Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he acted to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying Iran had the capacity to build nine nuclear weapons. Israel provided no evidence to back up its claims.

On 25 March 2025, Trump’s own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said: 

Even if Iran had the capability to build a bomb, it is quite another thing to have the will to do so.

Any such bomb would need to be tested first, and any such test would be quickly detected by a series of satellites on the lookout for nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet.

It is more likely that Israel launched its attack to stop US and Iranian negotiators from meeting on Sunday.

Only a month ago, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Shamkhani, told US television that Iran was ready to do a deal. NBC journalist Richard Engel reports:

Shamkhani died on Saturday, following injuries he suffered during Israel’s attack on Friday night. It appears that Israel not only opposed a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear impasse: Israel killed it directly.

A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, told a news conference in Tehran the talks would be suspended until Israel halts its attacks:

“It is obvious that in such circumstances and until the Zionist regime’s aggression against the Iranian nation stops, it would be meaningless to participate with the party that is the biggest supporter and accomplice of the aggressor.”

On 1 April 2024, Israel launched an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing 16 people, including a woman and her son. The attack violated international norms regarding the protection of diplomatic premises under the Vienna Convention.

Yet the UK, USA and France blocked a United Nations Security Council statement condemning Israel’s actions.

It is worth noting how the The New York Times described the occupation of the US Embassy in November 1979:

Now it is Israel conducting a “war on diplomacy itself”, first with the attack on the embassy, followed by Friday’s surprise attack on Iran. Scuppering a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue appears to be the aim. To make matters worse, Israel’s recklessness could yet cause a major war.

Trump: Inconsistent and ineffective
In an interview with Time magazine on 22 April 2025, Trump denied he had stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites.

In the same interview Trump boasted “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran. Nobody else could do that.” Except, someone else had already done that — only for Trump to abandon the deal in his first term as president.

In July 2015 Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alongside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme for 10-15 years in exchange for the removal of some economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also gained access and verification powers.

Iran also agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent U-235, allowing it to maintain its nuclear power reactors.

Despite clear signs the nuclear deal was working, Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Despite the unilateral American action, Iran kept to the deal for a time, but in January 2020 Iran declared it would no longer abide by the limitations included in JCPOA but would continue to work with the IAEA.

By pulling out of the deal and reinstating sanctions, the US and Israel effectively created a strong incentive for Iran to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, not for the sake of making a bomb, but as the most obvious means of creating leverage to remove the sanctions.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for civilian fuel programmes.

Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1960s with US assistance. Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was ruled by the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahavi.

American corporations saw Iran as a potential market for expansion. During the 1970s the US suggested to the Shah he needed not one but several nuclear reactors to meet Iran’s future electricity needs. In June 1974, the Shah declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons, “without a doubt and sooner than one would think”.

In 2007, I wrote an article for Peace Researcher where I examined US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power because it is sitting on one of the largest gas supplies in the world. One of the most interesting things I discovered while researching the article was the relevance of air pollution, a critical public health concern in Iran.

In 2024, health officials estimated that air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year in Iran. Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisi said the “majority of these deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, strokes, respiratory issues, and cancers”.

Sahimi describes levels of air pollution in Tehran and other major Iranian cities as “catastrophic”, with elementary schools having to close on some days as a result. There was little media coverage of the air pollution issue in relation to Iran’s energy mix then, and I have seen hardly any since.

An energy research project, Advanced Energy Technologies provides a useful summary of electricity production in Iran as it stood in 2023.

With around 94.6 percent of electricity generation dependent on fossil fuels, there are serious environmental reasons why Iran should not be encouraged to depend on oil and gas for its electricity needs — not to mention the prospect of climate change.

One could also question the safety of nuclear power in one of the most seismically active countries in the world, however it would be fair to ask the same question of countries like Japan, which aims to increase its use of nuclear power to about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2040, despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme “must continue”, but the “scope and level may change”. Prior to the talks in Oman, Araghchi highlighted the “constant change” in US positions as a problem.

Trump’s rhetoric on uranium enrichment has shifted repeatedly.

So with Iran seemingly willing to accept reasonable conditions, why was a deal not reached last month? It appears the US changed its position, and demanded Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, including what Iran needs for its power stations.

One wonders if Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) influenced this decision. One could recall what happened during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first stint as Israel’s Prime Minister (1996-1999) to illustrate the point.

In April 1995 AIPAC published a report titled ‘Comprehensive US Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action’. In 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as President of Iran. The following year Khatami expressed regret for the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and denounced terrorism against Israelis, while noting that “supporting peoples who fight for their liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism”.

