June 23, 2025 • 18 mins
In a move called Operation Midnight Hammer, the US has attacked several key nuclear facilities in Iran.
The strikes mark a significant escalation in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict, with President Donald Trump saying “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier”. He’s also calling for Iran to “MIGA - MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN”.
In response, Iran’s foreign minister said Washington crossed a “very big red line” - AND its Parliament has reportedly voted to shut the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil consumption flows through.
The advancement saw our Foreign Minister Winston Peters quickly call for “diplomacy and dialogue” while also announcing government personnel and a Hercules aircraft are being deployed to the Middle East to help get stranded Kiwis home.
Today on The Front Page, to help us make sense of this crisis and what this heightening of tensions mean for the rest of the world, we’re joined by University of Otago international relations professor, Robert Patman.
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 (00:05):
Jiaoda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. In a
move called Operation Midnight Hammer, the US has attacked several
key nuclear facilities in Iran. The strikes mark a significant
(00:25):
escalation in the ongoing Israel Iran conflict, with President Donald
Trump saying Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must
now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will
be far greater and a lot easier. He's also calling
for Iran to myga make I ran greater game. In response,
Iran's foreign minister said Washington crossed a very big red line,
(00:50):
and its parliament has also reportedly voted to shut the
Straitu or mass where a fifth of the world's oil
consumption flows through the advancements saw Our Foreign Minister, Winston
Peters quickly called for diplomacy and dialogue, while also announcing
government personnel and a Hercules aircraft be deployed to the
Middle East to help get stranded Kiwi's home today on
(01:12):
the front page to help us make sense of this
crisis and what this heightening of tensions means for the
rest of the world. We're joined by University of Otago
International Relations professor Robert Patman. The news of this bombing
came through around midday on Sunday. What was your first
(01:34):
reaction to the news, Robert dismay.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
And also, I think with the President holding out the
prospect of a diplomatic solution up to the point where
the Israeli started attacking Iran, which was about ten days ago,
I thought it was still possible that there could be
a way in which this issue could be resolved on
several fronts. I'm dismayed because, first of all, a strike
(01:59):
of this nature is inconsistent with a rules based order,
it's illegal, is inconsistent with the UN Charter. But it
also is probably going to be a catalyst for Iran
to develop the nuclear weapons capability. After all, the lesson
that the Iranian leadership will take is that they've been
denied the possibility. They are a member of the Non
(02:21):
Proliferation Treaty, and yet both Israel and the United States
have been effectively denying them something which has allowed other countries,
which is the ability to develop nuclear energy for civilian
purposes without developing nuclear weapons. I mean, that's certainly the
case in countries like Germany and Japan and many others
where people have a nuclear energy sector, but it doesn't
(02:45):
translate into weaponry, and that's what they said they always wanted. Now,
I think the secrecy of the regime has probably worked
against them. But it's no secret that mister Neetna, who
has been campaigning for the best part of thirty years
to take preemptive action to develop what he has described
as a nuclear weapon in Iran. But I'm dismayed because
the President, I think should have shown a lot more
(03:07):
independence from Israel on this issue. I think many Americans
feel that. My reason I'm dismayed is because I don't
think what the Americans have done actually helped solve the problem.
I think it actually makes it worse.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, Trump said he was going to give around two
weeks to negotiate. He barely gave them a weekend. What
do you think changed over that time.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Oh, clearly this operation had been planned for a long time.
I think he wanted to keep the Iranians guessing and
maybe lull them into a false sense of security that
America will give it another two weeks up he said.
He get you know, in his defense, mister Trump would
say I never committed to going to the fall two weeks.
I said we would have up to two weeks before
America had to take I think the term he used
(03:49):
was decisive action or something like that. I'm not sure that.
One of the things I worry about the Trump administration,
it seems to be operating and an information and bubble.
