The foods and scents we associate with our childhoods can provide a meaningful source of comfort and connection.zeljkosantrac/E+ via Getty Images
Walking around my neighborhood in the evening, I am hit by the smells of summer: fresh-cut grass, hamburgers grilling and a hint of swimming pool chlorine. These are also the smells of summers from my adolescence, and they remind me of Friday evenings at the community pool with my friends and our families gathered around picnic tables between swims. The memories always brings a smile to my face.
As a social psychologist, I shouldn’t feel surprised to experience this warm glow. My researchfocuses on nostalgia – a sentimental longing for treasured moments in our personal pasts – and how nostalgia is linked to our well-being and feelings of connection with others.
Triggered by sensory stimuli such as music, scents and foods, nostalgia has the power to mentally transport us back in time. This might be to important occasions, to moments of triumph and – importantly – moments revolving around close family and friends and other important people in our lives.
As it turns out, this experience is good for us.
How the concept of nostalgia evolved
For centuries, nostalgia was considered unhealthy.
In the 1600s, a Swiss medical student named Johannes Hofer studied mercenaries in the Italian and French lowlands who longed desperately for their mountain homelands. Witnessing their weeping and despondency, he coined the term nostalgia and attributed it to a brain disease. Other thinkers of the time echoed this view, which persisted through the 18th and 19th centuries.
However, early thinkers made an error: They assumed that nostalgia was causing unpleasant symptoms. It may have been the reverse. Unpleasant experiences, such as lonelinessand grief, can arouse nostalgia, which can then help people cope more effectively with these hardships.
While nostalgia is a universal experience, it is also deeply personal. The moments for which we are each nostalgic and the stimuli that might trigger our nostalgic memories can vary from one person to the next depending on the experiences that each of us have. But people within the same culture may find similar stimuli to be nostalgic for them. In a 2013 study, for instance, my team found that American participants rated pumpkin pie spice as the most nostalgia-evoking scent out of a variety of options.
Many nostalgia-inducing scents vary from person to person, but pumpkin pie spice may be one of the most evocative scents in the U.S. Redjina Ph/Moment via Getty Images
The nostalgic power of scents and foods
In 1922, the French novelist Marcel Proust wrote about the strength of scents and foods to elicit nostalgia. He vividly described how the experience of smelling and eating a tea-soaked cake mentally transported him back to childhood experiences with his aunt in her home and village. This sort of experience is now often referred to as the Proust effect.
Science has confirmed what Proust described. Our olfactory system, the sensory system responsible for our sense of smell, is closely linked to brain structures associated with emotions and autobiographical memory. Smells combine with tastes to create our perception of flavor.
Foods also tend to be central to social gatherings, making them easily associated with these memories. For instance, a summer barbecue might feel incomplete to some without slices of juicy watermelon. And homemade pumpkin pie may be an essential dessert at many Thanksgiving tables. The watermelon or pie may then serve as what are known in social psychology as social surrogates, foods that serve as stand-ins for valued relationships due to their inclusion at past occasions with loved ones.
My research team and I wanted to know how people benefited from feeling nostalgic when they encountered the scents and foods of their pasts. We began in 2011 by exposing study participants to 33 scents and chose 12 of them for our study. Participants rated some scents, such as pumpkin pie spice and baby powder, as highly evocative of nostalgia, while rating others – such as money and cappuccino –as less evocative.
Those who experienced more nostalgia when smelling the scents experienced greater positive emotions, greater self-esteem, greater feelings of connection to their past selves, greater optimism, greater feelings of social connectedness and a greater sense that life is meaningful.
We came to similar conclusions when we studied nostalgia for foods. Foods seemed to be more strongly linked to nostalgia than either scents or music when comparing the amount of nostalgia our participants experienced for foods to what previous research participants experienced for scents and songs. More recently, we found that nostalgic foods are comforting and that people find nostalgic foods comforting because those nostalgic foods remind them of important or meaningful moments with their loved ones.
For some, a summer barbecue wouldn’t be complete without the smell and taste of juicy watermelon. GMVozd/E+ via Getty Images
Balancing benefits and trade-offs
Although nostalgia can be associated with foods that should be eaten only in moderation – such as burgers and cookies – there are other ways to channel our nostalgia through foods.
We can have nostalgia with healthy foods. For instance, orange slices remind me of halftime at childhood soccer matches. And many people, including our research participants, feel intense nostalgia around watermelon. Other researchers have found that tofu is a nostalgic food for Chinese participants.
But when nostalgia does involve consumption of unhealthy foods, there are still other ways to experience it without the health trade-offs. We found that participants experienced the benefits of food-evoked nostalgia just from imagining and writing about the foods – no consumption necessary. Other researchers have found that drawing comforting foods can enhance well-being. Even consuming less healthy foods more mindfully helps people enjoy their food while reducing their caloric consumption.
Once seen as detrimental to our health, nostalgia provides us with an opportunity to reap numerous rewards. With nostalgic foods, we might be able to nourish both our bodies and our psychological health.
Chelsea Reid does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When you lose your health insurance or switch to a plan that skimps on preventive care, something critical breaks.
The connection to your primary care provider, usually a doctor, gets severed. You stop getting routine checkups. Warning signs get missed. Medical problems that could have been caught early become emergencies. And because emergencies are both dangerous and expensive, your health gets worse while your medical bills climb.
As gerontologyresearchers who study health and financial well-being in later life, we’ve analyzed how someone’s ties to the health care system strengthen or unravel depending on whether they have insurance coverage. What we’ve found is simple: Staying connected to a trusted doctor keeps you healthier and saves the system money. Breaking that link does just the opposite.
And that’s exactly what has us worried right now. Members of Congress are debating whether to make major cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs. If the Senate passes its own version of the tax-and-spending package that the House approved in May 2025, millions of Americans will soon face exactly this kind of disruption – with big consequences for their health and well-being.
And those who buy their own coverage may find that they can no longer afford the premiums. In 2024, average premiums on the individual market exceeded more than US$600 per month for many adults, even with subsidies.
Medicaid was established in the 1960s, explains a scholar of the program’s history.
Consequences of becoming uninsured
Health insurance is more than a way to pay medical bills; it’s a doorway into the health care system itself. It connects people to health care providers who come to know their medical history, their medications and their personal circumstances.
When that door closes, the effects are immediate. Uninsured people are much less likely to have a usual source of care – typically a doctor or another primary care provider or clinic you know and trust. That relationship acts as a foundation for managing chronic conditions, staying current with preventive screenings and getting guidance when new symptoms arise.
Researchers have found that adults who go uninsured for even six months become significantly more likely to postpone care or forgo it altogether to save money. In practical terms, this means they’re less likely to be examined by someone who knows their medical history and can spot red flags early.
Our research team analyzed how their experiences changed when they lost, and sometimes later regained, a regular source of care during those six years.
Many of the participants in this study had multiple chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.
Those who didn’t see the same provider on a regular basis were far less likely to feel heard or respected by health care professionals. They had fewer medical appointments, filled fewer prescriptions and were less likely to follow through with recommended treatments.
Their health also deteriorated considerably over the six years. Their blood pressure and blood sugar levels rose, and they had more elevated indicators of kidney impairment compared with their counterparts who had regular care providers.
The longer they went without consistent health care, the worse these clinical markers became.