The threat of improved relations between Iran and the US sent the Israeli government led by Netanyahu into a panic. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Israel has expressed concern to Washington of an impending change of policy by the United States towards Iran” adding that Netanyahu “asked AIPAC . . . to act vigorously in Congress to prevent such a policy shift.”

20 years ago the Israeli lobby were claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. It didn’t happen.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Opposition parties say Aotearoa New Zealand’s government should be going much further, much faster in sanctioning Israel.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters overnight revealed New Zealand had joined Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway in imposing travel bans on Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Some of the partner countries went further, adding asset freezes and business restrictions on the far-right ministers.

Peters said the pair had used their leadership positions to actively undermine peace and security and remove prospects for a two-state solution.

Israel and the United States criticised the sanctions, with the US saying it undermined progress towards a ceasefire.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, attending Fieldays in Waikato, told reporters New Zealand still enjoyed a good relationship with the US administration, but would not be backing down.

“We have a view that this is the right course of action for us,” he said.

Behind the scenes job
“We have differences in approach but the Americans are doing an excellent job of behind the scenes trying to get Israel and the Palestinians to the table to talk about a ceasefire.”

Asked if there could be further sanctions, Luxon said the government was “monitoring the situation all the time”.

Peters has been busy travelling in Europe and was unavailable to be interviewed. ACT — probably the most vocally pro-Israel party in Parliament — refused to comment on the situation.

The opposition parties also backed the move, but argued the government should have gone much further.

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has since December been urging the coalition to back her bill imposing economic sanctions on Israel. With support from Labour and Te Pāti Māori it would need just six MPs to cross the floor to pass.

Calling the Israeli actions in Gaza “genocide”, she told RNZ the government’s sanctions fell far short of those imposed on Russia.

“This is symbolic, and it’s unfortunate that it’s taken so long to get to this point, nearly two years . . .  the Minister of Foreign Affairs also invoked the similarities with Russia in his statement this morning, yet we have seen far less harsh sanctions applied to Israel.

“We’re well past the time for first steps.”

‘Cowardice’ by government
The pushback from the US was “probably precisely part of the reason that our government has been so scared of doing the right thing”, she said, calling it “cowardice” on the government’s part.

“What else are you supposed to call it at the end of the day?,” she said, saying at a bare minimum the Israeli ambassador should be expelled, Palestinian statehood should be recognised, and a special category of visas for Palestinians should be introduced.

She rejected categorisation of her stance as anti-semitic, saying that made no sense.

“If we are critiquing a government of a certain country, that is not the same thing as critiquing the people of that country. I think it’s actually far more anti-semitic to conflate the actions of the Israeli government with the entire Jewish peoples.”

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the sanctions were political hypocrisy.

“When it comes to war, human rights and the extent of violence and genocide that we’re seeing, Palestine is its own independent nation . . .  why is this government sanctioning only two ministers? They should be sanctioning the whole of Israel,” she said.

“These two Israel far right ministers don’t act alone. They belong to an entire Israel government which has used its military might and everything it can possibly do to bombard, to murder and to commit genocide and occupy Gaza and the West Bank.”

Suspend diplomatic ties
She also wanted all diplomatic ties with Israel suspended, along with sanctions against Israeli companies, military officials and additional support for the international courts — also saying the government should have done more.

“This government has been doing everything to do nothing . . .  to appease allies that have dangerously overstepped unjustifiable marks, and they should not be silent.

“It’s not a war, it’s an annihilation, it’s an absolute annihilation of human beings . . .  we’re way out there supporting those allies that are helping to weaponise Israel and the flattening and the continual cruel occupation of a nation, and it’s just nothing that I thought in my living days I’d be witnessing.”

She said the government should be pushing back against “a very polarised, very Trump attitude” to the conflict.

“Trumpism has arrived in Aotearoa . . .  and we continue to go down that line, that is a really frightening part for this beautiful nation of ours.

“As a nation, we have a different set of values. We’re a Pacific-based country with a long history of going against the grain – the mainstream, easy grind. We’ve been a peaceful, loving nation that stood up against the big boys when it came to our anti nuclear stance and that’s our role in this, our role is not to follow blindly.”

Undermining two-state solution
In a statement, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson Peeni Henare said the actions of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir had attempted to undermine the two-state solution and international law, and described the situation in Gaza as horrific.

“The travel bans echo the sanctions placed on Russian individuals and organisations that supported the illegal invasion of Ukraine,” he said.

He called for further action.

