A leading Middle East analyst has pushed back against US President Donald Trump’s dismissal of the conclusion of his own national intelligence chief, who said in April that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.
Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, said in an interview that Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, who issued the determination on Iran, “does not speak for herself” or her team alone.
“She speaks for all the intelligence agencies combined,” Bishara said.
“This intelligence is supposed to be sound. This is not just one person or one team saying something. It’s the entire intelligence community in the United States. He [Trump] would dismiss them? For what?
“For a lie by a rogue element called Benjamin Netanyahu, who has lied all his life, a con artist who is indicted for his crimes in Gaza? It’s just astounding.”
US senators slam Netanyahu Two US senators have also condemned Netanyahu while Israel continues to bomb and starve Gaza
Chris Van Hollen and Elizabeth Warren, two Democrats in the US Senate, have urged the world to pay attention to what Israel continues to do in Gaza amid its conflict with Iran.
“Don’t look away,” Van Hollen wrote on X. “Since the start of the Israel-Iran war 7 days ago, over 400 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, many shot while seeking food.
“It’s unconscionable that Netanyahu has not allowed international orgs to resume food delivery.”
Warren said the Israeli prime minister “may think no one will notice what he’s doing in Gaza while he bombs Iran”.
“People face starvation. 55,000 killed. Aid workers and doctors turned away at the border. Shooting at innocent people desperate for food. The world sees you, Benjamin Netanyahu,” she wrote.
Israel’s Prime Minister may think no one will notice what he’s doing in Gaza while he bombs Iran.
People face starvation. 55,000 killed. Aid workers and doctors turned away at the border. Shooting at innocent people desperate for food.
‘A trust gap’ The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, appealed for an end to the fighting between Israel and Iran, saying that Teheran had repeatedly stated that it was not seeking nuclear weapons.
“Let’s recognise there is a trust gap,” he said.
“The only way to bridge that gap is through diplomacy to establish a credible, comprehensive and verifiable solution — including full access to inspectors of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], as the United Nations technical agency in this field.
“For all of that to be possible, I appeal for an end to the fighting and the return to serious negotiations.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres . . . “I appeal for an end to the fighting and the return to serious negotiations.” Image: UNweb screenshot APR
Meanwhile, in New Zealand hope for freedom for Palestinians remained high among a group of trauma-struck activists in Cairo.
In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo to Gaza to lend support.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 21, 2025.
Former New Zealand PM Helen Clark blames Cook Islands for crisis By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific presenter/producer Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after
View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president. The word was that the prime
Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Howe, PhD candidate in International Relations, Monash University A recently announced Pentagon review of the AUKUS pact has sparked a renewed bout of debate in Australia. Led by the “AUKUS-agnostic” US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, the review raises serious questions over whether Australia will receive
‘I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place’: new study sheds light on the emotional toll for emergency volunteers Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Roche, PhD Candidate, Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, La Trobe University Sergey Dolgikh/Getty Images In Australia, there are around 235,000 emergency service volunteers who help communities respond and recover after natural disasters and other traumatic events. These include volunteers with metropolitan and rural fire services
Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shumi Akhtar, Associate Professor, University of Sydney Marlon Trottmann/Shutterstock The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on
15 months after ‘flour massacre’ shock, Israel commits daily Gaza food aid killings BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem Kia ora koutou, I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground. At least 16 killed by Israeli airstrike on al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza. 92 killed across Gaza in total,
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China.
The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa’s questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing.
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
Helen Clark (middle) . . . Cook Islands caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. Image: RNZ Pacific montage
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Foreign Minister Winston Peters said had not been honoured.
Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters.
“There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand’s back,” Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday.
Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time.
“It is the Cook Islands government’s actions which have created this crisis,” she said.
Urgent need for dialogue “The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China.
Brown told Parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming.
He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand had also entered deals with China that the Cook Islands was not “privy to or being consulted on”.
Prime Minister Mark Brown and China’s Ambassador to the Pacific Qian Bo last year. Image: RNZ Pacific/ Lydia Lewis
A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations.
Auckland University of Technology senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is “a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages”.
“Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it,” Tekiteki said.
Misunderstanding of agreement Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point.
The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out.
“There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration,” the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said.
“An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency”.
Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”.
He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.
However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”.
This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, is where Brown misstepped.
Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal “clandestine” which has “damaged” its relationship with New Zealand.
RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sahar Maranlou, Lecturer in Law and Socio-legal Studies, Royal Holloway University of London
Ali Khamenei was born in Mashhad, Iran, in 1939, as the second son of a local religious leader, Javad Khamenei, and he grew up in relative poverty.
He learned to read the Qur’an in early childhood before attending a theological seminary school in Mashhad. At 18, he travelled to Najaf in central Iraq to study Shia jurisprudence, but was later asked by his father to return. He was a student of Ayatollah Hossein Borujerdi and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
There is not much known about Khamenei’s family life, except that he is married and has six children. Khamenei’s interest in poetry is a well-known part of his public persona. He often cites poems in his speeches and hosts poetry gatherings where pro-government poets gather to read their poems to receive his comments. Khamenei’s interest in literature is quite rare among religious clerics. The same goes for his interest in gardening.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
In the 1960s and 1970s Khamenei was involved in protests against the US-backed monarchy (the shah), and was an ardent supporter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then living in exile, and against the “westernisation” of Iran. This led to his arrest by the shah’s secret police and intelligence operation, the Organisation of National Security and Information (Savak), which suppressed opposition to the shah.
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the monarch who ruled Iran until 1979, was backed by western powers including the US and the UK. After a decade of economic growth in Iran, mainly based on oil revenues, did not lead to an improvement in the standard of living for ordinary Iranians, a combination of students, intellectuals and clerics created combined support for a revolution.
After the shah was overthrown in the 1979 revolution, Iran became an Islamic republic. Khamenei was appointed as a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Council, which was put in place to manage the revolution, and served as deputy defence minister and led Friday prayers in Tehran, which was considered highly prestigious.
In 1982, he was elected president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, winning 95% of the vote, after the previous president, Mohammad Ali Rajai, was killed in a bomb attack in Tehran. Khamenei had been the target of an assassination attempt two months earlier, leaving him with serious injuries and paralysis in his right arm.
Iran’s supreme leaders reacts to air strikes by Israel and US rhetoric.
Iran’s war with neighbouring Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, lasted from 1980 to 1988 and is known in Iran as the “sacred defence”. The war began after an invasion by Iraqi troops on Iranian territory and resulted in around one million deaths across both countries.
This was another significant period in Khamenei’s career. He was active in managing Iran’s defence as the chairman of the supreme council of war support during this period. The council was formed to make sure the country was as prepared as possible during the war and to take measures to mobilise forces and to meet the needs of the war at the battlefront.
He praised Khomeini for his tactics in the war and said that the supreme leader had realised from the very beginning that it was not an ordinary conflict between two neighbours. “He recognised the enemy and realised that the main enemy is not present in the war, and he recognised that Saddam is just a tool.”
He went on to suggest that this was a war about US regional power and that Saddam Hussein would continue to receive US support.
Rising to supreme leadership
Khamenei became supreme leader in 1989 after the death of Khomeini. He was designated as the new leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic clerics. He ruled in the same style, and with the same type of foreign policy, as his predecessor; looking for allies to offset US power in the region.
The duties designated for the rahbar (supreme leader) are listed in Article 101 of the constitution and range from determining the political direction of the government (in consultation with an advisory committee) to commanding the armed forces to declaring war, peace, and the mobilisation of armed forces to pardoning or commuting sentences upon recommendation of the head of the judiciary.
Khomeini’s conception of Islamic government was centred on the doctrine of the guardianship of “the jurist”, known as velayat-e faqih, and this continued at the heart of the government that followed under Khamenei. This gives the supreme leader extensive powers, including control over the military, judiciary and media.
This doctrine plays a vital role in legitimising theocratic power in Iran, linking religious authority with the state. Discussion about velayat-e faqih continues within Iranian society as part of an ongoing dialogue between traditional religious authority and civil society.
The question of who might come to power after Khamenei was raised during the grassroots uprising and pro-democracy protests around Iran in 2022 and 2023. It was expected that any transition would take a considerable amount of time, especially if the aim was for a more democratic form of government.
The current war might suggest a different outcome. Even though the Israeli attacks on Iran have again sparked discussion of a possible change of leader, the public is focused now on their own safety, and defending Iran, not on political change.
Any external war or threats coming from outside Iran has historically united Iranians against aggressors. This means that the path to democratic change is not likely to be created, or helped, by Israeli air strikes or US threats.
Sahar Maranlou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Benedict Morrison, Senior lecturer in Film, Television, Literature, and Queer Studies, University of Exeter
I was not around in 1974 to witness the first television outing of Alan Clarke’s Penda’s Fen. Broadcast only seven years after sex between men was partially decriminalised in England and Wales, this enigmatic film was beamed into the nation’s living rooms with an audacity that remains giddying today.
Some commentators have suggested that the film “seems a world away” from the gritty social commentary of Clarke’s Scum (1977) and The Firm (1989). But Penda’s Fen recognises that unruly desire – manifested within the film in Blakean visions of angels, demons and the pagan King Penda – is political.
Stephen, a classical music-loving, left-wing-despising rector’s son, lives among the green and pleasant Malvern Hills, where he plays at being an impeccably uniformed cadet and struggles to suppress his delirious sexual desire for other boys.
This article is part of a series highlighting brilliant films that should be more widely known and firmly part of the canon of queer cinema .
In his visions, the path of least resistance – that of being the young man everyone wants him to be – is championed by the sinister figures of the Mother and Father of England (modelled on conservative activist Mary Whitehouse and social critic Malcolm Muggeridge). This path would offer him “the right to inherit power”.
But playing the role of the straight, conventional boy weighs heavily on Stephen, and he slips further from the narratives he longs to believe in. Haunted by a series of real and imagined encounters with angels, demons and England’s pagan past, Stephen begins to questions all he knows about himself – his religion, politics and sexuality.
When I finally saw Penda’s Fen after its re-release by the BFI in 2016, it was uncannily familiar. Like Stephen, I grew up as the gay son of a rector in the rural West Midlands, torn between the lures and impossibilities of sexual convention.
The political rhetoric of the LGBT+ community in the 1990s created social impact by speaking in very clear terms about non-straight identities. This rhetoric, for the sake of clarity, often offered narrow definitions of the characteristics and attributes that made someone definitively LGBT+.
But it did lead to progress, featuring in campaigns for the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which banned any affirmative presentation of homosexuality by local authorities, including schools. It also was used in campaigns that led to the lowering of the age of consent for gay sex to 16, in line with heterosexual sex.
