March 3, 2026 • 22 mins
The US and Israel are escalating attacks on Iran - which has launched counterattacks on neighbouring Gulf states.
All the while, the push and pull on European leaders has been in the spotlight – with Trump publicly chastising UK PM Sir Keir Starmer.
That’s due to his refusal to offer up a British base for the initial wave of strikes.
Britain is scrambling to send a warship to Cyprus after France announced a major deployment to the eastern Mediterranean.
So, with the involvement of EU countries, is it only a matter of time before the Pacific is called up to help?
Today on The Front Page, University of Otago international relations professor Robert Patman is with us to dissect 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
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Chioda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. The US
and Israel are escalating attacks on Iran, which has launched
counterattacks on neighboring Gulf states. All the while, the push
and pull on European leaders has been in the spotlight,
(00:29):
with Trump publicly chastising UKPM Serkia Stamer. That's due to
his refusal to offer up a British base for the
initial wave of strikes. Britain is scrambling to send a
warship to Cyprus after France announced a major deployment to
the Eastern Mediterranean. So with the involvement of the EU countries,
(00:51):
is it only a matter of time before the Pacific
is called up to help? Today on the Front Page,
University of Otago International Relations professor Robert Patman is with
us to dissect what could happen next? So Robert President
Donald Trump says he is quote not happy with the UK.
(01:12):
He says the UK also took far too long to
allow its forces to use the base on the Chagos
Islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Starma has
told MPs his decision was informed by history, saying we
all remember the mistakes of Iraq. Was this a good
move on his part?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
I think mister Starmer has reflected on the experience of
the previous Labor government and the problems it went through
in backing the US's illegal invasion of Iraq in two
thousand and three. And I think the other thing here
is there's no doubt about it, there's been a certain
coolness in relations between the Trump administration and the UK recently.
(01:53):
Mister Starmer initially took the view that being constructive or
flattering the president would moderate the president's policies and make
him a more cooperative partner. But I think after more
than a year in office, I think mister Starmer has
(02:14):
reached the conclusion that he can't simply do everything that
mister Trump wants, not least for domestic political reasons. Because
mister Trump is pretty unpopular in the UK across the
political divide. So no, I shouldn't say that he's quite
popular with the reform leadership that's led by Nigel frag
(02:36):
who's a great fan of mister Trump's. But I think
Starmer has said that, as you said in Senior Lead
Marks lead remarks he has reflected on the experience of
the Iraq episode and decided that Britain would have a
minimal role in this joint Israeli US attack air attacks
(03:03):
on Iran. So it depends how you define a mistake.
It certainly has probably added further distance between Washington and London,
but I think mister Starmer will weigh that against the
fact that if he got too close to Trump, particularly
(03:24):
with this military effort against Iran, he could run into
serious problems domestically and so not least with his own party.
So I think that's why he's kept his distance. Also,
you have to remember that mister Stalmer is a distinguished lawyer,
and most legal opinion is that this is an illegal
(03:46):
operation involving the US and Israel. Mister Starmer was the
country's chief prosecutor and that was why he was knighted.
He was regarded widely effective in that role, and that
doesn't mean as a lawyer he doesn't have political views,
but I think the legalities of this situation might have
(04:10):
weighed on him more heavily than others.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So Trump went on this tirade as he was in
the over Office meeting with the German Chancellor, and he
kept comparing Starmer to Winston Churchill. Why might he be
doing that?
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Well, Winston Churchill was a very good wartime leader. And
the irony is, I'm surprised that mister Trump compared or
made an unfavorable comparison between Starmer and Churchill, because Churchill
will energetically opposed peacement peacement policies towards Hitler, and he
(04:48):
eventually was proven right. But mister Churchill spent most of
his nineteen thirties railing in frustration that the government of
the day, led by Neville Chamberlain, was trying to appease Hitler.
So Churchill was a robust, no nonsense sort of character.
Starmer is a smoother operator. I suppose the reference that
(05:13):
he the reference that mister Trump made was that Starmer's
no Churchill. Churchill is widely regarded in the United States
as a great wartime leader, and in which he was,
and he cemented the relationship with the United States. But
it doesn't. It's a bit rich when mister Trump starts
(05:33):
questioning the moral fortitude of another political leader. After all,
he did not serve himself in Vietnam, and mister draft
by about five occasions because of he'll spurs or something.
