New Zealand's foreign minister visits Washington amid US-Iran conflict
Chelsea Daniels interviews University of Otago international relations expert Robert Patman about Trump's threats against Iran and Winston Peters' trip to Washington.
Summary
Host Chelsea Daniels speaks with Robert Patman, an international relations expert at the University of Otago, about the escalating US-Iran conflict and New Zealand's diplomatic position. Patman argues that war crimes have already been committed through US and Israeli strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure — including universities, a girls' school, and energy facilities — and that Trump's further threats to bomb power plants and bridges would compound those crimes. He contends that the US has fundamentally miscalculated Iranian resilience and created the very crisis it is now trying to resolve. Patman also discusses a 45-day ceasefire proposal being mediated by Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey, welcoming the diplomatic effort while noting Iranian resolve that such an attack can never happen again. He argues that New Zealand and other liberal democracies have gained nothing from their "softly softly" approach to the Trump administration, and warns that Winston Peters' Washington visit risks being seen as complicity unless New Zealand clearly articulates where it diverges from US policy. Patman calls for a two-track approach: cooperation where interests align, but firm clarity on New Zealand's commitment to international law where they do not.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Trump's threats against Iran
Chelsea Daniels: Iran has rejected a proposed ceasefire with the US and Israel. It's after an expletive-laden post from President Donald Trump, in which he demanded the Strait of Hormuz be reopened or else Iran would be "living in hell." Iran's deputy foreign minister accused Trump of threatening war crimes, saying strikes on power plants and bridges would target civilian infrastructure and violate international law.
Meanwhile, New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters is travelling to Washington, D.C., where he'll meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials this week. Today on The Front Page, University of Otago international relations expert Robert Patman joins us to discuss the latest on the war involving Iran and what could happen next.
So, Robert, Trump has renewed his threat to unleash heavy bombing on Iranian power plants and bridges if Tehran continues to block the strait. First off, what do you make of his expletive-laden post? I can actually read it out for us. It says: "Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day, all wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be nothing like it. Open the f***ing strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. Just watch. Praise be to Allah. President Donald J. Trump."
Robert Patman: And it was sent on Easter Sunday. This is a president who claims to represent those who hold the Christian faith, particularly on the right. To be quite frank, what he said was completely unacceptable on several levels. Firstly, he undermined the international reputation of the United States. He besmirched the office of the presidency. He further diminished the US's reputation — not so much in the eyes of America's authoritarian allies, but particularly in the eyes of its democratic allies. It's almost like someone has escaped from the pub and taken over the most powerful country in the world. This sort of barroom talk, this bravado and these threats, will not make Iran's knees buckle. If anything, it will only confirm that he is a weak leader who confuses verbal threats with real strength.
It's very bad messaging by the United States at a delicate time. It will do nothing to enhance respect for America's position in this conflict. Let's be quite clear: Mr. Trump has been making threats against Iran's infrastructure since the 21st of March. He said that if Iran doesn't comply, he will be bombing that country back to the Stone Age — another unfortunate phrase. That may make Mr. Trump feel good, and it may make his inner circle and MAGA feel good. It doesn't inspire confidence around the rest of the world. The reaction of many people is: how was it that America placed so much faith in someone who behaves in this way, and this is the most powerful leader in the world?
Having said all that, these threats are not new, and Mr. Trump shows himself to be quite versatile with moving deadlines. The Iranians have made it quite clear — in the last ten hours, the Iranian foreign minister made a statement saying they are fully prepared for the attacks.
Another thing we need to clarify: not only have these threats been made since the 21st of March, but since the United States launched its illegal, premeditated and reckless attack on Iran, it has been hitting Iranian infrastructure. Thirty Iranian universities have been hit, either by Israel or the United States. On the first day, within the first 24 hours, there was a cruise missile bombing of a girls' school which killed 165 young women — something America has not yet produced the results of an investigation into. Schools, universities — there has also been an attack on key energy infrastructure, the South Pars gas field. The Israelis struck a massive blow there, which enveloped Tehran in a toxic cloud.