However, this narrow view left me with an uncomfortable sense that my inconsistencies and contradictions meant that I was never quite, never just, gay. Despite being a valuable term as I came out and claimed a social identity and a community, it failed to capture the complexities of my experience in a single word.
These inconsistencies and complexities shine in queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s not-quite-definition of “queer”: “The open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone’s gender, of anyone’s sexuality aren’t made (or can’t be made) to signify monolithically.”
Sedgwick suggests that queerness is a kind of structural messiness; far from being a neat summing-up of someone’s identity, it is where the desires and behaviours which make up a person’s sexuality don’t quite add up, and so escape full understanding.
Loving your own strangeness
For me, the greatest queer films are not those which seek to confirm the myth of stable identity but, instead, open these meshes of possibility. I know of no film which does this better than Penda’s Fen.
When the film begins, Stephen stamps out all his flickering desires. He clings to clear-cut notions of gender, sex and nation, the three pillars that will secure his power as a man in society.
By the end, he has encountered the ghost of the composer Elgar, fantasised about schoolmates in homoerotic rugby scrums, and discovered that he is adopted and less English than he imagined. In this “Gnostic anarcho-punk anti-pastoral visionary work of English art”, as the writer Gary Budden calls it, all Stephen’s certainties shatter.
As he ultimately stands in the hills’ high places, tempted by the Mother and Father of England to repress confusion and embrace their idea of normality in a folk-horror echo of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, his rejection becomes a radiant queer manifesto:
“I am … nothing pure. My race is mixed. My sex is mixed. I am woman and man. Light with darkness … I am mud and flame!”
Mud and flame is what I was as a teenager living in the shadow of those same hills: the earthy and the fiery, the tangible and the transcendent, the banal and the radical, the secure and the lost. This was – although I didn’t realise it at the time – queerness, a word theorist Lee Edelman writes “can never define an identity; it can only ever disturb one”.
No film that I know captures this sense of slipping, sliding, desiring self so well as Penda’s Fen. Everyone who has ever felt the constituent parts of their own sexuality refusing to align should watch the film and fall in love with their own strangeness.
Penda’s Fen, like queerness, resists specific interpretation. It is telling that the visionary commissioning editor David Rose, who oversaw the BBC Birmingham drama department and greenlit Penda’s Fen, confessed that he “didn’t understand it at all, but that’s as it should be”. This attitude is unimaginable in commissioners today.
Clarke’s film is a blend of folk horror motifs, the politics of society and character-driven drama that cracks open meaning just as the church floor fractures when Stephen plays the organ discordantly.
Viewers new to the film should experience its extraordinary final sequence without spoilers, but I will say that the closing images of Stephen – that
“strange, dark, true, impure, and dissonant” protagonist – offer me the thrill of queerness’s unsettled, unsettle-able politics.
Benedict Morrison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In a summer cinema release schedule filled with sequels, remakes and franchise instalments, Disney’s latest animation Elio is a rare original story.
Recently, much has been written and hands been wrung about the lack of original films in Hollywood. Indeed, Disney CEO Bob Iger announced in 2024 that the studio’s output would primarily be sequels, saying: “There’s a lot of value in the sequels obviously because they’re known and it takes less in terms of marketing”. At least he’s honest.
Elio is an unknown entity for the studio and indeed for 2025’s cinema goers. Fittingly, the film tackles the most unknown entities of all: outer space and life beyond Earth. What does this new story have to offer today’s cinema audiences who are accustomed to characters they already know and onscreen worlds that they have already visited?
Elio tells the story of Elio Solis (Yonas Kibreab), a lonely newly orphaned boy who is fascinated with space and aliens. He lives in California with his Aunt Olga (Zoe Saldana), a major in the US Air Force.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
When aliens make contact one night, Elio secretly answers their call and is brought to the “Communiverse” in outer space, a brightly coloured world that is populated with aliens. Mistakenly identified as Earth’s leader, Elio is tasked with solving an intergalactic crisis in this new alien world – a world in which he increasingly feels he belongs. Elio needs to decide whether to leave Earth forever, or if there is no place like home.
Characteristic of Disney (Pixar), the film’s visuals are audaciously stunning. Space is depicted as a twinkling magical canvas upon which Elio can dream, and sweeping, majestic images of Earth beg to be seen on a large cinema screen. The Communiverse is depicted beautifully in iridescent colours. But, against this spectacular setting, the characters ring a little hollow.
Elio is given little emotional depth, and in the Communiverse there are simply too many aliens for an audience to connect with. Elio’s new friend Glorgon is the exception here, and his open-hearted comedic wonder will certainly appeal to younger viewers. Aunt Olga is disappointingly underdeveloped and her status as a military major is presented as at odds with her new role as Elio’s caregiver.
The film forgoes much of Olga’s story in favour of a zany subplot between Glorgon and his alien father who need to reconnect. This feels like a missed opportunity and a superficial effort to depict a female character of high military rank that falls short of giving her any real agency or power in the film.
Strikingly, the filmmakers use audio clips of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos to amplify the film’s message about life and connection. These are accompanied with spectacular visuals of space and constellations. But these audio clips have a solemnity that seems out of place alongside an alien blob called Glorgon who has daddy issues.
This oddness of tone is woven throughout the film, laced with peril that feels unthreatening, comedic moments which stop before the belly laugh, and sentimental scenes that cut before the tears flow. Characters and plotlines are plentiful but consequently, the film spreads itself too thin, leaving the entire story feeling underdeveloped and somewhat shallow.
There is a lot of everything in this film, and certainly something for everyone. And maybe that’s the point. In the past two decades, we’ve moved from a shared cultural canon to a stratified ecosystem of personalised content streams.
In this entertainment landscape, a film like Elio could appeal to everyone a little bit, rather than become anyone’s firm favourite. Everyone in the family will enjoy a part of this film, albeit different parts. I particularly enjoyed the scenes where Elio’s clone is living on Earth.
This may well be Disney’s strategy: to release an original story with broad appeal in order to mitigate the risks associated with untested stories and characters. This may prove financially viable initially, but will it create films with enduring legacies that generate franchises and spawn sequels?
I fear Elio will not. The film provides little more than a passable afternoon at the cinema. It is pleasant, forgettable and safe – unlikely to live in the memory to “infinity and beyond”, like previous Disney releases.
Laura O’Flanagan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian Emery, Associate Professor in International Politics, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies, UCL
The US president, Donald Trump, is weighing up whether to join Israel in attacking Iran. The fact he is even contemplating such a move is, in my opinion, a direct consequence of his 2018 decision to tear up the agreement negotiated during Barack Obama’s presidency that limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities in return for sanctions relief.
Trump not only squandered the opportunity to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions severely. He also shut the door on showing Iran that diplomacy and economic development could offer a more promising path than proxy warfare.
The Obama administration’s core strategic rationale behind the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, or joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), was that amid several devastating regional wars and an American public weary of costly military interventions, a war with Iran would be disastrous. This was especially true given the growing US desire to pivot toward containing China.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Obama challenged opponents of the deal to propose a credible alternative. And Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed US Congress to make the case against the JCPOA. He argued that it would not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
But Obama ultimately succeeded in persuading the American public that the only real alternative to a negotiated agreement with Iran was yet another war in the Middle East.
Trump believed that exiting the JCPOA and crushing the Iranian economy would either force the regime to accept major restrictions on its nuclear programme and moderate its regional behaviour, or cause the entire theocratic system to collapse.
What followed instead was a sharp escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf. Iran exercised greater reliance on its regional proxy network, with attacks on US personnel increasing. It simultaneously increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
When Trump took office in 2017, the JCPOA had already eliminated 98% of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. It also capped enrichment at 3.7%, well below the level required for a nuclear bomb.
The situation has changed since Trump’s withdrawal. Israel’s central justification for launching its attack against Iran on June 15 was the International Atomic Energy Agency’s determination that Iran had now amassed over 408kg of uranium enriched up to 60%. Netanyahu claimed that Iran could be “within a few months” of producing a nuclear weapon.
However, even with these serious violations, US intelligence has consistently stated that Iran is not actively pursuing such a weapon. It recently assessed that, even if Iran decided to do so, it was up to three years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon that it could deliver to a target of its choosing.
Netanyahu may have wanted to attack Iran anyway. He has repeatedly claimed over the past 15 years that immediate military action was needed to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
But it would have been harder to justify an attack on Iran if it possessed no highly enriched uranium and was verifiably complying with the JCPOA. Iran had stuck to the JCPOA for four years, including one year after the US withdrew, and there is no evidence to suggest it wouldn’t have kept to a deal that Iran clearly saw as being in its interests.
Maximum pressure campaign
Iran’s developing nuclear programme may be the immediate pretext for the current escalation. But Iran’s proxy warfare strategy, using regional militant groups to fight Israel and serve as pressure points it can activate when threatened, forms the other essential backdrop.
This strategy pre-dates the Trump administration. But Trump’s so-called “maximum pressure” campaign clearly escalated tensions in the Middle East, making direct confrontation between Israel and Iran more likely.
When Trump enacted sanctions aiming to eliminate Iran’s oil and gas exports, Tehran retaliated by using its strategic position in the Strait of Hormuz to harass Gulf shipping. In September 2019, an Iranian drone attack on a Saudi oil processing facility temporarily took out 50% of Saudi oil production.
Iran would normally have zero interest in disrupting Gulf shipping. This is because its own gas and oil must travel through the Strait of Hormuz. But its strategy was to deter Trump’s economic warfare by showing that it would not be the only one to suffer.
Tehran unsurprisingly viewed Trump’s policy as an attempt to deliver regime change and responded by doubling down on its “forward defence” strategy. Iran increased its military, financial and political backing of proxy groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. And it also continued development of its ballistic missile programme.
Before 2018, the US estimated that Iran was sending about US$200 million (£148 million) annually to the Lebanese armed group, Hezbollah. By 2020, it was sending US$700 million.
Trump’s repudiation of the JCPOA also critically damaged more moderate voices in Iran. In 2017, the success of the JCPOA helped propel reformist president Hassan Rouhani to a second term in office. However, in 2021, the regime prevented key moderate figures from standing.
Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner who had lost against Rouhani in 2017 and was already under US sanctions, was elected as Iran’s president. Raisi and his faction demanded tougher terms for any future nuclear deal – more sanctions relief upfront and binding guarantees against another US withdrawal.
This frustrated attempts to revive the agreement under Joe Biden’s presidency, as only Congress could offer such guarantees. This was an improbable prospect amid escalating tensions with a more hostile, nuclear-advanced Iran that was increasingly aligning with Russia.
None of this absolves Iran of its own intransigence, support for terrorism or brutalisation of its own citizens. Nor does it free the Islamic Republic of criticism over its decision to abandon the nuclear limits agreed under the JCPOA – even if it was the US that first broke the deal.
