‘It looks more likely with each day we burn fossil fuels’: polar scientist on Antarctic tipping points
Despite working on polar science for the British Antarctic Survey for 20 years, Louise Sime finds the magnitude of potential sea-level rise hard to comprehend. Up until 2016, the sea ice
in Antarctica seemed relatively stable. Then everything started to change.
At first, the decline was mostly in line with climate models.
But suddenly, in 2023, there was an enormous drop. About 2.5 million sq km of Antarctic
sea ice went missing relative to the average before 2023. The anomaly was
of such a magnitude that it’s quite hard for scientists to know what to
make of it. It has been described as a five sigma event.
The potential for Antarctica to increase global sea levels is scarier than for Greenland.
Right now, they’re both contributing similar amounts to sea-level rise,
but in future, it could be Greenland goes up a bit and then Antarctica goes
up catastrophically. Greenland has the potential to raise sea levels by
five or six metres, but we don’t expect this will come in the form of an
absolutely catastrophic, abrupt loss. Most of the ice in Greenland is not
below sea level so we can see what is happening and we expect it will melt
in a linear fashion.
By contrast, Antarctica has 80 metres of potential
sea-level rise. We don’t expect all of that, but it is harder to know
exactly what is happening.
Guardian 27th June 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2025/jun/27/tipping-points-antarctica-arctic-sea-ice-polar-scientist
Time for Australia to sign non-nuclear treaty
Tilman Ruff says support for the “illegal and unwarranted” US military action in Iran has damaged Australia’s global reputation, and ratifying the treaty would help to repair its credibility.
The Australian co-founder of a Nobel Prize-winning advocacy group says it is time for Labor to honour its promise, while in opposition, to ratify the UN’s nuclear weapons ban treaty.
The Saturday Paper, By Kristina Kukolja, 28 June 25
Australia has long been at the forefront of global efforts towards the containment of nuclear threats. Now, in the wake of the American military strikes on Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency says the global nonproliferation system is on the brink of collapse. Australian campaigners are calling on the government to step up its advocacy for nuclear disarmament.
“It’s an alarmingly dangerous time – the nonproliferation regime is under severe threat,” says Dr Tilman Ruff, who is co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a Nobel Prize-winning advocacy group founded in Australia.
He calls the United States attack on Iran a “frightening escalation” that dealt a “body blow to the peaceful nonproliferation regime … which was already in a parlous state”.
Ruff says Australia must urgently show it is serious about nuclear disarmament by signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Now in its second term, the Labor government has yet to act on a commitment it made while in opposition to sign and ratify the treaty. Ruff is concerned the US is putting pressure on the Albanese government not to sign. He says ICAN has been told that ratification of the treaty hasn’t been raised in cabinet, and it must be. “The issue needs prime ministerial leadership,” Ruff says.
“The reasons for the delay are American pressure and the displeasure that the US would indicate when Australia does this.”
He says support for the “illegal and unwarranted” US military action in Iran has damaged Australia’s global reputation, and ratifying the treaty would help to repair its credibility.
“Australia joining the TPNW would be of global significance, especially if it became the first nuclear weapons supporting and assisting ally of a nuclear-armed state to do so. It would be the most effective way we could support peace and nuclear disarmament, prevent nuclear war and reinforce the rule of law.”
Australia has maintained a strong bipartisan nuclear nonproliferation stance for decades. The Whitlam Labor government established the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) more than 50 years ago. It was a Coalition foreign affairs minister, Alexander Downer, who took the test ban treaty to the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, and Australia now has the third-biggest network of stations monitoring for signs of nuclear testing in the world…………………………………………………………………….
Australia’s decision to join AUKUS has raised questions in the Pacific about its ability to meet its own obligations, as a signatory to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.
“Pacific peoples feel a great sense of betrayal from what Australia did,” says Fiji-based Epeli Lesuma, a demilitarisation campaigner with the Pacific Network on Globalisation.
“Australia uses a term in Fiji called the ‘Vuvale’ partnership, which means ‘family’. ‘Vuvale’ and ‘Pacific family’ are thrown around by people in Canberra, but the sentiment behind it is hollow – particularly when you think about what Australia did with AUKUS.”
Lesuma says AUKUS is a danger to the Pacific because it will potentially bring nuclear-powered submarines into the region and has pushed island nations into the geopolitical competition between the US, China and Australia.
“The Australian government chose to betray all of us by exposing us to greater nuclear risk and nuclear violence, submarines cutting through the Pacific Ocean – creating a bigger target on our backs.”
