My wife is Iranian. The only reason she is in New Zealand, the only reason we’re together, the only reason we’re living our safe, peaceful life is her parents had the courage and good fortune to escape a terrible regime. They faced extraordinary persecution in Iran for their beliefs. They still have family back home. To say it’s been an interesting week in our household would be an understatement.
I have been buried in the news – even more than usual. But with all of the confusion and noise that comes in the immediacy of the conflict, there are three components I want to mention this morning which I think are underappreciated.
The first is the asymmetric component. My sense —at least from the US side of things— is that Donald Trump sees this as a conventional war with conventional armies. His jets are bombing their military institutions and defences. His military is targeting their military. His submarine is torpedoing their warship. He said this morning the war will only end when Iran unconditionally surrenders.
Except of course, even if Iran does decide to ‘unconditionally’ surrender (which seems unlikely), that won’t be it. In terms of conventional military firepower, Israel and the US are vastly better-resourced than Iran. But what Iran or its proxies can do is attack soft targets. What it can do is resource small pockets of radicalised people to inflict outsized pain and terror in the West. There are billions of Muslims, hundreds of millions of Shia who’ll be watching the war. And while many may abhor the Iranian regime, I’m sure some will view this as a war on Islam. Sadly, I think if we’ve learnt anything this century, it’s that the conflict is very likely to inspire terrorism in the West. It might not come in the next few weeks. It might not come in the next few months. But that’s almost the point, you never quite know.
The second is the nuclear component. If I were another country watching the events of this week, there are two ways I might look at things. I draw a direct line between Iran’s nuclear program and the war and conclude that even entertaining the idea of a bomb might get me assassinated. Or I might compare the fate of Iran or Libya or Ukraine with that of North Korea and conclude the only way to guarantee and fully protect my sovereignty in a messed-up world is to get a nuclear weapon. I think it’s very likely this war will lead to other countries pursuing the bomb.
The third is international law. Maybe the US will try and present some evidence about Iran posing an imminent threat, but the relative futility of Iran’s response so far has proved they didn’t. It was telling that when he made his video address announcing the strikes, Trump didn’t even bother trying to make a legal case.
And yet, the same Western countries that have been wittering on about the importance of international law and the rules-based order have explicitly supported the strikes, or in the case of New Zealand, lamely refused to be drawn on their legality. I don’t understand why people can’t appreciate it’s possible to both abhor the Iranian regime and demand the likes of the US live up to the most basic elements of international law.
Imagine a scenario a few weeks or months from now where a Chinese fleet occupies a reef within the exclusive economic zone of a Pacific nation. What would we do? Bleat about international law? Lol. Sorry.
I think there’s every reason to think the concept of international law is basically dead. But from New Zealand’s perspective... what else do we have? What other levers? If we cannot demand our friends and partners play by the rules, why on Earth should we expect anyone else to?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
New Zealand