Written By:
- Date published:
8:00 pm, March 2nd, 2026 - 55 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, Diplomacy, FiveEyes, israel, military, nuclear war, nuclear-free, Peace, Peace, us politics, war -
Tags:
By Gordon Campbell, crossposted from Pacific.Scoop.
Funny…back when Russia invaded Ukraine, New Zealand didn’t wait for Vladimir Putin to tell us whether his acts of aggression were legal under international law. Instead, we immediately decided the invasion was illegal, and forthrightly condemned Russia’s actions at the time, and ever since.
Different story when it comes to the Americans. Apparently, we’re on Team USA when it comes to international law, which forbids aggression against a sovereign state in the absence of an imminent threat to the aggressor. Repeatedly though, Christopher Luxon told RNZ this morning that it is up to the US and Israel to tell us whether their attacks on Iran are in breach of international law.
Given that diplomatic negotiations were still under way in Geneva to find a peaceful compromise – a process supported by all of Iran’s immediate neighbours – there is no credible case that Iran was posing an imminent threat. For 20 years, Israel has been claiming that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon, but this threat has never materialised. Last June, the US claimed to have “obliterated” Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon. (Israel, btw, has a large stockpile of them.)
Unfortunately, the babbling doofus we have in place of a Prime Minister seems to be intent on remaining in denial about such matters. Luxon appears determined to exempt his friends – the US and Israel – from compliance with the rules of international law that apply to everyone else. So much for us being honest brokers on the world stage. In reality, letting our traditional allies break international law whenever they see fit, is the surest way of undermining the entire system.
US President Donald Trump says he aims to bring about regime change in Iran. If so, that can’t be brought about entirely from the air, no matter how intensive the bombing campaign may be. Decapitation strikes against the top tiers of Iranian leadership will also not, in themselves, bring about regime change. Others will surely replace the fallen. Besides, the US and Israel can hardly urge Iran to negotiate a peace, while continuing to kill everyone with the authority to make a credible deal.
In all likelihood, it will take tens of thousands of foreign troops on the ground to (a) topple the regime and (b) protect from guerrilla action whatever regime the US puts in its place. The last 20 years of Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein should have taught the Americans just how long, bloody, costly and unpredictable that aftermath is likely to be. Yet here we go again. As veteran political analyst Fred Kaplan put it on Slate:
It is worth recalling that, in 2003, President George W. Bush sent 150,000 troops to depose Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, yet even they were unable to impose order but instead incited an insurgency and a civil war that lasted nearly a decade and destabilized the entire region. It is not clear how Trump’s stab at regime change without any ground support—in a country three times the size of Iraq—will be any smoother…[even] assuming the war succeeds in its strategic aim of regime change, the likeliest outcome will be a new dictatorship, a civil war among various armed factions, or utter anarchy and chaos, reminiscent of Libya after the killing of Muammar Gaddafi.
Do we care about the outcome? Or are we waiting for the US to tell us not to worry out little heads about such matters?
Before launching this offensive, Trump made no attempt to enlist allied countries – in Europe or elsewhere – in this campaign. At present, this is solely a US/Israeli joint operation, with the indirect help of those states in the region that have American bases on their soil. So far – cross fingers – Iran has chosen not to sabotage the Straits of Hormuz, a key transit route for oil and gas exports from the region, and a waterway on which global commerce depends.
At this point, Trump is talking of waging a bombing campaign lasting for days, or a week, after which…what? Trump has also called on the Iranian people to rebel. (That seems unlikely for a variety of reasons, including the ferocity of the suppression of Iran’s recent “cost of living” protests.)
The mullahs appear to be planning on a longer conflict. Reportedly, Iran has been limiting its initial missile responses in order to conserve its estimated 3,000 missile stockpile for attacks on Israel and regional US bases in the weeks and months ahead.
From this distance, and given the Internet blackout, it is impossible to gauge where the balance of public opinion currently lies in Iran. No doubt, there will be elation in some quarters that the leaders of a hated regime are dead or suffering, and that the regime’s survival is now in question. “Anything but the status quo” is likely to be a common response.
