In January 2026, the hands of the Doomsday Clock were set to 85 Seconds to Midnight, indicating how close humanity is coming to a civilizational catastrophe from climate change, nuclear war, biological threats, misuse of AI or a global war. Join this discussion with parliamentarians, policy experts and civil society representatives on the role Australia could take in preventing nuclear war through the promotion of no-first-use policies and other nuclear risk reduction measures.
How Australia’s Government Backed an Illegal War and Left Australians to Foot the Bill
The Speed of Capitulation
When American and Israeli missiles began striking Iranian cities in the final days of February 2026, the Australian government did not wait for the UN Security Council to meet. It did not wait for legal opinion. It did not wait for evidence.
Within hours, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared that “We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security.” Foreign Minister Penny Wong added that she would “leave it for the US and Israel to speak of the basis, the legal basis for the attacks.”
Not since the invasion of Iraq has an Australian government been so swift to endorse military action without international legal sanction. And not since Iraq has an Australian government been so unprepared for the consequences.
The Miscalculation
The operation was billed as a surgical strike. The theory – as arrogant as it was flawed – held that the removal of Iran’s leadership would trigger a swift regime collapse, that the Iranian people would rise up at America’s invitation, that the war would be over before it began.
What happened instead defies every neocon fantasy.
The Islamic Republic did not fracture; it consolidated. A new spiritual leader emerged. Iranian society rallied behind the flag. And Tehran demonstrated what analysts had long warned: that it possesses both the capability and the will to strike back effectively.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes, is now effectively blockaded. Iran has asserted control, allowing only Chinese oil tankers through under negotiated exemptions. Western and allied shipping has effectively stopped.
The war we were told would be quick and decisive is now entering its second month, with no end in sight.
The price of Brent crude has surged from $72 per barrel in January to over $110, and in some trading sessions, beyond $180.
The impact on Australian motorists has been immediate and brutal. Petrol prices have risen by more than 30 per cent in a month. Some rural service stations have run out of fuel entirely. Hundreds of outlets have imposed purchase limits of 50 litres per customer. Social media is flooded with images of panic buying – jerry cans stacked in driveways, queues stretching down highways.
Australia’s fuel reserves are dangerously low. According to Energy Minister Chris Bowen, we have 39 days of petrol, 30 days of diesel, and 30 days of jet fuel. This is far below the 90-day reserve recommended by the International Energy Agency. The government has already reduced reserve requirements for importers by approximately 20 per cent – equivalent to six days of national supply.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers now calls this conflict “the defining influence” on the May budget. He warns that Treasury has modelled two scenarios – one with oil at $100 per barrel, one with oil at $120 – and admits that “both scenarios could underestimate the cost.”
Even under conservative assumptions, the war could cut GDP growth by up to 0.2 percentage points across major trading partners, add up to 1.25 percentage points to inflation, and leave GDP 0.6 per cent lower in 2027.
The Treasurer’s own words should chill every Australian: “We’ve already seen four major shocks – the GFC, a major pandemic, a global inflation shock, escalating trade tensions – and this oil shock could become the fifth.”
The Food Chain: Fertiliser and Farming
The war is not just hitting the bowser. It is hitting the dinner table.
Australia’s farmers are now facing a crisis of their own. The Strait of Hormuz disruption has cut off supply of urea fertiliser, upon which Australian agriculture is heavily dependent. Prices have soared. Supply has tightened. And the winter planting season is about to begin.
Queensland farmer Arthur Gillen normally splits his winter crop between wheat and chickpeas. This year, with fertiliser costs prohibitive, he is reducing wheat to 20 per cent of his planting area and abandoning urea use entirely.
He is not alone. Farmers across the country are pivoting to low-fertiliser crops – lentils, chickpeas, canola – and reducing wheat acreage. This shift, driven by war, will reshape Australian agriculture for years to come.
The timing could not be worse. Rabobank warns that the Strait of Hormuz must be open by the end of April to get fertiliser to farmers in time for winter planting. If it is not, the impact on Australian food production will be severe and sustained.
Federal Agriculture Minister Julie Collins has announced a national food security review. Farmers are telling the ABC they fear fuel shortages will impact the winter harvest. The government is scrambling, but the damage is already being done.
The Medicines Pipeline
In March 2026, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) issued an unusual public statement: they urged Australians not to panic buy medication.
The reason is the Strait of Hormuz. Pharmaceutical companies have been forced to reroute critical medicines away from the Persian Gulf, switching from sea freight to air freight at enormous cost………………………………………………………………
The AUKUS Mirage
Perhaps the most profound strategic consequence of this war is the damage it has done to Australia’s faith in its alliance with the United States.
The US military resources that were meant to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarine program are now stretched to breaking point in the Persian Gulf.
If Washington cannot keep its promises to South Korea or Japan, one Queensland University of Technology professor asked, what confidence can Australia retain in the submarine deal?
Public opinion is already shifting. Polls show more Australians oppose the war than support it. The government’s swift endorsement of an illegal conflict has left it morally stripped naked and strategically embarrassed.
The Government’s Response: Too Little, Too Late
To its credit, the government has belatedly recognised the scale of the crisis.
On March 27, Prime Minister Albanese announced new fuel security powers, including the use of Export Finance Australia to underwrite private sector fuel purchases. He called out panic buyers, declaring that filling jerry cans was “not the Australian way.”
Energy Minister Bowen has appointed a former energy regulator to lead a national fuel supply taskforce. The government is considering support for the nation’s two remaining refineries……………………………………………………..
The Path Forward
The war is not ending soon. Iran’s leadership has consolidated. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to Western shipping. Global energy markets are in turmoil.
What Australia needs is not more loyalty to a declining hegemon. What Australia needs is a government willing to act in the national interest – not just in the interests of alliance management…………………………………………………….. https://theaimn.net/the-war-they-sold-us-the-price-we-pay/
USS Charlotte was at periscope depth, but the periscope was down, reducing the chance of it, or the wake it creates, being seen by the enemy. It was a tense moment.
“Safe/Fire key to Fire”, ordered the captain.
The officer manning the fire control console repeated the order, “Safe/Fire key to Fire” and then advised the captain, “Safe/Fire key is to Fire”.
“Fire 4 tube at Target 1”, the captain stated in a raised and clear voice.
The officer repeated the order and hit the ‘Fire’ button. A low-level thud was both felt and heard throughout the submarine as the pressurise discharge system pushed the Mk 48 Torpedo from the tube. “Weapon running” the officer called.
As the weapon ran towards the Iranian frigate the submarine carried out a further visual set-up through the periscope to update the weapon. The updated targeting solution was transmitted down the very long and thin guidance wire connecting the torpedo to the submarine.
The update was also loaded into the second torpedo’s guidance system. “Fire 1 tube at Target 1”.
The first torpedo did not do its job. The second exploded directly under the target, lifting the hull out of the water and sending a violent shock wave through it. The structural damage was completed as the hull dropped back into the water.
The first the Iranian captain of the frigate would have known about the US submarine would have been when he felt the explosion underfoot.
Queuing
USS Charlote did not just stumble across the INS Dena. Rather, days before, it had been queued to the target by folks back in the US tracking where every surface ship in the world is located.
The submarine travelled at high speed, around 30 knots (55 km/h), for days getting from its routine Indian Ocean patrol area to the waters south of Sri Lanka. That’s one of the key advantages of a nuclear-powered submarine. They can travel long distances fast.
As it arrived in the area the submarine’s crew would have detected (found it) and tracked the contact (worked out its range, course and speed), and then classified (identified) it using a combination of acoustic and electronic emissions, and finally confirmed it was the INS Dena visually through the periscope.
“Then ‘bang’.”
AUKUS implications
The Iran War has shown that submarines are 21st century war fighting assets with ever relevant capabilities; they can collect intelligence, conduct reconnaissance, launch land attack missiles, covertly land special forces, covertly lay mines, and sink submarines and surface ships.
But the events from 28 February onwards have shown us other things.
AUKUS has been described by many as a program that facilitates close alliance and force integration with the United States.
As Donald Trump broke its written Free Trade Agreement commitments to Australia on ‘Liberation Day”, those in the Canberra bubble were blind to that breach’s relevance to the ANZUS treaty and AUKUS agreement. Surely the US’s defence treaty with Australia would be treated differently.
As the US initiated an AUKUS review, that was to see AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby recommend stopping the program until Trump realised the financial benefit in continuing with it and overrode Colby, those in the Canberra bubble breathed a collective sigh of relief and chose not to think it too much.