These threats have been made repeatedly, and there's already been action to deliver on some of them. So this big emphasis on what's going to happen on Tuesday at 8pm Eastern Standard Time — we have to take all of that into account. I would not be surprised if Mr. Trump doesn't follow through with his threats. And the Iranians have made it quite clear that if he does act on those threats, they will be demolishing the desalination plants and the energy infrastructure of the Gulf states allied to the United States.
Mr. Trump has got himself into a bit of a political fix. He's created a situation — the closing of the Strait of Hormuz — and he's now escalating his threats to resolve a problem he created. The Iranians always said they would close it if they were attacked. And they always said they would attack the Gulf states if they were attacked as well. There doesn't seem to be any easy way out for Mr. Trump now.
The ceasefire proposal and prospects for de-escalation
Chelsea Daniels: There was a last-ditch proposal for a 45-day ceasefire that was sent to Iran and the US. A White House official said Trump hadn't signed off on it. Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey have all been acting as mediators between them. What would be the positives and negatives of a 45-day ceasefire for both sides?
Robert Patman: I welcome this news. Mr. Trump does mix everything — alarming threats with a willingness to negotiate. But the Iranians take the view that this can never happen again. Whatever we think about the regime in Tehran — and I think it's an awful regime — what the United States has done has actually strengthened it. Surely that was not the object of the exercise.
Also, what the United States is doing is a flagrant violation of international law, which many countries, including New Zealand, depend on. So we can't be indifferent to what the United States is doing because it's compromising our national interests. This conflict has to stop because too many countries are paying the price for unilateral action by the United States and Israel. None of these countries were consulted. And that's what was slightly remarkable about Mr. Trump appealing — in fact, pleading — with other members of the NATO alliance to help the United States reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which the United States had unilaterally taken steps to provoke in the first place, resulting in Iran's retaliatory closure of the strait.
This administration doesn't seem to have thought through the consequences of its own actions, and in particular it has underestimated the resilience of the Iranian government.
Trump, in a recorded clip, is heard saying: "Are you winding this down? Are you escalating? I can't tell you. I don't know. I can't tell. It depends what they do. This is a critical period. They have a period of — well, till tomorrow at eight o'clock. I gave them an extension. They asked for an extension of seven days. I said, Steve, give them ten days. Ten days is up actually today. So I gave them eleven, I guess, indirectly. I thought it was inappropriate the day after Easter. I want to be a nice person. Eight o'clock Eastern Time, and after that they're going to have no bridges, they're going to have no power plants. Stone Ages, yeah."
Trump's criticism of allies and the limits of appeasement
Chelsea Daniels: What do you make of Trump lashing out at allies? He mentioned Australia, Japan, South Korea.
Robert Patman: Mr. Trump always blames everyone but himself. Throughout his political career, it's always been the other guy's fault. Mr. Trump must win everything and lose nothing. He accepts all the credit and none of the responsibility. This is his political style, and I don't think other international leaders have any illusions about that. They shouldn't have.
The most baffling thing is that so many countries, including our own, have persisted in a softly softly approach to the Trump administration. And what has it got them? Precisely nothing. It encourages Mr. Trump. How do you deal with a bully? You don't go on a charm offensive with a bully. You make it clear to the bully that there are red lines they can't cross. And if you don't, then they will cross those red lines with enthusiasm.
It is way beyond time, but it's time for liberal democracies to seriously think about whether they can persist in a vain attempt to moderate Mr. Trump's behaviour by fawning all over him. Mr. Trump does not share the democratic values or the democratic interests of most of his allies, including our country. He has made it quite clear his vision of how the world should be run is through great powers, with the United States, as the greatest power of all, sitting at the top table. And this is not just rhetoric — it's written down in the national security statement released by the administration in late November last year, which too few people have read. And Mr. Trump has acted on it, both with respect to Venezuela and now Iran. He has no time for international institutions unless they explicitly serve what he sees as America's interests. He does not like multilateralism — something all governments in this country have placed enormous faith in.
