Donald Trump’s calculated gamble in bombing Iran’s key nuclear facilities sparked a series of extraordinary outbursts this week from the US administration amid conflicting assessments of the damage that the US strikes did to the regime’s nuclear program. Trump meanwhile was feted in a downright theatrical fashion in the Hague as NATO leaders gathered to agree on defence spending increases.
David Wroe and ASPI executive director Justin Bassi discuss these developments with a view to how policymakers including allied leaders might approach dealing with Trump. When might the best course of action be to roll with his personality and identify opportunities amid the bombast, and when do people with influence, including his own administration, need to steer him away from his personal and political grievances towards good policymaking?
With a weakened but not defeated Iran considering its next steps, and with questions about the extent to which its nuclear program has been set back, telling Trump straight up that there’s still work to do might avert a future catastrophe.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Stop the world. The problem is that Trump is so
obsessed with public opinion that it it is now becoming very
difficult for anyone else in theadministration to actually do
the necessary work, because in order to do it, they will be
effectively contradicting Trump's position in terms of
(00:22):
public opinion. Welcome to Stop the World, the
ASP podcast. I'm David Rowe.
And I'm Olivia Nelson. Talk about a huge week in
international affairs, Liv. We've had the US bombing of
Iran's key nuclear facilities and an ensuing ferocious debate
about just how much damage was done.
And we saw the NATO meeting at which everybody more or less got
along and agreed on a defence spending target of 5% of GDP,
(00:44):
with Spain as the sole holdout. And we're covering both of these
issues on STOP THE WORLD this week.
In today's episode, ASP's executive director Justin Vassey
puts you in the hot seat. Dave, you talk about Iran and
specifically what to make of theconflicting assessments of the
damage that the US strikes did to the Iranian regime's nuclear
programme and how the Trump administration has responded to
(01:04):
those assessments. Yeah, it's something that Justin
and I have been discussing during the week and we thought
now as a chance to share our differing but not necessarily
conflicting views on how the rest of the world might handle
Trump. The key question that we've hit
upon is the extent to which we should accept Trump style and
try to work around it to get acceptable outcomes and when we
need to challenge his positions and try to influence the US
(01:26):
towards a different position. These are big questions, and to
work through them, you and Justin talk about the Trump
administration's response to questions about the state of
Iran's nuclear ambitions, the path forward with Iran, the
legality of the strikes, and NATO head Mark Rutcher's
handling of Trump at the alliance's leaders summit in The
Hague. And Stop the World continues
with another episode that will drop tomorrow morning on the
(01:47):
NATO meeting with defence and strategic expert Raquel Garbers
of Canada's Centre for International Governance
Innovation. Look out for it tomorrow.
For now, over to me and Justin. Dave, it's great to be with you
as always. I thought we'd reverse roles for
a second, given how closely you've been following the
Israel, Iran, US issues over thepast few days.
(02:10):
And now that we are about 5 dayson from those US strikes on the
Iranian nuclear facilities, where do you see things
currently stand now and where doyou think they're going to go?
Yeah, thanks, Justin. Look, I I'm much more
comfortable asking questions than I am answering them, as
you'll probably find. I'll try not to go down too many
rabbit holes here, but I have been thinking about this a lot
(02:32):
during the week. I've been talking to a lot of
people. I've been doing some interviews
of my own. I am fine.
I am in a state of extreme frustration right now because I
think Trump made a good decisionin taking military action and
bombing Fordo and the other military sites.
When I woke up on Sunday morningand saw that he had taken this
(02:57):
step, I was very pleasantly surprised it it was a big risk.
Nobody knew how Iran was going to retaliate.
Everybody knew that Trump did not want to get drawn into a
deeper entanglement in the Middle East again.
Of course he's campaigned against it.
His right flank, the MAGA, what I consider to be the MAGA
(03:21):
extremists, the Tucker Carlsons,the Marjorie Taylor Greens,
etcetera, were urging him not todo this and he was clearly
demonstrating that he was ready to stare them down.
I thought that was to his credit.
And so I look, I was really pleased that he had had chosen
to to take that risk and see it through.
(03:45):
I was immediately worried that he would not follow through with
the necessary discipline and patience that was required.
This was a good step, but it wasnot the only step that was
needed. I thought straight away, he's
going to need to do to lead somevery patient diplomacy here.
(04:07):
He's going to need to work on anagreement with the Iranians
because whatever the damage is to those nuclear facilities, all
of the experts are saying that it will not end Iran's nuclear
programme by itself. They still have, at the very
(04:28):
minimum, considerable human expertise on nuclear techno, on
nuclear weapons technology. They very likely have some
enriched uranium material that they have been able to remove
from those sites. People are talking about 400
kilos, I think, enough to make 8or 9 bombs is, is what I, I'm
(04:52):
consistently reading. And so one way or another,
there's a lot of follow up to bedone here.
Plus, you know, they've got to force Iran to discontinue all of
the other malign activities thatit's been undertaking in the
region, including through its terrorist proxies and so forth.
And it's standing policy of wiping Israel off the map.
