The nauseating spectacle of European leaders grovelling before Trump at the NATO summit.
https://theaimn.net/the-nauseating-spectacle-of-european-leaders-grovelling-before-trump-at-the-nato-summit/ 27 June 2025
“I May Vomit”
Those are the immortal first words spoken by the man arriving in “Man Who Came to Dinner” – in the classic 1939 play by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart. Why did this come to my mind as I watched the evening news tonight?
Oh yes – I just felt like that man, as I learned how , one after another, these pathetic sycophants, including Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, dutifully bowed and scraped before the Donald Deity, – (as they promised to buy ever more weapons from American manufacturers.) By the way, Trump snubbed NATO’s Indo-Pacific partners, which includes Australia. But Australia’s getting used to accepting being snubbed by Trump and his war-mongering lackey, Pete Hegseth.
The ABC’s Europe Correspondent, Elias Clure, might have felt a bit the same way, as he reported on the meeting:
“Donald Trump was given a royal welcome by the monarch of the Netherlands as he arrived at the NATO summit in The Hague. He left feeling like a king.
Member nations agreed to lift their defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP over 10 years and Mr Trump was quick to take credit, describing it as a “big win” for the United States.……………………………… the event, which aims to hear from delegations of the 32 NATO countries and many more partners and allies, seemed to revolve around the presence of one man.”
Clure went on to describe the gushing of the NATO Secretary-General. Mar Rutte, who was fulsome in his praise of America’s bombing in Iran:
” – the signal it sends to the rest of the world that this president, when it comes to it, yes, he is a man of peace, but if necessary, he is willing to use strength”
So – we all think it’s beaut that America decided to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites – bombing being apparently a great way to get peace? I mean – all this is, as Richard Marles loves to tell us, to preserve the “global rules -based order”
But do these pathetic flunkeys in their tax-payer funded jobs have any idea of what the international rules-based order actually is?
It’s the Charter of The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg which set up international law on war crimes. The “supreme” war crime is explained by world international law expert Geoffrey Robertson – the war crime of aggression:
“It is constituted by using armed force against a felloe United Nations member with such “character, gravity and scale” that it violates the UN charter prohibition on one member country attacking another. A “spectacular military success, the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities may have been, but it was, as a matter of international law, no different from Russia’s attack on Ukraine, or the George W Bush Tony Blair, John Howard invasion of Iraq. These a all cases of a breach of the world order agreed after the last war and likely to encourage emulation.”
The Donald worshippers also don’t seem aware that Iran is a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and there is no evidence that it’s making a nuclear weapon. Iran has always allowed IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. Like many other nations it has enriched uranium for medical and other industrial purposes, and this is legal.
Israel, on the other hand, is widely believed to have nuclear weapons – estimated at anything from 90 to 200 nuclear warheads. Israel has refused to join the NPT, and refused to allow IAEA inspections.
Donald Trump and his nefarious acolytes are not content with wrecking America’s national civil institutions, – a process made easier, now that the Supreme Court has put Trump above the law .
Now Trump is moving on to destroy international law.
I can’t go on, I am feeling too sick.
The Chris Hedges Report: Starvation and Profiteering in Gaza (w/ Francesca Albanese)
Francesca Albanese joins Chris Hedges to break down the current starvation campaign in Gaza, and her upcoming report detailing the profiteering corporations capitalizing on the erasure of Palestinians
Chris Hedges, Jun 26, 2025
This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.
There is not much more that can be said about the unfathomable levels of devastation the genocide in Gaza has reached. Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has been chronicling the genocide and joins host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report to shed light on the current situation in Gaza, including parts from her upcoming report on the profiteers of the genocide.
Israel’s siege on the Palestinians is leaving the population starving, and Albanese lambasts other nations for not stepping up and completing their obligations under international law. “[Countries] have an obligation not to aid, not to assist, not to trade with Israel, not to send weapons, not to buy weapons, not to provide military technology, not to buy military technology. This is not an act of charity that I’m asking you. This is your obligation,” she explains.
Albanese compares Gaza and Israel’s siege to a concentration camp, stating it is unsustainable but also allows the world to witness how a Western settler colonial entity functions. “There is a global awareness of something that has for a long time been a prerogative, a painful prerogative of the global majority, the Global South, meaning the awareness of the pain and the wounds of colonialism,” Albanese tells Hedges.
In her forthcoming report, Albanese will detail exactly how Palestine has been exploited by the global capitalist system and will highlight the role certain corporations have played in the genocide. “[T]here are corporate entities, including from Palestine-friendly states, who have for decades made businesses and made profits out of the economy of the occupation, because Israel has always exploited Palestinian land and resources and Palestinian life,” she says.
“The profits have continued and even increased as the economy of the occupation transformed into an economy of genocide.”……………………………………………TRANSCRIPT………………………………….. …………..https://scheerpost.com/2025/06/25/the-chris-hedges-report-starvation-and-profiteering-in-gaza-w-francesca-albanese/
Statement on military attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran
25 June 25
Friends of the Earth Australia expresses our profound concern regarding the US attacks of nuclear facilities in Iran. The military strikes were not endorsed by the United Nations or the US Congress. They should not be endorsed by Australia.
The current hostilities would not be occurring if not for the widely criticized decision of the first Trump administration to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. Australia should be condemning the US for that decision rather than endorsing unilateral, unauthorised US military strikes. Australia needs to revisit the US military alliance (including AUKUS nuclear submarines) in light of the reckless behaviour of the US.
There are reports today of strikes near the Bushehr nuclear plant. IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi has told the UN Security Council that a direct hit on Bushehr could “result in a very high release of radioactivity”, with “great consequences” within and beyond Iran’s borders. A strike on the Bushehr nuclear power plant raises the prospect of a nuclear disaster akin to Chernobyl or Fukushima.
The fact that these attacks have been chosen as first targets highlights the vulnerability of nuclear facilities worldwide to be used as weapons against the local population. There is a history of conventional military strikes on nuclear facilities in the Middle East. Examples include the destruction of research reactors in Iraq by Israel and the US; Iran’s attempts to strike nuclear facilities in Iraq during the 1980−88 war (and vice versa); Iraq’s attempted strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities; and Israel’s bombing of a suspected nuclear reactor site in Syria in 2007.
From a domestic perspective, recent developments in the Middle East ‒ and Ukraine ‒ highlight the vulnerability of the nuclear power reactors that the Coalition wants to build. The Coalition’s plan to build nuclear reactors would leave Australia vulnerable to missile warfare and sabotage, the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group warns. The group includes former Australian Defence Force chief Chris Barrie, who said: “Every nuclear power facility is a potential dirty bomb because rupture of containment facilities can cause devastating damage. Modern warfare is increasingly focused on missiles and uncrewed aerial systems, and with the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target”.
Australia should:
- Condemn Israel’s nuclear weapons program (the only known nuclear weapons program in the Middle East) and support necessary steps to enforce nuclear disarmament.
- Urgently sign and ratify the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) ‒ a promise Labor committed to in 2018, but has not fulfilled yet.
- Call for negotiations to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or something similar, to guard against nuclear proliferation in Iran.
- Initiate a review into the AUKUS military agreement including the plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
- Initiate a broader review into the military alliance with the US in light of the Trump administration’s latest breach of international rules and norms.
- Review Australia’s uranium export policies. Currently, Australia exports uranium to nuclear weapons states and to states refusing to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Why is Australia Supporting the US Attack on Iran?
24 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay https://theaimn.net/why-is-australia-supporting-the-us-attack-on-iran/
Description
Why is Australia supporting the US attack on Iran despite no proven nuclear threat? Explore the truth behind the alliance and why our national interest is at stake.
Introduction: The Flashpoint
Location: Parliament House, Canberra – just hours after the US launched strikes on Iranian facilities.
The Prime Minister steps up to the podium. Flashbulbs pop. He says solemnly, “We support action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
But there’s a problem: Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Nor has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found proof of an active nuclear weapons program. Yet, Australia is once again supporting US attack on Iran, despite lacking credible evidence.
By supporting the US attack on Iran, Australia reinforces a troubling trend of endorsing military aggression based on disputed intelligence.
This article delves into the underlying reasons behind this decision, separating rhetoric from reality.
The Problem: Why Australia Is Supporting the US Attack on Iran
A History of Following Washington
Since Vietnam, Australia has followed the US into conflicts: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The justification is often “shared values”, but the outcomes? Displacement, destabilisation, and destruction.
