Latest / The Morning Edition / Has the fragile ceasefire in the US-Israel war with Iran been broken?

Transcript

Has the fragile ceasefire in the US-Israel war with Iran been broken? · The Morning Edition

0:07
S1: Earlier this week, it looked as though tit for tat
0:09
S1: strikes between Israel and Iran had jeopardised a two month ceasefire.
0:14
S1: The new hostilities threatened to once again place the Middle
0:17
S1: East on the precipice of a full blown regional war.
0:22
S1: And then Donald Trump stepped into the fray. I'm Samantha
0:26
S1: Zellinger Maurice, and you're listening to The Morning Edition from
0:29
S1: The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. Today, Middle East
0:32
S1: and security analyst Rodger Shanahan on what led to these
0:36
S1: strikes and what this means for the fragile negotiations between
0:41
S1: Iran and the United States. It's June the 10th. Welcome, Roger,
0:47
S1: back to the podcast.
0:49
S2: Yeah. Thanks for having me again.
0:50
S1: So, Roger, Monday marked 100 days since the war between
0:54
S1: Israel and Iran began. Now, a cease fire had been
0:57
S1: in place since April. But then we saw a flare
0:59
S1: up in strikes between the nations earlier this week. So
1:02
S1: can you just run us through what happened?
1:05
S2: Hey, listen, there's been a ceasefire in place, but there
1:07
S2: have been a number of violations up until now, but
1:11
S2: they've been relatively localized. But over the past couple of days,
1:17
S2: we saw Iran attempt to strike targets in Israel and
1:21
S2: Israel in retaliation, striking targets in Iran.
1:26
S3: Waves of ballistic missiles aimed at Israel, Iran firing at
1:31
S3: the north of the country for the first time since
1:33
S3: the ceasefire began in April.
1:35
S4: The shaky truce now facing its biggest test. The strikes
1:39
S4: retaliation for Israel's attacks on Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon.
1:45
S2: That seems to have had a lid put back on
1:47
S2: it at the moment. So the ceasefire is still considered
1:50
S2: to be holding, but with some variations to it along
1:54
S2: the way, which is probably to be expected, unfortunately.
1:59
S1: Okay. So as you've just said, Iran and Israel have
2:02
S1: agreed to ease the strikes. So do we know why
2:05
S1: they've agreed to that?
2:07
S2: Listen, there's always a series of, uh, red lines that
2:10
S2: have been crossed, but there's also posturing as well because
2:13
S2: we're still deep into negotiations, uh, for a more lasting ceasefire,
2:18
S2: not only in the Gulf, but also between Israel and Lebanon.
2:23
S2: And from the beginning, Iran has tried to tie the
2:28
S2: Israel-Lebanon conflict to a ceasefire outcome, uh, being negotiated with
2:34
S2: it with the United States. And so this is again,
2:38
S2: showing that Iran believes that any future ceasefire or more lasting, uh,
2:44
S2: nonaggression pact has to include a ceasefire and a lasting
2:47
S2: ceasefire or a non-aggression pact that includes Lebanon as well.
2:52
S1: Okay. Well, let's get into that a little bit, because
2:54
S1: I wanted to ask you why you think Israel is
2:56
S1: so determined to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon, just in the
2:59
S1: sense that presumably the military knew Netanyahu would have known
3:03
S1: that this would have risked retaliatory strikes from Iran. Right.
3:07
S1: So what do you think? Is the calculations there for
3:11
S1: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
3:13
S2: Yeah, it's always quite difficult to tell about an individual's
3:19
S2: motivations in doing this. We've seen at least publicly posturing
3:24
S2: from the white House saying that they're trying to rein
3:27
S2: in Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israelis attacking of targets
3:33
S2: in Lebanon, but more particularly in the south of the
3:36
S2: capital of Beirut. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who's facing an upcoming election,
3:43
S2: needs to be seen to be prosecuting a war and
3:46
S2: not to be kowtowing to external demands unless there is
3:52
S2: immense pressure put on him. So he sees it in
3:55
S2: his own government's political best interests to continue to prosecute
4:00
S2: the war and to show that a degree of independence
4:04
S2: on his part. Uh, and there's also the broader view
4:09
S2: in Israel that Hezbollah targets have to be prosecuted for
4:13
S2: as long as they possibly can to degrade Hezbollah as
4:17
S2: much as they can before the inevitable cessation of hostilities,
4:21
S2: which will happen at some time in the future. Hezbollah,
4:24
S2: while it's an indigenous Lebanese political party and armed militia,
4:29
S2: it's also founded by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in 1982,
4:35
S2: and it owes allegiance to Iranian supreme Leader. It believes
4:40
S2: itself to be in continuous conflict with the state of Israel.