(05:14):
You know, I mean, just to just to pick two obvious examples.
So does he have the patience to follow through?
Very quickly it became a what I regard as just a bewilderingly
absurd argument over whether he has indeed or whether the
operation quote unquote obliterated Fordo, which is the
key facility or has merely damaged it.
(05:37):
Then the the DIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency report came
out, first CNN and then the New York Times.
And that initial assessment, which we now know is, is low
confidence and you know, look, you take it for what it is.
It was nonetheless a a significant leak which showed
that we well, which reported that the damage was was not
(06:01):
complete and that it would set back the programme by a matter
of six months. I think rather than the, the
many years that that most peoplehad been expecting at that
point. Look, that's now being
challenged. We don't know what exactly the
damage is. And I look, I think that the,
the most sensible position rightnow is that we just don't know
both, you know, but what certainly we publicly, we don't
(06:24):
know presumably at a, at a classified level, there is some
greater insight. But I think the look, the what
what it boils down to is that whether it is obliterated or
whether it is severely damaged, it is not the end of Iran's
nuclear programme and the but the situation that that we are
(06:47):
in. Because of the nature of Trump's
management of political communication and the nature of
political debate in the United States right now, it has become
intolerable to Trump and to his administration for anyone to
question whether this has in fact obliterated and fully
(07:12):
terminated Iran's nuclear ambitions.
So, so, so Dave, clearly you areconcerned about Trump's follow
up to the strikes that you strongly support and I get that.
But are you asking too much, I suppose is a question that I
have. Trump is not an establishment
(07:36):
president or an establishment politician and he's just never
going to be that. So a question I would have is,
are we not the ones the commentariat, the analysts, the
media? Are we not the ones who are
being distracted by the magician's trick?
(07:56):
Are we not being distracted by the bombasticity and the
entertainment value of Trump's statements?
And that instead of that, we arethe ones concentrating on him
saying that, that there's total obliteration when we should
actually be saying, well, clearly the nuclear facilities
(08:17):
are degraded. Clearly they are actually
currently unusable today. And that is the most important
thing for the globe. And now the key is that if Iran
doesn't seek to repair those nuclear facilities, it doesn't
really matter whether they've been set back by 6 months, six
(08:38):
years or 16 years. And only if Iran seeks to repair
those facilities would we have another problem requiring more
enforcement and a second strike.Yes, you're right.
I don't think public opinion is actually a critical thing here.
And in fact I think the problem is that Trump is so obsessed
(08:58):
with public opinion that it it is now becoming very difficult
for anyone else in the administration to actually do
the necessary work. Because in order to do it, they
will be effectively contradicting Trump's position
in terms of public opinion. If if Trump is saying this
operation which I LED, which because of my self aggrandizing
(09:20):
heroism I managed to carry out because it was so perfectly
successful and because anyone who questions that is clearly my
political enemy and is trying toundermine me personally, because
that is the case, essentially nomore work needs to be done.
I mean, he is he is actually publicly arguing them into a
(09:43):
position where they are tying their own hands behind their
back. Because it is, it is difficult
now for anyone in the administration to actually do
the work that is necessary, which is to go to Iran, to talk
to Iran and say, OK, how are we going to figure out a way
forward for you that does not involve a nuclear weapons
programme, that does not involvethreatening, intimidating and
(10:05):
elsewise generally being a rat bag around the Middle East?
How are we going to find a way forward for you as a nation that
is peaceful, where we can try tobuild some trust between our two
countries and come to an agreement in order to do that?
They are implicitly accepting that Iran still has viable
(10:25):
nuclear ambitions and that is now contrary to Trump's public
message and therefore is becoming an unacceptable
position. So I think they are actually
destroying their own diplomatic leverage by by being forced by
Trump into accepting this this narrative, which is completely
unsustainable. So, so that that is only if the
American Defence Department and military is being forced into
(10:49):
it, that the question, I suppose, is there's a necessary
balance here, noting the style of President Trump that isn't
going to change. And is that balance necessarily
requiring President Trump to manage his own American people?
(11:11):
And well before Trump, the American people are themselves
more traditionally isolationist than their presidents.
We go back all the way to the world wars.
It wasn't the politicians didn'twant to enter the world wars.
It was the public. You know, Franklin D Roosevelt
delayed America's entry into World War 2 because he didn't
feel that the public would allowhim to do so.
(11:32):
And it was only when the public gave him that sign that he that
he did, you know, after Pearl Harbour.
So is it not possible here? We're dealing with this two
track approach where Trump has to manage, as you said, the
Tucker Carlson's, the Bannons, these types of people who
clearly don't want America to beinvolved on the international
(11:54):
stage. Are we not seeing Trump manage
them, keep them on side, while still ensuring that America is
not actually isolationist and isinvolved in the global security
affairs that we so desperately need them to do for our own
national security? A few points on that.
