THE HON ANDREW HASTIE MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CANNING

TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW WITH DAVID SPEERS, INSIDERS, ABC

SUNDAY 22 JUNE 2025

E&OE

ANDREW HASTIE: Good morning, David.

DAVID SPEERS: So, do you think the US should drop this bunker buster bomb on Iran's Fordow facility?

ANDREW HASTIE: David, there are three principles which have guided my read on this situation. Number one, that Iran can't have nuclear weapons. Number two, Israel has a right to self-defence, and number three, that we want this conflict to end as quickly as possible. Now, there's no easy solutions here. There's only settlements. There's potentially a settlement through diplomatic means where Iran surrenders its nuclear program and subjects itself to watertight inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Or there's a settlement by force, where Fordow and Natanz are destroyed by the Israelis and the US, potentially with a strike from a B2 with a bunker busting bomb. So, that's where we're headed for the next two weeks. Hopefully we can get to a point where Iran willingly submits itself to those conditions, but I doubt it and my fear is that this escalates further.

DAVID SPEERS: Yeah, given that, if Iran doesn't come back to the table, you are supportive of the US intervening here with that bomb?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think it's a huge risk that Iran will pursue a military, a nuclear weapon rather. And I think regardless of what people say about Israeli intelligence, U.S. intelligence—it is very clear: Director General Rafael Rossi of the IAEA got up on Friday in front of the UN Security Council and said there's still 400 kilos of enriched uranium at 60%. The only reason you have 60% enriched uranium is if you are working towards a nuclear weapon. Civil reactors operate with about 5% enrichment, military fuels at about 20%. That's why the IAEA caps military fuel use at 20% enrichment, so they're at 60%. That's a known fact to the world. And regardless of what people say about Iran's intent, it's very clear, I think, and we can take that multilateral organisation and their intelligence very seriously.

DAVID SPEERS: Yeah, I mean, look. I don't know how long it would take then to get from 60% to the weapons grade you'd need, how long it would then take to weaponize, whether you'd need to do tests and so on. Just on this point is that enough evidence for you though that that Iran is weeks away from a nuclear weapon. Or would you like to see the evidence that that Donald Trump's relying on?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, there is some open source analysis out there. David Albright at the Institute for Security and International Affairs said with that amount of enriched uranium, you could potentially get a bomb within days and up to nine nuclear weapons within a month. With that 400 kilos, and he's a reputable source, he was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. So, I think we have to take this seriously and Iran is a deeply ideological regime committed to the destruction of Israel, the Supreme Leader himself has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. So, I suspect diplomacy is probably going to fail here, and we're going see a strike of some sort, but the next two weeks, it's going be tough for innocent people in Israel and Iran who are at the caught in the middle of this war. It's going to be very, very tough.

DAVID SPEERS: But this also comes to a question of international law. Whether the international rules are being followed. And Australia, of course, champions adhering to international law when it comes to, you know, China in this region is, is what Israel is doing here so far in accordance with international law?

ANDREW HASTIE: Israel has been at war since October 7th with Iran through their proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. And let's not forget that Iran fired missiles in April and October of last year at Israel, and if they had a nuclear weapon, I suspect that they would probably try that on and fire that at at Israel. So we're at the point now where the Board of Governors of the IAEA on June 12 passed a resolution condemning Iran for having this 60% enriched uranium, and that they're in breach of their non-proliferation treaty. So, this is where we're at and you can understand, I think, why Israel has taken its action, that it has.

DAVID SPEERS: Yeah. I'm just wondering though, does that mean — and under your understanding — that this is in compliance with international law?

ANDREW HASTIE: I'm not an international lawyer, so I couldn't comment, but I'm I'm looking at the facts in front of me and I'm sure Prime Minister Netanyahu has weighed up all his options and decided to take that course. People can judge for themselves. I wish we weren't in this situation, but we are. We've got to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And like I said, there's going to be two options for settlement, by diplomatic means, there’s two weeks on the table. Iran needs to come to the table or it's going to be a settlement by force and more people will die. I hope that Iran surrenders its program and allows itself to be subject to watertight inspections, but I doubt it.

DAVID SPEERS: Let's just talk about these options. One other option that's been floated by some is an Israeli Special Forces team going in to destroy this Fordow facility without the US having to get involved and avoiding that step. As a former Special Forces Commander, I am keen for your thoughts on this. How achievable would it be and what would it take for a special forces team to do this job?

