's not much transparency over what was going on. But
the first one is to removal of a nuclear potential
that the second one is removal of ballistic missiles, the
third one is control of the proxies in the region,
and the fourth one is the right to protest. The
right to protest is what seems to have been the
(12:11):
catalytic event in recent times because of the repression of
those who have tried to express their descent against the regime.
There was a heavy handed response. It seems to have
been tempered, but then what happened is now it has
suddenly sparked up again, and mister Trump is hoping that
the people in Iran will rise up and take control
of their own destiny. The challenge you've got is that
(12:34):
those who want the theocratic regime will find very hard
against that. In terms of the timing and two considerations
here is you're seeing a lack of good faith on
the part of negotiators from America. First off, you should
not strike while you're negotiating. In second orf, you should
not strike the leaders because if you strike the leaders,
you break all good faith between countries. And you can
(12:57):
expect now that as much as their supreme leader has
been they will try to do the same to mister Trump.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I mean, surely I know that along with the Aar tooler,
there was a lot of his senior commanders that have
been reportedly killed as well. But when we see, you know,
in his history and going back to two thousand and three, Saddam,
Who's saying, wouldn't there be just someone else waiting in
the wings for these kind of regimes.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
People assumed that this is like Venezuela, where you can
go in and you can cut the head off the snake.
But this is not one head and one snake. This
is an entire ecosystem, and the ecosystem it's not just
based around power, it's based around religion. And water around
religion are the worst type of conflicts you can get into,
because people will fight to the death over what they
think is most important to them theologically. And so this
(13:46):
regime will fill the spaces and they will wait patiently,
and it's their time to strike. And it may be
that they will get degraded in terms of their ballistic missiles,
but then they will wait for people to come on
the ground and they will reply. That reply will not
to speak against external enemies or against internal enemies as well.
And so all of those who are currently expressing descend
against the regime are at extreme risk. If you see
(14:09):
that extreme risk, if you see through regime cracking down
even harder on protesters and those who express the light
at the aetol are being killed, then and you see
more blood on the streets, the pressure for America to
get involved in for boots on the ground and to
stop that will become very high. Even though mister Trump
is now in the exact opposite position of where he
(14:30):
started out, being they're trying to stop foreign wars, He's
now in the cusp. If they're in America into an
even bigger one.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Well, it's interesting as well.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I've read this piece and sorry to bring it back
to the comparisons with two thousand and three, but the
narrative on even getting the American public on board with
these strikes is incredibly similar.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
You've got a similar narrative like.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
A rogue regime, secretive kind of seced a looming nuclear threat,
you've got a ticking clock, you know, it has to
have and now. And then what you saw with two
thousand and three is that you know, Dick Cheney out
there saying, oh, there will be you know, parades in
the streets when American soldiers when their boots get on
(15:12):
the ground. But it did actually, nearly, you know, bring
the country into an all out civil war. What do
you think we have or haven't learned from two thousand
and three to now?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I think we've forgotten everything and are remarkably short. And
you've got the first off, it doesn't begin in two
thousand and three. It begins in two thousand and one
with the intervention into Afghanistan, and that's a twenty year operation.
You change the regime that it unifies the people against
the invaders, and eventually you are pushing out the other side.
(15:46):
You get to two thousand and three and you go
into Iraq, and the result of Iraq wasn't the change
in regime, it was the rise of Islamic state and
extremists who tried to fill the void. Well, then you
go into Libya and you again you end up a
broken and chaotic country in the aftermath, or you try
to get involved in Syria and you have a humanitarian
catastrophe which leads to the biggest refugee seurchs that we've
(16:09):
seen towards the West. And I think I am dumbfounded
that no one is saying, why are any of these
four examples good? Then they're all failures. And yet that's
exactly where we're going through right now. But to start
the war is easy to finish it that this could take.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Years or what tools realistically does the UN Security Council
actually have at this point because they're quite constrained given
one of their key parties as a permanent member with
the VETO.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
The good news about this conflict is that Russia and
China will not get involved and they are not allies
of Iran. So despite this being very scary, this is
not the third World War, and that's excellent news. The
problem you've got, though, is that both Russia and China
loaned by experience and by the precedents of other countries.
(16:58):
And so you already see Russia in Ukraine, and heaven forbid,
China will be thinking what would happen if we now
acted without Security Council approval into Taiwan, And so everyone
can see the problem of a lawless world. It's okay
when it's effectively our team, but what happens when it's
the other team and they start acting them the same way?
But the Security Council will You might get to a
(17:21):
point where the regime is crushed and you try to
get some kinds of legitimacy and some kinds of stamp
of approval from the Security Council, but that could be
a very long time coming, because your best outcome is
that you have a multilateral force that's based upon regional
peacekeepers trying to rebuild Iran with the consent of the
(17:44):
Iranian people. And the Iranian people have transparent democracy. They
elect the government they want and select the constitution that
they want. But if this is forced on them by
anyone else, you will get a very negative reaction, and
the Iranian regime is a particular thing, eucratic flavor, which
is antagonistic to a lot of similar religions in the region,
(18:06):
and they will find tooth and nail, as they did
in nineteen seventy nine, to protect their power.
Speaker 5 (18:17):
Let's be under no illusion. This was not a regime
that New Zealand has supported or been in favor of
for decades under successive governments. I mean, it's a regime
that's brutally repressing its own people, killing tens of thousands
of murdering tens of thousands of people. It's one that's
actually been arming proxies and terrorism around the world. And
we've had years of diplomacy to try and manage the
nuclear program, in the ballistic missile program as well, and
(18:39):
to no effects. So you know, we won't be mourning
the loss of this leader.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Do you endorse the attacks?
Speaker 5 (18:44):
Well, again, I understand why they're doing it, because they
are obviously, you know, making sure that Aram, which has
been threatening a lot of peace and security in the world,
is actually know that stops, and ultimately it's up to
the Iranian people now to determine what happens next and
where it goes to.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Lastly, our do you think that New Zealand's response to
this is a good one.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
I think it's tempered, and I think that the current
New Zealand approach is trying very hard not to offend
mister Trump. But we know that this is not in
accordance with the United Nations Charter, This is not in
supportive international law and this will only lead to more instability.
To call for more negotiation, to call for adherence to
the international humanitarian law and the rights of the Iranian
(19:26):
people is correct, but this is another breach to the
raw spased order. It doesn't make anyone safer.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Thanks for joining us OL, You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
That's it for this.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Episode of The Front Page. You can read more about
today's stories and extensive news coverage at zidhrald dot co
dot nz. The Front Page is hosted and produced by
me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky is our studio operator, Richard Martin,
our producer and editor, and our executive producer is Jane Ye.
(19:58):
Follow the Front Page on the iHeart app or wherever
you get your podcasts, and join us next time for
another look beyond the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.