Written By:
- Date published:
11:44 am, March 5th, 2026 - 39 comments
Categories: democracy under attack, Economy, International, Iran, uncategorized, vision -
Tags:
Trump’s attack on Iran, in cahoots with, or in support of, his regional proxy, Israel, is illegal, but also unconscionable in moral and political terms. It is a resurgence of the post-war experience, in which the development of the rules-based international order was qualified by the arbitrary actions of “big players” in Iran, Suez, Cuba and so many other cases. Today, there are fewer constraints on the US and its proxies and the current administration makes use of a grotesque freedom to act’
Others will discuss the specifics of the attack on Iran and its consequences. Here, I am more concerned with New Zealand’s response. The obvious is that, for a long time, New Zealand has followed a successful independent foreign policy in which traditional engagements – with Britain and the US, for example – are complemented by positive engagement with emerging powers – China, for example – and the institutions promoting regional and global dialogue. NZ’s independence has garnered a laudable reputation for “speaking truth to power,” providing excellent diplomatic skills in myriad organisations, and exerting an influence beyond that usual for a small, remote state.
Successive New Zealand governments have nurtured that independence, a role that has become much more difficult as the world order unravels. In this context, the need for experienced interlocutors in international diplomacy grows rather than shrinks. New Zealand’s enviable position is important and, one might have thought, to be fostered.
Not so. The current government has chosen to bring us closer to the US, seemingly accepting that the new reality requires New Zealand to “take sides” in a fractioned world, and the side we are on is that of the US. This is clearly the predilection of the Foreign Minister, who has surrounded New Zealand’s de facto support for the US with much flummery about “new circumstances” which, somehow, appear not to be subject to international law.
Mr Luxon has been described as “fumbling and floundering” and has had to resort to the “I misspoke” ploy as he plays blind-man’s bluff with the issue of the day. It’s as if he wants to say baldly “I support Trump,” but hasn’t the courage. The dearth of experience is obvious.
ACT has simply gone full sycophant: “People can debate endlessly the rights and wrongs of international law, and I’m sure they will in universities for decades. But we should be honest about the question at the heart of it, why should international law protect a dictator who commits indiscriminate mass murder of his own citizens?”
Labour has, in contrast, come out firmly in support of international law and the rules-based system, with the Old Guard of foreign policy weighing in to great effect. The Greens are clear that unilateral actions by the US and Israel must be condemned. The expert commentary is in general opposed to US and Israeli actions.
None of these positions – Labour, Greens – has much truck with the Iranian regime; many are openly hostile to its theocratic basis. All unite round a defence of the rule of law and a rules-based system. Many also see a military intervention with no clear outcomes and multiple inherent pitfalls.
The post-war accord on foreign relations between NZ political parties, already under pressure, has fractured badly over Iran, in tune with the erosion of the rules-based system. Why?
A first answer is political incompetence. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of MFAT discussions of his issue! The lack of clarity in the NZ position, and the implication that the government is breaking with many years of independent foreign policy, must be a challenge for our diplomats.
A second is the emergence in the governing parties of a developing, yet inchoate, commitment to the US. As noted above, our government appears to be choosing the US as our “side,” just as the US is wilfully distancing itself from traditional partners in Europe. In the chaos of current US policymaking, why would NZ adopt such as stance?
One explanation might be the Australian commitment to the US, a question of some heat in Labor discussions over the Tasman. Another is the predilections of senior cabinet members in a government bereft of foreign policy depth.
A third answer is a too-great focus on trade and too-little focus on broader geo-political developments. NZ is powerful in the higher mathematics of trade, but maybe wider issues have been crowded out? Diplomats, like economists, are perhaps late to understand the way the world has changed under 50 years of neo-liberalism and wildly skewed global wealth accumulation.
When the Left decried the end of the Keynesian Accommodation and worried about what might replace it, specialists enmeshed in those changes downplayed the issue of future arrangements. They believed, it seems, that the rules-based system was so well grounded that it would deal with emerging challenges. How wrong they were! That system is in disarray, and one hears commentaries today about decades of disruption before a new order is asserted, if indeed that is possible.
A fourth answer is the growth of powerful traditions that see merit in a post-Accommodation chaos. “Realists’”, believing in the inevitable exertion of naked power, are happy to see global competition fall where it may.
