On Trump's Anti-Bomb Bombing Campaign
If the US really wanted to stop nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East, it would have long ago supported the moves to declare the region a nuclear weapon free zone, and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor it.
Despite our anti-nuclear credentials, New Zealand has never supported the Middle East becoming a nuclear weapon free zone. At a press conference, I remember asking the then-PM Bill English why New Zealand didn't support the concept, and he answered that he could see what I was trying to get him to do i.e. to take sides against Israel, the region's only nuclear power. (Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is.)
Basically, the West aims to ensure that Team Israel continues to be the neighbourhood's bully, thanks to its US backing, its overwhelming superiority in conventional arms and its nuclear arsenal, which reportedly consists of 90 nuclear warheads.
So...currently, we are seeing carnage in the Middle East because Iran has had a nuclear energy programme that might possibly, conceivably one day enable it to possess one such weapon – even though on all of the available US intelligence evidence, it had not done so, and was still engaged in talks to achieve trade gains for itself from not doing so.
Moreover, if the Trump administration was ever serious about using peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it would have honoured the US side of the deal that the Obama administration signed with Iran back in 2015. At that time, Iran had agreed to limit nuclear enrichment at below weapons-grade levels, and to submit itself to regular IAEA monitoring, in return for the lifting of US/European trade sanctions.
Instead, Donald Trump ripped up that deal, and confirmed the suspicions of the hardline clerics in Tehran that expecting the Americans to act in good faith was naive, and bound to end in disaster. Trump repeated this bad faith by engaging in diplomacy that - according to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – it had engaged in as a form of deliberate 'mis-direction' and cover for bombing raids that the US had been planning for months.
Incidentally, this underlines how pathetic it is for New Zealand to be now calling for diplomacy to resolve this crisis. The whole process of diplomacy has been hopelessly degraded by America's repeated displays of bad faith.
History on repeat
To an eery degree, the US is repeating the precedents it set in Iraq, in 2003. After the 9/11 attack, US President George W. Bush became obsessed with causing regime change in Baghdad, bypassed the IAEA and waged a ruinous war - on the basis of a bogus existential threat that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Here we go again. After October 7.2023, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu became obsessed with causing regime change in Tehran, bypassed the IAEA, and is waging a ruinous war – on the basis of a bogus existential threat that Iran was about to possess a nuclear weapon of mass destruction.
In reality, regime change in Iran has been front and central of Israel's plans for a very long time, whatever Iran tried to do to avert it. That is why, prior to its onslaught against Iran, Israel first chose to unilaterally attack and weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon. In both cases – and as in Gaza – Israel has had no compunction about bombing residential centres and inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties.
Again, and as was also the case with the invasion of Iraq, delusionary beliefs have been expressed that the people of Iran will now rise up against an unpopular regime and embrace them as 'liberators.'
Nothing could be further from the truth. Given Iran's proud history, the only thing capable of uniting the Iranian people behind the widely despised clerical regime would be an attack by a foreign invader. At this point, the situation in Iran looks a lot like the conditions in 1991, immediately after the First Gulf War.
At that point in 1991, an oppressive regime in Baghdad had seen its military forces decimated by the US. Yet the West chose to leave Saddam Hussein in power for 13 more years, as a lesser threat to Western interests than a popular uprising that would be likely to put the oppressed Shia majority in power. For that reason, the West then sat by and watched while Saddam's forces slaughtered thousands of people who had risen up, in the mistaken belief that the West had wanted to see democracy triumph in Iraq.
Similarly, the US may now be hoping that yesterday's bombing raids will be the sum total of its involvement, and that a weakened regime in Tehran can now be left to cling to power as best it can, within a ruined country.
Yet if Israel does go ahead and bring about regime change, it will get bogged down – as it is already in Gaza – in administering the shattered remains of its field of 'victory.' Currently, Israel is getting away with committing genocide against the 2 million inhabitants of Gaza. But Iran is a country of 95 million people, and a genocide on that scale may be beyond even the Netanyahu government.
If instead, Israel creates in Iran another failed state -another Libya of warring factions - then this will inevitably become a fertile recruiting ground for the likes of Islamic State. Except this time, Iran and Hezbollah will not be around to do the bulk of the fighting, and to help defeat the jihadis on the West's behalf.
Israel may think regime change in Iran will solve its problems. But if it ' succeeds' in removing the clerical regime by military means, forces even more dangerous to its survival are likely to fill the vacuum. Neither the US or Israel appear to have a feasible end game in mind, for what they have started.
Footnote One: Short term, what are Iran's options for retaliation? It could adopt Islamic State tactics and bring suicide raids and terrorism back to European cities, and to US diplomatic missions abroad.
Iran's Doomsday option would be to mine the straits of Hormuz and bring international shipping trade – including global oil supplies – to a standstill. This would deal a serious blow to the world economy, and to Iran itself.
