← The Morning Edition
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:07]
A
Donald Trump has backed down at the 11th hour from his horrifying threat to, as the US president put it himself, unleash destruction on Iran's entire civilization. Both sides have now said they have agreed to a two week ceasefire which includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz. I'm Samantha Sellingra Morris and you're listening to the Morning edition from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. Today, international and political editor Peter Harcher on how to make sense of the events of the last 24 hours and whether in two weeks the world is likely to be yet again on the brink of carnage. Peter, welcome back to the podcast.
- [00:48]
B
Good to see you, Samantha.
- [00:50]
A
Okay, so we've got to talk about the extraordinary events that have taken place only hours before. We're recording this on Wednesday at lunchtime. Can you just begin by walking us through the really extraordinary threat that Donald Trump posted on social media? And then what sort of, I guess, shockwaves it's made through the globe?
- [01:10]
B
Well, he threatened Iran that unless it opened the Strait of Hormuz, he would destroy an entire civilization. He said it mightn't happen, but it probably will. Now, there's exaggeration, there's Trumpisms, but this is a completely new realm where he has overstepped all bounds of civilization itself to threaten to destroy not a military enemy, but a whole state, its population and its culture. I'm not going to pretend that it's some virtuous, enlightened group that he's, he's threatening, but he is nonetheless threatening a country of 93 million people and its ancient civilization. This is another holocaust by a different name. What's the difference? The eradication of one people and their culture and history by another country and other people. It is a holocaust. It's a genocide by any definition. And for the president of the US to be committing this to print and threatening another country with this in the midst of a tense and difficult war or prelude to a negotiation marks a threshold, I think, in contemporary history where the US has gone from being the protector of liberty and the upholder of rights and laws throughout the world to being one of its most flagrant violators. And this is just a shocking moment, I think, for anybody who has lived in the US or allied countries or in fact, any country in our lifetimes and even predating World War II.
- [03:08]
A
Absolutely. And I'm sure you, as I did, and many listeners might have as well, seen numerous American commentators, seasoned political analysts, really gobsmacked by this moment. I know I saw Charlie Sykes. He used to be sort of at the center of the conservative movement in the United States. And he said, this is the way that monsters of history speak. And this particular threat, he said, when he's talking about wiping out one of the world's oldest civilizations, whether he follows through on that or not feels like a turning point in America's 250 year experiment in liberal constitutional democracy. He said, I certainly can't remember any other time when any leader of a liberal democracy has threatened to, to destroy a civilization. I mean, even Tucker Carlson sort of was imploring members of the military that if they were so directed to annihilate the Iranian people. He said, everything hangs in the balance now. This is not hysteria. This is 100% real. I mean, that sort of says something, doesn't it, when you've got those voices on the verge of freedom?
- [04:09]
B
Well, it is. And he represents a whole echelon of prominent MAGA figures who have drawn a line at this and said, this is just too much. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker and a bunch of others have called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked to remove Trump from office. But it is also a broader test, as you've just as he suggested, of the US As a country. This is, of course, about Trump, but this is a test now of the US and how far it will cooperate with this. Based on his own words, this genocidal tyrant. What does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Kane, say when he gets an order, which he knows. And all those senior ranks in the US Military, by the way, movies give them a bad rap, but they are very educated philosopher soldiers for the most part. At the upper ranks, they understand. They're much better educated and briefed than Trump could ever dream of being. Dan Kaine would know absolutely that he, if ordered to carry out this threat, would be breaching international law and every restraint on civilized human behavior. What does he do in response to that? What does the other upper echelons of the Pentagon do? What does Trump's Cabinet do? What do the other members of the Republican Party in the Congress and the Senate and more broadly in the party? What do they do? This is a test. And of course, well, the Democrats, but the entire population, what does this country do with this leader having exposed himself in this way? So Trump has failed the test. Yeah, but what about America?
- [05:57]
A
And I was listening to, well, many American commentators this morning, just to see them grapple in real time. They seem to be almost lost for words. But one of them pointed out that, of course, what Trump has posted on social media really matches the Pentagon's definition of terrorism. You know, threatening to annihilate a civilization. But then we've got to talk about what then happened because of course, an hour or so before Trump stated deadline, when he said that he would destroy Iranian civilization if Tehran didn't open the Straits of Hormuz, he of course announced that the two countries had reached a ceasefire. So tell us what the two countries have agreed to and I guess how are Iran and the United States framing this? Like, are they both framing this as a victory? What's going on here, Peter?