Latter-day neo-liberals suggest that out of this chaos will emerge a world of competitive markets in which the freedom of the individual is preserved.
Populists (or bureaucratic authoritarians as some would have it) anticipate an end to liberal democracy and new, authoritarian regimes. ACT channels this tradition, but one wonders also about newer, fundamentalist traditions in National.
All three traditions see merit in disorder, akin to the adage about breaking eggs to make an omelette.
Other answers may be adduced. For the Labour and Green traditions, what to do becomes a pressing question. Explicit rejection of arbitrary action and a robust defence of the rules-based system and international law are fundamental. Action to support the institutions that support these international arrangements is important. A return to an independent foreign policy position is needed, couple with an explicit rejection of the argument that sides must be taken. So much is obvious.
As I have argued here before, also needed is a fundamental reorientation of NZ’s political economy to meet a generation or more of international instability, a reorientation that combines a modern version of import substitution and active policies to reduce wealth differences.
This requires progressive parties to raise their eyes from the short-term, three-year cycle and begin to think and campaign in terms of, perhaps, two generations of global uncertainty. Some will think this far-fetched. Yet who, even ten years ago, would have predicted the current global turmoil – economic, political, existential?
An interesting take on the war against Iran is from William Spaniel, who gives exellent analysis on these sorts of topics.
His view is that the attack on Iran, combined with the control of Venezaula oil supplies is about disauding China from its expansionary ambitions, with respect to Taiwan and perhaps further.
Because China is a substantial net importer of oil, the argument is that the US is trying to ensure that contries allied to the US control the oil supply. So, that if China, say attacks Taiwan, then there could be an co-ordinated denial of oil to China. In this light, the attacks by Ukraine on Russian oil infrastructure and shipping, along with European efforts to intercept oil tankers in the shadow fleet also plays into that narrative.
If that is the case, then perhaps the NZ government has a reason to be in favour of the US action. Because, if it discourages China from military argression in the South Pacific, then that is definitely in NZ's interest.
A straw in the wind to support your argument of economic isolation of China, is that virtually the whole of the Iranian oil output goes to China.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/an-overview-irans-energy-industry-infrastructure-2026-02-28/
Yeah, thanks for that. Interesting. And, if this is the rationale, then I highly doubt it came out of Trump's brain. He would just have rubber stamped it.
Trump is exactly as demented as he appears and even before this knew next to nothing about and consistently took zero interest in middle east geo-politics.
Someone (probably Netanyahu) sold Trump on the idea that this would be a simple strike (like the last one on Iran) and eventually he agreed. The people around him are pure yes men and women who are incompetent at their jobs and none of them pushed back so there is now a scramble to justify why the administration has started a new war in the middle east (why they justified doing it, and when it will achieve its goals and cease). I should also point out, justify just mean trying to deflect as much blame as possible from the unfurling disaster away from the administration.
So, do you think that the economic isolation argument is wrong? (i.e. that was not the intention)
Or that it's a 'happy' by-product of Trump doing what Trump does?
China is well used to playing the long game. This is just a blip. Taiwan will keep.
Here's some background reading on Game Theory (William Spaniels discipline) for you.
Game theory — a waste of time on a staggering scale | LARS P. SYLL
and there are plenty of other scholars (and those of game theory) who also agree.
So, you should treat what was written in a similar way to any other opinion piece on Trumps reasons for attacking Iran. I think Rachel Maddow read some recently which said Trump did it at the behest of middle east countries (Israel went unmentioned) and maybe as a payoff for his gifted plane? (She, the lib, was of course immediately owned by Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson who countered with Israel was about to attack so we joined in).
Will China be isolated from its oil supplies over this, well you will likely see China sourcing more oil from places other than Iran near term. Will that effect the Chinese military, not really. Was the Chinese military going to do anything anyway, probably not. Was Trump motivated by the calculus of isolating China from its oil suppliers in order to deter an anticipated military action, no, that's ridicules he's far too busy admiring the drapes and construction work in and around the White house.
I am sure they will. But, the point is that most of those countries have some sort of alliance with the US now. And, that has likely been strengthened given the way that Iran has taken pot shots at pretty much everyone.
The point is that the US will be much more capable of cutting off the supply if the oil producers are aligned to the US a lot more than Iran is.
