June 22, 2025 • 21 mins
Dr Martin Drum
Professor, Politics and International Relations
BA (Hons) ANU; PhD UWA - Notre Dame
- Iran and America
- State Budget
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 (00:06):
This is Remember When with Harvey Degan on Perth six PR.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
And time for a regular chat that we have on
Remember When with doctor Martin Drum, Professor of Politics and
International Relations at Notre Dame University. Welcome to the show
once again. Always a pleasure to have you on the show.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Martin.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Great to be joining you, Harvey, and.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
There's plenty to talk about. We're going to try to
delve into this very convoluted situation involving Iran and the
American raids on the nuclear facilities in Iran and go
back through a bit of the history of the relations
I suppose you'd say, over many, many years between Iran
(00:48):
and the USA.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
But before we do, I'd just like you to perhaps.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Have a quick look at the budget, the result of
the state budget. I guess we're fairly used to in Australia.
We might be a bit cynical when we say this,
but particularly with four year terms, the first budget after
a government is elected or re elected is well can
be a pretty tough one. There's no pork barreling, and
there won't be for another three years. But do you
(01:15):
think it was a tough budget? Was it a fair budget?
What's your overall impression of Redasafiotti's budget the new.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Treasurer, well, I guess the one tough thing and maybe
it was inevitable, but it's the removal of the electricity credits.
That's the extra money that has been tipped into your
energy bill by the government to try and help you
with that. So our households are being weaned off that now,
and it just means that there's some extra pain, I think,
(01:45):
because the reality is that electricity devices have been going
up simply substantially in a rising again, and there's some
look in terms of our other pain. The water bills
are rising. I think, emergency service levy's going up. There's
other charges that are going up as well here and there,
(02:05):
like car red Joe. But I've looked probably slightly better
for somehouseholds is a flat rate for public transport, which
is probably good on the broad sense. Harvey, you're talking
about a two and a half billion dollar surplus, which
is pretty good. Figures in that sense. State debt those
(02:27):
on the rise. It's reality and a big focus on infrastructure.
So a lot of it's around this sort of may
made in wa sort of slogan that they're using and
trying to stimulate the local economy there with a whole
range of different infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
One of the real big tests for people in WI,
of course, are those that can't afford to buy house.
They have to rent, and rents are just absolutely through
the roof. Did you see anything in the budget that
might assist people who are in that situation.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Yeah, So they've got this sort of rent to buy
program that they've rolled out, and there was an election commitment,
so they're looking to fulfill that part and that's going
to help some first home buyers certainly. There's also a
lot of work trying to try and unlock supply, including
supporting apprentices etc. And skilled shortages which have been a
(03:24):
significant obstacle on the supply side. So that won't but
the problem is that won't improve the housing supply straight away.
It's more of a pipeline issue, but it's probably going
to pay dividends down the track.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
We are one of the if not the fastest growing
state population wise, of all the states of Australia. About
three hundred thousand people have moved to Wa in the
past five years, and of course that does put a
lot of pressure, doesn't it on infrastructure?
Speaker 1 (03:58):
And supply and all those sort of issues.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Do you think the government's done enough in this budget
to decater for what will continue to be an exponential
increase in our population.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well, certainly, I think in some ways they're playing catch
up because there has been a challenge to date in
how many houses have been built. But I mean I
think there is a much stronger focus on housing this
time around than there has been probably in the past.
So you know, you're getting a range of different measures
that have been been touted to try and improve our
(04:34):
housings are blight and I think it's around the supply
side that the real works required, so hopefully they'll start
to make a difference. I still think probably more community
social housing have be needed to try and help that
waiting list. I think it's about twenty two thousand people,
so there's still a lot of work to be done.
(04:55):
In other area.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Have you yeah, a lot of opposition or some opposition,
I supposely from the opposition to the Burswood supercar track.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
What's your view on that, Well, it's not something I'll
followed really closely. I think state governments have a responsibility
to provide a range of different services and I think
i'd be focusing it on value for money for that project.