Millions of other Iranians however resist the attacks, and have been out on the streets mourning the Supreme Leader. If the regime falls, its true believers will still regard it as their sacred duty to continue to resist, by all means possible. Even the current elation is likely to be tempered by the knowledge that Iran’s “liberators” – the US, Israel, the Gulf states – do not have the wellbeing of the Iranian people in mind.
Meaning: the last democratically elected government in Iran was the Mosaddegh government. This was overthrown in 1953 by the Americans, who bankrolled a coup and then installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. The coup gave American oil companies continued access to Iran’s vast oil supplies, until the Islamic revolution occurred in 1979. In the 1980s, the West also backed Saddam Hussein in his war of aggression against Iran, a conflict that turned into a grinding deadlock estimated to have cost a million lives. America has earned the hostility of Iran, over decades.
Iran has a proud history, and a rich national culture. Normally, the mullahs could have relied on that fierce national pride to unite the country against foreign forces. In addition, Shia Islam has a strong tradition of sacrifice and martyrdom, commemorated annually in the day of Ashura.
That said, the recent slaughter of tens of thousands of people protesting the country’s economic conditions (caused by global sanctions) has put a question mark over how many Iranians will be willing to bury their differences, and fight back against foreign domination.
To repeat: the US had no credible reason for starting this war, and has no credible end game for it. Over the weekend, Trump has desperately – and absurdly – delved back into history to paint Iran as posing an existential threat to the United States and the region, in order to justify this war to his MAGA sceptics. Let’s be clear. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Furthermore, its ability to intervene in the affairs of the Middle East has been sharply reduced over the past 18 months.
This hasn’t stopped the US from distorting the relevant history. For example: Trump and his minions have cited the deaths of 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983, and laid the blame at Iran’s door. For the record, those 241 Marines – and 58 French troops – were killed by suicide bombers, in attacks claimed by Islamic Jihad, a Sunni extremist group only later linked to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia.
These attacks came in the wake of (a) the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and (b) the return of a multinational peacekeeping force to Beirut after (c) hundreds of Palestinians living in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps had been massacred by Christian gunmen, egged on by the Israeli commander, Ariel Sharon.
To paint this terrible episode as being caused solely by Iran is a travesty. Undaunted, Trump has also blamed Iran for the attack in 2000 on the American warship the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in the port of Aden. Even the US intelligence agencies have attributed the USS Cole attack to Al Qaeda. Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda are Sunni Islamic extremist groups, and were long time opponents of the Shia theocracy in Iran.
I’m not trying to defend the regime in Teheran. The point is to emphasise that there was no credible justification for the US offensive and New Zealand should be backing up UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his criticism of the US aggression.
As for the nuclear weapons “threat” that Iran allegedly posed…In 2015 Iran signed a deal with the US via which Iran promised to forego the development of nuclear weapons in return for the US ( and Europe) lifting trade sanctions. This was a victory for the Iranian moderates within the regime.
Iran also agreed to allow in UN inspectors, who regularly confirmed that Iran was in full compliance with the terms of that deal. However, Trump tore up the deal as soon as he was elected, thereby boosting the hardliners in Teheran who had claimed all along that the US could not be trusted to keep its word.
Since then, Trump has engaged in indirect talks with Iran to re-negotiate a new version of the 2015 pact, and twice Israel and the US have bombed Iran and killed its leaders while those negotiations were still being held. To the US and the Israelis, diplomacy seems to be merely a trick to lure out into the open the people that they have been planning to assassinate, all along.
Footnote: In Venezuela, the US has taken military action to secure control of that country’s oil reserves. It may well have oil wealth in mind in Iran, too. If the US can install another puppet in Teheran as obedient as the Shah, Iran’s refineries will once again be at the mercy of US oil companies. No doubt, access to oil will be at heart of any further “negotiations” over a ceasefire.
We can also factor in the Mid Term elections in the US in November.
If Trump can spin this war out until then, he will clainm that as the country is at war, elections must be postponed/cancelled.
It seems a highly unlikely scenario.
I don't think that US elections have *ever* been either postponed or cancelled because of a war. Certainly not an overseas adventure, which has minimal numbers of US troops involved.
The 1942 mid-term and the 1944 presidential elections were held on schedule. And WW2 had a much greater impact on the US than any war from the 20th or 21st centuries.