Ruptured
As Trump, to use the words of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, ‘ruptured’ the international rules-based order – carrying out a military operation in Venezuela, threatening Panama, bringing NATO to the brink by threatening to invade Greenland, attacking Iran and now threatening Cuba – those in the Canberra bubble didn’t seem to recognise the US Administration’s departure from Australian values; or perhaps likely they did but decided not to respond to it.
Only over the past month Prime Minister Albanese has responded properly to the ‘rupture’, not blindly committing Australian forces to follow the US into war, as has so often been the case (as a downpayment for US support for Australia if it needed it).
Albanese has despatched a RAAF early warning aircraft to support the air defence of the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states, but we haven’t joined a US-led effort as has been the case in the past.
Sovereign thought
Albanese has it right. The US did not seek to build international support, and/or UN approval, for a strike on Iran. Instead it chose to plan in secret in cahoots with Israel and then launch a surprise attack to kill Iran’s leadership while negotiations with Iran were supposed to be ongoing.
Only when the going got tough did Washington call on allies for assistance, and under the circumstances where they rightly refused.
“Trump’s Iran War has caused harm to Australia.”
The impact of Trump’s war is causing economic harm right across the globe.
The war has also brought home Australia’s vulnerabilities. For decades distance has kept us relatively isolated from conflict, but this conflict directly affected us as world fuel supplies are disrupted and prices have sky rocketed. And the full extent of this new energy shock still lies ahead.
“Perhaps it’s the shock that we needed to have”
a chance to reflect on our need to take a more independent pathway in a world in which many past assumptions are being overturned.
US submarine shortages
Australia has long relied on the naval might of what Prime Minister Robert Menzies liked to call our “great and powerful friends” – first the British Empire and the Royal Navy; then Pax Americana upheld by the United States Navy. Now times are changing,
“and they are changing rapidly.”
The US Navy has gone from a Cold War era 1000-ship navy to a 600-ship navy during the Reagan era, to a current fleet of just 300 ships. China now has the world’s largest navy, 350 to 370 vessels, and Chinese shipyards are turning out warships much more rapidly than their counterparts in the US.
The US Navy still has a qualitative edge, but the US Navy is not what it was, and its well understood that quantity has a quality all of its own.
The US has been aiming to increase its number to 381 combat ships. 66 is the desired number for nuclear attack submarines – they have only 49 at the present moment.
Since 2011 the USN has purchased 2 submarines a year (this last year it was only one – because deliveries are so far behind).
The actual Virginia-class production rate has never reached 2.0 boats per year, and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built.
They can’t build enough boats to meet their own needs,
“let alone ours.”
A school of thought in the US had been that submarines transferred to the Royal Australian Navy would be available for US in time of conflict, but the Iran War has speared that assumption.
And Trump noticed this week, first expressing disappointment at the UK’s refusal to become directly involved in the Iran War and then turning his thoughts to Australia, saying “Australia too, Australia was not great. I was a little surprised by Australia”.
Trump is well known to hold a grudge. The one thing that will keep him supportive of AUKUS will be the money flowing from the Australian taxpayers to US shipyards, with no contract in place for delivery and no claw back option for the Australian contribution is the US does not deliver. That’s the sort of deal that Trump likes.
UK submarine shortages
And the United Kingdom are in a worse position than the US. The Royal Navy has one nuclear attack submarine available for operations – a fact made obvious to Australians when that sole submarine cut short a visit to Western Australia to head towards the Iran conflict zone.
Retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, in an event at the Canberra Press Club, organised by Malcolm Turnbull, said it all, warning the UK had “dropped below the minimal sustainable force” for submarines and the country would be late in delivering its first SSN-AUKUS boat, a design which Australia is also hoping to start building in Adelaide in the 2030s.
“It is queued up behind the final two (Astute-class boats) and four critically important ballistic missile submarines, the Dreadnoughts, that are being built in the shipyard.”
“You cannot get the first SSN-AUKUS out until the fourth ballistic missile submarine is clear of the yard. That is the UK’s national priority.”
Defence incompetence
Listen to this story
12 min
The US war on Iran has exposed Australia’s incompetent defence and procurement. Rex Patrick reports implications for AUKUS submarine program.
A tense moment
USS Charlotte was at periscope depth, but the periscope was down, reducing the chance of it, or the wake it creates, being seen by the enemy. It was a tense moment.
“Safe/Fire key to Fire”, ordered the captain.
The officer manning the fire control console repeated the order, “Safe/Fire key to Fire” and then advised the captain, “Safe/Fire key is to Fire”.
“Fire 4 tube at Target 1”, the captain stated in a raised and clear voice.
The officer repeated the order and hit the ‘Fire’ button. A low-level thud was both felt and heard throughout the submarine as the pressurise discharge system pushed the Mk 48 Torpedo from the tube. “Weapon running” the officer called.
As the weapon ran towards the Iranian frigate the submarine carried out a further visual set-up through the periscope to update the weapon. The updated targeting solution was transmitted down the very long and thin guidance wire connecting the torpedo to the submarine.
The update was also loaded into the second torpedo’s guidance system. “Fire 1 tube at Target 1”.
The first torpedo did not do its job. The second exploded directly under the target, lifting the hull out of the water and sending a violent shock wave through it. The structural damage was completed as the hull dropped back into the water.
The first the Iranian captain of the frigate would have known about the US submarine would have been when he felt the explosion underfoot.
Sinking of INS Dena (Source: US Department of War)
Queuing
USS Charlote did not just stumble across the INS Dena. Rather, days before, it had been queued to the target by folks back in the US tracking where every surface ship in the world is located.
The submarine travelled at high speed, around 30 knots (55 km/h), for days getting from its routine Indian Ocean patrol area to the waters south of Sri Lanka. That’s one of the key advantages of a nuclear-powered submarine. They can travel long distances fast.
As it arrived in the area the submarine’s crew would have detected (found it) and tracked the contact (worked out its range, course and speed), and then classified (identified) it using a combination of acoustic and electronic emissions, and finally confirmed it was the INS Dena visually through the periscope.
Then ‘bang’.
AUKUS implications
The Iran War has shown that submarines are 21st century war fighting assets with ever relevant capabilities; they can collect intelligence, conduct reconnaissance, launch land attack missiles, covertly land special forces, covertly lay mines, and sink submarines and surface ships.
But the events from 28 February onwards have shown us other things.
AUKUS has been described by many as a program that facilitates close alliance and force integration with the United States.
As Donald Trump broke its written Free Trade Agreement commitments to Australia on ‘Liberation Day”, those in the Canberra bubble were blind to that breach’s relevance to the ANZUS treaty and AUKUS agreement. Surely the US’s defence treaty with Australia would be treated differently.
As the US initiated an AUKUS review, that was to see AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby recommend stopping the program until Trump realised the financial benefit in continuing with it and overrode Colby, those in the Canberra bubble breathed a collective sigh of relief and chose not to think it too much.
Ruptured
As Trump, to use the words of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, ‘ruptured’ the international rules-based order – carrying out a military operation in Venezuela, threatening Panama, bringing NATO to the brink by threatening to invade Greenland, attacking Iran and now threatening Cuba – those in the Canberra bubble didn’t seem to recognise the US Administration’s departure from Australian values; or perhaps likely they did but decided not to respond to it.
Only over the past month Prime Minister Albanese has responded properly to the ‘rupture’, not blindly committing Australian forces to follow the US into war, as has so often been the case (as a downpayment for US support for Australia if it needed it).
Albanese has despatched a RAAF early warning aircraft to support the air defence of the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states, but we haven’t joined a US-led effort as has been the case in the past.
Sovereign thought
Albanese has it right. The US did not seek to build international support, and/or UN approval, for a strike on Iran. Instead it chose to plan in secret in cahoots with Israel and then launch a surprise attack to kill Iran’s leadership while negotiations with Iran were supposed to be ongoing.
Only when the going got tough did Washington call on allies for assistance, and under the circumstances where they rightly refused.
Trump’s Iran War has caused harm to Australia.
The impact of Trump’s war is causing economic harm right across the globe.
The war has also brought home Australia’s vulnerabilities. For decades distance has kept us relatively isolated from conflict, but this conflict directly affected us as world fuel supplies are disrupted and prices have sky rocketed. And the full extent of this new energy shock still lies ahead.
Perhaps it’s the shock that we needed to have ;
a chance to reflect on our need to take a more independent pathway in a world in which many past assumptions are being overturned.
Australia has long relied on the naval might of what Prime Minister Robert Menzies liked to call our “great and powerful friends” – first the British Empire and the Royal Navy; then Pax Americana upheld by the United States Navy. Now times are changing,
and they are changing rapidly.