“We’re not a central player,” the PM insists. Yet, we continue to echo Washington’s every move.
No Proof, Yet Full Support
The IAEA has repeatedly said there’s no verified Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran enriched uranium to 60%, but weapons-grade is 90 %+. Still, our leaders claim this is reason enough for supporting the US attack on Iran, even without definitive proof.
What Was Actually Hit?
According to US sources, the strikes targeted “nuclear-related sites”. But independent verification is scarce. And our Prime Minister won’t confirm whether Pine Gap or other Australian resources were involved. This silence raises concerns that supporting the US attack on Iran also involves more profound complicity behind the scenes.
The Consequences of Obedience
Civilian Risk and Global Fallout
Imagine being an Australian working in Tehran. One day, you’re sending postcards home. Next, you’re rushed to the Azerbaijani border under armed escort. Over 3,000 Australians were left scrambling.
“We’re evacuating staff,” Foreign Minister Wong said. “Airspace is closed.”
Damaged Diplomacy, Rising Insecurity
Supporting the US attack on Iran damages Australia’s credibility as an independent voice in global affairs. We’re seen less as an independent nation and more as a military proxy. This makes us, and our citizens, potential targets.
The Illusion of Peace Through Bombs
Our leaders claim they “support de-escalation.” Yet, they support an illegal airstrike that has only escalated tensions.
Peace isn’t achieved through provocation – it’s forged through diplomacy.
Double Standards in Nuclear Politics
The Real Nuclear Threats: Israel and the USA
While Iran is accused of developing nuclear weapons without proof, Israel, a state with confirmed nuclear warheads, faces no sanctions or inspections. Worse still, Israel continues to violate international law, commit human rights abuses, and face allegations of war crimes. Yet, it is never threatened with airstrikes.
The United States remains the only country in history to use nuclear weapons in war, dropping them on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Despite indications that Japan was already seeking surrender, the bombs were deployed, not just to end the war, but as a geopolitical message to the world.
Many historians now consider the attacks to have been militarily unnecessary and politically motivated.
“You don’t stop a nuclear war by attacking countries that don’t even have nuclear weapons. You stop it by holding those with them accountable.”
US Militarism: A Global Record of Havoc and Misery
From Vietnam to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and coups in Latin America and Africa, the United States has caused immense suffering worldwide. Their justification – “freedom” and “democracy” – rarely materialises for the people left behind.
Australia’s uncritical support not only aligns us with this destruction, but it also makes us complicit.
A Foreign Policy True to Australia’s Interests
Uphold International Law, Not Just Alliances
Australia must reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter, which permits the use of military force only in self-defence or with the approval of the Security Council. Unilateral aggression is illegal.
Prioritise Evidence Over Allegiance
Before expressing support for military action, the Australian Government must demand verifiable intelligence. Without proof, there should be no participation – military or moral.
Transparency About Pine Gap and Involvement
Pine Gap plays a critical role in US surveillance and drone strikes. Citizens have a right to know whether their country is taking actions that violate international law.
Leverage Our Dollar Sovereignty
Australia issues its own currency, meaning we are not financially dependent on any foreign state. We can afford to fund independent diplomacy, peace building, and humanitarian aid rather than militarism.
“We are not broke. We are not beholden. Let’s act like it.”
The Price of Following, The Power of Leading
For decades, Australia has marched in step with the United States, often at the cost of our principles, safety, and independence.
This time, we are supporting the US attack on Iran, a strike on a country accused of a crime without evidence, risking war, instability, and the lives of Australians abroad.
Yet, we have the means, through monetary sovereignty, public accountability, and diplomacy, to reject supporting the US attack on Iran and shape a better, more independent path. We need the political will to make the choice.
Q&A Section
Q1: Was Iran about to build a nuclear weapon?
A: The IAEA has confirmed Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, which is not weapons-grade. There is no verified evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.
Q2: Could Australia have refused to support the strike?
A: Yes. Australia is a sovereign nation that can choose an independent foreign policy. We were not compelled to support a strike, especially without legal backing.
Q3: What role does Pine Gap play in US operations?
A: Pine Gap is a joint US-Australia intelligence base. While our leaders avoid specifics, it’s widely known that Pine Gap supports surveillance and targeting data for US military operations, including drone strikes.
Aukus will cost Australia $368bn. What if there was a better, cheaper defence strategy?
Jonathan Barrett and Patrick Commins, Guardian, 15 June 25
As questions swirl around the nuclear submarine deal, some strategists are pushing for an alternative, ‘echidna’ policy that focuses less on offensive capability
As Australia’s nuclear submarine-led defence strategy threatens to fray, strategists say it’s time to evaluate whether the military and economic case of the tripartite deal still stacks up.
The defence tie-up with the US and UK, called Aukus, is estimated to cost up to $368bn over 30 years, although the deal could become even more costly should Donald Trump renegotiate terms to meet his “America first” agenda.
The current deal, struck in 2021, includes the purchase of three American-made nuclear-powered submarines, the construction of five Australian-made ones, as well as sustaining the vessels and associated infrastructure.
Such a price tag naturally comes with an opportunity cost paid by other parts of the defence force and leaves less money to address societal priorities, such as investing in regional diplomacy and accelerating the renewable energy transition.
This choice is often described as one between “guns and butter”, referring to the trade-off between spending on defence and social programs.
Luke Gosling, Labor’s special envoy for defence and veterans’ affairs, last year described Aukus as “Australia’s very own moonshot” – neatly capturing both the risks and the potential benefits.
Opportunity cost
Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program, says there are cheaper ways to replicate submarine capabilities, which are ultimately designed to sink ships and destroy other submarines.
These include investing in airborne capabilities, more missiles, maritime patrol aircraft and naval mines, he says.
“If you imagine a world without Aukus, it does suddenly free up a massive portion of the defence budget,” says Roggeveen.
“That would relieve a lot of pressure, and would actually be a good thing for Australia.”
Roggeveen coined the term “echidna strategy” to argue for an alternative, and cheaper, defence policy for Australia that does not include nuclear-powered submarines.
Like the quill-covered mammal, the strategy is designed to build defensive capabilities that make an attack unpalatable for an adversary. The strategy is meant to radiate strength but not aggression.
“The uncertainty that Aukus introduces is that we are buying submarines that actually have the capabilities to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles on to an enemy land mass,” says Roggeveen.
“That is an offensive capability that’s ultimately destabilising. We should be focusing on defensive capabilities only.”
Those advocating for a more defensive approach, including Albert Palazzo from the University of New South Wales, point out that it is more costly to capture ground than it is to hold it…………………..
Social cost
…………………..Saul Eslake, an independent economist, says higher defence spending is coming at a time of substantially higher demands on the public purse across a range of areas, from aged care, to disability services and childcare………………………..
Political cost
While expert opinion divides over whether nuclear-powered submarines are the best strategic option for Australia’s long-term defence strategy, there’s a separate question over whether the submarines will be delivered……………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/15/aukus-will-cost-australia-368bn-what-if-there-was-a-better-cheaper-defence-strategy?fbclid=IwY2xjawLHNQpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFyMEl3YVlwYXlzdE5HaUFzAR7t2VVyRqzmPs-WhsC_dhvz9susqUAqTdxsascsmPSKfkWBQ93MS4DJ24z_9Q_aem_lR5byRgSjQDcUUkIsx-k0w
Australia backs US strikes on Iran while urging return to diplomacy
Australia’s explicit expression of support for the strikes goes a step further than allies including the UK, Canada and New Zealand
By political reporter Tom Crowley ABC News 23 June 25
In short:
Australia has given its support to US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but has repeated calls for de-escalation to avoid a wider war.
Penny Wong said Australia had not received a request for assistance and declined to speculate on how any request would be met.
What’s next?
A National Security Meeting was held in Canberra on Monday morning.
Australia has given its support to US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but has repeated calls for de-escalation to avoid a wider war.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday Australia was in favour of action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon, echoing comments made earlier on Monday by Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
“The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that. That is what this is,” the PM told reporters.
The government initially adopted a more cautious tone, declining to give its explicit support.
Senator Wong said Australia had not received a request for assistance and emphasised the US action was “unilateral” when asked whether Pine Gap, a shared military facility, had been engaged.