“There is no trust,” agrees Samoan-born Maualaivao Maima Koro, a Pacific security expert at the University of Adelaide. She says Pacific nations are looking to Australia for leadership on nuclear issues, in a region that – decades on – is still living with the health and environmental harms of nuclear testing by France, Britain and the US.
“Pacific leaders have the view that Australia will step up because it is the country that can. It is the country with the means, alliances and exposure to do so,” says Koro.
“The idea of Australia’s responsibility to the Pacific Islands Forum is that you can advocate for the interest of the region – but it’s not happening. Pacific Island states want Australia to commit to the Rarotonga treaty and uphold it.” https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/defence/2025/06/28/time-australia-sign-non-nuclear-treaty
Australian foreign policy is in the doldrums
Withdrawing from the ANZUS alliance will have to be managed carefully and determinedly. It requires explaining carefully and patiently to Australians how costly the alliance has been, and continues to be. Not the least of these costs has been lives lost and personnel physically and mentally wounded due to past politicians’ ignorant backing of America’s wars.
America is in terminal decline as a great power. Its end is well and truly in sight.
Allan Patience, June 27, 2025 , https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/06/australian-foreign-policy-is-in-the-doldrums/
Opinion polls indicate Australians are at last waking up to the fact that their country’s security reliance on Trump’s US is no longer tenable.
Indeed, it never has been. A complete foreign policy overhaul is now urgently needed. But Australia’s foreign minister is dithering. Is she not up to the task?
Penny Wong may go down as one of of the great disappointments in Australia’s foreign policy history – a history which itself is as disappointing as it is long. Her formulaic call for “de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy” in response to the Iran-Israel conflict is a trilogy of words that mean nothing. Despite Trump’s contempt for the US’ allies, she continually mouths the tired old refrain that America is our most important global ally. Her plaintive defence of the AUKUS deal is not only unconvincing, but crazy mad. That Australia was kept out of the loop when Trump decided to unleash the B-2 stealth bombers on Iran’s nuclear sites is proof of the insignificance Washington places on its naïve Aussie ally.
Senator Wong’s greatest mistake has been her failure to steer the country towards a confident and independent role in regional and global affairs. She shows no interest in laying the groundwork to help her fellow Australians understand that it’s time for the country to embark on a new path towards that independent status. Such a challenge is not going to be easy; it calls for statesmanship of the highest order and leadership of the highest calibre. Increasingly, it seems, Senator Wong lack both of these attributes.
True independence would be a bold step for Australia to take, but it can no longer be delayed. Reliance on America, or any other “great and powerful friend”, is a thing of the past. We need reminding that it has led to the country’s involvement in conflicts that it should have steered well clear of – involvements which at the time were justified by ideologically-blinkered politicians and media interests to demonstrate craven fealty to the US alliance. And lest we forget, none of those conflicts have ever achieved their stated aims.
Withdrawing from the ANZUS alliance will have to be managed carefully and determinedly. It requires explaining carefully and patiently to Australians how costly the alliance has been, and continues to be. Not the least of these costs has been lives lost and personnel physically and mentally wounded due to past politicians’ ignorant backing of America’s wars. Australians urgently need to be educated about the real and present dangers that the alliance with America now poses for the country, not only because of Trump’s unpredictability and bullying, or because of the demands for increasing Australia’s defence budget by the much tattooed Pete Hegseth, but because America is in terminal decline as a great power. Its end is well and truly in sight.
Meanwhile, Senator Wong faithfully toes the government’s propaganda lines that the incorrigible AUKUS plan is important and achievable, and that the ANZUS alliance is in good shape. Her commentaries on what is happening in the world are shallow and unconvincing. A wide sector of the very brightest academic and policy commentators have made clear how ridiculous AUKUS is, yet Senator Wong thumbs her nose at them, while lamely parroting Richard Marles’ line, that AUKUS is in Australia’s best security interests. Many people — including many rank and file Labor members — heartily disagree. Does she know this? Does she care?
Nor has the Senator articulated a vision for Australia’s foreign policy future. She demonstrates little interest in what younger Australians think about how their country should be positioning itself in its region and globally. This, at a time when there should be informed and intelligent public discussions about the parlous state of the ANZUS treaty with the US. These discussions should include canvassing a range of post-ANZUS alternatives before Trump (or his successor) pulls the plug on the whole deal.