US intelligence warned mister Trump there was no evidence that
the regime in Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The International
Atomic Energy Agency that i AA, I should say, they've
(04:10):
indicated in the last week there was no evidence that
Iran was developing nuclear weapons. So, in a sense, mister
Trump has made a decision based on his briefings from
mister Netniya, who who he's very close to, and he's
gout instinct, and I think what he has done has
been I think that this will prove to be a
(04:30):
fateful step.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
You know.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
It's it's an old saying in military circles, you can
initiate the application of force, and that's quite easy to
do that, particularly when you've got a lot of military
capabilities at your disposed of, like the United States, But
you can't always bring that process to an easy halt.
In other words, mister Trump's taken actions which will have
consequences which he cannot control. I think this is a
(04:52):
destabilizing step for the region.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
For forty years around Hasman's saying death to America, Death
to Israel, they have been killing our people, blowing off
their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs. That
was their specialty. We lost over a thousand people, and
hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the
world have died as a direct result of their hate.
(05:20):
In particular, so many were killed by their general Cassem Solomony.
I decided a long time ago that I would not
let this happen.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
It will not continue.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
We worked as a team like perhaps no team has
ever worked before.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Has Trump basically broken every international law there is.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Well today, mister Trump's actions seem to be inconsistent with
you in Charter, they seem to be inconsistent with the
Non Proliferation Treaty, and they seem to be inconsistent with
international law. Because mister Trump claimed that there was an
imminent threat, where's the evidence of the imminent threat from
a country which does not yet have nuclear weapons. Let's
(06:07):
put this into some sort of context. Chelsea. We had
two nuclear weapons states, that is Iran, the US using
military force against the country which doesn't have nuclear weapons
to prevent it from having nuclear weapons. And the stumbling
block in the negotiations, which were interrupted by the military
action of Israel about ten days ago. But up to
(06:30):
that point the Iranian leadership and the US leadership were
making quite hopeful noises. But the stumbling block seemed to
be that the US moved the goalposts halfway through, because
initially they accepted, at least in principle, that subject to
intrusive inspection, there was no problem around having nuclear energy
(06:50):
for peaceful purposes. Halfway through they changed. According this is
the Iranian a take on the negotiations. Halfway through that
about the third round of negotiations, there were five rounds,
so there was going to be a sick round before
shortly before the Israelis intervene with their military attack. The
Iranians claimed that halfway through the negotiations, the Americans suddenly
(07:11):
decided they took on the Israeli negotiating position, which was
that Iran can't either have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,
and they certainly can't have it for weapons. So that's
you know, that basically meant the negotiations were not going
to progress as quickly as one hoped. But it seems
that this step. One of the things that worries me
a great deal is that the administration in Washington seems
(07:34):
to be, as I said before, operating in a bit
of an information bubble. Many of the top officials in
the administration have been appointed on the basis of loyalty,
not competence. And I was hoping that when Israel unilaterally,
in the words of the United States, attacked Iran, that
the President would show the backbone and the fortitude and
(07:57):
the strength to do what President is how it did
in nineteen fifty six, which was to denounce a unilateral
action by a close ally, which was then Israel in
nineteen fifty six against Egypt. But mister Trump didn't. He's
seemed quite relaxed about Israel sabotaging American diplomacy in relation
to Iran, and we subsequent events shows why he was relaxed,
(08:20):
because he joined in on israel side against Iran.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
There had been maga in fighting over whether or not
to intervene.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
So I am not the Tucker Carlson mixed bird on Iran.
You're a sayer who's calling the one about the country.
Speaker 6 (08:36):
No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the
one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
I'm not saying that.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
Who can't figure out to say it killed General Solamonia.
You said they're trying to murder Trump.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Yes, because you're not calling for military strikes against them
in retaliation.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
If they really believed that carrying out military strikes today,
you said Israel was right with our help.
Speaker 5 (08:57):
I said we Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
You're breaking news here because the US government last night
denied the nationalis Curity Council spokesman Alex Favor denied on
behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf
in any offensive capacity.
Speaker 5 (09:10):
We're not barmbing, then Israel's barmbing. You just said we were.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It's basically isolation versus intervention here. So why is the
US trying to get involved again?
