15 hours ago
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.'