There is no sign that Senator Wong, or anyone else in the Albanese go-slow government, has an inkling about what post-ANZUS options Australia should be considering. They obviously don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to think about such a challenge. They believe that abject obeisance to Uncle Sam is all we need as the foundation of the country’s security policy. That view passed its use-by date decades ago. Does Senator Wong not see this?
The first plank of a post-ANZUS Australian foreign policy has to be an understanding of the fact that China is now undeniably a great power in the country’s region. It is “great and powerful”, but will not be a friend if it is mindlessly provoked (as it was by the Morrison Government during the COVID crisis). It has both the economic and military power to demand that its presence be respected, no matter how disagreeable this may be at the time. This means Australia’s foreign policy response to China must bypass the China hawks in the parliament, in the Murdoch media, and in the bureaucracy. Relations with China — our major trading partner — need to be handled with infinite care by diplomats and politicians who have a deep understanding of the language, history, culture and politics of the country. This means facing up to the fact that the Chinese state is now the major force that has to be reckoned with in the Asia Pacific, that America is simultaneously retreating and declining in the region, and that it is in Australia’s national interest to negotiate. and carefully manage, a mutually beneficial quid pro quo relationship with Beijing.
Of course, Australia can’t do this on its own. To achieve a balanced and sensible relationship with China will require developing regional networks and alliances with neighbouring states that have similar diplomatic and security interests. Nostalgia for ties with Britain and Europe has to be recognised for the immature and regressive nonsense that it is. And any residual sentimental ties with America have to be recognised for what they are – mere sentimentality.
Modern Australia’s great challenge today is to truly integrate itself into its geopolitical region through education (first and foremost), trade, diplomacy, cultural exchanges, security alliances, regional organisations and, above all, with humility and sensitivity. There is no evidence that Senator Wong is either interested in, or has the capacity to articulate such an approach. Nor do Albanese or Marles. Australia needs a new generation of political leaders who can formulate and put into action a considered and peace-oriented regional and global role for the country.
Dr Allan Patience is an Honorary Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences in the University of Melbourne.
Why Voters Reject Richard Marles US War
27 June 2025 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay
Description
Richard Marles US war has anti-war voters turning against him. Learn why peace, sovereignty, and democracy are at stake in 2028.
Introduction
Darwin, 4:42 a.m., June 2025. KC-46 tankers lift off from RAAF Base Darwin, refuelling U.S. bombers returning from a strike on Iranian nuclear sites. Veteran Ron McKinnon, 71, stares from his porch. “Here we go again,” he mutters, haunted by his service in Iraq.
Just hours later, Defence Minister Richard Marles appears on ABC News: “Australia stands shoulder to shoulder with our ally.” Foreign Minister Penny Wong echoes him. But the public mood is shifting fast, as concerns over the Richard Marles US war agenda grow louder.
Agitate: The Iran strike has deepened fears of entanglement in endless U.S. wars.
Solution: Voters now demand a sovereign, peaceful defence policy – and they’re ready to make it an election issue.
PROBLEM – Public Trust Collapse Over U.S. Military Alignment
1. Polls Signal a Sea Change
• 40% of Australians now believe we should distance ourselves from the U.S. (Lowy Institute, 2025)
• Only 26% say we should follow the U.S. into military conflicts.
• 74% oppose involvement in a future war with Iran or China, reflecting a growing rejection of the Richard Marles US war direction.
2. The Trigger: Iran Strike
Australia’s support for the June 2025 U.S. strike on Iran shocked many voters. While the government called it a “measured response,” Australians viewed it as another unjustified conflict.
3. Personal Voices
Ella Tait, an ICU nurse from Newcastle, recalls messaging her brother at RAAF Tindal: “Are you being deployed?” He didn’t reply for hours. Online, #MarlesWarMachine trended as thousands shared anti-war posts.
“We save lives in hospitals, not bomb people across the world,” Ella said.
4. Strategic Concerns
• Pine Gap may have been used to assist the Iran targeting
• Darwin and Tindal bases make Australia a first-strike target in future retaliations
• Experts warn Australia’s role in U.S. wars increases – not decreases – our risk
Consequences of Following the U.S. War Machine
1. Economic Trade-Offs
• AUKUS subs will cost taxpayers $368 billion over 30 years
• Meanwhile, public housing, health, and disaster funding suffer under the financial burden of the Richard Marles US war priorities.
