June 16, 2025 • 20 mins
Tensions are high in the Middle East, as Israel and Iran continue to trade strikes.
It comes after Israel launched a surprise attack last Friday against multiple targets in Iran, including nuclear and military sites.
Iran has retaliated, and this back and forth shows no signs of stopping – instead, both sides are threatening to escalate the conflict.
With major international players now weighing in, how big could this get – and will New Zealand have to pick a side?
Today on The Front Page, University of Otago international relations professor, Robert Patman is with us to take us through the history, and future, of this complicated relationship.
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
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Tensions are
high in the Middle East as Israel and Iran continue
to trade strikes. It comes after Israel launched a surprise
attack last Friday against multiple targets in Iran, including nuclear
(00:29):
and military sites. Iran has retaliated and this back and
forth shows no signs of stopping. Instead, both sides are
threatening to escalate the conflict, with major international players now
weighing in how big could this get and will.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
New Zealand have to pick a side? Today?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
On the Front Page, University of Otago International Relations Professor
Robert Patman is with us to take us through the
history and future of this complicated relationship. Robert, can you
give us a brief overview of the tensions between Israel
(01:08):
and Iran?
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Basically, the tensions have been long term and since at
least two thousand and six. Mister Netna, who has been
a prominent figure in Israeli politics for the last two
and a half decades, has been one of those Israeli
leaders that has denied the prospect of political self determination
for the Palestinians, and Iran has tried to act as
(01:33):
a sort of counterweight to Israel in the Middle East,
if you like. Has presented itself as the leader of
the resistance front and has supported groups like Hezbullah in
Lebanon and also the Hooties in Yemen. In sure, it
has regional ambitions to spread its influence beyond Iran, but
it also has presented itself as a regional counterweight to
(01:56):
Nesuna who's ambitions to settle Israelis in occupied territories, and
under international law those settlements are illegal, so Netiya who
has seen Iran as a bit of a target. And
then there's been the nuclear factor Iran. It should be
explained that during the Obama period there was quite a
(02:16):
successful deal between Iran and the United States which postponed
the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.
In return, all sanctions were lifted, and unfortunately, when mister
Trump came into power in his first term in twenty seventeen,
responded to pressure from the Nestinyahu government and withdrew from
(02:40):
that deal, which meant that Iran was no longer bound
not to develop nuclear weapons, and Trump believed, I suppose
he could negotiate an alternative deal, something he didn't do
in his first term, and he hasn't succeeded in his
second term. Although recently there have been negotiations between the
ira leadership and the Trump administration, and the Trump administration
(03:04):
has indicated that it was quite hopeful that a settlement
between Iran and the United States could be reached. Two
weeks ago, the leading negotiator for Iran said that it
was quite prepared to sign an agreement where Iran never
developed nuclear weapons in return sanctions being lifted, and also
(03:26):
Iran having the capability like Japan and Germany other countries
which have never developed nuclear weapons but have nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes in other words, nuclear power plant. A
sixth round of talks was scheduled Sunday, but before they
could occur, Israel has launched an attack on Iran which
(03:46):
can only be described as reckless, unprovoked, immoral, and illegal
under international law. So that's where we're at at the moment.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
Israel's dome pummeled, bombarded by Iranian missiles, some punching through.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Wave after wave retaliation.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Strikes targeting Israeli military size, but also landing direct hits
on densely populated areas of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, killing
at least three and enduring more than sixty.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Well, this latest attack by Israel feels like it's been
a long time coming. They've been targeting around proxies in
the region since the October seven attack. And people may
recall there was a bombing of an Iranian embassy in Damascus.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, why have they struck now after all of that, That's.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
A good question. Timing is important in politics. I think
they believe that Iran has been seriously weakened because its
proxies have been materially degraded by Israel's campaign. Hamas is
an ally of Iran. It's a Palestinian organization, but it's
(05:08):
been degraded. Has Bulla has been degraded by the Israeli
invasion of Lebanon, and the Uti rebels has been degraded
by a combination of American and Israeli strikes. So there
may have been a perception that there will never be
a better opportunity to go after what it sees as
Iran's nuclear potential, It's potential to a nuclear weapon in
(05:31):
the future. Of course, it could be argued that you
can't obliterate the ability of a country to develop nuclear energy.