“Labour has been calling for stronger action from the government on Israel’s invasion of Gaza, including intervening in South Africa’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice, creation of a special visa for family members of New Zealanders fleeing Gaza, and ending government procurement from companies operating illegally in the Occupied Territories.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse hostilities and the pathway ahead for Taiwan, China, Asia Pacific nations and the United States of America.

Buchanan and Manning examine why hostilities have intensified, what defence and pre-emptive security moves have been actioned, and what we all should expect next, including the ramifications impacting on Asia Pacific nations’ foreign policies and what the short, medium and long term consequences will be.

The Questions:

What to expect from a deterioration of China / Taiwan relations?

What’s next in the PRC Taiwan stand-off?

What impact will PRC Taiwan hostilities have on the foreign policy positions of Asia Pacific nations?

And is the USA’s Indo-Pacific security/defence realignment a help or a hindrance in the region?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

All wars incur economic costs, and not only to the directly belligerent countries. The biggest costs arise when a war becomes a prolonged stalemate. The present war in Ukraine can be characterised, differently, as a Russian Civil War (that’s the Russian view), as ‘just another’ Eastern European conflict that will go away by Christmas, or as a World War.

Civil War?

The civil war characterisation reflects the medium-long-term history of the lands between the Ural mountains and the Scandinavia/Prussia/Hungary/Romania frontier that historically demarks cultural Russia from western Europe. (And we note that Russia undertook an eastward expansion of settlement in the same years that the United States pursued its westward expansion of settlement. There was a Wild East to match the Wild West. As a result, both Russia and USA have realms that extend to the Pacific Ocean.) This civil war characterisation, which highlights comparisons with the United States’ Civil War, is very useful to help us understand the likely duration, outcome, and cost of the present war.

While the US Civil War officially lasted for four years (1861-65), significant echoes remain today. There is a schism in the political geography of the United States, with the fracture line today very much the same line as in those years. Whatever happens in Ukraine this year or this decade, a similar fracture line is likely to remain into the 22nd century at least.

To understand how useful the US Civil War may be in helping us to assess the present war in Ukraine, we have to see it in the terms of the political and economic assumptions of each time; and also as a purely military event, taking out the ‘goodies versus baddies’ sentiment. The passion in 1860s’ America was on the side of the secessionist south, just as it is on the side of Ukraine today. There was not a passionate abolitionist (ie anti-slavery) mass movement in the north, though there was a passionate and politically significant movement. The question of what motivated the working and farming men of the north to fight was not unlike today’s question of what motivates Russian men to fight in Ukraine today.

Abraham Lincoln, like Vladimir Putin, was passionate about ‘the Union’; willing to pay a huge price to reforge their respective political and cultural Unions. Less passionate contemporaries, in both cases, saw regime change as a possible end-of-the-war scenario.

In the United States the war followed a ‘phony war’ stage that lasted through most of 1861, and then descended into a brutal stalemate which lasted until the second half of 1864. Lincoln, elected in November 1860, faced re-election in November 1864. For all money, he would suffer a landslide defeat in 1864; that is, until the military situation turned in his favour (especially the capture of Atlanta) just months before the 1864 election. Fortunes turned, and Lincoln won in a landslide. He was helped by the non-participation of the south in that election. Indeed it would take more than a century before Lincoln’s Republican Party would gain electoral traction in those southern states; and then only when – in the late 20th century – the two parties swapped places. (It was only recently that, in the US, the party of the south became the party of the north; and vice versa.)

Abraham Lincoln’s ’emancipation proclamation’ on 1 January 1863 was a wonderful piece of political theatre, that proved to be a masterstroke that both enabled the abolitionist cause to be fulfilled in the event of a Union victory, and formed an important part of the basis for Lincoln’s subsequent legacy. At the time it had as much impact as Putin would have if, later this year say, he were to declare an end to people-trafficking in Ukraine; Lincoln in 1863 had no practical jurisdiction over the people whom he notionally emancipated.

An important parallel to note is that it was the southern side in the US Civil War that was then most connected to the world economy, and thus it was the loss of the southern economy that incurred the greatest economic costs to the interested European powers. The (southern) Confederacy looked to the United Kingdom and France to provide military support. In the end the military support given to the south was vastly less than hoped for. There was no expectation, in America or Europe, that the European powers would provide assistance to Lincoln and his armies.

