← The Morning Edition
Loading summary
Transcript25 lines
- [00:00]
A
It took late night breakthroughs, 404s, a coffee machine that stopped working, a co founder who did too. New code, new investors who said maybe next round seeing the sector quietly pivot, knowing your idea held true. Model trained, model failed, friends backing you, reading the hype, reheating the spaghetti. Another round, a working demo and a first client for this AI developer to believe they might actually have a business. It's not for everyone. The Australian Financial Review the daily habit of successful people.
- [00:31]
B
Donald Trump declared war on Iran in a move that seemed inevitable but was nevertheless shocking when the moment came. Joint American and Israeli strikes rained down on the country beginning on Saturday with reports of the deaths of civilians and also the killing of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And now, says Trump, it's time for the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their country's government. I'm Samantha Selinger 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 who is likely to rule Iran now and if this will likely lead to a wider war. So Peter, we're recording this on Sunday afternoon. Can you briefly just take us through this attack? You know, how fulsome has it been? How much damage has Iran sustained?
- [01:30]
C
Well, while the US Was still at the negotiating table and according to the Omani interlocutors who were brokering the agreements, there was something pretty close to a deal with the Iranians. And with those negotiations still underway, without warning, Israel began a series of strikes against Iran that have successfully decapitated the Iranian government, not only killing Yayatullah Khomeini, the supreme leader, but also at least seven of his top security and military officials. Tonight, Donald Trump says Iran's supreme leader is dead as fears grow for all out war in the Middle East.
- [02:16]
A
Satellite imagery shows damage at the supreme
- [02:18]
B
leader's compound in Tehran.
- [02:20]
A
Elsewhere, authorities say more than 200 people have been killed in the attacks, including
- [02:25]
B
dozens at a girls school in the country's south.
- [02:30]
C
So it seems to have been, as we have come to expect from the Israelis, exceptional intelligence that led them to the ability to do this. They obviously saw the opportunity and struck. The US Followed the Israeli lead by launching a series of attacks on, well, between the two countries. Between Israel and the US at least 20 Iranian cities have been struck with missiles and drones. The Israelis concentrated on political targets and the US Appears to be concentrating on military and particularly military defenses like air defense systems and military installations. The assault is continuing Donald Trump has said, he said in one interview with an American media outlet in the middle of these strikes that he could, quote, go long and take over the whole thing without specifying exactly how long long would be or what the whole thing would be. Or, he continued, we might wind up in just a few days. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder targeting the United States, our troops, and the innocent people in many, many countries. So either Donald Trump doesn't know what his plan is, or he's waiting for the Israelis to tell him what his plan is, or he's a master of misinformation to keep the enemy guessing. You take your pick. But it does seem that the two aggressors here, Israel and the US Are settling in for a much broader campaign of destruction in Iran.
- [04:23]
B
And you mentioned just there that it appears that Iranian leadership has been decapitated. We know Donald Trump has announced on social media that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has been killed. And Israel has reported that several top Iranian officials have also been killed in the strikes. Do we have any idea who would likely take his place? I mean, is this really the Iranian leadership gone?
- [04:45]
C
We do have an indication of who would replace him. You struck upon the, I don't know, $64 billion question or $6 trillion question, which is whether this remains a limited series of aggressions against the Iranian regime or whether it eventually amounts to the removal of the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Republic that has controlled the country in a vice like dictatorship since 1978. So the Ayatollah Khomeini anticipated this, that he might be assassinated. After the June attacks last year by the US And Israel, Khomeini reportedly nominated his own successor. He nominated Ari Laranjari. Ari Laranjari has a long history as an official of the regime. His most recent notable performance was apparently masterminding the security crackdown that murdered an estimated 30,000 Iranian civilians, peaceful protesters, against the regime, just last month. You know, we shouldn't expect, first, if that reporting is correct and that Ari Laranjari is the nominated successor, and secondly, that that succession is carried out, we shouldn't expect that he would be any softer, more lenient, more reasonable, more democratic or amenable leader than either of the two supreme leaders so far who've led this republic. Now, the Ayatollah was farsighted enough to nominate not only his own successor, but it's reported that he told all of his subordinates to nominate multiple successors to all of their positions as well. So he was anticipating exactly what's happened. An attempted decapitation of not just the Supreme Leader position, but the entirety of the Iranian regime, military and security leadership. If those nominations, if that attempt at a preordained post mortem succession are carried out as he intended, then we can expect to see a reasonably quick and simple transfer of power. It won't be, I don't think, if the regime survives, I don't think it will be a permanent arrangement because there are formalities to go through with the, in the Iranian succession and political structure. But it does look like as an interim process, this was anticipated and there's now a plan in the top drawer, if you like, that'll be pulled out and implemented to replace those leaders who've just been assassinated.