The US Navy has gone from a Cold War era 1000-ship navy to a 600-ship navy during the Reagan era, to a current fleet of just 300 ships. China now has the world’s largest navy, 350 to 370 vessels, and Chinese shipyards are turning out warships much more rapidly than their counterparts in the US.
The US Navy still has a qualitative edge, but the US Navy is not what it was, and its well understood that quantity has a quality all of its own.
The US has been aiming to increase its number to 381 combat ships. 66 is the desired number for nuclear attack submarines – they have only 49 at the present moment.
Since 2011 the USN has purchased 2 submarines a year (this last year it was only one – because deliveries are so far behind).
The actual Virginia-class production rate has never reached 2.0 boats per year, and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built.
US Naval Shipbuilding Plan (Source: Congressional Budget Office).
They can’t build enough boats to meet their own needs,
let alone ours.
A school of thought in the US had been that submarines transferred to the Royal Australian Navy would be available for US in time of conflict, but the Iran War has speared that assumption.
And Trump noticed this week, first expressing disappointment at the UK’s refusal to become directly involved in the Iran War and then turning his thoughts to Australia, saying “Australia too, Australia was not great. I was a little surprised by Australia”.
Trump is well known to hold a grudge. The one thing that will keep him supportive of AUKUS will be the money flowing from the Australian taxpayers to US shipyards, with no contract in place for delivery and no claw back option for the Australian contribution is the US does not deliver. That’s the sort of deal that Trump likes.
And the United Kingdom are in a worse position than the US. The Royal Navy has one nuclear attack submarine available for operations – a fact made obvious to Australians when that sole submarine cut short a visit to Western Australia to head towards the Iran conflict zone.
Retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, in an event at the Canberra Press Club, organised by Malcolm Turnbull, said it all, warning the UK had “dropped below the minimal sustainable force” for submarines and the country would be late in delivering its first SSN-AUKUS boat, a design which Australia is also hoping to start building in Adelaide in the 2030s.
“It is queued up behind the final two (Astute-class boats) and four critically important ballistic missile submarines, the Dreadnoughts, that are being built in the shipyard.”
“You cannot get the first SSN-AUKUS out until the fourth ballistic missile submarine is clear of the yard. That is the UK’s national priority.”
Defence incompetence
At the same conference, our Defence Department’s incompetence was on full display.
A Defence representative laid it out., After decades of submarine procurement failures (including the spending of $4B on French submarines we never got), it’s still “full speed ahead” in the best spirit of Captain Smith on the bridge of the Titanic.
In response to a question from Turnbull as to “what’s the plan B if we end up with no new subs” from the United States, Deputy secretary for strategy and policy, Hugh Jeffrey, answered, “You know, it’s not my job as a public servant, to talk about Plan Bs that’s the prerogative of government”.
He went on to lecture AUKUS sceptics,” If you really want to be in a position where we have no submarines then ‘turn back’. I do think, speaking as an apolitical public servant, we need to get out of this relentless politicisation of defence capabilities.”
AUKUS end
He surely did not realise what he said. He warns we’ll “be left with no submarines if the project is dumped”. The problem is that we’ll also be left with no submarines if AUKUS isn’t dumped. And we will have paid a lot for those no submarines.
After a failure on fuel security, with a failure on procuring submarines, and with the rules-based order ruptured by the very country we’re relying in respect of the program, maybe Albanese will finally cut this foolish program and move towards a more realistic, self-reliant and sustainable strategic policy.
If we don’t, we may well find our sovereignty to be hollow and that others will decide our nation’s future.
An ambassador who calls dead journalists terrorists. A death penalty for Palestinians only. A government that says nothing. And a Press Club that provides the stage.
I. The Spectacle
On March 31, 2026, the National Press Club of Australia hosted Dr Hillel Newman, the newly appointed ambassador of Israel, for an address titled “Reshaping the Middle East.”
What unfolded was not diplomacy. It was propaganda. It was the marketing of genocide. And it was allowed to continue, uninterrupted, on Australian soil, under the lights of an institution that once stood for journalistic integrity.
Newman rejected a figure of 70,000 dead in Gaza – a number, he said, provided by Hamas. He claimed the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties was “the lowest in urban warfare” and that Israel should be “commended” for the “low number of uninvolved civilians that were actually killed.”
He was speaking over the bodies of 70,000 people. He was speaking over the findings of a United Nations commission of inquiry that, in September last year, found that Israel had committed genocide in the Gaza Strip – accusing the nation of having committed four genocidal acts, “namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”
The Press Club did not challenge him. The journalists in the room did not walk out. The broadcast continued.
II. The Death Penalty Law
On March 30, the Israeli Knesset passed a law imposing the death penalty for terrorism-related offences. Human Rights Watch has analysed the bill and found it explicitly discriminatory.
The law makes death by hanging the default punishment for West Bank Palestinians convicted of nationalistic killings. It also gives Israeli courts the option of imposing the death penalty on Israeli citizens convicted on similar charges – language that legal experts say effectively confines those who can be sentenced to death to Palestinian citizens of Israel and excludes Jewish citizens.
Within the military court system of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the bill imposes the death penalty for killings classified as acts of terrorism as defined under Israeli law, even without a prosecutorial request. The bill only allows courts to order life imprisonment in unspecified exceptional cases where “special reasons” are found, limiting judicial discretion. It also prohibits commutation of sentences and mandates execution within an accelerated timeframe of 90 days.
Israeli citizens and residents are explicitly excluded from this provision: military jurisdiction applies exclusively to Palestinians, while Israeli settlers are tried in civilian courts.
Human Rights Watch has noted that military trials of Palestinians have “an approximately 96% conviction rate, based largely on ‘confessions’ extracted under duress and torture during interrogations.”
Adam Coogle, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, stated: “Israeli officials argue that imposing the death penalty is about security, but in reality, it entrenches discrimination and a two-tiered system of justice, both hallmarks of apartheid. The death penalty is irreversible and cruel. Combined with its severe restrictions on appeals and its 90-day execution timeline, this bill aims to kill Palestinian detainees faster and with less scrutiny.”
The Palestinian Authority has condemned the law as a “war crime” and a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees protection for individuals and fair trial rights.”
At the Press Club, Newman defended the law. “Just like in the United States, in Japan and in India, which have capital punishment, Israel has the right, as a sovereign state, to decide … capital punishment,” he said.
He did not mention the discrimination. He did not mention the 96% conviction rate. He did not mention the torture.
III. The Journalists
Newman was asked about the killing of journalists in Gaza and Lebanon. The International Federation of Journalists has reported that 261 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023. The Committee to Protect Journalists has accused Israel of killing a record 129 journalists in 2025.
Newman’s response was chilling.
He claimed that two of three journalists killed in an Israeli air strike in Lebanon were “100 per cent terrorist” members of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan force. He said they were “dressed up as journalists.” He claimed that both Hamas and Hezbollah “disguise themselves as press and remain terrorist operatives.”
When pressed on what percentage of killed journalists were not terrorists, he admitted: “The honest truth is that we have no way of knowing the exact amount of journalists who weren’t 100 per cent journalists who were killed.”
He has no way of knowing. Yet he called them terrorists anyway. On Australian soil. At the National Press Club.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has previously described such accusations as “smear campaigns” without “credible evidence to substantiate their claims.”
Newman also dismissed the broader death toll of journalists, saying: “When people outside quote 250, 300 journalists [have been killed], what they’re doing is they’re just buying [it] hook, line and sinker. If they would check, they would find that the majority of all the journalists, so-called journalists, that were affected were actually activists guised as journalists.”
He has no evidence. He provided none. The Press Club did not ask for it.
IV. The Frankcom Family
While Newman spoke inside the Press Club, the family of Zomi Frankcom stood outside.
Frankcom, an Australian aid worker, was killed by an Israeli drone strike on April 1, 2024, while working for World Central Kitchen in Gaza. Seven aid workers died. The convoy was struck three times.
Two years later, the family is still waiting for justice. They are still waiting for the release of critical drone footage audio that would establish motive. Former Defence Force chief Mark Binskin, who conducted an independent inquiry, was given access to unedited drone footage – but it did not include audio.
Newman was asked repeatedly whether the Israeli government would apologise to the Frankcom family. He refused. “Every incident of an innocent person or aid worker that is affected by a war situation is tragic, and we’ve expressed full sympathy with the family,” he said.
Sympathy. Not an apology.
He said reparations were “dependent on the final outcome of the interrogation.” Two years later, the interrogation is still not final.
Mal Frankcom, Zomi’s brother, said the family would like a formal apology, but he believed this was unlikely because it “could be seen as an admission of guilt.”
He met with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Tuesday. He urged the government to use all possible diplomatic levers to pressure Israel to complete its investigation.