Speaker 1 (09:24):
I think there's always been a tendency within the United
States to believe there's a solution to every single problem
there's also a tendency in the United States to believe
that military power can solve political problems. I think on
both counts they're mistaken. As I say, if you hear
mister Trump said in his speech yesterday to the American
(09:46):
people that they had obliterated through these bombings through nuclear
sites in Iran, they had obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities. But
we've had no independent verification of that claim. We don't
know whether that's true or not. But the assumption that
you can bomb your way to eliminating Iran's nuclear capability
(10:08):
does not sit comfortably with the realities of the world
we live in.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
He also said he was trying to stop the nuclear
threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.
I mean, those are some words that we've heard before.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Yes, Iran's position has been to oppose Israel in the
context of Middle Eastern politics, and they've been I suppose,
one of the most formidable supporters of the Palestinian cause.
But the problem is that mister Nietnyahu does not recognize
that the Palestinians have a right to political self determination.
(10:41):
And while he denies that right, he's giving scope to
authoritarian regimes like Iran to exploit that omission, and they've
done that. They've provided alms to Hamas, they provided arms
to Hesbula in Lebanon, and they have provided support for
the Huti rebels in Yemen. That's not all to do
(11:02):
with the palest Union issue. But what's interesting is that
the attacks by Israel on Iran haven't been confined to
nuclear facilities, which then raises the question why they're conducting
attacks against economic infrastructure and other military capabilities. It raises
the question of whether they're engaging in an attempt at
regime change.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
What do you make of New Zealand's response so.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Far, it's been very guarded and mister Peters, the Foreign Minister,
said he was waiting for the four facts. He wouldn't
have a rush to judgment. But we have to be
quite careful because New Zealand as a country does depend heavily,
in the words of the Department of Cabinet and Prime Minister,
does depend quite heavily on a rules based international order.
(11:54):
It seems to me that this type of action, and
it's one of many that we've seen, not just the
Trump administration, but going back, you know, we've got, the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, China's outlandage claim to ninety percent
of South China Sea, the US invasion of Iraq. The
list goes on. We've had a whole series of episodes
or events in the post nine to eleven period which
(12:18):
have gradually eroded the idea of international relations being based
on rules and process and principles. And that's the sort
of world that New Zealand wants. So I think many
people are expecting a country like New Zealand, which has
championed non nuclear security, to have a position on this issue.
Speaker 7 (12:39):
The crisis in the Middle East is extremely concerning. We're
worried about the developments and the consequences are through the escalation,
including for newsielders. We acknowledge the developments of the last
twenty four hours, including President Donald Trump's announcement of US
at exil nuclear facilities in Iran. Zion continues to advocate
(13:04):
for diplomacy and a dialogue. Ongoing military action in the
Middle East is extremely worrying and it's critical further escalation
is avoided.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
What more should we be doing on the world stage here?
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Well, I think, first of all, I think mister Peter's
concern is to make sure he doesn't say anything or
do anything that will complicate removing New Zealand citizens from
the strife to l Middle East, which is a fair point.
But I do think we should be pushing for reform
of the UN Security Council. That seems to me a
strategic thing that New Zealand should do because at the moment,
(13:46):
the UN Security Council has been completely marginalized by the
fact that five countries decide matters the war and peace
in the world. Because they have the pair of veto,
they can block anything they don't like internationally, and that
means effectively that countries like the United States, Russia and
China they can Basically they've got tremendous freedom of autonomy.
