web analytics

Why Asia-Pacific should back Iran

Written By: - Date published: 4:41 pm, June 30th, 2025 - 24 comments
Categories: AUKUS, australian politics, China, defence, Disarmament, Iran, iraq, israel, nuclear war, Pacific, Syria, war - Tags:

Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month.  The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilize, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the U.S-Israeli dyad. The good news for my region is that Iran’s resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the U.S. pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China.

There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth.  Iran is the weakest.  If Iran falls, war in our region – intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely. Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs. “Tomorrow”, people in this part of the world naively think, “will always be like yesterday”. That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here’s why.

U.S. chooses war to re-shape the Middle East 

Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn’t supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries. In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi’s Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all: the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success – if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of. With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years.  A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft. 

Now – with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered (“We came, we saw, he died”, Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine – the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns – or, rather, bombs – on the great prize: Iran. 

Iran’s missiles have checked U.S.-Israel for the time being

Things did not go to plan. Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours. Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the U.S. will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over: a serious pivot to Asia. 

Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into a powderkeg?

For us in Asia-Pacific a major U.S. pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric – all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg. Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world – bellum Americanum – as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask?

Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes “the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces”. It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war.  

What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor  John Mearsheimer’s insights are well worth studying on this topic.  

The three pillars of multipolarity

A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the U.S. unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.  Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS.  Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China.  All three are in the crosshairs of the Western Empire.

If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder’s early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don’t think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass – which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) – as an option. That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the U.S.  That alone should give us cause for hope.

Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) – and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity). We have also reached – thanks in large part to these same policies – what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran.”  Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that.

Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China?

Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia’s governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA.  They have shown themselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team.  To avoid war – or a permanent fear of looming war – in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the U.S. but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China.  Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of history. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction. 

Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the U.S. far more than I do China. 

Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project. The US Empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end – starting and finishing with genocide. 

Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA.  America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape. 

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.

24 comments on “Why Asia-Pacific should back Iran ”

  1. Res Publica 1
    1 July 2025 at 9:00 am

    This take, like the rest of the author's work, is as short-sighted as it is incoherent: morally, analytically, and strategically.

    It condemns the West for its reflexive support of the US and Israel, while committing the same sin in reverse: reflexively defending Iran as some kind of heroic pillar of multipolar justice. Pretending Iran is a force for peace just because it “stood up” (read: was bombed by) the US is intellectually lazy and politically dangerous.

    Iran is not some passive victim of imperialism. It is a genuine regional power that plays the game just as ruthlessly as its competitors: in some cases, even more so.

    Its rivalry with Saudi Arabia, its deep entrenchment in Syria and Iraq, and its sprawling network of proxies — from Hezbollah to the Houthis — have stoked conflict, sectarianism, and authoritarianism across the Middle East. Much of this has nothing to do with Israel or the US.

    Criticising US foreign policy is necessary, but replacing one imperial narrative with another isn’t anti-imperialism, it’s just picking a different boot to cheer for. A principled foreign policy doesn’t mean aligning with the loudest opponent of Washington; it means rejecting militarism, authoritarianism, and proxy warfare wherever they come from.

    If the goal is peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific, it won’t come from backing Iran, China, or the US: it’ll come from forging an independent path rooted in diplomacy, restraint, and values that don’t collapse the moment your enemy’s enemy fires a missile.

    Reply
    • Nic the NZer 1.1
      1 July 2025 at 1:55 pm

      This take, like the rest of the author's work, is as short-sighted as it is incoherent: morally, analytically, and strategically.

      It condemns the West for its reflexive support of the US and Israel, while committing the same sin in reverse: reflexively defending Iran as some kind of heroic pillar of multipolar justice. Pretending Iran is a force for peace just because it “stood up” (read: was bombed by) the US is intellectually lazy and politically dangerous.

      Iran is not some passive victim of imperialism. It is a genuine regional power that plays the game just as ruthlessly as its competitors: in some cases, even more so.

      Its rivalry with Saudi Arabia, its deep entrenchment in Syria and Iraq, and its sprawling network of proxies — from Hezbollah to the Houthis — have stoked conflict, sectarianism, and authoritarianism across the Middle East. Much of this has nothing to do with Israel or the US.