(12:16):
I think if Trump were actually trying to stare down the MAGA
loonies on his right, he would be saying things that are quite
different to what he is saying. He would be saying I'm not going
to get drawn into another quagmire in the Middle East, but
I do need to maintain on Iran and that means signalling to
(12:37):
them that I will hit them again if they get significantly out of
line by, you know, clearly pursuing a nuclear programme or,
you know, or carrying out other malign activities in the Middle
East. I, I think he would be saying
quite different things to what he is saying.
Because all he's saying right now is that anyone who questions
the the perfect success of this one operation that we've carried
(12:58):
out is trying to undermine me and, and is a political enemy .2
is I would feel much more confident about what you're
saying about the administration's ability to to
carry out that patient, difficult, strategic and
diplomatic work if it were the first Trump had administration.
I mean, you know, we don't have Jim Mattis as Secretary of
(13:20):
defence anymore. We've got Pete Hegseth and I
think Pete, I mean, Hegseth got to acknowledge has been
impressive at times, I mean, more so than I would have
expected. But if you watched, I mean, the
first 10 minutes of his Pentagonpress conference, which happened
overnight, our time in Australia, he spent 10 minutes
berating the media, essentially sort of amplifying Trump's
(13:43):
narrative about how they fall out to get him by reporting on a
Defence Intelligence Agency assessment that said that maybe
this wasn't completely successful.
I don't know why a man who is incharge of 3 million people,
whose job it is to keep Americans safe, is spending 10
minutes doing anything other than his job berating the media
(14:05):
for two minutes. I mean, it's I.
Suppose, I suppose, Dave, Is it ideal?
No. But I would put to you that it's
Secretary Hegseth doing the equivalent of what Secretary
General Mark Reuter did in NATO,in which people have criticised
Reuter for appearing to be a sycophant to Trump.
Whereas I think you and I share the view that he very smartly
(14:30):
ensured that NATO was a success and the US ended up through
President Trump giving support for Article 5, which was not
guaranteed going into it. And I don't think would have
happened unless Secretary General Reuter had acted the way
he he did. And I suppose the the issue here
(14:52):
is, again, perhaps we need to bewilling to accept that the
verbal statements and the socialmedia statements not going to be
those to which we are accustomedor maybe what we want to see
from presidents and politicians.But the worst case scenario is
(15:12):
where we are seeing those statements that are outrageous
and the actions that follow or the inactions that follow are
just as outrageous. I think we're potentially in an
era and we're potentially just this week seeing what a Trump
management strategy could look like where we're able to say how
do we not change Trump because that's impossible, but how do we
(15:37):
allow him to be Trump? Allow him to be the lead actor,
allow him to be Mr Entertainment, but ensure that
America is still the global enforcer of the rules based
order that we need them to be. And whether it be striking the
Iranian, the Iranian nuclear facilities or going to NATO and
(15:57):
saying that that they're all in with NATO and ensuring that they
are messaging China to say that the message needs to be that we
are providing the full deterrence.
That you should not be looking at Russia and saying we can get
in on that. On the Indo Pacific.
That may very well be a sign forall countries, including
Australia, on how to best manageTrump, is it not?
(16:20):
Yeah. I mean there are I I can
completely accept there are times when it's OK to let Trump
be Trump and I, as you and I have talked about, I think
Reuters management of the NATO meeting was one pretty good
instance of that. I think he handled it well
because look, it didn't really matter if Trump went away, left
(16:42):
that meeting saying this 5% commitment is all down to me.
Aren't I wonderful? And it really was.
I mean, if, if you know, all of the American commentary from the
administration being very much to that effect that it is, it's
a, it's a historic achievement by President Trump.
There's no massive downside to that letting him claim the win.
(17:04):
And you got the incidental benefit of having his commitment
to Article 5 as well, which which was a good outcome for
Rotor. Whether whether Trump says
something different next week ornot, we'll, we'll see.
So we'll see. We'll find out how much benefit
that was. What it reminds me of a little,
and perhaps what the world should have taken more note of
that is the initial very bad interaction between President
(17:26):
Trump in his first month in January of 2017 and then
Australian Prime Minister Turnbull when their first phone
call was leaked and they had a very bad conversation about the
Turnbull Obama refugee deal. And perhaps more people should
take a note of how that conversation maybe showed the
(17:47):
balance of allowing President Trump to say this is a bad deal
and that he would never have allowed this and that he doesn't
think that it is it is perfect, but that he he would allow it to
continue. And so that was an occasion
where he was able to message to the domestic population.
He was thinking of them. He was thinking of America's
(18:08):
interests, but the internationalarrangements, the agreement the
alliance carried on, Yeah. OK, so, so no, look, fair
points. Let me just quickly finish off
my look because I because I do have a big but to what I was
saying. And then I do want to quickly
ask you a question before we finish up.
But so look, the only downside Ican see to the NATO outcome of
(18:34):
annex and and allowing Trump hisclaim of victory is that it
might actually undermine public support in the other NATO
countries for the 5% target. Now, if their own leaders are
able to say to them, we have agreed to 5% because we really
need to do it as countries, we face massive strategic risks.
That's a, that's a, you are going to bring your own public
(18:55):
along much more effectively thanif you say, OK, yeah, we did it
because Trump bullied us into doing it.