- [07:31]
B
Okay, I want to get back to the regime and if it survives in just a little bit. But first of all, can you just sort of, I guess, let us know what sort of retaliation have we seen from Iran or its proxies, you know, what and who have they hit?
- [07:44]
C
Well, as of now, which is still pretty early on in this war, the initial Iranian response was to try to hit some American assets nearby and to hit Israel, of course, with missiles and drones. And you would expect that they had signaled that they would do that. And some of that appears to have been successful. There's been some reports of missiles landing and killing people in Israel. Some of its missiles were aimed at US Facilities. But the more remarkable and less predictable action of the Ayatollah Khomeini's last hours in instructing this retaliatory burst is that they have sprayed missiles and drones not just at Israel and US Assets, but they've also attacked a range of the Arab states that surround Iran. Iran, of course, being a Shia state, which is you've got deep differences with the Sunni Arab states that surround it. And many of those missiles have struck residential architecture, residential buildings and compounds. So they seem to be, it seems to have been either a blind, partly blind, or just ineffective and unprofessional lashing out at the country's nearest neighbors, its Arab neighbors, as well as Israel, and as well as US Assets. This won't succeed in taming any of Iran's enemies. All it's done is antagonize those Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, which said it had successfully intercepted the Iranian missiles, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and the others as well. It's only antagonized Them, they've all come out in strong protest against the Iranian attacks. The Iranians said, well, no, we were really just aiming for the American assets and the Israelis. But the Gulf state leaders are not buying that. And all they've done is apparently antagonize countries which were inclined to stay out of the fight. So it seems to have been a lot of aggression from Tehran without a lot of strategic thought and calculation in the possible consequences.
- [10:24]
B
Which really brings me to my next question, Peter, because I think a lot of listeners who have been seeing, you know, the footage from, I mean, I'm tempted to call it a war. I think that's what it is. Footage of buildings being hit in Tehran, strikes in Tel Aviv. They might be thinking, wait, could this actually lead to World War Three? Because as you've said, this is a joint attack on Iran by US and Israel. And we know that on Saturday Australian time, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that British planes quote, are in the sky today in the Middle east as part of defensive operations in the region. So is this the start of a conflict that could actually draw in many more countries and result in a broader all out war?
- [11:04]
C
I don't think so. It could well induce some of those Gulf Arab states that I've just mentioned into taking action against Iran. But only against Iran. They're not planning to hit anybody else. Their only enemy here is Iran. The involvement of other powers you mentioned, the Brits. Well, this is a replay of multiple US led strikes against Iran where the Brits and other American allies have joined. So you know, just last year in the June American led attacks on Iran where Israel and then the US attacked, the Brits joined in. The French participated in defensive operations to help with interceptions. The Saudis assisted, making their airspace available to the US to attempt to manage with both defensive and aggressive maneuvers. There were a bunch of countries involved and I don't see in this case any, any other powers, external powers, great powers coming into this fight. The Chinese and the Russians have both at the Security Council protested against the attacks. But that's, I mean that's standard maneuver, diplomatic maneuver because Iran has been an ally of both China and Russia. But they are not going to enter the fight. They've got their own agendas. They're not interested in trying to protect Iran. We saw last year the same thing happened. Although Russia likes to talk tough, it took no action to defend Tehran. In fact, Russia is hard pressed to survive its own war. It's under such stress with Ukraine and the Chinese are just not interested in Getting drawn into Middle Eastern war. They've got their own much larger, longer and more calculated plans for dominance that they're working to. They're not interested in protecting or trying to salvage this regime. Quite apart from the fact the regime itself maybe, we have no idea yet, it's way too early to say, but the regime itself might not be salvageable. So what would be the point?
- [13:23]
B
And so let's talk about the United States, Peter, because we know that, you know, Donald Trump has announced just on Sunday morning, Australian time, he announced on social media that, you know, American strikes are going to continue as long as necessary to achieve our objective of, of course in all caps here, peace throughout the Middle east and indeed the world. So maybe you can just help us take a step back to give us some historical context. You know, how, how unusual or usual is it that the United States preemptively hits another country to try and regime change and bring about a better world peace?
