He also said the military action between the two countries could be potentially catastrophic for that area and a huge concern for New Zealand.
Foreign minister Winston Peters said it was "critical that all actors prioritise de-escalation".
He and Mr Luxon saw the best way to regional security as ongoing talks between the United States and Iran.
So far, there seems little hope of that.
Even at this distance, the ramping up of military action in this fraught area will be adding to everyone’s unease about the state of the world, the behaviour of some of the big players involved to date, and fears about what they might do next.
Since Friday, the conflict has intensified after retaliation from Iran to the original attacks which Israel had said were intended to target Iran’s nuclear programme.
There has been considerable speculation about the timing of Israel’s action, particularly when there were United States-Iranian nuclear negotiations planned for last weekend.
While it was no secret there was increasing tension between Israel and Iran, it had been reported US President Donald Trump was trying to dissuade Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from attacking Iran while the US was continuing these negotiations.
The initial attacks were clearly well-planned, with Mr Netanyahu insisting Israel had to attack now because Iran was becoming so close to weaponising its enriched uranium, a "clear and present danger to Israel’s very survival".
However, there are questions about the reality of this portrayal of the situation and whether it is more likely a cynical ploy by Mr Netanyahu to avert the international community’s gaze from the horror of Gaza and shore up his own support at home.
As some commentators have pointed out, the war on Gaza has not ended but the international pressure over starvation and civilian deaths, and indeed the media spotlight on it, has been superseded by concern about the implications of the Israel-Iran conflict.
The possibility of Israel’s action having the perverse effect of garnering domestic support for the unpopular Iran regime, particularly as civilian deaths mount, should not be discounted.
The escalation of the conflict has not been a triumph for Mr Trump.
On the campaign trail he boasted he would be a peacemaker, quickly solving international crises through his toughness, ability to make deals, and the respect with which he was held by foreign leaders.
In his inauguration address he claimed his proudest legacy would be that of a peacemaker and unifier.
It is difficult to see any evidence of that, domestically or internationally.
The US response to the Israeli attacks was confused, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially describing them as a unilateral action but then Mr Trump later insisting that he knew about the operation in advance, and it somehow coincided with the end of a 60-day ultimatum he had given Iran to make a deal on the nuclear question.
Iran regards the US as being complicit in Israel’s attack, accusing the US of aiding and enabling it, and therefore sharing in the responsibility of the consequences.
The best that can be said about the pronouncements from the players involved in the conflict is they illustrate the adage truth is the first casualty of war.
While people living here might take some solace in being thousands of kilometres away from the conflict, we will not be immune to the effects of it.
The price of oil has already risen internationally, but the Automobile Association says any effect here from that would not be seen for around a month.
The hope will be that the market will stabilise quickly, but presumably that would require some de-escalation of the conflict.
In the meantime, we can do little but hold our breath as we watch and wait for some cool and competent heads to prevail to stop the bloodshed.