The analogy between the Ukraine War and the US Civil War suggests that the present war will most likely be, for years, a costly stalemate. Deutsch Welle, in its ‘To the Point’ (16 July) listing, said: “After capturing large parts of Donbas, will Putin have an appetite for more?” This western perspective makes Putin seem like a Viking raider who has a ‘bit of fun’ in the borderlands, and then withdraws for a short or long while. The idea that Putin, this year, might simply ‘pack up his toys and bring his boys home’ represents a substantial misreading of the motivation of Putin and the many influential Russians who will continue to promote this fight for Russian prestige and territory. Like Lincoln, I don’t see Putin as a quitter. And it’s not clear that, if something happened to Putin – like dying of covid – the war in Ukraine would necessarily fold.

The popular western perspective is that the war in Ukraine will somehow fizzle out after a few more months, and that the costs of the war to the rest of the world will be short-lasting and reversible. A similar view also existed in 1861, in the north of the United States.

World War?

Has World War Three already started? It’s not really a silly question. (Before putting in my two cents worth, I would like to note that I am inclined to agree with those historians who see WW1 and WW2 and a single event with a 21-year interregnum. In that case, that would be the GWW [or GWW1], Great World War, and what we shall call WW3 might prove to be the GWW2 (or GWW3 if we designate the Cold War as a Great World War, as I think we should). We should also note that the timing of the beginning of most wars is subjective. A good case can be made for dating the beginning of WW2 to 1937, with Japan’s invasion of China.)

There is a case that the Cold War should be classed as a ‘World War’. It was a war lasting from July 1945 (with the Soviet Union’s declaration of war against Japan) until the final demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The hottest components of the Cold War – Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan – continue to have repercussions today. So do many of the colder components of that war; especially the break-up of the Soviet Union.

(Under this GWW perspective, both GWW1 and GWW2 were nuclear wars. This is because the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan represent both the end of GWW1 and the start of GWW2.)

Like the other world wars, the Cold War split the world into three: indeed, we came to talk about the ‘first world’, the ‘second world’, and the ‘third world’. In some contexts, China was ‘third world’; in other contexts, it was a recalcitrant part of the ‘second [“communist”] world’. Like GWW1, there was an interregnum in the Cold War; the early 1970s, essentially the later years of Richard Nixon, and the short presidency of Gerald Ford. The Cold War – GWW2 – was reheated during the Jimmy Carter presidency, especially due to the influence of cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski. 1980 was a particularly belligerent year.

The dramatic economic events of the 1970s were a consequence of both the Cold War; and of a regional war that goes back to biblical times and will probably continue until the end of time, the Arab-Israeli War. The first episode of the ‘Great Inflation’ can be attributed to the Vietnam War, the quintessential hot war of the Cold War. The second ‘stagflationary’ episode of that inflation is usually attributed to the 1973 episode of the Arab-Israeli War, and its consequence for world oil prices; though the political response that pushed the Great Inflation well into the 1980s was as much a result of a form of capitalist ideology – monetarist neoliberalism – that had its origins in the earlier years of the Cold War.

The War in Ukraine has already divided the world into three. Aotearoa New Zealand has unambiguously taken sides as a western non-combatant belligerent. It’s not a simple proxy war between Russia and Greater NATO. Türkiye, a NATO member, has taken a much more ambiguous position than New Zealand has. Even though the fighting, so far, has only taken place on the territory of Ukraine, the costs of the war so far have been substantial. And global. And, as in the first months of World War 2 or the US Civil War, we may have only experienced the ‘phony’ part so far.

This war sets the scene for a new economic crisis that will most likely last until at least 2050. Much was already in place before this Russian war started in 2022 (though some would argue that this war started in 2008 or in 2014). The Covid19 pandemic has revealed how brittle the world economy is, and how easily knowledge gives way to narrative. In particular, the pandemic has revealed how brittle ‘first world’ labour markets are, and how dependent the privileged are on an exploited pool of global labour.

In addition, we have the global environmental crisis, which is about global emissions induced climate change; and much more. Indeed, in order to manage the new climate extremes, we have to burn more fossil fuels than ever; to run our air conditioners, our heaters to manage the cold, and to construct the infrastructure which we need to, among other things, keep out the floodwater. We are in a dangerous positive feedback loop, which means we have to aggravate the crisis in order to mitigate it.

Also, in the west in particular, there have been what might best be called the ‘culture wars’. The result is that, within the west, there are two large politicised groups of people who see their adversary as tantamount to ‘evil’; this wickedness of the other side becomes the corrupted lens which makes it close to impossible to define and discuss the very real crises that humanity both faces and imposes. The latest round of the culture war is the resurfacing of the abortion issue. In the United States today, the culture war does have significant overtones which date back to the Civil War.