While the PM and foreign minister declined to speculate on the response to any such request, Mr Albanese said Australia was “deeply concerned” about the prospect of escalation, placing the onus on Iran.
“We want to see diplomacy, dialogue and de-escalation … Iran had an opportunity to comply, they chose not to and there have been consequences of that,” he said.
Earlier, Senator Wong cited a UN watchdog finding that Iran had acquired enriched uranium at “almost military level”.
“The key question for the international community is what happens next … It’s obviously a very precarious, risky and dangerous moment the world faces,” she said.
The National Security Committee, comprised of key ministers, met in Canberra this morning.
Australia’s explicit expression of support for the strikes goes a step further than allies including the UK, Canada and New Zealand, although all three countries have emphasised the risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons.
Opposition supports strike, Greens opposed
The Coalition supported the strikes on Sunday and also says it does not want further war, but has put the onus on Iran to negotiate peace.
“We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” Andrew Hastie told ABC Radio National……………………………………..
Dave Sharma, a Liberal senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, said the government’s response was “underwhelming and perplexing” on Sunday and that support for the strikes “should be a straightforward position for Australia to adopt”.
The Greens are against the strike, with defence spokesperson David Shoebridge calling Donald Trump a “warmonger” and demanding Australia clarify it will not get involved.
“You cannot bomb your way to peace … and the people who are always going to pay the price are the ordinary people on the street,” he said.
……………………………………………….. Five Eyes partners respond
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to Mr Trump via phone, emphasising the “grave risk” of Iran’s nuclear program and placing the onus on Iran “returning to the negotiating table as soon as possible”, according to a readout of the call.
A joint statement from the UK, France, Germany and Italy urged Iran not to “take any further action that could destabilise the region” but did not include an explicit position on the strike.
The New Zealand government has “acknowledged” the strike, and called for diplomacy, Foreign Minister Winston Peters saying “ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying”.
Canadian PM Mark Carney said Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and that the US strike “was designed to alleviate that threat”, but stopped short of explicitly endorsing it and called for “all parties” to return to the negotiating table. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-23/australia-backs-us-strikes/105448088
AUKUS collapse offers Australia the chance to navigate an innovative future.
(Cartoon by Mark David / @MDavidCartoons)
By Alan Austin | 23 June 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/aukus-collapse-offers-australia-the-chance-to-navigate-an-innovative-future,19859
Donald Trump’s likely abandonment of the AUKUS contract offers the Albanese Government a welcome reprieve from a costly folly, as Alan Austin reports.
THE USA LOOKS LIKE it is abandoning the controversial AUKUS contract signed by the miserably inept Morrison Government in its dying days.
The corrupt and incompetent U.S. President Donald Trump wants out. He has proven to the world that the only projects he strongly supports are those that enrich himself and his companies directly. Australia, with other Westminster nations, refuses to pay direct bribes to individual national leaders — as it should.
Now showing advanced cognitive decline and a failing grip on reality, Trump has effectively signalled the contract’s demise by calling for a formal review by Defence Under Secretary Elbridge Colby. Colby has long been a vocal AUKUS critic and will probably recommend cancellation.
Sound reasons to abandon AUKUS
The first pillar of the deal between Australia, the UK and the USA is for the Americans to supply Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines for its defence, starting with three Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s.
The second pillar is collaboration between the three nations on new military technology. These include undersea capabilities, artificial intelligence, electronic warfare and advanced cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities.
Colby’s argument against the AUKUS deal is simply that the USA doesn’t have enough submarines for their own needs and can’t build them fast enough to have any to spare in the foreseeable future. That is true. The current U.S. Administration is the least competent in its history.
Other AUKUS critics have more compelling reasons for its abandonment. The most cogent of these, articulated by former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull and others, is that nuclear subs supplied by the USA will necessarily be operated by American personnel and automatically commandeered by the U.S. military in the event of hostilities between the USA and China, over Taiwan or any other conflict.
It would be disastrous for Australia’s relationship with China and other nations, Keating argues, to be dragged into such a war.
Resources lost forever
If AUKUS collapses, Australia has little chance of getting back the billions already invested.
Among the countless failures of the monumentally inept Morrison Coalition Government was leaving out of the contract any penalties for defaults.
In any event, the lifelong criminal grifter currently running the White House has never felt obliged to fulfil contracts, however legally or morally binding.
The losses to Australia as a result of the incompetence of the Coalition from 2014 to 2022 now amount to hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars, including the billions paid out for AUKUS so far.
These simply have to be accepted as penalties citizens must bear for the abject stupidity of those who elected such a hopeless rabble to try to run the country.
Visionary naval future
If AUKUS fails and Australians write off the losses, they can then grasp this as an opportunity to pursue advantageous alternatives.
The future of underwater naval warfare increasingly appears to be in unmanned underwater vessels (UUVs). Australia is well-placed to build these for its own purposes and then sell them to regional neighbours and beyond.
This may seem a quantum leap for shipbuilding in Australia, but it can be accomplished.
Australia proved to the world it could build the Collins-class submarines during the Hawke/Keating period and has successfully procured other military ordnance since then.
In its first term, the Albanese Government began its investment in small UUVs. Australian marine vessel manufacturer Anduril Australia, a subsidiary of the American Anduril Industries, is already building a modest UUV which it calls Ghost Shark.
Although technical information is restricted, military monitor The War Zone has revealed details of the partnership involving Anduril, the Royal Australian Navy (R.A.N.) and the Defence Science and Technology Group.
A Ghost Shark prototype, according to The War Zone, has a 3D-printed exterior, weighs 2.8 tons, is 5.6 metres long and can operate at a depth of 6,000 metres for ten days. Advanced AI technology enables autonomous operations.
The R.A.N. hopes to get three UUVs suitable for both military and non-military missions between 2025 and 2028.
Challenges for the future, beyond Ghost Shark, are for vessels capable of higher speeds, deeper dives, longer missions, greater stealth and more advanced assignments, including accurate delivery of lethal weapons.
If Australia’s current submarines can be replaced with technologically advanced UUVs, costs will be much lower and risks to personnel dramatically reduced. This may allow Australia to cut military spending overall.
Potential partnerships
Australia does not have the resources to build UUVs alone. Just as the Collins-class submarines were built collaboratively with Swedish shipbuilder Kockums, new ventures will require partners.
Possibilities, besides American firms like Anduril, are many. Current UUVs in service include Germany’s Greyshark, France’s XLUUV and vessels from Japan and South Korea.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s discussion topics with his Canadian counterpart, Prime Minister Mark Carney, at last week’s G7 meeting included Canada joining AUKUS. That’s another possible partner.
Grounds for optimism
Australia has shipyards in South Australia and the solid experience of designing, building and maintaining the Collins-class submarines from the 1980s to the present.
Australia enjoys the goodwill of all neighbouring nations, has no current engagement in any conflict and sees no threats on the horizon.
Australians have banished the destructive Coalition parties from any chance of forming government for the foreseeable future.
So, to borrow a line from Michael J Fox in The American President, let’s take this 94-seat majority out for a spin and see what it can do.
Out of pocket and stranded: What happens if Trump pulls out of AUKUS | Four Corners Documentary
Trump’s attack on Iran is ‘unconditional surrender’ to Israel
Aaron Maté, Jun 22, 2025, https://www.aaronmate.net/p/trumps-attack-on-iran-is-unconditional?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=166521469&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Shunning the US intelligence consensus, Trump and top principals rely on Israeli fraud to bomb Iran.
Since his election in 2016, Donald Trump’s political opponents have portrayed him as a dangerous, unstable fabulist doing the bidding of a malign, nuclear-armed foreign power.
Having returned to the White House this year, Trump is proving his detractors correct on all counts but one: the location on the map. The rogue state that he’s colluding with — at great peril to the planet — is not Russia, as his most vocal detractors alleged, but Israel.
Israel’s June 13th attack on Iran sabotaged the then-ongoing talks on a new nuclear deal with the United States, and Trump has gone to unprecedented lengths to support its aggression. Trump undercut his own Secretary of State’s claim that Israel had undertaken “unilateral action” by acknowledging that “we knew everything” in advance of what he called a “very successful attack.” Administration officials then disclosed that Trump had previously authorized giving Israel intelligence support for the bombing. Trump then called on Tehran’s 9.8 million residents to evacuate, mused about killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and declared that “we” – meaning Israel – “have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”
After Iran rejected his demand for “unconditional surrender”, Trump imposed a new deadline of two weeks, only to break it three days later by ordering a US military attack on three Iranian nuclear energy sites, including the deeply buried mountain complex Fordo, which he quickly hailed as a “great success.” Just as with Trump’s diplomacy with Iran, his two-week deadline turns out to have been a ruse whose “goal was to create a situation when everyone wasn’t expecting it,” a senior administration official said.