(14:08):
They're not accountable. In short, who's going to hold the
Trump administration accountable for what they've just done other than
their own people within the United States and the reaction
of the rest of the world in diplomatic terms. But
I do think New Zealand should be looking at this
most recent episode and weighing it against those other trends
(14:30):
I've mentioned in the post nine to eleven world and
saying I think New Zeum decision makers should get together
with other small and middle powers which depend on a
rules based order and say we need to strengthen the
UN Security Council, We need to constrain the use of
the VETO, and we need to make the UN Security
Council capable of doing what it's supposed to do, which
(14:51):
is being a barrier to war. And also for Phillip's
responsibility of maintaining global peace and security. At the moment,
that institution won't do its job. It's dysfunctional. That worries
me a great deal because the rest of the world
is paying the price for the fact that the three
biggest law breakers on the planet are all permanent members
of the Security Council.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Well, that leads me on to my next question. I
was thinking, what is the point of the UN Security
Council and will there ever be any justice for what's
been happening not only in Ukraine, Gaza and now Israel
and Iran. I mean, will there be some kind of
Nuremberg trial at the end of this, like who actually
pays Well.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
It won't happen unless people push for it. And at
some point the smaller and middle powers have to begin
to assert themselves on the international stage, and that takes courage.
Many liberal democracies are loath to do anything that was
critical of the United States because they fear for that
that would result in them being penalized economically or in
(15:54):
trade terms, and so they're a bit reluctant to do that.
But you know, your question is an appropriate one. In
a region where war crimes are being committed by multiple parties,
who's going to be held accountable for it? And let's
be quite frank, let's be quite clear about this. The
majority of countries are deeply unhappy about the fact that
we're slipping into a world where the unilateral use of
(16:18):
military power is becoming normalized. Traditional principles like non interference
and domestic affairs, the principal states, sovereignty, and the invilability
of borders, these are becoming steadily eroded. I know that
mister Trump, Shi Jingping, and mister Poutin won't be too
disturbed by that, because they probably see international law and
a rules based international order as a constraint on their action.
(16:41):
But that does not apply to the rest of the world.
So until we get leadership from smaller countries and middle powers,
I can't see the situation is going to change greatly, Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And lastly, Robert, there have been a few moments in
the last few years where it does feel like we're
on the precipice of a World War three, and if
you go on social media at the moment especially, people
are acting like it is the end of the world.
Do you think people should be concerned here?
Speaker 1 (17:06):
They should be concerned, definitely, But we have the keep
a sense of aportion about this. And the thing that
worries me a great deal is there is a great
deal of concern amongst ordinary people. I don't see a
great deal of concern amongst leaders in liberal democracies. How
many liberal democracies have spoken out forcefully about the action
(17:29):
that the Trump administration has taken. Many of them are
furious in private, but are they saying much in public?
Are they articulating the views of their own population on
this issue?
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front
page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
(18:07):
tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Jiaoda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. In a
move called Operation Midnight Hammer, the US has attacked several
key nuclear facilities in Iran. The strikes mark a significant
(00:25):
escalation in the ongoing Israel Iran conflict, with President Donald
Trump saying Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must
now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will
be far greater and a lot easier. He's also calling
for Iran to myga make I ran greater game. In response,
Iran's foreign minister said Washington crossed a very big red line,
(00:50):
and its parliament has also reportedly voted to shut the
Straitu or mass where a fifth of the world's oil
consumption flows through the advancements saw Our Foreign Minister, Winston
Peters quickly called for diplomacy and dialogue, while also announcing
government personnel and a Hercules aircraft be deployed to the
Middle East to help get stranded Kiwi's home today on
(01:12):
the front page to help us make sense of this
crisis and what this heightening of tensions means for the
rest of the world. We're joined by University of Otago
International Relations professor Robert Patman. The news of this bombing
came through around midday on Sunday. What was your first
(01:34):
reaction to the news, Robert dismay.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
And also, I think with the President holding out the
prospect of a diplomatic solution up to the point where
the Israeli started attacking Iran, which was about ten days ago,
I thought it was still possible that there could be
a way in which this issue could be resolved on
several fronts. I'm dismayed because, first of all, a strike
(01:59):
of this nature is inconsistent with a rules based order,
it's illegal, is inconsistent with the UN Charter. But it
also is probably going to be a catalyst for Iran
to develop the nuclear weapons capability. After all, the lesson
that the Iranian leadership will take is that they've been
denied the possibility. They are a member of the Non
(02:21):
Proliferation Treaty, and yet both Israel and the United States
have been effectively denying them something which has allowed other countries,
which is the ability to develop nuclear energy for civilian
purposes without developing nuclear weapons. I mean, that's certainly the
case in countries like Germany and Japan and many others
where people have a nuclear energy sector, but it doesn't
(02:45):
translate into weaponry, and that's what they said they always wanted. Now,
I think the secrecy of the regime has probably worked
against them. But it's no secret that mister Neetna, who
has been campaigning for the best part of thirty years
to take preemptive action to develop what he has described
as a nuclear weapon in Iran. But I'm dismayed because
the President, I think should have shown a lot more
(03:07):
independence from Israel on this issue. I think many Americans
feel that. My reason I'm dismayed is because I don't
think what the Americans have done actually helped solve the problem.