Wants to know how is there. I think another objective,
quite frankly, is regime change. I mean, the next you
know who government doesn't make. If you look at these strikes,
they're not just against nuclear facilities. They're attacking civil society
(05:51):
economic assets like oil producing scites. There's over one hundred
of them in Iran, and also they've attacked infrastructure. They've
also assassinated nuclear scientists in these strikes, and much of
the current leadership. And we know that Nesta, who recently
asked permission just a few days ago to President Trump
(06:13):
to assassinate the Supreme Leader. I told Holmeni that permission
was denied. But that gives an indication of what the
Israelis have in mind. But there's a couple of other
motivations which get less less consideration than denuclearizing Iran or
bringing about regime change, and that is deflecting pressure mounting pressure,
(06:34):
deflecting the mounting pressure on Israel over the catastrophe in Gaza.
The word catastrophe, by the way, is the word that
mister Peters, the Foreign Minster in New Zealand uses to
describe the situation, and I think another consideration here is
that mister Nessigna, who, according to Israeli critics, needs a
conflict to stay in power because he's facing significant corruption
(06:57):
charges which are likely to be reactive as soon as
Israel is at peace again. So while he can have
the mantle of a wartime leader, those sort of issues
don't surface too much, So you could say domestic politics
has got a role as well. Chelsea.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
We are ready for any agreement whose aim is to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, because that is our
own doctrine. It is our own belief that nuclear weapons
are forbidden and prohibited. But if the purpose of an
agreement is to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights, then
naturally we are not prepared to accept such an agreement.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Do you think all hopes for a deal around those
nuclear weapons is off the table now completely.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Iran has been quite shrewd during this crisis. It has
reiterated it will de escalate if Israel does. But the
problem is we're not getting any leadership from the United
States at the moment. The United States, after all acknowledged
that it knew of Israel's plans, but he didn't warn
Israel not to go ahead because the United States was
conducting negotiations with Iran to end the prospect that Iran
(08:09):
would develop nuclear weapons, and both sides seemed to think
there was some progress going on.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Well, he said on social media.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Didn't he that the strikes occurred on day sixty one
of a sixty day deadline he gave Iran.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Didn't say to Iran, if you get to the sixty
day deadline, Israel will attack you. And I have full
knowledge of that.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, where do you reckon? He sits here?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Then he's sitting on the fence. He's demonstrating incredible weakness.
The thing he should have done is what President Eisenhower
did with the Israelis when they launched an attack on
Suez Canal in nineteen fifty six. He denounced their action
and said they must stop. But President Trump, he should
have been furious that Israel had derailed the negotiations, which
his negotiating team re engaged in, which suggests maybe the
(08:51):
negotiations were a bit of a charade and that they
were done to lull the Iranians into a false sense
of security. But you know, quite Frankly, the United States
comes out of this looking pretty poor, in sense that
its diplomacy appears to be duplicitous. It says it was
a negotiated solution, but it doesn't denounce an ally that
has sabotaged that prospect. It also says it may come
(09:15):
in on the side of Israel in the conflict that's
now occurred. Need'st be quite clear. What Israel has done
is preemptive and aggressive and illegal under international law. But
you don't hear any American diplomats expressing concern about that,
and that, of course has big implications for most countries
in the world, including her own.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
The UK has already moved some fighter jets to the
Middle East, and UK Prime Minister Sir Kiir Starmer is
not rolling out helping defend Israel. China, meanwhile, has warned
against Iran's sovereignty being undermined. Are we already seeing countries
pick sides here? Well?
Speaker 3 (10:02):
I think the British position is indefensible. How can you
possibly stand for a rules based order when an ally
has just driven the coach and horses through the UN
Charter as Israel has, and you're gonna you know, you
can't be one eyed about this. As a sovereign state
under Charter Article fifty one, Iran is fully entitled to
(10:23):
the right of self defense. But I'm hearing nothing from
the British about Israel's about Iran's right of self defense.
It's not Iran that has attacked Israel, it's the other
way around. So it's an extraordinary it's extraordinary twisted logic
where British Prime Minister says he's prepared to move military
(10:44):
assets to provide enhanced defense for a country which has
just attacked a regional neighbor, which is Iran.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Do you think it's hard for countries to pick sides
because it is kind of evil versus evil, so to speak.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So who's the bad guy here? Who's bad a.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Well, look, one of the reasons we have un Charter
and have rules is to help provide guidance in this situation.