Ultimately, though, the conditions that led to this war would almost certainly not have arisen without Trump’s mishandling of Iran policy in his first administration. It was a precursor to the abysmal leadership he’s demonstrating in this war.
Christian Emery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Oh no! You dropped your keys on the ground, and it is too dark to see them. You might have to feel the ground with your hands, but a mouse could use its whiskers to find the keys.
Mouse whiskers, also known as the vibrissa system, are long facial hairs which are sensitive to touch and allow mice to feel around their environment. As a whisker touches something, the sensory neurons at the hair follicle activate. These neurons send electrical signals to the animal’s central nervous system, which interprets them into information about the features of the environment.
But a recent study by neuroscience PhD candidate Ben Efron and his colleagues suggested that mice may use their whiskers to explore their surroundings in ways other than the sense of touch.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
The sensory system of mice is especially useful for nocturnal animals like mice that navigate in lightless burrows and in the dark corners of our houses. Mice can use specialised muscles to move their whiskers in patterns. They can also do this by turning their head. This behaviour is called whisking. Rodents use various whisking patterns depending on whether it is running, turning or examining an object. The faster the mouse runs, the faster the whisker movements are.
The researchers behind the new study noticed that mouse whiskers make subtle sounds when they touch surfaces. They measured the electrical activity of neurons in the auditory cortex (a brain area that processes sound) of whisking mice and discovered that these sounds induce brain activity.
This happened even when the nerve connection that conveys touch sensation from the whiskers to the brain was cut, suggesting that mice can detect these sounds as a separate sensory input with their auditory system. The researchers also trained mice to recognise specific surfaces solely based on the sounds that their whiskers produced.
Scientists generally have believed that whiskers only help mice explore their surrounding via touch. But these results indicate whiskers provide sound information to mice too. Whether other animals with whiskers can do this too remains to be studied.
Integrating information from several senses in this way may help animals make a more accurate interpretation of the world around them. Like mice with their whiskers, you can acquire multisensory information about the location of your lost keys with your hands. You might not identify them based on how they feel when you tap them but the familiar sound of the keys jingling would tell you that you have found them.
Every animal perceives the world differently through the unique combination of the senses that they have. There is a secret world of sounds and vibrations around us that we cannot experience.
The way mice in the recent study identified objects based on sounds resembles, in part, echolocation that some bats and aquatic mammals like dolphins use for navigation. Echolocating bats produce ultrasounds – meaning that they are too high in frequency for humans to hear them – which reflect from surrounding surfaces. Bats can navigate their way in total darkness and detect prey such as moths by listening to these echoes.
Lunar moth tails make an acoustic signal that seems to make bats zero in on the tail rather than more vital body parts. Jay Ondreicka/Shutterstock
Elephants make vocalisations known as rumbles that are infrasonic, meaning that they are too low in frequency for humans to hear them. Elephants, however, seem to use rumbles for long distance communication. Rumbles travel through air as sound signals and through the ground as seismic signals which can travel up to 6km.
It’s not completely clear how elephants detect seismic signals. Detection may happen through vibration-sensitive organs in their feet and/or through bone conduction hearing. During bone conduction hearing, vibrations do not enter the inner ear as airborne sounds but as vibrations of bones and tissues. You can experience this by placing a vibrating tuning fork on the bony part of your head behind your ear or on your tooth. Suddenly, you can hear the tuning fork vibrating loudly.
Why should we be interested in this secret world that cannot be detected by human senses? First, human-generated environmental change, which includes noise pollution, poses significant threats to many species and ecosystems.
For example, maritime noise interferes with sound communication of whales and dolphins while human-made noise on land disturbs nesting birds. To protect animals from these harmful effects, we need to understand how their sensory systems are affected.
Secondly, bio-inspired innovations are waiting to be discovered. So keep in mind next time when parking a car with ultrasound-based parking sensors that echolocating bats have had access to this navigation technique for more than tens of millions of years.
Tommi Anttonen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The recent success of the Netflix show Adolescence has drawn attention to misogynistic rhetoric and how it spreads online. Safeline, an organisation supporting survivors of sexual abuse, has warned that terms like “high-value” and “low-value men” (also described as “alpha” and “beta” men) are being used to radicalise boys, drawing them into embracing such rhetoric.
Last year, Elon Musk shared a post that argued only “high T alpha males” – men with high testosterone levels – can think freely and are most qualified to lead and govern. Relevant here is the reach of influencers like Andrew Tate, a self-described misogynist who, with his brother, is now facing 21 charges in the UK including rape and human trafficking, all of which they deny.
What do these terms mean, and how harmful are they?
The terms alpha and beta male are pseudoscientific terms used to push a concept of masculinity as necessarily hierarchical and aggressive. The theory frames the ideal of a man as someone who is financially successful, assertive, strong, logical and a “natural” leader.
Boys and girls are together facing an uncertain world. But research shows they are diverging when it comes to attitudes about masculinity, feminism and gender equality.
Social media, politics, and identity all play a role. But what’s really going on with boys and girls? Join The Conversation UK and Cumberland Lodge’s Youth and Democracy project at Newcastle University for a discussion of these issues with young people and academic experts. Tickets available here.
Acquiring high-value status is not viewed merely as key to success in life, but also for attracting what are seen as high-value – namely virtuous and physically attractive – women, as well.
Common and serious use of terms like alpha or high-value male were once largely confined to niche internet subcultures like the manosphere and incel (involuntary celibate) forums. But they have broken into the mainstream through influencers like Tate, whose followers describe him as “Top G”.
Changing norms?
There are also signs that the ideas around what it means to be “high value” are changing from the traditional, hegemonic view of masculinity. An interesting case study is Ashton Hall, whose morning routine video recently garnered millions of views on TikTok, and was widely discussed online.
The male self-improvement influencer’s meticulously structured day comprises a series of self-optimisation tasks, starting with push-ups at 4am, journalling by 4.40am, and dunking his face in ice water before hitting the gym at 6.20am. After another ice-water face plunge and some hours of work, the video ends with a woman presenting him with his evening meal.
It is interesting to see Hall take practices traditionally seen as feminine, like journalling and skincare, and embrace them as part of an otherwise very traditionally masculine morning routine.
Another hypermasculine influencer, Hamza, also blends his tough man demeanour with practices like meditation, nutrition and wellness. He frames these habits as “warrior training”. Such practices, then, are not viewed as feminine or emasculating.
Face masks and self-care have been rebranded by some as part of a masculine routine. G-Stock Studio/Shutterstock
Masculinity today is influenced by neoliberal ideals, where a man’s value is measured by his productivity and success. Practices like self-care are branded as discipline and performance-enhancing tools, used to construct the most optimised, competitive version of the male self.
Ashton Hall may not describe himself as an “alpha male”, but in many respects he embodies the idealised neoliberal archetype of masculinity: physical strength, wealth and material possessions.
While Tate’s displays of wealth and women are clear performances of masculine dominance, Hall’s more restrained approach fits within the same hierarchy. In both, “value” is defined by discipline, social ascendancy and power, especially over women. In Hall’s video, it is a woman’s hands that can be seen preparing and serving his food, reinforcing traditional gender roles.
Why is it harmful?
It’s important to note that not all hypermasculine influencers are necessarily bad role models for young men and boys.
But, as we have explored in a recent report, self-improvement content can be a key gateway into the misogynistic digital space of the manosphere.
In our analysis of online discussions, we found that many of those drawn to hypermasculine influencers reported struggling with various offline vulnerabilities. These included experiencing big life changes, anxiety, depression, bullying and social isolation, and also being neurodiverse. Young followers described motivational content as having “saved” them. Others came across this content through otherwise innocuous searches about getting better abs or finding a girlfriend.
One 15-year-old in our research, for example, recalled being severely bullied at school. He said that after adopting a strict routine inspired by Tate (waking at 6 am, pursuing fitness, cutting out social media), “Now people respect me.”
Initially, what young men find may boost their confidence. But in encountering the promotion of unrealistic standards for self-improvement and a “hustle culture” mentality, they may be indoctrinated into an online world of rigidity and misogyny.
Assigning worth to men based on social and economic status has personal and societal consequences. It presents failure to meet these standards as a path to loneliness and suffering, and frames following self-improvement influencers as the only solution.
The appeal of self-improvement lies in its promise of transformation – from a state of dissatisfaction and unfulfillment to one of abundance, empowerment and power. Even followers of Tate’s who say they don’t agree with his views of women are drawn to his financial and business success.
While presented as aspirational, being “high-value” is typically reserved to those with privileges of time and wealth, making it inherently exclusive and inaccessible to most. More importantly, it encourages a worldview where people are judged not for who they are, but for rather how much they produce and what they can offer.
Such rhetoric reduces human relationships to metrics-based transactions based on a hierarchical order where only those who have accumulated the most power, wealth, and success rise to the top. Andrew Tate’s “Top G” persona rests on this understanding of human relations, resulting in a hyper-competitive transactional model of masculinity.
More concerning is the ease through which this discourse lends itself to misogynistic narratives. In one video, Tate describes how a “body count [the number of sexual partners] is the easiest way to judge the value of a woman”.
This metric, which men are exempted from, becomes the standard that men can use to asses and demean women. It reveals the true intentions behind concepts such as “high value” – a way to rank men and justify the control and devaluation of women, further reinforcing systems of power and male dominance.
Jwana Aziz receives funding by University of Birmingham QR Policy Support Funding and a donation from the Barker Family Trust.
Anna Lavis has previously received funding for research into online harms from Wellcome, Samaritans and the ESRC, and the work on which this article draws was funded by University of Birmingham QR Policy Support Funding and a donation from the Barker Family Trust.
Anna sits on Meta’s Eating Disorders and Body Image Global Experts Advisory Board, but receives no payment for this work.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian van Nieuwerburgh, Professor of Coaching and Positive Psychology, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences
Are you losing faith in humanity because of everything that is going on right now? If so, that is no surprise. Our habit of “doomscrolling” convinces us that people are inherently self-centred and uncaring.
Psychologists have been interested in the darker side of human personality for decades. The so-called dark triad of Machiavellianism, narcissism and sociopathy have attracted intense scrutiny. People high in these darker traits tend to be manipulative, self-centred and lacking in empathy.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
In response to this, American psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman and his colleagues have highlighted positive aspects of humanity with their research into the “light triad”.
The light triad emphasises the positive aspects of human nature – Kantianism (treating people as inherently valuable rather than as means to an end), humanism and faith in humanity. Those who score high on the light triad see the inherent value in others, believe in human goodness and treat people with dignity and respect.
In his blog for Scientific American, Kaufman argues that these positive aspects of personality are “just as worthy of research attention and cultivation in a society that sometimes forgets that not only is there goodness in the world, but there is also goodness in each of us”.