Is it going to be delivered on time and on budget?
And is that entire area, because it's in quite a
(05:29):
what's a bit of a prime real estate might describe it,
is that is it going to sufficiently lift the entire
area and make it a great place to come to?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Certainly not in our state, nowhere near our state. But
I have to pass a comment that Tasmania is going
through the mill at the moment, of course, with a
snap election being called following the Premier Rockcliffe having had
a successful no no confidence motion passed against him and
he's rather than resigned, called us election. And part of
(06:01):
the issue is the proposed stadium at a place called
Macquarie Point. And you know, I can't help but perhaps
go back to you maybe Optus and the Belltower on
that with you know, the opposition to those initially and
now they're all part of the landscape. And I suspect
that'll be the same in Tassy as well. I know
Tassy's not your bailiwick, but I know you'd also be
(06:21):
keeping a pretty good class eye on it.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Yeah, yeah, I'm quite intrigued to see how this all
pans out. This is a really unusual election. It's borne
out via no confidence motion against the premier that passed
on the floor of their Legslith Assembly. So they forced
back to the polls, you know, much earlier than they
should have been. They were in the inn the polls
last year. I had an election in twenty four. I
(06:47):
imagine there'd be a number of voters that are deeply
unhappy with how maybe the government and opposition have contrived
to get this result, because it seems that both of
them relatively happy to go back to the polls. I
just wonder if they might be punished by a round
of people voting for other parties.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
I think that's what's going to happen over there for
absolute sure and certain. All right, mate, well what we
might do if you don't mind a clear a commitment
And then I do want to have a look in
detail at the Iran situation.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
On Perth six PR. This is remember when with Harvey
d Gan.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
And doctor Martin drum has joined us Dtor Drumm from
Notre Dame University. Well, I shouldn't imagine there's a country
in the world that's not looking with some concern, some
great concern over the situation in the in the Middle East,
and of course the latest is that Donald Trump has
again struck targets in Iran and well virtually has said
(07:48):
that he's neutralized their nuclear capability.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Can we believe that, well, it's unclear, certainly unclear at
this stage. I mean, it's only happened this morning about
the complete fall out of this, so certainly the Defense
Secretary has claimed that the US has destroyed those facilities.
By a contrast, Iranian State TV is telling us that
(08:12):
there's that minimal damage. Of course, we know the fog
of war. Both sides will try and state their position
and convince us. I think we'll probably have to wait
a little bit longer to see just how much difference
that's made.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
You mentioned the word war quite rightly, so I think
there has been no declaration of war as such. What's
the situation there? If we don't want this to happen,
we desperately don't want this to happen. But if the
situation escalates and it becomes war, my understanding, and I
don't understand how politics works in the United States, to
(08:47):
be perfectly honest, is that a president cannot declare war
that has to be done with the approval of Congress.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Well, the planet presidents can and do order strikes and
individual individual activities, and they'll always claim that there's a
reason for those. And certainly this was the Trump approach,
that he's preventing the imminent, the imminent role of Iran
(09:19):
and acquiring a nuclear weapon. But certainly Congress has to
authorize the funding of war and the ongoing cost that's
likely to entail. So at some stage you'll need to
go to Congress if indeed this becomes a full blown conflict,
and of course that's certainly a risk following those strikes.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Today, another development is that the Iranian Foreign minister says
that he has a meeting with Vladimir person of Russia,
of course in the morning. So why do you think
they are conversing and how does that impact on the
rest of us.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Well, if this is part of the potential escalation that
this event has, Iran and Russia are close allies. In fact,
probably Iran is a size of Belarus, probably the closest
that Russia has and has a system in drawing production
and another means with the war in Ukraine, so Russia's
(10:23):
condemned this attack unsurprisingly, and part of the reason for
the Iranian Foreign minister is to try and secure Russian support.