The ambassador was asked about the audio. He said: “That’s not in my hands. It’s in the IDF’s hands.”
The IDF’s hands. Where it has been for two years.
V. The Australian Government’s Response
Foreign Minister Penny Wong told the Labor caucus that Australia opposes the death penalty “in all instances.” She pointed to a joint statement Australia signed alongside France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom that opposed the measure.
The statement said: “We are particularly worried about the de facto discriminatory character of the bill. The adoption of this bill would risk undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.”
A joint statement. Words. Not action.
The government has not summoned the ambassador. It has not imposed sanctions. It has not suspended military cooperation. It has not done anything that would cost Israel anything at all.
The same government that rushed to pass hate speech laws after the Bondi terror attack – laws that criminalise the phrase “from the river to the sea” – has nothing to say about a law that would execute Palestinian prisoners by hanging within 90 days, with no right of pardon, under a discriminatory legal regime.
The same government that welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Canberra has not condemned the man who wore a noose-shaped lapel pin while celebrating the passage of this law – Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s National Security Minister.
The same government that expelled Iran’s ambassador after ASIO concluded Tehran orchestrated the bombings of a synagogue and a kosher restaurant has not applied the same standard to Israel.
VI. The Question of Double Standards
In 2024, the Albanese government expelled Iran’s ambassador, Ahmad Sadeghi, after domestic spy agency ASIO concluded that Iran had orchestrated the bombings of a synagogue in Melbourne and a kosher restaurant in Sydney.
A top Iranian diplomat, Mohammad Pournajaf, defected from the regime and was granted asylum in Australia. The government acted. The ambassador was expelled.
Yet Israel’s ambassador calls dead journalists terrorists, defends a discriminatory death penalty law, refuses to apologise for the killing of an Australian aid worker – and the government says nothing.
Why was the Iranian ambassador expelled, but the Israeli ambassador remains?
The answer is the network. The donors. The lobbyists. The fear of being labelled antisemitic. The capture of our political class by a foreign ideology that demands silence in exchange for support.
VII. Has the Press Club Been Captured?
The National Press Club is meant to be a forum for robust journalism. For challenging those in power. For holding the powerful to account.
On March 31, 2026, it provided a platform for an ambassador who called dead journalists terrorists. Who defended a discriminatory death penalty law. Who refused to apologise for the killing of an Australian aid worker.
The journalists in the room did not walk out. They did not cut the microphone. They did not refuse to platform a man who accused the dead of being terrorists without evidence.
This does no credit to Australian journalism. It does no credit to the Press Club. It does no credit to Australia.
VIII. The Questions They Refuse to Ask
We will ask the questions they refuse to ask:
Why was Hillel Newman given a platform to call dead journalists terrorists?
Why did the National Press Club not challenge his claims in real time?
Why has the Australian government not summoned the ambassador to answer for the death penalty law?
Why has the government not condemned the law in the strongest possible terms?
Why has the government not suspended military cooperation with Israel?
Why has the government not imposed sanctions?
Why has the government done nothing that would cost Israel anything at all?
Why was the Iranian ambassador expelled, but the Israeli ambassador remains?
The Frankcom family deserves answers. The Palestinian prisoners facing execution deserve the world to speak. The Australian people deserve to know why their government is silent.
IX. The Larger Pattern
This is not an isolated incident. It is the same pattern we have been exposing for weeks.
The same network that brought us the Segal Plan – mandatory Zionist indoctrination in universities. The same network that brought us the police crackdown in New South Wales – eight armoured officers breaking down a woman’s door at 5am. The same network that is turning our public service into an arm of foreign influence. The same network that has captured our political class.
The same silence. The same complicity. The same refusal to act.
Israel is committing genocide. The International Court of Justice has found it “plausible.” The United Nations commission of inquiry has found it has committed genocidal acts. The world is watching.
And Australia says nothing. Or says a few words in a joint statement, then returns to business as usual.
X. What Must Be Done
The National Press Club must answer for its decision to platform Newman. Why was he not challenged? Why was the broadcast allowed to continue? Why were dead journalists slandered without evidence on Australian soil?
The Australian government must summon the ambassador. He must answer for the death penalty law. He must answer for his comments about journalists. He must answer for the Frankcom family.
The government must condemn the death penalty law in the strongest possible terms. A joint statement is not enough. Words are not enough. Australia must use every diplomatic lever to oppose this discriminatory, inhumane legislation.
The government must suspend military cooperation with Israel. Australia cannot claim to oppose the death penalty while cooperating militarily with a state that imposes it discriminatorily.
The government must impose sanctions. The time for words is over. The time for action is now.
The Frankcom family must receive justice. The audio must be released. The investigation must be completed. Those responsible must be held accountable.
XI. A Warning
What happened at the National Press Club on March 31, 2026, was not an aberration. It was the logical conclusion of a pattern.
A foreign ambassador called dead journalists terrorists. He defended a law that executes Palestinians by hanging within 90 days, with no right of pardon, under a discriminatory legal regime. He refused to apologise for the killing of an Australian aid worker.
And Australia was silent. The government was silent. The Press Club was silent. The media was silent.
This is what complicity looks like. Not active participation. Silence. The refusal to speak. The refusal to act. The refusal to hold accountable those who commit atrocities in our name, with our support, under the cover of our alliance.
The wire is not cut. The shells fall short. The men who send others to die do not walk the ground.
But we will not be silent. We will ask the questions they refuse to ask. We will name the names. We will expose the pattern.
And we will keep cutting the wire until there is nothing left but the garden.
This article is dedicated to my wife, who stands with me shoulder to shoulder, and I am so proud of her.
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL 2 Apr 26
No it won’t be the unconditional surrender Trump demanded of Iran. It will be a surrender couched as a US victory over Iran. Trump will say he’s obliterated enough of Iran’s nuclear program and missile capability to wind down his criminal war within a couple of weeks.
Nonsense. It’s the US bases in the Gulf States and Israel proper being decimated by Iran’s ferocious defense that are causing Trump to trumpet victory when in fact he’s been defeated in every war goal.
Trump didn’t achieve regime change in Iran.
Trump didn’t get Iran to surrender unconditionally or any other way at all.
Trump didn’t destroy Iran’s missile and drone defense.
Trump didn’t destroy Iran as Israel’s last remaining hegemon rival in the Middle East, the primary reason he attacked on February 28.
Trump didn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz as promised, whose closure is threatening worldwide economic disaster.
Tonight Trump will spin his colossal defeat as victory. But while speaking, Iranian missiles and drones will continue raining down on US Gulf States bases and thruout Israel. Tomorrow the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed as gas prices continue endlessly upward.
Trump will remain trapped like the rat he is while killing more thousands before his cabinet invokes the 25th amendment to take awayhis license to kill and destroy.
The idea of nuclear non-proliferation has come in for some heavy punishment of late. For one thing, powers with nuclear weapons, pre-eminently the United States, have been shown up as blackguards in seeking to prevent other powers in acquiring the option. In its conduct of talks with Tehran, ostensibly to stem their nuclear ambitions, Washington was merely managing a front of chatter while the warmongers were busying themselves behind the scenes. In June 2025, this culminated in the US joining Israel with Operation Midnight Hammer, which saw, according to President Donald Trump, “Monumental Damage […] done to all Nuclear sites in Iran as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!”
Despite these celebratory self-awarded accolades, Israel and the United States would initiate a savage and ongoing encore that began on February 28, with Trump again stating that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon. Apparently, obliterated nuclear facilities must have had some inner life that needed expunging. Diplomacy on non-proliferation was further shown to be contemptible and hypocritical.
Last year’s strikes on Iran, and the current Iran War, reveal the central hypocrisy of those who insist on keeping the nuclear club closed and limited, something made comically grotesque by the fact that one of the belligerents, Israel, is an undeclared nuclear power buttoned up in strategic ambiguity. Countries possessing the murderous nuke have been keeping those without such weapons in a state of suspended anticipation for decades. The central bargain is to be found in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a document that keeps club members in fattened bliss while holding off future admissions with the promise of civilian nuclear technology. Iran’s case shows that even having a civilian nuclear program is not something that will be countenanced.
The hard lesson, and one studiously understood by North Korea, is that having nukes is the ultimate security guarantee in the great family of unruly gangsters known as the international community. This much was admitted by the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, in a March 23 speech at the Supreme People’s Assembly in Pyongyang. “Today’s reality clearly demonstrates the legitimacy of our nation’s strategic choice and decision to reject the enemies’ sweet talk and permanently secure our nuclear arsenal.”
