Iranians in the US worry over conflict with Israel — and Iran's future
When Israel launched its first airstrikes against Iran last week, Mahsa Pashaei could think only of her parents.
The Iranian immigrants - now United States citizens - were visiting Tehran.
Amid reports of dwindling fuel supplies and road closures, Pashaei, a 33-year-old UCLA graduate student, was worried they wouldn't
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
NZ urged to push for UN reform amid Iran-Israel tensions
An academic has called for New Zealand to do more to push for UN Security Council reform after 'extremely worrying' escalations in Iran. The United States has entered the Israel-Iran conflict via Operation Midnight Hammer, which bombed several key Iranian nuclear facilities. The attack cut short President Donald Trump's
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
What US strikes on Iran mean for KiwiSaver, petrol prices
Escalation of the conflict in the Middle East poses a major threat to New Zealand's economy, commentators say — as well as households' KiwiSaver balances and petrol prices. There were earlier warnings that the conflict was having a noticeable but contained effect on oil prices, but that there could be a much more significant economic impact if the conflict broadened. Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen said the US attacks at the weekend were that scenario. "It does obviously ratchet up tensions enormously. But the question now is how the Iranian side respond and if they respond as some of their advisers have been talking about and how they've responded sometimes in the past." He said if there were attacks on US shipping or attempts to limit access through the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices could spike. ADVERTISEMENT "There's a question come Monday, as the markets open, how everyone will digest this. I don't think anyone is thinking that there's an easy ability to de-escalate, but I think it will hinge on the Iranian response. US President Donald Trump speaks from the East Room of the White House in Washington after the US military struck three Iranian nuclear and military sites. (Source: Pool via AP) "If they do ratchet up the tension further, if this starts to broaden out into shipping attacks, I think market expectations and worries about oil supply will increase substantially. "The question is, just to what degree do you price this, and how do markets look at that?" He said shares in companies in defence-based industries could increase in value. "Everyone will think the war's on and certainly so far there's nothing that would stop you thinking the same." People might also shift to defensive assets, he said, such as utilities. ADVERTISEMENT The fact that New Zealand was sending a defence force aircraft and foreign affairs personnel into the region proved how concerned the government was, he said. Shamubeel Eaqub, chief economist at KiwiSaver provider Simplicity, said there could be bumpiness ahead for households. "So far, market pricing is unexpectedly calm. Oil prices haven't increased very much, equity prices haven't changed much, even though we had already seen the beginning of that escalation before the weekend started. "But with the US involvement now, the uncertainty is even higher than before." He said the experience of the Gulf War in the 1990s showed the potential impacts. "The channels were two-fold... the first was around the price of oil and the second was really around the uncertainty in financial markets in general. "Now, compared to the Iraq wars, the world is a lot less dependent on oil than it used to be, which is also true for New Zealand, so the oil intensity of the economy is less. It doesn't mean we are immune, it just means we are less exposed." ADVERTISEMENT He said it was not yet clear how sensitive financial markets would be but the bigger issue was the fear and uncertainty that would be created. "That's what we tend to see when there is a risk-off, equity markets tend to fall … the New Zealand dollar tends to get more volatile. Quite often it weakens when people are more risk averse, which means it's generally speaking a net positive for exporters but a net negative for the rest of us because we tend to consume a lot of imported products." He said it could take 12 to 18 months for the full effects of big geopolitical events to flow through. "But the initial effect quite often tends to be very much fear-driven, financial markets-driven, commodity price-driven things." He said for most New Zealanders, the message was to "hang in there". "The oil price - you have no control over it. We are price takers, so whatever you can do in your own control to be able to manage your transport [might help]." He said when it came to financial markets, that was also generally out of an investor's hands. But if they were worried about their KiwiSaver accounts, they should remember that it was time in the market that would make the difference over the long term rather than short-term movements. ADVERTISEMENT Koura KiwiSaver founder Rupert Carlyon said the biggest risk was to inflation. "If it does turn into a broader Middle East war and potentially shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, they we are likely to see higher oil prices, which will flow through to everything and shipping delays, making it harder and more expensive to import things here in New Zealand. "The Reserve Bank will be watching this very carefully, as anything that has the potential to skew inflation to the upside will mean a halt to further interest rate cuts. "I suspect markets will open down in anticipation of the conflict, though as we have seen over the past few years, markets fear more about the prospect of conflict rather than the reality of it. We have already seen this playbook with Ukraine and Russia and Gaza and Israel. Definitely no need to worry or panic."