      Criticising US foreign policy is necessary, but replacing one imperial narrative with another isn’t anti-imperialism, it’s just picking a different boot to cheer for. A principled foreign policy doesn’t mean aligning with the loudest opponent of Washington; it means rejecting militarism, authoritarianism, and proxy warfare wherever they come from.

      If the goal is peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific, it won’t come from backing Iran, China, or the US: it’ll come from forging an independent path rooted in diplomacy, restraint, and values that don’t collapse the moment your enemy’s enemy fires a missile.

      Reply
      • Res Publica 1.1.1
        1 July 2025 at 3:37 pm

        Oh cool! A passive-aggressive repost of my own words. No rebuttal, no substance.

        Just whining because I didn’t immediately gush over Eugene’s post and call him brave and clever for being yet another confidently wrong tankie with a persecution fetish.

        Who needs serious analysis when you can just vibe it.

        Reply
        • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.1.1
          1 July 2025 at 4:45 pm

          Just whining because I didn’t immediately gush over Eugene’s post and call him brave and clever for being yet another confidently wrong tankie with a persecution fetish.

          "Oh cool"; “whining“; "just vibe it" – have you considered a career in diplomacy?

          As for "forging an independent path rooted in diplomacy, restraint, and values", imho NZ has strayed from that path, and it shows.

          NZ’s independent foreign policy hugely compromised [7 Oct 2024]
          According to the briefing, “New Zealand is in strategic alignment with the United States,” suggesting that officials view our country as an ally of the US in all but name.

          This statement goes against years of careful diplomacy whereby New Zealand maintained traditional ties without being defined or constrained by them. For the best part of forty years, we have made decisions based on our own values and priorities. This has afforded diplomatic agency and strategic flexibility, allowing New Zealand, for example, to maintain a healthy economic relationship with China and a different way of partnering with the Pacific.

          https://www.cookislandsnews.com/internal/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/letter-a-call-for-respectful-partnership/

          Reply
          • Res Publica 1.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2025 at 5:18 pm

            "Oh cool"; “whining“; "just vibe it" – have you considered a career in diplomacy?

            Oddly enough, I actually did interview for a job at MFAT a few years ago—fresh out of uni with a shiny new Politics BA and far too much idealism.

            Apparently, I just missed out. Sliding doors and all that…

            That said, I do agree with your argument: over the past three or four years, New Zealand’s foreign policy has become much more closely aligned with the US.

            Where I suspect we’ll part ways is on what we can realistically do about it.

            As a small state, our options are limited: especially given the collapse of the rules-based international order and the end of the relatively benign strategic environment Helen Clark (who, I note, co-authored the piece you linked to) enjoyed. Xi’s China is not Jiang’s, and it’s certainly not Hu’s. And Russia is in a for-realisies war with Ukraine.

            There’s still value in being seen as sane, stable, and principled—a partner with a strong, values-based foreign policy.

            But we’re rapidly moving past the era where careful navigation between superpowers was tenable. The middle path is narrowing fast.

            Reply
          • Psycho Milt 1.1.1.1.2
            1 July 2025 at 5:42 pm

            "imho NZ has strayed from that path, and it shows."

            Have we strayed from a path, or have others? The Russian Federation recently invaded a European country like it was 1939 or something, and Xi Jinping's China is very different from the one Helen Clark was dealing with 20 years ago.

            It's true that "For the best part of forty years, we have made decisions based on our own values and priorities," and I'd hope our own values and priorities are those of a liberal democracy, which automatically makes our relationship with repressive dictatorships difficult and complicated. Hopefully, the US manages to remain outside the 'repressive dictatorships' category, but either way our own values and priorities have to favour the open society, not its enemies.

            Reply
            • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.1.1.2.1
              1 July 2025 at 5:51 pm

              If China really is an "enemy" of Aotearoa NZ, then there's only one way to go – I'm just not (as) sure (as you?) that China is amd/or must be an enemy.

              https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3971974/new-zealands-diplomatic-tightrope-the-editors-note/

              Reply
              • Psycho Milt …
                1 July 2025 at 6:36 pm

                I agree. It's just a fact that the CCP is one of the open society's enemies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an enemy of Ao/NZ. That's what makes the relationship difficult and complicated.