But at the moment, you know, we have a situation
where there is hypocrisy and cowardice and Eisenhower President Eisenhower
was the last president, but no President Reagan also stood
up to an Israeli ally, But at the moment we're
(11:23):
not getting much clear and courageous leadership. What mister Necno
has done is extremely dangerous and it's reckless, to say
the least, and a lot of innocent people are being
killed as a result. And yet liberal democracies are remaining
relatively quiet, and they're playing into the hands of authoritarian
forces in doing so. So you know, there will be
(11:44):
a reckoning for this, and never again will countries like
Britain be able to stand up and lecture others about
human rights when in fact they are complicit in undermining
the process of state sovereignty and the country's right to
self defense by their actions.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well, Christopher Luxen arrives in China today for his first
official trip there as Prime Minister. Would you expect this
conflict to come up today in meetings?
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Yeah, I would. I mean China has basically quoting the
UN Charter and saying that Iran is the victim in
this situation. It's the country that's been attacked and I
would think that message will be conveyed quite rigorously to
New Zealand and. To be fair, the New Zealand government
I think has made some good statements in its response
(12:30):
to what has happened. I think Christopher Luxen said that
this was not a welcome development. There's no military solution
to political problems. This is welcome words. But I think
New Zealand also its interests are different to Britain and
the United States. Both of those countries can exercise the
VETO in the UN. We don't have a veto to
(12:52):
protect our interests. We trade with more than one hundred
countries in the world New Zealand and most countries in
the world, that's the great majority of countries I would say,
as high as one hundred and sixty one hundred and
eighty somewhere in that region prefer international relations to be
based on rules and principles and procedures. They do not
like the unilateral and preemptive use of force.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Where do you see this conflict going from here? I
know it's early days, but both the USA and Russia
have stakes in the region. Then there's nearby Turkey and
Saudi Arabia and also has BLA in Lebanon. There are
a lot of key players that could get involved here,
isn't there?
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Yeah, and China is a key ally of Iran, and
China's been quite so far apart from saying that it's
worried about the fact that the principle of state sovereignty
has been trampled on which it has, of course, but
let's hope cooler heads prevail. There's a G seven meeting
coming up. I'm just disconcerted by the fact that we've
(13:53):
had little leadership from countries which should be showing leadership
on upholding key principles in relation. Let's be quite clear,
if Israel is not sanctioned or faces any consequences for
launching an unprovoked attack on another country, that sets a
very bad precedent for anyone else in the international system.
(14:15):
And unfortunately, in the twenty first century we've seen many
other examples where countries have done similar things. We saw
the Russian invasion of Ukraine and it made me chuckle
actually when I saw mister Putin offer his services as
a mediator between the Iran and Israelis, when in fact
he's in no position to mediate because he's already trampled
(14:36):
undermine the UN Charter of his actions in Ukraine. In short,
we need much more authoritative international institutions to deal with
situations which sovereign states are struggling to deal with.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
Look, it's very simple, not complicated. Iran cannot have a
nuclear weapon. Other than that, I want them to be successful.
I want them to be trum, will help them be successful,
will trade with them. We'll do whatever is necessary. You know,
I stopped a war between India and Pakistan, and I
stopped it with trade. Nobody. I don't think I've ever
(15:11):
seen a story written about it, but it's pretty pretty cool.
They were getting ready, Pakistan was now was there, turned
ahead and eventually they're going to go nuclear and I
stopped it. I called each I respect each leader greatly,
I know them, and I spoke to them and I
talked about trade. I said, but you're not trading with
us if you're going to go to war, if you're
going to start throwing nuclear weapons around. And I said
(15:34):
it to both of them, and they were both unbelievable.
Actually they understood it exactly. They stopped.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Is there a moment we should be looking for, I
suppose to indicate a bad turn of events.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
The current situation, to me, is unacceptable. It's unacceptable that
the United States, the most powerful country in the world,
is not giving a clear signal where it's stands on
this issue. After allways, it's equipped and provided intelligence for
an aggressive action. Launched by Israel on another country. I've
got absolutely no brief at all for the government in Iran.
(16:12):
It's a dictatorship and it doesn't treat its own citizens well.