The pandemic (presented as a war between man and microbe), the 21st century labour crisis with all its cruelties, the culture wars, and climate change all set the scene. The war in Ukraine – already GWW3 by my reckoning – is the spark that is escalating the present conflict. The latest symptom of escalating warfare is the ‘cost of living’ crisis.

Global Inflation?

We are clearly facing global cost crises; rises in real costs due to pandemic and the political measures taken to deal with it, due to environmental change and its costs (including substantial and largely ineffective bureaucratic costs), rising labour costs arising from the massive disruptions to the pre-2020 globalisation of labour, and now war shortages which so far mainly impact the prices (and availability) of staple foods and fossil fuels. A big part of the problem is that, in the west, there have been no serious attempts to cost the Ukraine War. Instead, there has been the pretence that it will just go away; the equivalent to the ‘over by Christmas’ assumptions made in 1861 and 1914 (and 2003 for that matter).

As well as properly assessing the costs of the war, and of the other crisis, a rational response must be to find reasonably equitable ways to share this cost burden. It would have been so much easier if principled income distribution mechanisms had already been in place prior to this crisis decade. We do expect that, in a war, the direct belligerents will face particularly high costs; but we also understand that, in a world war, all of humanity must bear some of the cost.

Yet, when we see countries’ consumers price indexes rising (so far by no more than an annual ten percent in most western countries), we disembody our minds from the real and rising costs ‘out there’; and we expect our politicians to roll out some kind of magic solution. We want them to magic away real costs; in practice that means we expect them to shift the cost burden to other people, especially people in countries or continents other than our own (such as Africa). We, en masse, still expect the very real and substantial crises of the world to be costless to us in our daily lives. Too many of us still see these crises as akin to dramas that we watch on television; as being like multi-season Netflix drama series.

An inflationary spiral takes place when non-powerless people seek compensation from real costs. (Cost crises are not the only inflationary situation. Macroeconomists tend to follow a one-size-fits-all analysis of inflation, based on ‘excess demand’ rather than on ‘increased cost’. So they, in the role of central bankers, rush to increase costs in the form of higher interest rates; whatever the underlying problem. And once one country does it, others are forced to follow in order to stop their currencies’ exchange rates from falling; depreciating currencies make their countries’ inflation rates higher than the global average.)

The first law of holes is ‘stop digging’. But it’s very hard to stop digging when you are in a ‘race to the bottom’.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss the ongoing Russian attacks against Ukraine, including:

Whether the Russian Federation’s president Vladimir Putin has lost the support of significant leaders of allied nations, and if so what does this mean for Russia as a global power?

We also discuss the enduring impact of Oligarch wealth being frozen in Switzerland and the SWIFT international banking system blocking funds transfers to and from Russia.

And finally, we examine the status of the European Union and NATO as a military force opposing Putin’s Russia, and whether Russian generals eventually confront Putin’s power.

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will discuss the ongoing Russian attacks against Ukraine, including:

Whether the Russian Federation’s president Vladimir Putin has lost the support of significant leaders of allied nations, and if so what does this mean for Russia as a global power?

We will also discuss the enduring impact of Oligarch wealth being frozen in Switzerland and the SWIFT international banking system blocking funds transfers to and from Russia.

And finally, we will examine the status of the European Union and NATO as a military force opposing Putin’s Russia, and whether Russian generals eventually confront Putin’s power.

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says New Zealand joins its international partners in condemnation of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and has immediately taken a range of measures against the Russian government.

Giving a statement today about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ardern said Russia began a “military offensive and an illegal invasion” yesterday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared war on Ukraine and launched a full-scale land, sea and air attack on the country.

Putin said his goal was the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, but US President Joe Biden has asserted the evidence clearly showed Russia was the aggressor and it had no evidence for its justifications.

New Zealand has joined with the United Nations in launching economic sanctions against Russia.

Ardern said: “The UK’s Ministry of Defence communicated this morning that more than 80 strikes have been carried out against Ukrainian targets and that Russian ground forces are advancing across the border on at least three axis from north and northeast, and south from Crimea.

“There are reports of attacks in a range of locations around Ukraine, including heavy shelling in eastern Ukraine and fighting in some areas, including around airports and other targets of strategic importance.

‘Unthinkable’ loss of lives
“By choosing to pursue this entirely avoidable path, an unthinkable number of innocent lives could be lost because of Russia’s decision,” she said.