To wage war on Iran, Trump and his allies have employed the traditional Iraq WMD playbook of ignoring or manipulating the available evidence to fear-monger about a foreign state marked for regime change. Unlike the Iraq war, where the fraudulent case for invading was mostly concocted in-house, Trump has outsourced the job to Israel, while not even pretending to care about public opinion or Congressional approval.
Back in March, the US intelligence community assessed that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon” and “has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program… suspended in 2003.” According to US officials who spoke to the New York Times, “[t]hat assessment has not changed.” Moreover, the US has found that “not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one,” CNN reports, citing four sources.
Whereas Dick Cheney and company went through the trouble of nudging subordinates to fabricate intelligence, including via torture, Trump does not care about seeking their imprimatur. “[M]y intelligence community is wrong,” Trump told reporters on Friday. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that “Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon,” and, if authorized by Ayatollah Khamenei, “it would take a couple weeks to complete the production of that weapon.” In White House meetings, CIA chief John Ratcliffe has argued that Iran is close to a nuclear bomb and that claiming otherwise “would be similar to saying football players who have fought their way to the one-yard line don’t want to score a touchdown,” according to one US official who spoke to CBS News. (After the Iraq war, a “Slam dunk” basketball analogy is no longer available).
If Trump’s intelligence community is “wrong,” who does he think is right? As US officials told the New York Times, the claims from Trump and his circle “echoed material provided by Mossad,” Israel’s intelligence agency. And whereas some in the government, undoubtedly those close to Trump, “find the Israeli estimate credible”, others believe that “Israeli assessments have been colored by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to gain American support for his military campaign against Iran.” Moreover, according to multiple officials, “[n]one of the new assessments on the timeline to get a bomb are based on newly collected intelligence,” but instead on “new analysis of existing work.” In other words, Trump is sidelining his own intelligence community to trust a “new analysis” that is based on no new information, just the manipulation of a foreign government.
Trump’s disdain for his own agencies is a particular slight to intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard. “I don’t care what she said,” Trump said this week, referring to Gabbard’s presentation of the US intelligence consensus on Iran in March. “I think they [Iran] were very close to having it.”
Rather than defend the agencies she oversees – and the record she earned challenging previous US-driven regime change deceptions — Gabbard has bent the knee to Trump, and Israel by extension. In a social media post, Gabbard chided “the dishonest media” for taking her March testimony “out of context.” The US, Gabbard now claimed, “has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly.” Gabbard also shared video of that March testimony, without addressing the contradictory fact that it does not include any mention of her newfound claim that Iran has the capability to produce a nuclear bomb “within weeks to months.”
Gabbard is engaging in disingenuous wordplay. If Israel tells America that Iran “can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks”, then yes, American intelligence now “has” that intelligence. That doesn’t mean it is true, or that American intelligence believes it, which it does not. A US official familiar with the available record on Iran tells me that there is no US intelligence assessment concluding that Iran is “weeks” away from building a nuclear weapon. Gabbard is only saying, therefore, that the US intelligence community has received “intelligence” from Israel, without mentioning that the IC does not actually endorse it.
Moreover, pretend for a moment that the Israeli claim is correct. Gabbard’s caveat of “if they decide to finalize” is an acknowledgment that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. That’s because Iran has said it does not want one, and is willing to commit to that in a binding agreement — the one they were negotiating with the US until Trump and Israel sabotaged it, and not for the first time. In fact, as US intelligence officials have also predicted, Trump’s bombing now increases the likelihood that Iran will pursue the nuclear bomb that it has long foresworn. Iran claims to have moved enriched uranium stockpiles prior to the US bombing, which preserves its capacity to weaponize.
Trump and Israel insisted, in the president’s words, on “unconditional surrender”: capitulation to maximalist US-Israeli demands that Iran end its uranium enrichment program, which it is entitled to have under the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and that it limit its arsenal of missiles. In other words, Trump and Netanyahu demanded that Iran agree to abandon its sovereignty and right to self-defense just as it is under attack from US-backed Israeli aggression; and all while US-backed Israeli mass murder in Gaza and annexation of the West Bank continues unimpeded.
Iranian officials did not surrender. Trump, by contrast, cannot say the same. By enabling its bombing campaign, parroting its deceptions, and now going to war against Iran on its behalf, Trump has already offered an unconditional surrender to Israel — a betrayal that grows more dangerous by the day.
Why Richard Marles Backs the U.S. War Machine
Since becoming Defence Minister, Richard Marles has overseen a shift that aligns Australia more closely with U.S. military goals than ever before.
Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, not just with rhetoric, but with billions in public funds diverted from services Australians urgently need.
Richard Marles is a senior figure in the Labor Right, a faction increasingly indistinguishable from the Liberal Party on core issues such as defence, foreign policy, and trade.
20 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay
Description
Richard Marles backs the U.S. military power on Australian soil. Discover how it risks our sovereignty, and what citizens can do to reclaim it.
Introduction – A Quiet Coup Over Australia’s Defence
Location: Tindal, Northern Territory. Action: A U.S. B-52 bomber roars overhead. Thoughts: “Are we a launchpad for war?” Emotions: Unease, betrayal.
It’s 2025. As Defence Minister Richard Marles smiles beside a Pentagon official, another defence deal is signed. Few Australians notice. Even fewer understand its implications. Our government says it’s about ‘defending democracy.’ But whose democracy, and against what threat?
While China is still our biggest trading partner, we’re warned of its menace. Meanwhile, U.S. troops, bombers, and weapons quietly embed themselves deeper into our soil. This isn’t protection, it’s occupation by consent.
How did we end up here? And why is it that Richard Marles backs the U.S. military over Australia’s sovereign interests?
Problem: The Erosion of Australian Sovereignty
A Defence Strategy Written in Washington
Since becoming Defence Minister, Richard Marles has overseen a shift that aligns Australia more closely with U.S. military goals than ever before. The 2021 USFPI agreement expanded joint military operations.
Billions have since been given to help U.S. base upgrades in Darwin and Tindal, alongside hosting U.S. nuclear-capable planes.
This is yet another example of how Richard Marles backs the U.S. military agenda, prioritising American strategic interests over national independence.
“It’s not just alliance cooperation, it’s dependence,” says defence analyst Dr. Alison Broinowski.
The Permanent U.S. Footprint
- U.S. bases in Australia: Pine Gap, Robertson Barracks, and now expanded northern airfields. Ref: How US Military Bases in Australia Threaten Our Future & How to Remove Them
- Rotating forces: Thousands of U.S. Marines cycle through annually, training for potential regional conflicts.
- Infrastructure: Funded by Australian public money for U.S. strategic benefit.
Public Money, Private Empire
Under Marles’ leadership, defence spending reached 2.4% of GDP in 2024. That’s over $60 billion, more than education or climate resilience combined. But this isn’t public defence, it’s public subsidy for the U.S. military-industrial complex.
This is precisely how Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, not just with rhetoric, but with billions in public funds diverted from services Australians urgently need.
The Manufactured ‘China Threat’
A Convenient Villain
There is no evidence that China poses a military threat to Australia. Defence intelligence reports confirm no plans for invasion or aggression. Yet headlines scream of ‘Chinese expansionism,’ fuelling fear and compliance.
Who Benefits?
- Weapons contractors profit from panic.
- U.S. hegemony is preserved through Australian complicity.
- Political careers thrive on appearing ‘tough on China.’
“The U.S. has surrounded China with 200+ military bases,” notes historian John Pilger. “China has none outside its borders. Who’s the aggressor here?”
Real Consequences for Australians
Story: Emily, a nurse in Perth, struggles to afford rent. Her hospital is understaffed. Meanwhile, Marles commits $368 billion for nuclear submarines, years away from delivery, if ever.
“Why do we always find money for war, but never for nurses?” Emily asks.
Because Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, while ignoring the suffering of frontline workers like Emily.