One restraint against it doing so would be China, which is not only the sole remaining market for Iran's oil, but also...China itself is not self-sufficient in oil. It has come to rely on the oil that it extorts at a cheap price from Iran. So under pressure from China, Iran might not play that final, desperate card in the straits of Hormuz.
Except...here's the thing. Iran may now have nothing left to lose. The Israeli bombing raids have targeted Iran's oil facilities. By doing so, Israel may have removed the key restraint against Iran taking destructive action to mine the sea lanes or sink its own ships to block the straits of Hormuz. After all...if Iran's ability to pump and export its oil has been destroyed, there may now be no reason to abstain from shutting down the global economy. The Saudis? They have been doing nothing for Iran in its time of need. Nothing much for Iran to lose there, either.
So...at the very least, New Zealand should be taking a serious look at its oil supply chains, and at how long our current oil reserves might last.
Footnote Two: As usual in any Middle East crisis, New Zealand's media coverage is being dominated by Israeli/US voices. To support the claim that Iran had posed an existential threat to Israel, the hoary old cliche has been repeated on RNZ that Iran does not recognise Israel's right to exist.
For the record, this is an age-old argument about legitimacy, not about a current existential threat. When there is talk about a 'right to exist' what Iran and other regional powers are refusing to endorse is the legitimacy of Israel's seizure of Palestinian land, its forced displacement of Palestinian people, and the ongoing Israeli settlement encroachment onto Palestinian land that Israel illegally occupies in violation of UN resolutions.
For exactly the same reasons – i.e. a refusal to put a stamp of legitimacy on the historical wrongs done to Palestinians - Saudi Arabia also does not recognise Israel's 'right to exist.' Yet Israel isn't bombing Riyadh. Instead, it is doing its best to normalise diplomatic relations with the Saudis.
This diplomatic engagement has been sabotaged by Israel's ongoing aggressions in Gaza, in Lebanon and now, in Iran. Lets be clear. On the evidence, the expansionist power that is actively undermining the cause of peace, stability and diplomacy across the Middle East is Israel, not Iran.
Bombardier Blues
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: Victim of the Day
Over the past week, something remarkable has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has fronted an online campaign of harassment of scholars who have shared their views about his Regulatory Standards Bill, naming each of them as a 'Victim of the Day.' Each scholar has been accused of 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome,' a description borrowed from Donald Trump's followers, who accuse his critics of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The portraits of each scholar are placed on David Seymour's Facebook page under this banner, and labelled 'Victim of the Day,' with online responses invited. The use of the term 'Victim of the Day' is, at best, careless. In the United States at present, political violence is escalating, with senators and their families being physically assaulted, even shot and killed. This has been associated with online incitements against individuals. No one in New Zealand, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister, can be unaware of these developments. In the United States, too, direct attacks by the Trump administration on universities, university scholars and their students have escalated from attacks on individual academics to attempts to take direct political control of what is taught on university campuses, by whom, and to whom, backed by the deployment of armed force including police and ICE agents. When universities such as Harvard have resisted these attempts, they have been punished by defunding their research and threats by the Trump administration to their right to admit international students. These and other attacks are happening to universities and other scientific institutions across the United States. At a time like this, it is extraordinary that a Deputy Prime Minister here should initiate an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars, using Trumpian rhetoric and tactics to harass them for exercising their academic freedom. In the United States, as in New Zealand, the independence of universities and academic freedom are designed as checks and balances on executive power, with the rule of law and the freedom of the press. All of these freedoms are being assailed in the United States at present. In New Zealand, the concept of academic freedom is specifically enshrined in legislation. Section 161 of the Education Amendment Act 1990 states: '161 Academic Freedom 1. It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.' This requires that academics are free to offer commentaries within their fields of expertise without direct intimidation and harassment by politicians. The Act goes on to state: '2. For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – a. the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.' Without this kind of freedom, new ideas and discoveries are unlikely to emerge. In academic inquiry, they must be rigorously tested against the evidence, including robust exchanges and peer review. For this to work well, the debate has to be reasoned and civil. Academic freedom is a very old doctrine, designed to protect universities from those who seek to control research and teaching to advance particular political agendas, as in the United States at present. Such ambitions are typical of totalitarian, autocratic regimes, with the USSR and South Africa under apartheid as previous examples. This can come from any political direction. In New Zealand, for instance, the Education Act 1989 was drafted in response to an attempt by the Fourth Labour Government to take control over 'what was taught, by whom and to whom' in New Zealand universities. That effort was vigorously resisted, and as a result the Education Act was passed and enshrined academic freedom in our legislation, along with a section that requires universities to 'act as critic and conscience of society.' That, I think, is exactly what the 'Victims of the Day' were doing when they were attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister. From an array of different disciplinary perspectives, they were analysing and discussing the Regulatory Standards Bill as contributions to public debate. In many ways, the campaign launched and fronted by the Deputy Prime Minister is lame, even laughable. At the same time, it is an abuse of high office. For the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to deploy Trumpian rhetoric to single out individual scholars as 'Victims of the Day' is deplorable, given the requirements of the Education Act. It is also troubling, given its direct links with the political assault on universities that is happening in the United States. Worse still, this is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities. Above all, every New Zealand citizen has the right to speak their minds about matters such as the Regulatory Standards Bill without being personally intimidated by politicians. If scholars whose academic freedom is legally protected under the Education Act can be singled out in this way, the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is at risk. In New Zealand, the Cabinet manual requires ministers to 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.' This 'Victim of the Day' campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. Ultimately, all ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. As one of David Seymour's 'Victims of the Day,' I ask that Christopher Luxon upholds the Cabinet manual, and requires the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise to those he has targeted and harmed in this despicable campaign. I am formally lodging a complaint with the Cabinet Office, and look forward to its response.