But I mean, I do think Russia also is very
reluctant to get into a direct conflict with the US.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Well, they would be wise to think about that, that's
for sure. Iran history will show us that Iran won't
just sit back and cop this, that they will probably
strike back. How do you think they will affect that
because they're just not going to Well, maybe they will
lie down, and maybe they will surrender, as Trump has
(11:02):
said that it's not negotiable.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
But I've got my doubts.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
What about you, Well, I mean they are back into
a corner now, and the real danger for these strikes
is that what it provokes. And there's certainly our real
possibility that Aram's going to straight back. I mean, they've
both from the eye tooler come any down. They've threatened
retaliation if they if they were attacked, And the problem
(11:28):
with that, of course, is that the credibility of your
ragme in the eyes of its own citizens is linked
to the threats that you made and whether you're going
to follow through with it. So if you're attacked, and
don't respond. I think that that weakens for the whole ragime.
Of course, the alternative, though it might be worse. If
they respond to the US, then the US may just
(11:51):
unleash full military power and you know, a fascinate the
political leaders and destroy all forms of infrastructure they rely on,
and that would make their position really really challenging. So
they are in a really difficult bind. But it's not
inconceivable at all that they could lash it up. There's
a lot of US assets in the region. There's troops
(12:12):
all through Iraq, for instance, which are potentially vulnerable, and
as of course US ships in the Gulf just south
of Iran as well, so there's a lot of potential
assets that could be the line fire.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Of course, the America's interest in Iran that didn't happen
yesterday or the day before. This goes back, I believe,
to the fifties, and it goes back as far as
when Dwight D. Eisenhower was the President of the United
States and they had an agreement I believe with Iran.
It was called Atoms for Peace, in which developing countries
(12:49):
received nuclear education and technology from the United States. So
what happened was Apparently the US later provided Iran with
a nuclear reactor and weapons grade enriched uranium fuel. So
that's kind of where the ball started rolling, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Yeah, So, I mean things have not always been the
same between around in the US. Certainly during the rule
of the Shah, which ended in nineteen seventy nine, the
US and Iran weren't very good terms. And in fact,
the US was the major armed supplier to Iran at
that time, and they cooperated and collaborated in the whole
(13:30):
range of ways. And that whole situation turned one hundred
and eighty degrees with the Islamic Revolution in nineteen seventy
nine and the new raging coming in, and they've had
no diplomatic relations since.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yes, Well, that probably came out of left field. They
may not have anticipated that was going to happen. That's
what happens when you haven't Islamic state born of what
was essentially a kingdom. We need to take another break, Martin,
if you don't mind, then, I do want to ask
you about the various roles that subsequent presidents, including Nixon
and co. Have had to play in the Iran situation.
(14:11):
When with Harvey Degan on Perth six PR I'm chatting
to Martin Drumm from a Notre Dame university. We mentioned,
first of all White Eisenhower, President Eisenhower's involvement. Then the
Richard Nixon went to Iran in the days when it
was the Shah of Iran who was running the show,
(14:31):
and he traveled, as I believed, to ask the Shaft
for help protecting US security interest in the Middle East,
and in return he promised that Iran could buy any
non nuclear weapons it wanted. And then of course came
the Arab Israeli War of nineteen seventy three. So that
was a really volatile time in the Middle Eastern affairs,
(14:53):
as if it's not always a pretty volatile time.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Per certainly Harvey, and all the way through to nine
seventy nine, generally the US had a pretty good relationship
with Iran, and a number of presidents I think had
had fairly good dealings with the Shower of Iran until
nine and seventy nine, And of course that all changes
and it's people will be aware of the Lame Revolution,
(15:21):
but even in the very early days of the revolution,
they took US citizens or US embassy staff hostage and
Jimmy Carter had to try and release them, and it
had a lot of difficulty in doing so, which undermined
his credibility and some say led to the loss of
(15:42):
the nine eighty US presidential election.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Yeah, and Ronald Reagan, he what was his involvement in
his relationship with Iran.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Well, he kind of tacitly sided with Iraq during the
Iraq Iran War because they were stung by their experiences
of the nineteen seventy nine revolution. And it's hard to
believe that they supported and helped armed so they are
the saying of all people against against Iran. So that's
(16:15):
how much they disliked Iran. But there was a lot
of dodgy stuff going on because there were some officials
in the Reagan administration that secretly sold weapons to Iran.