The Labor Right: A Party Captured by Foreign and Corporate Interests
Richard Marles and the Rise of Labor’s Conservative Core
Richard Marles is a senior figure in the Labor Right, a faction increasingly indistinguishable from the Liberal Party on core issues such as defence, foreign policy, and trade.
Rather than upholding the Labor tradition of peace, workers’ rights, and democratic independence, the right faction embraces military alliances and market orthodoxy.
Their influence is evident in Labor’s full-throated support for AUKUS, Marles’ open enthusiasm for U.S. military integration is no coincidence – Richard Marles backs the U.S. military model as central to Labor’s right-faction ideology, and the suppression of internal dissent from more progressive voices within the party.
“Marles speaks more like a U.S. Pentagon spokesperson than an Australian minister,” notes a former Labor policy adviser.
How the Right Faction Is Reshaping Labor
This shift reflects how Richard Marles backs the U.S. military, pushing Labor further from its peace-promoting roots.
Suppresses internal debate on AUKUS, Palestine, and climate.- Aligns with corporate donors, including arms manufacturers.
- Stifles progressive legislation, watering down meaningful reforms.
The result? A Labor Party that once represented workers and peace is now compromised and cautious, often at the expense of sovereignty and social justice.
A Peaceful, Sovereign Path Forward
Reclaiming Foreign Policy Independence
- End the U.S. military presence on Australian soil.
- Cancel or renegotiate treaties that erode autonomy.
- Prioritise diplomacy over deterrence.
Invest in Public Needs, Not Foreign Conflicts
Redirect defence billions to:
Fully fund Medicare.- End homelessness.
- Provide free tertiary education.
Australia, as a sovereign nation with currency-issuing power, can fund peace just as easily as it funds war. The real limitation is a lack of political will, not a shortage of money.
Learn from Global Examples
- Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948. Today, it ranks among the world’s happiest and healthiest nations.
- Finland and Switzerland remain militarily neutral but are globally respected.
“We must stop being a staging post for other nations’ wars,” says Senator David Shoebridge.
Marles, the U.S., and Our Crossroads
For decades, Australia walked a delicate line, partner to the U.S., yet proudly sovereign. That line is vanishing.
Richard Marles has accelerated Australia’s subservience to U.S. military interests under the guise of strategic cooperation. But what we face is not defence, it’s deterrence at the cost of independence.
This is the inevitable outcome when Richard Marles backs the U.S. military without accountability or public consent.
And it’s happening with full ministerial approval, Richard Marles backs the U.S. military posture without public scrutiny or debate.
It’s time Australians asked: Who does our government really serve?
Q&A – Reader Questions Answered…………………………. https://theaimn.net/why-richard-marles-backs-the-u-s-war-machine/
Cross your fingers, Australia, and hope the AUKUS deal collapses
he Americans agreed to the deal because they saw it to be in their strategic interest, not ours. As then-U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell observed (indiscreetly) last year, “we have them locked in now for the next 40 years.”
All that AUKUS and its associated alliance commitments have done for Australia is paint more targets on our back.
The crazy irony is that we are spending huge sums to build a new capability intended to defend us from military threats that are most likely to arise simply because we have that capability
The U.S. sub purchase was a bad deal then and it makes even less sense now.
By Gareth Evans, Project Syndicate, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2025/06/18/world/australia-should-hope-for-aukuss-collapse/
MELBOURNE –
The AUKUS partnership, the 2021 deal whereby the United States and the United Kingdom agreed to provide Australia with at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines over the next three decades, has come under review by the U.S. Defense Department.
The prospect of its collapse has generated predictable handwringing among those who welcomed the deepening alliance, and especially among those interested in seeing Australia inject billions of dollars into underfunded, underperforming American and British naval shipyards. But in Australia, an AUKUS breakdown should be a cause for celebration.
After all, there has never been any certainty that the promised subs would arrive on time. The U.S. is supposed to supply three or possibly five Virginia-class submarines from 2032, with another five newly designed SSN-AUKUS-class subs (built mainly in the U.K.) coming into service from the early 2040s. But the U.S. and the U.K.’s industrial capacity is already strained, owing to their own national submarine-building targets and both have explicit opt-out rights.
Some analysts assume that the Defense Department review is just another Trumpian extortion exercise, designed to extract an even bigger financial commitment from Australia. But while comforting to some Australians (though not anyone in the Treasury), this interpretation is misconceived.
There are very real concerns in Washington that even with more Australian dollars devoted to expanding shipyard capacity, the U.S. will not be able to increase production to the extent required to make available three — let alone five — Virginia-class subs by the early 2030s. Moreover, Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under-secretary of defense for policy who is leading the review, has long been a skeptic of the project and he will not hesitate to put America’s own new-boat target first.
Even in the unlikely event that everything falls smoothly into place — from the transfers of Virginia-class subs to the construction of new British boats, with no human-resource bottlenecks or cost overruns — Australia will be waiting decades for the last boat to arrive. But given that our existing geriatric Collins-class fleet is already on life support, this timeline poses a serious challenge. How will we address our capability gap in the meantime?
Cost-benefit analysis should have killed the project from the outset. But in their eagerness to embrace the deal, political leaders on both sides of parliament failed to review properly what was being proposed. Even acknowledging the greatly superior speed and endurance of nuclear-powered subs and accepting the heroic assumption that their underwater undetectability will remain immune from technological challenge throughout their lifetimes, the final fleet size seems hardly fit for the purpose of national defense.
Given the usual operating constraints, Australia would have only two such subs deployed at any one time. Just how much intelligence gathering, archipelagic chokepoint protection, sea-lane safeguarding or even deterrence at a distance will be possible under such conditions? Moreover, the program’s eye-watering cost will make it difficult to acquire the other capabilities that are already reshaping the nature of modern warfare: state-of-the-art drones, missiles, aircraft and cyber defense.
The remaining reason for believing, as former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating put it, that an American opt-out “will be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself,” concerns AUKUS’s negative implications for Australia’s sovereignty. The Americans agreed to the deal because they saw it to be in their strategic interest, not ours. As then-U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell observed (indiscreetly) last year, “we have them locked in now for the next 40 years.”
It defies credibility to believe that the U.S. would transfer such a sensitive technology to us — with all the associated emphasis on the “interchangeability” of our fleets and new basing arrangements in Australia — unless it could avail itself of these subs in a future war. I have had personal ministerial experience of being a junior U.S. ally in a hot conflict situation — the first Gulf War in 1991 — and my recollections are not pretty.
Alongside the Pine Gap satellite communications and signals intelligence facility — which has always been a bull’s-eye — one can add Perth’s Stirling submarine base, the Northern Territory, with its U.S. Marine and B-52 bases and possibly a future east-coast submarine base.
The crazy irony is that we are spending huge sums to build a new capability intended to defend us from military threats that are most likely to arise simply because we have that capability — and using it to support the U.S., without any guarantee of support in return should we ever need it.
If the AUKUS project does collapse, it would arguably still be possible for Australia to acquire replacements for its aging submarine fleet within a reasonable time frame — and probably at less cost, while retaining real sovereign control — by purchasing off-the-shelf technology elsewhere. One can even imagine us going back to France, which was snubbed in the AUKUS deal, and making a bid for its new-generation Suffren-class nuclear-powered sub.
But a better defense option may simply be to recognize that the latest revolution in military technology is real and that our huge continent and maritime surroundings will be better protected by a combination of self-managed air, missile, underwater and cyber capabilities than by a handful of crewed submarines. There is no better time to start thinking outside the U.S. alliance box.
Gareth Evans was Australia’s foreign minister (1988-1996), president of the International Crisis Group (2000-2009) and chancellor of the Australian National University (2010-2019). © Project Syndicate, 2025
PETITION: Launch a Parliamentary Inquiry into AUKUS
Australia has an opportunity to get out of the AUKUS security pact. We should take it. https://nb.australiainstitute.org.au/aukus_parliamentary_inquiry_now
The Trump Administration has announced a review of AUKUS, joining the UK in reviewing the joint security pact. Australia now has a real chance to escape this disastrous deal, which has not been properly scrutinised by the Australian Parliament.
AUKUS ties us ever closer to an increasingly volatile and aggressive America.
We ask the Albanese Government to prioritise Australia’s interests and security, and to join the UK and the US Governments in undertaking an independent parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS security pact.