Those who refuse to pursue such an option or have abandoned their ambitions in the face of pressure and empty undertakings given by the powerful, have been found wanting and ultimately dead: Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
The late Iranian supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed by Israeli and US airstrikes, despite having issued an expansive fatwa banning the development of nuclear weapons. The religious ruling had first surfaced at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005. In its words, “[T]he production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire such weapons.” Iran’s leadership had “pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear weapon State party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the Agency.”
In February 2025, the leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) begged Khamenei to reconsider the edict in light of Trump’s return to the White House and the increasingly belligerent tone he had adopted towards the regime. “We have never been this vulnerable, and it may be our last chance to obtain one before it’s too late,” stated one official to The Telegraph. Another revealed that, “The existential threat we now face has led several senior commanders – who previously insisted on following the supreme leader’s guidance – to push for making an atomic weapon.” One of Khamenei’s advisers, Kamal Kharazi, said last November that the fatwa was the only impediment to developing a nuclear capability. “If the Islamic Republic of Iran faces an existential threat, we would have no choice but to adjust our military doctrine.”
In the meantime, Iranian policy became a ragbag of options that pushed it to a point where Tehran might be considered on the brink of the nuclear threshold without quite getting there. Deterrence could be achieved without actually acquiring a weapon. “Khamenei,” writes Tom Vaughan for The Conversation, “seems to have made a bet that achieving ‘nuclear threshold’ status, where a state has the potential to develop nuclear weapons at short notice, would be enough to do this and to deter US or Israeli attacks.” In failing to achieve this, Iran had “borne all the costs of being a ‘proliferator’, while reaping none of the perceived security benefits of nuclear weapons.”
Expanding nuclear weapons arsenals has also become modish. In the face of unreliable guarantees of extended nuclear deterrence offered by the United States in Europe, French President Emmanual Macron is inclined to the view that the next five decades “will be an era of nuclear weapons.” Keeping in mind “our national and European challenges, we have to strengthen the nuclear deterrent… We must think of our nuclear deterrent on a European scale.”
John Erath, former US diplomat and currently serving as a policy director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation says that more countries “feel insecure”, with nuclear weapons being the antidote. “There is no real alternative. Deterrence has so far prevented nuclear war, but often by luck.” Specific to Iran, reasons Ramesh Thakur, director of the Centre for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in the Crawford School of the Australian National University, “nuclear weapons are now the only thing that will guarantee regime survival.” Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a Washington-based think tank, suggests that a nuclear weapon may prove “a faster route to restore deterrence for a regime that is now more radical and has been attacked twice in the midst of negotiations.”
Instead of being shaded into unusable insignificance and hopeful oblivion, these weapons of homicidal lunacy have been shown to be more attractive than ever. They are virtually the only way regimes and governments of all stripes can hope to deter potential belligerents. Survivors of Iran’s leadership, now facing that existential threat long warned against, will be only too aware of that fact.
POLITICS. Sizewell C Inquiry. The Deafening Abdication of Four Ex-Presidents on Trump. Republican Lawmakers Led By Nancy Mace Begin To Break With Trump On Iran War: ‘We Were Misled’. US Congress near totally complicit in Trump’s criminal Iran war.
SAFETY. Nuclear Deregulation – DOGE Goes Nuclear: How Trump Invited Silicon Valley Into America’s Nuclear Power Regulator. IAEA Database: About 55% of Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material Thefts Since 1993 Occurred During Transport Nuclear plant told to improve after ‘near misses
Last night I watched a terrific programme on SBS world television. It was all about the sinking of the Titanic, covering so many aspects never shown on TV before. I was struck by the atmosphere on the ship, in the early hours of the sinking, with many people, particularly the rich upper-class passengers, taking the whole process as something not really serious, rather fun even. Of course, not all of them saw it that way. But enough of them – to be able to have quite a good party on the upper deck lounge, and to regard the messenger calling them up on deck as rather a nuisance, an ignorant lower-class person. And indeed, some people just refused to leave their (temporarily comfortable) beds, on such a cold night.
And here was I, trying to get my mind away form the rather scary world news. I suppose I’d have been better watching some “reality” show, or that good old Australian standby – sport.
Anyway, the thing was – the Titanic story showed how people are inclined not to take a critical event seriously, not to worry about it, until it’s too late.
And lo and behold, the same sort of thing is happening now. Today DW reports Iran war: Israel hits Iranian heavy water nuclear reactor. The good old news.com.au writes ‘Worst case scenario’: Wall St craters, oil surges as nuclear sites hit’. The fascinating part of this coverage, as shown by that last headline, is that the financial aspect is the first priority.. Yeah, I know that the world economy is important, and it’s not a good thing to have Wall St stocks going down, and investors “mashing the panic button”. I’m not saying that this is a trivial matter. It’s just that drone or missile strikes on a nuclear facility could be a helluva lot more serious than a drop on the stock exchange.
We don’t need an actual nuclear bombing to create a massive environmental and health catastrophe, a drone strike can do that job.
Both articles focus on this economic crisis, paying barely lip service to the fearful physical danger of a nuclear site being exploded, or even just damaged. Israeli air strikes hit a nuclear research reactor in Iran’s Khondab region, and a uranium processing plant in Yazd in Central Iran. The reports hastened to tell us there was no release of radioactive material. How reassuring! We can focus on the main issue – the share prices.
Questions come to mind. Will Iran retaliate by striking Israel’s Dimona reactor and other nuclear sites? How come it’s so terrible for Iran to have legally permitted nuclear research facilities, but apparently OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. Estimates of Israel’s nuclear warheads range from 90 to 200, but Israel “does not confirm or deny” its nuclear weaponry numbers. So that’s apparently OK.
Yes, we’re all anxious about our petrol and diesel prices, and naturally so. But the possible ramifications of these Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities add up to something more horrendous. I don’t want to rave on here about the health, environmental, social toll that will ensue, if the warring states decide to use this very convenient weaponry – no need to have your own expensive nuclear bomb, just send a few cheap drones to attack your enemy’s nuclear sites.
As with those rich passengers on the Titanic, it’s time that world leaders woke up.
Climate information wars and fossil fuel dependency are national security threats that are undermining Australia’s ability to respond to crises like the Iran war, a new report says.
This battleground is actively undermining the country’s ability to reach energy sovereignty and protect Australians from external threats, says retired Australian Defence Force (ADF) admiral Chris Barrie.
“There has been a failure to understand how energy dependence on fossil fuels will cause both economic disruption and more perilous physical conditions for Australians,” Barrie said in a statement accompanying a new report outlining the scale of the threat.
“Now the two issues are colliding.
“We are facing an unprecedented energy crisis much worse by the world’s failure to face its fossil fuel addiction. Layered on top is a climate disinformation war globally and in Australia that is actively undermining the capacity to build a renewable, clean-energy future and curb coal and gas exports.”
The Climate Disinformation War report says Australia, and the world, have been engaged in an information war over climate change for at least two decades, as “anti-climate propaganda and disinformation networks” grew into multi-billion dollar permanent campaigns.
Today, power comes from dominating the information space and Australians’ perpception of the world is now warped by mis- and disinformation, says The Climate Disinformation War report author, intelligence analyst Anastasia Kapetas.
“This is no longer just a communications issue,” she said in a statement.
“It is a national security threat with consequences for Australia’s sovereignty, economic resilience, disaster preparedness, institutional trust and strategic autonomy. We are already seeing a drift toward authoritarian politics linked to climate denial.”
Responding to the scale of climate disinformation requires coordination across civil society and industry, and across security, economic, and governance institutions, Kapetas says in the report.
It calls for comprehensive anti-trust architecture, such as the current European Union Digital Markets Act, to stop tech platforms that amplify disinformation from becoming too powerful to regulate.
It also wants digital regulation that requires companies to take responsibility for online disinformation and other harms, and “urgent, enforceable” regulation of generative AI that can rapidly scale disinformation.
Marketing group Clean Creatives last year estimated the top 29 oil majors spent $US6.97 billion ($A9.9 billion) in 2024 on media management and PR.
They’ve created “a tidal wave of hostile messaging”, said California Energy Commission chair David Hochschild in Sydney this month.
Sadly, one of the culprits is Australia’s own Liberal and National parties, whose energy policies for two decades and claims of what renewable energy could, or would do despite evidence to the contrary, allowed disinformation and misinformation to flourish.
The impact of this wave of money and propaganda on Australians was made clear last year, when a Senate committee inquiry exposed just how deeply mis- and dis-information is now entrenched in this country, and how badly its damaging Aussie communities.
As Renew Economy managing editor Giles Parkinson put it, the Senate committee unearthed “harrowing evidence of abuse, threats, and intimidation – much of it driven by fear and loathing inspired by deliberate campaigns to demonise renewables”.