And you know, mister Churchill was frustrated that the Americans
(05:58):
didn't enter the war till nineteen forty. He won two
years after it began. I think what he means by
another Churchill is that he wishes that mister Starmer was
more robust on confronting Iran. But yeah, I mean, it
seems to me that those historical parallels were often inaccurate,
(06:24):
and I think it could be from British people. Those
comparisons probably might even be considered a bit of an intrusion.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Really well, the comparisons really start falling apart as soon
as you start scrolling on Winston Churchill's Wikipedia page, I suppose,
and go past surface level reckons. But he's not the
only one that Trump's kind of set eyes on. He's
ordered the cutting of all trade with Spain after it
(06:56):
refused access to its military bases as well. Now Spain's
Pedro Sanchez has come out as Europe's chief critic of
the strikes. Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Well, Sanchez takes international law very seriously and he's one
of the few European leaders that's actually consistent on Ukraine
and the situation in Gaza and now Iran. He believes
that with respect to a Ukraine, he vigorously opposes the
Russian invasion, and with respect to the occupied territories which
(07:31):
by according to the International Court of Justice, are unlawfully occupied,
he believes that the West should also be vigorous in
its opposition to those occupy occupation. With regard to the
bombardment of Iran, I don't think mister Sanchez had any
(07:52):
particular affection for the regime in Iran, but he takes
the view that international law matters. Let's be quite clear
about the mister Trump doesn't take international law seriously. It's
not me saying that's him. He said that his only
constraint will be his own conscience or his own sense
of morality, so he will not see international laws impediment.
(08:15):
But not all political leaders share that view, and particularly
middle powers, middle powers and small powers. Because rules are
there for the weak, they're not there for the strong.
We can understand why China, the United States, and Russia
gets frustrated by rules, which they see as an encumbrance
on their power, but for many other countries, rules actually
(08:37):
extend their sovereignty. They don't diminish it. And so I
think sanchez comment is that, and I think there's a
strategic dimension to this. I think the Spanish leader also
believes this could be strategically counterproductive, that attacking this repressive, clerical,
(08:57):
repressive regime in Terran, which has killed thousands protesters in
the most obscene way, you may actually be resuscitating it
by playing into its narrative. After Iran says it's surrounded
by enemies and in particular the Great Satan, the United States.
(09:19):
And the danger here is as the civilian casualties mount
in Iran, we know they've lost more than seven hundred
people already. The danger is, of course, that even those
Iranians critical or the regime may rally to the flag
as the country comes under continued onslaught. In other words,
as a danger, I think that the Spanish leader may
(09:43):
be alluding to that Israel and America hands a lifeline
to a regime which was on the ropes before this crisis.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I'm not happy with the UK either. That island that
you read about the lease, he made it for whatever reason,
he made a lease of the island. Somebody came and
took it away from him, and it's taken three or
four days for us to work out where we can land.
There would have been much more convenient landing there as
(10:19):
opposed to flying many extra hours. So we are very surprised.
This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I read a piece on the BBC this morning basically
about why perhaps European leaders have struggled so much to
find one voice on Iran and how difficult it is
for them to find a united one at that, and
I suppose they kind of alluded to the fact that
they're stopping short of questioning the legality most of them
of the attacks in the hopes that around won't become
(10:50):
a major distraction from Trump's quest to find a solution
to another war that is actually happening on their content,
and that's of course Ukraine. Why do you think that
the EU is struggling so much to come out as
a united front.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I think we've got to get this struggle in perspective. Chelsea.
There's twenty seven countries in the EU. I think twenty
five or reasonably on the same page. Two Hungary and
Slovakia are not and they both have quite close ties
with the Putin's Kremlin, So I think we have to
(11:27):
put that in perspective for one thing, and it's quite
difficult to get three countries to agree, let alone twenty five.
But I think most EU countries take the view, as
Mertz pointed out to mister Trump in their joint press conference,
that Ukraine's in territorial integrity must be preserved, that is,
Russia must not be allowed to keep any territory, which
(11:48):
was quite a sharp comment, and mister Trump took it well.