Warning signs
Preventive care is one of the best tools that both patients and their health care providers have to head off major health problems. This care includes screenings like cholesterol and blood pressure checks, mammograms, PAP smears and prostate exams, as well as routine vaccinations. But most people only get preventive care when they stay engaged with the health care system.
Our research team also examined what happened to preventive care based on whether the participants had a regular doctor. We found that those who kept seeing the same providers were almost three times more likely to get basic preventive services than those who did not.
Over time, these missed preventive care opportunities can add up to a big problem. They can turn what could have been a manageable issue into an emergency room visit or a long, expensive hospital stay.
For example, imagine a man in his 50s who no longer gets cholesterol screenings after losing insurance coverage. Over several years, his undiagnosed high cholesterol leads to a heart attack that could have been prevented with early medication. Or a woman who skips mammograms because of out-of-pocket costs, only to face a late-stage cancer diagnosis that might have been caught years earlier.
Waiting too long to deal with a health condition can mean you make a trip to the emergency room, increasing the cost of care for you and others. FS Productions/Tetra images via Getty Images
Shifting the costs
Patients whose conditions take too long to be diagnosed aren’t the only ones who pay the price.
We also studied how stable care relationships affect health care spending. To do this, we linked Medicare claims cost data to our original study and tracked the medical costs of the same adults age 50 and older from 2014 to 2020. One of our key findings is that people with regular care providers were 38% less likely to incur above-average health care costs.
These savings aren’t just for patients – they ripple through the entire health care system. Primary care stability lowers costs for both public and private health insurers and, ultimately, for taxpayers.
But when people lose their health care coverage, those savings disappear.
Emergency rooms see more uninsured patients seeking care that could have been handled earlier and more cheaply in a clinic or doctor’s office. While hospitals are legally required to provide emergency care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, much of the resulting cost goes unreimbursed.
Hospitals foot the bill for about two-thirds of those losses. They pass the other third along to private insurance companies through higher hospital fees. Those insurers, in turn, raise their customers’ premiums. Larger taxpayer subsidies can then be required to keep hospitals open.
It contributes to the health care stability our research shows is critical for good health. Medicaid makes it possible for many Americans with serious medical conditions to have a regular doctor, get routine preventive services and have someone to turn to when symptoms arise – even when they have low incomes. It helps prevent health care from becoming purely crisis-driven.
As Congress considers cutting Medicaid funding by hundreds of billions of dollars, we believe that lawmakers should realize that scaling back coverage would break the fragile links between millions of patients and the providers who know them best.
Jane Tavares receives funding from from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging, and Milbank Memorial Fund .
Marc Cohen receives funding from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging and Milbank Memorial Fund .
On a cool February morning in 1904, a spark ignited a fire in the heart of downtown Baltimore. Within hours, a raging inferno swept eastward across the harbor district, consuming everything in its path. By evening, the local firefighters were overwhelmed, and the city sent telegrams to the fire chiefs of major Northeastern cities pleading for help in battling the blaze.
Washington, Philadelphia and New York, along with other cities, responded quickly with dozens of engine companies. Yet when they arrived at the scene, many responders could not hook up to Baltimore’s hydrants since each city had its own threading standards to connect fire hoses.
The fire resulted in damages of over US$3.5 billion in today’s dollars. It created a call for a national standard of threads for hoses and fire hydrant outlets. These standards now improve emergency responses across the country – and the same concept of standardization allows for consistency and replicability in scientific research.
In science, the ideal way to evaluate data is related to the concept driving the calls for uniform fire hose equipment. When scientists compare their results to those obtained in other laboratories, or with previously published data, the comparisons are most meaningful if all datasets were made with standardized practices and reference materials.
Museum scientistslike usprovide compelling insights into the natural world, prehistory and historical culture heritage. Like that of many other scientists, our work, and the measurements we take day to day, depends upon standard references.
Here we offer two fascinating stories from the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum Conservation Institute that highlight how scientific measurement standards allow for exciting new discoveries:
You are what you drink
In 2007, the New Mexico Bureau of Reclamation exhumed the remains of dozens of Civil War-era soldiers from the ruins of Fort Craig. They had been left behind when the fort was abandoned in 1885.
Anthropologists from the Smithsonian and the Bureau of Reclamation in New Mexico identified the remains as belonging to a diverse range of people – including a few dozen African American Buffalo Soldiers, a group that made up a relatively small percentage of the U.S. military at that time.
Historical records tell researchers that most of the military units at Fort Craig mobilized out of Kentucky and Virginia, but official records don’t always tell the full story. The group of project scientists, which included one of us, Christine France, needed a way to confirm the origin of these individuals and restore some identity to these forgotten soldiers.
The researchers decided to use stable isotope analysis on the bones. This technique counts the number of atoms of a particular element in the sample that have one or more extra neutrons – this is the “heavy” isotope – and compares it with the number of atoms that have a normal number of neutrons – this is the “light” isotope.
Drinking water in southern latitudes has more naturally occurring heavy oxygen atoms compared with northern latitudes. If a soldier’s bones had a relatively high ratio of the heavy to the light oxygen atoms, that soldier likely spent more time drinking water from the South.
Researchers have measured oxygen isotopes in other archaeological remains and in water all over North America, giving us a water “isotope map.” But matching the bone isotope values to the water map is like comparing apples to oranges, and every lab has subtle variations in its instruments. The scientists needed to normalize and calibrate the isotope ratios they had measured to a reference standard.
In this case, the standard was the average oxygen isotope value of ocean water, a convention that stable isotope researchers agreed upon as a consistent and readily available value. The researchers now had a uniform way to say how many more – or fewer – heavy oxygen isotopes the bones contained compared to the ocean water standard.
Other archaeology labs and the North American water isotope map use that same standard comparison, allowing them to directly compare all the bone isotope values to one another, and to the North American water isotope map.
Ultimately, the method helped the team identify several soldiers who came from quite far away to join the company, including individuals who likely grew up in the mid-Atlantic, New England and Southeast.
The exact circumstances that brought these soldiers together is lost to history. But the researchers’ ability to assign them geographic provenance with the help of reference standards gave them further insight into this pivotal time in U.S. history.
Volcanic glass mirrors
Humans have always been fascinated by looking at themselves in the mirror. In Mesoamerica – modern-day central and southern Mexico together with northern Central America – archaeologists have found convex round objects so finely polished that they have been termed mirrors.
But instead of using them for vanity, shamans from ancient times likely used them as a tool to access portals to other dimensions.
The oldest Preclassic mirrors (2000 BCE to 250 CE) were fashioned from polished iron ores, but later Postclassic period mirrors (900 CE to 1450 CE) were made from obsidian, a typically black silica-rich volcanic glass.
The collections at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian contain six large, rectangular obsidian mirrors, purchased in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Their labels state they come from the “Valley of Mexico.”
Obsidian tablets, a view of both their front and back sides, found in the National Museum of the American Indian collections. NMAI, Martinez et al (2022)
Archeologists rarely find rectangular obsidian mirrors like these at pre-Columbian dig sites. So, local artisans skilled in stone polishing likely made these unusually shaped objects upon request by Spanish invaders around the time of European contact. But which Mesoamerican culture did they come from?
Scientists from the Museum Conservation Institute, including two of us, Thomas Lam and Edward Vicenzi, and a member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, worked with staff at the National Museum of the American Indian on an effort to pinpoint which volcano created the obsidian in the mirrors.
The location of the obsidian source would indicate whether the Aztecs who controlled eastern central Mexico, or the Purépecha who controlled an area west of the Aztecs, produced the objects, as both had ample sources of obsidian in their territories.