They might actually lose that social licence, that public
support. Anyway, that's a slightly more
abstract risk. And I'm not, you know, I'm
prepared to accept that, that the, the, the cost benefit ratio
falls in favour of Mark Reuter. That said, the there are
(19:16):
occasions where it is very, verydangerous to let Trump be Trump.
And I think the Iran Fordo instance is, is the best example
probably that we've ever seen ofthat.
Because if we let Trump be Trumpand say he's operating, you
know, the Operation Dark Storm, whatever the hell it was called,
if that was as 100% successful as he claims it was and nothing
(19:38):
more needs to be done, mission accomplished on Iran, then guess
what? We're going to wake up in 2-3,
five years and holy shit, Irans got a bomb and it's aiming it at
Jerusalem. That's my big worry.
Anyway, I do have an important question for you before we
finish up. Unlike many of the people who
are commenting on this, you actually do have a a law degree.
(19:58):
You do have a specialisation in international law.
You have advised the Attorney General, you have advised the
Prime Minister and the Foreign minister on questions of
international law. One of the big debates that
we've seen around the Fordo operation carried out by the
United States is was it? Legal under international law?
Personally, I don't have a clue.Personally, I think it was so
(20:19):
morally defensible that as I said to someone else during the
week, if morality doesn't align with the law, then I wonder what
the point of the law is. But anyway, give me your take.
Sure. And just so that we don't have
people Googling your operation, I think it was Operation
Midnight. Sorry, Emma.
Where did I get dark storm from?So I think it's a different one,
(20:45):
but maybe you were thinking about Desert Storm and, and
conflated. But yes, look, it's a very,
very, it's a fascinating question and it is being
discussed a lot and it should bediscussed.
No issue there. I, I think the issue I have, the
concern I have is the definitiveness with which people
(21:07):
are are writing and influential people who will be listened to.
I think anyone writing or sayingthat this is definitely illegal
under international law or definitely legal, no, no worries
at all, are going too, too far. I think in all likelihood any
legal advice that governments are getting on this will be
(21:30):
highly caveated and and whichever way they fall on they
will say however, there are a range of factors here.
And of course remembering this is America taking this action.
So it doesn't so much matter what Australia's view is on our
own place unless we were involved and that in that case
we would need legal advice as towhether our involvement was
(21:50):
there. But the idea that we have seen
influential people writing on and commenting on this is either
illegal because the UN system, the UN Security Council didn't
approve it or comparing it to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I mean, those claims just have to be dismissed.
(22:12):
And you know, at the starting point of the the UN Security
Council. Unfortunately, as much as I am a
big believer in the international rules based order
and would like to see multilateralism working, we have
Russia on the UNSC that has invaded Ukraine and we have
China that it basically breachesevery single international
(22:35):
agreement they sign onto. So it's just not practical or
feasible to think that you're going to go through the UNSC to
get an outcome. Second, there is a universally
held customary law of collectiveself defence outside of the UNSC
system. It's something that is not just
(22:57):
being relied on by the US. So people saying this is just
the US imperialist said it again.
Australia relied on collective self defence.
We've relied on it multiple times.
We relied on it in relation to our involvement in Iraq,
Operation Okra. We relied on it in our
participation against ISIL in relation to Syria from 2014.
This is the idea of collective self defence is important.
(23:21):
Also the the idea that the UN Charter says that you the only
justifiable use of force is after an armed attack, that
simply needs to be dismissed as well.
Because the practical effect of that is to say in this case we
would have to wait for Iran to get the bomb and bomb Israel to
(23:44):
then be able to act. It's it's simply not workable.
And remembering really importantly that the idea of
either what some people call preemptive measures and I often
prefer to use the phrase preventative measures is not
just one we see on the International Space stage in our
(24:06):
own Criminal Code. We've got dozens and dozens of
preventative laws. Terrorism is a classic example
that that yes, unfortunately sometimes you need to respond to
acts of terrorism. But the reason that we have
terrorism laws is to ensure thatgovernments can act before the
ACT is is carried out. The idea of only being able to
act once the act of terrorism has been undertaken is simply
(24:28):
nonsensical. So I I do think that we need to
be careful here and that the idea that Iran didn't yet have a
nuclear bomb means this action is illegal.
That has to be wholly untrue andthat there is a level of
justification to act before bad behaviour takes place.
Very well put, very well argued.You know, I'm suspicious of
(24:52):
analogies in debate, but the UN Security Council, the the P5I
mean the idea. I mean, the one I find most sort
of extraordinary is the idea that something is only legal if,
if the Security Council, including the P5 actually says
it, is it, it, it makes me the, the, the analogy I think of is
imagine in every, you know, sortof domestic, national case of,
(25:18):
of legal dispute. You got a panel made up of like,
let's say a corporate CEO of a top 100 companies, you know, a
couple of mob bosses and a couple of old money aristocrats
and allowed them to decide everything every time there was
a legal dispute. That's what it kind of feels
like to me, anyway. Yeah.
(25:38):
Well, Dave, we could talk for a long time.
