Latest / The Front / Is the Iran war legal? Does it matter?

Transcript

Is the Iran war legal? Does it matter? · The Front

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: It's Friday, March sixth, twenty twenty six. Journalist Chung Lei,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: who was falsely imprisoned for three years in China, is
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: accusing Melbourne's Rising Festival of censorship, claiming it canceled a
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: play about her imprisonment, just months after the board offensively
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: checked if she would publicly oppose a Chinese government funded artwork.
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: One of the world's most formidable fighting forces who help
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: defeat isis for Kurds, based in northern Iraq, are backed
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: by the CIA and now set to begin a ground
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: campaign against the Iranian regime from the Middle East to
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: the White House. The Australian has reporters on the ground
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: around the world and an unrivaled team of newsbreakers and
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: analysts here at home. Join our subscribers at the Australian
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: dot com dot au to make make sure you understand
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: this story and all the news better than anyone today.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: One of our favorites here on the Front, Greg Sheridan,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: is here to think through the big question about this war.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Is it legal? And if it's not, doesn't matter. Greg's
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: here in just a moment. Greg Sheridan is The Australian's
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: Foreign editor.
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: Greg.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: As the US military pounds Iran and sinks its navy,
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: there's a debate blowing up internationally about whether or not
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: this war is legal. What do you think?
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: Yes, I think it's legal. But international law is a
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: sort of a fictional concept anyway. International law didn't prevent
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: Russia from invading Ukraine. It didn't prevent China from taking
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: the South China Sea when the Court of Permanent Arbitration
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: decided that China had no claims whatsoever to the islands
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: that it had stolen or created. And also international law,
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: there is no legislation, there is international parliament, there is
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: no court, and there is no jurisdiction. The only jurisdiction
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: that exists is the Yuan Security Council. Given that the
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: United States is a permanent member of the Security Council
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: with a veto, I think it's very unlikely that the
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: Security Council is going to impose a penalty on the
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: United States. So I think international law is a kind
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: of a fiction anyway. But even within the terms of
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: international law, countries are allowed to defend themselves and you
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: can make a very strong case. I wrote a column
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: about this the other day that Iran has been attacking
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: the United States for forty seven years. It's been doing
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: so mainly they not exclusively through proxies, in order that
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: the United States would feel inhibited from responding. Because if
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: they can say, well, look, has Bala did it, they'll
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: get the US to respond to has below They can
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: say that Huties did it. So theret he has attacked
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: American ship in on Iran's orders, with Iran support, with
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: Iran's money, perhaps with Iran's weapons, and the Americans hit
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: back at the hooties. But eventually Donald Trump has decided
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: that Grayson tactics won't shield you from an American retaliation.
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: If you hit America, even if you've disguised the agents
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: that do it so that they don't be your uniform
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: or something, he couldn't care less, and he's going to
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: hit you. If you hit him, he's going to hit you.
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: And the world is much safer place when the bad
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: guys are scared of the American president. You know, the
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: Iranians took American diplomats hostage under Jimmy Carter the minute
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan was elected. They released them all because they
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: held Carter in content. They were scared of Bragan and
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: it's a good thing. When the bad guys in the
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: world are scared of the American president, we're all a
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: lot safer, Yeah, Greg.
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: There's some talk from people like Canadian Prime Minister Mark
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Carney about hegemon's a word that I hope never to
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: hear again. And Australia is a middle power. Of Canada
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: is a middle power. There's clearly some hesitancy from UK
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Prime Minister kir Stellma. He certainly hasn't allowed the US
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: to use his bases. Does any of that kind of
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: matter in the way we think about it? Should Australia
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: be worrying about whether, for example, the US President has
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: the right under American law to do this, whether he
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: needed congressional approval, whether the UN Charter would regard this
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: as self defense or not.
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: It doesn't matter the beings what the UN Charter would regard.
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: I mean, look at the UN. You know, China is
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: often on the Human Rights Committee, The International Year of
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: Women is often chaired by Saudi Arabia. I mean, the
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: whole thing is preposterous. Now, it has a certain power
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: reality you've got to take account of that, but it's
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: not a moral arbiter or anything like that shouldn't affect
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: us one way or the other. All those questions about
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: Trump's authority and everything are good practical questions because they
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: might have a political consequence in America and that might
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: limit his discretion down the track. They had nothing to
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: do with us, really, and they don't affect them morale
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: or otherwise in the war. I'm not absolutely convinced this
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: war was the right thing to do, but I'm not
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: the least bitswayed by these kind of silly process arguments.
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: You know, I've been around a long long time in
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: this game, and I can remember Gareth Evans writing more
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: eloquently than Mark Kearney on the importance of middle plower
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: diplomacy and coalitions of middle powers can achieve this and
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: that and all the rest of it. But you know,
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: the underlying reality of life is that the strong do
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: what they will and the weak can see what they must.