New Zealand called on Russia to do what was right and immediately cease military operations, and permanently withdraw to avoid a “catastrophic and pointless loss of innocent life”, she said.

The invasion posed a significant threat to peace and security in the region and would trigger a humanitarian and refugee crisis, she said.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s media briefing today. Video: RNZ

Russia had demonstrated a disregard for diplomacy and efforts to avoid conflict in the lead-up to the attack, she said, and “must now face the consequences of their decision to invade”.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia has “displayed a flagrant disregard for international law and abdicated their responsibility to uphold global peace and security” and now must face the consequences, Ardern said.

New Zealand has immediately imposed measures in response which include targeted travel bans against Russian officials and other individuals associated with the invasion. They will be banned from obtaining visas to enter or transit New Zealand.

Secondly, this country is prohibiting the export of goods to Russian military and security forces.

Blanket ban a ‘significant step’
“While exports from New Zealand under this category are limited, a blanket ban is a significant step as it removes the ability for exporters to apply for a permit and sends a clear signal of support to Ukraine,” she said.

Finally, New Zealand has suspended bilateral ministry consultations until further notice.

Ardern says there will be a significant cost imposed on Russia for its actions. New Zealand will also consider humanitarian response options, she said.

“Finally our thoughts today are with the people in Ukraine affected by this conflict. Decades of peace and security in the region have been undermined.

“The institutions built to avoid conflict have been threatened and we stand resolute in our support for those who now bear the brunt of Russia’s decisions.”

She again called for Russia to cease military actions and return to diplomatic negotiations to resolve the conflict.

During questions from journalists, Ardern said New Zealand was not constrained by being unable to launch autonomous sanctions.

Additional measures
“There are additional measures that we can take. Obviously already you’ll see those targeted travel bans, we do have the ability to extend those as required and as those involved with this activity grows,” she said.

“We also have the ability to continue to restrict the amount of diplomatic engagement that we have … and obviously the autonomous sanction regimes that have been proposed in the past don’t for instance cover situations of human rights violations.”

Ardern admitted there were some limitations on economic sanctions New Zealand could impose, but the government continued to get advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the tools that could be used and “we want them all to be on the table”.

The measures New Zealand has imposed are limited but send a very clear message.

“What this does say is that there’s no ability to apply or seek to export … this is a blanket ban,” she says.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COHA urges Washington to allow safe passage of the Iranian fuel tankers. Any action to impede their arrival at Venezuelan ports would be illegal, counter-productive, and could ignite an international conflict with unforeseeable consequences. It is time for the US to end the use of economic sanctions and join international efforts to fight the pandemic and save lives everywhere, regardless of ideological differences.

COHA Editorial
Washington DC

Tensions between the US and two governments it has targeted for regime change –Iran and Venezuela– are mounting, as five Iranian oil tankers carrying approximately 60 million gallons of gasoline and other fuel products make their way to the Caribbean coast of Venezuela. This act of mutual assistance challenges a US blockade that limits access of millions of Venezuelans to food, fuel,  and medical supplies. The delivery of gasoline is now of vital importance to the very survival of the Bolivarian revolution.

According to a report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the illegal sanctions implemented by the US government have caused an estimated 40,000 deaths from 2017 to 2018. In March 2020, human rights expert, Alfred de Zayas, said that fatalities had risen to 100,000, principally on account of a dearth of medicines caused by sanctions. Now, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, challenging this crime against humanity takes on even more urgency. COHA maintains that Venezuela has every legal and moral right to solicit and accept urgently needed supplies and trade with any nation it chooses. 

The battle of ideas proceeds at full steam as Iranian tankers are scheduled to arrive at Venezuelan ports in the coming days. Washington and its allies in Bogota argue that Iranian fuel shipments to Venezuela represent a new chapter of Iranian inroads in the US “neighborhood”, and that with this comes the threat of terrorism. Iran and Venezuela, however, have been close allies for more than two decades. They have collaborated on oil production policy through their memberships in OPEC and often have raised their diplomatic voices in unison in favor of a multipolar world and against US interventions in Latin America and the Middle East. In 2005 VenIran was established in the state of Bolivar to assemble tractors. In 2009 Chavez committed to selling gasoline to Iran when it was suffering shortages. The only acts of terrorism in the “neighborhood,” recently have been the foiled mercenary incursions into Venezuela. This paramilitary operation was launched from Colombia, not Iran, and it has been directly linked to the US backed self-declared president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó.

