Jack Tame: The underappreciated components of the war in the Middle East

My wife is Iranian. The only reason she is in New Zealand, the only reason we’re together, the only reason we’re living our safe, peaceful life is her parents had the courage and good fortune to escape a terrible regime. They faced extraordinary persecution in Iran for their beliefs. They still have family back home. To say it’s been an interesting week in our household would be an understatement.  

I have been buried in the news – even more than usual. But with all of the confusion and noise that comes in the immediacy of the conflict, there are three components I want to mention this morning which I think are underappreciated.  

The first is the asymmetric component. My sense —at least from the US side of things— is that Donald Trump sees this as a conventional war with conventional armies. His jets are bombing their military institutions and defences. His military is targeting their military. His submarine is torpedoing their warship. He said this morning the war will only end when Iran unconditionally surrenders.  

Except of course, even if Iran does decide to ‘unconditionally’ surrender (which seems unlikely), that won’t be it. In terms of conventional military firepower, Israel and the US are vastly better-resourced than Iran. But what Iran or its proxies can do is attack soft targets. What it can do is resource small pockets of radicalised people to inflict outsized pain and terror in the West. There are billions of Muslims, hundreds of millions of Shia who’ll be watching the war. And while many may abhor the Iranian regime, I’m sure some will view this as a war on Islam. Sadly, I think if we’ve learnt anything this century, it’s that the conflict is very likely to inspire terrorism in the West. It might not come in the next few weeks. It might not come in the next few months. But that’s almost the point, you never quite know.  

The second is the nuclear component. If I were another country watching the events of this week, there are two ways I might look at things. I draw a direct line between Iran’s nuclear program and the war and conclude that even entertaining the idea of a bomb might get me assassinated. Or I might compare the fate of Iran or Libya or Ukraine with that of North Korea and conclude the only way to guarantee and fully protect my sovereignty in a messed-up world is to get a nuclear weapon. I think it’s very likely this war will lead to other countries pursuing the bomb.  

The third is international law. Maybe the US will try and present some evidence about Iran posing an imminent threat, but the relative futility of Iran’s response so far has proved they didn’t. It was telling that when he made his video address announcing the strikes, Trump didn’t even bother trying to make a legal case.  

And yet, the same Western countries that have been wittering on about the importance of international law and the rules-based order have explicitly supported the strikes, or in the case of New Zealand, lamely refused to be drawn on their legality. I don’t understand why people can’t appreciate it’s possible to both abhor the Iranian regime and demand the likes of the US live up to the most basic elements of international law. 

Imagine a scenario a few weeks or months from now where a Chinese fleet occupies a reef within the exclusive economic zone of a Pacific nation. What would we do? Bleat about international law? Lol. Sorry.  

I think there’s every reason to think the concept of international law is basically dead. But from New Zealand’s perspective... what else do we have? What other levers? If we cannot demand our friends and partners play by the rules, why on Earth should we expect anyone else to? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Saturday Morning with Jack Team podcast
from News Talks, that'd.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Be My wife is Iranian. So the only reason, well,
I guess, the only reason she's in New Zealand, the
only reason that we're together, the only reason that we
are living our safe, peaceful, happy lives is that her
parents had the courage and good fortune to escape a

(00:31):
terrible regime. They faced extraordinary persecution in Iran for their beliefs.
They've still got family back home, and to say that
it has been an interesting week in our household would
be an understatement. I've been buried in the news, just
buried in it, like even more than usual. But you

(00:53):
know how that's just like so much coming at you
all at once. It's like a fire hose with all
of the confusion and noise that comes in the immediacy
of everything. I have been reflecting a bit on three
little so three different things that I think have been
underappreciated over the last week and are worth pointing out.

(01:15):
So the first is the asymmetric component to the war.
I know that kind of sounds all grandiose, but my sense,
at least from the US side of things, is that
Donald Trump sees this as a conventional war with conventional armies.
His jets are bombing the Iranian military institutions and defenses,

(01:38):
His military is targeting their military. His submarine is torpedoing
their warship. And he said this morning the war will
only end when Iran unconditionally surrenders, except, of course, even
if Iran does decide to unconditionally surrender, which I don't know.
Seems unlikely to me, but who knows, Maybe they will.

(01:59):
That won't be it. That won't be the end of things.
In terms of conventional military firepower, Israel the US are
obviously vastly better resourced than Iran, right, but what Iran
or its proxies can do is attack soft targets. What
Iran can do is resource small pockets of radicalized people

(02:23):
in countries all around the world to inflict outsized pain
and terror. Think about it that there are billions of Muslims,
there are hundreds of millions of Shia who will be
watching the war this week, and while I'm sure many
absolutely detest the Iranian regime, I'm sure there will be
some who will view this as a war on Islam,

(02:46):
And sadly, I think if we have learned anything this century.
It's not if we've learned anything this century. I think
it's that the conflict is very likely to inspire terrorism
in the future. It might not come in the next
few weeks, it might not come in the next few months,
but that's almost the point, right, never quite know. The

(03:09):
second component I've been thinking about is the nuclear dimension
to all of this. So if I were another country
watching the events of this week, there are two ways
that I might look at things. I might draw a
direct line between Iran's nuclear program and the war and
conclude that even entertaining the idea of a bomb might

(03:30):
end up getting me assassinated. Or I might compare the
fate of Iran or Libya or Ukraine with that of
North Korea and conclude that the only way to absolutely
one hundred percent guarantee and fully protect my sovereignty in

(03:53):
a messed up world is to get a nuclear weapon.
I think it's very likely. I think it's extremely likely
that this war will lead to other countries pursuing the bomb.
And the third thing that I've been reflecting on a
bit is international law. And I know this all kind

(04:13):
of you know, gets a bit wishy washy, and you know,
it sounds like a kind of utopian thing, But I
really think it's worth thinking about, because, look, maybe the
US will try and present some evidence about Iran posing
an imminent threat. Maybe they will, but the relative futility
of Iran's response so far has proved they didn't pose

(04:35):
an imminent threat, certainly not to the United States. I
thought it was telling, actually that when Donald Trump made
that video address, you know how, he released a two
minute video announcing the strikes. He didn't even bother trying
to make a legal case about the US facing an
imminent threat. And yet, and yet, the same Western countries

(05:00):
that have been wittering on about the importance of international
law and the rules based order have explicitly supported the strikes, or,
in the case of New Zealand, lamely refused to be
drawn on their legality. I just don't understand why people
can't appreciate it's possible to both abhor the Iranian regime

(05:23):
and demand that the likes of the US live up
to the most basic elements of international law. You can
expect both of those things, right, You can have both
of those thoughts in your head at the same time,
and you know, just imagine a hypothetical scenario, right, But
imagine a scenario a few months from now where I

(05:43):
don't know, Imagine a Chinese fleet occupies a reef within
the exclusive economic zone of a Pacific nation. Right, a
hypothetical scenario, But just imagine that Chinese fleet pulls up
and occupies a reef within the exclusive economic zone of
another Pacific country. What would we do? What we'd bleat

(06:03):
about international law?

Speaker 1 (06:06):
Lol?

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Sorry, I just think there's every reason to think that
the events of this week have proved once and for
all that the concept of international law is basically dead.
But from New Zealand's perspective, what else do we have?
What are the levers to exert influence on the world
if we cannot demand that our friends and partners play

(06:31):
by the rules. I'm sorry, but why on earth should
we expect anyone else to.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
For more from Saturday Morning with Jack Tame, Listen live
to news talks that'd be from nine am Saturday, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.