                Reply
                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  1 July 2025 at 9:28 pm

                  It's just a fact that the CCP is one of the open society's enemies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an enemy of Ao/NZ.

                  Agreed, the CCP isn't necessarily an enemy of Ao/NZ.

                  Flexible / nimble diplomacy may be our liberal democracy's best defence against autocracy, particularly if the CCP is plotting regime change here.

                  And if, as I suspect, the CCP isn't plotting regime change here, then flexible / nimble diplomacy has other uses.

                  https://v-dem.net/documents/54/v-dem_dr_2025_lowres_v1.pdf

                  Reply
            • KJT 1.1.1.1.2.2
              2 July 2025 at 7:25 am

              You think?

              The USA and Israel are "open societies"? FFS.

              Even the UK and Oz are looking dodgy.

              Look at their recent changes to legal repression of protesters. Even NZ's wannabee fascists are working on it. No Right Turn: This is what the IPCA's anti-protest laws mean A "democracy" where you have to ask the Governments permission to protest?

              This "China bad US good" is getting tiresome, when the biggest threat to the "rules based order" and the country that consistently ignores it, is the USA.

              Apparently "repressive Dictatorships" such as Saudi Arabia, busily murdering people, at will, are fine.

              Iran is a problem entirely at the door of the USA, since 1953 when the USA toppled their democratic Government, and put a ruthless murdering Dictator in charge. Remember SAVAK. Now there is talk of reinstating the next generation of Pahlavi's. I'm sure that will get Iran on the US side. Sarc!

              I was at University in 2009 with many foreign students, including Iranians. They despise their Government, but they despise the US Government even more. The current bombing of Iran will only solidify the power of Irans extremists and, as some have noted, increase the impetus towards nuclear arms. It won't be lost on them that the USA and Russia have left countries like North Korea, that are nuclear armed, to their own devices.

              Ukrain gave up their nuclear weapons for assurances that they would not be invaded.

              Next minute.

              New Zealand should be supporting the "rules based order" no matter who is breaking it. It is not a credible stance if we are selective about who we criticise. It is the only defense countries to small to pay for a massive defense force and nuclear arms, have!

              Reply
              • Psycho Milt …
                2 July 2025 at 1:15 pm

                "The USA and Israel are 'open societies'?"

                Well, yes. All liberal democracies are. Whether or not we like any particular government at any particular time, liberal democracies meet the definition of open societies. The Trump government would have to go a lot further down the path to fascism to remove the USA from the list.

                Iran very definitely meets the definition of 'closed society,' ie one based on tribalism, or magic/religion, or collectivism, in which reform is only possible through violence. In fact, the Islamic Republic is a classic example of Popper's 'closed society,' in that it's historicist – ie its rulers believe that history is determined by laws (ie God's will) and that history is progressing towards a pre-determined and inevitable final state (the coming of the Mahdi).

                This "China bad US good" is getting tiresome…

                Good job I'd never claim something so stupid, then. However, the CCP is an enemy of the open society, so as an open society ourselves, our interests literally can't line up with theirs.

                "It is not a credible stance if we are selective about who we criticise."

                Who the NZ government criticises is largely a matter of the value of trade put at risk via the criticism, rather than any particular principle.

                Reply
                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  2 July 2025 at 2:14 pm

                  CCP is an enemy of the open society…

                  Do you mean that the CCP is opposed to the democratisation of China? That would make sense to me, but I’m not sure what purpose characterising the CCP as “an enemy” serves.

                  The Trump government would have to go a lot further down the path to fascism to remove the USA from the list.

                  Can you quantify "a lot"?

                  Box 9. USA – a democratic breakdown in the making?
                  [pages 46-47 in the PDF]
                  The scale of what is happening in the US is unprecedented and prompts a closer look at what seems to be the fastest evolving episode of autocratization the USA has been through in modern history.

                  Reply
                  • Psycho Milt …
                    2 July 2025 at 4:33 pm

                    "Do you mean that the CCP is opposed to the democratisation of China?"

                    It's a reference to Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies." Communist parties are among the enemies of the open society, so people who think the US is more of a threat than China should really have a think about the kind of society they want to have, and what they wouldn't want to have.

                    Can you quantify "a lot"?