The Maduro administration and its international allies have been appealing to the UN to defend Venezuela’s right to engage in commerce without interference. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, has called for the lifting or suspension of sanctions to allow nations to obtain the materials they need to deal with the crisis. Venezuela maintains that there is nothing illegal per se about trade between two sovereign nations and rejects the dubious legal doctrine that US unilateral coercive measures constitute legitimate additions to international law. In the face of a pandemic, economic warfare, and paramilitary attacks, Venezuela continues to defend its sovereignty.

This battle of ideas parallels actions on the ground. According to Reuters, an anonymous senior Trump administration official said the Iranian fuel shipment “is not only unwelcome by the United States but it’s unwelcome by the region, and we’re looking at measures that can be taken.” The US has deployed additional navy ships to augment its military presence in the Caribbean, ostensibly as part of counter-narcotics operations. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladamir Padrino announced that ships and planes of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) will escort the Iranian oil tankers once they reach Venezuela’s economic zone. Iran, meanwhile, is warning of retaliation in areas of the Middle East where it can do damage to US interests should its tankers come under attack. The stage is set for a possible confrontation.

COHA urges Washington to allow safe passage of the Iranian fuel tankers. Any action to impede their arrival at Venezuelan ports would be illegal, counter-productive, and could ignite an international conflict with unforeseeable consequences. It is time for the US to end the use of economic sanctions and join international efforts to fight the pandemic and save lives everywhere, regardless of ideological differences.

Support this progressive voice and be a part of it. Donate to COHA today. Click here

Five Iranian supertankers, filled with approximately 45.5 million gallons of gasoline and related fuel products are presently crossing the Atlantic with Venezuela their likely ultimate destination. US authorities speculate that Venezuela will pay for these shipments in gold.^[1] Venezuela and Iran, both subject to crippling US sanctions, are natural allies in the struggle to contain the COVID-19 pandemic while providing food and medical supplies for their peoples. If Washington deploys the navy to block these commercial vessels from arriving at their destination, it could ignite a serious international conflict.

By William Camacaro, Frederick B. Mills, Danny Shaw
From Caracas, Washington DC, and  New York City

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the context of a warning by the UN World Food Program that “we are also on the brink of a hunger pandemic,”^[2] Washington is ratcheting up its economic war against Venezuela and Iran to the detriment of efforts by these nations to contain the virus and obtain food and medical supplies. One of the consequences of the US blockade of Venezuela is a gasoline shortage, as any nation that sends the necessary additives to process Venezuelan crude into fuel faces heavy handed sanctions. Yet without gasoline, Venezuelans are unable to transport food and other necessities from the point of sale to their homes and workplaces. And this precious commodity, which was virtually pennies on the gallon just months ago, is presently being sold on the underground market at exorbitant prices in US dollars.

Five Iranian supertankers on the way to Venezuela, carrying approximately 45.5 million gallons of gasoline and related products.^[3] According to Reuters, an anonymous senior Trump administration official said the Iranian fuel shipment “is not only unwelcome by the United States but it’s unwelcome by the region, and we’re looking at measures that can be taken.” This message, as yet unconfirmed by the Trump administration, has been taken seriously by Iran as a threat to impede the arrival of the supertankers. Also, unconfirmed reports over the weekend that the US Navy has deployed four additional warships to the Caribbean along with a P-8 Poseidon multimission aircraft^[4] has raised alarm bells in Tehran, as Iranian authorities warn against US interference with commerce between sovereign states.

In response to the perceived threat to their oil tankers, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres saying: “Coercing nations into complying with the United States’ illegal demands threatens multilateralism, as the foundation of international relations, and sets a dangerous precedent, paving the way for those who aspire to rather divide, not unite, nations.”^[5] Tehran lodged a protest with the Swiss ambassador to Iran, who represents US interests, against any possible actions to impede its ships. The Iranian news agency, Nour, warned “If the United States, like pirates, intends to create insecurity on international highways, it will take a dangerous risk that will certainly not go unnoticed.”^[6] And the leader of the Islamic Revolution, the Ayatollah Seyed Ali Jamene, highlighted “the repugnance” the world’s people feel towards US intimidation, attacks and occupation. The ayatollah went on to declare that “the US will be expelled from [Iran’s neighbors] Iraq and Syria.”^[7]

As political analyst Carmen Parejo Rendón points out, “In the face of US eagerness to dominate two regions of the world, Venezuela plays in Latin America the role that Iran plays in West Asia.”^[8] Both countries insist on preserving their national sovereignty and intend to exercise the right to trade on mutually beneficial terms without the interference of an outside power. Though Venezuela has a different social system than Iran, it has incurred a similar fate. Despite whatever differences, their crime, in the ideological framework of US exceptionalism, is daring to exist outside Washington’s sphere of influence. Nearly two centuries after the Monroe Doctrine, the US continues to see both regions as part of its backyard.