He didn't respond in a negative fashion. But mister Trump
has been throughout his presidency trying to come up with
a peace formula which rewarded mister Putin's invasion of Ukraine,
a sort of land for peace deal, that is to say,
(12:08):
he'll be allowed to keep much of the territory he
is illegally annexed from Ukraine. And mister Trump seems to
be quite relaxed about that. Well, the Europeans are not
relaxed about it, so there probably will be some tough
talking behind closed doors. The question which is interesting, which
you've raised, is that many Europeans, who are quite rigorous
(12:33):
and robusts on the Russian invasion, seem to struggle with
issues in the Middle East, where international law is also infringed,
and there seems to be a lack of consistency there.
One of the dangers of the current situation is that
many Europeans believe they may not like mister Trump's style
(12:53):
of doing things, but they think the regime in Iran
is so awful that any action that could remove that
regime would be good. But that assumes fus what. It
assumes there can be regime change, which is debatable given
there's no troops on the ground to change the country.
(13:14):
Airpower never achieved, very rarely achieves, if ever achieves a
change of regime. And I think that's dangerous thinking, because
it's not that the Iran's regimes should get special treatment.
Far from it. It should be regulously subject to international law.
But it's a bad precedent when countries simply believe they've
(13:35):
got the right to remove governments they don't like. Where
does that end? After all, mister Trump's already indicated quite
openly he's got designs on Canada and on Greenland, and
will European The muted reaction of European countries encourage him
to think that he can pursue that. I mean, these
(13:56):
are real questions. So yeah, I Thinkpe the one of
the reasons it struggled with this issue, amongst others, is
because most people in the world regret that Iraq has
such a repressive regime and therefore, but I don't think
mister Trump is pursuing this action against the clerical regime
(14:21):
for reasons of human rights or to enforce humanitarian or
legal standards in.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Terms of what comes next. And I know that I
keep harping on about Europe, but I do find it interesting.
And like you said, the comparisons about their strong stance
with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and now the
Iran strikes done by Israel in the US, I mean,
do you think that they will get because I know
that there's already been more military involvement from the European states,
(14:50):
right because Greece, France and Germany are all sending forces
to Cyprus after drone strikes. There is it when it
starts to im paid in their territory, it starts to
show up on their doorstep. Because Cyprus, if you look
at a map, isn't too far from European states.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
That's true, and Europe has big connections with the Middle East.
I mean many European countries, France and Britain and others
have links with the region, and historically Britain has a
big responsibility there hasn't always lived up to that responsibility actually,
but yeah, I mean I think the British, I think
(15:33):
the European I hate to generalize, but I would say
that the European reaction or stance is that they don't
want They realize that Israel is a very close part
strategic partner of the United States, and they may sort
of prioritize their willingness to confront Trump. That is to say,
(15:56):
they may be much more prepared to dig in over
the Ukrainian situation and I argue with him and actually
oppose what he's trying to do quite you know. But
they may think the Middle East, unless their interests are
directly affected, they may not want to be seen as
(16:17):
opposing US Israeli efforts there to change the regime in Iran.
They may think that that is of lower importance than
preventing Russia from expanding its occupation in Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
Would we would we support in the country, Well, I mean,
we obviously understand we're not We're not saying that. What
we're saying is that we we understand this. I don't
know how do any clearer guys. I mean, we've had
a long step sorry, we long supported actions under governments
under successive political parties that actually stop Iran from getting
(17:04):
nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Now, when it comes to New Zealand and Australia potentially
being involved, neither New Zealand or Australia face automatic compulsion
to join US LED wars. When people think that they're
obligated to join in because we're all mates, I suppose
they might be referring to the a n Z US
andis packed which was suspended in the eighties. Anyway, but
(17:28):
do you think that we will get involved and do
we have any compulsion to be involved?
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Well, it's an interesting question. The traditional allies of the
United States, such as the members of the Five Eyes,
they've all had a pretty muted reaction to what's happened,
and they've largely blamed Iran in their public statements for
these attacks, and most of them have ducked the question
(17:56):
of whether what the United States and doing is doing
and we'long with Israel is illegal. But despite that, there
is some differences between members of the Five Eyes. Interestingly,
Canada and Australia have both actually publicly expressed support for
(18:18):
US actions in terms of preventing Iran threatening the region.