Sigh. Xi has already explained to Trump the dependence of the US economy on Chinese rare earth minerals.
So what? That's not even going to present a speed bump to any Chinese military intent.
She was running a narrative that the attack on Iran was the payoff for the Gulf Arab money invested in the USA (or the Trump-Kushner family).
Other more credible accounts suggest it was advocacy from Israel (with some talk with the Crown Prince in Riyadh associated with that – he denies advocating military action, so that might have been a consultation).
I’m sceptical that this is some grand strategic move by Trump to contain China.
Iranian oil largely ends up in China because Beijing is willing to buy heavily discounted sanctioned crude, and because China has far fewer political constraints in doing so than Europe or the US.
But if the US actually wanted to threaten China’s oil supply lines, it wouldn’t need to attack Iran to do it. The chokepoints are already well known. Interdicting tankers in the Gulf of Oman or the Strait of Hormuz bound for China would be far simpler, far cheaper, and would avoid the enormous escalation risks that come with attacking Iran directly.
And if Iranian retaliation were the concern, the obvious pressure point would be further east at the Strait of Malacca. It’s closer to China, certainly, but still well beyond the effective reach of Chinese power projection and surrounded by states that may not be US allies but are hardly eager to see Beijing dominate their sea lanes.
That doesn’t mean oil and China aren’t part of the broader strategic picture, but it makes it hard to see this particular action as a carefully designed energy-denial strategy.
Much more likely is Trump seeing this as an opportunity to look strong going into the mid-terms later this year, continue his incredibly one-sided feud with Barack Obama (and the JPCOA), and enjoy a nice bit of glazing from a historically pliant and partisan congress
China also buys oil from Russia. Why bother withe a "shadow fleet" when you can pipe direct?
Russia supplies about 18% of the crude oil. It's about half pipeline and half tanker – a lot of that from the oil port south of Vladivostok – Kozmino.
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/where-china-gets-its-oil-crude-imports-in-2025-reveal-stockpiling-and-changing-fortunes-of-certain-suppliers-including-those-sanctioned/#:
Happily Minister Peters together with Labour's own Damien O'Connor and a broader delegation are on a trade mission to South America right now. …
… Which is a whole lot more useful than the Minister of Trade McLay blathering on about the trade agreements they formed with Gulf states. OMG moron.
I'd like to be principled I really would in a time like this, but we are as a country so low on cash we need to keep trading through our remaining well worn trade lanes. So Labour should indeed keep focusing on trade – it will at least keep MFAT busy on something useful.
Successive New Zealand governments had nothing to say about the Islamic Republic of Iran mass-murdering its own citizens, spending decades waging proxy wars in its region or operating an explicit policy of destroying another country, so why is it suddenly important now that the NZ govt should stand up for international law and "speak truth to power?" If it wasn't necessary to speak truth to Iranian power, what's suddenly different now?
it was necessary.
What makes it necessary now that didn't make it necessary before?
both were necessary.
I'd say standing up for international law is always important.
Particularly at this time (does that really need to be explained?)
I don't believe it is always important, for example I'm glad Vietnam didn't decide that international law prevented it from invading Cambodia and destroying Pol Pot's regime. I'm glad Israel hit the Arab air forces and armies in 1967 before they launched their attack rather than waiting until they were ready.
It's arguable that this attack on Iran will achieve nothing beyond a lot of dead bodies and we shouldn't encourage the loons who appear to be dominating the US and Israeli governments, but I also don't see any reason our government should pretend there's no inherent difference between liberal democracies and a murderous totalitarian dictatorship that wages proxy wars throughout its region as well as oppressing and killing its own people.
A whole lot of nothing – here’s a link to statements and press releases since Oct 2022.
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/middle-east/iran#bookmark2
The Iranian regime doesn't much care for international law, and it’s not alone.
This comment is pure Zionist/Israeli supremacist marketing by their useful idiots around the world.
Successive NZ governments have had something to say about the Islamic Republic by aligning with UN-mandated sanctions.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-reimposes-un-sanctions-iran
What they haven’t done is sanction Israel for their illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories. They have free reign to expand as much as their Bible intimates.
Such a shame.
I'm not a "useful idiot" for Zionists, I'll have you know. I am a Zionist.