I think it actually makes it worse.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, Trump said he was going to give around two
weeks to negotiate. He barely gave them a weekend. What
do you think changed over that time.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Oh, clearly this operation had been planned for a long time.
I think he wanted to keep the Iranians guessing and
maybe lull them into a false sense of security that
America will give it another two weeks up he said.
He get you know, in his defense, mister Trump would
say I never committed to going to the fall two weeks.
I said we would have up to two weeks before
America had to take I think the term he used
(03:49):
was decisive action or something like that. I'm not sure that.
One of the things I worry about the Trump administration,
it seems to be operating and an information and bubble.
US intelligence warned mister Trump there was no evidence that
the regime in Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The International
Atomic Energy Agency that i AA, I should say, they've
(04:10):
indicated in the last week there was no evidence that
Iran was developing nuclear weapons. So, in a sense, mister
Trump has made a decision based on his briefings from
mister Netniya, who who he's very close to, and he's
gout instinct, and I think what he has done has
been I think that this will prove to be a
(04:30):
fateful step.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
You know.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
It's it's an old saying in military circles, you can
initiate the application of force, and that's quite easy to
do that, particularly when you've got a lot of military
capabilities at your disposed of, like the United States, But
you can't always bring that process to an easy halt.
In other words, mister Trump's taken actions which will have
consequences which he cannot control. I think this is a
(04:52):
destabilizing step for the region.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
For forty years around Hasman's saying death to America, Death
to Israel, they have been killing our people, blowing off
their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs. That
was their specialty. We lost over a thousand people, and
hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the
world have died as a direct result of their hate.
(05:20):
In particular, so many were killed by their general Cassem Solomony.
I decided a long time ago that I would not
let this happen.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
It will not continue.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
We worked as a team like perhaps no team has
ever worked before.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Has Trump basically broken every international law there is.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Well today, mister Trump's actions seem to be inconsistent with
you in Charter, they seem to be inconsistent with the
Non Proliferation Treaty, and they seem to be inconsistent with
international law. Because mister Trump claimed that there was an
imminent threat, where's the evidence of the imminent threat from
a country which does not yet have nuclear weapons. Let's
(06:07):
put this into some sort of context. Chelsea. We had
two nuclear weapons states, that is Iran, the US using
military force against the country which doesn't have nuclear weapons
to prevent it from having nuclear weapons. And the stumbling
block in the negotiations, which were interrupted by the military
action of Israel about ten days ago. But up to
(06:30):
that point the Iranian leadership and the US leadership were
making quite hopeful noises. But the stumbling block seemed to
be that the US moved the goalposts halfway through, because
initially they accepted, at least in principle, that subject to
intrusive inspection, there was no problem around having nuclear energy
(06:50):
for peaceful purposes. Halfway through they changed. According this is
the Iranian a take on the negotiations. Halfway through that
about the third round of negotiations, there were five rounds,
so there was going to be a sick round before
shortly before the Israelis intervene with their military attack. The
Iranians claimed that halfway through the negotiations, the Americans suddenly
(07:11):
decided they took on the Israeli negotiating position, which was
that Iran can't either have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,
and they certainly can't have it for weapons. So that's
you know, that basically meant the negotiations were not going
to progress as quickly as one hoped. But it seems
that this step. One of the things that worries me
a great deal is that the administration in Washington seems
(07:34):
to be, as I said before, operating in a bit
of an information bubble. Many of the top officials in
the administration have been appointed on the basis of loyalty,
not competence. And I was hoping that when Israel unilaterally,
in the words of the United States, attacked Iran, that
the President would show the backbone and the fortitude and
(07:57):
the strength to do what President is how it did
in nineteen fifty six, which was to denounce a unilateral
action by a close ally, which was then Israel in
nineteen fifty six against Egypt. But mister Trump didn't. He's
seemed quite relaxed about Israel sabotaging American diplomacy in relation
to Iran, and we subsequent events shows why he was relaxed,
(08:20):
because he joined in on israel side against Iran.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
There had been maga in fighting over whether or not
to intervene.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
So I am not the Tucker Carlson mixed bird on Iran.