The US president is not in charge of authorizing or conducting elections – which are set by federal law (under control of Congress, not the President). And ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which has just given Trump a bloody nose over tariffs)
Do you have any evidence to support your belief?
How on earth can he do that?
Babbling doofus – I love it. Luxon always appears to me like someone has wound him up and pointed him at a microphone. We deserve better.
Yes, the US seems to have no plan for this war and if Trump thinks the plan is regime change, "Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'." Yes, the term "babbling doofus" fits Luxon perfectly, as he seems to arrive at every press conference without having had anyone prep him on the questions he might face. Yes, this does look like a much larger version of Trump's approach to Venezuela: if the rival gang won't give you a big cut of the action, punish them until they appoint someone who'll make a deal.
That said:
1. "International law" has been dead for a while now, for all that Helen Clark et al keep playing "Weekend at Bernie's" with its corpse. And comparing these strikes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine is ridiculous – for a start, the word 'invasion' is a hint the comparison doesn't work, but on top of that there's Putin's stated intent that 'Ukrainians' aren't a people and will cease to exist as one after their country is absorbed into Russia. There's nothing remotely comparable going on in Iran.
2. To pretend there's no justification for military action against Iran, you have to pretend that Iran hasn't spent decades engaged in proxy wars in the region and promotion of terrorism internationally, which Campbell duly does. Few people in the region outside of Shi'a fanatics will be disappointed to see the mullahs getting what's coming to them.
3. Re nuclear weapons, Campbell can afford to be dismissive. If Indonesia had spent the last 47 years with an explicit policy intent of wiping NZ off the map, mass demonstrations chanting "Death to the Kiwis!", a steely determination to develop nuclear weapons and a successful long-range ballistic missile programme, we'd probably take their weapons programme as seriously as Israel takes Iran's. Ridiculing Israeli concern from the comfort of having no neighbours, let alone enemies, is a cheap shot.
4. For fucks sake, spare us the homilies about Mossadegh. It's like lecturing about current English and French politics on the basis of the Suez Crisis. No, Khomeni didn't develop his theory of Shi'a fanaticism and revolution because Mossadegh was overthrown, no he didn't win power against the secularists and communists because Mossadegh was overthrown, and no he didn't foment intense hostility to the USA because the USA "earned" it. Give it a fucking rest.
Point 1: Yes, international law has been dead for a while now. What do you think is the best posture to assume in response? Is sneering at people who still assert its importance of any value – or is it complicity? How should we negotiate a world that lacks it?
Point 2: International law (yes, I know it's defunct, see point 1 above) requires that there be specific reasons for taking military action against another state. If any instance of Iran's funding/arming of proxies and of terrorism meets that threshold, military action is justified – if not, it isn't. The problem is who gets to decide on that point. I'd rather it wasn't the whim of Trump or Netanyahu..
Point 3. Bogus comparison. What reason might Indonesians have for chanting "Death to the Kiwis"? Would it just be a spontaneous hatred of rugby union, a dislike of kiwifruit or being offended by a couple of timid statements about human rights in East Timor? Would such a hatred occur without at least some historical backstory to animate it – such as the sort of historical backstory that Iran has with the British and Americans? Your comparison ignores history.
Point 4. Yes, I do think that the left can't go back to Mossadegh constantly. However, the coup against Mossadegh does indicate that to imagine that US and Israeli actions are motivated by the freedom and wellbeing of the Iranian people is severely deluded. The unctuous piety of justifications that make such claims is simply the worst sort of 'Yank-slop' fake morality.
Thank you AB for taking the time for that reply.
Anyone who suggests USA or Israel is motivated by the freedom and well-being of the citizens of other countries – particularly the ones they bomb – are totally deluded and incapable of comprehending history.
The dream of the necons that Reza Pahlavi can be installed as leader are even more delusional.
"Anyone who suggests USA or Israel is motivated by the freedom and well-being of the citizens of other countries – particularly the ones they bomb – are totally deluded and incapable of comprehending history."
True, but I can't help feeling you're implying I'm one of those delusional and uncomprehending people.
So, what solution do you see to government in Iran? Either following a peaceful transition of power, or an internal revolution.