4:44
S2: And so that's the reason why Israel and Hezbollah are
4:49
S2: continually in conflict. So this was about messaging peculiar to
4:55
S2: the Lebanon issue. They had drawn what they said was
4:59
S2: their red line, which was targeting the southern Beirut. Israel
5:02
S2: crossed it and therefore Iran retaliated. And in response, Israel
5:08
S2: did as well. But I think both parties knew that
5:10
S2: the retaliation and the counterstrike was always going to be limited.
5:15
S2: And this was Iran messaging Israel and also Washington, that
5:20
S2: it is serious about red lines, that it wants to
5:23
S2: draw in Lebanon as part of the broader negotiation agreement.
5:28
S2: So it's all about messaging at the moment. These tit
5:30
S2: for tat strikes.
5:32
S1: Okay. So I wanted to ask you a little bit
5:34
S1: about the power dynamics between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
5:38
S1: and Donald Trump, and perhaps what this latest exchange tells us,
5:43
S1: I guess, because we know that after the tit for
5:46
S1: tat began, Donald Trump lashed out at Israeli Prime Minister
5:49
S1: Benjamin Netanyahu, telling the Financial Times on Monday Australian Time
5:54
S1: that that Netanyahu, quote, won't have any choice, unquote, but
5:58
S1: to accept a US negotiated deal with Iran. I call
6:00
S1: the shots, said Trump. So what does that tell us,
6:04
S1: I guess? Is that is that actually an act of desperation?
6:06
S1: Because that was, of course, after the tit for tat
6:08
S1: tat began. He's trying to rein Netanyahu in, which, of course,
6:10
S1: has been a repeated dynamic between the two. Like, do
6:13
S1: we know anything new as to who's got the upper hand,
6:16
S1: perhaps here?
6:17
S2: Media reports of the US president speaking very harshly to
6:21
S2: Prime Minister Netanyahu are not new. So we always have
6:24
S2: to have a new degree of cynicism about how harshly
6:29
S2: conversations happen, because, as we both know, the US has
6:33
S2: got significant leverage over Israel. And if it wants Israel
6:38
S2: to stop particular actions that it's taking, it's well within
6:42
S2: its power to do that logistically in terms of intelligence support,
6:46
S2: all the kind of hard levers that you could pull
6:49
S2: if you wanted to. Simply saying to the media that
6:53
S2: we had a really heated discussion. And I think at
6:56
S2: one stage, Prime Minister Trump said he dropped swear words
7:00
S2: at Prime Minister Netanyahu. That's really all theater and saying
7:05
S2: harsh words between each other. The reality is, if they
7:09
S2: want Israel to stop doing particular actions, they can do it.
7:13
S2: And it won't be publicized because you also have to
7:16
S2: give Israeli leadership some wriggle room. So we can really
7:20
S2: only judge the seriousness of the relationship between Washington and
7:25
S2: Prime Minister Netanyahu by Israeli actions on the ground. When
7:30
S2: they're told to do something by Washington, it'll be done
7:34
S2: in private, and you just see the result. This other
7:36
S2: stuff is really posturing.
7:39
S1: And so what sort of response have we heard from
7:40
S1: other countries in the region? Like, is there some sense
7:44
S1: of a greater nervousness that there could be soon a
7:47
S1: precipice where this turns into a full blown regional war,
7:51
S1: or is there not that sort of feeling at the moment?
7:54
S2: No, listen, I think everybody is, uh, in terms of
7:57
S2: the regional states, uh, are very careful about not wanting
8:01
S2: this conflict to broaden. The Gulf states in particular, aren't
8:05
S2: strong enough to take on Iran on their own, as
8:10
S2: we've seen. They also feel very uncomfortable with the way
8:16
S2: that President Trump has prosecuted this war, the way he
8:20
S2: started and the way he has prosecuted, because Iran has
8:26
S2: singled out some of the Gulf states for particular attention,
8:30
S2: it's done significant damage to their economies. And this was
8:34
S2: a war that was entered not by their choice, but
8:38
S2: by Washington's choice. And they're stuck in this never never
8:42
S2: land at the moment where we're having negotiations, but they're
8:45
S2: still feeling the economic impacts of the original decision of
8:50
S2: 100 days prior. So there's difficulty in getting oil and
8:55
S2: gas out into the market. Their tourism economies have been cratered.