                    Don't get me wrong, I think the current Trump administration is based on the Fuehrerprinzip, which makes it fascist in principle, but the US is big on checks and balances – to become a fascist government in practice, there's a lot more involved than staging a Reichstag fire and using the crisis to vote yourself emergency powers: the judiciary, the various state organisations still run by people sworn to the Constitution rather than Trump, the state governments, etc. It's not easy to implement fascism in the US.

                    Reply
                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      2 July 2025 at 9:57 pm

                      It's a reference to Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies."

                      Popper said that he was a socialist for "several years", and maintained an interest in egalitarianism, but abandoned it as a whole because socialism was a "beautiful dream", but, just like egalitarianism, it was incompatible with individual liberty. Popper initially saw totalitarianism as exclusively right-wing in nature, although as early as 1945 in The Open Society he was describing Communist parties as giving a weak opposition to fascism due to shared historicism with fascism.
                      …
                      In 1947, Popper co-founded the Mont Pelerin Society…

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Political_philosophy

                      Communist parties are among the enemies of the open society…

                      Open society is beset on multiple fronts. Imho, the greatest threats to Aotearoa NZ society come from within.

                      In other words, Popper’s “methodological individualism” was actually a claim about what the world “really” consisted of, little more than a fancy way of saying “there is no such thing as society.”

                      https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/methodological-individualism/#SearForRockBottExpl

                      https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/neoliberalism-more-recent-times/margaret-thatcher-theres-no-such-thing-as-society

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      3 July 2025 at 5:40 am

                      "…little more than a fancy way of saying “there is no such thing as society.”

                      In their opinion, maybe. The next sentence is more significant:

                      Watkins went on to reinforce this impression by reformulating the thesis as the claim that the “ultimate constituents of the social world are individual people.”

                      I'd be very suspicious of the political intentions of anyone who disputed that.

                      "Imho, the greatest threats to Aotearoa NZ society come from within."

                      Yes. We have our own fascists, communists, religion enthusiasts etc, and also import some from overseas.

                • KJT …
                  4 July 2025 at 6:01 pm

                  This "China bad US good" is getting tiresome…

                  Good job I'd never claim something so stupid, then.

                  You just did.

                  Again….!

                  Reply
  2. Francesca 2
    1 July 2025 at 10:07 am

    Totally with you Eugene

    The facts dictate for me

    When I look at the war and carnage since ww2, by economic means, gradual takeover of UN institutions, diplomatic or otherwise "arm twisting"thanks Obama… or show of force, there is a standout candidate.

    The most powerful state in the world didn't get there by peaceful means.Opposing that country for what it stands for does not mean utterly supporting its victims in every aspect.

    It's pure binary thinking to believe so, a little like Corbyn supports the Palestinians human rights therefore he is an anti semite

    Reply
  3. Psycho Milt 3
    1 July 2025 at 12:43 pm

    "…for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours."

    Were you perhaps under the mistaken impression that the Israeli government built rocket shelters everywhere, including in every new house, and developed a hugely expensive anti-missile system, just on the off-chance that one day someone might launch a missile attack? You may not like Israelis but they aren't morons – the shelters and the anti-missile system exist because Iran has been firing missiles into Israel for many years via its proxies. If anything, Iran has recently got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to Israel.

    "Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve…"

    As we've seen in Ukraine, one approach to dealing with anti-missile defences is to try and overwhelm them with sheer numbers. Iran had a bit of success with it since hypersonic missiles are difficult to hit at the best of times, but two problems:

    1. If the enemy whose anti-missile system you're trying to overwhelm has 100% air superiority, expect the number of missile launchers you own to dwindle very rapidly. Another few days and Iran would have been barely able to launch, let alone overwhelm Iron Dome.

    2. Israelis are used to their neighbours wanting them dead and have a lot of resilience as a result. Killing the odd grandma in her apartment or temporarily taking a hospital out of action doesn't get you anywhere – it isn't a deterrent.

    I know people always prepare for the last war, but please stop trying to forcibly squash this conflict into an ideological 'Just-Like-Iraq' or 'Just-Like-Libya' box – it bears neither resemblance nor relationship to those cases.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 3.1
      1 July 2025 at 1:41 pm

      First, on the technical side: I don’t think any of the missiles Iran launched were true hypersonic weapons. They may have been fast and maneuverable, but sustained Mach 5+ speeds with terminal-phase maneuverability, what we’d define as hypersonic, is still solely the domain of a handful of top-tier military powers.