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: And your best chance in the world is to be
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: an alliance with a strong power. And you want your
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: own power. You want real national power that you can exercise.
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: So if Australia like Haspolla had two hundred thousand missiles,
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: everybody would be very cautious about doing circumnavigation to the
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: Australian mainland. So you want your own power. Of course,
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: you want coalitions with like minded middle powers where you
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: can get them, and the purpose of that is mainly
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: to try to persuade the big powers to cooperate with you.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: But the most important thing is your alliance with a
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: big power. China is constrained in Taiwan, not because you know, Brazil,
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: Mexico and Australia in an alliance of middle powers will
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: issue a stern press release if China invades Taiwan. It's
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: constrained in Taiwan because the United States military might attack it.
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: And everything that we regard as benign in the global
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: world order since World War II is essentially rested on
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: American power and American primacy. We dressed that all up
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: as an international system because the Americans were so benign.
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: They provided public goods for free, and they shared their
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: authority through a range of institutions. You know, the World Bank,
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: the International Monetary funded all that. But they're not as
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: absolutely powerful as they were, and as a result of that,
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: you don't get a glorious flourishing of middle power creativity.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: You get China and Russia deciding what happens. And a
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: world dominated by China and Russia is a vastly more
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: horrible place than a world dominated by America.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: How much do you think this is targeted at, and
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: obviously not literally China and Russia giving them a reason
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: to think again if they thought, for example, they might
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: invade Taiwan or go further than Ukraine in Europe.
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: That's a very complex question. It's an interesting and complex question.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: Very hard to know what's in Trump's mind, but I
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: certainly have tried very hard and talk to a lot
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: of people to work out what the implications are for
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: China and Russia. Now there are some implications which will
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: worry China and Russia. So Trump is shown he will
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: take decisive military action if he thinks is if he
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: wants to. Now, China and Russia held Joe Biden in
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: content and knew that he would never take any action
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: about anything, and so they fell unconstrained. Trump's a different
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: kettle of fish, and Trump also has a bigger military
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: budget than Biden had, and also China and Russia had
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: a very useful ally in Iran provided drones for Russian
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: use in Ukraine, had provided oil for China at knockdown rates.
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: That ally probably has disappeared, at least for some time,
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: because even if the Iranian regime hangs on, it will
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: be much diminished. On the other hand, there are some
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: upsides to this for China and Russia. If this all
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: goes bad for Trump, then America may be paradoxically even
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: weaker at the end of it than it was at
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: the start. Also, if this leads to a sustained increase
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: in the price of oil, that probably helps Russia because
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: it's still basically an energy exporter. And then finally, no
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: one in the West, neither the United States, nor Western
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: Europe nor US, has made any serious effort to increase
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: the production of armaments and munitions to the level that
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: is needed. We've had years of war in Ukraine, massive
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: Chinese military buildup, We've had endless talk fests, but no action.
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: You know, in Australia, We're going to acquire a submarine
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: sometime when landed and Emoi comes back as doctor Spock
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: in Star Trek one hundred and twelve or something. Meanwhile,
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: China is producing nuclear submarines at a rate of knots,
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: and this war in Iran uses up a huge amount
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: of American high tech weaponry, particularly missile interceptors. We're at
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: the back of the queue to ever get a Patriot
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: missile interceptor, but America can produce about five hundred of
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: them a year, using about five hundred of them a minute.
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: I'm exaggerating, of course in Iran. So that's a big
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: civilization wide failure by the West. So that might help
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: Russia and China because the Europeans want are buy weapons
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: from America to give to Ukraine, but you can't do
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: that if the American arsenal is too low. China, if
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: it does decide to take action in Taiwan, might calculate well,
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: America no longer has enough of the high tech munitions
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: that it needs. So there are pluses and minuses for
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: Russia and China. And I don't think the net assessment
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: is you know, you can't do a net assessment yet.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: It's always worth having a look at what the White
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: House is putting out in terms of its messaging, and
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: in this instance it's pretty bombastic. I want to play
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: you a quick grab from Pete Hegsith the Secretary of War.
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: This was never meant to be a fair fight, and
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: it is not a fair fate. We are punching them
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: while they're down, which is exactly how it should be.
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: And this is a video published by the White House
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: on social media. Who were winning this fight? Greg, I'm
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: not sure if you play a lot of the video
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: game Call of Duty, but that's what it's like. This
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: is how the White House wants Americans to see the war.
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: And if I were an eighteen year old boy, I
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: would find it very exciting. In fact, I'm a forty
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: eight year old woman and I still find that does
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: get my pulse racing. I must admit, what do you think?
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: Does it make you feel squeamish or impressed, or alarmed
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: or worried that Pete Hegzeff is the Secretary of War?
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: There's no doubt part of Trump's genius. It certainly doesn't
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: appeal to me. But part of Trump's genius is an
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: ability to communicate to people who don't consume traditional news
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: media or politics in general. So that is a key
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: part of his voting coalition. And young men have been
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: absolutely critical. You know, you read learned articles in American journals.