Unfortunately, we're going to have to wrap, but I think
there's a lot to play out here. I'm sure even before this goes
to air, there'll be more things happening.
Look forward to having ongoing chats with you.
But thanks for joining me to have that chat about all things
Israel around the US. Let's do this again soon.
(26:01):
That's a wrap on this episode ofStuff The World.
Be sure to come back tomorrow for a special episode with
Raquel Garbus.
Stop the world. The problem is that Trump is so
obsessed with public opinion that it it is now becoming very
difficult for anyone else in theadministration to actually do
the necessary work, because in order to do it, they will be
effectively contradicting Trump's position in terms of
(00:22):
public opinion. Welcome to Stop the World, the
ASP podcast. I'm David Rowe.
And I'm Olivia Nelson. Talk about a huge week in
international affairs, Liv. We've had the US bombing of
Iran's key nuclear facilities and an ensuing ferocious debate
about just how much damage was done.
And we saw the NATO meeting at which everybody more or less got
along and agreed on a defence spending target of 5% of GDP,
(00:44):
with Spain as the sole holdout. And we're covering both of these
issues on STOP THE WORLD this week.
In today's episode, ASP's executive director Justin Vassey
puts you in the hot seat. Dave, you talk about Iran and
specifically what to make of theconflicting assessments of the
damage that the US strikes did to the Iranian regime's nuclear
programme and how the Trump administration has responded to
(01:04):
those assessments. Yeah, it's something that Justin
and I have been discussing during the week and we thought
now as a chance to share our differing but not necessarily
conflicting views on how the rest of the world might handle
Trump. The key question that we've hit
upon is the extent to which we should accept Trump style and
try to work around it to get acceptable outcomes and when we
need to challenge his positions and try to influence the US
(01:26):
towards a different position. These are big questions, and to
work through them, you and Justin talk about the Trump
administration's response to questions about the state of
Iran's nuclear ambitions, the path forward with Iran, the
legality of the strikes, and NATO head Mark Rutcher's
handling of Trump at the alliance's leaders summit in The
Hague. And Stop the World continues
with another episode that will drop tomorrow morning on the
(01:47):
NATO meeting with defence and strategic expert Raquel Garbers
of Canada's Centre for International Governance
Innovation. Look out for it tomorrow.
For now, over to me and Justin. Dave, it's great to be with you
as always. I thought we'd reverse roles for
a second, given how closely you've been following the
Israel, Iran, US issues over thepast few days.
(02:10):
And now that we are about 5 dayson from those US strikes on the
Iranian nuclear facilities, where do you see things
currently stand now and where doyou think they're going to go?
Yeah, thanks, Justin. Look, I I'm much more
comfortable asking questions than I am answering them, as
you'll probably find. I'll try not to go down too many
rabbit holes here, but I have been thinking about this a lot
(02:32):
during the week. I've been talking to a lot of
people. I've been doing some interviews
of my own. I am fine.
I am in a state of extreme frustration right now because I
think Trump made a good decisionin taking military action and
bombing Fordo and the other military sites.
When I woke up on Sunday morningand saw that he had taken this
(02:57):
step, I was very pleasantly surprised it it was a big risk.
Nobody knew how Iran was going to retaliate.
Everybody knew that Trump did not want to get drawn into a
deeper entanglement in the Middle East again.
Of course he's campaigned against it.
His right flank, the MAGA, what I consider to be the MAGA
(03:21):
extremists, the Tucker Carlsons,the Marjorie Taylor Greens,
etcetera, were urging him not todo this and he was clearly
demonstrating that he was ready to stare them down.
I thought that was to his credit.
And so I look, I was really pleased that he had had chosen
to to take that risk and see it through.
(03:45):
I was immediately worried that he would not follow through with
the necessary discipline and patience that was required.
This was a good step, but it wasnot the only step that was
needed. I thought straight away, he's
going to need to do to lead somevery patient diplomacy here.
(04:07):
He's going to need to work on anagreement with the Iranians
because whatever the damage is to those nuclear facilities, all
of the experts are saying that it will not end Iran's nuclear
programme by itself. They still have, at the very
(04:28):
minimum, considerable human expertise on nuclear techno, on
nuclear weapons technology. They very likely have some
enriched uranium material that they have been able to remove
from those sites. People are talking about 400
kilos, I think, enough to make 8or 9 bombs is, is what I, I'm
(04:52):
consistently reading. And so one way or another,
there's a lot of follow up to bedone here.
Plus, you know, they've got to force Iran to discontinue all of
the other malign activities thatit's been undertaking in the
region, including through its terrorist proxies and so forth.
And it's standing policy of wiping Israel off the map.
(05:14):
You know, I mean, just to just to pick two obvious examples.
So does he have the patience to follow through?
Very quickly it became a what I regard as just a bewilderingly
absurd argument over whether he has indeed or whether the
operation quote unquote obliterated Fordo, which is the
key facility or has merely damaged it.
(05:37):
Then the the DIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency report came
out, first CNN and then the New York Times.
And that initial assessment, which we now know is, is low
confidence and you know, look, you take it for what it is.
