Israel-Iran strikes: What's sparked the latest conflict and what does it mean for the Middle East?

forth shows no signs of stopping. Instead, both sides are threatening to escalate the conflict, with major international players now weighing in how big could this get and will.

if you like. Has presented itself as the leader of the resistance front and has supported groups like Hezbullah in Lebanon and also the Hooties in Yemen. In sure, it has regional ambitions to spread its influence beyond Iran, but it also has presented itself as a regional counterweight to Nesuna who's ambitions to settle Israelis in occupied territories, and under international law those settlements are illegal, so Netiya who has seen Iran as a bit of a target. And

then there's been the nuclear factor Iran. It should be explained that during the Obama period there was quite a successful deal between Iran and the United States which postponed the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.

In return, all sanctions were lifted, and unfortunately, when mister Trump came into power in his first term in twenty seventeen, responded to pressure from the Nestinyahu government and withdrew from that deal, which meant that Iran was no longer bound not to develop nuclear weapons, and Trump believed, I suppose he could negotiate an alternative deal, something he didn't do in his first term, and he hasn't succeeded in his

second term. Although recently there have been negotiations between the ira leadership and the Trump administration, and the Trump administration has indicated that it was quite hopeful that a settlement

between Iran and the United States could be reached. Two weeks ago, the leading negotiator for Iran said that it was quite prepared to sign an agreement where Iran never developed nuclear weapons in return sanctions being lifted, and also Iran having the capability like Japan and Germany other countries which have never developed nuclear weapons but have nuclear energy

for peaceful purposes in other words, nuclear power plant. A sixth round of talks was scheduled Sunday, but before they could occur, Israel has launched an attack on Iran which can only be described as reckless, unprovoked, immoral, and illegal under international law. So that's where we're at at the moment.

by a combination of American and Israeli strikes. So there may have been a perception that there will never be a better opportunity to go after what it sees as Iran's nuclear potential, It's potential to a nuclear weapon in the future. Of course, it could be argued that you can't obliterate the ability of a country to develop nuclear energy. Wants to know how is there. I think another objective, quite frankly, is regime change. I mean, the next you

know who government doesn't make. If you look at these strikes, they're not just against nuclear facilities. They're attacking civil society economic assets like oil producing scites. There's over one hundred of them in Iran, and also they've attacked infrastructure. They've also assassinated nuclear scientists in these strikes, and much of the current leadership. And we know that Nesta, who recently asked permission just a few days ago to President Trump

to assassinate the Supreme Leader. I told Holmeni that permission was denied. But that gives an indication of what the Israelis have in mind. But there's a couple of other motivations which get less less consideration than denuclearizing Iran or bringing about regime change, and that is deflecting pressure mounting pressure, deflecting the mounting pressure on Israel over the catastrophe in Gaza.

The word catastrophe, by the way, is the word that mister Peters, the Foreign Minster in New Zealand uses to describe the situation, and I think another consideration here is that mister Nessigna, who, according to Israeli critics, needs a conflict to stay in power because he's facing significant corruption charges which are likely to be reactive as soon as

Israel is at peace again. So while he can have the mantle of a wartime leader, those sort of issues don't surface too much, So you could say domestic politics has got a role as well. Chelsea.

and said they must stop. But President Trump, he should have been furious that Israel had derailed the negotiations, which his negotiating team re engaged in, which suggests maybe the negotiations were a bit of a charade and that they were done to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security. But you know, quite Frankly, the United States comes out of this looking pretty poor, in sense that

its diplomacy appears to be duplicitous. It says it was a negotiated solution, but it doesn't denounce an ally that has sabotaged that prospect. It also says it may come in on the side of Israel in the conflict that's now occurred. Need'st be quite clear. What Israel has done

is preemptive and aggressive and illegal under international law. But you don't hear any American diplomats expressing concern about that, and that, of course has big implications for most countries in the world, including her own.

way around. So it's an extraordinary it's extraordinary twisted logic where British Prime Minister says he's prepared to move military assets to provide enhanced defense for a country which has just attacked a regional neighbor, which is Iran.