It's known as the Iran Contra scandal in the mid eighties.
So that was happening at the same time there was
a general sanctions against the Irani Ragim.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Yes, and I think Oliver North was the guy, Lieutenant
Colonel Oliver North. He was up to his easy in
that one. But I understand that that the Iran contra
affair was a bid to secure the release of several Americans,
think seven I think held hostage by j Hesbalara in Lebanon.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
That's right, it was the Contra rebels in Karagua. I
think the links to Lebanon, yes, and Iran had influenced
in Lebanon, so you know, there was a lot of
murky connections at that stage. So yeah, there was, and
I think even I think there was an accidental shooting
(17:15):
down at one of the Iranian airlines in late eighties
as well, so it was a very turbulent time.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Yeah, that was nineteen eighty eight I think, and was
then the US Navy who managed to shoot down an
Iranian passenger yet was nearly three hundred people on board
are all killed. Of course, then of course came the
Persian Gulf for more problems.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
That's right. So there was another flashpoint again for their
relations as well. And then if you're going through to
Clinton's you know he reached out briefly when Katami was
president of Iran and Tomi was a little bit more
friendly to the West, but the Ila Coman he didn't
(17:59):
really want to see in the way of thoring of relationships.
He put the kybosh on that and then George Bush
famously styled around Iraq and North Korea as constituting in
access of evil in two thousand and two, Harvey So,
and that was some indication of just how bad the
relationship had deteriorated to.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Wasn't Bush trying to do a sort of a backdoor
deal to help well, it didn't happen, but to to
help engineer what he hoped would be the defeat of
the Taliban.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Well, he did. He did try. This is later on.
He did try to enlist around support in that respect.
I mean, they were bordering Afghanistan and some of the
Azaris that were were not well treated by the Taliban
had found refuge in Iran, and I think they were
hopeful that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
(18:58):
But there's I don't think that there was a lot
of co op cooperation. Not a lot came of that
entreaty either.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
And in his first term as as president, Donald Trump
was up to his ears in the Iranian situation.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
What were some of the key decisions that he made
during that first term.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
Well, I mean the most significant one was during the
the Obarmer administration, they managed to have a joint brand
they had I think it's called the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action, and they had a deal to limit Iranian
nuclear and the Uranian in richment, and effectively Iran was
(19:44):
granted relief from from part of the international and economic sanctions.
And they had inspectors coming in regularly to certify this.
And that was probably a bit again, a bit of
a thawing in that relationship temporarily, and but things quickly
deteriorated again. They had in twenty twenty. You're probably familiar
(20:08):
with Salamani, who is the leader of the Kods force.
He was one of the leading sort of proponents of
Hamas and Hesbalaa and some of those other offshoots of Iran,
and he got assassinated by the US. So again that
probably put the kybosh on at the start of Trump's administrations,
(20:31):
their attempts to any attempts they might have had to
fall things out.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Well, it is a very very tricky situation. That is
understating the case big time. But we'll just wait and
see what happens. We hope for a peaceful outcome. We
will see, I suppose. But look, Martin, thanks for analyzing
all that for us. Tonight has put it really in perspective,
we just want to be just as distant as we
can be from this conflict, which we hope will be
(20:57):
resolved to the satisfaction of all parts. He's made Thanks
for your time, really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Pleasure Harvey.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
That's doctor Martin drum And.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Martin, of course is from the Notre Dame University and
he's a professor of politics and international relations.