ANDREW HASTIE: David, I think it would be very tough. There's a couple of principles that are key to a successful special operation and that is simplicity, surprise and speed. This would be a very complex undertaking with a lot of operational risk. It would be very difficult to generate surprise when you're inserting a ground element, particularly to somewhere like Fordow, where the Iranians would be expecting the Israelis to come. And then there's speed, it would be very difficult to overcome security at Fordow, to breach the facility and then to sabotage or destroy the nuclear componentry and then fight your way back out for extractions. So, I think for a number of reasons, it would be a one-way ticket for the Israeli Special Forces, there'd be an expectation of casualties and capture. And therefore, I think unlikely.

DAVID SPEERS: But as you would know, better than most, the idea that you can just drop bombs, do the job, that's it — doesn't always work out that way, does it? Operations don't always go as intended.

ANDREW HASTIE: No. And that's what the isolationist wing of the Republican Party keeps talking about, many whom are veterans of the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I can see why there would be a reticence to get involved in this. But again, the US can't just roll up 80 years of economic, diplomatic and strategic interest and pull up the drawbridge. The US is very much involved in the world, and that's why President Trump has a key role in resolving this crisis.

DAVID SPEERS: But you're a veteran of those forever wars as well. I mean, you served there in Afghanistan and in the fight against ISIS, are you worried what this could lead to? What dominoes could fall where this could spiral to in the Middle East?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think it's very dangerous and risky. We could see regime change. We could see a collapse of the Iranian regime. We'd see large scale migration and refugees across the world, but particularly Europe. We don't know who would fill the power vacuum, and if there's one lesson that I take out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya: Be careful what you wish for. You know it's sometimes better the devil you know, particularly for stability. Once those structures of order—as bad as they might be under a tyrannical regime like that in Iran—when there is no order at all and it's just chaos, it's a very dangerous situation for the people of Iran, but also the rest of the world.

DAVID SPEERS: But given that given what you've just said, be careful what you wish for, a mass movement of refugees out of Iran and so on is it worth it?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, that's a decision for the President of the United States. That's why it's such a tough decision. But one thing is clear, if you're Iran and you survive this conflict with your regime intact and the nuclear program intact, I think you're going move at best speed to build a bomb, to put yourself in the strongest position the next time this happens, so I just think we've got to come back to those basic principles. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon because they will use it. And one of the scientists, in fact—it was reported in the Wall Street Journal yesterday—one of the scientists who was killed this month by Israel had talked about smuggling a nuclear weapon to the US and the UK as well. So, Iran sponsors terror, who knows how they would use a nuclear weapon if they got one. It wouldn't just be for Israel potentially.

DAVID SPEERS: I want to ask you about the Australian government's position on this. It's urging Iran to come back to the table, but also to abandon its nuclear program. It's not said yet whether it would support US involvement necessarily. Is the Australian government taking the right approach?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think that's the right approach. I think broadly speaking they've made it very clear, Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon, that Israel does have a right to self-defence and we want to see this war ended quickly. That's my position. That's the coalitions position. And I think Foreign Minister Wong has made that clear as well.

DAVID SPEERS: Australian involvement in any U.S. military operation may not necessarily be in prospect, but what do you think, would you have any problem, or do you think Australia should be willing to support the US militarily if necessary?

ANDREW HASTIE: I'd be very hesitant to commit Australian troops to this war.

DAVID SPEERS: But refuelers or something like that?

ANDREW HASTIE: Refuelers again, that would be a decision for government. I think we are an important ally of the United States. We do provide support already and Richard Marles last week as the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about our relationship with the US and how some of our geography has been quite important as far as the alliance is concerned. But as for operational decisions, I just don't have enough information.