New Zealand has also acknowledged, not supported, acknowledged US and
Israeli efforts to prevent or deter the Israel Iranian threat
in the region. Subtle change in language, so there are
(18:43):
slight differences of emphasis amongst America's traditional allies. I don't
detect any great appetite amongst Australia, New Zealand, Canada, well, Canada.
That's Canada is an interesting one because Mark Karney has
(19:03):
caused some controversy in Canada by expressing support. The word support,
like Australia, appears in their public statement for US Israeli
efforts attacks on Iran. The reason I think it's interesting
is because a while back, mister Karney made a speech
(19:24):
at Davos at the World Economic Forum, in which he
said he wouldn't give into great power bullying, and he
would not cave into such demands and that middle powers
and small powers are not powerless in the current global context.
So we now find mister Charani now finds himself in
a curious position because he's backing attacks by the Trump
(19:48):
administration against a sovereign state, Iran, while his own country
is periodically subject to threats of invasion from that administration
which is attacking Iran. So I have a feeling that
may have opened up a bit of a debate within
Canada and he may have to adjust his position. But
it's an interesting situation.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Yeah, And we have as New Zealanders, we have had
a pattern of this low risk kind of involvement without
frontline combat in the past. I mean you remember that
Helen Clark refused to send any combat contributions to Iraq
despite a lot of pressure actually from allies. Do you
expect this government to be steadfast as steadfast as I
(20:30):
think they'll be pragmatic.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Yeah, I think they'll be pragmatic. I think this government's
deeply pragmatic. The government doesn't always it is not certainly
the National Party section of the government's the coalition, of course,
which means that sometimes they disagree over foreign policy. But
I think the National led part of the government has
(20:52):
reservations about Trump's leadership, but is pragmatic. It's to be
constructive and work with the administration where they can. The
question I suppose for New Zealanders is we often think
of ourselves as a brave little country that, in mister
Luxeon's words, is prepared to stand up and speak up
(21:15):
for its values and interests internationally. Are we doing that
on this occasion and will it have consequences? Because one
of the dangers of not vigorously supporting a rules based
order based on multilateralism and international law, which we depend
on heavily. With New Zealand trades with more one hundred
(21:36):
countries around the world. We need rules in place. We're
not big enough to make our own rules or throw
our weight around. The danger is that by being muted
and not having moral and legal clarity in this situation
where a number of people are dying on a daily basis,
that we contribute to the further erosion of an international
(21:59):
rules based order in which this country depends.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot enz. 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. Follow the front page
(22:30):
on the iheartapp or wherever you get your podcasts, and
join us next time for another look beyond the headlines.
Chioda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. The US
and Israel are escalating attacks on Iran, which has launched
counterattacks on neighboring Gulf states. All the while, the push
and pull on European leaders has been in the spotlight,
(00:29):
with Trump publicly chastising UKPM Serkia Stamer. That's due to
his refusal to offer up a British base for the
initial wave of strikes. Britain is scrambling to send a
warship to Cyprus after France announced a major deployment to
the Eastern Mediterranean. So with the involvement of the EU countries,
(00:51):
is it only a matter of time before the Pacific
is called up to help? Today on the Front Page,
University of Otago International Relations professor Robert Patman is with
us to dissect what could happen next? So Robert President
Donald Trump says he is quote not happy with the UK.
(01:12):
He says the UK also took far too long to
allow its forces to use the base on the Chagos
Islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Starma has
told MPs his decision was informed by history, saying we
all remember the mistakes of Iraq. Was this a good
move on his part?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
I think mister Starmer has reflected on the experience of
the previous Labor government and the problems it went through
in backing the US's illegal invasion of Iraq in two
thousand and three. And I think the other thing here
is there's no doubt about it, there's been a certain
coolness in relations between the Trump administration and the UK recently.
(01:53):
Mister Starmer initially took the view that being constructive or
flattering the president would moderate the president's policies and make
him a more cooperative partner. But I think after more
than a year in office, I think mister Starmer has
(02:14):
reached the conclusion that he can't simply do everything that
mister Trump wants, not least for domestic political reasons. Because
mister Trump is pretty unpopular in the UK across the
political divide. So no, I shouldn't say that he's quite
popular with the reform leadership that's led by Nigel frag
(02:36):
who's a great fan of mister Trump's. But I think
Starmer has said that, as you said in Senior Lead
Marks lead remarks he has reflected on the experience of
the Iraq episode and decided that Britain would have a
minimal role in this joint Israeli US attack air attacks
(03:03):
on Iran. So it depends how you define a mistake.