This is Remember When with Harvey Degan on Perth six PR.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
And time for a regular chat that we have on
Remember When with doctor Martin Drum, Professor of Politics and
International Relations at Notre Dame University. Welcome to the show
once again. Always a pleasure to have you on the show.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Martin.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Great to be joining you, Harvey, and.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
There's plenty to talk about. We're going to try to
delve into this very convoluted situation involving Iran and the
American raids on the nuclear facilities in Iran and go
back through a bit of the history of the relations
I suppose you'd say, over many, many years between Iran
(00:48):
and the USA.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
But before we do, I'd just like you to perhaps.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Have a quick look at the budget, the result of
the state budget. I guess we're fairly used to in Australia.
We might be a bit cynical when we say this,
but particularly with four year terms, the first budget after
a government is elected or re elected is well can
be a pretty tough one. There's no pork barreling, and
there won't be for another three years. But do you
(01:15):
think it was a tough budget? Was it a fair budget?
What's your overall impression of Redasafiotti's budget the new.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Treasurer, well, I guess the one tough thing and maybe
it was inevitable, but it's the removal of the electricity credits.
That's the extra money that has been tipped into your
energy bill by the government to try and help you
with that. So our households are being weaned off that now,
and it just means that there's some extra pain, I think,
(01:45):
because the reality is that electricity devices have been going
up simply substantially in a rising again, and there's some
look in terms of our other pain. The water bills
are rising. I think, emergency service levy's going up. There's
other charges that are going up as well here and there,
(02:05):
like car red Joe. But I've looked probably slightly better
for somehouseholds is a flat rate for public transport, which
is probably good on the broad sense. Harvey, you're talking
about a two and a half billion dollar surplus, which
is pretty good. Figures in that sense. State debt those
(02:27):
on the rise. It's reality and a big focus on infrastructure.
So a lot of it's around this sort of may
made in wa sort of slogan that they're using and
trying to stimulate the local economy there with a whole
range of different infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
One of the real big tests for people in WI,
of course, are those that can't afford to buy house.
They have to rent, and rents are just absolutely through
the roof. Did you see anything in the budget that
might assist people who are in that situation.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Yeah, So they've got this sort of rent to buy
program that they've rolled out, and there was an election commitment,
so they're looking to fulfill that part and that's going
to help some first home buyers certainly. There's also a
lot of work trying to try and unlock supply, including
supporting apprentices etc. And skilled shortages which have been a
(03:24):
significant obstacle on the supply side. So that won't but
the problem is that won't improve the housing supply straight away.
It's more of a pipeline issue, but it's probably going
to pay dividends down the track.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
We are one of the if not the fastest growing
state population wise, of all the states of Australia. About
three hundred thousand people have moved to Wa in the
past five years, and of course that does put a
lot of pressure, doesn't it on infrastructure?
Speaker 1 (03:58):
And supply and all those sort of issues.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Do you think the government's done enough in this budget
to decater for what will continue to be an exponential
increase in our population.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well, certainly, I think in some ways they're playing catch
up because there has been a challenge to date in
how many houses have been built. But I mean I
think there is a much stronger focus on housing this
time around than there has been probably in the past.
So you know, you're getting a range of different measures
that have been been touted to try and improve our
(04:34):
housings are blight and I think it's around the supply
side that the real works required, so hopefully they'll start
to make a difference. I still think probably more community
social housing have be needed to try and help that
waiting list. I think it's about twenty two thousand people,
so there's still a lot of work to be done.
(04:55):
In other area.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Have you yeah, a lot of opposition or some opposition,
I supposely from the opposition to the Burswood supercar track.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
What's your view on that, Well, it's not something I'll
followed really closely. I think state governments have a responsibility
to provide a range of different services and I think
i'd be focusing it on value for money for that project.