Because, there is very clearly widespread dissatisfaction (to put it mildly) with the current theocracy.
Personally, I don't think that direct rule by Pahlavi is likely to be successful. However, a resurrected constitutional monarchy did work for Spain. And monarchies have a very long history in the Middle East. Why do you feel this would not work?
It's worth noting that the least-shittiest Arab countries in the ME are monarchies. All the wealthiest, most stable, least oppressive ones. I spent three years in one and it felt safer than NZ. We may not like monarchies but sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Excepting Israel as a democratic outlier?
Yes. It's basically a western country so an extreme outlier for the region.
I think a country with a population of roughly 90 million people, 17th largest in the world, one of the world's oldest continuous major civilisations, should be left to sort out their own governance issues.
End of story.
Bit hard to sort out your own governance issues if your government will search the hospitals for you when you've only been wounded rather than killed while protesting against it, so it can take you and the doctors who treated you away for torture/murder.
In any case, Israelis might be willing to leave them to sort out their own governance issues but can't afford to leave them to rebuild their proxies.
You seem to be operating under the impression that Iran is a completely passive and innocent actor instead of a regional power with a storied rivalry with Iraq and Saudia Arabia, and a long history of using terrorist proxies abroad as a matter of foreign policy.
So, what solution do you see to government in Iran? Either following a peaceful transition of power, or an internal revolution.
Certainly not some corrupt regime masquerading as "democracy"; one that will invite the seven sisters to come in and plunder the country's oil.
Because, there is very clearly widespread dissatisfaction (to put it mildly) with the current theocracy.
I doubt whether the recent protests were directed at oppression by the "current theocracy" – though that obviously exists – but against the country's poor economic performance, which probably had more to do with sanctions than anything else.
One that rigorously avoids hypocrisy. If Labour MPs and ex-Prime-Ministers want a rules-based order, they can't use "international law" as a stick to beat Israel and the USA with while pretending that Iran's decades of proxy war against Israel and other countries is invisible.
Nothing bogus about it at all. Iranians have no reason for chanting "Death to the Jews" and having a publicly expressed policy of wiping the Jewish state from the map, but that hasn't stopped them. Religious fanaticism is a very weird drug.
I agree. Israel's motivated by its own people's well-being and Trump is motivated by his own self-aggrandisement. That doesn't make it any less satisfying to see the mullahs getting their numbers and their weaponry reduced.
The answer to point 3 is religion. It is an article of faith to the Shi’a government of Iran, that Israel not exist.
As a secular society, it's hard for us to comprehend the extremism of religious wars.
Point 4. I seriously doubt that either Israeli or US actions are motivated by the wellbeing of the Iranian people. They want to topple a regime which is actively promoting terrorism (a direct threat to their people).
However, the wellbeing of the Iranian people is a very difficult pill for supporters of the current government of Iran to swallow. Iran is a theocratic despotism – brutally suppressing dissent, and with a very poor record on human rights (especially for women). A secular government (forced regime change) has a good chance of being a better result for Iranians.
Ugh I am so sick of the Argumentum e Mossadegh.
Yes, the coup happened. Yes, the Brits and CIA were involved. Yes, the Shah was bad. But the current regime is arguably even worse, even more destabilizing, and even more brutal.
The actions of 1953 do not excuse the crimes of 2026.
Gosh, why did we so quickly speak out about Russia but not say anything about the USA?
It might be just a co-incidence but I offer you the numbers for our exports to each country. In 2024 we exported $US 5.43 billion worth to the USA, second only to our exports to China. In the same year we exported $US 10.97 million worth to Russia. That was behind the exports to Nepal and just a little ahead of the numbers for Togo.
That is a ratio of about 500/1. No wonder we could speak out in 2022 but are much more cautious in 2026. It didn't cost us anything to pretend we were important, even if totally irrelevant, in 2022. It could be very painful doing the same in 2026.
I would prefer that our leaders stick to what is good for New Zealand. Leave the pious pontificating to the relics of the past like former PM Helen Clark.
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/exports-by-country
So expediency over ethics!
No wonder the world is in such a right-wing induced mess!