✍️ Add your name to the petition
Australians already support an parliamentary inquiry into the future of AUKUS.
Recent polling by the Australia Institute found a majority (57%) of Australians support putting the deal before a parliamentary inquiry, with half (54%) of Australians wanting a more independent foreign policy over a closer alliance with the United States.
An earlier poll found more Australians consider Donald Trump a greater threat to world peace than both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
For too long, Australian foreign and security policy has been hidden behind closed doors – which is why we get disastrous, anti-democratic deals like AUKUS in the first place.
AUKUS will not make Australia safer. It makes Australia more vulnerable, and compromises our ability to make independent decisions about our own security.
Australia has already handed over a AU$800 million deposit of the estimated $368 billion cost of AUKUS. But we can fill the capability gap left by AUKUS. And we can invest in the things that really do make Australia safer.
We call on the Albanese Government to establish an urgent parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS security pact.
Going to war with China will be an unequivocal disaster for Australia
Perhaps the Honourable Minister should also be and remain quiet – or better still be removed from his portfolio – because he is doing nothing for the Labor cause; and seems to be actively attempting to reduce Labor’s chance at a second term. He should unequivocally realise that if Australia goes to war the Liberal mantra will become, ‘this is on you Labor, you dragged us into this war and it is up to the LNP to get us out.’
the US will not place any of its assets at risk in order to defend Australia, this should be fundamentally and clearly understood by the people of Australia.
19 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Dr Strobe Driver https://theaimn.net/going-to-war-with-china-will-be-an-unequivocal-disaster-for-australia/
“Up shit creek in a barbed-wire canoe, without a paddle”: The implausible direction Australia’s current Defence Minister is taking the country.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the above mentioned expression it means things are about as bad as they can get; likely to get worse; and are as it stands, a continuum of a disaster.
This is where Australia stands at the moment when examining Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific; the rise of China; the ‘position’ this is placing Australia in terms of it being a ‘middle power’ in the region; the dependence on the United States of America (US) as an ally; and the way in which the current Defence Minister (the Honourable Richard Marles (MP) is approaching the current and future components of the regional strategic situations.
The spat between former prime minister Keating and the current Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Marles is ongoing and is far too detailed to go into here other than to mention Keating believes Marles has essentially ‘ceded Australia’s sovereignty’ to another country (the US); and Marles wants ‘strategic transparency from China in its regional military build-up’ and of course the well-worn argument that Australia will be dragged into a war should the US-China situation become ‘kinetic’ – in other words the fighting becomes real. So, with this in mind let’s ‘cut to the chase’ and figure out how Australia would actually ‘fair’ in the outbreak of a war with China and utilise some rationale.
First and foremost, and as I have previously stated in my book The Brink of 2036, the US having sought and gained assurance that Australia is its ‘closest ally’ decides it will ‘go after’ China over its retrocession claims on Taiwan and a war breaks out – the question that begs is, what does that make Australia? This makes Australia an enemy of China and therefore, the Chinese military is now legally entitled to strike Australia.
China would veto any and all conversation in the UNSC (as it is a Permanent Five (P5) member) and use all of its legal powers to circumvent any and all United Nations’ debate about its use of force against US allies. Secondly, the US will not place any of its assets at risk in order to defend Australia, this should be fundamentally and clearly understood by the people of Australia. The US may come to Australia’s aid – it will utilise discretion – however, should it be deemed necessary, it will only enter into any and all aspects associated with the protection of Australia when its assets are not at a high risk of destruction/incapacitation. Where does this leave Australia? One could safely argue a dyad: alone, unless the US’ intervenes.
For the purpose of this essay war has been declared and therefore, a perspective is needed.
The most telling perspective is that Australia faces a rising power and bearing in mind China has continued its rise exponentially since circa-2010, as before that one could safely argue its rise was only incremental, and thus, it is now a major regional power – soon to become a global one. Hence, Australia will have become the enemy of an enormously powerful country.
What then, would said country do to its middle-power regional enemy? There are no surprises here as it is being played out by Israel in the Gaza strip; and the Russian Federation in Ukraine and moreover, it is exceedingly visible; and easy-to-understand. As a side issue, though an important one, and just to strike further terror into the hearts of Australians, the US and Russia as members of the P5 have shut down through the power of veto any and all conversation about whether Israel’s incursion into Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are not warranted. One need not even bother to assume what pathway China will take in its war/fight with Australia. With this in mind let’s move towards China’s kinetic tactics on Australia.
As with any war the first things that need to be destroyed are ‘bases and bridges.’ Bases because they house personnel and vital equipment and bridges which essentially refer to anything (not just bridges over a waterway) that equipment can be transported from in order to get ‘to’ a place/location. China with its significant and enormous amount of missiles and the ability to place them through assets (submarines in particular), will fire hundreds of them into Australian assets – some for advantage and some for ‘publicity,’ that is to say, ‘here’s what we can do.’ The former will be RAAF bases, RAN and RAA bases with a single focus on maintenance and repair facilities; and the latter will be major railway lines (the Ghan; Indo-Pacific; and north east coast public lines); and then major highways the Bruce Highway in particular, will be targeted as will the Darwin-Adelaide highway.
As with any war the first things that need to be destroyed are ‘bases and bridges.’ Bases because they house personnel and vital equipment and bridges which essentially refer to anything (not just bridges over a waterway) that equipment can be transported from in order to get ‘to’ a place/location. China with its significant and enormous amount of missiles and the ability to place them through assets (submarines in particular), will fire hundreds of them into Australian assets – some for advantage and some for ‘publicity,’ that is to say, ‘here’s what we can do.’ The former will be RAAF bases, RAN and RAA bases with a single focus on maintenance and repair facilities; and the latter will be major railway lines (the Ghan; Indo-Pacific; and north east coast public lines); and then major highways the Bruce Highway in particular, will be targeted as will the Darwin-Adelaide highway.
As with any war the first things that need to be destroyed are ‘bases and bridges.’ Bases because they house personnel and vital equipment and bridges which essentially refer to anything (not just bridges over a waterway) that equipment can be transported from in order to get ‘to’ a place/location. China with its significant and enormous amount of missiles and the ability to place them through assets (submarines in particular), will fire hundreds of them into Australian assets – some for advantage and some for ‘publicity,’ that is to say, ‘here’s what we can do.’ The former will be RAAF bases, RAN and RAA bases with a single focus on maintenance and repair facilities; and the latter will be major railway lines (the Ghan; Indo-Pacific; and north east coast public lines); and then major highways the Bruce Highway in particular, will be targeted as will the Darwin-Adelaide highway.
The Honourable Defence Minister should cease and desist with his current monologue and political ineptness toward China and should be upfront with the Australian people in what will happen, should we go down this ‘rabbit hole’ of exceptionalism in the region; and yet, willingly yet aimlessly back the US. Australia will become a failed state if we go to war and it is timely to remind the Australian public there are (approximately) as many personnel in the NYPD as there are personnel in the Australian Defence Force.
Perhaps the Honourable Minister should also be and remain quiet – or better still be removed from his portfolio – because he is doing nothing for the Labor cause; and seems to be actively attempting to reduce Labor’s chance at a second term. He should unequivocally realise that if Australia goes to war the Liberal mantra will become, ‘this is on you Labor, you dragged us into this war and it is up to the LNP to get us out.’
The level of political-ineptness and downright political-maladroitness shown by this minister is however nothing new, as Australia seems to have had a cavalcade of utterly hopeless defence ministers over the past three decades. The real problem this time is this one is politically stupid-to-the-core when Australians need astute, articulate and well-defined decision-making.
Meanwhile, China continues to plan its ongoing rise to ‘pax-Sino’ and we have someone at the helm who is plainly and insufferably politically incompetent when there is a dire need to truly understand the milieu of Australia’s defence needs.
‘Punishment phase’ explained: The punishment phase of aerial bombardment is designed to ‘inflict enough pain on enemy civilians to overwhelm their territorial interests’ and in doing so induce surrender, or hasten total defeat. See: Robert Pape. Bombing To Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996, 59.
Dr Strobe Driver – Strobe completed his PhD in war studies in 2011 and since then has written extensively on war, terrorism, Asia-Pacific security, the ‘rise of China,’ and issues within Australian domestic politics. Strobe is a recipient of Taiwan Fellowship 2018, MOFA, Taiwan, ROC, and is an adjunct researcher at Federation University.