Is it going to be delivered on time and on budget?
And is that entire area, because it's in quite a
(05:29):
what's a bit of a prime real estate might describe it,
is that is it going to sufficiently lift the entire
area and make it a great place to come to?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Certainly not in our state, nowhere near our state. But
I have to pass a comment that Tasmania is going
through the mill at the moment, of course, with a
snap election being called following the Premier Rockcliffe having had
a successful no no confidence motion passed against him and
he's rather than resigned, called us election. And part of
(06:01):
the issue is the proposed stadium at a place called
Macquarie Point. And you know, I can't help but perhaps
go back to you maybe Optus and the Belltower on
that with you know, the opposition to those initially and
now they're all part of the landscape. And I suspect
that'll be the same in Tassy as well. I know
Tassy's not your bailiwick, but I know you'd also be
(06:21):
keeping a pretty good class eye on it.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Yeah, yeah, I'm quite intrigued to see how this all
pans out. This is a really unusual election. It's borne
out via no confidence motion against the premier that passed
on the floor of their Legslith Assembly. So they forced
back to the polls, you know, much earlier than they
should have been. They were in the inn the polls
last year. I had an election in twenty four. I
(06:47):
imagine there'd be a number of voters that are deeply
unhappy with how maybe the government and opposition have contrived
to get this result, because it seems that both of
them relatively happy to go back to the polls. I
just wonder if they might be punished by a round
of people voting for other parties.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
I think that's what's going to happen over there for
absolute sure and certain. All right, mate, well what we
might do if you don't mind a clear a commitment
And then I do want to have a look in
detail at the Iran situation.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
On Perth six PR. This is remember when with Harvey
d Gan.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
And doctor Martin drum has joined us Dtor Drumm from
Notre Dame University. Well, I shouldn't imagine there's a country
in the world that's not looking with some concern, some
great concern over the situation in the in the Middle East,
and of course the latest is that Donald Trump has
again struck targets in Iran and well virtually has said
(07:48):
that he's neutralized their nuclear capability.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Can we believe that, well, it's unclear, certainly unclear at
this stage. I mean, it's only happened this morning about
the complete fall out of this, so certainly the Defense
Secretary has claimed that the US has destroyed those facilities.
By a contrast, Iranian State TV is telling us that
(08:12):
there's that minimal damage. Of course, we know the fog
of war. Both sides will try and state their position
and convince us. I think we'll probably have to wait
a little bit longer to see just how much difference
that's made.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
You mentioned the word war quite rightly, so I think
there has been no declaration of war as such. What's
the situation there? If we don't want this to happen,
we desperately don't want this to happen. But if the
situation escalates and it becomes war, my understanding, and I
don't understand how politics works in the United States, to
(08:47):
be perfectly honest, is that a president cannot declare war
that has to be done with the approval of Congress.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Well, the planet presidents can and do order strikes and
individual individual activities, and they'll always claim that there's a
reason for those. And certainly this was the Trump approach,
that he's preventing the imminent, the imminent role of Iran
(09:19):
and acquiring a nuclear weapon. But certainly Congress has to
authorize the funding of war and the ongoing cost that's
likely to entail. So at some stage you'll need to
go to Congress if indeed this becomes a full blown conflict,
and of course that's certainly a risk following those strikes.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Today, another development is that the Iranian Foreign minister says
that he has a meeting with Vladimir person of Russia,
of course in the morning. So why do you think
they are conversing and how does that impact on the
rest of us.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Well, if this is part of the potential escalation that
this event has, Iran and Russia are close allies. In fact,
probably Iran is a size of Belarus, probably the closest
that Russia has and has a system in drawing production
and another means with the war in Ukraine, so Russia's
(10:23):
condemned this attack unsurprisingly, and part of the reason for
the Iranian Foreign minister is to try and secure Russian support.