(Anyone curious about where they fall on the light triad scale can find out for free online by completing a questionnaire.)
By taking a balanced view of personality, we remind ourselves of the breadth of possibility within each of us. Human beings are capable of performing wonderful, heartwarming acts of kindness, just as they are capable of acts of selfishness and cruelty.
We all have traits from both the dark and light triads. When we’re at our best, we’re sociable, positive, supportive and forgiving. Human nature isn’t black and white. Embracing this complexity can help us to be more compassionate to ourselves and others.
With all the challenges we face today, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and lose sight of our shared humanity. But it is especially now that we should avoid that. Let’s remember the potential for kindness, altruism and compassion that exists within all of us. Here are five simple ways to boost our hopefulness.
Engage in small acts of kindness
Try simple everyday gestures such as letting someone go ahead of you in line, allowing a car to merge in traffic or simply offering a warm smile. These small acts of kindness can brighten someone’s day, boost your mood and encourage others who witness them.
Show compassion
Compassion is crucial. Start by being gentle with yourself. Practise self-compassion by going easy on yourself during tough moments. Extend that same compassion to others. Remember that everyone is always in the middle of something. A bit of patience, a few kind words or a genuine acknowledgement can make a big difference.
Spread positivity
Instead of sharing negative news in your WhatsApp groups, make a conscious effort to highlight positive and uplifting stories from within your network or community. Share articles or videos that inspire hope and celebrate human kindness. By spreading positivity, you can play your part in counterbalancing our negativity bias and create a more hopeful narrative about the world we live in.
Listen intentionally
In a world full of distractions, offering someone your full, undivided attention can be a powerful act. Take the time to really listen to others, making them feel seen, valued and heard.
By being present in your conversations and engaging in “radical listening”, you not only strengthen your connection with the other person but also create a more humanising environment.
As human beings, we thrive through social connections. Get involved by participating in community events. Join a litter-picking group, offer to volunteer at the local school, get involved in charity fundraisers or even set up a casual coffee morning. These activities will help you feel more connected while reinforcing the idea that we all belong to something bigger and can make a difference together.
Every positive action and enriching conversation counts. By doing these small things, you will be playing your part in reigniting hope in our shared humanity. It starts with each of us choosing to be compassionate, listening radically and seeing the good in others.
Christian van Nieuwerburgh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Charitable donors often make gifts despite having little information about the organizations they support. Without relevant data, that money may not flow to the charities that evidence suggests are delivering the biggest bang for donors’ bucks.
But getting good information about what donors call “impact” takes money, time and effort. If donors are responsible for those costs, then they may not obtain the data, and charities would be less likely to produce the data in the first place.
I’m a public and international affairs professor who researches nonprofits and philanthropy.. I conducted a study in 2023 with Chengxin Xu and Huafang Li, two other scholars of nonprofit management, to better understand whether these costs influence how donors pick charities. Through this study, which involved nearly 2,000 U.S. adults, we were able to estimate how much impact may be lost when donors incur information costs themselves.
Impact refers to the effects a charity achieves. Donors can try to get the most impact per dollar by supporting charities that achieve high impact at low cost.
We asked the participants in our experiment to choose one of 10 hypothetical charities to receive support. All the charities had the same mission: “to save lives.” Everyone was paired with a fictitious partner who would also be supporting the selected charity. Before choosing, the participant had the option to obtain information about each organization’s impact per dollar.
About half the time, the participant could pay for the information themselves out of their own hypothetical budget. In the other half, they could tell their partner to pay out of their partner’s budget. The charity would receive the combined gifts, minus any money paid for information. The total amount spent stayed the same no matter who paid or whether anyone paid.
When someone else paid, participants were more likely to direct their gifts to more efficient charities, raising the average impact of donations by about 13%. In other words, donors gave smarter when someone else picked up the tab for the information.
If shifting information costs can boost the impact of charitable giving by 13%, then applying that gain to just one-tenth of that giving could potentially unlock about $7 billion worth of additional impact. Funders who are very interested in the potential of data to increase impact, such as effective altruists, philanthropists who emphasize outcomes, and some large foundations, may be willing to bear the costs so others don’t have to. The challenge is that not all donors are equally willing to pay for information that could increase the impact of charitable giving.
Other research findings have suggested that most Americans want to see data about the impact that charities have, but it is not obvious where the funding for this should come from. If charities cover the cost themselves, then they are essentially asking their donors to pay for it. But many donors may want all their gifts to pay for program delivery, not data production.
What still isn’t known
It’s unclear how well these findings would translate into real-world giving behavior. Donors’ appetite for information that comes at the expense of direct services may be limited, even if it improves the overall impact of their gifts. And using data about impact per dollar to guide giving could have downsides. For example, it might reward work that is easy to measure and discourage efforts that are just as important but are harder to assess, or just take longer for the results to be seen.
What’s next
Philanthropists can access more data about charities than ever before. Platforms like Candid and Charity Navigator offer the potential to harness that data to better inform donors. Organizations like GiveWell go even further, recommending specific charities based on rigorous data analysis. I’ll be studying these kinds of opportunities for boosting the impact of charitable giving, because when donors are better informed, they can accomplish more with their money.
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
George E. Mitchell receives funding from the Baruch College Fund.
Charitable donors often make gifts despite having little information about the organizations they support. Without relevant data, that money may not flow to the charities that evidence suggests are delivering the biggest bang for donors’ bucks.
But getting good information about what donors call “impact” takes money, time and effort. If donors are responsible for those costs, then they may not obtain the data, and charities would be less likely to produce the data in the first place.
I’m a public and international affairs professor who researches nonprofits and philanthropy.. I conducted a study in 2023 with Chengxin Xu and Huafang Li, two other scholars of nonprofit management, to better understand whether these costs influence how donors pick charities. Through this study, which involved nearly 2,000 U.S. adults, we were able to estimate how much impact may be lost when donors incur information costs themselves.
Impact refers to the effects a charity achieves. Donors can try to get the most impact per dollar by supporting charities that achieve high impact at low cost.
We asked the participants in our experiment to choose one of 10 hypothetical charities to receive support. All the charities had the same mission: “to save lives.” Everyone was paired with a fictitious partner who would also be supporting the selected charity. Before choosing, the participant had the option to obtain information about each organization’s impact per dollar.
About half the time, the participant could pay for the information themselves out of their own hypothetical budget. In the other half, they could tell their partner to pay out of their partner’s budget. The charity would receive the combined gifts, minus any money paid for information. The total amount spent stayed the same no matter who paid or whether anyone paid.
When someone else paid, participants were more likely to direct their gifts to more efficient charities, raising the average impact of donations by about 13%. In other words, donors gave smarter when someone else picked up the tab for the information.
If shifting information costs can boost the impact of charitable giving by 13%, then applying that gain to just one-tenth of that giving could potentially unlock about $7 billion worth of additional impact. Funders who are very interested in the potential of data to increase impact, such as effective altruists, philanthropists who emphasize outcomes, and some large foundations, may be willing to bear the costs so others don’t have to. The challenge is that not all donors are equally willing to pay for information that could increase the impact of charitable giving.
Other research findings have suggested that most Americans want to see data about the impact that charities have, but it is not obvious where the funding for this should come from. If charities cover the cost themselves, then they are essentially asking their donors to pay for it. But many donors may want all their gifts to pay for program delivery, not data production.
What still isn’t known
It’s unclear how well these findings would translate into real-world giving behavior. Donors’ appetite for information that comes at the expense of direct services may be limited, even if it improves the overall impact of their gifts. And using data about impact per dollar to guide giving could have downsides. For example, it might reward work that is easy to measure and discourage efforts that are just as important but are harder to assess, or just take longer for the results to be seen.
What’s next
Philanthropists can access more data about charities than ever before. Platforms like Candid and Charity Navigator offer the potential to harness that data to better inform donors. Organizations like GiveWell go even further, recommending specific charities based on rigorous data analysis. I’ll be studying these kinds of opportunities for boosting the impact of charitable giving, because when donors are better informed, they can accomplish more with their money.
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
George E. Mitchell receives funding from the Baruch College Fund.
Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.
The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.
The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.
Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.
So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.
Australia closes embassy in Tehran
Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.
“At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”
Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”
Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.
Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.
Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.
Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.
About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.
Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.
The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.
The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.
Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.
So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.
Australia closes embassy in Tehran
Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.
“At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”
Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”
Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.
Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.
Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.
Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.
About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.
Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.
Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.
This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).
Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.
The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.
But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.
Who’s trying to buy – and why?
Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.
First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.
They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.
Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.
And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.
ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Marco Curaba/Shutterstock
Defining national interest
For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.
One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.
Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.
There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.
This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.
And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.
The national interest checklist
On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.
If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?
The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.
The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:
national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
energy security and domestic gas supply
other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
the character of the investor
the complexity of regulation.
The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.
This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.
The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.
All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.
It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.
Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.
The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.
Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.
This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).
Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.
The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.
But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.
Who’s trying to buy – and why?
Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.
First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.
They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.
Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.
And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.
ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Marco Curaba/Shutterstock
Defining national interest
For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.
One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.
Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.
There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.
This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.
And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.
The national interest checklist
On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.
If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?
The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.
The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:
national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
energy security and domestic gas supply
other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
the character of the investor
the complexity of regulation.
The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.
This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.
The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.
All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.
It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.
Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.
These include volunteers with metropolitan and rural fire services and other rescue organisations.
As natural disasters grow more frequent and severe with climate change we rely on these volunteers now more than ever. Yet volunteer numbers are shrinking.
Our new research reveals an important but often hidden toll from natural disasters – the mental health of emergency service volunteers, who risk physical and emotional burnout.
In our study, we interviewed 32 Victorian State Emergency Service (SES) and Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers. They told us they’re often not getting adequate support.
Exposure to death
Death is something commonly hidden behind clinical curtains. But for emergency service volunteers, exposure to dying and death is just part of the job. Death on jobs arrives unpredictably – on roads, in burned homes, after storms, floods and suicides.
Given their work often takes place in the local community, victims are frequently known to the volunteer, which can further complicate grief. As one participant told us:
You’re bound to come across someone you know, or someone you love at some point […] in a bad situation.
Another recounted a colleague’s experience:
It wasn’t until the next day that she found out that she actually knew the deceased person, but didn’t recognise them.
Volunteers described often being first on scene to assist but not fully prepared for what they find. They recounted experiences including retrieving children who had drowned, watching people dying on the roadside, and finding burnt and maimed human remains.
These encounters provoke intense emotional responses, from shock and sadness to feeling powerless and vulnerable. For many, feelings of helplessness and grief reverberate into everyday life. As one volunteer told us:
I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place […] having flashbacks […] struggling to hold emotions and do my day job.