The anti-renewables “outrage machine” is even having a real impact on attitudes to Australia’s favourite technology, rooftop solar and home batteries, as noted by Populares boss Ed Coper at the EN26 conference last week.
Energy security starts at home
While some media commentators still scoff at the idea that renewables offer energy independence, governments and companies are taking note.
Last week, the UK fast-tracked balcony solar rules specifically to beef up energy security, and Australian electricity retailer Discover Energy finished a pivot that started after the 2020 Ukraine War-coal price spike to dump its gas licence to focus on solar-batteries and virtual power plants.
Indeed, “homegrown” energy sources are now equated with security, says International Energy Agency (IEA) chief Fatih Birol.
“We have seen, in Europe since 2022, the phenomenal growth of renewables mainly driven by security concerns,” Birol said.
“We have more options to deal with [this] crisis [than during the 1970s oil price shocks].
“Renewables have come to maturity… batteries, these will be a big game changer in terms of solar and wind becoming an even bigger part of the energy sector.”
In a blow to latent hopes in conservative circles, Birol doesn’t believe the way out for Australia is nuclear – even though he is a big fan of the technology and it’s rising again after the last shock in 2022.
He urges Australians to be “very, very proud” of what the country has achieved with solar and home batteries as “not every country needs to be nuclear power”.
Israel’s avowed goal in the Middle East war is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, the double standard associated with this is hardly sustainable in the long run.
The worst-kept secret in the world of nuclear politics is that Israel possesses a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons. It began developing these in the 1950s and reached a fully operational capability by the late 1960s.
Although Israel refuses to confirm or deny this fact, arms control organisations have assessed that the country has some 80–90 nuclear weapons.
In recent days, Iran targeted Israel’s nuclear facility in the southern town of Dimona, injuring more than 100 people. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called for restraint to avoid a “nuclear accident”.
A program shrouded in secrecy
There is much evidence to support the existence of Israel’s arsenal.
In 1963, then-Deputy Defence Minister Shimon Peres famously stated Israel would not be the first to “introduce” nuclear weapons to the Middle East. What this actually meant was spelled out a few years later by the Israeli ambassador to the US. For a weapon to be “introduced”, he said, it needed to be tested and publicly declared. Merely possessing them did not constitute introducing them.
Several whistleblower accounts, intelligence reports and satellite imageryconfirm the extent of the Israeli program and its capabilities.
More recently, Amichai Eliyahu, a far-right minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, alluded to using nuclear weapons in Gaza – a tacit acknowledgement of Israel’s capabilities. He was later reprimanded by Netanyahu.
And in 2024, Avigdor Lieberman, a former defence and foreign minister, threatened to “use all the means at our disposal” to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. He added: “It should be clear at this stage it is not possible to prevent nuclear weapons from Iran by conventional means.”
It is important to remember that Israel not only developed its nuclear weapons in secret – employing subterfuge, misleading claims, and even the suspected theft of bomb-grade nuclear material from the United States – it has also rejected international inspections of its facilities and refused to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty has been signed by almost every state in the world.
Concerns over Iran’s program
Iran, meanwhile, has never had a nuclear weapon, though its program has been the source of international concern for more than a decade.
In 2015, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as the Iran nuclear deal) with the US, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, which imposed restrictions on its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. This included inspections by IAEA monitors.
However, Trump scuppered the plan in 2018. Since then, Iran has enriched uranium to levels well above those needed for its energy program. And last year, the IAEA said Iran was non-compliant with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations for failing to provide full answers about its program.
In short, there is no truth to the claim, made for almost 40 years by Israel, that Iran is “weeks away” from acquiring the bomb. The IAEA made clear two years ago that a nuclear weapon requires “many other things independently from the production of the fissile material”.
Getting close to nuclear threshold status, but stopping short of developing an actual bomb, likely provides a fall-back position for Iran. If Iran were to feel pushed or threatened, it could, in time, accelerate its energy program towards a weapons program. Or it could use this enriched uranium as leverage in negotiations with the US.
Nuclear powers need to show restraint
This brings us back to a major question: can double standards about who can and cannot develop a nuclear weapon be sustained indefinitely?
Israel’s nuclear arsenal has been tacitly accepted by the West, implying there are “right hands” and “wrong hands” for nuclear weapons. But this is a risky and ultimately unsustainable position.
As Australia’s Canberra Commission noted in 1996, as long as any one state has nuclear weapons, other states will want them, too.
This is precisely why many states voted in 2017 to adopt the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty’s purpose is to make the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons illegitimate for all states, not just for some, on the basis of international humanitarian law.
Signed by 99 states so far, the treaty recognises that nuclear weapons promise massive destruction to civilians and combatants alike, and that even a “small” nuclear war will cause catastrophic damage.
At the end of the day, a consistent approach to nuclear weapons is more likely to prevent nuclear proliferation (by Iran or other states) than the current mess, where some states are tacitly permitted to have these weapons (and wage war on others), while other countries are not.
It is possible we are at a tipping point when it comes to nuclear proliferation, with some countries suspected of wanting to develop nuclear weapon capabilities. This includes US allies South Korea and Japan.
Are the nuclear weapons states ultimately willing to accept the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and disarm in the interest of global peace and security? If they don’t, then the current trajectory of keeping one’s own nuclear weapons and waging war against states that don’t have them will only weaken an already crumbling rules-based international order.
Australian industry super funds are investing in companies involved in the Gaza genocide, and unions are not demanding they stop. Andrew Gardiner reports.
Protected by rules putting a member’s “best financial interests” over ethical, environmental or social considerations, the vast majority of Australia’s industry superfunds are all-systems-go on pouring money into projects connected to the decimation of Gaza, dispossession in the West Bank, and bombing Israel’s neighbours.
An MWM investigation has confirmed that just two of Australia’s 20 industry super funds are making modest changes to their investment portfolios. The other 18 remain invested in Israel’s war machine, with Australian Super alone funding corporations like Elbit Systems (drones), ICL Group (white phosphorus) and Palantir (AI/software for weapons systems).
This, even as the IDF is again using the banned white phosphorus in Lebanon, in which Australian super is invested.
The two funds which did divest – Vision Super and HESTA – still have some money tied up in Israeli projects in Gaza and the West Bank. “HESTA and Vision divested from Israeli banks (but) they still have money in companies listed on a UN database as operating from Israel’s illegal settlements”, Molly Coburn from the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) told MWM.
Activist Jill Sparrow says even those modest changes could be quietly reversed “as soon as we look away”. “Divestment isn’t set and forget (and)
“there’s a lot of money to be made in dropping bombs,”
“so super funds could be sorely tempted”, she said.
If you’re in a union-partner industry super fund and have a problem with genocide, chances are you’re out of luck on the socially-conscious investments front. Unions routinely route members’ super into partner funds with little regard to the social or environmental impact when it’s invested.
Ethics ignored
Under 2005 rule changes, union members can transfer their super to retail super funds, Australian Ethical and Future Group, which shun companies whose work enables the carnage in Gaza. These funds show it can be done, so why have industry super funds not done it?
Instead, unions aligned with the Labor Party, under pressure from Zionist lobbyists, are content to send members’ money to super funds that aid the Israeli war effort, funding what the UN calls “a moral stain on us all”.
Like so many other ACTU affiliates, the United Workers Union (UWU), with 151,000 members, talks a good game on Israel’s actions in Gaza, but hasn’t put its members’ super where its mouth is. MWM’s efforts to ascertain how much the union had done to lobby its super funds – HostPlus, Australian Super and HESTA – yielded nothing.
What we learned from UWU members is that in early 2024, a rank-and-file motion including divestment was passed at the council level in various states before being “soft-blocked” by union officials, who reportedly sat on it. Later that year, a more formal “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) motion, requiring real action compelling divestment by the super funds, was defeated.
“Social issues are bread and butter issues, and funding war is a dead end. Our leadership – who are on the boards of HESTA and Australian Super – (need) to stop hiding behind ‘fiduciary duties’ to fund death and destruction”, UWU delegate (early childhood education) Nicki Toupin told MWM.
Fidiciary duties
Fiduciary duty doesn’t just provide cover for unions putting the bottom line first. “In the interests of members”, it’s cited time and again by super funds whenever there’s pressure to divest.
Buttressing their argument is case law precedent, which will raise the hackles of Australian republicans: Cowan v Scargill, a UK decision dating back to the Thatcher years (1985), helped redefine a member’s “best interests” as “best financial interests” (emphasis added). 2021 changes to fiduciary duty here in Australia reflect that new emphasis.