But I mean, I do think Russia also is very
reluctant to get into a direct conflict with the US.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Well, they would be wise to think about that, that's
for sure. Iran history will show us that Iran won't
just sit back and cop this, that they will probably
strike back. How do you think they will affect that
because they're just not going to Well, maybe they will
lie down, and maybe they will surrender, as Trump has
(11:02):
said that it's not negotiable.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
But I've got my doubts.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
What about you, Well, I mean they are back into
a corner now, and the real danger for these strikes
is that what it provokes. And there's certainly our real
possibility that Aram's going to straight back. I mean, they've
both from the eye tooler come any down. They've threatened
retaliation if they if they were attacked, And the problem
(11:28):
with that, of course, is that the credibility of your
ragme in the eyes of its own citizens is linked
to the threats that you made and whether you're going
to follow through with it. So if you're attacked, and
don't respond. I think that that weakens for the whole ragime.
Of course, the alternative, though it might be worse. If
they respond to the US, then the US may just
(11:51):
unleash full military power and you know, a fascinate the
political leaders and destroy all forms of infrastructure they rely on,
and that would make their position really really challenging. So
they are in a really difficult bind. But it's not
inconceivable at all that they could lash it up. There's
a lot of US assets in the region. There's troops
(12:12):
all through Iraq, for instance, which are potentially vulnerable, and
as of course US ships in the Gulf just south
of Iran as well, so there's a lot of potential
assets that could be the line fire.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Of course, the America's interest in Iran that didn't happen
yesterday or the day before. This goes back, I believe,
to the fifties, and it goes back as far as
when Dwight D. Eisenhower was the President of the United
States and they had an agreement I believe with Iran.
It was called Atoms for Peace, in which developing countries
(12:49):
received nuclear education and technology from the United States. So
what happened was Apparently the US later provided Iran with
a nuclear reactor and weapons grade enriched uranium fuel. So
that's kind of where the ball started rolling, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Yeah, So, I mean things have not always been the
same between around in the US. Certainly during the rule
of the Shah, which ended in nineteen seventy nine, the
US and Iran weren't very good terms. And in fact,
the US was the major armed supplier to Iran at
that time, and they cooperated and collaborated in the whole
(13:30):
range of ways. And that whole situation turned one hundred
and eighty degrees with the Islamic Revolution in nineteen seventy
nine and the new raging coming in, and they've had
no diplomatic relations since.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yes, Well, that probably came out of left field. They
may not have anticipated that was going to happen. That's
what happens when you haven't Islamic state born of what
was essentially a kingdom. We need to take another break, Martin,
if you don't mind, then, I do want to ask
you about the various roles that subsequent presidents, including Nixon
and co. Have had to play in the Iran situation.
(14:11):
When with Harvey Degan on Perth six PR I'm chatting
to Martin Drumm from a Notre Dame university. We mentioned,
first of all White Eisenhower, President Eisenhower's involvement. Then the
Richard Nixon went to Iran in the days when it
was the Shah of Iran who was running the show,
(14:31):
and he traveled, as I believed, to ask the Shaft
for help protecting US security interest in the Middle East,
and in return he promised that Iran could buy any
non nuclear weapons it wanted. And then of course came
the Arab Israeli War of nineteen seventy three. So that
was a really volatile time in the Middle Eastern affairs,
(14:53):
as if it's not always a pretty volatile time.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Per certainly Harvey, and all the way through to nine
seventy nine, generally the US had a pretty good relationship
with Iran, and a number of presidents I think had
had fairly good dealings with the Shower of Iran until
nine and seventy nine, And of course that all changes
and it's people will be aware of the Lame Revolution,
(15:21):
but even in the very early days of the revolution,
they took US citizens or US embassy staff hostage and
Jimmy Carter had to try and release them, and it
had a lot of difficulty in doing so, which undermined
his credibility and some say led to the loss of
(15:42):
the nine eighty US presidential election.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Yeah, and Ronald Reagan, he what was his involvement in
his relationship with Iran.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Well, he kind of tacitly sided with Iraq during the
Iraq Iran War because they were stung by their experiences
of the nineteen seventy nine revolution. And it's hard to
believe that they supported and helped armed so they are
the saying of all people against against Iran. So that's
(16:15):
how much they disliked Iran. But there was a lot
of dodgy stuff going on because there were some officials
in the Reagan administration that secretly sold weapons to Iran.
