'Threatening to escalate in order to de-escalate', Paterson on Trump's rhetoric

With the Israeli strikes on parts of southern Lebanon and Beirut, despite the ceasefire that

is in place, shakily, between the U.S. Iran and Israel, we've got negotiated talks scheduled

for this weekend. James Patterson is the Shadow Minister for Defence. He joined me earlier.

James Patterson, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.

Good morning. I just want to start with the event in Lebanon overnight. You're concerned by

the reports of deaths of more than 250 people. Is it your view that the ceasefire should have

included Lebanon? Certainly we're concerned about civilian deaths in conflicts like these.

Clearly, what we have is a dispute between the parties to this conflict about the terms of the

ceasefire. On the one hand, the United States and Israel say that the ceasefire did not include

Lebanon. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran is saying that it did include Lebanon.

I am personally reluctant to endorse claims made by a country which has sponsored terrorist

attacks on Australian soil and which key organ of the state, the IRGC, is listed as a terrorist

organisation. But obviously, Australia's national interest is that the conflict come to an end,

a sustainable and durable end, and the straight-up hormones be reopened so that oil prices can come

down and petrol and diesel prices turn. So you're not convinced that the ceasefire was meant to

include Lebanon because you're not trusting the Iranian side of the negotiations. Is that

a correct understanding of your position? Well, the United States is at the closest and most

important military ally and they have publicly said that the ceasefire did not include Lebanon

and against their claims are the claims of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which not only

sponsored terrorist attacks against Australia, but has murdered tens of thousands of their own

citizens in the last few months alone, has an illegal nuclear weapons program and sponsors

other terrorist organisations around the world, including Hezbollah and Hamas. So you're fast

to take the side of either the United States or the Islamic Republic of Iran regime. It's an

easy choice for me. Now that the ceasefire, at least to some extent, is in effect, what should the

Australian government be doing in your view? Is there something Australia can do to contribute to

efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz? Well, I heard you asked the Foreign Minister earlier about

why Australia didn't sign that statement led by such close partners as the United Kingdom and

France and Canada and Japan. This is the second time that we have failed at least to initially join

an international statement about the end to conflict and about the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Frankly, I think it is strange that we didn't and that the excuse has again been made that it

occurred overnight. That was the excuse we made in relation to the first statement a few weeks ago

and it took us several days before we joined it after countries like New Zealand and others did so.

The Minister and the Prime Minister though have made it clear that their sentiments are very much

in line with that statement. Is it really that significant if the signature isn't on the paper

at the same time? I think it is significant and if the statements that we've made are not inconsistent

with the statements of our allies in that joint statement, I don't see why we wouldn't lend our

voice to that and only the government can explain. Last time they said it's because we were asleep

when the statement was being negotiated but it took us several days before we joined it and

other like-minded partners including New Zealand joined it prior to us doing so so that really

is quite odd frankly. In terms of what else we can do, if we have to contemplate whether or not

where we're willing to be party to a multinational coalition after the cessation of hostilities to

help rear up in the Strait, that's a sovereign choice for Australia and must be made consistent

with our national interest and the availability of appropriately capable military assets and

only the government can answer whether or not we have those assets available. We heard from Penny

Wong just before saying that their focus so far has been diplomatic efforts. You didn't rule

in or rule out any military assets. It sounds like that is in line with your view that there should

be multilateral work done towards it and if Australia has capacity to contribute each short. Is it

fair to say the government and the opposition are in a fairly similar position on this issue?

Certainly based on the level of knowledge that we have from the opposition, it's not appropriate

for us to call for the deployment of military assets when we don't have a complete picture of

their availability and also their capability to adequately defend themselves in this environment.

We do know that the last time the United States asked us to deploy naval vessels to the Red Sea

under the Biden administration, Australia was not able to comply and your media reporting of

the time suggested it's because they were incapable of defending themselves from incoming rocket

and drone fire. I hope that mitigation has occurred, particularly for our surface vessel fleet,

the Australian Navy fleet, since that time, but only the government can answer whether they're

capable of defending themselves in that environment. On Radio National Breakfast this morning,

my guest is the Shadow Minister for Defence James Patterson. Do you agree with the Prime Minister

that Donald Trump's rhetoric over the course of this war has been inappropriate?

Yes, it's not language that I would use or that I could ever imagine an Australian Prime Minister

using. Speaking about it analytically and dispassionately, it's clear that the US President has been

threatening to escalate in order to de-escalate, and it may be the reason that there is a ceasefire

agreement, although a very shaky one. I don't want to... So you think that language has materially

contributed to the ceasefire coming about? Well, I think there's no doubt that the Islamic

Republic of Iran did not want to see the President follow through on his threats, whether he was

intent on actually following through with those threats or not. I'm sure that is the case that

the regime did not want to sustain the attack that the US President was proposing to make. Certainly,

we do not support civilisation or destruction of the Iranian people. The Iranian people are the

victims of the Islamic Republic of Iran, of the haautos in the regime for the last 50 years,

and we want to see them enjoy freedom and prosperity in democracy one day.

The Prime Minister is travelling to Singapore today to meet his counterparts on fuel supplies.

We've seen other ministers, defence minister, foreign minister, reach out in talks with their

counterparts, and we've also seen the Prime Minister have a conversation with the Chinese

Premier in the last 24 to 48 hours. Is that the right approach in your view for the government to

be taking here to shore up those relationships with suppliers of fuel for Australia? Well,

there certainly shouldn't be any interruption of liquid fuel supplies to Australia because we are

a critical supplier of energy to the countries that supply us with refined fuels. We are particularly

a significant supplier of LNG gas to those countries, and they aspire to us to be your reliable

partner for them, and we aspire for them to be reliable partners for us. So there certainly

shouldn't be any interruption of supply, and the Australian government should be using all diplomatic

measures available to secure that supply. James Patterson, thank you very much for joining us on

Radio National Breakfast this morning. Thank you for having me.