How do you define “best financial interests”? Wouldn’t a stable Middle East be good for the world’s economy, providing investment opportunities for our super funds that don’t involve genocide?
“Egregious war crimes, crimes against humanity and devastating environmental impacts mean you can argue that the financial interests of super fund members are undermined by investments that support the Israeli military”, Claire Parfitt, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at Sydney University, told MWM.
It seems our super funds, and their investment managers, are ignoring these arguments in the quest for a quick return, their investment in the Israeli war machine rendering Middle East instability something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are, of course, equal and opposite rules against super funds investing in projects “maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory”. But some rules, it seems, are more equal than others; successive Australian governments barely lift a finger to enforce international court rulings, human rights obligations and social considerations (ESG), which might trouble the bottom line.
To quote a famous movie line, “a foul is not a foul unless the ref blows his whistle”. The failure to enforce international and ethical obligations means super funds can go on hiding behind “fiduciary duty”; at least 18 of our 20 industry funds are doing just that.
The “fiduciary duty” chestnut, and “soft blocking” tactics by union officials aligned with an ALP which quietly supports the Gaza carnage, have rendered meaningful “change from within” on divestment all but impossible. So groups like ASU for Palestine and UWU 4 Palestine are taking matters into their own hands.
Following a 1000-strong “community picket” of the Israeli-owned ZIM Ganges cargo ship at Port Melbourne, ASU for Palestine started looking at divestment as a way to hit Israel where it hurts. After ASU secretary (now Senator) Lisa Darmanin, then a board member at Vision Super, inevitably advised ASU for Palestine of its “fiduciary and statutory obligations” (adding it wasn’t legal for her to “act as (a) representative” of ASU members on divestment) it became clear something more compelling was called for.
What did ASU for Palestine do? It began a campaign to raise awareness on divestment, suggesting ASU members “switch their super fund” elsewhere, while lobbying to change the default super fund in enterprise agreements to none other than Australian Ethical.
It’s amazing how the threat of losing thousands of ASU members (and untold millions) can motivate a super fund to abandon “fiduciary” rhetoric and do the right thing. A couple of months later, amid much fanfare at the ASU conference, Vision Super announced its limited divestment, full details of which are expected by the end of this month.
These kinds of ‘direct action’ appear to actually work, although (per APAN) the extent of Vision’s divestment was limited. “If it’s not good enough, we’ll just have to go again”, Sparrow told MWM.
For their part, UWU 4 Palestine sees divestment as a major social cause that it and Members First, a grassroots change ticket at upcoming union elections, can get their teeth into. “Building a rank and file, fighting union that isn’t remote from members gives us the power to push for the kind of world we want, not just on workplace issues but in investing our money in something other than genocide”, Toupin told MWM, adding
Even as children, we knew something was wrong. The adults spoke in hushed tones. The news carried a sense of urgency. At school, the playground chatter wasn’t about games – it was about war. The kind that could end everything.
By my final year, the fear had become personal. Among the boys, we spoke about conscription – about being called up to fight in the Vietnam War. It wasn’t abstract anymore. It was waiting for us.
That was the world we inherited.
And now, it seems, the next generation is inheriting something disturbingly familiar.
Recent polling shows that fear of a major global conflict is no longer a fringe concern. In the United States, nearly half of respondents – 46% – believe a world war is likely within the next five years, with similar fear echoed across Britain, Canada and France. Across Europe, between 41% and 55% of people think another world war is likely within a decade.
Among younger people, the anxiety runs deeper still. A global Red Cross survey found that almost half of millennials believe a third world war is likely in their lifetime. And here in Australia, new research suggests that young adults are among the most anxious about national security threats, with many expecting conflict within years rather than decades.
This is not abstract fear.
It is generational.
But there is a difference between then and now.
The Cold War was terrifying, but it was also structured. Two superpowers, locked in a tense but calculated standoff. There were rules – dangerous ones, but rules nonetheless.
Today, the fear feels less ordered. Less predictable. More dependent on personalities than systems.
And that is where Donald Trump enters the picture.
To his supporters, he is decisive – a leader unafraid to act. But to many others, particularly younger people watching from a distance, he represents something far more unsettling: volatility. A willingness to escalate, to threaten, to test boundaries not as a last resort, but as a demonstration of strength.
In some international polling, even allied populations now cite the United States itself – under Trump’s leadership – as a potential source of global instability.
That perception matters.
Because fear is not driven solely by events, but by expectations – by what people believe might happen next.
And for a generation raised on a constant stream of crisis – pandemics, climate change, economic instability, and now rising global tensions – the idea that a single leader’s impulses could tip the balance is deeply unsettling.
Unlike our childhood, there is no buffer. No evening news that ends at six o’clock. No space between events and reaction. Every threat is immediate. Every escalation is live-streamed. Every rumour amplified.
There is no off switch.
And so the fear settles in – not always as panic, but as something quieter and more corrosive. A sense that the future is unstable. That the world is being shaped not by steady hands, but by unpredictable ones.
We have seen this kind of fear before.
We lived through it.
But today’s version carries an added uncertainty – not just about what might happen, but about who might make it happen.
For younger generations, that may be the most unsettling thought of all.
While the “Iran war” is fuelling Israel’s desire for Middle East chaos, Australia finds itself in strategic quagmire of confused priorities and escalating energy costs. Stuart McCarthy reports.
According to the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Australia is confronting the “worst strategic circumstances since WWII.” A need to “pivot” from pointless “forever wars” in the Middle East towards the Indo-Pacific and counter a rapid build-up of Chinese military power evidently warrants an overhaul of our “not fit for purpose” defence force, expenditure of up to $368B on AUKUS submarines and a plan to enter the “missile age.”
No mention is made in that “strategic” document of this country’s most serious vulnerability. Namely, our systemic exposure to exactly the kind of global oil shocks triggered by the latest Middle East military fiasco.
Our lack of preparedness for these shocks is the result of at least two decades of inexcusable incompetence across the political spectrum.
The reality we face is that Australia has been caught with its pants down during a seismic but foreseeable shift in the global geopolitical landscape. The fallout from the current Middle East war will hit us hard, and we are not prepared.
Even if the Strait of Hormuz – the vital artery for 20% of global oil supplies – is miraculously reopened to merchant shipping within the next few weeks, an economic recession is already a safe bet. The 1979 oil shock saw a severe recession across industrialised countries. Australia saw a double-dip recession, and unemployment rose to more than 10%.
Oil dependency
Australia produces less oil now than it did in 1979, but demand has doubled over the same period, in line with economic growth. We are now 90% dependent on imported petroleum fuel.
The 20 years needed to transform our road transport fleet have been squandered, and we are at the tail end of a jet fuel-dependent global air transport system. The demand-led Covid recession saw a 7% decline in domestic petroleum fuel consumption, mostly as a result of the near total shut down of the aviation sector, but we now face a collapse in the availability of globally traded petroleum fuels, affecting the entire transport sector.
And there’s more. As much as two-thirds of the Urea fertiliser used by Australian farmers also usually comes through the Strait of Hormuz. There are already shortages of some essential medicines and other manufactured goods, which rely on fragile, just-in-time global supply chains.
The stability of our financial system remains as dependent on the assumption of perpetual economic growth as it did before the 2008 financial crisis. Oil supply and economic shocks such as these are blithely dismissed as “externalities” in business-as-usual finance and economic models. Much of the financial capital we need to properly transform our economy to a sovereign resilience model is sure to evaporate in equities and finance markets.
This shock will undoubtedly be much worse than what we saw in 1979.
“And who will pay the price? In short, we all will.”
The cost of war
Since the end of WWII, the human costs of Australia’s wars have been carried solely by the tiny proportion of our community who serve in the defence force, their families and the populations of countries “over there.”
For most of us, mere curiosities on the evening news or social media feeds.
Within military circles, Australia’s contributions to US-led wars in the Middle East and elsewhere have often been disparaged as niche wars. Relatively small contingents of “niche” capabilities were assigned to US-led military coalitions with little impact on overall strategic outcomes other than legitimising US hegemony, while minimising domestic political risk and accountability in case things went wrong.
Given this government reflexively committed us to this war with even less forethought than previous governments in the last several wars, it would more accurately be described as Albanese’s rubber-stamp war.
Within hours of the first Israeli and US air strikes against Iran on 28 February, Albanese regurgitated the Israeli pretext that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat. This pretext has already been publicly debunked by the US Director of National Intelligence.
Unprovoked attacks
For the second time in less than a year, the attacks were launched even as US officials were negotiating with the Khamenei regime over its uranium enrichment program. Iran would be irrational to come back to the negotiating table because that is now proven indicator of the next Israel-US aerial bombardment campaign.