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: Why did the brother go for Trump and all this
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: sort of thing. Well, you know, Claire, you and I
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: are adults. I'm a few decades your senior, but adults
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: generally don't respond to that kind of stuff much. And
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: I think it's you know, my own pride would be
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: that it's very unbecoming to the dignity of a White
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: House or a president. On the other hand, on the
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: other hand, maybe I wouldn't put you in this category.
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: But maybe I'm a kind of a dinosaur. And this
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: is the way communication goes on now with a lot
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: of people who you know, consume TikTok and video games.
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: There was nothing inherently wicked in what HeiG Seth said
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: or in that video game video. But you know, I
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: think matters of life and death ought to be treated
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: with much more gravity. And one of the very unpleasant
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: revolutions of the Trump era is that matters of great
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: gravity are not dealt with with great gravity. I mean,
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: it's as if contemporary culture is a conspiration against the series,
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: and this is an element of that. However, it's obviously
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: part of what Trump thinks, you know, sells with part
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: of his base and public support for the war effort
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: is not very strong in the United States, so I
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: guess they want to communicate with every American they possibly can.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: Coming up. Can Iran possibly pull a secular democracy out
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: of the rubble? Speaking of sophistication, you've written very evocatively, Gregan.
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: We've talked about here on the front how Iran is
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: a very sophisticated culture, this ancient Persian culture that has
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: given us so much in the rest of the world,
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: this society has been cowed by a couple of generations
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: now of dick ruthalist dictators. Is there a possibility that
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: in the rubble of whatever's left when these air strikes stop,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: that the Iranian people will be able to throw up
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: someone who can lead them into a secular democracy or
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: is that a fantasy.
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you the truth, Claire, I'm not particularly
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: optimistic about it. In Iran, the society is at war
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: with the state. There's no doubt. There is no society
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: in the world in which there is a bigger contradiction
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: between the society and the state. The problem is that
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: in Iran, the state has all the guns. One of
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: the things that the Iranian authorities have done quite cleverly,
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: although it's very sinister and wicked. In killing so many
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: of their citizens, they have spread guilt right throughout the
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: whole of the regime, from the top to the bottom.
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: Where there's a greater chance I think, and I'm not
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: even particularly optimistic here, but I think there's a greater
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: chance of this is that you get a more reasonable dictatorship. Now,
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: you know, dictatorships come in all shapes and sizes, and
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: there are what the political theorists sometimes called repressive responsive regimes,
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: regimes which are still the sort of dictatorships if you
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: go against the region that put you in jail, but
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: they give you a lot of freedom in the rest
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: of your life, and they also respond to the genuine
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: concerns of their society. A lot of examples of those
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: around the world and in history. And you know, I
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: quoted one anon of US official as say to me
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: not so long ago that what the Americans wanted was
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: a dictator who didn't commit genocide against his own people,
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: didn't go after nuclear weapons, and didn't attack America and
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: its allies. Well, that's a pretty modest set of requests.
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: I think you're more likely to get that, and that
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: could be a half way house to a democracy. I mean,
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: democracies often emerged from enlightened dictators. I mean that happened
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: in Spain, that have and in Indonesia. It's very hard
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: to imagine going straight from the rule of the iotolers
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: to a representative democracy. The other thing is you generally
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: don't have the institutions, you know, independent courts, proper dispute
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: resolution mechanisms. The other thing is all the clients of
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: the regime own all the resources, so then not only
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: would there be demands for justice, there'd be demands for redistribution.
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: You know. One of the things the Ietolers do quite
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: cleverly to keep themselves in power is enrich the leaders
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. So it's both a
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: theological and an ideological regime, and it's also a corrupt region,
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: whereas if you're a regime insider, you make lots and
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: lots of money. So out of all of that, I'm
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: not terribly optimistic, but everything is possible. Our history is
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: not governed by the common law of president. The Iranian
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: people yearn for something better than what they've got. You
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: can just see every provocation leads them out in the
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: streets demonstrating in huge numbers, and they know every time
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: they go out to demonstrate, there's a very good chance
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: they'll be killed. You know that young woman who was
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: murdered because she wore her hair too long. People, it
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: is to complain about Singapore in the old days, undeleak
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: on you. If you wore your hair too long in
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: Singapore and you're a bloke, you might get a compulsory
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: visit to the barbershop. Do you wear your hair too
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: long in Iran you get beaten to death in a
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: police cell. So it's a very savage regime. As I say,
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: I'm not particularly optimistic about a democracy, but I think
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: you could get a better dictatorship than you've got now.
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: Greg Sheridan, thank you very much.
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: Great to be with you, Claire.
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: Greeg Sheridan is The Australian's Foreign editor. Greg's analysis is erudite,
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: incisive and often very fun, and you can read it
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: any time at the Australian dot com dot a You