Newsroom
3 hours 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.'
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Middle East military action ‘extremely worrying', but no call yet on bombing
This story first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission The foreign affairs minister says the Government will gather facts before taking a position on the United States' airstrikes on Iran. The US attacked three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, with President Donald Trump saying the country's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' Trump said Iran 'must now make peace' or there would be further attacks. In response, Iran has accused the US of launching 'a dangerous war,' and of violating the United Nations Charter and international law. But on Sunday afternoon, shortly after the attack was launched, Foreign Affairs Ministers Winston Peters said the New Zealand government was waiting for the facts. 'Look, this has just happened. These are circumstances in which we will first of all gather the facts, and the circumstances, before we give our opinion.' Peters said the crisis was 'extremely worrying' and New Zealand would continue to call for diplomacy and dialogue. 'Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying, and it's critical further escalation is avoided. We strongly support efforts towards diplomacy and urge all parties to return to talks,' he said. 'Iran's nuclear activities have long worried New Zealand. We want Iran to comply with its international obligations. Our concern is that further military action is not going to deliver a sustainable solution to this problem. 'We're a long way from the region, but New Zealand will continue to convey these measures in favour of diplomacy and dialogue directly to Iran, Israel, and the other parties involved in possible talks.' Labour's defence spokesperson Peeni Henare backed Peters' calls for a return to talks, but said the government should acknowledge the US breached international law and be 'perhaps a bit stronger' in the first instance. Henare said Trump's statements had made it 'quite clear' what had happened. 'Countries can't call for peace and de-escalation, only to take the action that's been taken.' Waikato University law professor Alexander Gillespie said the airstrikes were 'clearly' illegal in terms of international law. 'There's nowhere in the UN charter that says you can bomb someone who won't negotiate with you. But whether you get to a point where that is actually condemned is going to be very different,' he said. 'There's the theory of international law, with the UN Charter, and then there's the reality of international politics at the moment, which means that America will not be condemned internationally by the Security Council or even through the International Court of Justice.' The Prime Minister is heading to NATO this week. New Zealand is not a member, but in recent years has been invited as a partner along with fellow Indo-Pacific Four nations Australia, Japan and South Korea. While Christopher Luxon would be 'on the margins,' Gillespie expected he would be watching closely to see what like-minded partners were saying. 'This is an act which is not self-defence, and even if you argued it was pre-emptive self-defence, it wasn't necessary because there were other options of diplomacy still open. It will create difficulties if we speak out and say that, I don't think we're in a position to do that right now, for fear of the reaction that you get from America.' Australia's government has already issued a statement on the airstrikes. 'We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security,' the statement said. 'We note the US president's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy.' Defence Force plane leaves today The Government is sending a C-130J Hercules plane to the Middle East, with Defence Force and Foreign Affairs personnel, to assist New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel. Defence minister Judith Collins said the plane was a contingency, and would not be able to aid in evacuation flights until airspace restrictions in the region eased. In the meantime, those who were able to leave via a safe route were urged to do so. Peters said the flights would get people to a safe place. 'We're not bringing them home. We're getting them to where they can make arrangements to get home.' The Government has been warning New Zealanders in the region to leave for a long time, Peters said. The number of New Zealanders registered as being in Iran or Israel had increased in recent days. The decision to send the Hercules was made even before knowledge of the airstrikes had come through. 'Our anxiety was enunciated and formulated into policy, warnings, and collections of views months ago. We've been saying it, and it's a sad circumstance here, but we said 'look this is very dangerous, get out,'' Peters said. Citing security reasons, Collins would not say where the plane and personnel would be based. Both Henare and Gillespie supported the move. 'I think if we're ready and on standby, at the very least, to make sure we can respond to our citizens and their needs, and also those of our diplomatic staff, I think that's a really smart move,' Henare said. Gillespie said sending a plane was prudent in case the situation worsened quickly, and the damage became more indiscriminate.