To conduct such a study, the researchers required two types of reference materials: obsidian that had erupted from known volcanic locations, and a reference obsidian that scientists already knew the composition of to confirm the quality of the analysis.
The first reference obsidians, from known locations, told the researchers about the differences in geochemistry of the volcanoes in central Mexico. That information allowed them to match the mirror analyses to the known volcanic location analyses and their map coordinates. The second reference obsidian served as a quality control specimen for the analysis.
Museum Conservation Institute scientists used a nondestructive technique called X-ray fluorescence spectrometry to analyze ratios of elements in the obsidians. The process works by “exciting” atoms in the obsidian, and a spectrum of X-ray energies is given off as the atoms “relax.”
Scientists analyzed the obsidian shards to see which elements were present in them in which ratios, and where in Mexico obsidian contained similar elements at similar ratios. Sharps et al. (2021)
The results showed that all the specimens came from a region controlled by the Purépecha, not the Aztecs. The museum curators updated their records describing the mirrors to include this new information about their origin.
Creating standards
Standardized measurement procedures and reference materials play a central role in museum science. Organizations dedicated to rigorous measurement science, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal government agency, help create some of these standards and research new measurement procedures.
Without their leadership, it would be far more difficult for researchers like us to produce high-quality data and discern the relationships between specimens in the natural and cultural heritage sciences. With quality measurement standards in our toolbox, we are finding new insights into human history and the natural world.
Edward Vicenzi is a guest researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Material Measurement Laboratory.
Christine France and Thomas Lam do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
“What the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip, I no longer understand the goal,” he said in a televised interview. He added, “To harm the civilian population in such a way … can no longer be justified as a fight against terrorism.”
A day later, during a summit with prime ministers of Nordic countries in Finland, Merz doubled down. “I take a very, very critical view of what has happened in Gaza,” he said in reference to Israel’s bombing campaign and the blockade of food and other aid.
Merz is not alone in the German government. Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul also weighed in, noting that Germany’s stance against antisemitism and its “full support” for the right of Israel to exist “must not be instrumentalized for the conflict and the warfare currently being waged in the Gaza Strip.”
Still, as a scholar of the Shoah – the Hebrew term for the Holocaust – I know that this rebuke from Germany hits differently. Post-war Germany has a long-standing political commitment to Israel’s security. It is a commitment rooted in the nation’s historical responsibility for the Nazis’ annihilation of European Jews and that has been staunchly reaffirmed by German governments since the 1952 agreement of reparations between the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Konrad Adenauer, and the first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion.
‘Staatsräson’ and its critics
In 2008, then-chancellor Angela Merkel went so far as to call this commitment to Israel’s security Germany’s “Staatsräson,” or “reason of state.” In a speech she gave to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, on March 18, 2008, Merkel emphasized that “only if Germany acknowledges its perpetual responsibility for the moral catastrophe of German history can we shape the future humanely.” She went on to assert that Germany’s “historic responsibility” is “part of my country’s raison d’état.” She added: “Israel’s security is never negotiable for me as German chancellor.”
The argument that Israeli security is Germany’s “reason of state” was reiterated by Merkel’s successor, Olaf Scholz, during his visit to Israel on Oct. 17, 2023 – just 10 days after the Hamas attack. Standing next to Scholz, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the Palestinian militant group “the new Nazis.”
Tracing back the term’s origins and history, renowned historian Enzo Traverso recently noted that theorists and practitioners of “reason of state” agree that the concept “denotes the violation by a political power of its own ethical principles in service to a higher interest, generally the safeguarding of its own power.”
The problem with Germany’s invocation of the “Staatsräson” as prioritizing the security of Israel above other concerns is that it implies defending policies even if they contravene Germany’s foundational ethical principles, such as those declared in its constitution. Article 1 asserts that the German people “acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.”
Such principles were born out of the recognition of the horrendous violation of human rights under the Nazi regime and the acknowledgment of Germany’s “perpetual responsibility,” as Merkel put it.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks ahead of a special session of the Israeli parliament on March 18, 2008. Sebastian Scheiner/Pool/Getty Images
In Germany’s public discourse, as well as school curricula, the Shoah is always described as absolutely unique.
But as Israeli-American genocide and Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov has argued, this assertion is also open to criticism:
“Germany’s commitment to the uniqueness of the Holocaust, from which it also derives its unique commitment to Israel, has arguably put it in a morally highly dubious position of both long denying its own past colonial crimes [in Namibia] and of denying Israel’s culpability in the present destruction of Gaza, including the killing and starvation of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.”
Germany’s commitment to the uniqueness of the Shoah also leaves little room for an acknowledgment of the Nakba – the violent expulsion of around 800,000 Palestinians before, during and after the foundation of the state of Israel.
And it leaves no room for a recognition of how both catastrophes, the Shoah and the Nakba, are, as Bartov insists, “inextricably entangled.”
Antisemitism definitions — and their critics
As a consequence of Germany’s responsibility for the Shoah and its commitment to its uniqueness, the country has some of the strictest laws to combat antisemitism in the world. But critics also note widespread conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel.
It has been criticized for being too vague, leading to the labeling of Jewish and non-Jewish people who oppose the current Israeli war in Gaza as “antisemitic.”
Stern, who describes himself as Zionist, has sharply criticized the misuse of his definition to stifle academic freedom and criticism of the actions of the Israeli nation.
In an article for the conservative Germany newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Israeli legal scholar Itamar Mann
argued that Germany “needs a new definition of antisemitism.”
He applauded the recent adoption, by the German leftist party Die Linke, of a separate definition of antisemitism laid out in the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. Formulated in 2021 by more than 350 respected scholars, many of them Jewish, the declaration rejects labeling as antisemitic political speech that “criticizes or opposes Zionism as a form of nationalism.”
Mann calls on the German government to implement policies to “protect all Jews, including those who … reject the current Israeli government and insist on a vocabulary that allows us to be Jewish and to criticize Israel.”
A historic shift?
The recent remarks of Merz may represent a subtle but sure shift in Germany’s “Staatsräson” and how it engages with its historical debt, Israel and antisemitism.
And that may be a first step in moving away from a “Staatsräson” that, in the words of scholar of Middle Eastern politics Lena Obermaier, is “detrimental for Palestinians and progressive Jews” and gives Israel international cover when accused of massive violations of international law.
What Merkel called Germany’s “perpetual responsibility for the moral catastrophe” of the Holocaust would, from my perspective as a scholar of the Shoah, demand nothing less.
Elisabeth Weber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member.
COMMENTARY: By Emma Page
I was on the track maintenance team, on the middle level. We were mostly cleaning up the waterways. I was with my son Wilbur who’s 11, and he was there with his friend Frankie, who’s 12, and they were also knee deep in digging out all of the weeds.
It was my first time at Matauri Bay. One of the things it made me really think about, which is not only specific to the oceans campaign I work on, was really feeling for the first time what being part of Greenpeace as a community or a movement or family means and feels like.
David Robie’s tent talk about the Rainbow Warrior on the Rongelap voyage in May 1985 . . . the two men on the sheet screen are the late Senator Jetin Anjain (left) and Greenpeace campaigner Steve Sawyer who were key to the success of the relocation. Image: Greenpeace Aotearoa
Looking back 40 years David Robie gave us a really great presentation of what it was like on board the Rainbow Warrior as a freelance journalist on that final voyage in 1985. David is a journalist and was actually one of my journalism lecturers when I went to journalism school at AUT, like 15 plus years ago!