9:02
S2: problems about opening airports. This has been nothing but bad
9:07
S2: news for the Gulf states. But for that very reason
9:10
S2: and understanding that Iran has crossed a number of red lines,
9:15
S2: which it hadn't previously crossed, they're quite nervous about the
9:19
S2: possibility of any expansion in this conflict. So I think
9:23
S2: the last thing that they want, and that they would
9:25
S2: do everything in their power to stop, would be a
9:28
S2: further expansion of this conflict. And so they'd be putting
9:31
S2: whatever pressure that they are able to bring to bear,
9:35
S2: to have some kind of negotiated solution.
9:39
S1: After the break.
9:40
S2: Historians will look back and say, well, we got no
9:43
S2: better at an agreement after thousands of people were killed.
9:47
S2: And so what was the point of all that?
9:52
S1: But I think it's fair to say that any cease
9:54
S1: fire within a cease fire is is quite fragile. So
9:57
S1: are there any particular flashpoints that could lead to fresh
10:00
S1: exchanges or strikes?
10:02
S2: Yeah, this one we've seen already. Um, ships running, trying
10:05
S2: to run the blockade. The United States has got a
10:08
S2: naval blockade on vessels transiting to or from Iranian ports.
10:13
S2: But responses to that have been relatively, uh, contained. Any
10:19
S2: offensive strikes against, uh, non-military targets, uh, are also things
10:25
S2: that would necessitate a significant response. So trying to attack
10:30
S2: economic targets could potentially lead to a broadening of the conflict.
10:34
S2: And in the outer realms of possibility, Israel broadening their
10:40
S2: campaign against areas, uh, in broader Beirut or further north
10:46
S2: in Lebanon might also bring a new round of fighting
10:49
S2: as well. So there's any number of touch points in
10:52
S2: the region that could set off another round of conflict.
10:55
S1: Okay. So in terms of Iran kicking this conflict up,
10:58
S1: and you just mentioned a couple of points that may
11:00
S1: lead them to do this. But I guess where are
11:03
S1: things at at the moment? Because Donald Trump has told
11:05
S1: the Financial Times that Iran strikes. They haven't changed his
11:08
S1: desire to conclude negotiations. But he said that if any
11:12
S1: such deal failed on its merits, he would consider a
11:15
S1: commando raid on Iran. So is that just tough talk?
11:18
S1: Because Iran, of course, has warned that an attack on
11:21
S1: Beirut would renew full scale war. So how tender is
11:26
S1: this ceasefire at the moment? You know, how easily could
11:29
S1: further escalation just ramp up again? Do you think.
11:32
S2: Well, listen, there's significant pressure on Washington from the international community,
11:38
S2: from regional states, from his own domestic population. We know
11:43
S2: the war is not popular domestically in the United States.
11:46
S2: It was never explained properly. And while Washington and Israel
11:53
S2: achieved tactical victories, they'll probably snookered strategically by Iran and
11:59
S2: not in a surprising way. And this is part of
12:01
S2: the disappointing aspect of the white House, what the actions
12:06
S2: that Iran has taken were entirely predictable. What they have done,
12:10
S2: the order in which they have done it, the emphasis
12:13
S2: they've placed on aerospace forces. All of this is well
12:17
S2: understood as a potential reaction. But the white House either
12:22
S2: didn't understand it or didn't pay it due deference. And
12:27
S2: so that's why we find ourselves at this position. It's
12:32
S2: really nobody's best interests to restart this. And for a
12:36
S2: whole variety of international and domestic political reasons, the white
12:40
S2: House wants to have a negotiated outcome for this. But
12:44
S2: there are problems for President Trump. And besides all the
12:49
S2: normal issues about international relations and, uh, caps on the
12:54
S2: US power that this might, uh, show, there's also the
12:58
S2: vanity of President Trump himself because he has said that
13:03
S2: he's the deal maker. He can get a better deal
13:05
S2: than anybody else. And he wants, um, Iran to promise
13:08
S2: not to pursue a nuclear weapon. And he wants something
13:12
S2: done about the enriched uranium. When it comes down to it,
13:15
S2: these are all exactly the things that were contained in
13:18
S2: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that President Obama negotiated
13:23
S2: in 2015. And so I think one of the things
13:27
S2: that President Trump is probably very concerned about is his
13:30
S2: ability to portray whatever negotiated outcome is able to get.