- [13:58]
C
Well, the US has comparative advantage in destruction, but it has a dire record of construction in recent decades. They are the specialists in demolition and nobody questions their ability to drop massive ordinance and wreak mass destruction. They've done it again and again. It's always the next step. That is their weak suit. They've never figured out, even when the military operation has succeeded, how to shape the outcomes and the lasting shape of that country. It's been an unmitigated string of disasters. The most recent one, I suppose was the capture of Maduro from Venezuela. And it's too early to judge the ultimate outcome. But we do know that Maduro's regime remains in power. His deputy simply stepped up and replaced him. Also, while he's in a New York courtroom, his deputy is now the president of Venezuela. And the outcome, the long run outcome there, we simply don't know. Some sort of transitional phase. But the behavior of the regime, it's a pretty shocking dictatorship towards its people, hasn't changed. It's a new leader. The interim leader Will presumably is being more conciliatory to the US but that's about it so far. And then of course you go, whether you go to the, I mean, the US spent nearly two decades in Afghanistan and we've ended up with the Taliban back in control. The Iraq war was not only a failure to impose US Favored will on Iraq, but it effectively turned Iraq into a proxy state for Iran. It was utterly counterproductive and also set off a chain of events which ultimately resulted in the creation of Islamic State, isis, Daesh, that was one of the UNINTENDED consequences of America's attack on Iraq, which of course was aided and abetted by Australia and Britain. So the record, and you can go back to the, you know, the Vietnam War, the record is, is dire. The US Puts tremendous faith in its ability to intimidate and destroy. And while it talks a good game about the post war outcomes, its record is dire. And it would have to do something spectacularly different and discover strategic wisdom and political wisdom, in this case in Iran, that it has yet to, that's yet to manifest anywhere in the world under American policy.
- [16:55]
B
Which I guess brings us to what Donald Trump has said. He, I mean, vaguely, I guess, hopes for what will happen after these strikes. Strikes, because he told the Iranian people in a video statement, you know, when we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. So it seems like, correct me if I'm wrong, Peter, or how you see this, but that he is betting on the Iranian people. I don't know how many of the 90 million Iranian people he thinks are organized to take over the government, but is that what he's betting on here?
- [17:26]
C
Yes. He and Benjamin Netanyahu have both, in televised appeals, called on the Iranian people to rise up, if you like. It's an implicit admission that removal of the regime is not in the gift of the US and or Israel. And it's putting responsibility for the removal of the regime on the Iranian people whose bravery is not in question. Those protesters last month were extremely brave and at least 30,000 of them, as far as we can tell, paid with their lives. The Americans and the Israelis are now calling on the Iranian people to do so again en masse, risk their lives to remove the regime. I would suggest that that is one of the two prerequisites to actually making this attack on Iran into a regime change rather than just an assault. That's the first, is that there is a mass uprising that makes the country ungovernable and persuades the regime into surrendering or transferring power or collapsing. The second is that the security forces in Iran fracture somehow. And that may be spontaneous. That may be already underway. It may be triggered by mass uprisings, or it might not happen at all. We just don't know. But you would expect one or both of those as prelude to the removal of the regime. Otherwise, this is a well entrenched regime with the country certainly under an economic meltdown. It's in a shocking, absolutely dire condition. But the regime is practiced in repression. It is inherently a repressive, murderous regime. It will stop at nothing to preserve itself. So unless one of those prerequisites is met, I would suggest that we are more likely to see the regime endure than not.
- [19:19]
B
And is there anything that Donald Trump or the administration or other leaders have said since these strikes started which indicates to you, Peter, looking on, that there is any sophisticated plan here for the day after beyond what we've just discussed? Donald Trump saying that, okay, Iranian people, it's your turn now to take over your government?
- [19:40]
C
Well, Donald Trump is either a brilliant baffler of enemies with constantly shifting stated aims and policies, or he's just a befuddled old fellow who doesn't know what he's doing. Because almost every pronouncement he's made about Iran in recent months has varied from the one preceding it. His war aims have shifted all over the place. Sometimes there's nuclear capability involved, sometimes there's not. Sometimes there's regime change involved, sometimes there's not. Sometimes there's, you know, it's just all over the place. Sometimes there's something about Hamas and Hezbollah, which, of course, are two of the terrorist movements that Iran created, sponsored, and supports to do its bidding around the world, including the attacks in Australia in 2024, for which the Iranian ambassador was expelled. But those war aims of Trump just keep shifting. Is he trying to baffle us, or does he just not know? So, to answer your question, Samantha, it's pretty hard to see any evidence of planning depth or real purpose behind this furious fusillade.
- [20:52]
B
Okay, Peter. Well, we're so appreciative of your time. Thank you so much.
- [20:56]
C
Difficult subject, but always a pleasure, Samantha.
- [21:05]
B
Today's episode was produced by Julia Carr Catzel. 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,
- [21:42]
C
Sam.
- [22:18]
A
It takes a certain type of person to succeed. The type that puts in the work when no one's watching, that knows staying informed isn't optional. It's their edge. It's not for everyone. The Australian Financial Review. The daily habit of successful people.