At that time on the Rainbow Warrior he was reporting on the journey to Rongelap and helping the people move from their island home.
When you’re hearing people like David talking about being on that last voyage and sharing those memories — then thinking about how all of us here now are continuing the work — and that in the future, there will be people who join and keep campaigning for oceans and for all the other issues that we work on — I had this really tangible feeling of how it all fits together.
The work goes behind us and before us – I think I described it in my reflection on the day, ‘looking back and moving forward’. And that it’s bigger than me right now or bigger than all of us right now.
Russel [Norman, executive director] said it in a way too, about feeling the challenge from the past when you’re looking at those photos of the people who were on that last voyage, and the really brave work that they did. You see them looking out at you and it does feel motivational, but also like a challenge to keep being courageous.
Dr David Robie’s talk about the Rainbow Warrior and Rongelap. Video: Greenpeace
We can get caught up in the everyday of trying to do something. And this was one of those moments where you get more of a bird’s eye view, and that felt significant.
Connecting with the people in the photos I think one of the most moving things was hearing David talk about the people in the photographs, making them come alive with the stories of the people and what they were like, including when he talked about his favourite photo that he thought best represented Fernando sitting on a boat with his camera in mid-conversation.
David has written in his book about being on the Rainbow Warrior (Eyes of Fire), putting it in the political context of the time.
He talked to us about the difficulties and all the challenges back 40 years ago, getting content to the media from a boat, and sending radio reports — how important it was to get the story out there.
The Greenpeace photographer — that was Fernando — would have to develop the photos himself on board, then transmit them to media outlets. He was one of the people who was key in getting the story of that final voyage to the media and to the wider public.
I found it interesting also talking with David about the different struggles for journalism training these days — there’s less outlets now to train as a journalist in New Zealand.
That’s because there’s less jobs and there’s so much pressure on the media at the moment. Lots of outlets closing down, people losing their jobs and then the impact of that in terms of being able to get stories out.
Emma Page is oceans communications lead for Greenpeace Aotearoa. Republished with permission.
In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member.
COMMENTARY: By Emma Page
I was on the track maintenance team, on the middle level. We were mostly cleaning up the waterways. I was with my son Wilbur who’s 11, and he was there with his friend Frankie, who’s 12, and they were also knee deep in digging out all of the weeds.
It was my first time at Matauri Bay. One of the things it made me really think about, which is not only specific to the oceans campaign I work on, was really feeling for the first time what being part of Greenpeace as a community or a movement or family means and feels like.
David Robie’s tent talk about the Rainbow Warrior on the Rongelap voyage in May 1985 . . . the two men on the sheet screen are the late Senator Jetin Anjain (left) and Greenpeace campaigner Steve Sawyer who were key to the success of the relocation. Image: Greenpeace Aotearoa
Looking back 40 years David Robie gave us a really great presentation of what it was like on board the Rainbow Warrior as a freelance journalist on that final voyage in 1985. David is a journalist and was actually one of my journalism lecturers when I went to journalism school at AUT, like 15 plus years ago!
At that time on the Rainbow Warrior he was reporting on the journey to Rongelap and helping the people move from their island home.
When you’re hearing people like David talking about being on that last voyage and sharing those memories — then thinking about how all of us here now are continuing the work — and that in the future, there will be people who join and keep campaigning for oceans and for all the other issues that we work on — I had this really tangible feeling of how it all fits together.
The work goes behind us and before us – I think I described it in my reflection on the day, ‘looking back and moving forward’. And that it’s bigger than me right now or bigger than all of us right now.
Russel [Norman, executive director] said it in a way too, about feeling the challenge from the past when you’re looking at those photos of the people who were on that last voyage, and the really brave work that they did. You see them looking out at you and it does feel motivational, but also like a challenge to keep being courageous.
Dr David Robie’s talk about the Rainbow Warrior and Rongelap. Video: Greenpeace
We can get caught up in the everyday of trying to do something. And this was one of those moments where you get more of a bird’s eye view, and that felt significant.
Connecting with the people in the photos I think one of the most moving things was hearing David talk about the people in the photographs, making them come alive with the stories of the people and what they were like, including when he talked about his favourite photo that he thought best represented Fernando sitting on a boat with his camera in mid-conversation.
David has written in his book about being on the Rainbow Warrior (Eyes of Fire), putting it in the political context of the time.
He talked to us about the difficulties and all the challenges back 40 years ago, getting content to the media from a boat, and sending radio reports — how important it was to get the story out there.
The Greenpeace photographer — that was Fernando — would have to develop the photos himself on board, then transmit them to media outlets. He was one of the people who was key in getting the story of that final voyage to the media and to the wider public.
I found it interesting also talking with David about the different struggles for journalism training these days — there’s less outlets now to train as a journalist in New Zealand.
That’s because there’s less jobs and there’s so much pressure on the media at the moment. Lots of outlets closing down, people losing their jobs and then the impact of that in terms of being able to get stories out.
Emma Page is oceans communications lead for Greenpeace Aotearoa. Republished with permission.
Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they have carried out 550 drone operations.
In response, Iran has issued a warning to evacuate the central offices of Israeli television channels 12 and 14.
An Israeli attack on a Red Crescent ambulance in Tehran resulted in the deaths of two relief workers.
Israel’s Finance Minister Belazel Smotrich, who is accused of being a war criminal and the target of sanctions by five countries including New Zealand, claims they have hit 800 targets in Iran, with aircraft flying freely in the nation’s airspace.
In the West Bank, the tension continues, with business continuing at a subdued level, everyone waiting to see how the situation will unfold.
Israel’s illegal siege continues, cutting off cities and villages from one another, while blocking ambulances and urgent medical access in several locations today.
Israeli and Iranian strikes are expected to continue, and potentially escalate, over the coming days.
Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues.
Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
Iranian missiles raining down on Tel Aviv as seen from the occupied West Bank. Image: CM screenshot APR
Anthony Albanese’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president.
There was always a risk of derailment by outside events, particularly when the scheduled get-together was late in the piece, rather than soon after the president’s arrival in Canada for the G7.
Nevertheless, the result is something of a debacle for Albanese.
The prime minister needs to meet the president. Pressing issues – tariffs, AUKUS and defence – require discussion at leadership level. Quite apart from having the two leaders, who’ve never met, establishing some personal relationship.
It would have been especially desirable for the prime minister to convey, at the highest level, Australia’s views on the importance of and progress on AUKUS, as the month-long US inquiry into the agreement begins. This inquiry, announced last week, is examining whether the pact serves the US’ interests.
It’s also difficult to see Australia being able to extract concessions on the US tariffs without a discussion between the leaders. Possibly something can be done in phone calls between the two. But they seem as rare as hen’s teeth.
The Albanese government’s spin is, no matter, there will be a chance for a meeting when Albanese goes to the US in September to address the United Nations leaders’ week. He can make a side trip to Washington.
Perhaps. But let’s wait to see the invitation to Washington. Many leaders are in the US at that time, wanting to get to the capital.
Anyway, it’s become increasingly clear Albanese is not keen on facing the now-risky Oval Office ritual. Trump may be in a bad mood. The US journalists present could be feral.
If Albanese hopes the meeting would be in New York, that would be at the whim of Trump’s schedule.