You're a sayer who's calling the one about the country.
Speaker 6 (08:36):
No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the
one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
I'm not saying that.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
Who can't figure out to say it killed General Solamonia.
You said they're trying to murder Trump.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Yes, because you're not calling for military strikes against them
in retaliation.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
If they really believed that carrying out military strikes today,
you said Israel was right with our help.
Speaker 5 (08:57):
I said we Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
You're breaking news here because the US government last night
denied the nationalis Curity Council spokesman Alex Favor denied on
behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf
in any offensive capacity.
Speaker 5 (09:10):
We're not barmbing, then Israel's barmbing. You just said we were.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It's basically isolation versus intervention here. So why is the
US trying to get involved again?
Speaker 1 (09:24):
I think there's always been a tendency within the United
States to believe there's a solution to every single problem
there's also a tendency in the United States to believe
that military power can solve political problems. I think on
both counts they're mistaken. As I say, if you hear
mister Trump said in his speech yesterday to the American
(09:46):
people that they had obliterated through these bombings through nuclear
sites in Iran, they had obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities. But
we've had no independent verification of that claim. We don't
know whether that's true or not. But the assumption that
you can bomb your way to eliminating Iran's nuclear capability
(10:08):
does not sit comfortably with the realities of the world
we live in.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
He also said he was trying to stop the nuclear
threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.
I mean, those are some words that we've heard before.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Yes, Iran's position has been to oppose Israel in the
context of Middle Eastern politics, and they've been I suppose,
one of the most formidable supporters of the Palestinian cause.
But the problem is that mister Nietnyahu does not recognize
that the Palestinians have a right to political self determination.
(10:41):
And while he denies that right, he's giving scope to
authoritarian regimes like Iran to exploit that omission, and they've
done that. They've provided alms to Hamas, they provided arms
to Hesbula in Lebanon, and they have provided support for
the Huti rebels in Yemen. That's not all to do
(11:02):
with the palest Union issue. But what's interesting is that
the attacks by Israel on Iran haven't been confined to
nuclear facilities, which then raises the question why they're conducting
attacks against economic infrastructure and other military capabilities. It raises
the question of whether they're engaging in an attempt at
regime change.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
What do you make of New Zealand's response so.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Far, it's been very guarded and mister Peters, the Foreign Minister,
said he was waiting for the four facts. He wouldn't
have a rush to judgment. But we have to be
quite careful because New Zealand as a country does depend heavily,
in the words of the Department of Cabinet and Prime Minister,
does depend quite heavily on a rules based international order.
(11:54):
It seems to me that this type of action, and
it's one of many that we've seen, not just the
Trump administration, but going back, you know, we've got, the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, China's outlandage claim to ninety percent
of South China Sea, the US invasion of Iraq. The
list goes on. We've had a whole series of episodes
or events in the post nine to eleven period which
(12:18):
have gradually eroded the idea of international relations being based
on rules and process and principles. And that's the sort
of world that New Zealand wants. So I think many
people are expecting a country like New Zealand, which has
championed non nuclear security, to have a position on this issue.