Israel has no right to exist. It is a genocidal nation and all other States are obligated to do whatever it takes to stop the religious nutcases that are the state of Israel from continuing the genocide, including the paedophile president of the US who us responsible for arming them and who wages war against Iran because Mossad has some nasty pictures of the unspeakable things he has done to children.
Iran was attacked by the US/Israeli monsters. Twice. It is they that now have the right to retaliate and they who are now the chosen people to destroy the monstrosity that US/Israel has become. Israel is being flattened. They have no more missile interceptors. US bases and embassies are being flattened. All of this is the right of Iran. US/Israel had and have no right to attack Iran. End of story.
Another state, Russia (that destroyed the cities of Syria) is ruled by someone who thinks Ukraine should not exist.
So, at the end of the day you're OK with war crimes as long as they're perpetrated against people you don't like because Jews?
I think you might be accidentally posting on the wrong site here dude. The Daily Stormer is that way.
AI Israel is taking an absolute pasting in anti-Israeli propaganda videos, for sure. There'll be no pixels left of it soon. The Iranian regime's problem though is that outside of the AI-generated videos there's a real, actually-existing Israel that hasn't taken much damage and is still the strongest military in the ME by a long way.
Iran was attacked twice. They are quite free to retaliate against both agressors. No state has any "right " to existence. Iran acts completely within its rights. I know it hurts you when your support for the genocidal Israeli comes up against a brick wall
So you give the fingers to the UN Charter?
Self-defence in international law isn’t a blank cheque. Even when a state is attacked, responses still have to be necessary, proportionate, and cannot target civilians.
So we either live in a rules-based system where those standards apply to everyone; and in which case both Iran and Israel can be culpable when they violate them. Or we live in a world of pure power politics where “they started it” settles everything. In that world, moral arguments about the US or Israel are meaningless.
But you can’t appeal to international law only when it suits your side.
War crimes are war crimes. Brutal, repressive regimes are brutal and repressive.
I don’t support Israeli war crimes or genocide. But I also don’t support Iranian terrorism or a regime that treats its own people with such disregard for their rights and safety.
I'm seeing the argument made elsewhere that rules based order protects the evil empires most, and that there is no legal pathway to address Iran. I don't think either of those is true, but want better arguments if you can help with that 😉
A rules-based international order tends to benefit both small and large states, but especially smaller ones. Without it, the alternative is essentially a world where power alone determines outcomes. As long as at least some major powers are willing to uphold and enforce the system, it creates real constraints on behaviour.
The real problem isn’t that the system protects “evil empires,” but that it’s extremely difficult to enforce rules against the most powerful states when they choose to ignore them. That’s a structural weakness of any international system.
Paradoxically, the bipolar structure of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union often created a kind of stability. Both superpowers had incentives to maintain the broader framework of the United Nations system and avoid uncontrolled escalation, even while competing inside it.
More generally, international law tends to work when it is backed by either hard power or strong economic and political incentives. States follow rules not just out of principle, but because doing so serves their interests.
At the moment that system is under significant strain. The relative decline of U.S. dominance, the rise of China, and open challenges to the international order from states like Russia have weakened the incentives that previously kept the system relatively stable.
What happens next is uncertain: it could fragment further, or gradually re-stabilise around a more genuinely multipolar structure involving the United States, China, and potentially the European Union as major poles of power.
As for Iran, there are certainly less kinetic alternatives than what Israel and the US are currently pursuing. But diplomacy only works when there is at least some incentive for the parties involved to act in good faith, and at the moment it’s hard to see much evidence of that from any side in this conflict.
.
From what the Omani foreign minister was saying, it was Iran making all the concessions during the nuclear talks, and it was Israel and the US who chose to ignore the diplomatic advances and attack before they were complete.Hardly the sign of"good faith".
It doesn't matter what Iranian negotiators say or don't say. A state based on the principle that martyrdom is the highest calling in life and guarantees the martyr a place in Heaven is impervious to the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction and can't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, end of.
You did read the part where I said both sides, right? Iran has repeatedly made public overtures while at the same time blocking any meaningful progress in private.
And for its part, the US has obviously been negotiating in bad faith since the abandoned the JPCOA.