- [06:44]
B
So as you know, Trump had been practically begging the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire or a negotiation for a couple of weeks now. And the Iranians, to his shock and surprise, have defied his requests and said no. He handed over a, through intermediaries, the US handed over a 15 point proposal to follow a ceasefire to implement a peace accord. The Iranians had rejected that. But today, under pressure of these threats, but also because of the, they were able to use the intermediary of the Pakistanis as a pretext, if you like, for reconsidering the American offer and embracing the Pakistanis as a brotherly, a brotherly approach, said the Iranians. The Iranians agreed to respond to the Trump not to accept the Trump 15 point plan, but to respond with a 10 point plan of their own, which we have yet to see in full text. And that Trump seized on that immediately because it was the first actual concession they had made to his pleadings for a settlement, ceasefire negotiation of any form. Trump has lunged for it, seized on it like a dying man lunging for a life preserver in the ocean. And as a result of that, the two sides will sit down for their are scheduled to sit down for their first actual face to face negotiation on Friday to talk this through. And the Iranians as part of that have agreed to allow shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. They have not given any unconditional guarantee. They have said that in their wording the passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible provided there is coordination with the Iranian armed forces and subject to technical limitations. Now, any lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't take a lawyer to tell you that those two conditions that they've set are pretty big conditions that could be quite restrictive depending on how Tehran decides to implement them.
- [08:54]
A
And we've also seen reports that Israel has agreed to the ceasefire. I'm not sure if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has commented on that yet. So what do we know about that at this time, Peter?
- [09:04]
B
Well, all we know is that the Iranians stipulated that the Israelis should also cease their war against Lebanon. Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and the US on behalf of the Israelis, has agreed to that. As you say, I'm sure we'll get some more specific clarification from the Israelis, but that seems to be a part of the deal from where we sit now.
- [09:28]
A
And so do you have any sense of whether this could lead to a longer ceasefire? This is, of course, assuming the big if that this two week ceasefire even holds, which we have absolutely no idea if it will, but let's just say for the sake of this conversation, it does. Could this lead to a longer ceasefire? Is this the off ramp that Donald Trump has, you know, been really wanting?
- [09:47]
B
It's fair to say, the way he's seized on it, yes, desperately. Absolutely. Yeah. It's the off ramp that he's been looking for.
- [09:55]
A
But do you think this could lead to a longer ceasefire? Like, I mean, I know you're not a military strategist, Peter, but.
- [10:00]
B
But this isn't military. This is. This is politics.
- [10:03]
A
Yes.
- [10:04]
B
This is a, a negotiation between two parties over whether they want to end a war and if so, how. So anything is possible. Yeah, we don't know
- [10:19]
A
after the break,
- [10:21]
B
he's gone from being a potential liberator now to the ultimate oppressor that cannot possibly win the US Under Trump, at least any friends or support in Iran.
- [10:43]
A
You and I spoke just before recording about the fact that former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, among others, has called for Donald Trump's cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. So can you walk us through briefly what this would mean before we then perhaps unpack whether this could do anything to end this war, even if it was invoked?
- [11:00]
B
Well, it's an amendment that's provided the terms under which a serving president can be replaced, and you'd expect a high bar. And so it is. The vice president has to bring it. The majority of the cabinet has to agree to it, and so does the both houses of the Congress. Only then can a president be removed, presumably because he's insane or otherwise incapable of doing his job. So the consequence would be the vice president would be installed in his place. Now, I don't know whether this is just Trump craftiness or sheer chance, but this would mean, if this were invoked, that J.D. vance would step in. Now, J.D. vance happens to have been the guy put in charge of the, what Trump's been calling negotiations, but really our communications with their intermediaries in the dealings with Iran. So it would be very difficult now for J.D. vance to say, well, Trump did that, but I didn't. He's now inextricably involved in that. So Trump has compromised him and his ability to claim that he's not involved should this go horribly wrong. And the other thing is he's got him. He sent him out of the country, happens to be in Hungary for the
- [12:18]
A
time being, perhaps conveniently.
- [12:19]
B
Again, this may be sheer chance, but it may also be a touch of craft. I mean, Trump is an execrable human being, but he's not completely stupid.
- [12:30]
A
And so you've mentioned before, there's this two week ceasefire. We don't exactly know how it will come about whether those loopholes will be seized on by the Iranians. And this won't be a full opening of the streets for news. Obviously, we're still yet to find out. But I wanted to ask you about what one Iranian expert told our mastheads. He's at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and he said that Trump's threat, threats to destroy Iranian civilization, were a gift to the Iranian regime. He said they will alienate even its fiercest opponents, who believe the Islamic Republic has spent decades erasing 2,500 years of Iranian civilization. It's malpractice for the US president to threaten the same. So, obviously we don't know how the war is going to proceed. But I guess tell me whether you agree with that, like, what impact could that have on the global order in terms of how this will impact, I guess Iran's place in the world and the way it's viewed.
