Many would also fear Iran\u2019s likely pursuit of a nuclear weapon and funding of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world, and would also conclude that the regime posed a threat, not just to its own citizens, but to people outside Iran\u2019s borders, including New Zealanders. <\/p>\n
But these factors: domestic repression, external aggression, and the pursuit of nuclear weapons, do not in and of themselves justify military intervention. <\/p>\n
Iran, sadly, is one of many despotic and aggressive regimes. <\/p>\n
North Korea represses its own people far more than Iran (not that it\u2019s a competition), and it actually has nuclear weapons. <\/p>\n
No one is suggesting a pre-emptive strike there. New Zealand has been critical of many \u201cevil\u201d regimes across the decades. That doesn\u2019t also mean we agree (or in this case \u201cacknowledge\u201d) action to topple them. <\/p>\n
The reason these two questions are distinct is an important one. <\/p>\n
Many regimes are, in the eyes of their enemies, \u201cevil\u201d – and there\u2019s certainly evidence the Iranian regime clears this bar. <\/p>\n
But if the wickedness of a regime and its potential to possess threatening weapons is the bar for offensive strikes, that is a recipe for international anarchy, in which the cost of global instability is greater than any benefit gained from the demise of an evil regime (and let\u2019s not forget, the Iranian regime hasn\u2019t yet been deposed). <\/p>\n
That is why international law puts a high threshold on international intervention. <\/p>\n
There will be increased pressure on the Government to come up with a view on the legality of these strikes. Attacks made in self-defence can be legal, but there is no evidence that Iran was immediately planning to make war on Israel or the US, which would justify a \u201cself-defence\u201d argument. <\/p>\n
That \u201cimmediately\u201d part is important because pre-emptive self-defence has an incredibly narrow definition in international law, established by the century-old Caroline doctrine, which holds that the threat must be \u201cinstant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation\u201d.<\/p>\n
An intercepted projectile falls into the sea near Dubai’s Palm Jumeirah archipelago. Photo \/ AFP<\/p>\n
Now, it may be the case that the US and Israel have strong intelligence that this test was met, or other intelligence that justified this intervention. <\/p>\n
But on Monday, Luxon said he had not seen any intelligence, hadn\u2019t asked for any, and didn\u2019t plan to do so beyond regular officials meetings. <\/p>\n
\u201cUltimately it\u2019s for our officials to have those discussions,\u201d Luxon said. <\/p>\n
Asked whether he would be asking for any intelligence, Luxon replied, \u201cagain, those are to be determined\u201d.<\/p>\n
We can guess at the logic of the Government\u2019s moves. <\/p>\n
It\u2019s clearly decided to drift closer to the US on matters of defence and security in response to China flexing its muscle in our region.<\/p>\n
You can also guess that in order to give effect to that policy, it\u2019s decided to hold its collective tongue when the US does something New Zealand could reasonably disagree with, or could at least call into question. <\/p>\n
You can guess that most of the Cabinet probably, deep down, disagrees with these strikes (even those who detest Iran), but the strategy this week appears to be to nod politely in the direction of Washington, say as little as possible and hope no one notices. <\/p>\n
If this is the case, if New Zealand\u2019s defence policy is to slouch further in the direction of Washington, the public is entitled to an explanation, and an honest airing of the costs and benefits of such an approach. <\/p>\n
Instead, Luxon denies this American tilt is taking place. <\/p>\n
\u201cI think there\u2019s nothing that\u2019s changed,\u201d Luxon said when asked whether his Government was more pro-American than its predecessor, a fact which seems obvious. <\/p>\n
The challenge with this tilt towards the US, is that its current administration is so volatile and capricious that any potential security dividend from drawing closer could be more than undermined by the damage to NZ\u2019s standing in the rest of the world, if we are seen to back or \u201cacknowledge\u201d a country that regularly and wantonly undermines the global order. <\/p>\n