I'd love to know what you are privy to "in private"
Do you have any comments on the US torpedoing an Iranian frigate after both nations had been participating in the same joint multi national MILAN exercise, designed to encourage "Camaraderie,Cooperation,Collaboration"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_(naval_exercise)
Iran and the USA are at war and a frigate is a legitimate military target?
It isn't like the Dena wouldn't have fired on or sunk a US submarine if they had detected it.
OK, so the frigate wasn't in the active war zone, and it wasn't an imminent threat, but good to know you endorse Hegseth's not following "any stupid rules of engagement"
"Wes Bryant, a former US air force special operations targeting expert and former chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon, said the attack on the Iris Dena was illegal.
The ship was transiting home after participating in training exercises hosted by the Indian navy at the time of the strike. India had convened naval assets from 74 countries for a March exercise.
“Was that warship actively posing a threat or participating in hostilities?” asked Bryant. “You cannot say that this warship was an imminent threat to anyone. By targeting it, is the Trump administration saying that the imminent threat is all of Iran’s government and military? If so, that’s an incredibly dangerous example of military overreach.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/04/us-submarine-torpedo-iran-warship-sri-lanka-coast-pete-hegseth
And?
It's a warship. They didn't built it for pleasure cruises.
A large part of fighting a war is blowing up all the pieces of kit that the other side can use to blow up your stuff and people.
I agree that the morality of US participation in this conflict could charitably be described as dubious, but getting upset about warships being sunk during a war is really missing the point.
What is the war zone?
Missiles are being fired towards Turkey & drones at Cyprus.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/4/nato-defences-destroy-missile-fired-from-iran-over-mediterranean-turkiye
Also at civilian & economic areas of non combatant Gulf states.
Iran claims the right to close off the Strait of Hormuz to shipping and earlier drone boat attacked a tanker, at sea, off Oman as well.
That might have been seen as a crossed line.
Military assets of Iran are being attacked, including ships at port.
It would have been wise if the ship had stayed in India until there was no war taking place (interned itself).
While Iran is free to target civilian craft?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-04/iran-drone-boats-attack-oil-tankers-strait-hormuz-gulf-oman/106408958
A navy frigate is a far more legitimate target in a war.
cheers.
One argument was that NZ was immune to invasion and resources theft, not because of rules based order, but because there were vested interests in NZ not being invaded. Vested interests weren't explained. Power determines outcome in that thinking, and we have the right friends?
The evil empire was Iran. The argument here is that rules based order protects countries like Iran, thus we have to bomb there.
Another argument that there is no legal route to "addressing Iran"
The first argument has a kernel of truth. But it’s less about vague “vested interests” and more about alliance structures and strategic context. New Zealand sits within a broader security ecosystem that includes the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. That grouping represents a level of military and economic power that most states would be reluctant to confront directly, particularly over a geographically remote and economically modest set of islands in the South Pacific.
But alliances are reciprocal. Security guarantees only work if partners see value in maintaining them. That means contributing politically, diplomatically, and sometimes materially to the system that helps protect us.
The rules-based order is also often misunderstood in these debates. Its purpose is not to impose moral virtue on states or determine which governments are legitimate. Its function is narrower: to provide mechanisms — treaties, institutions and norms — through which states can manage disputes short of armed conflict. At its core it protects sovereignty as a baseline principle, regardless of the character of a government.
That means even regimes we may strongly criticise remain sovereign actors under international law. Criticism of a government’s domestic behaviour does not in itself remove the legal protections attached to state sovereignty.
There are also legal and non-military pathways for addressing disputes with states like Iran. The international system provides mechanisms such as IAEA safeguards and inspections under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, negotiated constraints and verification regimes like the JCPOA, United Nations Security Council sanctions processes, and broader diplomatic engagement through intermediaries and multilateral forums. None of these are perfect, but they exist precisely to provide alternatives to war.
The real difficulty is that these mechanisms only function when the parties involved are prepared to operate in at least some degree of good faith. Verification regimes depend on transparency and access. Negotiated agreements depend on reciprocity and compliance. UN processes depend on major powers being willing to support enforcement.
And at the moment there is precious little evidence of good faith from any side. Iran has a history of treating inspections and transparency as bargaining leverage, while the United States undermined trust by abandoning the JCPOA. Israel’s willingness to act pre-emptively also creates incentives for Iran to harden rather than compromise.
