Luxon flounders on Iran as Opposition pushes for principled response

2026-03-02 - 16:57

Comment: Throughout two and a bit uneven years as New Zealand’s leader, Christopher Luxon has at least been able to fall back on the comforts of international statesmanship. The Prime Minister relishes the opportunity to be seen shaking hands with and making calls to his fellow world leaders, and to his credit has proved adept at seizing on opportunities at various summits. But those foreign policy instincts have their limits, as was evident while he fended off questions about Donald Trump’s war with Iran at a testy post-Cabinet press conference on Monday. In fairness, Luxon was probably damned either way, with Helen Clark leading critics from the left who see the Government as insufficiently condemnatory of the United States’ actions, while others suggested the coalition’s response had been too wishy-washy when compared with the likes of Australia and Canada. Yet he made the situation worse for himself, fumbling his words on more than one occasion and offering unconvincing answers when asked about the legality of the US-Israel strikes and their consequences. “We’re not best placed to make that assessment – we weren’t ... proxy or party to these attacks that are independently launched by the US and Israel, they will have information [and] intelligence that we haven’t received.” Luxon showed no real interest in seeking out that information and intelligence, while Pentagon officials have reportedly told the US Congress there was no evidence suggesting the Iranian regime was readying an attack of its own. Perhaps anxious about sticking to pre-prepared lines, the Prime Minister misspoke on several occasions, as when asked why the Government had been willing to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine despite similarly lacking an intelligence assessment of the attack. “The Iranian regime, administration has not been funding international global terrorism around the world, so I wouldn’t make that association between those two cases,” he said, meaning to refer to Ukraine. On whether Iran’s actions justified the military strikes, Luxon responded, “New Zealand has long supported actions to prevent Israel from getting access to a nuclear weapon. New Zealand has long supported actions to make sure that Israel doesn’t – Iran doesn’t repress and kill its own people,” at least catching himself. More significant was the Prime Minister’s repeated suggestion that New Zealand supported “any actions” that stopped Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon or killing its own people – seeming to justify any action taken by the US, regardless of whether or not it complied with international law. Would that extend to a hypothetical carpet bombing of Iran, one reporter asked? “Well, I mean, we obviously understand – we’re not saying that, what we’re saying is, we understand there’s – I don’t know how to be any clearer guys.” He gave an equally unconvincing answer on whether the Government was therefore comfortable with the deaths of over 100 Iranian children after one missile struck a girls’ school. “That is up to them [the US and Israel] to present what has happened there because I’m not in a position to judge that from sitting in New Zealand, just jumping to an assumption or a conclusion,” Luxon said, belatedly acknowledging that civilians should be protected. The Prime Minister was most passionate in his condemnation of “an evil regime that has been killing its own people”, as he outlined Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism and pursuit of a nuclear weapons programme. Indeed, there is little sympathy for the Iranian regime from any right-minded observers – but that does not excuse Trump or the US from the need to adhere to the United Nations charter and other key elements of the international order. Luxon’s insistence that “every country acts in its own national interests” is true at a superficial level, but accepting that as a justification for any military action with little scrutiny sets a dangerous precedent. Labour leader Chris Hipkins could not help but look more decisive by contrast, albeit from the freedom of opposition and with none of the responsibility faced by the Prime Minister. Did Labour support the strikes? “No.” Did it support any action that would keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s hands? “No, and I was somewhat shocked to see that comment.” New Zealand needed to stand up for its national values, Hipkins said, even if that meant putting our economic interests at risk. “We haven’t blindly followed other countries when it came to the invasion of Iraq. New Zealand stood apart from what was a lot of international support for that action, and said, ‘No, we did not think that was the right thing to do,’ and I think we should do so here as well.” The debate is far from over, with Luxon sure to face a further grilling from media and opposition MPs across the rest of the week. As with the debate over Israel’s war in Gaza, there will doubtless be a sense within the coalition that its critics are expecting too much of it when New Zealand has little meaningful influence over events in the Middle East. But as Luxon’s foreign minister likes to say, words matter – and the Prime Minister may need to choose his more carefully as this conflict moves into its next phase.