Lucky We Didn’t Go For Nuclear…
19 June 2025 Rossleigh , https://theaimn.net/lucky-we-didnt-go-for-nuclear/
Regular readers may have noticed that I try and stay out of the Middle East and there’s a good reason for that… apart from the potential Weapons of Mass Destruction which sometimes fall into the hand of people who don’t own the copyright and who won’t pay the USA for bombs, planes, bullets or submarines.
Apparently the Middle East is where modern civilisation started and I fear that it’s where it may en
Anyway, people are very wedded to their particular views and I’d like to say that I’m definitely not taking the sort of view that anyone can accuse me of being anything… I’m completely neutral on all of it and if I use the word “genocide” I’m talking about in general terms and I’m neither being anti-semitic nor anti-Aryan…
When it comes to bombs hitting hospitals – whether it’s in Gaza, Israel or Iran – I blame the country itself for building them too close to the country itself and we must expect a certain amount of collateral damage in any war…
The point I’m trying to make has nothing to do with the Middle East but it’s more do with our own situation in Australia where it was suggested that it would be good to go nuclear in order to generate power…
Now I know some of you are going to try and link this to Iran who are only claiming to build nuclear power stations and we all know that they’ve been on the verge of creating a nuclear bomb since Reagan got the US president role that should have earned him an Oscar, so it’s clear that they must really be on the verge by now and not something that people make up because we don’t like countries that oppress women and gay people… unless they also make movies about how terrible it is to do such a thing and give Oscars to people who play them on…
I mean, look, why would Iran need nuclear power when they have plenty of oil. No, don’t try and make the point that we have plenty of gas and sunshine because John Howard sold our gas for a really good deal and Tony Abbott took our sunshine away and…
I digress! Sorry.
I was just trying to make the point that if we had gone down the nuclear path we’d have never been able to beat New Zealand at anything like cricket again because they would have surely argued that they have a right to defend themselves and that we probably only a few months away from bowling underarm or developing a nuclear weapon and we’d be a legitimate target.
Mm, I am wondering whether anyone would have made some sort of statement arguing that New Zealand had a right to defend itself because it always strikes me that whenever anyone says something like that, one has to wonder who is arguing against it. I mean nobody actually says that people don’t have a right to defend themselves, they just argue that Llap Goch…
Oh, Llap Goch. It was in Monty Python’s “Big Red Book” and it was the Welsh Art of Self Defence which in summary suggested that the best self-defence was attack and that the art of surprise was attack and that the best way to surprise was to attack BEFORE your opponent had even thought of attacking you.
Whatever, if you need your lawyer to tell the jury that you have a right to defend yourself it’s almost like the police have already decided it wasn’t self defence or you wouldn’t be on trial because it’s a generally accepted thing that one has that right and…
Oh, I guess this why you should never take the stand as the defendant!
Warmongering Marles commits Australia to US war against China amid Iran mayhem.
Let’s never forget the truth, that Iran is compliant with its international nuclear reporting; Israel is not. Israel doesn’t even allow the IAEA to check their nuclear facilities, Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike Israel.
It is not the generals emblazoned with their medals who will pay the price if we march off to another worthless American war. It is not the pusillanimous media pundits, nor the preening politicians. It is young Australians who will pay the price.
by Michael West | Jun 17, 2025 | https://michaelwest.com.au/warmongering-marles-commits-australia-to-us-war-against-china-amid-iran-mayhem/
The craven appeasement of Benjamin Netanyahu by Western media and political elites has brought the world to the brink of war. Now Richard Marles says Australia’s part in a US war against China is a fait accompli. Michael West reports.
The closest Deputy PM Richard Marles has come to war may well be a school debating stoush at Geelong Grammar but here he is today, on page 1 of Rupert Murdoch’s warmongering The Australian, committing young Australians to war against China. Should it transpire.
Our major trading partner, which has posed us no threat but buys 40% of our exports and has delivered nothing but prosperity to The Lucky Country.
Given the way things are shaping up in Europe, America and the Middle East, the spectre of World War 3 has never loomed so large. This morning Donald Trump warned Iranians to evacuate Tehran, the capital and home to 10 million people. Now there are reports of Trump seeking executive orders to invade.
There is little doubt that the Neville Chamberlains in Western governments and media, these sapless appeasers of the political and media elites, who have supported ‘our friend Israel’ and its demonic leadership of genocidaires, are culpable for the deaths of thousands (in Gaza and the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon and now Iran). They are guilty of genocide, the world’s most egregious crime, and now Israel’s attacks on Iran, in a world daily edging closer to WW3.
They could have stopped this. Cowed by Israel money and the fear of being called antisemitic, they didn’t. Who loses this? Everybody, Israel included. The first casualty of Israel’s unprovoked assault on Iran last week was a child, buried under rubble.
It is Western appeasement of the Netanyahu government which has led to this; principally the US, UK and Germany, with Australia a bit player albeit with blood dripping from its hands.
Sucked in by Benjamin Netanyahu, again, sucked in by the Israel propaganda of Iran’s nuclear program, world mainstream media again – the very people who fell for the ’40 babies beheaded’ and mass rapes of October 7 – are now running Israel’s ‘regime change’ narrative.
Plus ca change
We’ve seen it before: in Vietnam the ‘domino theory’, in Iraq the fabled WMD which turned regime change when that was found out. “Liberty, freedom and democracy” they cried, after Netanyahu sold them into that war. A million dead, a spate of world terrorism. Islamic State.
And Afghanistan, whose cause turned from Osama bin Laden to regime change to remove the Taliban. Twenty years later the Taliban were back in office.
These abysmal failures, one after another, and now we’ve got Murdoch again beating the drums of war for an attack on China.
Australia is walking into another disastrous war by kowtowing to the US. AUKUS – the controversial security alliance – has made us less safe, not more safe.
The government of Anthony Albanese, feebly abetted by a warmongering Coalition and media, dead-set scared of what the US will say, or the chicken-hawk Coalition, is wedged … if they don’t go all the way with Donald J.
Real strength is being able to stand up to bullies and make the right decisions, not cravenly cave to the demands of our ‘allies’ carrying out a genocide in Gaza and now destabilising the whole world. The ‘global rules based order’ is a sick joke.
Iran support
And make no mistake, that is what we are doing, destabilising the world. China has said it would back Iran in the face of Israeli aggression, Russia has its own thing going with Ukraine but presumably backs Iran. Pakistan, a neighbour and ally of Iran, says it will nuke Israel if Israel nukes Iran.
North Korea – whose decision to get nukes has been entirely vindicated by Western aggression – backs Iran. It is topsy turvey. In Syria, Israel and the US have installed a puppet regime of former Isis and Al Qaeda types – yes the very terrorists who they funded to commit war crimes are now their allies.
This is an almighty mess, and at its epicentre is Israel which decries the regime in Iran, a country which has not attacked another country in 300 years, a country where, despite an authoritarian government, embraces freedom of religion. Mosques, churches and synagogues are free.
In Palestine and Lebanon, Netanyahu and his cronies have been gleefully bombing mosques and churches. No arabs or Thai workers have been crowding the bomb shelters this week as Israelis scurried for cover from Iran’s retaliatory strikes, crying victimhood. In this apartheid state, bomb shelters are only for Jews.
Plainly, we are on the wrong side, the ‘genocide’. And now we see Richard Marles and his media proxies talking about the threat from China and the inevitability of joining a US war.
As Israel continues to murder dozens of civilians daily under cover of media blackouts, starving and murdering Gazans as they scramble for food – and annexing the West Bank – the war crimes by the US/Israel alliance are legion, too many to be listed here; they are daily.
This morning Israel bombed an Iranian TV station mid-broadcast, unapologetically gloating about it in the media; like the grotesque terrorism of its pager explosives, another war crime, targeting journalists going about their jobs.
Follow the money
Trump, the self-described peacemaker, has lost control. And behind it, if we follow the money is an epic laundering operation which has dragged in the entire political class in the US.
It is quite simple: America sends billions in public money, earned by their taxpayers, to support Israel every year. Israel in turn sends money to its lobby groups such as AIPAC, bribing almost every politician on Capital Hill to support its genocide and deny its daily war crimes, its land theft, rape and torture of prisoners, its unrelenting, barbaric military aggression.