DAVID SPEERS: And just on that, I was talking to Richard Marles about this the other night on 7:30, our northern bases of course the US is using. Are you comfortable with the arrangements there, about how much agreement or approval Australia can give before the US launches a mission for an Australian base?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think we need to have a much more mature discussion about our relationship with the United States. I think we need greater transparency. Secretary Hegseth appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee this this week or last week, rather. And he talked about the Indo Pacific. He named Communist China as the pacing threat—they’re his words, not mine. And he talked about the US building up its forward posture in the Indo Pacific and he spoke specifically of Australia, Japan and the Philippines. And so we're very much part of the integrated deterrence that the US is building in the region. And I think the government needs to be clear with the Australian people what that means. We need greater transparency. I think we need to talk about operationalising the alliance, building guard rails for combat operations, and of course defining our sovereignty. And this will make things clearer for us so that we can better preserve our national interest. We're not just a vassal state, we're an ally and a partner and I think it's time that we had a good discussion about what that looks like.

DAVID SPEERS: This is interesting because the Minister says we have a concurrence agreement where we concur with the US use of Australian bases. You're saying there needs to be. Something a lot clearer than that, that would mean Australia has to green light any US mission.

ANDREW HASTIE: I think so. I think look, we're a country that provides great strategic depth to the United States. You have the marine rotation up in Darwin, on which you know two and a half thousand Marines come every year from April to October. We have Pine Gap, the joint facility in Alice Springs and of course we're going to have Submarine Rotational Force West out of Perth here in 2027, which is effectively a US submarine base. So, it's about time we started to mature the model and we're open and transparent with the Australian people about what that means for us, particularly if a war were to break out in the Indo Pacific region. We've been a good ally, it's worth reminding your viewers that in World War 2, the US operated its largest Asiatic base, submarine base out of Perth and Albany in Western Australia. So, we have this long standing relationship, but I think it's time we matured it and understood it better.

DAVID SPEERS: No, that's interesting. Look, the Prime Minister's not going to the NATO summit at The Hague this week, Richard Marles, the Defence Minister, will represent Australia instead. Is that the right call?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, I think the Prime Minister should have gone. I think the Prime Minister really needs to build his relationships with European leaders. I think it's really important given that he doesn't have a good close working relationship with President Trump yet, that he really deepens those that he has with people like Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the UK and other European leaders. So, I think it's a missed opportunity actually, and he should reconsider.

DAVID SPEERS: Look, one thing, though, no doubt we'll talk about at the NATO summit is Ukraine and I just wanted to ask you because prior to the election here, there was this debate about whether Australia should be willing to take part in any peacekeeping, coalition of the willing peacekeeping force in Ukraine, should there be a ceasefire with Russia. I mean, Peter Dutton's view was no way, you know, we shouldn't even be considering sending anyone over as part of that. Is that still your view?

ANDREW HASTIE: My view is that we should consider an offer and respond to an offer, and that would be a decision taken by the Prime Minister and the National Security Committee. That's something that you would do at the time. I don't think we should be ruling in or ruling out troops to Ukraine and I want to be very clear though it would be a very specialised deployment. We have special operations for a reason, a small element. But I just don't think it's wise to rule in or rule out Australian troops, particularly for peacekeeping or peace monitoring roles.

DAVID SPEERS: So, did you disagree with Peter Dutton at the time on that?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, my personal view was that we should have left it open and, well-.

DAVID SPEERS: So, what was going on there was there? Were you consulted by the Leader on that? Or what happened?

ANDREW HASTIE: No, I think the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, ruled in Australian troops without an offer, and Peter Dutton ruled out Australian troops. My view was let's wait for an offer and consider the merits of a request at the time. And so, that's still my position, because ultimately, Australian statecraft, we should be responsive to the situation around us and not be wedded to a position either way through ideology or through preconceived notions of what things might look like.

DAVID SPEERS: Is this openness now to at least consider an offer? Is this still just your view? Or is this the Coalitions view? Have you had a chat about this internally?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, I think we'll have a chat about it internally. You've asked me on television.

DAVID SPEERS: I think you've stated it this morning.

ANDREW HASTIE: I've stated it this morning, but look I think of the way Prime Minister John Key deployed the New Zealand SAS to Afghanistan. He sent them to Kabul in a very high-profile role. Whenever there was a spectacular attack the Kiwis were involved, some way or another. It was a very shrewd strategic move by John Key, and it's a reminder that all these deployments ultimately, they're strategic, but they're also political. And I think we could really build our relationship with Europe and have a say in the peace process with a small commitment from the ADF.

DAVID SPEERS: Andrew Hastie, thanks for joining us this morning.

ANDREW HASTIE: Thanks David.

[ENDS]