Iran's been waging war on various countries using its proxies for decades. My apologies if I missed the NZ government taking the kind of stand against that that people are expecting them to take against the US, but I don't recall seeing one.
Yes, Zionist/Israel supremacy first. Humanity second. At least we can now see what you stand for.
Are you suggesting that Zionists or Israelis are somehow not human? To borrow a term, sub-human, even?
Because that’s how that comment reads.
It’s entirely legitimate to criticise the Israeli government, its policies in the occupied territories, or the ideology of Zionism itself. But where we should draw the line is denying the humanity of roughly seven million people simply because of what their government and armed forces are doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Characterization_as_racist
Or maybe suggesting (some) Zionists view (some) non-Zionists as sub-human?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_supremacy
Race/ethnicity-based supremacy beliefs are traps – best marginalised, imho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Arab_world
But I’m not debating whether some Zionists hold racist views. Like any political ideology or movement, there will always be people within it who do.
What I’m pushing back on is the implication that Israelis themselves are somehow less deserving of moral consideration.
Once we start implying that an entire population isn’t fully human, or justifying racism because someone else was racist first, we’re stepping onto a very dangerous road.
My comment was about your questions to Muttonbird @3.3.1.1.1:
Your questions didn't make sense to me in the context of MB's comment @3.3.1.1. Could you outline your reasoning – i.e. how is MB's comment "suggesting that Zionists or Israelis are somehow not human"?
Is it perhaps the idea that supremacist (and might-makes-right) beliefs sometimes fuel ‘sub-human’ behaviours? That would make sense to me.
Not for me.
But the presumption that Zionist Israeli nationalism was supremacist that could have been/can be challenged. Not all Zionists.
For example, MAGA nationalism is supportive of POTUS bullying other nations. Cutting off USAID when the US has one of the lowest levels of foreign aid in the first world nations etc. Without regard to fair play for other nations on the planet (not bound by the ICC etc)(UNSC veto enabled).
Some Zionists are MIGA, as if conquest of those in the way of eretz Israel border ambition (the UN for example) is their historic destiny reprise.
Nationalism first, shared humanity second, is a potential failing for any group.
I absolutely agree with that. But I don't think people necessarily mean Israeli ultranationalism when they say zionism.
Muttonbird clearly did, maybe you should display the absolutely minimal level of empathy for interlocutors in future.
False dichotomy.
I stand for Jews having the same right to self-determination that NZers or anyone else does, yes. What's not clear is what you stand for, since you seem to be virulently opposed to that.
UN two state outcome Zionist, or right unlimited by international rules based order?
"Jews being left the fuck alone to have their own state without some pack of arseholes doing their best to destroy it" Zionist.
I mean, I'm also in favour of accepting that the state of Israel exists and would support it continuing to exist. Does that make me a zionist?
Even under a 2 state solution, we don't get a right under international law to say "sorry Israel but your country is an illegal zionist/colonialist regime and a historical abberation so we're going to have to abolish you"
I agree with the essential thesis of this post: that the US attacks on Iran are a violation of international law, that they reflect the weakening of the post-WW2 rules-based order, and that progressives face a real challenge in thinking about how to either rebuild the institutions of that order or lay the foundations for a new one.
But that process doesn’t involve unilaterally abandoning our strategic relationship with the United States in favour of an impractical notion of ‘independence’ that would leave New Zealand strategically weaker and diplomatically isolated.
A more realistic approach is to hold the Trump administration to account within the context of that relationship: to be clear and consistent about international law and norms, and to work with other like-minded partners to reinforce the centre of gravity that discourages conflict.
For a small state like New Zealand, our interests are not served by sinking the ship we’re on before we’re safely aboard the new one.
At the end of the day our diplomatic options are far more constrained than many New Zealanders seem to realise. We’ve been fortunate to operate within the relatively benign strategic environment of the post-Cold War period, but that may also have left us somewhat flat-footed in adjusting to the much sharper realities of international politics since about 2016.
"A more realistic approach is to hold the Trump administration to account within the context of that relationship:"
Therein lies the problem! The man-child in the White House is likely to take umbrage at a minnow like NZ taking a principled stand and impose impossible tariffs or cut off trade altogether.
On the other hand, he's perhaps as likely to treat us as he did Mamdani – favourably.
In a Trump-whim geopolitical world, the only thing a small country has is ethics! Or subjugation!