• Australia’s dollar sovereignty means we don’t need to choose war over welfare, but our leaders are
2. Voter Backlash
• Greens, Teals, and Independents have made “Peace Vote” pledges
• In 18 marginal electorates, candidates are calling for War Powers reform
• Many voters say: “If Marles won’t represent peace, we’ll find someone who will”, a clear repudiation of the Richard Marles US war stance.
3. Moral Injury
Every new conflict escalates demand for veterans’ services.
• Defence-linked trauma spikes 19% during combat support operations
• Public sympathy for veterans turns into public anger at those who sent them
“It’s not anti-troop to be anti-war,” says veteran Ron. “It’s anti-stupidity.”
A Peace-First Defence Strategy
1. Use Australia’s Monetary Power for Peace
As a sovereign currency issuer, Australia can fund:
• Fire & flood resilience
• National mental health services
• Cyber defence and coastal radar
No foreign wars required.
2. Model Countries
• Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948 and outperforms neighbours on education & health
• Austria maintains military neutrality and invests heavily in civil defence
• Ireland avoids entangling alliances yet contributes to UN peacekeeping missions, offering a powerful contrast to Richard Marles US war framework.
3. A Legislative Blueprint
A new, independent body could investigate and publicly review Pine Gap’s involvement in past conflicts such as the Iraq and Iran strikes, both tied to Richard Marles US war alignment.
Peace Policy Roadmap: A legislative alternative to Richard Marles US war approach, focused on sovereignty, diplomacy, and the public good.
• Defence of Australia Act – Bans combat beyond 1,000 nm (1,852 km) without a referendum
• War Powers Tribunal – Reviews Pine Gap’s role in Iraq & Iran
• Universal Housing & Health Fund – Redirect defence funds toward social programs
• Pacific Peace Office – Expands diplomacy and soft power in the region
Voter Toolkit
TheyVoteForYou.org.au – Track MPs’ war‑powers votes…………………………………………………………………https://theaimn.net/why-voters-reject-richard-marles-us-war/
Plutonium Levels in Sediments Remain Elevated 70 Years After Nuclear Tests
June 24, 2025,
https://www.marinetechnologynews.com/news/plutonium-levels-sediments-remain-650328
Researchers from Edith Cowan University (ECU) in Australia have confirmed plutonium levels in sediment up to 4,500 times greater than the Western Australian coastline.
Three plutonium-based nuclear weapons tests were conducted at the Montebello Islands in the 1950’s, which introduced radioactive contamination to the surrounding environment. The first nuclear test, coded Operation Hurricane, had a weapon’s yield of some 25kT, and formed a crater in the seabed, while the second and third tests, dubbed Operation Mosaic G1 and G2, had weapons yields of around 15kT and 60kT, respectively.
The three tests released radioactive isotopes including plutonium, strontium (90Sr) and caesium (137Cs) into the surrounding marine environment.
“Plutonium is anthropogenic, which means that it doesn’t exist on its own in nature. The only way it is introduced into an environment is through the detonation of nuclear weapons and from releases from nuclear reprocessing plants and, to a lesser extent, accidents in nuclear power plants,” said ECU PhD student and lead author Madison Williams-Hoffman.
“When plutonium is released into a coastal setting in the marine environment, a significant fraction will attach to particles and accumulate in the seabed, while some may be transported long distances by oceanic currents.”
The region is not inhabited by humans and has not been developed, however it is visited by fishing boats, so collecting data on the levels of contamination in the marine environment is important.
Currently, the protected island archipelago and surrounding marine areas also reside within the Montebello Islands Marine Park (MIMP). The MIMP is ecologically significant due to the presence of numerous permanent or migratory species, and its high-value habitat is used for breeding and rearing by fish, mammals, birds and other marine wildlife.
The water and sediment quality within the MIMP are currently described as ‘generally pristine’, and it is fundamental to maintain healthy marine ecosystems in the region.
The concentrations of plutonium at Montebello Islands were between 4 to 4,500 times higher than those found in sediment from Kalumburu and Rockingham from the Western Australian coastline, with the northern area of the archipelago, close to the three detonation sites, having four-fold higher levels than the southern area.
The concentrations of plutonium found in the sediment at Montebello Islands were similar to those found in the sediment at the Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI) test sites, despite 700-fold higher detonation yields from nuclear testing undertaken at RMI.
Plutonium is an alpha emitter so, unlike other types of radiation, it cannot travel through the skin and is most dangerous when ingested or inhaled.
The research was undertaken by Williams-Hoffman, under the co-supervision of Prof. Pere Masqueand at ECU and Dr Mathew Johansen at ANTSO.