It certainly has probably added further distance between Washington and London,
but I think mister Starmer will weigh that against the
fact that if he got too close to Trump, particularly
(03:24):
with this military effort against Iran, he could run into
serious problems domestically and so not least with his own party.
So I think that's why he's kept his distance. Also,
you have to remember that mister Stalmer is a distinguished lawyer,
and most legal opinion is that this is an illegal
(03:46):
operation involving the US and Israel. Mister Starmer was the
country's chief prosecutor and that was why he was knighted.
He was regarded widely effective in that role, and that
doesn't mean as a lawyer he doesn't have political views,
but I think the legalities of this situation might have
(04:10):
weighed on him more heavily than others.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So Trump went on this tirade as he was in
the over Office meeting with the German Chancellor, and he
kept comparing Starmer to Winston Churchill. Why might he be
doing that?
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Well, Winston Churchill was a very good wartime leader. And
the irony is, I'm surprised that mister Trump compared or
made an unfavorable comparison between Starmer and Churchill, because Churchill
will energetically opposed peacement peacement policies towards Hitler, and he
(04:48):
eventually was proven right. But mister Churchill spent most of
his nineteen thirties railing in frustration that the government of
the day, led by Neville Chamberlain, was trying to appease Hitler.
So Churchill was a robust, no nonsense sort of character.
Starmer is a smoother operator. I suppose the reference that
(05:13):
he the reference that mister Trump made was that Starmer's
no Churchill. Churchill is widely regarded in the United States
as a great wartime leader, and in which he was,
and he cemented the relationship with the United States. But
it doesn't. It's a bit rich when mister Trump starts
(05:33):
questioning the moral fortitude of another political leader. After all,
he did not serve himself in Vietnam, and mister draft
by about five occasions because of he'll spurs or something.
And you know, mister Churchill was frustrated that the Americans
(05:58):
didn't enter the war till nineteen forty. He won two
years after it began. I think what he means by
another Churchill is that he wishes that mister Starmer was
more robust on confronting Iran. But yeah, I mean, it
seems to me that those historical parallels were often inaccurate,
(06:24):
and I think it could be from British people. Those
comparisons probably might even be considered a bit of an intrusion.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Really well, the comparisons really start falling apart as soon
as you start scrolling on Winston Churchill's Wikipedia page, I suppose,
and go past surface level reckons. But he's not the
only one that Trump's kind of set eyes on. He's
ordered the cutting of all trade with Spain after it
(06:56):
refused access to its military bases as well. Now Spain's
Pedro Sanchez has come out as Europe's chief critic of
the strikes. Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Well, Sanchez takes international law very seriously and he's one
of the few European leaders that's actually consistent on Ukraine
and the situation in Gaza and now Iran. He believes
that with respect to a Ukraine, he vigorously opposes the
Russian invasion, and with respect to the occupied territories which
(07:31):
by according to the International Court of Justice, are unlawfully occupied,
he believes that the West should also be vigorous in
its opposition to those occupy occupation. With regard to the
bombardment of Iran, I don't think mister Sanchez had any
(07:52):
particular affection for the regime in Iran, but he takes
the view that international law matters. Let's be quite clear
about the mister Trump doesn't take international law seriously. It's
not me saying that's him. He said that his only
constraint will be his own conscience or his own sense
of morality, so he will not see international laws impediment.
(08:15):
But not all political leaders share that view, and particularly
middle powers, middle powers and small powers. Because rules are
there for the weak, they're not there for the strong.
We can understand why China, the United States, and Russia
gets frustrated by rules, which they see as an encumbrance
on their power, but for many other countries, rules actually
(08:37):
extend their sovereignty. They don't diminish it. And so I
think sanchez comment is that, and I think there's a
strategic dimension to this. I think the Spanish leader also
believes this could be strategically counterproductive, that attacking this repressive, clerical,
(08:57):
repressive regime in Terran, which has killed thousands protesters in
the most obscene way, you may actually be resuscitating it
by playing into its narrative. After Iran says it's surrounded
by enemies and in particular the Great Satan, the United States.