Looking back, whatever the counterarguments (that included the complication of an election campaign), the prime minister should have tried very hard to get to Trump earlier, including braving the Oval Office.
This is not because Australia should kowtow to the Americans, but because any Australian prime minister should engage, as soon as possible, with a new US administration, especially when the president is as volatile as this one.
When things slip, as they have now, it all becomes trickier to navigate.
Those with good memories might recall this is not the first time Albanese has found himself victim of a presidential no-show. In 2023, then president Joe Biden was supposed to come to Australia for the Quad, and address the federal parliament.
Because of a deadlock in negotiations over the US budget, the president didn’t make it. (Later he issued Albanese an invitation for an official visit to Washington, seen as compensation. Not a precedent Albanese should rely on.) The Biden no-show was a big inconvenience but no more, given the very positive relations between the Albanese government and that US administration.
Some in Labor would think about the Trump issue in domestic political terms – that given Australians don’t like Trump, it’s not that important whether there is a meeting. But that sort of approach is not in Australia’s national interests.
An exchange at the joint news conference Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (who has a deal on tariffs) gave in Canada is instructive.
Question: On the AUKUS submarine agreement, is that still proceeding?
Keir Starmer: Yep, we’re proceeding with that. It’s a really important deal to both of us. I think the President is doing a review. We did a review when we came into government, so that makes good sense to me.
Donald Trump: We’re very long-time partners and allies and friends, and we’ve become friends in a short period of time. He’s slightly more liberal than I am, to put it mildly.
Starmer: I stand slightly on the left.
Trump: But for some reason, we get along.
Starmer: We make it work.
Somehow, Albanese needs to find a way to “make it work”.
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’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president.
There was always a risk of derailment by outside events, particularly when the scheduled get-together was late in the piece, rather than soon after the president’s arrival in Canada for the G7.
Nevertheless, the result is something of a debacle for Albanese.
The prime minister needs to meet the president. Pressing issues – tariffs, AUKUS and defence – require discussion at leadership level. Quite apart from having the two leaders, who’ve never met, establishing some personal relationship.
It would have been especially desirable for the prime minister to convey, at the highest level, Australia’s views on the importance of and progress on AUKUS, as the month-long US inquiry into the agreement begins. This inquiry, announced last week, is examining whether the pact serves the US’ interests.
It’s also difficult to see Australia being able to extract concessions on the US tariffs without a discussion between the leaders. Possibly something can be done in phone calls between the two. But they seem as rare as hen’s teeth.
The Albanese government’s spin is, no matter, there will be a chance for a meeting when Albanese goes to the US in September to address the United Nations leaders’ week. He can make a side trip to Washington.
Perhaps. But let’s wait to see the invitation to Washington. Many leaders are in the US at that time, wanting to get to the capital.
Anyway, it’s become increasingly clear Albanese is not keen on facing the now-risky Oval Office ritual. Trump may be in a bad mood. The US journalists present could be feral.
If Albanese hopes the meeting would be in New York, that would be at the whim of Trump’s schedule.
Looking back, whatever the counterarguments (that included the complication of an election campaign), the prime minister should have tried very hard to get to Trump earlier, including braving the Oval Office.
This is not because Australia should kowtow to the Americans, but because any Australian prime minister should engage, as soon as possible, with a new US administration, especially when the president is as volatile as this one.
When things slip, as they have now, it all becomes trickier to navigate.
Those with good memories might recall this is not the first time Albanese has found himself victim of a presidential no-show. In 2023, then president Joe Biden was supposed to come to Australia for the Quad, and address the federal parliament.
Because of a deadlock in negotiations over the US budget, the president didn’t make it. (Later he issued Albanese an invitation for an official visit to Washington, seen as compensation. Not a precedent Albanese should rely on.) The Biden no-show was a big inconvenience but no more, given the very positive relations between the Albanese government and that US administration.
Some in Labor would think about the Trump issue in domestic political terms – that given Australians don’t like Trump, it’s not that important whether there is a meeting. But that sort of approach is not in Australia’s national interests.
An exchange at the joint news conference Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (who has a deal on tariffs) gave in Canada is instructive.
Question: On the AUKUS submarine agreement, is that still proceeding?
Keir Starmer: Yep, we’re proceeding with that. It’s a really important deal to both of us. I think the President is doing a review. We did a review when we came into government, so that makes good sense to me.
Donald Trump: We’re very long-time partners and allies and friends, and we’ve become friends in a short period of time. He’s slightly more liberal than I am, to put it mildly.
Starmer: I stand slightly on the left.
Trump: But for some reason, we get along.
Starmer: We make it work.
Somehow, Albanese needs to find a way to “make it work”.
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 recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests.
The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of economic, security, and diplomatic priorities with PNG, taking full advantage of its position as the biggest, most strategically placed island player in the Pacific.
An examination of the key outcomes reveals a partnership of mutual benefit, reflecting both PNG’s strategic diversification and France’s own long-term ambitions as a Pacific power.
A primary driver is the shared economic rationale. From Port Moresby’s perspective, the partnership offers a clear path to economic diversification and resilience.
But many in PNG have been watching with keen interest and asking: how badly does PNG want this?
While Prime Minister James Marape offered France a Special Economic Zone in Port Moresby (SEZ) for French businesses, he also named the lookout at Port Moresby’s Variarata National Park after President Emmanuel Macron drawing the ire of many in the country.
The proposal to establish a SEZ specifically for French industries is a notable attempt to attract capital from beyond PNG’s traditional partners.
Strategically coupled This is strategically coupled with securing the future of the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project.
Macron’s personal undertaking to work with TotalEnergies to keep the project on schedule provides crucial stability for one of PNG’s most significant economic ventures.
For France, these arrangements secure a major energy investment for its national corporate champion and establish a stronger economic foothold in a strategically vital region between Asia and the Pacific.
In the area of security, the relationship addresses tangible needs for both nations.
PNG is faced with the immense challenge of monitoring a 2.4 million sq km Exclusive Economic Zone, making it vulnerable to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The finalisation of a Shiprider Agreement with France provides a practical force-multiplier, leveraging French naval assets to enhance PNG’s maritime surveillance capabilities. This move, along with planned defence talks on air and maritime cooperation, allows PNG to diversify its security architecture.
For France, a resident power with Pacific territories like New Caledonia and French Polynesia, participating in regional security operations reinforces its role and commitment to stability in the Indo-Pacific.
Elevating diplomatic influence The partnership is also a vehicle for elevating diplomatic influence.
Port Moresby has noted the significance of engaging with a partner that holds permanent membership on the UN Security Council and seats at the G7 and G20.
This alignment provides PNG with a powerful channel to global decision-making forums. The reciprocal move to establish a PNG embassy in Paris further cements the relationship on a mature footing.
The diplomatic synergy is perhaps best illustrated by France’s full endorsement of PNG’s bid to host a future UN Ocean Conference. This support provides PNG with a major opportunity to lead on the world stage, while allowing France to demonstrate its credentials as a key partner to the Pacific Islands.
This deepening PNG-France partnership does not exist in a vacuum.
The West’s view of China’s rapid emergence as a dominant economic and military force in the region has reshaped the strategic landscape, prompting traditional powers to re-engage with renewed urgency.
increased diplomatic footprint The United States has responded by significantly increasing its diplomatic and security footprint, a move marked by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Port Moresby to sign the Defence Cooperation Agreement.
