All right, we need to talk about Chris Luxon and that performance yesterday.

“Oh, I mean… we obviously understand… we’re not saying that… what we’re saying is… we… we… we understand this… I don’t know how to be any clearer, guys…”

You know what’s going wrong here, eh? The Prime Minister doesn’t want to say what he actually thinks. He doesn’t want to take a position on the air strikes on Iran.

If he says he supports the strikes, he risks copping it from what may be a majority - but almost certainly is a very vocal minority - of New Zealanders who don’t like anything the US does militarily.

If he says he opposes the strikes, then he risks creating an international headline like 'New Zealand criticises US air strikes' and getting this country offside with the most volatile US president in modern history - and whatever comes with that.

So either way, he’s in a tough position.

A generous interpretation is that he’s trying to protect New Zealand from Trump. A less generous interpretation is that he’s trying to protect himself from unhappy voters.

The problem is that, as always, Chris Luxon trying to avoid taking a position ends the way it always does: he looks clumsy and uncertain. He makes mistakes - like saying he supports anything the US may do to prevent nuclear weapons, including carpet bombing - which he’s now had to walk back today.

And Luxon’s been here before, hasn’t he? Remember the three-minute interview with Mike Hosking where he wouldn’t take a position on whether he would have sacked Andrew Bayly?

I’d say that in trying to avoid choosing between supporting or not supporting the air strikes, he created a third position altogether - making himself look foolish.

And for a leader in an election year, that is the worst choice possible.

It is better - even if the position is unpopular - to pick one, than to look like he does today.

LISTEN ABOVE