It was nonetheless a a significant leak which showed
that we well, which reported that the damage was was not
(06:01):
complete and that it would set back the programme by a matter
of six months. I think rather than the, the
many years that that most peoplehad been expecting at that
point. Look, that's now being
challenged. We don't know what exactly the
damage is. And I look, I think that the,
the most sensible position rightnow is that we just don't know
both, you know, but what certainly we publicly, we don't
(06:24):
know presumably at a, at a classified level, there is some
greater insight. But I think the look, the what
what it boils down to is that whether it is obliterated or
whether it is severely damaged, it is not the end of Iran's
nuclear programme and the but the situation that that we are
(06:47):
in. Because of the nature of Trump's
management of political communication and the nature of
political debate in the United States right now, it has become
intolerable to Trump and to his administration for anyone to
question whether this has in fact obliterated and fully
(07:12):
terminated Iran's nuclear ambitions.
So, so, so Dave, clearly you areconcerned about Trump's follow
up to the strikes that you strongly support and I get that.
But are you asking too much, I suppose is a question that I
have. Trump is not an establishment
(07:36):
president or an establishment politician and he's just never
going to be that. So a question I would have is,
are we not the ones the commentariat, the analysts, the
media? Are we not the ones who are
being distracted by the magician's trick?
(07:56):
Are we not being distracted by the bombasticity and the
entertainment value of Trump's statements?
And that instead of that, we arethe ones concentrating on him
saying that, that there's total obliteration when we should
actually be saying, well, clearly the nuclear facilities
(08:17):
are degraded. Clearly they are actually
currently unusable today. And that is the most important
thing for the globe. And now the key is that if Iran
doesn't seek to repair those nuclear facilities, it doesn't
really matter whether they've been set back by 6 months, six
(08:38):
years or 16 years. And only if Iran seeks to repair
those facilities would we have another problem requiring more
enforcement and a second strike.Yes, you're right.
I don't think public opinion is actually a critical thing here.
And in fact I think the problem is that Trump is so obsessed
(08:58):
with public opinion that it it is now becoming very difficult
for anyone else in the administration to actually do
the necessary work. Because in order to do it, they
will be effectively contradicting Trump's position
in terms of public opinion. If if Trump is saying this
operation which I LED, which because of my self aggrandizing
(09:20):
heroism I managed to carry out because it was so perfectly
successful and because anyone who questions that is clearly my
political enemy and is trying toundermine me personally, because
that is the case, essentially nomore work needs to be done.
I mean, he is he is actually publicly arguing them into a
(09:43):
position where they are tying their own hands behind their
back. Because it is, it is difficult
now for anyone in the administration to actually do
the work that is necessary, which is to go to Iran, to talk
to Iran and say, OK, how are we going to figure out a way
forward for you that does not involve a nuclear weapons
programme, that does not involvethreatening, intimidating and
(10:05):
elsewise generally being a rat bag around the Middle East?
How are we going to find a way forward for you as a nation that
is peaceful, where we can try tobuild some trust between our two
countries and come to an agreement in order to do that?
They are implicitly accepting that Iran still has viable
(10:25):
nuclear ambitions and that is now contrary to Trump's public
message and therefore is becoming an unacceptable
position. So I think they are actually
destroying their own diplomatic leverage by by being forced by
Trump into accepting this this narrative, which is completely
unsustainable. So, so that that is only if the
American Defence Department and military is being forced into
(10:49):
it, that the question, I suppose, is there's a necessary
balance here, noting the style of President Trump that isn't
going to change. And is that balance necessarily
requiring President Trump to manage his own American people?
(11:11):
And well before Trump, the American people are themselves
more traditionally isolationist than their presidents.
We go back all the way to the world wars.
It wasn't the politicians didn'twant to enter the world wars.
It was the public. You know, Franklin D Roosevelt
delayed America's entry into World War 2 because he didn't
feel that the public would allowhim to do so.
(11:32):
And it was only when the public gave him that sign that he that
he did, you know, after Pearl Harbour.
So is it not possible here? We're dealing with this two
track approach where Trump has to manage, as you said, the
Tucker Carlson's, the Bannons, these types of people who
clearly don't want America to beinvolved on the international
(11:54):
stage. Are we not seeing Trump manage
them, keep them on side, while still ensuring that America is
not actually isolationist and isinvolved in the global security
affairs that we so desperately need them to do for our own
national security? A few points on that.
(12:16):
I think if Trump were actually trying to stare down the MAGA
loonies on his right, he would be saying things that are quite
different to what he is saying. He would be saying I'm not going
to get drawn into another quagmire in the Middle East, but
I do need to maintain on Iran and that means signalling to
(12:37):
them that I will hit them again if they get significantly out of
line by, you know, clearly pursuing a nuclear programme or,
you know, or carrying out other malign activities in the Middle
East. I, I think he would be saying
quite different things to what he is saying.
Because all he's saying right now is that anyone who questions
the the perfect success of this one operation that we've carried
(12:58):
out is trying to undermine me and, and is a political enemy .2
is I would feel much more confident about what you're
saying about the administration's ability to to
carry out that patient, difficult, strategic and
diplomatic work if it were the first Trump had administration.