not getting much clear and courageous leadership. What mister Necno has done is extremely dangerous and it's reckless, to say the least, and a lot of innocent people are being killed as a result. And yet liberal democracies are remaining relatively quiet, and they're playing into the hands of authoritarian

forces in doing so. So you know, there will be a reckoning for this, and never again will countries like Britain be able to stand up and lecture others about human rights when in fact they are complicit in undermining the process of state sovereignty and the country's right to self defense by their actions.

to political problems. This is welcome words. But I think New Zealand also its interests are different to Britain and the United States. Both of those countries can exercise the VETO in the UN. We don't have a veto to

protect our interests. We trade with more than one hundred countries in the world New Zealand and most countries in the world, that's the great majority of countries I would say, as high as one hundred and sixty one hundred and eighty somewhere in that region prefer international relations to be based on rules and principles and procedures. They do not like the unilateral and preemptive use of force.

on upholding key principles in relation. Let's be quite clear, if Israel is not sanctioned or faces any consequences for launching an unprovoked attack on another country, that sets a very bad precedent for anyone else in the international system. And unfortunately, in the twenty first century we've seen many

other examples where countries have done similar things. We saw the Russian invasion of Ukraine and it made me chuckle actually when I saw mister Putin offer his services as a mediator between the Iran and Israelis, when in fact he's in no position to mediate because he's already trampled undermine the UN Charter of his actions in Ukraine. In short, we need much more authoritative international institutions to deal with situations which sovereign states are struggling to deal with.

They were getting ready, Pakistan was now was there, turned ahead and eventually they're going to go nuclear and I stopped it. I called each I respect each leader greatly, I know them, and I spoke to them and I talked about trade. I said, but you're not trading with us if you're going to go to war, if you're going to start throwing nuclear weapons around. And I said it to both of them, and they were both unbelievable. Actually they understood it exactly. They stopped.

But you can't apply the formula because you don't like a government that you're free to replace it or try to replace it. After all, many authoritarian states don't like liberal democracies, and so you know, the world be reduced to absolute chaos if regime change was regarded as a legitimate tool of foreign policy. It's not. And ultimately, my concern about the current situation is that conflict will escalate. And my view is that the plight of the Palestinians

has been it worsened by this situation. Israel has cut off aid again to the Gaza. The other thing here is and it needs to be openly discussed. There is no military fear for political problems. Why hasn't met and not been insisting on a meeting with hers leadership to

try and sort these problems out. He can eliminate the whole of the Iranian government, but they will be replaced and many people will have memories of family relatives killed who didn't like the Iranian government but were nevertheless killed by Israel's actions. That's not going to generate good will towards Israel. And in short, there is not an engineering or military solution to political problems. Those problems can only

be resolved through dialogue and discussion. They may be very tough talks to have, but the alternatives don't work very well either. We see escalating conflict with lots of civilian, innocent civilians being killed on both sides, and that is a terrible outcome. Yes, we should be worried about where this is going. None of us really know where it's going.

I'm hoping that the efforts of countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey will weigh I know that mister Erdowan and the Saudi government have spoken to mister Trump, and you know, it's important. I think that other liberal dromocracies speak out and don't just take the lead from the United States and the British because both of them seem to me very compromised on this issue. They're not disinterested observers, they are committed to Israel. Both of them have provided arms

for mister Netnahu's campaign in Gaza. But there are a number of other liberal democracies like our own New Zealand consistently sought an immediate cease fire. On the twenty third of October twenty twenty three, we were the only member of the Five Eyes that voted for an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza. We were subsequently joined in that mission or that quest, by Canada and Australia. Two months later they join New Zealand in demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

But it's very important, I think, I think that countries like New Zealand do make it clear where they stand because these are you know, at the moment, this situation is escalating, and the weaponry on both sides is horrific, and we do need to conduct international relations on the basis of rules and principles rather than a Wild West situation where the guys with the biggest guns feel they're entitled to do what they want to do.