(09:19):
And the danger here is as the civilian casualties mount
in Iran, we know they've lost more than seven hundred
people already. The danger is, of course, that even those
Iranians critical or the regime may rally to the flag
as the country comes under continued onslaught. In other words,
as a danger, I think that the Spanish leader may
(09:43):
be alluding to that Israel and America hands a lifeline
to a regime which was on the ropes before this crisis.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I'm not happy with the UK either. That island that
you read about the lease, he made it for whatever reason,
he made a lease of the island. Somebody came and
took it away from him, and it's taken three or
four days for us to work out where we can land.
There would have been much more convenient landing there as
(10:19):
opposed to flying many extra hours. So we are very surprised.
This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I read a piece on the BBC this morning basically
about why perhaps European leaders have struggled so much to
find one voice on Iran and how difficult it is
for them to find a united one at that, and
I suppose they kind of alluded to the fact that
they're stopping short of questioning the legality most of them
of the attacks in the hopes that around won't become
(10:50):
a major distraction from Trump's quest to find a solution
to another war that is actually happening on their content,
and that's of course Ukraine. Why do you think that
the EU is struggling so much to come out as
a united front.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I think we've got to get this struggle in perspective. Chelsea.
There's twenty seven countries in the EU. I think twenty
five or reasonably on the same page. Two Hungary and
Slovakia are not and they both have quite close ties
with the Putin's Kremlin, So I think we have to
(11:27):
put that in perspective for one thing, and it's quite
difficult to get three countries to agree, let alone twenty five.
But I think most EU countries take the view, as
Mertz pointed out to mister Trump in their joint press conference,
that Ukraine's in territorial integrity must be preserved, that is,
Russia must not be allowed to keep any territory, which
(11:48):
was quite a sharp comment, and mister Trump took it well.
He didn't respond in a negative fashion. But mister Trump
has been throughout his presidency trying to come up with
a peace formula which rewarded mister Putin's invasion of Ukraine,
a sort of land for peace deal, that is to say,
(12:08):
he'll be allowed to keep much of the territory he
is illegally annexed from Ukraine. And mister Trump seems to
be quite relaxed about that. Well, the Europeans are not
relaxed about it, so there probably will be some tough
talking behind closed doors. The question which is interesting, which
you've raised, is that many Europeans, who are quite rigorous
(12:33):
and robusts on the Russian invasion, seem to struggle with
issues in the Middle East, where international law is also infringed,
and there seems to be a lack of consistency there.
One of the dangers of the current situation is that
many Europeans believe they may not like mister Trump's style
(12:53):
of doing things, but they think the regime in Iran
is so awful that any action that could remove that
regime would be good. But that assumes fus what. It
assumes there can be regime change, which is debatable given
there's no troops on the ground to change the country.
(13:14):
Airpower never achieved, very rarely achieves, if ever achieves a
change of regime. And I think that's dangerous thinking, because
it's not that the Iran's regimes should get special treatment.
Far from it. It should be regulously subject to international law.
But it's a bad precedent when countries simply believe they've
(13:35):
got the right to remove governments they don't like. Where
does that end? After all, mister Trump's already indicated quite
openly he's got designs on Canada and on Greenland, and
will European The muted reaction of European countries encourage him
to think that he can pursue that. I mean, these
(13:56):
are real questions. So yeah, I Thinkpe the one of
the reasons it struggled with this issue, amongst others, is
because most people in the world regret that Iraq has
such a repressive regime and therefore, but I don't think
mister Trump is pursuing this action against the clerical regime
(14:21):
for reasons of human rights or to enforce humanitarian or
legal standards in.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Terms of what comes next. And I know that I
keep harping on about Europe, but I do find it interesting.
And like you said, the comparisons about their strong stance
with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and now the
Iran strikes done by Israel in the US, I mean,
do you think that they will get because I know
that there's already been more military involvement from the European states,
(14:50):
right because Greece, France and Germany are all sending forces
to Cyprus after drone strikes. There is it when it
starts to im paid in their territory, it starts to
show up on their doorstep. Because Cyprus, if you look
at a map, isn't too far from European states.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
That's true, and Europe has big connections with the Middle East.