But you can't apply the formula because you don't like
a government that you're free to replace it or try
to replace it. After all, many authoritarian states don't like
liberal democracies, and so you know, the world be reduced
to absolute chaos if regime change was regarded as a
(16:33):
legitimate tool of foreign policy. It's not. And ultimately, my
concern about the current situation is that conflict will escalate.
And my view is that the plight of the Palestinians
has been it worsened by this situation. Israel has cut
off aid again to the Gaza. The other thing here
(16:56):
is and it needs to be openly discussed. There is
no military fear for political problems. Why hasn't met and
not been insisting on a meeting with hers leadership to
try and sort these problems out. He can eliminate the
whole of the Iranian government, but they will be replaced
and many people will have memories of family relatives killed
(17:16):
who didn't like the Iranian government but were nevertheless killed
by Israel's actions. That's not going to generate good will
towards Israel. And in short, there is not an engineering
or military solution to political problems. Those problems can only
be resolved through dialogue and discussion. They may be very
tough talks to have, but the alternatives don't work very
(17:39):
well either. We see escalating conflict with lots of civilian,
innocent civilians being killed on both sides, and that is
a terrible outcome. Yes, we should be worried about where
this is going. None of us really know where it's going.
I'm hoping that the efforts of countries like Saudi Arabia
and Turkey will weigh I know that mister Erdowan and
(18:01):
the Saudi government have spoken to mister Trump, and you know,
it's important. I think that other liberal dromocracies speak out
and don't just take the lead from the United States
and the British because both of them seem to me
very compromised on this issue. They're not disinterested observers, they
are committed to Israel. Both of them have provided arms
(18:25):
for mister Netnahu's campaign in Gaza. But there are a
number of other liberal democracies like our own New Zealand
consistently sought an immediate cease fire. On the twenty third
of October twenty twenty three, we were the only member
of the Five Eyes that voted for an immediate humanitarian
truce in Gaza. We were subsequently joined in that mission
(18:47):
or that quest, by Canada and Australia. Two months later
they join New Zealand in demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
But it's very important, I think, I think that countries
like New Zealand do make it clear where they stand
because these are you know, at the moment, this situation
(19:07):
is escalating, and the weaponry on both sides is horrific,
and we do need to conduct international relations on the
basis of rules and principles rather than a Wild West
situation where the guys with the biggest guns feel they're
entitled to do what they want to do.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Tensions are
high in the Middle East as Israel and Iran continue
to trade strikes. It comes after Israel launched a surprise
attack last Friday against multiple targets in Iran, including nuclear
(00:29):
and military sites. Iran has retaliated and this back and
forth shows no signs of stopping. Instead, both sides are
threatening to escalate the conflict, with major international players now
weighing in how big could this get and will.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
New Zealand have to pick a side? Today?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
On the Front Page, University of Otago International Relations Professor
Robert Patman is with us to take us through the
history and future of this complicated relationship. Robert, can you
give us a brief overview of the tensions between Israel
(01:08):
and Iran?
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Basically, the tensions have been long term and since at
least two thousand and six. Mister Netna, who has been
a prominent figure in Israeli politics for the last two
and a half decades, has been one of those Israeli
leaders that has denied the prospect of political self determination
for the Palestinians, and Iran has tried to act as
(01:33):
a sort of counterweight to Israel in the Middle East,
if you like. Has presented itself as the leader of
the resistance front and has supported groups like Hezbullah in
Lebanon and also the Hooties in Yemen. In sure, it
has regional ambitions to spread its influence beyond Iran, but
it also has presented itself as a regional counterweight to
(01:56):
Nesuna who's ambitions to settle Israelis in occupied territories, and
under international law those settlements are illegal, so Netiya who
has seen Iran as a bit of a target. And
then there's been the nuclear factor Iran. It should be
explained that during the Obama period there was quite a
(02:16):
successful deal between Iran and the United States which postponed
the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.