It's known as the Iran Contra scandal in the mid eighties.
So that was happening at the same time there was
a general sanctions against the Irani Ragim.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Yes, and I think Oliver North was the guy, Lieutenant
Colonel Oliver North. He was up to his easy in
that one. But I understand that that the Iran contra
affair was a bid to secure the release of several Americans,
think seven I think held hostage by j Hesbalara in Lebanon.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
That's right, it was the Contra rebels in Karagua. I
think the links to Lebanon, yes, and Iran had influenced
in Lebanon, so you know, there was a lot of
murky connections at that stage. So yeah, there was, and
I think even I think there was an accidental shooting
(17:15):
down at one of the Iranian airlines in late eighties
as well, so it was a very turbulent time.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Yeah, that was nineteen eighty eight I think, and was
then the US Navy who managed to shoot down an
Iranian passenger yet was nearly three hundred people on board
are all killed. Of course, then of course came the
Persian Gulf for more problems.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
That's right. So there was another flashpoint again for their
relations as well. And then if you're going through to
Clinton's you know he reached out briefly when Katami was
president of Iran and Tomi was a little bit more
friendly to the West, but the Ila Coman he didn't
(17:59):
really want to see in the way of thoring of relationships.
He put the kybosh on that and then George Bush
famously styled around Iraq and North Korea as constituting in
access of evil in two thousand and two, Harvey So,
and that was some indication of just how bad the
relationship had deteriorated to.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Wasn't Bush trying to do a sort of a backdoor
deal to help well, it didn't happen, but to to
help engineer what he hoped would be the defeat of
the Taliban.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Well, he did. He did try. This is later on.
He did try to enlist around support in that respect.
I mean, they were bordering Afghanistan and some of the
Azaris that were were not well treated by the Taliban
had found refuge in Iran, and I think they were
hopeful that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
(18:58):
But there's I don't think that there was a lot
of co op cooperation. Not a lot came of that
entreaty either.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
And in his first term as as president, Donald Trump
was up to his ears in the Iranian situation.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
What were some of the key decisions that he made
during that first term.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
Well, I mean the most significant one was during the
the Obarmer administration, they managed to have a joint brand
they had I think it's called the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action, and they had a deal to limit Iranian
nuclear and the Uranian in richment, and effectively Iran was
(19:44):
granted relief from from part of the international and economic sanctions.
And they had inspectors coming in regularly to certify this.
And that was probably a bit again, a bit of
a thawing in that relationship temporarily, and but things quickly
deteriorated again. They had in twenty twenty. You're probably familiar
(20:08):
with Salamani, who is the leader of the Kods force.
He was one of the leading sort of proponents of
Hamas and Hesbalaa and some of those other offshoots of Iran,
and he got assassinated by the US. So again that
probably put the kybosh on at the start of Trump's administrations,
(20:31):
their attempts to any attempts they might have had to
fall things out.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Well, it is a very very tricky situation. That is
understating the case big time. But we'll just wait and
see what happens. We hope for a peaceful outcome. We
will see, I suppose. But look, Martin, thanks for analyzing
all that for us. Tonight has put it really in perspective,
we just want to be just as distant as we
can be from this conflict, which we hope will be
(20:57):
resolved to the satisfaction of all parts. He's made Thanks
for your time, really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Pleasure Harvey.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
That's doctor Martin drum And.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Martin, of course is from the Notre Dame University and
he's a professor of politics and international relations.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.