Professor Alexander Gillespie: Anzac then and now: as trans‑Tasman defence relations get closer, NZ must be on guard

Anzac Day 2026 arrives in tumultuous times: unresolved conflict in the Middle East, the erosion of the old international order, the famous Doomsday Clock set closer to midnight than ever before.

Without doubt, this brings New Zealand’s defence relationship with its closest neighbour (and only formal ally) Australia into sharp focus.

Melanie Phillips: Holding our nerve

Those clamouring for the Iran war to end prematurely haven't a clue about the stakes involved

The regime in Tehran believes that driving up the oil price to eye-watering levels will force President Trump to end the war.

Today’s media reports were dominated by speculation that this strategy is working. This is because Trump said yesterday that the war is “very complete, pretty much,” and that it will end “very soon”.

Yet later in the day he also said:

Olivia Pierson: Trump Acted to Fulfill a Long-Term Promise

Since 2016, President Trump has conducted somewhere in the vicinity of 900 political rallies, an astronomical number befitting the man’s colossal energy and courage.

At nearly all of them, he has consistently maintained that he will never let the Islamic Republic of Iran acquire nuclear weapons. This is simply because he knows that the regime will use them on Israel and the United States. At these same rallies, Trump has consistently stated that he will not involve the U.S in new “forever wars,’ the force of his focus being America First.

Olivia Pierson: The Iranian Regime - A 46-Year Reign of Terror Could End

Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear sites and military leaders over the weekend has been a long time coming. I say this because, during the unpopular Iraq War to overthrow Saddam Hussein, I remember a multitude of commentators saying that “all roads lead to Tehran.”
We knew at that time how committed the Iranian regime was to fomenting terrorism all over the Middle East, which extended significantly into the West. Like mad Saddam, the regime was always highly vocal about its commitment to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Amin Saikal: Why did Israel defy Trump.....

Why did Israel defy Trump – and risk a major war – by striking Iran now? And what happens next?

Alarmed by an intelligence assessment that Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons within months if not weeks, Israel has launched a massive air campaign aiming to destroy the country’s nuclear program.

DTNZ: US will defend Israel – Trump

Washington was aware of West Jerusalem’s “preemptive” strike on Iran beforehand, but was not involved militarily, the president has said.

The US will “defend itself and Israel” if Iran retaliates for West Jerusalem’s “preemptive” strikes, President Donald Trump has told Fox News. He made the remarks in a phone call with host Bret Baier on Friday morning, according to the network.

Dave Patterson: Scary ‘Nuclear Challenges’ Faced by United States

The Defense Intelligence Agency just released a new assessment, and it’s chilling.

If you aren’t worried about America’s nuclear deterrence, you should be. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) just released its latest assessment of the nuclear capabilities of America’s most dangerous enemies: Nuclear Challenges: The Growing Capabilities of Strategic Competitors and Regional Rivals. Replace the word “challenges” with “threats,” and you get a better picture of the dire situation. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran continue to grow larger on America’s nuclear threat windscreen.

Professor Robert MacCulloch: The Old Guard of Helen Clark and Don Brash are Out of Touch

Time to Hand the Torch to a New Generation

In a bizarre jointly written Opinion Piece, former Labour PM Helen Clark and Leader of the National Party Don Brash have written an article criticizing the new coalition for indicating NZ maybe keen to participate in the Aukus defence alliance between Australia, the UK and US. They start by saying, "In 1985, the NZ Labour Government made it clear that nuclear weapons were so terrible - in the full meaning of that word - that as a country we had no wish to be defended by them. As a result, we were rather unceremoniously ejected from the Anzus alliance which to that point had linked Australia, NZ and the US". That is far from the truth - a large part of the reason I heard persuasively stated at the time was that should a ship carrying nukes be in our waters when war broke out, that would make NZ a nuclear target. We feared being attacked by nukes, not defended by them.

Oliver Hartwich: Europe's impossible nuclear option

In a previous column I discussed the precarious state of European security in light of the rising threat of Russia and the potential decline of US involvement (Europe’s precarious security could invite Putin to expand war, 26 January 2024).

Today, I will analyse a potential way for Europe to organise its own security: the development of a European nuclear shield.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek: The insidious ‘normalisation’ of chemical and nuclear weapons

Last month saw the US, UK and France reacting to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In her defence of her decision to launch a strike against Syria, British PM Theresa May stressed that the objective of the joint military action was to send a clear warning that the ‘normalisation’ of the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated.

I am not going to get into the ‘whodunit’ debate. I have argued earlier in these annals (“Syria chemical weapons attacks – we still don’t know who is responsible”, Breaking Views 31 August 2013 - see HERE) that the evidence linking that particular Sarin attack to the Assad government was scanty, and my position on the incident that prompted the Western strike will depend on the outcome of the OPCW investigation. But there is no denying that chemical weapons have been used in the Syrian conflict – repeatedly.

Ron Smith: Iran - the End Game

Sometime in the next couple of weeks there will be an agreement announced at the end of more than 18 months of talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations (the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany).  

The crucial central question concerns the extent to which Iran will be permitted to retain its on-going nuclear weapons programme.  How much will it retain of its uranium enrichment capability (and stockpile of enriched material) from which it could make weapons of the sort that fell on Hiroshima?  And to what extent will it be allowed to continue with its programme to produce weapons-grade plutonium (the basis of the bomb that fell on Nagasaki)?

Ron Smith: Nuclear tit for tat

It looks as if the recent announcement (26 December) by the head of the Iranian atomic energy authority, that Iran will shortly begin to manufacture a new, improved design of uranium enrichment centrifuge is intended as a tit for tat response to the American congressional move to enhance sanctions on Iran whilst the Geneva discussions are proceeding.  

It especially looks like this, since the Iranian announcement is based on a motion before the Iranian parliament, supported, apparently, by nearly half of its membership.  Be that as it may, it is certainly necessary to ask ourselves what this development means, especially since the Iranian parliamentary motion is also advocating an increase in the present target level of enrichment from 20% to 60%.

Ron Smith: Iran, Israel and Nuclear Weapons

A couple of critics of my recent posting (29 September) on the Iranian nuclear weapon programme commented that I had failed to notice the already existing substantial arsenal possessed by Israel.  There are a number of observations that might be made about this criticism and the most obvious of these is that they represent the classic ‘change the subject’ move.  The fact that Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal, and has had such weapons for nearly fifty years, is quite beside the point.

Iran is not saying that it ought to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons because another party in the region has such weapons.  It is saying that it has no nuclear weapon programme and that its present nuclear activities are entirely peaceful. 

Ron Smith: The Iranian Nuclear Weapon Programme

The foreign ministers of the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany (the P5+1), met in New York with the foreign minister of Iran to initiate a series of meetings, to address what various Iranian spokespersons have called ‘misunderstandings’ over that country’s nuclear programme.  They propose to continue the talks in Geneva at foreign minister level, beginning on 15 October.  So what, realistically, are the prospects of success for these meetings?

Ron Smith: DPRK: Would they actually do it

For a number of years around the turn of this century, I was a member of an international group that brought together academic and official persons to discuss nuclear security problems in the Asia-Pacific region.  It was part of a wider project to reduce tension and build confidence, which worked in parallel with formal diplomatic meetings.  Apart from technical persons, it also included diplomats, but because of its relative informality, it tended to be referred to as ‘Track Two’.