In return, all sanctions were lifted, and unfortunately, when mister
Trump came into power in his first term in twenty seventeen,
responded to pressure from the Nestinyahu government and withdrew from
(02:40):
that deal, which meant that Iran was no longer bound
not to develop nuclear weapons, and Trump believed, I suppose
he could negotiate an alternative deal, something he didn't do
in his first term, and he hasn't succeeded in his
second term. Although recently there have been negotiations between the
ira leadership and the Trump administration, and the Trump administration
(03:04):
has indicated that it was quite hopeful that a settlement
between Iran and the United States could be reached. Two
weeks ago, the leading negotiator for Iran said that it
was quite prepared to sign an agreement where Iran never
developed nuclear weapons in return sanctions being lifted, and also
(03:26):
Iran having the capability like Japan and Germany other countries
which have never developed nuclear weapons but have nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes in other words, nuclear power plant. A
sixth round of talks was scheduled Sunday, but before they
could occur, Israel has launched an attack on Iran which
(03:46):
can only be described as reckless, unprovoked, immoral, and illegal
under international law. So that's where we're at at the moment.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
Israel's dome pummeled, bombarded by Iranian missiles, some punching through.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Wave after wave retaliation.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Strikes targeting Israeli military size, but also landing direct hits
on densely populated areas of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, killing
at least three and enduring more than sixty.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Well, this latest attack by Israel feels like it's been
a long time coming. They've been targeting around proxies in
the region since the October seven attack. And people may
recall there was a bombing of an Iranian embassy in Damascus.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, why have they struck now after all of that, That's.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
A good question. Timing is important in politics. I think
they believe that Iran has been seriously weakened because its
proxies have been materially degraded by Israel's campaign. Hamas is
an ally of Iran. It's a Palestinian organization, but it's
(05:08):
been degraded. Has Bulla has been degraded by the Israeli
invasion of Lebanon, and the Uti rebels has been degraded
by a combination of American and Israeli strikes. So there
may have been a perception that there will never be
a better opportunity to go after what it sees as
Iran's nuclear potential, It's potential to a nuclear weapon in
(05:31):
the future. Of course, it could be argued that you
can't obliterate the ability of a country to develop nuclear energy.
Wants to know how is there. I think another objective,
quite frankly, is regime change. I mean, the next you
know who government doesn't make. If you look at these strikes,
they're not just against nuclear facilities. They're attacking civil society
(05:51):
economic assets like oil producing scites. There's over one hundred
of them in Iran, and also they've attacked infrastructure. They've
also assassinated nuclear scientists in these strikes, and much of
the current leadership. And we know that Nesta, who recently
asked permission just a few days ago to President Trump
(06:13):
to assassinate the Supreme Leader. I told Holmeni that permission
was denied. But that gives an indication of what the
Israelis have in mind. But there's a couple of other
motivations which get less less consideration than denuclearizing Iran or
bringing about regime change, and that is deflecting pressure mounting pressure,
(06:34):
deflecting the mounting pressure on Israel over the catastrophe in Gaza.
The word catastrophe, by the way, is the word that
mister Peters, the Foreign Minster in New Zealand uses to
describe the situation, and I think another consideration here is
that mister Nessigna, who, according to Israeli critics, needs a
conflict to stay in power because he's facing significant corruption
(06:57):
charges which are likely to be reactive as soon as
Israel is at peace again. So while he can have
the mantle of a wartime leader, those sort of issues
don't surface too much, So you could say domestic politics
has got a role as well. Chelsea.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
We are ready for any agreement whose aim is to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, because that is our
own doctrine. It is our own belief that nuclear weapons
are forbidden and prohibited. But if the purpose of an
agreement is to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights, then
naturally we are not prepared to accept such an agreement.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Do you think all hopes for a deal around those
nuclear weapons is off the table now completely.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Iran has been quite shrewd during this crisis. It has
reiterated it will de escalate if Israel does. But the
problem is we're not getting any leadership from the United
States at the moment. The United States, after all acknowledged
that it knew of Israel's plans, but he didn't warn
Israel not to go ahead because the United States was
conducting negotiations with Iran to end the prospect that Iran
(08:09):
would develop nuclear weapons, and both sides seemed to think
there was some progress going on.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Well, he said on social media.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Didn't he that the strikes occurred on day sixty one
of a sixty day deadline he gave Iran.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Didn't say to Iran, if you get to the sixty
day deadline, Israel will attack you. And I have full
knowledge of that.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, where do you reckon? He sits here?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Then he's sitting on the fence. He's demonstrating incredible weakness.