And Australia, we are sending our tributes to these US warmongers via AUKUS for submarines which may never arrive, certainly not in time for this looming war, if it occurs. We can only hope common sense prevails. But when it comes to cajoling Australia into its next useless war, the US only has to pamper one man, and that’s Albo.
War powers reform
We can be thankful it’s not Peter Dutton. But few would put store in Albo to stand up to US pressure. The rub is that, in the UK and US, the decision to go to war is made by a vote of Parliament or Congress. In Australia, there is no vote. It is down to the PM, one man. It’s Albo’s call.
So what can we expect? The warmongers of the media are stepping up their campaigns. We have seen it all before, it will all be about downplaying Israel’s aggression. It will all be about demonising the Iranian regime, driving spurious arguments for regime change as if it is our right to meddle in the affairs of countries which want peace and which have done no wrong.
It will be about the elusive, unfounded threat of Iranian nukes, it will dehumanise Iranians, just like it did the people of Gaza. the machine will do all it can to manufacture consent for war. This – Fox News ‘secret Iranian nuclear weapons site revealed’ – is a taste of things to come.
Iran compliant, Israel not
Let’s never forget the truth, that Iran is compliant with its international nuclear reporting; Israel is not. Israel doesn’t even allow the IAEA to check their nuclear facilities, Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike Israel.
These facts will be dutifully buried in an avalanche of lies and spin but if the world needs regime change, they should start with Israel, not Iran. Somehow Netanyahu has managed to – in his jungle of lies – inveigle the US into war with Iraq and ‘regime change’ in a plethora of countries.
He has trashed the reputation of his country forever, demolished any credibility it might have enjoyed, lost to the Palestinian resistance in Gaza after almost two years, and failed miserably in his two stated aims of ousting Hamas and returning the hostages.
And this despite America and the US deploying more firepower than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, killing and maiming 100s of thousands of civilians. And now starving them to boot.
Still the IDF can’t summon the guts to go down in the tunnels and take Hamas on, mano a mano, preferring instead to frock up in the lingerie of their victims and blithely prance around on social media celebrating their war crimes.
Netanyahu and his cronies, including America, have destroyed Israel through their brutality and stupidity and given rise to antisemitism. While blaming everybody else from peace protestors to Palestinians, they are squarely to blame.
It is not the generals emblazoned with their medals who will pay the price if we march off to another worthless American war. It is not the pusillanimous media pundits, nor the preening politicians. It is young Australians who will pay the price.
Nuclear news this week – NOT the corporate version
Some bits of good news – French Polynesia Just Created The World’s Largest Marine Protected Area. Resurgent tuna and rebounding elephants: the dogged conservation efforts bearing fruit
TOP STORIES.
Refresher On The Rules For Discussing Israeli Wars- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNxx-zNsDBg
Sources: US Will Enter Israel’s War With Iran.
Israel Starts Bombing Iran, IRGC Chief Reported Killed – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMT1c2JHPQ4
‘We Are Preparing for War’ With China ‘Threat’, Says US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLOTTVI_LAA
It’s austerity from Reeves – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwQxdCLjL9s
Miliband’s Sizewell plan in meltdown over potential cost – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/13/2-a-milibands-sizewell-plan-in-meltdown-over-potential-cost/
Climate. How the ‘evil twin’ of the climate crisis is threatening our oceans. Could Britain face a winter ice age? How temperatures could one day plummet due to climate change.
From the archives. Why can’t Iran have nuclear weapons?
AUSTRALIA. AUKUS: A Very Antipodean Stupidity. AUKUS faces bigger tests than Trump’s ‘America first’ review, US and UK experts warn. Group of Australian MP’s Call for AUKUS Inquiry, US launches AUKUS review to ensure it meets Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
ECONOMICS.
- Cost of Miliband’s nuclear plant doubles to more than £40bn -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/15/2-b1-cost-of-milibands-nuclear-plant-doubles-to-more-than-40bn/
- Another delay for Sizewell C nuclear despite Government 14bn pledge.
- UK pledges £11.5bn of new state funding for Sizewell C nuclear plant -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/12/1-b1-uk-pledges-11-5bn-of-new-state-funding-for-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant/
- Great British Energy’s budget has been nuked.
- China banned from investing in Sizewell C, energy secretary Ed Miliband vows.
- The World Bank is lifting its decades-long ban on financing nuclear energy… ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/14/1-b1-world-bank-lifts-ban-on-funding-nuclear-energy-in-boost-to-industry/
- European Power Costs Surge on Fresh Fears of French Nuclear Reactor Corrosion.
US suspends export licences for nuclear equipment suppliers selling to China .
| ENERGY. GB Energy handed £2.5bn bill for funding small modular reactors . |
| ENVIRONMENT. Revealed: three tonnes of uranium legally dumped in protected English estuary in nine years |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. The ‘unsustainable’ reason behind who can have nuclear weapons, and who can’t. |
| HISTORY. Securing the nuclear nation, (Russia). |
| LEGAL. Firm fined £26k after worker exposed to radiation at Teesside site. Hinkley Point C | Court rules that nuclear developers must follow environmental information law. Campaigners launch legal challenge against Sizewell C’s ‘secret’ flood defences. |
| MEDIA. Fox News Just Helped Netanyahu Spread The Lie That Iran Tried To Assassinate Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzDRij_M05g |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Protect the Lake District Coast and Irish Sea from an Unprecedented Atomic Experiment. Cumbrians receive postal call to back nuke dump democracy petition. NFLAs welcome new group opposed to nuke waste dump in South Copeland. Group protest against Sizewell C ahead of Spending Review. |
| POLITICS. The Spring Statement Combines Austerity with Dangerous Military Spending. Ed Miliband presses the nuclear button for Berkeley. Six years late and £28bn over budget, this project signals disaster for Ed Miliband’s nuclear plansUK taxpayers to spend billions more on Sizewell C nuclear plant._ ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/13/2-b1-uk-taxpayers-to-spend-billions-more-on-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant/ Sizewell C nuclear plant gets £14bn go-ahead from government. GB Energy’s promised £8.3bn budget raided to pay for small nuclear reactors. Lincolnshire council pulls out of nuclear waste disposal siting process. UK Greens react to plans for new nuclear plant at Sizewell. Scotland to prioritise renewable energy over nuclear power. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Condemning the Right to Self Defence: Iran’s Retaliation and Israel’s Privilege. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), destroyed by President Trump, would have prevented the current attacks between Israel and Iran . Pacific Rim countries say no to U.S.-China war. |
| SECRETS and LIES. Iran says it will release Israeli nuclear secrets as pressure grows to reimpose sanctions. |
| SPINBUSTER. When did nuclear power become “clean”? |
| URANIUM. Russia said on Wednesday it stood ready to remove highly enriched uranium from Iran– ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/14/1-b1-russia-said-on-wednesday-it-stood-ready-to-remove-highly-enriched-uranium-from-iran/ |
| WASTES. Sizewell C Nuclear not just a waste of money – a waste of time, too! Survey Results Show Tremendous Dissatisfaction with Nuclear Waste Project and Proponent https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/15/2-b1-survey-results-show-tremendous-dissatisfaction-with-nuclear-waste-project-and-proponent/ |
| WAR and CONFLICT Injustice of nuclear-weapons state Israel‘s striking Iranian nuclear sites. Israel’s Netanyahu banks on TACO Trump as he Launches War on Iran to disrupt Negotiations. The whole planet is being kept hostage by a death cult. SPECIAL BULLETIN: Israel Launches Major Strikes on Iran. Israel Launches ‘Operation Rising Lion’ To Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program, Netanyahu Vows To Eliminate Threat. Satellite imagery reveals damage to key Iran nuclear sites. Israeli attack could drive Iran to seek nuclear weapons, IAEA chief warns. ‘TO THE POINT OF UNINHABITABILITY’ . Zelensky’s spectacular Operation Spiderweb has backfired spectacularly. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Hidden Costs: Nuclear Weapons Spending in 2024. World entering new era as nuclear powers build up arsenals, SIPRI think tank says. European Commission assesses nuclear investment needs of around €241 billion by 2050. Paris wants to manufacture drones in Ukraine. Here is why you should support the Global Network’s Golden Dome statement. Golden Dome Idiocy. Nuclear submarines plan is an expensive mistake – there are better things for UK to spend money on: Andy Brown. |
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 