“The degree of Israel-US incompetence on display here is breathtaking,”
even before any moral or legal considerations are made.
Now facing a direct existential threat, the Khamenei regime, on the other hand, has responded with a coherent strategy of lateral escalation, for which they have been preparing since at least 2003.
From their perspective, to “win” this war, all they need to do is survive.
Their strategy is to inflict severe economic pain on the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz until the US eventually comes to its senses, and to drive a wedge between the US and the Gulf states, which host permanent US military bases that project power across the region.
These bases have been a growing source of tension in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan later in the same year. The US at the time saw a Russian presence in Afghanistan as a threat to its vital national interests in maintaining access to Middle East oil exports, responding with a permanent military presence in the Gulf states under its “Carter doctrine.”
Over time, this US support also allowed the Gulf states and Israel to contain the perceived threat to regional stability from the Iranian regime.
Now, almost fifty years later and with the NATO-led Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the rear view mirror, US bases nonetheless remain, part of a self-perpetuating escalatory spiral with Iran.
Iran will not be content with Israel and the US merely stopping their attacks. They are now demanding that US bases in the Gulf be shut down permanently. The Gulf states – despite their serious diplomatic efforts to establish stable relations with Iran – are trapped in the middle of a war they didn’t want, and they have no clear way out.
War out of control?
On Wednesday night, Israel bombed South Pars, the world’s largest gas field jointly owned by Qatar and Iran. Iranian officials have vowed to launch retaliatory strikes against gas and oil infrastructure elsewhere in the region. This marks the next step up the escalatory ladder, and it means the duration of the energy and economic shock will be measured in years, not months.
Trump no longer has control of the situation, even if he ever did. Netanyahu has for many years envisaged not merely regime change but the fracturing of the Iranian state as a strategic win for Israel, and he – not Trump – is calling the shots.
For Australia’s part, our rubber-stamp contribution of an air force Wedgetail surveillance aircraft, ostensibly to help defend the United Arab Emirates from incoming Iranian missiles, has actually played into the hands of the Iranian strategic narrative.
Regardless of Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s nauseating semantics over this aircraft playing a “defensive” role,
“Australia is now party to the war with Iran,”
from our own base at Al Minhad in the UAE, which has already been targeted by the Iranians at least twice. We are one of only a small handful of Western countries with a permanent military presence in the Gulf, a presence that in and of itself is helping to fuel the escalatory spiral.
While all this plays out “over there”, for the first time in almost a century, some of the human cost of this war will be carried by the wider public here at home. Costs for fuel, food and utilities will continue to soar, as will mortgage payments and rents. Savings and investments will take a hit. Many people will lose their jobs. Some will lose their homes.
Among them are those who used to be considered Labor’s core constituents – the “Aussie battlers” who work hard but struggle to make ends meet – before the “workers’ party” abandoned its principles in favour of banal neoliberal economic rationalism, political careerism and mindless identity politics.
We can only hope that this shock might at last see a consensus emerge for a rational, sovereign, independent national security and foreign policy. Our policies of vassal state subservience to the US and, in this case, Israel are beyond unfit for purpose. They are directly undermining our vital national interests. In the meantime, we’re in for a rough ride.
Stuart McCarthy is a medically retired Australian Army officer whose 28-year military career included deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Stuart is an advocate for veterans with brain injury, disabilities, drug trial subjects and abuse survivors. Twitter: @StuartMcCarthy_
What did Canadians get for the $4.5 billion in public funding spent on small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) activities? Our new report assessing SMR development in Canada found the results underwhelming, to say the least.
Published in 2018, A Call to Action: A Canadian Roadmap for Small Modular Reactors recommended that the federal government fund SMRs and undertake other support measures. The report’s first “expected result” was that “one or more SMR demonstration [projects would be] constructed and in operation by 2026.” Our report in this milestone year covers not only this expected result, but also what the federal government has provided in funding for SMRs in Canada.
For many years, the “Micro Modular Reactor” (MMR) proposed for the Chalk River nuclear site in Ontario was to be this first demonstration. Back in 2019, the project proponents applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to prepare the site for construction.
Fast forward to 2024: instead of the reactor built and being prepared to go into service, CNSC announced it had “paused all work” on the MMR project. Later that year, the company leading the project, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States, leaving unpaid debts of more than $16 million. That total included $641,307 to the CNSC and lesser amounts to dozens of Canadian small businesses.
In 2018, the New Brunswick government lured two start-up SMR companies into the province from the U.S. and the United Kingdom—ARC and Moltex—giving each $5 million and help to apply for funding from federal taxpayers. The SMR strategy called for two “advanced” reactor designs, which were not cooled with water, to be built at NB Power’s Point Lepreau nuclear site. Both designs have serious problems that have been documented extensively (for example, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) .
Over the next five years, the federal government handed over more than $97 million to develop the two SMR designs in New Brunswick, and the provincial government added more than $31 million to the project. Yet in late 2025, New Brunswick’s Energy Minister said the government would no longer wait for the ARC and Moltex designs because the province could not take on the risk of first-of-a-kind reactors. The millions of dollars in subsidies are essentially a write-off, funding highly paid positions at these companies at the public expense.
Of the 10 SMR designs in Canada since 2018, only one is in development. Most of the public subsidy money for SMRs—$4.025 billion—has been spent developing this reactor design, the BWRX-300, to be built at the Darlington nuclear site on Lake Ontario. As of early 2026, workers are digging a deep shaft for the reactor vessel. Sometime this summer, we can expect to see concrete being poured into the ground.
Four billion dollars is a lot of money, but nowhere near enough to pay for the four BWRX-300 reactors planned for the site. Even the first BWRX-300 reactor is expected to cost more—$6.1 billion—and the whole project will run at least $20.9 billion. It final bill could come in far higher, since the vast majority of nuclear power projects have historically overrun initial cost estimates.
The high costs for the SMR compare poorly with other options for electricity generation. For example, estimates by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) show that each unit of electrical energy from SMRs would be far more expensive that a corresponding unit from solar and wind power plants, even when the cost of storage technologies and other means of accounting for renewable energy’s variability are included.
CSIRO has been undertaking an annual cost estimate in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator and its reports involve extensive consultation with various stakeholders. The research agency’s analysis is informing an active debate under way in Australia to determine if the country should embark on nuclear energy. There is no corresponding effort at rigorously computing the costs of different kinds of generating energy from different technologies by any official research agencies in Canada.
Overall, the report’s analysis found little interest in SMRs among banks and other sources of private capital. When measured in terms of their ability to generate power, SMRs are more expensive than big reactors. Given the high costs, the report suggests that exporting significant quantities of SMRs from Canada is only a slim possibility.
Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana are authors of the report on SMRs in Canada. O’Donnell is Adjunct Research Professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. Ramana is Professor; Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security; and Director pro tem of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
No Israel, no Iran war. That fact is AWOL from any coverage of criminal US, Israeli war destroying Iran, US Gulf States bases and possibly the world economy.
Destroying Iran as a hegemonic rival preventing their Middle East expansion of Greater Israel has been Israel’s objective for decades. But the small country of Israel, without billions in US firepower and participation could never accomplish their cherished goal. What to do? Put tremendous carrot and stick pressure on Donald Trump to achieve Israel’s Middle East supremacy.
They came close to getting George W. Bush to take out Iran after Bush demolished Afghanistan and Iraq back in 2003. But Bush stopped his war-crazed Veep Dick Cheney from pulling the Iran war trigger.
Obama was a huge problem for Israel. Instead of attacking Iran he made peace with it… or tried to. His leadership in creating the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) put the end to any concern that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Which they never were. It should have stopped Israel’s lust to destroy Iran. But it didn’t. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embarked on a relentless propaganda campaign to destroy the JCPOA.
His dream was realized when Trump succeeded Obama in 2017. A year later, Trump, likely following Netanyahu’s orders, withdrew from the JCPOA, putting Iran regime change back in play.
When Biden succeeded Trump in 2021, Netanyahu garnered another complacent ally in the White House. Biden did nothing to rejoin the JCPOA and normalize relations with Iran. But the Israeli genocide in Gaza, fully supported and funded by Biden, put Iran on the back burner.
Enter Donald Trump – back in power in 2025. Within 9 months he secured a ceasefire in Gaza. Palestinian genocide switched places with Iran on the forefront of destruction. Iran moved into Trump’s crosshairs to please his Israeli masters.
Had Harris succeeded Biden, likely no Iran war. Unlike Trump, Harris was neither as fully funded by the Israel lobby nor possibly subject to Israeli blackmail threatening to expose Trump’s peccadillos.
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
Antinuclear 