The thing he should have done is what President Eisenhower
did with the Israelis when they launched an attack on
Suez Canal in nineteen fifty six. He denounced their action
and said they must stop. But President Trump, he should
have been furious that Israel had derailed the negotiations, which
his negotiating team re engaged in, which suggests maybe the
(08:51):
negotiations were a bit of a charade and that they
were done to lull the Iranians into a false sense
of security. But you know, quite Frankly, the United States
comes out of this looking pretty poor, in sense that
its diplomacy appears to be duplicitous. It says it was
a negotiated solution, but it doesn't denounce an ally that
has sabotaged that prospect. It also says it may come
(09:15):
in on the side of Israel in the conflict that's
now occurred. Need'st be quite clear. What Israel has done
is preemptive and aggressive and illegal under international law. But
you don't hear any American diplomats expressing concern about that,
and that, of course has big implications for most countries
in the world, including her own.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
The UK has already moved some fighter jets to the
Middle East, and UK Prime Minister Sir Kiir Starmer is
not rolling out helping defend Israel. China, meanwhile, has warned
against Iran's sovereignty being undermined. Are we already seeing countries
pick sides here? Well?
Speaker 3 (10:02):
I think the British position is indefensible. How can you
possibly stand for a rules based order when an ally
has just driven the coach and horses through the UN
Charter as Israel has, and you're gonna you know, you
can't be one eyed about this. As a sovereign state
under Charter Article fifty one, Iran is fully entitled to
(10:23):
the right of self defense. But I'm hearing nothing from
the British about Israel's about Iran's right of self defense.
It's not Iran that has attacked Israel, it's the other
way around. So it's an extraordinary it's extraordinary twisted logic
where British Prime Minister says he's prepared to move military
(10:44):
assets to provide enhanced defense for a country which has
just attacked a regional neighbor, which is Iran.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Do you think it's hard for countries to pick sides
because it is kind of evil versus evil, so to speak.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So who's the bad guy here? Who's bad a.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Well, look, one of the reasons we have un Charter
and have rules is to help provide guidance in this situation.
But at the moment, you know, we have a situation
where there is hypocrisy and cowardice and Eisenhower President Eisenhower
was the last president, but no President Reagan also stood
up to an Israeli ally, But at the moment we're
(11:23):
not getting much clear and courageous leadership. What mister Necno
has done is extremely dangerous and it's reckless, to say
the least, and a lot of innocent people are being
killed as a result. And yet liberal democracies are remaining
relatively quiet, and they're playing into the hands of authoritarian
forces in doing so. So you know, there will be
(11:44):
a reckoning for this, and never again will countries like
Britain be able to stand up and lecture others about
human rights when in fact they are complicit in undermining
the process of state sovereignty and the country's right to
self defense by their actions.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well, Christopher Luxen arrives in China today for his first
official trip there as Prime Minister. Would you expect this
conflict to come up today in meetings?
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Yeah, I would. I mean China has basically quoting the
UN Charter and saying that Iran is the victim in
this situation. It's the country that's been attacked and I
would think that message will be conveyed quite rigorously to
New Zealand and. To be fair, the New Zealand government
I think has made some good statements in its response
(12:30):
to what has happened. I think Christopher Luxen said that
this was not a welcome development. There's no military solution
to political problems. This is welcome words. But I think
New Zealand also its interests are different to Britain and
the United States. Both of those countries can exercise the
VETO in the UN. We don't have a veto to
(12:52):
protect our interests. We trade with more than one hundred
countries in the world New Zealand and most countries in
the world, that's the great majority of countries I would say,
as high as one hundred and sixty one hundred and
eighty somewhere in that region prefer international relations to be
based on rules and principles and procedures. They do not
like the unilateral and preemptive use of force.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Where do you see this conflict going from here? I
know it's early days, but both the USA and Russia
have stakes in the region. Then there's nearby Turkey and
Saudi Arabia and also has BLA in Lebanon. There are
a lot of key players that could get involved here,
isn't there?
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Yeah, and China is a key ally of Iran, and
China's been quite so far apart from saying that it's
worried about the fact that the principle of state sovereignty
has been trampled on which it has, of course, but
let's hope cooler heads prevail. There's a G seven meeting
coming up. I'm just disconcerted by the fact that we've
(13:53):
had little leadership from countries which should be showing leadership
on upholding key principles in relation. Let's be quite clear,
if Israel is not sanctioned or faces any consequences for
launching an unprovoked attack on another country, that sets a
very bad precedent for anyone else in the international system.