So the problem isn’t that there is no "legal route" to addressing Iran. The problem is that the political conditions required for those legal mechanisms to work are currently badly eroded.
Personally, I would much prefer to see Iran evolve into a genuinely democratic state and a constructive participant in the international system. But that kind of political change ultimately has to come from within a society, not be imposed from outside by force.
Why not?
I can't see the " doofus " surviving as PM until the general election. Previous leaders have been dispatched or fallen on their swords in less worse circumstances than we are seeing now.
National MP's will put up with a lot if it means staying in power and protecting their seats even when their government dispenses cruel economic measures and refuses to protect many New Zealanders who are in effect expendable unless they are wealthy or financially independent provided they have a chance of returning to government.
Luxon is a serious liability and is intensely disliked even by his own donors , business groups and supporters.
There is a very good chance that a challenge will take place sooner rather than later. Luxon like this governments policies are doomed to fail.
A new captain may not save the ship but it might just be better than being wiped out on November 7th.
How is it possible that you can go into endless minutia with regard to Iran and completely ignore the attack by US/Israel?? It beggars belief
If you’re replying to a comment and can’t use the reply function, please include a reference to the comment/commenter. The default stand-alone comment under Posts is addressed to the Author of the Post unless indicated otherwise.
@Incognito.
Will do
Comment directed at Res Publica. Seem to be working on reply now
I haven’t ignored it at all. I’ve explicitly said I don’t support Israeli war crimes or what’s happening in Gaza.
I also think a US war with Iran may be capable of damaging the regime militarily or even killing parts of its leadership, but it’s very unlikely to achieve meaningful regime change or deliver the long-term foreign policy outcomes Washington wants.
That makes the whole exercise potentially pointless, extremely expensive in money and human lives, and destabilising for the region.
The point I’m making is simpler than that: if you’re making a moral argument against the actions of the US or Israel on the grounds of aggression or civilian harm, then the same standard has to apply to Iran as well.
Iran isn’t an innocent actor either. It has a long record of backing armed groups that target civilians, intervening in regional conflicts, and launching missile attacks that are inherently indiscriminate.
@weka
The right that is given is the right to self determination. The people get to decide the form of their state. This is precisely the right that Israel and the West refuses to accord Palestinians. Israel is an illegally occupyinng, apartheid state in breach of more UN resolutions than any other. Any state can freely change governance structures aand even their name as Turkiye recently did. The state of Turkey has gone. It has no right to exist.The people are the ones with rights.
The right in international law is the right of peoples to self-determination, not some abstract “right of states to exist.”
But states exist as political realities whether we like them or not. International law doesn’t work by declaring existing countries illegitimate and erasing them; it works by regulating the behaviour of states and protecting the rights of people within them.
The whole system built around the United Nations assumes the continued existence of states and focuses on how they interact and what obligations they have.
@Res Pub
Oh! Thats a great argument.
If Res Pub decides that
"Iran isn’t an innocent actor either. It has a long record of backing armed groups that target civilians, intervening in regional conflicts, and launching missile attacks that are inherently indiscriminate."
then the ultimate crime, a war of aggression, is just fine and dandy. Seems I've heard that argument somewhere else. Oh yes! Putin! Does that then make you a tool of the chief genocider, Netanyahu, and the child rapist, Donald Trump??
I've been trying to engage in a good faith discussion here about a real life, actual shooting war.
You’ve now accused me of being a war criminal, a supporter of genocide, and a supporter of paedophiles.
If your only response to disagreement is angry name-calling, then maybe foreign policy debates aren’t for you.
probly a tankie eh Res.
[Stupid insult aimed at provoking others to stoop down to the same low level aka flaming. Clearly, robust foreign policy debates aren’t for you and the Social Media cesspit might be a better environment for you. Let me know when you want to make the shift from TS to SM – Incognito]
Mod note
Nicely put Nigel.
Shame on the Senate for backing Trump's illegal war 53-47 today.
There is a wonderful 5 minute video of Pedro Sanchez on FB today explaining why he (and Spain) will not support Trump's actions in Iran. He says what Luxon should be saying.