There's no point pretending that Mr. Trump subscribes to all the things that New Zealand does, because he doesn't. Previous American governments weren't always consistent, but at least they paid lip service to a rules-based order and democratic values. This administration, you could say to their credit, doesn't pretend. They are quite clear that international relations is about power. The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and they are prepared to act on that perception.
What happens if Trump bombs civilian infrastructure
Chelsea Daniels: What will happen if the US actually does bomb Iran's power plants and civilian infrastructure? Trump said Iran could be taken out in one night — presumably Tuesday at 8pm Eastern Standard Time. What does the world do? What is the alternative to diplomacy?
Robert Patman: First of all, that would be a war crime. War crimes have already been committed by the United States and Israel in these attacks. War crimes have also been committed in retaliation by Iran — they've bombed a whole series of targets in the Gulf states, which are linked to the United States through the bases and facilities they provide for the American military.
I would expect that if Mr. Trump acts on his threat, he will basically kiss goodbye any prospect of regime change. Many of the protesters — and there are plenty of them in Iran, though they've largely dissipated since the crisis began — will not be delighted by the already burgeoning number of civilian deaths. More than 2,000 Iranians have already died. Bombing civilian infrastructure will probably multiply the number of civilian deaths dramatically and will likely lead to a rallying around the Iranian government. Not only will it be a war crime, but it's a politically dumb thing to do. It will not advance the idea that protesters can seize the reins of power in Tehran. There is no historical example of air power alone ever achieving regime change, and I don't think Mr. Trump is going to achieve one in Iran.
The question you raised also raises tough questions for the US military. Do they obey orders and carry out war crimes? Or do they resist orders and refuse — which, of course, would be insubordination to the commander-in-chief? There's a fair amount of concern within the US military at the moment about the political direction. This administration has not handled the war competently. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, has sacked a number of people who apparently gave him advice he didn't appreciate, removing senior military officials at a time when the United States is engaged in a war with Iran. That's probably unwise, because Hegseth may surround himself with people who echo his views — but if his views are wrong, he will only magnify the poor decision-making that's already been made.
Trump, in a recorded clip, is heard saying: "If God doesn't like what's happening, I don't like what's happening. Everyone says I enjoy it. I don't enjoy this. I don't enjoy it. These two guys don't enjoy it. People say, oh boy, they're so tough. They don't like — I don't like seeing people killed. I've ended eight wars. Nobody's ever done it. The person who won the Nobel Prize came to me and said, you deserve the Nobel Prize. She announced that when they announced it went to Maria — she's a great person, really a good person. She said, no, no, no, this is ridiculous. They should give me the Nobel Prize. President Trump ended eight wars. I could go over every one of them, including India and Pakistan, where the Prime Minister of Pakistan said President Trump saved from 30 to 50 million lives. That makes me much happier than what we're doing right now. That makes me much happier. We have one more to end, by the way."
The Gulf states' position
Chelsea Daniels: Do you expect the Gulf states to really intervene? Iran can't reach US civilian infrastructure, but it certainly can reach the allies in the Gulf states. When do you expect them to stand up and say, hang on, we need to get involved?
Robert Patman: I think the Gulf states are divided. On the one hand, there are those like the UAE and Saudi Arabia who've been quietly egging on the Americans, saying "finish the job." There was an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal recently by a senior official in the UAE government saying the Americans really must deal with this long-running problem. But actually, if they could, they would — and they probably cannot. And not only that, it's probably not in the UAE's or Saudi Arabia's best interests to urge actions which would almost certainly result in massive Iranian retaliation against the Gulf states.
The Iranians have constantly wrong-footed the Americans. Right from the outset, they reframed the conflict in a way America didn't expect. Mr. Trump said no one had expected Iran to attack the Gulf states. That's an extraordinary comment in itself, given that all intelligence people said Iran had telegraphed this for about a year, and had actually sent diplomats to the Gulf states warning them exactly what would happen if they were attacked by the United States.