      So the Iranian advantage wasn’t exotic tech. It was volume and distribution.

      And that leads us to the real issue: salvo economics.

      As an attacker, you have two core strategies:

      1. Make your munitions harder to intercept, forcing your adversary to expend multiple interceptors per incoming threat (expensive and technologically demanding — mostly feasible for great powers like the U.S. or Russia).
      2. Make lots of cheaper munitions and launch enough of them to overwhelm the defender’s capacity. Basically, a "quantity has a quality all its own" approach.

      Option 2 is now within reach of mid-tier powers like Iran, thanks to the proliferation of drones, loitering munitions, and cheap medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles. These systems are simple to produce, difficult to intercept in volume, and even when only semi-accurate, can threaten strategic targets by brute force alone.

      That’s the shift we’re seeing: salvo warfare is being democratised. The cost asymmetry now works in favour of attackers — especially when a $30,000 drone can force a $3 million interceptor launch.

      It’s also worth noting that even some of the Iranian missiles that got through seemed to struggle with terminal accuracy. That raises questions about target discrimination, electronic interference, or degraded guidance.

      Getting through is only half the challenge. Hitting something meaningful is the other.

      Reply
      • Psycho Milt 3.1.1
        1 July 2025 at 1:52 pm

        I thought I'd read somewhere a few of the missiles were hypersonic, but true, it's unlikely Iran has that capability so I shouldn't have taken it at face value.

        The targeting feels like it got way too little mention in the media. They show an Israeli strike on some IRGC leader and there's his apartment blown out but the rest of the building pretty much untouched. Iran, on the other hand, hits a random apartment building because it's targeting 'The General Area.'

        Reply
        • Res Publica 3.1.1.1
          1 July 2025 at 3:24 pm

          With a CEP like that, Iran’s lucky if they hit the same postcode, let alone the intended floor.

          Reply
      • Tom Hunter 3.1.2
        2 July 2025 at 6:40 pm

        I'm glad someone has defined what a hypersonic missile actually is because I've seen a lot of confusion with ballistic missiles, simply because they're hypersonic as they reenter the atmosphere. By that definition the original V2 was a hypersonic missile.

        Since I see most of these claims among commentators at Bomber's Daily Blog I suspect it's just part of the "Mighty, Mighty, Iran" drumbeat rather than anything thoughtful, let alone definitional.

        Reply
  4. Corey 4
    2 July 2025 at 3:36 pm

    Na.

    NZ is a Western Nation, always has been and always will be.

    While we have our own foreign policy and will disagree with the USA from time to time on trade, military and foreign policy, we agree with the USA on 95% of issues, we're just very vocal about the 5% we disagree with them on.

    We're not risking our centuries long relationships with the USA, Australia, UK EU etc to back some hateful theocratic regime.

    The best course of action is to follow Helen Clarks example in Iraq and just stay out of it.

    I know it deeply upsets some to year this but NZ is and always has been since the treaty of waitangi, a western capitalist nation with social democratic and liberal conservative tendencies.

    NZ has never been socialist, ever, like every western nation from the 1930s until the 1980s we embraced Keynesian capitalist economics, not socialism. The first labour governments were more or less new deal era democrats.

    That said, there's an argument to to modernize and reimbrace some aspects of Keynesian economics

    There's also an argument for whether NZ should be a neutral nation, though any referendum on it would fail due to the enormous military spending increases becoming neutral would force.

    We are at our core a Western Nation which believes in the rules based order, when our friends break the rules we should call them out in a friendly way

    But we're not ditching the west to become the Peoples Socialist Republic of Aoteroa.

    Noones ditching their visa free overseas holidays over Iran.

    Reply
  5. KJT 5
    4 July 2025 at 9:25 pm

    "NZ has never been socialist, ever",

    That is as comical as "The USA is not socialist".

    When the USA has the largest State owned and run, organisation on earth. And their entire economy depends on it. Employment, innovation and redistribution are it's main reason for existence.

    The USA would collapse under the weight of Capitalism eating the structures it depends on, without the huge redistributive and social support mechanism of the military.

    Which is why the endless arms races, and wars, are so necessary.

    Reply

Leave a Comment