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Kiwi weapons inspector warns of the same mistakes, in Iran
Analysis: It was the sense of futility that Blenheim's Steve Allinson remembers. He and the other UNMOVIC weapons experts would return from their site inspections, and tune in to satellite TV to see American and British politicians insisting there were weapons of mass destruction. The fact the weapons inspectors had found no evidence of them just showed they weren't doing their job. And as they walked through the airport to fly out of Iraq for the last time on March 18, 2003, he tells me of his most stark memory, 'It was the look on the faces of all the normal people, of all the normal Iraqis there, because they knew what was coming.' The following day, the US and its allies hit Iraq with large-scale air strikes. For Allinson, it was hard to return to New Zealand. 'It's like coming back from war, you know, and everyone else is living their normal lives, like nothing's happening – because it's not happening in my backyard.' Coulda? Woulda? The questions asked of Iraq, 22 years ago, are the same questions being asked today of Iran. Could they make a weapon of mass destruction – specifically, a nuclear weapon? And would they? US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had told Congress in March that intelligence showed Iran was not building nuclear weapons, but now agrees with Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump that the rogue state could do so within weeks. Despite her equivocation, it seems clear that Iran is, at least, further progressed than Saddam Hussein was. The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran's uranium has reached about 60 percent enrichment, more than can be justified for peaceful purposes and well on its way to being concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon. Agency chief Rafael Grossi adds that Iran has enough nuclear material for several warheads – though he emphasises this shouldn't be confused with possessing an actual nuclear weapon. Equally worrying is the answer to the question of whether Iran would deploy nuclear weapons. Before yesterday's strikes, the New York Times reports that US intelligence had assessed that Iran had not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Steve Allinson uses a satellite phone while working in Iraq as a UN weapons inspector. Photo: Supplied However, Iranian leaders were likely to shift toward producing a bomb if the American military attacked the Iranian uranium enrichment site Fordow, or if Israel killed Iran's supreme leader. Yesterday, the American military attacked the Iranian uranium enrichment site Fordow. The US gave Netanyahu what he wanted: B-2s dropped more than a dozen massive 'bunker buster' bombs on the Fordow and Natanz facilities, while Tomahawk missiles struck Isfahan. Donald Trump called it 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. This is a more dangerous time than 2003. We now have three nations in active military conflict in the Middle East, two of which are nuclear-armed and one of which is close to that point – and all three have strong leaders who show little regard for multilateral rules or institutions. For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, there are itchy trigger fingers on tactical nuclear weapons. Moreover, the authority of the United Nations and other international institutions has been undermined, to the point they are almost powerless. Those who protest that the US action is a breach of the UN Charter and international law, because this was not a preemptive self-defence, are shouting into the void. This morning, Winston Peters acknowledges they may be right – but we need more facts. There are too many judgments being made by those who aren't qualified lawyers, who aren't qualified internationalists, who aren't qualified nuclear experts: 'Let's find out what the truth is here,' he says on Morning Report. 'Let's get the facts out before the New Zealand people, before we make a mistake and rush to judgment and regret it.' Steve Allinson needs to know that lessons have been learned from 2003, and the nine years of war that ensued in Iraq – so he welcomes the cautious stance being taken by Kiwi leaders. 'I think the New Zealand Government's taking the right approach, getting New Zealand citizens out, and just seeing where everything pans out. Everyone's just waiting for a response – and they probably will respond.' Today, Israel says Iranians will rise up and overthrow their fundamentalist Shiite regime. The US is demanding Iran now come back to the negotiating table. But Iran is vowing vengeance. What the past 100 or more years of history shows is that the great powers have repeatedly underestimated smaller nations. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Ukraine. The US and Russia have found themselves mired down for decades; eventually they've been forced to withdraw. How can this be? It's because even divided communities like those in Iran don't react to 'shock and awe' attacks by rising up against their leaders. No, they 'rally round the flag' against those they see as foreign oppressors. Nothing unites more than a common enemy. And it won't just be the people of Iran who unite. There is a risk that Arabs and Muslims across many Middle Eastern nations put aside their differences. The world may look back at this weekend's airstrikes as the start of many years of heightened conflict across the Middle East and beyond, and the whole world will feel that pain and grief. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is right. 'New Zealand doesn't want to see a nuclear-armed Iran destabilising its neighbours,' he says. 'We don't want to see Gaza under Israeli occupation. We don't want to see Hamas holding onto hostages. But the answer in all of those cases, and all of the conflicts within the Middle East is actually dialogue and diplomacy, not military action.'