On the one hand, there's the UAE and Saudi Arabia, who remain deeply pro-American and committed to Trump's solution despite the consequences for themselves. On the other hand, there are states like Qatar, who believe they played a key role in the mediation talks in Gaza and have good relations with Iran. They believe it's in the Gulf states' own interest to get along with Iran. The economies of these countries could actually be wrecked by Iranian retaliation. And who would they blame if that retaliation occurred? They would blame Iran, but they might also blame the country which triggered Iran's response — the United States.
If Mr. Trump goes ahead with his threats, it could end up undermining America's position in relation to many of the Gulf states. After all, they've done everything possible to appease him — given him gifts of planes, huge investment in the United States. But in their view, Mr. Trump seems to listen only to Netanyahu and not to them. For all their desperate attempts to win over Mr. Trump, all the flattery and all the money pumped into the United States as investment, it was not enough to prevent Mr. Trump taking Mr. Netanyahu's advice and attacking Iran.
Winston Peters' Washington visit and New Zealand's position
Chelsea Daniels: Our Foreign Minister Winston Peters is on his way to Washington, D.C. In reality, they're not obviously going to see Winston walk down a corridor and stop bombing. But what is the purpose of our foreign minister being there?
Robert Patman: Mr. Peters would say he's there to advance New Zealand's national interests and also to consolidate the close relationship with the United States that this current government has set itself the goal of fostering. Mr. Peters will also be keen to keep the Americans engaged in the Pacific Island nations region. Mr. Peters and Mr. Luxon's government — and many New Zealanders — have been concerned by China's increasing assertiveness.
The question is: is it strategically reading the room correctly to go to a country which has unleashed an illegal war and seek to get closer to it? After all, what Mr. Trump is doing is a dire threat to our national interests. It's difficult, and I don't want to prejudge this. For all I know, Mr. Peters may be going there to deliver a very tough message. I do think it's the right thing to have a dialogue and take the opportunity to speak to the United States. But we can't gloss over the fact — and so far we have — that official government statements have blamed almost entirely Iran for the attacks that occurred against Iran, and we've given none of the blame to the United States. If we continue that form in Washington, that will be seen as complicity and tacit support for what's happening. And that's a real danger for New Zealand, because we're much more vulnerable than America is to hikes in prices of food and energy.
I hope that Mr. Peters would do what Mr. Luxon said he would do at the beginning of his coalition government — stand up for New Zealand values. It's quite clear that this is a war of choice. Mr. Trump didn't have to do this. He said he'd obliterated the nuclear capabilities of Iran in June 2025. Israel said it had destroyed half of Iran's missile capabilities. But here we are, less than twelve months later, doing it again.
I do hope that we combine a willingness to engage with the United States with clarity about where we stand. We need to say to the United States — and not least to the Americans who also disapprove of this, and we always forget about them, but we shouldn't as a democracy — we need to remind them that we disapprove of this action. We're a small country, we can't do much, and we seem to be terrified of any sort of retaliation by the United States. But we have to weigh that up against a wider interest. Do we want to live in a world where great powers can throw their weight around with impunity and we as a smaller player have to accept what we're given? Or do we want a rules-based international order?
In the short term, it may involve some ruffling of feathers in Washington to spell that out. And we're not alone in this. Many democracies are uncomfortable with what America is doing, but they're keeping their heads down — and they will pay a big price for that, because it will be seen as complicity by the administration in Washington.
The quicker we make ourselves clear on where we stand on this issue, the quicker we will advance our national interest. Mr. Peters, I hope, will keep the Americans engaged in the Pacific — I think that's important. And we need to be very clear-eyed that this administration doesn't share our views on the importance of a rules-based order. We need to be pragmatic. A two-track approach is what I'm hoping Mr. Peters will articulate in Washington. Where our interests converge, we should enthusiastically embrace cooperation with the United States. But where they diverge, we shouldn't take a step back. We certainly shouldn't compromise on our commitment to international law, because we have a huge self-interest in maintaining that — as does Australia, and as do many other countries in the world. We need to be nuanced in our approach.
Chelsea Daniels: Thanks for joining us, Robert.
Robert Patman: Thank you.