I mean, you know, we don't have Jim Mattis as Secretary of
(13:20):
defence anymore. We've got Pete Hegseth and I
think Pete, I mean, Hegseth got to acknowledge has been
impressive at times, I mean, more so than I would have
expected. But if you watched, I mean, the
first 10 minutes of his Pentagonpress conference, which happened
overnight, our time in Australia, he spent 10 minutes
berating the media, essentially sort of amplifying Trump's
(13:43):
narrative about how they fall out to get him by reporting on a
Defence Intelligence Agency assessment that said that maybe
this wasn't completely successful.
I don't know why a man who is incharge of 3 million people,
whose job it is to keep Americans safe, is spending 10
minutes doing anything other than his job berating the media
(14:05):
for two minutes. I mean, it's I.
Suppose, I suppose, Dave, Is it ideal?
No. But I would put to you that it's
Secretary Hegseth doing the equivalent of what Secretary
General Mark Reuter did in NATO,in which people have criticised
Reuter for appearing to be a sycophant to Trump.
Whereas I think you and I share the view that he very smartly
(14:30):
ensured that NATO was a success and the US ended up through
President Trump giving support for Article 5, which was not
guaranteed going into it. And I don't think would have
happened unless Secretary General Reuter had acted the way
he he did. And I suppose the the issue here
(14:52):
is, again, perhaps we need to bewilling to accept that the
verbal statements and the socialmedia statements not going to be
those to which we are accustomedor maybe what we want to see
from presidents and politicians.But the worst case scenario is
(15:12):
where we are seeing those statements that are outrageous
and the actions that follow or the inactions that follow are
just as outrageous. I think we're potentially in an
era and we're potentially just this week seeing what a Trump
management strategy could look like where we're able to say how
do we not change Trump because that's impossible, but how do we
(15:37):
allow him to be Trump? Allow him to be the lead actor,
allow him to be Mr Entertainment, but ensure that
America is still the global enforcer of the rules based
order that we need them to be. And whether it be striking the
Iranian, the Iranian nuclear facilities or going to NATO and
(15:57):
saying that that they're all in with NATO and ensuring that they
are messaging China to say that the message needs to be that we
are providing the full deterrence.
That you should not be looking at Russia and saying we can get
in on that. On the Indo Pacific.
That may very well be a sign forall countries, including
Australia, on how to best manageTrump, is it not?
(16:20):
Yeah. I mean there are I I can
completely accept there are times when it's OK to let Trump
be Trump and I, as you and I have talked about, I think
Reuters management of the NATO meeting was one pretty good
instance of that. I think he handled it well
because look, it didn't really matter if Trump went away, left
(16:42):
that meeting saying this 5% commitment is all down to me.
Aren't I wonderful? And it really was.
I mean, if, if you know, all of the American commentary from the
administration being very much to that effect that it is, it's
a, it's a historic achievement by President Trump.
There's no massive downside to that letting him claim the win.
(17:04):
And you got the incidental benefit of having his commitment
to Article 5 as well, which which was a good outcome for
Rotor. Whether whether Trump says
something different next week ornot, we'll, we'll see.
So we'll see. We'll find out how much benefit
that was. What it reminds me of a little,
and perhaps what the world should have taken more note of
that is the initial very bad interaction between President
(17:26):
Trump in his first month in January of 2017 and then
Australian Prime Minister Turnbull when their first phone
call was leaked and they had a very bad conversation about the
Turnbull Obama refugee deal. And perhaps more people should
take a note of how that conversation maybe showed the
(17:47):
balance of allowing President Trump to say this is a bad deal
and that he would never have allowed this and that he doesn't
think that it is it is perfect, but that he he would allow it to
continue. And so that was an occasion
where he was able to message to the domestic population.
He was thinking of them. He was thinking of America's
(18:08):
interests, but the internationalarrangements, the agreement the
alliance carried on, Yeah. OK, so, so no, look, fair
points. Let me just quickly finish off
my look because I because I do have a big but to what I was
saying. And then I do want to quickly
ask you a question before we finish up.
But so look, the only downside Ican see to the NATO outcome of
(18:34):
annex and and allowing Trump hisclaim of victory is that it
might actually undermine public support in the other NATO
countries for the 5% target. Now, if their own leaders are
able to say to them, we have agreed to 5% because we really
need to do it as countries, we face massive strategic risks.
That's a, that's a, you are going to bring your own public
(18:55):
along much more effectively thanif you say, OK, yeah, we did it
because Trump bullied us into doing it.
They might actually lose that social licence, that public
support. Anyway, that's a slightly more
abstract risk. And I'm not, you know, I'm
prepared to accept that, that the, the, the cost benefit ratio
falls in favour of Mark Reuter. That said, the there are
(19:16):
occasions where it is very, verydangerous to let Trump be Trump.
And I think the Iran Fordo instance is, is the best example
probably that we've ever seen ofthat.