Similarly, Australia, PNG’s traditional security partner, is working to reinforce its long-standing influence through initiatives like the multi-million-dollar deal to establish a PNG team in its National Rugby League (NRL), a soft-power exercise reportedly linked to security outcomes.
This competitive environment has, in turn, created greater agency for Pacific nations, allowing them to diversify their partnerships beyond old allies and providing a fertile ground for European powers like France to assert their own strategic interests.
A strong foundation for the relationship is a shared public stance on environmental stewardship. The agreement on the need for rigorous scientific studies before any deep-sea mining occurs aligns PNG’s national policy with a position of environmental caution.
This common ground extends to broader climate action, where France’s commitment to conservation in the Pacific resonates with PNG’s status as a frontline nation vulnerable to climate change.
This alignment on values provides a durable and politically important basis for cooperation, allowing both nations to jointly advocate for climate justice and ocean protection.
For the Papua New Guinea economy, this deepening partnership with France is critically important as it provides high-level stability for the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project and creates a direct pathway for new investment through a proposed SEZ for French businesses.
Vital economic resource Furthermore, by moving to finalise a Shiprider Agreement to combat illegal fishing, the government is actively protecting a vital economic resource.
For Marape’s credibility in local politics, these outcomes are tangible successes he can present to the nation as he battles a massive credibility dip in recent years.
Securing a personal undertaking from the leader of a G7 nation, gaining support for PNG to host a future UN Ocean Conference, and enhancing national security demonstrates effective leadership on the world stage.
This allows him to build a narrative of a competent statesman who, through “warm, personal relationships”, can deliver on promises of economic opportunity and national security while strengthening his political standing at home.
The recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests.
The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of economic, security, and diplomatic priorities with PNG, taking full advantage of its position as the biggest, most strategically placed island player in the Pacific.
An examination of the key outcomes reveals a partnership of mutual benefit, reflecting both PNG’s strategic diversification and France’s own long-term ambitions as a Pacific power.
A primary driver is the shared economic rationale. From Port Moresby’s perspective, the partnership offers a clear path to economic diversification and resilience.
But many in PNG have been watching with keen interest and asking: how badly does PNG want this?
While Prime Minister James Marape offered France a Special Economic Zone in Port Moresby (SEZ) for French businesses, he also named the lookout at Port Moresby’s Variarata National Park after President Emmanuel Macron drawing the ire of many in the country.
The proposal to establish a SEZ specifically for French industries is a notable attempt to attract capital from beyond PNG’s traditional partners.
Strategically coupled This is strategically coupled with securing the future of the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project.
Macron’s personal undertaking to work with TotalEnergies to keep the project on schedule provides crucial stability for one of PNG’s most significant economic ventures.
For France, these arrangements secure a major energy investment for its national corporate champion and establish a stronger economic foothold in a strategically vital region between Asia and the Pacific.
In the area of security, the relationship addresses tangible needs for both nations.
PNG is faced with the immense challenge of monitoring a 2.4 million sq km Exclusive Economic Zone, making it vulnerable to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The finalisation of a Shiprider Agreement with France provides a practical force-multiplier, leveraging French naval assets to enhance PNG’s maritime surveillance capabilities. This move, along with planned defence talks on air and maritime cooperation, allows PNG to diversify its security architecture.
For France, a resident power with Pacific territories like New Caledonia and French Polynesia, participating in regional security operations reinforces its role and commitment to stability in the Indo-Pacific.
Elevating diplomatic influence The partnership is also a vehicle for elevating diplomatic influence.
Port Moresby has noted the significance of engaging with a partner that holds permanent membership on the UN Security Council and seats at the G7 and G20.
This alignment provides PNG with a powerful channel to global decision-making forums. The reciprocal move to establish a PNG embassy in Paris further cements the relationship on a mature footing.
The diplomatic synergy is perhaps best illustrated by France’s full endorsement of PNG’s bid to host a future UN Ocean Conference. This support provides PNG with a major opportunity to lead on the world stage, while allowing France to demonstrate its credentials as a key partner to the Pacific Islands.
This deepening PNG-France partnership does not exist in a vacuum.
The West’s view of China’s rapid emergence as a dominant economic and military force in the region has reshaped the strategic landscape, prompting traditional powers to re-engage with renewed urgency.
increased diplomatic footprint The United States has responded by significantly increasing its diplomatic and security footprint, a move marked by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Port Moresby to sign the Defence Cooperation Agreement.
Similarly, Australia, PNG’s traditional security partner, is working to reinforce its long-standing influence through initiatives like the multi-million-dollar deal to establish a PNG team in its National Rugby League (NRL), a soft-power exercise reportedly linked to security outcomes.
This competitive environment has, in turn, created greater agency for Pacific nations, allowing them to diversify their partnerships beyond old allies and providing a fertile ground for European powers like France to assert their own strategic interests.
A strong foundation for the relationship is a shared public stance on environmental stewardship. The agreement on the need for rigorous scientific studies before any deep-sea mining occurs aligns PNG’s national policy with a position of environmental caution.
This common ground extends to broader climate action, where France’s commitment to conservation in the Pacific resonates with PNG’s status as a frontline nation vulnerable to climate change.
This alignment on values provides a durable and politically important basis for cooperation, allowing both nations to jointly advocate for climate justice and ocean protection.
For the Papua New Guinea economy, this deepening partnership with France is critically important as it provides high-level stability for the multi-billion-dollar Papua LNG project and creates a direct pathway for new investment through a proposed SEZ for French businesses.
Vital economic resource Furthermore, by moving to finalise a Shiprider Agreement to combat illegal fishing, the government is actively protecting a vital economic resource.
For Marape’s credibility in local politics, these outcomes are tangible successes he can present to the nation as he battles a massive credibility dip in recent years.
Securing a personal undertaking from the leader of a G7 nation, gaining support for PNG to host a future UN Ocean Conference, and enhancing national security demonstrates effective leadership on the world stage.
This allows him to build a narrative of a competent statesman who, through “warm, personal relationships”, can deliver on promises of economic opportunity and national security while strengthening his political standing at home.
On Monday, the federal government announced new rules to boost safety in the early childhood sector.
From September there will be mandatory reporting of any allegations or incidents of child physical or sexual abuse within 24 hours. Currently there is a seven-day window.
On top of this, vapes will be banned from all early childhood services and there will be “stronger protections” around the photographing and filming of children. Services will be need to have clear policies on taking photos and videos of children, parent consent, CCTV use and using service-issued devices.
Next week, Australia’s education ministers will meet to discuss what else can be done to improve safety in childcare services. What do they need to consider?
What has happened so far?
This week’s changes stem from a 2023 review by the national early childhood quality authority, which highlighted serious concerns about childcare safety.
This found increasing reports of critical incidents in services relating to inappropriate discipline, inadequate supervision and harmful sexual behaviours.
Education Minister Jason Clare explained he set up the review, prompted by concerns for children’s safety. This included allegations of multiple cases of abuse by a former childcare worker.
But stories of mistreatment and neglect in childcare services have continued – with the ABC reporting cases of shocking abuse in some childcare centres this year.
Too many incidents
The national childcare quality authority reports there has been a slow but steady increase in the rate of confirmed breaches and reporting of serious incidents in the eight years to 2023-24.
For example, the rate of reported serious incidents in 2023-24 was 148 per 100 approved services. This is higher than the rate of 139 in 2022-23 and 124 in 2021-22.
Concerningly, current reporting levels may be an under-representation due to inadequate understanding of child safety among educators and confusion about when and how to report child safety incidents.