(14:15):
And unfortunately, in the twenty first century we've seen many
other examples where countries have done similar things. We saw
the Russian invasion of Ukraine and it made me chuckle
actually when I saw mister Putin offer his services as
a mediator between the Iran and Israelis, when in fact
he's in no position to mediate because he's already trampled
(14:36):
undermine the UN Charter of his actions in Ukraine. In short,
we need much more authoritative international institutions to deal with
situations which sovereign states are struggling to deal with.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
Look, it's very simple, not complicated. Iran cannot have a
nuclear weapon. Other than that, I want them to be successful.
I want them to be trum, will help them be successful,
will trade with them. We'll do whatever is necessary. You know,
I stopped a war between India and Pakistan, and I
stopped it with trade. Nobody. I don't think I've ever
(15:11):
seen a story written about it, but it's pretty pretty cool.
They were getting ready, Pakistan was now was there, turned
ahead and eventually they're going to go nuclear and I
stopped it. I called each I respect each leader greatly,
I know them, and I spoke to them and I
talked about trade. I said, but you're not trading with
us if you're going to go to war, if you're
going to start throwing nuclear weapons around. And I said
(15:34):
it to both of them, and they were both unbelievable.
Actually they understood it exactly. They stopped.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Is there a moment we should be looking for, I
suppose to indicate a bad turn of events.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
The current situation, to me, is unacceptable. It's unacceptable that
the United States, the most powerful country in the world,
is not giving a clear signal where it's stands on
this issue. After allways, it's equipped and provided intelligence for
an aggressive action. Launched by Israel on another country. I've
got absolutely no brief at all for the government in Iran.
(16:12):
It's a dictatorship and it doesn't treat its own citizens well.
But you can't apply the formula because you don't like
a government that you're free to replace it or try
to replace it. After all, many authoritarian states don't like
liberal democracies, and so you know, the world be reduced
to absolute chaos if regime change was regarded as a
(16:33):
legitimate tool of foreign policy. It's not. And ultimately, my
concern about the current situation is that conflict will escalate.
And my view is that the plight of the Palestinians
has been it worsened by this situation. Israel has cut
off aid again to the Gaza. The other thing here
(16:56):
is and it needs to be openly discussed. There is
no military fear for political problems. Why hasn't met and
not been insisting on a meeting with hers leadership to
try and sort these problems out. He can eliminate the
whole of the Iranian government, but they will be replaced
and many people will have memories of family relatives killed
(17:16):
who didn't like the Iranian government but were nevertheless killed
by Israel's actions. That's not going to generate good will
towards Israel. And in short, there is not an engineering
or military solution to political problems. Those problems can only
be resolved through dialogue and discussion. They may be very
tough talks to have, but the alternatives don't work very
(17:39):
well either. We see escalating conflict with lots of civilian,
innocent civilians being killed on both sides, and that is
a terrible outcome. Yes, we should be worried about where
this is going. None of us really know where it's going.
I'm hoping that the efforts of countries like Saudi Arabia
and Turkey will weigh I know that mister Erdowan and
(18:01):
the Saudi government have spoken to mister Trump, and you know,
it's important. I think that other liberal dromocracies speak out
and don't just take the lead from the United States
and the British because both of them seem to me
very compromised on this issue. They're not disinterested observers, they
are committed to Israel. Both of them have provided arms
(18:25):
for mister Netnahu's campaign in Gaza. But there are a
number of other liberal democracies like our own New Zealand
consistently sought an immediate cease fire. On the twenty third
of October twenty twenty three, we were the only member
of the Five Eyes that voted for an immediate humanitarian
truce in Gaza. We were subsequently joined in that mission
(18:47):
or that quest, by Canada and Australia. Two months later
they join New Zealand in demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
But it's very important, I think, I think that countries
like New Zealand do make it clear where they stand
because these are you know, at the moment, this situation
(19:07):
is escalating, and the weaponry on both sides is horrific,
and we do need to conduct international relations on the
basis of rules and principles rather than a Wild West
situation where the guys with the biggest guns feel they're
entitled to do what they want to do.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind 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.
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!