I mean many European countries, France and Britain and others
have links with the region, and historically Britain has a
big responsibility there hasn't always lived up to that responsibility actually,
but yeah, I mean I think the British, I think
(15:33):
the European I hate to generalize, but I would say
that the European reaction or stance is that they don't
want They realize that Israel is a very close part
strategic partner of the United States, and they may sort
of prioritize their willingness to confront Trump. That is to say,
(15:56):
they may be much more prepared to dig in over
the Ukrainian situation and I argue with him and actually
oppose what he's trying to do quite you know. But
they may think the Middle East, unless their interests are
directly affected, they may not want to be seen as
(16:17):
opposing US Israeli efforts there to change the regime in Iran.
They may think that that is of lower importance than
preventing Russia from expanding its occupation in Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
Would we would we support in the country, Well, I mean,
we obviously understand we're not We're not saying that. What
we're saying is that we we understand this. I don't
know how do any clearer guys. I mean, we've had
a long step sorry, we long supported actions under governments
under successive political parties that actually stop Iran from getting
(17:04):
nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Now, when it comes to New Zealand and Australia potentially
being involved, neither New Zealand or Australia face automatic compulsion
to join US LED wars. When people think that they're
obligated to join in because we're all mates, I suppose
they might be referring to the a n Z US
andis packed which was suspended in the eighties. Anyway, but
(17:28):
do you think that we will get involved and do
we have any compulsion to be involved?
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Well, it's an interesting question. The traditional allies of the
United States, such as the members of the Five Eyes,
they've all had a pretty muted reaction to what's happened,
and they've largely blamed Iran in their public statements for
these attacks, and most of them have ducked the question
(17:56):
of whether what the United States and doing is doing
and we'long with Israel is illegal. But despite that, there
is some differences between members of the Five Eyes. Interestingly,
Canada and Australia have both actually publicly expressed support for
(18:18):
US actions in terms of preventing Iran threatening the region.
New Zealand has also acknowledged, not supported, acknowledged US and
Israeli efforts to prevent or deter the Israel Iranian threat
in the region. Subtle change in language, so there are
(18:43):
slight differences of emphasis amongst America's traditional allies. I don't
detect any great appetite amongst Australia, New Zealand, Canada, well, Canada.
That's Canada is an interesting one because Mark Karney has
(19:03):
caused some controversy in Canada by expressing support. The word support,
like Australia, appears in their public statement for US Israeli
efforts attacks on Iran. The reason I think it's interesting
is because a while back, mister Karney made a speech
(19:24):
at Davos at the World Economic Forum, in which he
said he wouldn't give into great power bullying, and he
would not cave into such demands and that middle powers
and small powers are not powerless in the current global context.
So we now find mister Charani now finds himself in
a curious position because he's backing attacks by the Trump
(19:48):
administration against a sovereign state, Iran, while his own country
is periodically subject to threats of invasion from that administration
which is attacking Iran. So I have a feeling that
may have opened up a bit of a debate within
Canada and he may have to adjust his position. But
it's an interesting situation.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Yeah, And we have as New Zealanders, we have had
a pattern of this low risk kind of involvement without
frontline combat in the past. I mean you remember that
Helen Clark refused to send any combat contributions to Iraq
despite a lot of pressure actually from allies. Do you
expect this government to be steadfast as steadfast as I
(20:30):
think they'll be pragmatic.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Yeah, I think they'll be pragmatic. I think this government's
deeply pragmatic. The government doesn't always it is not certainly
the National Party section of the government's the coalition, of course,
which means that sometimes they disagree over foreign policy. But
I think the National led part of the government has
(20:52):
reservations about Trump's leadership, but is pragmatic. It's to be
constructive and work with the administration where they can. The
question I suppose for New Zealanders is we often think
of ourselves as a brave little country that, in mister
Luxeon's words, is prepared to stand up and speak up
(21:15):
for its values and interests internationally. Are we doing that
on this occasion and will it have consequences? Because one
of the dangers of not vigorously supporting a rules based
order based on multilateralism and international law, which we depend
on heavily. With New Zealand trades with more one hundred
(21:36):
countries around the world. We need rules in place. We're
not big enough to make our own rules or throw
our weight around. The danger is that by being muted
and not having moral and legal clarity in this situation
where a number of people are dying on a daily basis,
that we contribute to the further erosion of an international
(21:59):
rules based order in which this country depends.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot enz. 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. Follow the front page
(22:30):
on the iheartapp 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.