Both Venezuela and Iran have been historically subjected to US intervention against democratically elected governments and have paid a heavy price for forging independent domestic and foreign policies. Since the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998, Washington has backed a broad spectrum of regime change strategies, most recently on behalf of the self-proclaimed president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. After several failed coup attempts, Guaidó’s most recent debacle was acting as “commander in chief” of a foiled mercenary attack on this South American nation just two weeks ago.^[9]  And Iran’s experiment in democracy was subverted by a CIA backed operation in 1953 when Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup, leading to more than two decades of US backed dictatorship.

Iran has good reasons to take the threat against its vessels seriously. In May 2018, President Trump broke with European partners and pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear program, and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Last summer, in a remarkable display of double standards, British Royal Marines stopped and raided an Iranian ship “suspected of carrying oil to Syria.” Days later, according to the UK’s Ministry of Defense, “contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.”^[10] The Trump administration’s targeted assassination in January of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who coordinated anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East and was a national hero, sent shock waves throughout the Middle East and brought these two nations to the brink of war.^[11] On April 22, in the context of heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington, Trump tweeted: “I have instructed the United States Navy to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea.”^[12] In both the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean, US warships have become the explicit arm of Washington’s gunboat diplomacy.

Any US military action to impede the arrival of five Iranian oil tankers at Venezuelan ports could set up a clash between Washington and two of the principal nations it has targeted for regime change. If US warships block the Iranian vessels in international waters and Iran makes good on its threat of retaliation, other nations may quickly be drawn into a conflict that would undermine efforts by the UN to foster a worldwide cessation of hostilities. However, should Iranian oil tankers arrive safely at Venezuelan ports, two sanctioned nations will have opened a breach in the US imposed economic blockade through an act of mutual assistance during a health and food emergency. As Carmen Parejo Rendón observes “what the US does not realize is that it keeps creating more enemies for itself and with this it is reinforcing multilateralism.”

[Credit, main photo:  combat ships in the Caribbean, U. S. Southern Command. By U. S. Navy]

End notes

^[1] “Exclusive: U.S. weighs measures in response to Iran fuel shipment to Venezuela – source,” https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-venezuela-fuel-iran-usa-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-weighs-measures-in-response-to-iran-fuel-shipment-to-venezuela-source-idUKKBN22Q2RL

^[2] “WFP Chief warns of hunger pandemic as COVID-19 spreads (Statement to UN Security Council),”https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-chief-warns-hunger-pandemic-covid-19-spreads-statement-un-security-council

^[3] “Iran vs USA: Tehran threatens ‘immediate response’ if US blockades Venezuela bound tankers,” https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1283831/iran-usa-latest-news-us-venezuela-oil-tankers-caribbean-sea-world-war-3

^[4] “US Sends 4 Warships to Caribbean for Possible Encounter with Iran Tanker” https://ifpnews.com/us-sends-4-warships-to-caribbean-for-possible-encounter-with-iran-tankers. See also “US Navy Patrol Squadron 26 ‘Tridents’ Deploy to 4th Fleet.” https://militaryleak.com/2020/05/18/us-navy-patrol-squadron-26-tridents-deploy-to-4th-fleet/ and https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=112980

^[5] “Iran asks U.N. chief to push back against U.S. sanctions on foreign minister,” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-un-idUSKCN1UW2AQ

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] “Líder de Irán: EEUU no se quedará en Irak y Siria y será expulsado”, https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/politica/466300/jamenei-eeuu-explusar-irak-siria

^[8] “Venezuela juega en Sudamérica el papel de Irán en Asia Occidental,” https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/politica/466301/petrolero-iran-venezuela-eeuu

^[9] “New information: Guaidó was the “commander in chief” of the failed mercenary operation against Venezuela,” http://www.coha.org/new-information-guaido-was-the-commander-in-chief-of-the-failed-mercenary-operation-against-venezuela/

^[10] “Iranian boats attempted to seize a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz,” https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politics/iran-attempted-seize-british-tanker/index.html.

^[11] “Trump authorized Soleimani’s killing 7 months ago,” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-authorized-soleimani-s-killing-7-months-ago-conditions-n1113271

^[12] “Iran-US tensions rise on Trump threat, Iran satellite launch,” https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-tweets-ordered-navy-destroy-iranian-gunboats-7028451