A lack of formal support
We identified over-reliance on informal team support and individual resilience to cope with difficult emotions.
Structured debriefs depended on leadership and team dynamics. Leaders with “tough it out” mindsets unintentionally perpetuated stigma around seeking help. One participant explained:
People generally will just sit there and not talk about how they feel […] They’re feeling ashamed or embarrassed.
The mindset of some teams seems to be that those who can’t manage the demands of the job should leave. One volunteer said:
It’s mostly very hard and tough. But if you’re going to survive in the game, you gotta be hard.
Support programs exist, but often focus on major disasters rather than the more everyday jobs. Referral depends on leaders flagging those seen as at-risk or individual volunteers asking for support. One participant explained:
We do a debrief with peer support, but some people put on a brave face […] There needs to be more follow up.
What’s more, support is sometimes difficult to access. One participant, a team leader, explained what happened when a volunteer in their team wasn’t coping:
I called the mechanisms that [we] were told that we need to access. I’ve got somebody here that’s suicidal, nobody escalated it. I still hadn’t heard back six hours later.
Importantly, our findings also highlighted that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. For some, peer support is a lifeline for processing experiences and building resilience, but not for others.
Five women killed. And the peer support was all over us. You know, we got to the stage where it was ridiculous. We’ve had enough, we don’t want this. It re-traumatises people who want to move on.
Talking to emergency service volunteers from only two organisations in one jurisdiction may limit the extent to which we can generalise our findings to other regions, countries or cultures.
However, Victoria does have the second largest number of emergency service volunteers in Australia (behind New South Wales).
Emergency service volunteers are extremely proud and passionate about serving their community and show up with care, calm and strength. But our findings show this comes at a personal cost, especially without the right supports.
Volunteer exposure to death and dying must be recognised as a serious occupational health and safety issue, not just an emotional side effect of the job. We need proactive, not reactive reform if we want to recruit, retain and protect the people we count on in a crisis.
Legislators and organisations should work collaboratively with emergency service volunteers to develop and implement responsive and consistent support services, culture and leadership.
Without targeted, systemic and consistent support, we risk the future of our community-based emergency response. It’s time to protect those who protect us.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A recently announced Pentagon review of the AUKUS pact has sparked a renewed bout of debate in Australia. Led by the “AUKUS-agnostic” US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, the review raises serious questions over whether Australia will receive its US-made Virginia-class submarines on schedule from 2032.
AUKUS supporters suggest the review is not overly concerning – they point out governments typically review major programs after taking office. As they note, the UK Labour government did the same when it commissioned Sir Stephen Lovegrove to review AUKUS in 2024. Moreover, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is currently reviewing AUKUS.
Crucially, however, not all reviews are created equal. Given the US assessment is, according to US officials, being conducted to ensure alignment with the imperatives of “America first”, there is a risk the US will not supply Australia with the Virgina-class submarines it feels it requires to deter China. The UK reviews, on the other hand, did not and do not carry such risks.
The findings of the Lovegrove review remain confidential, but have been shared with Canberra and were incorporated into the UK government’s recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The Defence Select Committee is yet to report, but being public, its findings are likely to generate further debate in Australia.
Why are the UK reviews different?
The Defence Select Committee review, launched independently of the government, is an accountability mechanism that scrutinises progress but lacks the power to set policy.
Meanwhile, the Lovegrove review was never intended to question AUKUS, as its terms of reference made clear. Instead, its focus was more on what progress has been made so far and any barriers that might inhibit future success.
There was never any real chance the Lovegrove review would end or amend the UK’s participation in AUKUS, because it has widespread support across mainstream British politics. In foreign and security policy terms, cross-party consensus is the norm in the UK.
However, in the case of AUKUS, two specific factors stand out.
First, AUKUS provides a welcome means to share the burden on a project the UK was already pursuing. Even before AUKUS was announced, the UK had initiated plans for its next generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines, awarding initial design contracts to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth £85 million (A$170 million).
Second, AUKUS has been a crucial component of the UK’s post-Brexit re-emergence. Coming after a period in which Brexit negotiations consumed the British government, it provided important substance to “Global Britain” and its Indo-Pacific tilt.
AUKUS’s cross-party appeal might initially seem strange, given its close association with Boris Johnson’s Brexiteer government. After all, with its “Britain Reconnected” plan, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has been keen to demonstrate how it differs from its Conservative predecessors. This most recent example comes with the SDR’s NATO-first approach, which some interpreted as a sharp break.
However, this is a difference in style rather than substance. Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government had announced Britain had delivered the tilt and would focus on consolidating its position.
In other words, it was making no new commitments. The SDR does not amend this position. It makes clear that “NATO first does not mean NATO only”. This means continuing support for agreements such as AUKUS, which, according to the review, are crucial to shaping the global security environment.
Whether Britain has the capability to shape the global security environment is a question the SDR addresses, if implicitly, by acknowledging the “hollowing out” of the UK’s armed forces. Reconstituting Britain’s armed forces is consequently a key focus of Starmer’s government, which sees rearmament as a route to reindustrialisation.
Militarisation as central to ‘rebirth’
In this rebirth, the government is focusing heavily on the arms industry as a means to bring well-paid, high-skilled jobs to post-industrial parts of the country. There is debate about whether this is the best way to create jobs and growth, but the Starmer government has gone all-in on the strategy.
Indeed, one of the most notable outcomes of the SDR is that the UK plans to invest substantial sums in its fleet of attack submarines, as it plans to go from seven Astute-class boats to 12 AUKUS-class ones.
This ambition may provide some comfort to Australian observers as it indicates the scale of the UK’s commitment to AUKUS. Still, achieving the goal will require a significant increase in industrial capacity, as Britain will need to produce a new submarine every 18 months. The record of the UK government on major capital projects suggests this is a heroic ambition.
For example, the last three Astute-class boats to be commissioned took between 130 and 132 months to build. The sixth and seventh boats of the nearly 25-year-old program are yet to enter service. Moreover, even the active Astute boats are beset by problems; in the first half of 2024, none of the five in-service boats completed an operational deployment due to maintenance issues.
So, while in the context of the US review, Britain’s commitment is likely welcomed, any comfort must be tempered by the expectation that problems will also likely emanate from Britain.
Tom Howe is a Young Professionals Member of the AIIA.
BEARING WITNESS:By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem
Kia ora koutou,
I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground.
At least 16 killed by Israeli airstrike on al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza. 92 killed across Gaza in total, a significant number while seeking aid. 15 months after the shocking “flour massacre”, Israeli forces are now committing daily massacres against Gazan residents desperately seeking food due to Israel’s policy of forced starvation. These ongoing war crimes have been met with indifference, justification, and ongoing impunity from global leaders.
*
Jerusalem’s Old City markets remain closed for the seventh consecutive day after restrictions were imposed under the pretext of “wartime emergency”. Meanwhile, across the besieged West Bank the occupation forces continue demolishing homes in Tulkarm and Jenin refugee camps, where more than 40,000 residents have been displaced by Israel’s months-long “military operation”.
Israeli soldiers occupying houses south of Jenin as military barracks, embedding themselves among Palestinian civilians as they have for several days in Al Khalil/Hebron.
Around two-dozen young men detained in Asakra village south-east of Bethlehem, and several more in Laban village, south of Nablus. A young man, Moataz, 22, was executed by Israeli forces in his home village of Wolja west of Bethlehem. Movement of ambulances has been affected by gasoline shortages in Bethlehem. Forces invaded Plata camp in East Nablus for the second day in a row.
*
Israel bombed the outskirts of Shabaa town, in southern Lebanon, yet another violation of ceasefire agreements.
*
An Iranian missile hit Beersheba’s Soroka hospital in southern Israel last night, with no resulting casualties — Iran claiming it targeted a nearby military site. Outrage at the war crime has highlighted widespread double-standards across Israeli society and globally. Israeli forces have destroyed, bombed, or damaged 38 hospitals in Gaza over their 20-month genocidal war on the enclave, with the World Health Organisation recording around 700 attacks on Gazan healthcare facilities in that same period. Israeli residents have erected tents, transforming an underground parking lot into a bomb shelter.
*
Several more retaliatory volleys of Iranian missiles targeted the Israeli territories throughout the day, as heavy Israeli assaults continued on Iranian territories. Israel’s reported death toll has risen to 24, with Iran’s rising to 639.
Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 20, 2025.
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland CUHRIG/Getty This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room
Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic. Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling
Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University MAYA LAB/Shutterstock Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that
A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal. The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the
6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University Wander Women/ Getty Images Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools. About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting
Keith Rankin Analysis – America’s imperial ‘gifts’: ‘Crusader Democracy’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’ Analysis by Keith Rankin. The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export. ‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history.
Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the
Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University Louise Beaumont/Getty When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react? Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting
Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and
Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized
Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever. Unlike the
New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if
A war on diplomacy itself – Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran ANALYSIS: By Joe Hendren Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Why New Zealand has paused funding to the Cook Islands over China deal BACKGROUNDER: By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor/presenter;Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific; and Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year. This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local
Egyptian crackdown on Gaza blockade busters but Kiwi activists vow to ‘defeat genocide’ SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo. In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo
The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher White, Historian, The University of Queensland The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one. As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate,
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 20, 2025.
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack
West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland CUHRIG/Getty This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room
Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic. Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling
Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University MAYA LAB/Shutterstock Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that
A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal. The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the
6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University Wander Women/ Getty Images Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools. About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting
Keith Rankin Analysis – America’s imperial ‘gifts’: ‘Crusader Democracy’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’ Analysis by Keith Rankin. The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export. ‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history.
Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the
Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University Louise Beaumont/Getty When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react? Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting
Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and
Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized
Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever. Unlike the
New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if
A war on diplomacy itself – Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran ANALYSIS: By Joe Hendren Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Why New Zealand has paused funding to the Cook Islands over China deal BACKGROUNDER: By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor/presenter;Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific; and Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year. This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local
Egyptian crackdown on Gaza blockade busters but Kiwi activists vow to ‘defeat genocide’ SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo. In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo
The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher White, Historian, The University of Queensland The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one. As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate,
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.
“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”
Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.
Ensured good outcomes Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.
“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.
“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.
In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.
‘Beg forgiveness’ Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.
“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.
“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.
“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.
“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”
Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.
Ensured good outcomes Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.
“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.
“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.
In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.
‘Beg forgiveness’ Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.
“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.
“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.
“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room Watt presumably had to woo hardest: Western Australia’s miners.
Last year, the WA mining lobby mounted an ultimately successful campaign opposing proposed changes to national environment laws, and the plan to set up an environmental protection authority. State premier Roger Cook also lobbied Prime Minister Anthony Albanese directly.
Watt has pledged to revive the reform process and on Thursday claimed a compromise could be reached. The existing laws, he said, are “not working for the environment, and they are not working for business”.