This mirrors Australian research, which indicates a lack of time, understanding and support are barriers for medical staff reporting child abuse.
Why is progress so slow?
There is a chance the latest announcement may inadvertently cause families concern. Parents and carers might reasonably wonder why we currently have a seven-day window to report child abuse and how vapes were ever allowed in early education services to start with.
Families may also wonder why stronger protections around filming their kids have not already been introduced – given early childhood services have been photographing children for years. The situation is further confused by the fact that some service providers may have developed and implemented their own policies.
There is a long history of slow and reactive policy making and regulation in early childhood – as noted by a review published by the Australian Council for Educational Research as far back as 2006.
The sector is also subject to complex and cumbersome structural frameworks. Services need to navigate different state and territory requirements as well as national regulations. There are also a raft of extra guidelines and codes, for example, Safe Sleep Practices by Red Nose Australia.
What is needed now?
Next week, federal and state education ministers will meet and discuss childcare safety once again. There are two important things they should keep in mind.
1. We are still missing important data.
We need a better evidence base on the exact nature and frequency of child safety incidents in childcare services. We need robust data so we can track longitudinal trends and assess the ongoing impact of new policies.
At the moment this crucial information is obscured by inconsistent data records. While this is likely due to the complex interplay of federal and state governance, this is one of many issues in the sector that has long been documented.
2. Early childhood educators are already overworked
My 2024 research with colleagues shows many early childhood educators already know what safe and quality education and care looks like. But they are frustrated their ability to spend quality time with children is hampered by administrative tasks. This frustration is a key contributor to burnout, which is already rife within the sector.
So governments should ensure important safety practices do not come with excessive, burdensome and confusing red tape.
What about families?
For families who are worried about the quality of care their children are receiving – it may help to know the vast majority of services (91%) met or exceeded the national standards as of February 2025.
If you have specific concerns you can contact the regulatory authority in your state.
Erin Harper 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 timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.
But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
How is power wielded in today’s Iran?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The all-powerful IRGC
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
Possible scenarios post-Khamenei
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew Thomas 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 timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.
But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
How is power wielded in today’s Iran?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The all-powerful IRGC
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
Possible scenarios post-Khamenei
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew Thomas 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 an era of the atomisation of viewing practices through streaming, increasingly short, self-produced videos for TikTok and YouTube, and the reduction of all audiovisual material to “content” for various “platforms”, there is something refreshing about a bunch of strangers assembling in a dark room to collectively watch a giant screen with massive sound.
In other words, going to the movies.
And there’s no better place to see films limited in mainstream release than at film festivals. The standard of the films screening at this year’s Sydney Film Festival was exceptional, and it is difficult to select a top five out of the 40 or so I managed to see. But here goes!
Sirât
Produced by Pedro Almodovar, writer-director Oliver Laxe’s Sirât, which recently won the Jury Prize at Cannes, follows middle-aged Luis (Sergi López) as he travels with his son Esteban (Bruno Núñez Arjona) and their dog Pipa looking for his estranged daughter in the desert rave scene. They team up with a group of ravers and set off across Southern Morocco towards the next party.
Early on, there are some hints that things are awry on a broader scale – the military break up the opening doof, and we hear, at one point, World War III has broken out.
And as the film unfolds, things take a turn for the worse, with a litany of tragedies – increasingly absurd – afflicting the members of the group. The vaguely futuristic world of the opening crystallises into something much more terrifying than the kind of shrill cinematic post-apocalypticism we’ve become used to through films like Fury Road.
What begins as a kind of paean to raving – replete with bass-thumping speakers (cranked in theatres to eardrum pounding loudness), a “cool” crew of trippers, and an emphasis on the free lives of the ravers (played by real-life party-goers) – rapidly descends into a wild existential nightmare. And the idea that life is a kind of free consumerist party for westerners is viciously dismembered in the second half: we are all refugees in this era.
Sirât is a masterpiece. Its stunning 16mm film images (courtesy of cinematographer Mauro Herve) are complemented by exceptional sound design by Laia Casanova, a majesty of image and sound demanding to be experienced in a cinema.
Somebody
Written and directed by Lee Jung-chan and Kim Yeo-jung, the South Korean film Somebody is a puzzling, intense psycho drama about precociously evil child So-hyun (Gi So-yoo) and the pressures this places on her single mother Yeong-eun (Kwak Sun-young).
An unsettling horror thriller, the film also plays like a study of the evil child archetype. It works through the genre’s cliches, unpicking them while eschewing the usual evil-kid scares in favour of looking at the complex interplay between and ambiguity around the image of child as brat/evil and mother as caring/enabler.
In the first half, the point of view oscillates between an image of the child as evil and the child as scared. In the second half, the evil child has grown up, and we follow her towards the film’s brutal (and unexpected) ending.
And this is where Somebody excels. It taps into the fear of parents that their children are alien parasites – who is this stranger now living off me? – but also the difficulties for children in feeling isolated and scared.
Somebody is a deeply sad and troubling film, buoyed by excellent performances from adults and children alike. In real life, the idea that a kid would be born evil is preposterous, but it’s a movieland cliché that works. Somebody addresses this idea with a genuinely impressive vision.
Harvest
Athina Rachel Tsangari’s Harvest is a melancholic, elegiac film set in a rural community in Scotland in the Middle Ages. When the economic harmony of the village is disrupted by the advent of a new noble, three wandering strangers are mercilessly scapegoated, despite the efforts of villager Walter Thirsk (Caleb Landry Jones, in a beautifully understated performance) to protect them.
Despite the turmoil it depicts, the film unfolds as gently as the familiar rhythms of the seasons.
Cinematographer Sean Price Williams’ 16mm images are uncannily beautiful, supported by an astonishing score and sound design from Nicolas Becker.
This fable about the ravages of modernity (recalling Vincent Ward’s The Navigator) – of the violence of calendar time as it overcomes the time of the harvest – is exceptional in every respect.
Not much happens. It’s a slow-moving, brooding film, and it would not be nearly as compelling seen on a small screen. But for those of us willing to make a trip to the movies, Harvest is immensely satisfying.
Redux Redux
Part of the eternally rousing Freak Me Out strand of the program from film critic Richard Kuipers, Kevin and Matthew McManus’ Redux Redux is the kind of high concept film that could easily depend too much on its ingenious conceit (a woman travels throughout the multiverse repeatedly avenging the murder of her daughter) and forget about the stuff that actually makes films work (coherent, striking visual design, immersive sound and compelling performances).
But Redux Redux gets everything right, maintaining its iron grip on the viewer from the opening title card to the closing credits. Michaela McManus – sister of the writer-directors – is brilliant as the grieving, vengeful mother, playing the part with a staid intensity that never tips into hysteria or melodrama.
There are some funny moments – the amusingly lowbrow design of the multiverse machine, for example. But the film never feels like it plays too hard for laughs. Paul Koch’s synth music and sound design are richly atmospheric without coming off as trite, and perfectly support the crisp, economical cinematography of Alan Gwizdowski.
The most impressive thing about the film is the effortlessness with which the story feels like it develops throughout – even though the plot, on the surface, involves the same thing being repeated ad nauseam.
Unlike, for example, in the case of the multiverse-themed Everything Everywhere All at Once, Redux Redux never comes across as self-indulgent, clever for its own sake. It never feels like anything other than a compulsively watchable – and immensely pleasurable – revenge thriller.