Speaker 7 (12:39):
The crisis in the Middle East is extremely concerning. We're
worried about the developments and the consequences are through the escalation,
including for newsielders. We acknowledge the developments of the last
twenty four hours, including President Donald Trump's announcement of US
at exil nuclear facilities in Iran. Zion continues to advocate
(13:04):
for diplomacy and a dialogue. Ongoing military action in the
Middle East is extremely worrying and it's critical further escalation
is avoided.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
What more should we be doing on the world stage here?
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Well, I think, first of all, I think mister Peter's
concern is to make sure he doesn't say anything or
do anything that will complicate removing New Zealand citizens from
the strife to l Middle East, which is a fair point.
But I do think we should be pushing for reform
of the UN Security Council. That seems to me a
strategic thing that New Zealand should do because at the moment,
(13:46):
the UN Security Council has been completely marginalized by the
fact that five countries decide matters the war and peace
in the world. Because they have the pair of veto,
they can block anything they don't like internationally, and that
means effectively that countries like the United States, Russia and
China they can Basically they've got tremendous freedom of autonomy.
(14:08):
They're not accountable. In short, who's going to hold the
Trump administration accountable for what they've just done other than
their own people within the United States and the reaction
of the rest of the world in diplomatic terms. But
I do think New Zealand should be looking at this
most recent episode and weighing it against those other trends
(14:30):
I've mentioned in the post nine to eleven world and
saying I think New Zeum decision makers should get together
with other small and middle powers which depend on a
rules based order and say we need to strengthen the
UN Security Council, We need to constrain the use of
the VETO, and we need to make the UN Security
Council capable of doing what it's supposed to do, which
(14:51):
is being a barrier to war. And also for Phillip's
responsibility of maintaining global peace and security. At the moment,
that institution won't do its job. It's dysfunctional. That worries
me a great deal because the rest of the world
is paying the price for the fact that the three
biggest law breakers on the planet are all permanent members
of the Security Council.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Well, that leads me on to my next question. I
was thinking, what is the point of the UN Security
Council and will there ever be any justice for what's
been happening not only in Ukraine, Gaza and now Israel
and Iran. I mean, will there be some kind of
Nuremberg trial at the end of this, like who actually
pays Well.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
It won't happen unless people push for it. And at
some point the smaller and middle powers have to begin
to assert themselves on the international stage, and that takes courage.
Many liberal democracies are loath to do anything that was
critical of the United States because they fear for that
that would result in them being penalized economically or in
(15:54):
trade terms, and so they're a bit reluctant to do that.
But you know, your question is an appropriate one. In
a region where war crimes are being committed by multiple parties,
who's going to be held accountable for it? And let's
be quite frank, let's be quite clear about this. The
majority of countries are deeply unhappy about the fact that
we're slipping into a world where the unilateral use of
(16:18):
military power is becoming normalized. Traditional principles like non interference
and domestic affairs, the principal states, sovereignty, and the invilability
of borders, these are becoming steadily eroded. I know that
mister Trump, Shi Jingping, and mister Poutin won't be too
disturbed by that, because they probably see international law and
a rules based international order as a constraint on their action.
(16:41):
But that does not apply to the rest of the world.
So until we get leadership from smaller countries and middle powers,
I can't see the situation is going to change greatly, Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And lastly, Robert, there have been a few moments in
the last few years where it does feel like we're
on the precipice of a World War three, and if
you go on social media at the moment especially, people
are acting like it is the end of the world.
Do you think people should be concerned here?
Speaker 1 (17:06):
They should be concerned, definitely, But we have the keep
a sense of aportion about this. And the thing that
worries me a great deal is there is a great
deal of concern amongst ordinary people. I don't see a
great deal of concern amongst leaders in liberal democracies. How
many liberal democracies have spoken out forcefully about the action
(17:29):
that the Trump administration has taken. Many of them are
furious in private, but are they saying much in public?
Are they articulating the views of their own population on
this issue?
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front
page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
(18:07):
tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
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
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.