Whether his efforts will be enough to overcome the scepticism of the mining industry remains to be seen. These companies have influence – and they will use it if they see new laws as a threat.
The mining state
The mining industry dominates WA economically, politically and socially. WA’s mining sector is substantially larger than the mining interests in any other Australian state. Underground lie huge reserves of iron ore, gas, gold, lithium and many other resources.
The leaders of WA mining companies see themselves, by and large, as doing economically vital work.
I have interviewed many WA mining executives for my doctorate, which is currently underway. One clear common narrative emerged: they saw mining as a national good. They believed their companies brought wealth and prosperity to communities, built infrastructure, and funnelled money into state and federal treasuries.
The justification is powerful. It underpins the way those in the industry see their work – and how they respond to any threat, perceived or otherwise.
It also dates back over a century. The link between WA resources and prosperity originates from the 1890s WA gold rush, which transformed the fortunes of the state. This self image has been nurtured through successive resource booms, from gold to iron ore to natural gas and more gold.
Many company executives see any duplication of environmental approvals as time-consuming, unproductive and economically damaging. A 2023 WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry report suggested “green tape” (approval delays) was threatening 40% of mining proposals in the pipeline.
Miners and their political backers often frame the industry as environmentally positive, particularly for resources vital to the green energy transition such as lithium, rare earth elements and – more controversially – gas.
Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King – who is West Australian – regularly draws this link. As she said in 2023:
let me be clear, the global clean energy transition will need more mining, not less […] the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector.
WA miners are represented by well-organised and well-resourced lobbying bodies such as the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, and the Minerals Council of Australia.
These groups maintain relationships with politicians at both state and federal levels, regardless of which party is in power.
Broadly, their goals are to promote the continued expansion of resource projects (minerals, oil and gas) under conditions most advantageous to industry interests.
Mining companies use these industry lobby groups to support or critique government policy and push for changes. They exert influence through targeted lobbying, close relationships with elected officials and political candidates, and direct engagement with federal processes.
What happens when the sector sees a potential threat from policymakers in Canberra? Often, the mining companies unify against it.
For example, WA miners were prominent in the 2010 campaign against efforts by the Rudd government to introduce a super profits tax on mining.
Why WA miners oppose nature law reform
A tax is one thing. But what did the WA miners see as the key problems in the environmental reforms?
One issue was a perceived contradiction between the federal government’s intention to streamline developmental approvals and introduce a federal Environmental Protection Agency, while failing to deal with existing duplication between state and federal processes.
The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies lobby group gave another reason in a submission to government: the proposed independence of the EPA would remove the discretionary power of the minister.
Rather than an independent federal EPA, they pushed for a model similar to the WA version – the advice of which the minister can overrule. The group also warned the laws would impede the global competitiveness of the mining industry and hinder investment.
The state government echoed these statements, calling the reforms an overreach that would stifle economic development.
This alignment of government and industry messaging shows how closely their interests are intertwined.
Premier Roger Cook leaves no ambiguity about this. Ahead of this year’s WA and federal elections, Cook warned the “latte sippers” over east:
do not for a moment think that we will stand by idly and allow you to damage our economy because, ultimately, it will damage your standard of living.
Is a deal possible?
Across Australia, there is broad support for environmental law reform, because the current national laws are seen as not fit for purpose.
Murray Watt came to the role of environment minister with a reputation as a fixer. The question now is, what will he trade to get the miners on side?
The industry will be cautious and will insist on much more detail about any changes. It’s possible a deal could be struck. But we can expect to continue to see very strong pushback if Watt tries to expand federal powers into what is seen as state responsibilities.
The industry will also expect greater federal resourcing for delivery of timely approvals. Nationally important industries don’t like to wait.
Diane Dowdell is a PhD Candidate in the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) within the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland. She was the recipient of an industry scholarship from Newcrest Mining for her PhD research. She works for SLR Consulting Pty Ltd. Diane is a fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ).
The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic.
Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling mid-air refuelling, bombs and an array of intelligence.
If successful they will destroy or, more likely, destabilise the uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz and possibly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, causing them to vibrate and spin uncontrollably, generating centrifugal forces that could rupture containment systems.
Spinning at more than 50,000 rpm it wouldn’t take much of a shockwave from a blast or some other act of sabotage to do this.
There may be about half a tonne of enriched uranium and several tonnes of lower-grade material underground.
If a cascade of bunker-busting bombs like the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators got through, the heat generated would be in the hundreds, even thousands, of degrees Celsius. This would destroy the centrifuges, converting the uranium hexafluoride gas into a toxic aerosol, leading to serious radiological contamination over a wide area.
The head of the IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, warned repeatedly of the dangers over the past few days. How many people would be killed, contaminated or forced to evacuate should not have to be calculated — it should be avoided at all cost.
Divided opinions Some people think this attack is a very good idea; some think this is an act of madness by two rogue states.
On June 18, Israeli media were reporting that the US had rushed an aerial armada loaded with bunker busters to Israel while the US continued its sham denials of involvement in the war.
Analysts Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares warned this week of “Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims”. They point out that for some decades now Netanyahu has warned that Iran is weeks or even days away from having the bomb, begging successive presidents for permission to wage Judeo-Christian jihad.
In Donald Trump — the MAGA Peace Candidate — he finally got his green light.
The centrifugal forces destabilising the Iranian state The other — and possibly more significant — centrifugal force that has been unleashed is a hybrid attack on the Iranian state itself. The Americans, Israelis and their European allies hope to trigger regime change.
There are many Iranians inside and outside the country who would welcome such a development. Other Iranians suggest they should be careful of what they wish for, pointing to the human misery that follows, as night follows day, wherever post 9/11 America’s project to bring “democracy, goodness and niceness” leads. If you can’t quickly think of half a dozen examples, this must be your first visit to Planet Earth.
Iranian news presenter Sahar Emami during the Israeli attack on state television which killed three media workers . . . Killing journalists is both an Israeli speciality and a war crime. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Is regime change in Iran possible? So, are the Americans and Israelis on to something or not? This week prominent anti-regime writer Sohrab Ahmari added a caveat to his long-standing call for an end to the regime. Ahmari, an Iranian, who is the US editor of the geopolitical analysis platform UnHerd said: “The potential nightmare scenarios are as numerous as they are appalling: regime collapse that leads not to the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and the ascent to the Peacock Throne of its chubby dauphin, Reza, but warlordism and ethno-sectarian warfare that drives millions of refugees into Europe.
“Or a Chinese intervention in favour of a crucial energy partner and anchor of the new Eurasian bloc led by Beijing . . . A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on the Persian Gulf monarchies.”
Despite these risks, there are indeed Iranians who are cheering for Uncle Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu). Some have little sympathy for the Palestinians because their government poured millions into supporting Hamas and Hezbollah — money that could have eased hardship inside Iran, caused, it must be added, by both the US-imposed sanctions and the regime’s own mismanagement, some say corruption.
As I pointed out in an article The West’s War on Iran shortly after the Israelis launched the war: the regime appears to have a core support base of around 20 percent. This was true in 2018 when I last visited Iran and was still the case in the most recent polling I could find.
I quoted an Iranian contact who shortly after the attack told me they had scanned reactions inside Iran and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government at this critical moment. Like many, I suggested Iranians would — as typically happens when countries are attacked — rally round the flag. Shortly after the article was published this statement was challenged by other Iranians who dispute that there will be any “rallying to the flag” — as that is the flag of the Islamic Republic and a great many Iranians are sick to the back teeth of it.
Some others demur:
“The killing of at least 224 Iranians has once again significantly damaged Israel’s claim that it avoids targeting civilians,” Dr Shirin Saeidi, author of Women and the Islamic Republic, an associate professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, told The New Arab on June 16. “Israel’s illegal attack on the Iranian people will definitely not result in a popular uprising against the Iranian state. On the contrary, Iranians are coming together behind the Islamic Republic.”
To be honest, I can’t discern who is correct. In the last few of days I have also had contact with people inside Iran (all these contacts must, for obvious reasons, be anonymous). One of them welcomed the attack on the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). I also got this message relayed to me from someone else in Iran as a response to my article:
“Some Iranians are pro-regime and have condemned Israeli attacks and want the government to respond strongly. Some Iranians are pro-Israel and happy that Israel has attacked and killed some of their murderers and want regime change, [but the] majority of Iranians dislike both sides.
They dislike the regime in Iran, and they are patriotic so they don’t want a foreign country like Israel invading them and killing people. They feel hopeless and defenceless as they know both sides have failed or will fail them.”
Calculating the incalculable: regime survival or collapse? Only a little over half of Iran is Persian. Minorities include Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Balochis, Turkmen, Armenians and one of the region’s few post-Nakba Jewish congregations outside of Israel today.
Mossad, MI6 and various branches of the US state have poured billions into opposition groups, including various monarchist factions, but from a distance they appear fragmented. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) armed opposition group has been an irritant but so far not a major disruptor.
The most effective terrorist attacks inside Iran have been launched by Israel, the US and the British — including the assassination of a string of Iranian peace negotiators, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, nuclear scientists and their families, and various regime figures.
How numerous the active strands of anti-regime elements are is hard to estimate. Equally hard to calculate is how many will move into open confrontation with the regime. Conversely, how unified, durable — or brittle — is the regime? How cohesive is the leadership of the IRGC and the Basij militias? Will they work effectively together in the trying times ahead? In particular, how successful has the CIA, MI6 and Mossad been at penetrating their structures and buying generals?
Both Iran’s nuclear programme and its government — in fact, the whole edifice and foundation of the Islamic Republic — is at the beginning of the greatest stress test of its existence. If the centrifugal forces prove too great, I can’t help but think of the words of William Butler Yeats:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Peace and prosperity to all the people of Iran. And let’s never forget the people of Palestine as they endure genocide.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University
Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that has nearly finished testing them.
The findings, released today, may give the government greater confidence to forge ahead with the ban, despite a suite of expert criticism. They might also alleviate some of the concerns of the Australian population about privacy and security implications of the ban, which is due to begin in December.
For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and released by the government earlier this week found nine out of ten people support the idea of a ban. But it also found a large number of people were “very concerned” about how the ban would be implemented. Nearly 80% of respondents had privacy and security concerns, while roughly half had concerns about age assurance accuracy and government oversight.
The trial’s preliminary findings paint a rosy picture of the potential for available technologies to check people’s ages. However, they contain very little detail about specific technologies, and appear to be at odds with what we know about age-assurance technology from other sources.
From facial recognition to hand movement recognition
The social media ban for under 16s was legislated in December 2024. A last-minute amendment to the law requires technology companies to provide “alternative age assurance methods” for account holders to confirm their age, rather than relying only on government-issued ID.