- [13:26]
B
I think this whole episode, which Donald Trump seems to think is demonstrating his great power, is actually exposed the U.S. s impotence that after five weeks of war, which he's talked up as obliteration and all of the hyperbole, has not been able to achieve some of the enunciated, supposedly core aims of this war and has failed to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz or the global oil price. This has demonstrated a lack of strategy, a lack of competence, and a failure politically and militarily to subdue an enemy. The Iranians have been frantically firing off missiles and drones every day, including the last 24 hours. They're nowhere near capitulation. They were happy to keep going. And so that's the first point I'd make. The second point I'd make is in January when there was an uprising on the streets of Tehran of all the major cities of Iran against The regime, which was essentially an economic uprising, the collapse of the currency, outbursts of inflation, officially measured at 50%, but unofficially much more than that. When those people took to the streets, Donald Trump encouraged them. Help is on its way, he said. And I only want freedom for the Iranian people, he said. And there's some evidence that the Iranian protest, opposition movement really welcomed this intervention by Trump. Now, compare that to the last 24 hours, Samantha, where you've got the US threatening to wipe out the entire country and all its civilian infrastructure if the US Carries out its threat to wipe out the power plants of Iran and destroy its electricity grid. It does all the obvious things, disables the whole economy. Hospitals can't function, all of the rest of it, but it also disables the pumps, the pumping system that irrigates the crops of Iran, without which they can't grow food. If you're an Iranian person, ordinary Iranian, are you going to applaud the man threatening to wipe out your country, your family, your culture? I don't think so. So if there were, and there is evidence that there was some sympathy and enthusiasm among the Iranian opposition for Trump because he promised to remove a regime, a horrible regime that they hate, and went on, of course, in January to murder something like, depending on the sour something, up to 30,000 Iranian unarmed civilians were murdered by the regime for daring to protest. So he's gone from being a potential liberator now to the ultimate oppressor that cannot possibly win the US under Trump. least any friends or support in Iran.
- [16:28]
A
Well, Peter, I guess just to wrap up, I mean, when we recorded just last week, you said that we'd already passed the threshold for the sun going down on the American empire. Given, of course, that its singular strength, as you've pointed out, derive from, you know, its incredibly strong alliances. So if we had reached that threshold by last week, where are we now? You know, because, I mean, you and I have been recording on incredibly dire matters for nearly three years now. This would have to be one of the more gobsmacking moments that we have witnessed in terms of threats like this and what's happening on the world stage, right?
- [17:03]
B
Yes, it is. I mean, it's the abrogation of any position of responsible leadership by Trump. It doesn't mean all the allies immediately are going to denounce Trump or withdraw from their alliances, even if they wanted to. Many of us, including Australia, are so tightly and deeply embedded in US Systems that we cannot simply walk away out of moral outrage. Emotionally satisfying, though it would be it's not possible if you wish to continue. Basic elements of running a state, such as intelligence systems, a functioning military, almost all of the Australian military and other, some other allies military depends on US coordination, combat systems, hardware and software that needs updating. Our entire, all our squadrons of F35 fighter jets, one missed software update and they don't fly. So it's not an option for countries to just walk away. But in any moral principled sense, in any sense of the US empire being an empire by virtue of the fact that countries wanted to be part of it. So the US didn't need to impose its will in the traditional imperial way through armies of occupation and economic coercion. It was a very cheap way of running an empire because the 40 or so countries that were treaty allies of the US wanted to be part, were willing participants cooperating with the US and abiding by a US system of international laws. All of that is gone. It depended on trust and it depended on sufficient virtue that countries, not just governments but their populations, could justify being a willing part of this system. That's gone. The trust is gone.
- [18:58]
A
Has these statements by Donald Trump, have they actually made the world worse just in themselves? Because I noted that American historian Timothy Snyder wrote in the Wall Street Journal that, you know, whatever happens tonight, you know, he's changed the world for worse and he's actually made acts of mass violence more likely. Do you agree?
- [19:17]
B
I don't think necessarily more likely. I do think that any claim to American exceptionalism is, if it wasn't already, is now well and truly dead. This just makes the US another predator. There were two great predators that US power had managed to contain in recent decades, and they are Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping's China. What Trump does now is on a moral and political and practical level, he leaves behind any American exceptionalism and places himself on the same level as murderous dictators who are prepared to conduct genocide. So, for example, in the case of Vladimir Putin, the genocide of the Ukrainian people, in the case of Xi Jinping, the Uyghur people, the Tibetan people, would argue the same, that they've been the subject of genocidal policies from Beijing. Trump has now put himself in the same moral, political and practical league. The US because it still has. It doesn't have the same advantage in sheer military firepower terms that it used to have, but it still has a big advantage over Russia and over China, and that could well yet restrain Russia and China from egregious acts of direct military kinetic war. They wage asymmetric war instead, wherever they can, against anyone they can any of their rivals. So the physical dominance of American military may yet restrain those other dictators. But the moment that China, for example, can catch up and overmatch US Capability, or that Russia decides that together with China, it can do it, there's no difference between them. They're just three predators stalking the planet now.
- [21:08]
A
Wow. Well, thanks, Peter, as always, for your time.
- [21:11]
B
It's quite a day, and it's a shocking day, but it's still good to be able to ventilate these things, talk them over with you.
- [21:17]
A
It sure is. Thanks, Peter.
- [21:18]
B
Thanks, Samantha.
- [21:24]
A
In other news today, the war would deliver a bigger economic hit than a natural disaster or a government debt crisis, according to new international research. Highly decorated soldier Ben Roberts Smith will remain in custody after his lawyers declined to push for his release on bail before a court on Wednesday. And regional cities have become the affordable future of housing in Australia, according to new research. To find out which regional hubs topped the list, visit smhortheage.com Today's episode was produced by Chi Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow the Morning Edition and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.