Christopher Luxon not the leader we need in times of war
Friday, 6 March 2026
Josie Pagani is a commentator on current affairs and a regular opinion contributor. She works in geopolitics, aid and development, and governance.
OPINION: What Christopher Luxon should have said was: We call on all parties to respect international law.
We sign trade deals because we need the world to play by a set of rules.
He could have said our international laws were developed after World War II to prevent another world war. Ignoring them means more war.
He could have said the Iranian regime was wicked and needs to be held to account.
Read more:
Christopher Luxon hits lowest popularity in past year as leaked poll reveals souring public mood
‘Not a good number’: Nicola Willis weighs in on terrible poll for National, PM under pressure
He could have said that it’s not the existence of international law that failed to prevent war in Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq or Iran, but the absence of it.
He could have said, they want us to support an ill-planned war of choice with muddled goals that will increase the cost of everything - and then stick 15% tariffs on us? No.
What he actually said was: “Could I have the word salad for lunch?”
To quote fully: “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.”
You would have got more clarity at a poetry slam.
Performances like this shake confidence, and when you get a bad poll your colleagues start telling reporters that the Prime Minister is doing a good job and won’t be going anywhere. They couldn’t be any clearer.
His U-turns make him look like he can’t approach two stools without falling between them.
He started off by saying “New Zealand doesn’t support the Iranian regime”, a clarification about as necessary as “New Zealand is a small country in the South Pacific”.
Then he upgraded his firepower to “acknowledge” the US bombing of Iran. What? Not even a “strongly” acknowledge?
On Monday he was in full support of “anything” that stops the Iranian regime doing bad things.
On Tuesday he was saying he “misspoke”.
Luke Malpass reported that the Government is preparing the Budget for the higher inflation and lower growth that is going to result from the war.
Supporting the war means you own the consequences of it. You don’t get to head into the election blaming the malaise in our economy on global conditions.
If someone had asked Luxon the day before the war, “should America bomb Iran?”, he would have said no. Nothing had changed the next day except that the Americans started bombing.
When you take a principled position, it isn’t hard to know what to say. Only bad generals wait until the crisis occurs then try to figure out a tactical response.
This is not a difficult crisis to navigate.
Helen Clark made a muscular case for international law. It is illegal to drop bombs other than in self-defence or with international authorisation. It is a clear, strong position.
It’s also a position that has to be meaningful for Iranian women who have taken bullets to fight a regime that kept them hidden and brutalised for 50 years.
To them, at least Trump is doing something.
What I would say to those women is that his something is reckless and potentially worse.
The US position now appears to be quietly hoping Iran will be run by the soldiers who just machine-gunned tens of thousands of Iranians in the streets, in a version of the dictatorship now backed by the US in Venezuela.
President Trump can’t explain his objective in Iran and the crisis is spreading.
If Trump can’t explain what he hopes to achieve, Luxon was not going to be able to explain why he is backing it.
What Christopher Luxon should have advocated was a muscular coalition to prevent crimes against humanity.
To Iranians, craving freedom from their clerical national jail, he could have said release can only come from doing things the right way and we will help to do that.
He could have said that history tells us that starting wars does not make the world a safer place.
There was a lawful way to intervene in Iran. “Responsibility to Protect,” R2P, is a simple, powerful idea. State sovereignty is not a licence to kill and the international community has an obligation to prevent mass state murder.
Colin Keating helped to develop R2P as New Zealand’s permanent representative to the UN in the 1990s.
Luxon had a proud legacy he could have drawn on.
He could have said that international efforts have been hamstrung by lack of reform, and the veto at the UN Security Council. We want to fix that.
He could have called on small and middle powers to coordinate globally against aggressors, as eventually happened for Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine.
No world leader has become more unpopular by calmly and reasonably standing up to Trump.
None has become more popular by pandering to his recklessness.
The Prime Minister should have said problems in the world are not caused because international law has failed but because it has been absent.
The drums are beating for him now. This is not the leader we need in times of war.
I can’t be any clearer guys.
This article was updated at 11.40am on March 6 to correct the days on which the Prime Minister made comments about the Government’s stance on the Iran war.