The trial is being led by the Age Check Certification Scheme – a company based in the United Kingdom that specialises in testing and certifying identity verification systems. It includes 53 vendors that offer a range of age assurance technologies to guess people’s ages, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand-movement recognition.
According to the preliminary findings of the trial, “age assurance can be done in Australia”.
The trial’s project director, Tony Allen, said “there are no significant technological barriers” to assuring people’s ages online. He added the solutions are “technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online”.
However, these claims are hard to square with other evidence.
High error rates
Yesterday the ABC reported the trial found face-scanning technologies “repeatedly misidentified” children as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. These tools could only guess children’s ages “within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases”. This means a 14-year-old child might gain access to a social media account, while a 17-year-old might be blocked.
This is in line with results of global trials of face-scanning technologies conducted for more than a decade.
The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women compared to young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones.
These studies show that even the best age-estimation software currently available – Yoti – has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options mistake someone’s age by 3.1 years on average.
This means, at best, a 16-year-old might be estimated to be 15 or 17 years old; at worst, they could be seen to be 13 or 19 years of age. These error rates mean a significant number of children under 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban being in place, while some over 16 could be blocked.
Yoti also explains businesses needing to check exact ages (such as 18) can set higher age thresholds (such as 25), so fewer people under 18 get through the age check.
This approach would be similar to that taken in Australia’s retail liquor sector, where sales staff verify ID for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25. However, many young people lack the government-issued ID required for an additional age check.
It’s also worth remembering that in August 2023, the Australian government acknowledged that the age assurance technology market was “immature” and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without circumvention and balancing privacy and security.
Outstanding questions
We don’t yet know exactly what methods platforms will use to verify account holders’ ages. While face-scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial also tested voice and hand movements to guess young people’s ages. But those methods also have accuracy issues.
And it’s not yet clear what recourse people will have if their age is misidentified. Will parents be able to complain if children under 16 gain access to accounts, despite restrictions? Will older Australians who are incorrectly blocked be able to appeal? And if so, to whom?
There are other outstanding questions. What’s stopping someone who’s under 16 from getting someone who is over 16 to set up an account on their behalf? To mitigate this risk, the government might require all social media users to verify their age at regular intervals.
It’s also unclear what level of age estimation error the government may be willing to accept in implementing a social media ban. The legislation says technology companies must demonstrate they have taken “reasonable steps” to prevent under 16s from holding social media accounts. What is considered “reasonable” is yet to be clearly defined.
Australians will have to wait until later this year for the full results of the government’s trial to be released, and to know how technology companies will respond. With less than six months until the ban comes into effect, social media users still don’t have all the answers they need.
Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the international Association for Information Science and Technology.
Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools.
About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting consequences. Research suggests students who are bullied are at an increased risk of mental health problems and self-harm.
On Friday, submissions close for the federal government’s rapid review into school bullying. Here, we suggest six key areas on which governments, schools and education authorities need to focus to re-imagine Australia’s approach to tackling bullying.
At the moment, there is no clear, consistent definition of bullying in Australian schools. Nor are there consistent policies.
This naturally leads to confusion about current best practice to both prevent bullying and support students who have been bullied.
For example, there are several definitions of cyberbullying between the different states and territories.
2. Consistent data to track bullying
Australia also has no nationally consistent approach to track or measure bullying and cyberbullying.
This means it is impossible to say whether bullying is getting worse or better – or if certain parts of the country are more successfully addressing it.
So we need metrics to better track, analyse, report and respond to bullying incidents across schools, regions, states and territories.
For years, researchers have noted schools themselves also need accurate data to analyse, monitor and evaluate the degree to which an intervention is effective.
A whole-school approach sees anti-bullying efforts as the responsibility of everyone connected to a school. School leaders, teachers, support staff, students, families and the wider community are all expected to promote safety and inclusion.
Addressing bullying should see strategies implemented across multiple locations, including the classroom, wider school and home environments.
This goes beyond simply dealing with individual bullying incidents as they arise.
Research also suggests schools should focus on proactive, non-punitive strategies and a positive school culture. This includes clear procedures to report bullying, effective education programs, and establishing consistent classroom and school rules.
If bullying occurs, schools can respond with a restorative approach, which focuses on repairing harm done to relationships.
As part of the whole-school approach, we also need to make sure schools are teaching social and emotional skills. This includes how to identify and manage emotions as well as communicating and cooperating with others.
While it is part of the Australian Curriculum, research shows social and emotional skills are not always taught using evidence-based, formal approaches.
A large body of research demonstrates that schools which teach social and emotional learning across all aspects of school engagement, report higher academic achievement, lower rates of bullying, improved student wellbeing, and stronger connections between students and adults.
In part, this is because these approaches empower students to take ownership of their behaviour.
Teachers play a pivotal role in making sure all students feel safe and supported at school, helping children and young people to understand and manage their emotions.
A 2014 study found teachers who had participated in anti-bullying training were able to provide this support more effectively.
School staff should receive consistent, culturally responsive training, so they are equipped with the most current and effective ways to support all students.
6. Give students an active role
We should also look at ways to give students a greater role in shaping anti-bullying policies.
Research shows when students are included in decisions that affect them, it increases their engagement with learning and motivation at school.
Along with helping to make policies, students can also be involved in peer-mentoring programs and leading campaigns to raise awareness about respectful relationships. This can create a sense of shared ownership for anti-bullying interventions.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal.
The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It’s expected to start operating in 2026.
Human rights organisations, international lawyers and some (mostly European) states have long been calling for the establishment of such a tribunal. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer, called the establishment of the tribunal:
an important breakthrough for the international justice community and especially for the millions of Ukrainians who have been harmed by the Russian aggression.
However, important questions remain about if it could truly hold senior Russian officials accountable.
So, how will this new special tribunal work, and will it be effective – or necessary?
How does the special tribunal fill the gaps left by the ICC and ICJ?
Because Russia is not a member state to the court, the court can’t exercise legal authority over what’s known in international law as a crime of aggression (when leaders of a state launch or plan a war). For the ICC to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the aggressor state also must be a member state of the court.
The ICJ is a different court altogether. It primarily deals with and adjudicates disputes between states, not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It can’t hold individuals accountable, and can only exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if both states to a dispute agree.
While the ICC seeks to establish individual criminal responsibility, the ICJ may establish state responsibility for a violation of international law.
Currently, there are also twocases between Ukraine and Russia before the ICJ.
Neither deals with the question of the legality of Russia’s use of force in its invasion in February 2022. Both Ukraine and Russia would need to consent to bring this issue before the court.
So, is a new tribunal necessary?
Yes, because the crime of aggression currently can’t be addressed by any other international court or tribunal.
Given the limitations of what the ICJ and ICC can do, a dedicated tribunal seems the obvious solution to hold those responsible for the illegal use of force against Ukraine accountable.
And it’s not uncommon for specialised tribunals with limited jurisdiction over a specific situation to be created.
Other historical examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Given the ICC’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the new special tribunal would complement the court’s existing investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Who is running the new tribunal and how will it work?
The exact content and specifics of this new tribunal will remain unknown until the draft statute of the tribunal is published. That’s a document that outlines details including the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicable definition of aggression and how the tribunal will function.
At this stage, the Council of Europe has confirmed the tribunal will work within its legal framework and principles. It will be funded by an international coalition of supportive states.
A management committee of members and associate members of the tribunal will be responsible for the election of the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors. The management committee is made up of the Council of Europe’s council of ministers and Ukraine.
Diplomatic discussions are still ongoing at this point, but the legal process for establishing the special tribunal can begin now.
Will this special tribunal be more effective?
Political, legal and practical challenges for the special tribunal remain. It’s unclear if the most senior Russian state officials can and will be able to be brought to trial for the crime of aggression.
Nothing, so far, suggests the statute of the tribunal will contain an exception to state immunity enjoyed by heads of state, heads of governments and foreign ministers while in power.
That means these office holders can only be prosecuted if they are no longer in power or the Russian government expressly waives their immunity.
It’s also unclear whether states will be willing to arrest those sought by the special tribunal.
The ICC has long faced this challenge trying to get states to act on its arrest warrants.
Hungary, for instance, did not arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited in April, despite an ICC arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.
For the special tribunal to be effective, according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, it:
must not become a remote and hollow entity that does not engage with the Ukrainian victims.
Overall, much remains unclear. Will this new special tribunal be able to hold the likes of Putin accountable for the crime of aggression? Or will it become another empty promise?
Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export.
‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history. There was the American–Algerian War (1785–1795); and the Barbary Wars (1801-1805,1815), featuring the heroic re-seizure and scuttling by fire of the USS Philadelphia in Tripoli Harbor in 1804. Then there was the reverse colonisation (aka ‘liberation’, ‘democratization’) of a small corner of Africa from 1822, leading to Liberia’s independence in 1862.
In the 1846, there was the small matter of the United States’ invasion of Mexico, resulting in the 1848 annexation of half of Mexico’s territory. ‘America’ brought Democracy to California, through annexation. And, in 1898, the United States appropriated Spain’s remaining worldwide empire, including the Philippines. And some other territories, including Hawaii. Upon his inauguration as the 47th President, Donald Trump explicitly invoked the memory of President William McKinley, America’s most notorious annexor of foreign territory.
And in 1889: “Three American warships then entered the Apia harbor and prepared to engage the three German warships found there. Before any shots were fired, a typhoon wrecked both the American and German ships.” After ten years of military/political stalemate – known as the Second Samoan Civil War – the Samoan ‘assets’ were split between the United States, the German Second Reich, and the United Kingdom. (The UK traded its share with Germany. Britain gave up all claims to Samoa and in return accepted the termination of German rights in Tonga, certain areas in the Solomon Islands, and Zanzibar.)
America’s imperial ‘burden’ in the last 125 years
Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden was written in 1899; “a poem about the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) that exhorts the United States to assume colonial control of the Filipino people and their country”.
America’s empire today is partly formal, though mostly informal, with various grades of informality. Indeed, the recent acknowledgement by the European Union that it has free-ridden on the United States for its defence indicates that the United States has had a significant degree of imperial control over Europe; hegemony manifesting as control over foreign policy.
The name ‘America’ itself is an imperial grab. America is the name for two continents, yet even the Canadians call the United States ‘America’, and its citizens ‘Americans’. American exceptionalism represents the weaponisation of democracy. Democracy is packaged as ‘Democracy’, a secular faith like ‘Communism’ or ‘Economic Liberalism’; a faith which must be proselytised, spread across the world as some kind of holy or secular crusade.