13:36
S2: He's got to be able to sell it as something
13:39
S2: better than President Obama ever got. And I think he
13:42
S2: is quite fixated on this. Uh, and it is the
13:45
S2: politics of the personal, I suppose you might say. President
13:48
S2: Obama said, we've got this negotiation. It was time limited,
13:51
S2: for sure. It was imperfect for sure, but it was done, uh,
13:55
S2: through a negotiated outcome and a, and a run, uh,
13:59
S2: kept to their side of the bargain and nobody got
14:01
S2: killed as a result of it. If at the end
14:04
S2: of this conflict, the President Trump has plunged the United States,
14:09
S2: Iran and the region into. He gets no better outcome
14:12
S2: than what happened a decade ago through negotiations. He's not
14:17
S2: going to be able to say that he is any
14:19
S2: better than a previous president in dealing with this very
14:23
S2: tough negotiation issue over nuclear weapons. And in fact, the
14:28
S2: argument and historians will look back and say, well, we
14:32
S2: got no better an agreement after thousands of people were killed.
14:36
S2: And so what was the point of all that? So
14:38
S2: I think there is an issue of personal vanity about this,
14:42
S2: but that's one of the reasons why it's making these
14:45
S2: negotiations tough, because it looks on the face of it,
14:48
S2: you're not going to get anything much better than what
14:51
S2: was gained ten years ago.
14:53
S1: And so, Roger, just to wrap up, can you see
14:56
S1: a peaceful end to this conflict?
14:58
S2: Can we have a peaceful outcome? Yeah, absolutely. I think
15:01
S2: and I think eventually we will. We might have a
15:04
S2: few more bumps along the road, but I think at
15:07
S2: some point the white House is going to work out
15:11
S2: that it's in their best domestic political interests to have
15:17
S2: draw a line under this conflict. If you're not going
15:19
S2: to prosecute the conflict any further, which they're not, then
15:23
S2: you've got to have a deal sooner rather than later.
15:26
S2: And it's you're really unable to wait out Iran. Remember,
15:31
S2: Iran went through eight years of conflict against Iraq, where
15:35
S2: it felt the world was against it. So we come
15:37
S2: to these issues of national will and political will, and
15:41
S2: Iran has got plenty of it, and its ability to
15:45
S2: absorb punishment is on the record. I don't think the
15:49
S2: attention span of the white House is anywhere near that.
15:52
S2: And at some point, domestic political considerations like the November
15:57
S2: primaries will play an increasingly large role in that. So
16:01
S2: I think what we'll end up will be some kind
16:03
S2: of negotiated outcome that is not that different to the
16:06
S2: JCPoA of ten years ago, but it will be argued
16:09
S2: by President Trump in his style that it is a
16:13
S2: better deal. And he only got the better deal because
16:15
S2: he was the one who is willing to use force.
16:18
S2: And I don't think that we're going to get much
16:21
S2: of that. The white House will then want to draw
16:23
S2: a line under it and then focus on domestic political considerations.
16:27
S2: And the unfortunate reality is that the region will also
16:30
S2: know that the Trump administration's got two and a half
16:33
S2: years to go, and there'll be a new administration after that,
16:36
S2: whereas the reality is they'll all have to live with
16:39
S2: Iran for the rest of their lives. Geography is the
16:42
S2: determinant of their national interests in a way that it's
16:44
S2: not for Washington.
16:46
S1: Well, thank you so much, Roger, for your time.
16:49
S2: No worries. My pleasure.
16:55
S1: In other news, today, one of the nation's biggest lenders
16:58
S1: believes the reserve Bank has finished inflicting more pain on borrowers.
17:02
S1: Predicting rate cuts are coming. Businesses that specialize in innovation
17:07
S1: would keep using the old capital gains tax discount under
17:11
S1: a new proposal being mauled by Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and
17:16
S1: the average New South Wales resident is already $20,000 a
17:20
S1: year worse off because of historical climate change, and economic
17:24
S1: modelling suggests future global warming will further squeeze household budgets
17:28
S1: through a double whammy of lost wages and higher grocery bills.
17:33
S1: You can read more at the age.com.au or smh.com.au. Today's
17:40
S1: episode was produced by Kai Wong. Our executive producer is
17:44
S1: Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy
17:47
S1: and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow The
17:51
S1: Morning Edition and leave a review for us on Apple
17:53
S1: or Spotify. Thanks for listening.