Because if we let Trump be Trumpand say he's operating, you
know, the Operation Dark Storm, whatever the hell it was called,
if that was as 100% successful as he claims it was and nothing
(19:38):
more needs to be done, mission accomplished on Iran, then guess
what? We're going to wake up in 2-3,
five years and holy shit, Irans got a bomb and it's aiming it at
Jerusalem. That's my big worry.
Anyway, I do have an important question for you before we
finish up. Unlike many of the people who
are commenting on this, you actually do have a a law degree.
(19:58):
You do have a specialisation in international law.
You have advised the Attorney General, you have advised the
Prime Minister and the Foreign minister on questions of
international law. One of the big debates that
we've seen around the Fordo operation carried out by the
United States is was it? Legal under international law?
Personally, I don't have a clue.Personally, I think it was so
(20:19):
morally defensible that as I said to someone else during the
week, if morality doesn't align with the law, then I wonder what
the point of the law is. But anyway, give me your take.
Sure. And just so that we don't have
people Googling your operation, I think it was Operation
Midnight. Sorry, Emma.
Where did I get dark storm from?So I think it's a different one,
(20:45):
but maybe you were thinking about Desert Storm and, and
conflated. But yes, look, it's a very,
very, it's a fascinating question and it is being
discussed a lot and it should bediscussed.
No issue there. I, I think the issue I have, the
concern I have is the definitiveness with which people
(21:07):
are are writing and influential people who will be listened to.
I think anyone writing or sayingthat this is definitely illegal
under international law or definitely legal, no, no worries
at all, are going too, too far. I think in all likelihood any
legal advice that governments are getting on this will be
(21:30):
highly caveated and and whichever way they fall on they
will say however, there are a range of factors here.
And of course remembering this is America taking this action.
So it doesn't so much matter what Australia's view is on our
own place unless we were involved and that in that case
we would need legal advice as towhether our involvement was
(21:50):
there. But the idea that we have seen
influential people writing on and commenting on this is either
illegal because the UN system, the UN Security Council didn't
approve it or comparing it to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I mean, those claims just have to be dismissed.
(22:12):
And you know, at the starting point of the the UN Security
Council. Unfortunately, as much as I am a
big believer in the international rules based order
and would like to see multilateralism working, we have
Russia on the UNSC that has invaded Ukraine and we have
China that it basically breachesevery single international
(22:35):
agreement they sign onto. So it's just not practical or
feasible to think that you're going to go through the UNSC to
get an outcome. Second, there is a universally
held customary law of collectiveself defence outside of the UNSC
system. It's something that is not just
(22:57):
being relied on by the US. So people saying this is just
the US imperialist said it again.
Australia relied on collective self defence.
We've relied on it multiple times.
We relied on it in relation to our involvement in Iraq,
Operation Okra. We relied on it in our
participation against ISIL in relation to Syria from 2014.
This is the idea of collective self defence is important.
(23:21):
Also the the idea that the UN Charter says that you the only
justifiable use of force is after an armed attack, that
simply needs to be dismissed as well.
Because the practical effect of that is to say in this case we
would have to wait for Iran to get the bomb and bomb Israel to
(23:44):
then be able to act. It's it's simply not workable.
And remembering really importantly that the idea of
either what some people call preemptive measures and I often
prefer to use the phrase preventative measures is not
just one we see on the International Space stage in our
(24:06):
own Criminal Code. We've got dozens and dozens of
preventative laws. Terrorism is a classic example
that that yes, unfortunately sometimes you need to respond to
acts of terrorism. But the reason that we have
terrorism laws is to ensure thatgovernments can act before the
ACT is is carried out. The idea of only being able to
act once the act of terrorism has been undertaken is simply
(24:28):
nonsensical. So I I do think that we need to
be careful here and that the idea that Iran didn't yet have a
nuclear bomb means this action is illegal.
That has to be wholly untrue andthat there is a level of
justification to act before bad behaviour takes place.
Very well put, very well argued.You know, I'm suspicious of
(24:52):
analogies in debate, but the UN Security Council, the the P5I
mean the idea. I mean, the one I find most sort
of extraordinary is the idea that something is only legal if,
if the Security Council, including the P5 actually says
it, is it, it, it makes me the, the, the analogy I think of is
imagine in every, you know, sortof domestic, national case of,
(25:18):
of legal dispute. You got a panel made up of like,
let's say a corporate CEO of a top 100 companies, you know, a
couple of mob bosses and a couple of old money aristocrats
and allowed them to decide everything every time there was
a legal dispute. That's what it kind of feels
like to me, anyway. Yeah.
(25:38):
Well, Dave, we could talk for a long time.
Unfortunately, we're going to have to wrap, but I think
there's a lot to play out here. I'm sure even before this goes
to air, there'll be more things happening.
Look forward to having ongoing chats with you.
But thanks for joining me to have that chat about all things
Israel around the US. Let's do this again soon.
(26:01):
That's a wrap on this episode ofStuff The World.
Be sure to come back tomorrow for a special episode with
Raquel Garbus.
Popular Podcasts
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!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.