The remaining territories on the ‘autocratic’ ‘Dark Side’ – ie territories not subject to United States’ ‘protection’ – are mainly in continental Asia: especially West Asia (much of which is imperialistically called the ‘Middle East’, which extends to North Africa), North Asia, and East Asia. Though there is also very much a contest for South Asia; a contest, which if successful for the White Man’s force, will bring secular Hindi along with secular Judaism fully into the imperial fold of secular Christianity. (We note that the labels Hindu and Jew have long been name-tags which confuse and conflate religion with ethnicity. So it may soon be with Christianity; with top-tier Christians behaving very much as top-tier Jews behave today, as supremacist gift-givers and bomb-throwers.)
We should note that Catholic Christianity is now uneasy about this crusader culture, having been the main perpetrator of such culture nearly a millennium ago. And Orthodox Christianity is even more uneasy. In its North Asian (ie Russian) form, Orthodox Christianity – like Islam, and Chinese atheist capitalism – is a target of the present Christian Soldiers, not a collaborator. (The decline of the Christian East came with the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Ostensibly a western invasion force going to re-recover the ‘Holy Land’, instead that Crusade turned on Orthodox Christian Constantinople. The result was a weak Latin empire in the east; easy prey for the Ottoman forces which in 1453 created a Muslim empire in West Asia and Southeast Europe; an empire that lasted until 1918.)
The modern American-led crusading mentality represents a schism of Protestant Evangelism (which dates back in particular to the Calvinist side of the sixteenth century Reformation) and Secular Liberalism. Protestant Evangelism (increasingly known today as Christian Nationalism) is the imperial currency of today’s Republican Party, whereas Secular Liberalism is the imperial currency of today’s Democratic Party (although secular Neoliberalism is presently teaming up with the Evangelists). What both have in common is a will to impose themselves upon the rest of the world. And to produce and export lots of big guns, military hardware; making money, and making American jobs.
There are some strange bedfellows. As these two American socio-cultural Gods – Republican and Democrat; protagonist and antagonist, and vice versa – have battled out their Americanisms on a world stage, we have seen a significant posse of very rich devout Economic Liberals taking the side of the Christian Nationalists. So do a number of working-class and other disempowered former ballot-box ‘Leftists’, who wish to cast an anti-establishment vote but don’t know which way to turn. This dabbling with new right-radicalism (not unlike leftist dabbling in New Zealand in 1984 with the recently late Bob Jones’ New Zealand Party) follows the slow but comprehensive gutting of the Left-project that was so buoyant in the 1960s and 1970s.
The name Christian Nationalism is a misnomer; a better name is Christian Extranationalism. Rather than being an internationalist movement – internationalism is a liberal concept – this is a movement to perpetuate and extend the global domination of American culture, through imperial merchant capitalism. The United States was born out of British merchant capitalism (and New York out of Dutch merchant capitalism); its values and institutions reflect those of eighteenth-century western Europe. Just as the British exacted tribute from their American colonies; imperial America seeks to extract tribute through the ‘negotiation’ of asymmetric ‘deals’. Are we today witnessing an American Napoleon?
Money, Lies and God: by Katherine Stewart (2025)
Katherine Stewart this year has written about the new eclectic rightwing coalition in the United States that is coalescing under the name of Christian Nationalism. Though I’ve only read the introduction so far, the book has a real strength, in particular in identifying five components of this new new-right coalition: funders, thinkers, sergeants, infantry, power-players.
Of particular interest to me is the “out-sourced” relationship between the funders and the thinkers. While Stewart emphasises the ‘thinkers’ in the well-funded (and mostly conservative) ‘Think Tanks’, the real issue is that of ‘selective truth’, in the Darwinian sense of ‘selection’. Our ‘intellectual’ careerists compete to publish ‘truths’, and the truths which prevail will be the truths purchased by the ‘funders’, given that the funders have most of the funds.
This kind of relationship with truth is somewhat like a ‘court-of-law’, where commonly two ‘truths’ are subject to a contest in which one will be declared ‘the winner’. Not uncommonly, both rival ‘truths’ are at least partially false, and there may be other (possibly truer) truths that are not even ‘on the table’. Evidence represents a part of the court process, but by no means the whole of that process. The truth-relationship between the funders and thinkers is a corrupt form of the ‘law court’ model; the more corrupt the more wealth the conservative funders control. Academic careers – indeed scientists’ careers – are built on perpetuating narratives acceptable to their patrons.
While Money, Lies and God represents a prescient and useful analysis, ultimately it is part of the problem. It represents one side of the great American divide calling out the other side. The process of belligerent finger-pointing – between, in American language, ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ – is the bigger problem. Why bother talking about the world when you can talk about half of America instead? Indeed, too many American intellectuals talk and write about the United States as if America is the World; a kind of mental imperialism. (Another critique of American ‘Christian Nationalism’ can be found in a recent Upfront episode on Al Jazeera: The growing influence of Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism in the United States.)
The problem of American imperialism belongs to both sides of the Divide; indeed, it is the Secular Liberalism of what has been exposed as the tone-deaf establishment – the Blinkens, Bidens and Nods – who represented the moral hypocrisy of America’s imperial democratic gift. (The sheer stupidity of the Biden re-election campaign is documented in Original Sin, 2025, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.) That is, the belief that America created modern Democracy, and that those parts of the world – especially the ‘western’ world – have special rights accruing to them because they have been awarded the ‘tick of Democracy’. These countries – and only these countries – have the “right to defend themselves”, the right to make war (as ‘defence through attack’), and the “right to possess nuclear weapons”.
Contemporary American imperialism is mainly a ‘West on East’ phenomenon; Asia is the target. Ukraine and Anatolia (Türkiye) are border territories between Europe and Asia. Palestine, perhaps too, given its location on the Mediterranean Sea; though the Mediterranean littoral, from Istanbul to Morocco, is better understood as West Asia, not Europe. Iran is unambiguously a part of Asia. What we are seeing at present is nothing less than a Euro-American invasion of Asia. Imperialism. Nuclear imperialism; geopolitical imperialism; cultural imperialism. The gift that keeps on taking.
Note on the boundary between Europe and Asia
We should note that the core geopolitical boundary between Europe and Asia was set by Charlemagne in around the year 800; representing the border between the predominancies of Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity (harking back to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires). There are other important historic geopolitical boundaries in Eurasia, of course, such as the eastern and southern borders of Orthodox Christianity; and the eastern and northern borders of Islam-dominated territories. Indeed there is perpetual tension on the Pakistan-India border.
The principal medieval-era departure from that Charlemagne-set geopolitical boundary was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which peaked in territory in the fifteenth century. The first significant modern-era fudge of that geopolitical boundary was the West’s acquisition of Greece over the long 19th century (essentially 1820s to 1920s). The Great World War started in 1914 very much as an East-West border conflict in the Balkans of southeast Europe. After a week or two of fudging, the anglosphere took the Eastern side; siding with Russia over Austria and Germany.
Post World War Two, the next main geopolitical border fudges were the ‘settlements’ which placed a number of mainly Catholic East European countries into Russia’s orb; and which placed Türkiye (then Turkey) into NATO. The current twenty first century fudge is one of European expansion, placing a number of predominantly Orthodox territories – most notably Ukraine – firmly into the European political realm.
This longstanding geopolitical boundary contrasts with the widely-accepted geographic boundary; the latter – based more on physical geography and ethnicity than on faith-culture – passes along the Ural and Caucasus mountain chains, and through the lower Volga River, the Black Sea and the Bosporus/Dardanelle channels. Geopolitically, Russia, Belarus and Türkiye should be understood today to be Asian countries; indeed, the lower Dnieper River and line of the military trenches in Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk constitute the current geopolitical boundary between West and East; between Europe and Asia. And the lines within Eretz Israel – separating Israel from Palestine – also represent geopolitical borders; and American geopolitical encroachment on Asia.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images
As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the Australian Sports Foundation (ASF), has launched a new joint fundraising initiative allowing Australians to make tax-deductible donations directly to Australia’s Olympians and Paralympians.
The ASF is an “Item 1” Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) and is the only organisation in Australia that allows a donor to claim a tax deduction for philanthropic donations to sport.
This is because sport is not currently eligible for either DGR or charitable status under Australian law.
But is this new joint fundraising initiative a gold medal idea for our athletes, or one that falls short of a podium finish?
Aussies tax payers and Olympic dreams
The new initiative, named the “Aspiring Australian Olympian Funding program”, means individual donations of A$2 or more made through the ASF are tax-deductible.
Australians can direct funds to a specific athlete, coach or official selected to participate in representative, elite or high performance sport in the Olympic/Paralympic program (summer and winter).
Ahead of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, more than 30 Australian athletes (from disciplines such as alpine skiing, bobsleigh and figure skating) have signed up to use the platform.
The ASF’s 2023 “Running on Empty” report found many of Australia’s elite athletes were under significant financial pressure: 46% of those over the age of 18 were earning less than $23,000 per year. This places them below the poverty line at $489 a week.
The report also found 67% of elite athletes said their financial struggles affected their parents and support networks. Also, 42% of elite athletes aged 18-34 reported they were suffering poor mental health as a result of their financial predicament.
The report also found the costs of training, equipment, travel and accommodation continued to rise, resulting in many questioning the sustainability of elite sport funding models both here and abroad.
Pros and cons
The new funding program’s use of tax incentives as a funding carrot is good in principle, but there are potential unintended consequences.
This includes athletes being pitted against one another: there is a danger the athletes best skilled in marketing and public relations will receive more funding.
The current economic climate doesn’t bode well for the program. Many Australians are facing cost-of-living pressures, which means a lot of people may not be able to donate even if they want to.
Also, what happens if an athlete who benefits from the program is injured or found to be a drug cheat, and can’t compete? Can a donor request a refund?
Finally, taxpayers who have the most capacity to donate are likely high income earners, some of whom may donate to sport entities already. Now, their donations will be subsidised by the tax system.
Some alternative ideas
In the United Kingdom, National Lottery revenue plays a significant role in funding Olympic and Paralympic sports. Administered by UK Sport (the UK’s equivalent of the ASC) funds from the lottery are directed to high performance sports programs and athletes.
Another idea is to redirect a portion of government taxes collected from sports betting, which could be lucrative given Australia’s love of sports gambling.
The federal government could offer a further incentive by matching peoples’ donations dollar for dollar.
As we direct funds to athletes, we need also think about the potential tax impact for them. Will the funds they receive be considered income and be taxed? The government could consider making the payment to the athlete tax free.
If we are going to succeed on the world stage, especially as the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games approach, we need to financially support our athletes so they can focus on representing their country.
Michelle O’Shea receives funding from the Olympic Studies Centre.
Connie Vitale receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. She is affiliated with the Institute of Public Accountants and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.
Robert B Whait receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program, Financial Literacy Australia (now Ecstra Foundation), ANZ Bank, and the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC). He is affiliated with the Tax Institute of Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.