Trump’s rap sheet is long, but this may top them all
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not blown the whistle as claimed by the Australian government, nor has the UK or our European allies.
any resolution to condemn the bombing of Iran will be vetoed by the US , presumably with the support of Australia
The Age, Geoffrey Robertson , 24 June 25, – (print version)
Although few may bother to point this out, Trump has just committed a crime much worse than all the others on his rap sheet.
It is the war crime of aggression- the “supreme” war crime, according to the judgement at Nuremberg. 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.
This is not about saving Iran, or the danger of making Putin look better. If any government in the world deserves to be destroyed, it is the mullahs without mercy in Iran. Many of them were involved in the mass slaughter of political prisoners in1988 – the worst crime against POWs since the Japanese death marches. – and ever since their record of killing peaceful protestors, women and dissidents has been disgusting. Iran has bankrolled terrorist organisations and wagedpropaganda wars against the Big (US) and Little (UK) Satan, but it has not invaded Israel or done anything to America to justify its aggression.
Were some hypothetical war crimes court ever to get its hands on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it would reduce his sentence by taking Iranian provocation into account – but the man would still be guilty as charged. He could not argue self-defence, which requires the threat defended against to be reasonably proximate. The threat of Iran building and using nukes is much further away than the threat of Israeli submarines, said to be already stationed within range of Tehtan.
It is not even clear that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon – several dozen countries also signatory to the nuclear weapons treaty by which they forswear any such development. could build nukes within a few months. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not blown the whistle as claimed by the Australian government, nor has the UK or our European allies.. And just like Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” there is no reason to think Iran has completed a project that in fact started under .the Shah in the 1970s.
Only last wee, Trump said in effect to the Ayatollah, in the tone of a gangster “Wee know where you live”, but he promised the cleric he would be safe “for now” and gave him two weeks. He bombed three days later (This is a man on whose word Australia has just made a down payment for AUKUS).
The true disaster of Trump’s attack is that it is another nail in the coffin of the rules-based world order that provided some protection for international pdeace and security since it was put in place in 1945.
It is now unfit for its purpose declared in the UN Charter to stop the slaughter of war. The General Assembly is a talking shop, while all power resides in the permanently poleAxed Security Council which cannot function because of the big power veto.
Resolutions for peace in Ukraine are vetoed by Russia, for peace in Gaza they are vetoed by America on behalf of Israel, and any resolution to condemn the bombing of Iran will be vetoed by the US , presumably with the support of Australia.
Besides, the problem with Iran goes beyond nuclear weapons. It’s a conflict between the rights of its people and the wrongs of its dictatorship. That is a conflict that only its people can resolve, however much the West may wish to help.
Trump has already made a mockery of US law, from which his Supreme Court has declared him immune. Hewill now make a mockery of international law, roo.
Geoffrey Robertson KC is an expert in international and human rights law. He is the author of Mullahs Without Mercy and Crimes Against Humanity.
Why Trump’s Golden Dome must be opposed – Bruce Gagnon & Dae-Han Song
19 Jun 2025
In January 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the US armed forces to construct a missile defense system – the ‘Golden Dome’ – a proposed multi-layer defense system, comparable to the Iron Dome system in Israel. It aims to place and maintain space weapons orbit, for the first time in history.
The proposed system will be exorbitant. According to US Congress sources it could cost several trillion dollars. This would require the US to cut every one of its remaining social programs. Such a military system would inflict ever more damage to the environment both on and around our planet.
Trump wants such a system, so that the US can launch a nuclear attack on another nuclear armed country and the US be confident that it has sufficient defenses to reduce the impact of any retaliatory missiles launched against US to levels deemed acceptable to US military planners. As the US advances its war drive, it is developing its military alliances with other countries and locking them into its war preparations.
Military coordination is being stepped up with increased ‘interoperability’ of hardware. In these alliances, such as NATO, it is always the US that is ‘in charge of the tip of the spear’.
Bruce Gagnon, in discussion with Dae-Han Song, explains why the proposed Golden Dome should be opposed. Bruce Gagnon has been organizing to stop the new arms race in space (Star Wars) since 1982. He began by coordinating the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice from 1983-1998. During those years, in 1992, he co-founded the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in space that he now coordinates. Bruce began his organizing career working for the United Farm Workers Union. He is a Vietnam war era veteran. He lives in Brunswick, Maine.
Website of The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space: https://space4peace.org/ The petition against the Golden Dome is here: https://space4peace.org/global-networ… Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the international No Cold War collective.
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.
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 