Alpha
Writer-director Jan-Willem van Ewijk’s Alpha begins as a lightly comedic intergenerational social satire.
Thirty-something Rein (Reinout Scholten van Aschat), a Dutch snowboarder in the Swiss alps, clashes with his movie-star father, Gijs (Gijs Scholten van Aschar), when Gijs visits him. Gijs flirts with Rein’s girlfriend, asks inappropriate questions about race, and parties with his son’s friends, all the time escalating the stakes, becoming increasingly overbearing and competitive.
It’s funny and familiar fare, treading similar terrain to a Ruben Östland film, and it’s well-done. Pairing a real life father and son is a casting act of genius, adding both pathos and authenticity to their competition.
Similar to Sirât, Alpha takes a sudden turn at the mid-way point. Father and son are trapped in an avalanche. It becomes a race against time as son tries to rescue father in a gruelling battle for survival.
Its brutal second half completely detonates the entire scaffold of our pleasure from the first half. Testament to the craft of van Ewijk (and the talent of the stars), this radical change in tone never feels incoherent or contrived.
By the end of Alpha, the petty dick-swinging of father and son from the first half – and the energetic (and well-shot) skiing footage – becomes nothing before the austere, cold majesty of the mountains looming over and entrapping them.
Alpha is a masterclass in audience manipulation. A truly devastating experience for the viewer.
Other notable films – and one dud!
There were too many excellent films to note them all. Some include master auteur Christian Petzold’s Mirrors No. 3, a film – typical of Petzold – of people haunted by ghosts of lives lost and faded desires, an understated film which – again, customary for Petzold’s work – has an enigmatic air one can’t quite put one’s finger on.
Kleber Mendonça Filho’s The Secret Agent was another standout: a fun, rollicking romp for cinephiles about political machinations in Brazil in the 1970s.
Richard Linklater’s Blue Moon, a biopic of American songwriter Lorenz Hart, had a charmingly goofy affect, as did Vie Privée, a breezy French thriller starring Jodie Foster as a psychoanalyst caught up in a mystery.
Olmo, which could easily have made the top five, is a charming coming of age odyssey about a Mexican-American 14-year-old going to a party with his crush. The Love That Remains is a stunningly shot, surreal comedy about the trials and tribulations of an Icelandic family.
As per usual, some exceptional documentaries screened. Joh: The Last King of Queensland made by Kriv Stenders (better known for narrative works like Red Dog), is a formally compelling study of the reign of Australia’s longest serving premier.
The Raftsmen is an uplifting crowd-pleaser about the expedition from Ecuador to Australia that captivated the public’s attention in 1973. The film is built around an exceptional archive of contemporaneous 16mm footage shot by the rafters.
Lowland Kids, produced by Darren Aronofsky, is a carefully observed documentary about a community in Louisiana forced to relocate because of climate change. This tender film counterpoints the grim reality of global warming with the individual disappointments of the characters’ personal lives.
The only truly execrable film I saw was Michel Franco’s Dreams, a hokey, profoundly dumb film masquerading as something cutting edge (wow – there’s sex, and the camera doesn’t move much), cashing in on topical problems in the United States. Worst of all – and despite ballet sequences, which are always good to watch – it’s a very ugly film.
Given the mediocre quality of much contemporary Hollywood cinema, one dud out of 40 isn’t too bad!
Ari Mattes 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 Middle East is a region of intense beauty and ancient kingdoms. It has also repeatedly endured periods of geopolitical instability over many centuries.
Today, geopolitical, socio-political and religious tensions persist. The world is currently watching as longstanding regional tensions come to a head in the shocking and escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
The global airline industry takes a special interest in how such tensions play out. This airspace is a crucial corridor linking Europe, Asia and Africa.
The Middle East is now home to several of the world’s largest international airlines: Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways. These airlines’ home bases – Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi, respectively – have become pivotal hubs in international aviation.
Keeping passengers safe will be all airlines’ highest priority. What could an escalating conflict mean for both the airlines and the travelling public?
Safety first
History shows that the civil airline industry and military conflict do not mix. On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes, a US navy warship, fired two surface-to-air missiles and shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an international passenger service over the Persian Gulf.
More recently, on July 17 2014, Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine as the battle between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists continued.
Understandably, global airlines are very risk-averse when it comes to military conflict. The International Civil Aviation Organization requires airlines to implement and maintain a Safety Management System (SMS).
One of the main concerns – known as “pillars” – of the SMS is “safety risk management”. This includes the processes to identify hazards, assess risks and implement risk mitigation strategies.
The risk-management departments of airlines transiting the Middle East region will have been working hard on these strategies.
Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, the International Civil Aviation Organization has strict requirements and protocols to keep passengers safe. meunierd/Shutterstock
Route recalculation
The most immediate and obvious evidence of such strategies being put in place are changes to aircraft routing, either by cancelling or suspending flights or making changes to the flight plans. This is to ensure aircraft avoid the airspace where military conflicts are flaring.
At the time of writing, a quick look at flight tracking website Flightradar24 shows global aircraft traffic avoiding the airspace of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. The airspace over Ukraine is also devoid of air traffic.
Rerouting, however, creates its own challenges. Condensing the path of the traffic into smaller, more congested areas can push aircraft into and over areas that are not necessarily equipped to deal with such a large increase in traffic.
Having more aircraft in a smaller amount of available safe airspace creates challenges for air traffic control services and the pilots operating the aircraft.
More time and fuel
Avoiding areas of conflict is one of the most visible forms of airline risk management. This may add time to the length of a planned flight, leading to higher fuel consumption and other logistical challenges. This will add to the airlines’ operating costs.
There will be no impact on the cost of tickets already purchased. But if the instability in the region continues, we may see airline ticket prices increase.
It is not just the avoidance of airspace in the region that could place upward pressure on the cost of flying. Airliners run on Jet-A1 fuel, produced from oil.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, the “world’s most important oil transit chokepoint”, this could see the cost of oil, and in turn Jet-A1, significantly increase. Increasing fuel costs will be passed on the paying passenger. However, some experts believe such a move is unlikely.
A major hub
The major aviation hubs in the Middle East provide increased global connectivity, enabling passengers to travel seamlessly between continents.
Increased regional instability has the potential to disrupt this global connectivity. In the event of a prolonged conflict, airlines operating in and around the region may find they have increased insurance costs. Such costs would eventually find their way passed on to consumers through higher ticket prices.
Across the globe, airlines and governments are issuing travel advisories and warnings. The onus is on the travelling public to stay informed about changes to flight status, and potential delays.
Such warnings and advisories can lead to a drop in passenger confidence, which may then lead to a drop in bookings both into and onwards from the region.
Until the increase in instability in the Middle East, global airline passenger traffic numbers were larger than pre-pandemic figures. Strong growth had been predicted in the coming decades.
Anything that results in falling passenger confidence could negatively impact these figures, leading to slowed growth and affecting airline profitability.
Despite high-profile disasters, aviation remains the safest form of transport. As airlines deal with these challenges they will constantly work to keep flights safe and to win back passenger confidence in this unpredictable situation.
Natasha Heap 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.
Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran.Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images
Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by counter-strikes by Iran on Israel.
These attacks have come at a moment of growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, and have prompted larger questions over what this means for the global non-proliferation regime.
The short answer: it’s not good.
Where was uranium being enriched in Iran?
There are two main enrichment sites: one at Natanz and one at Fordow. There’s also a facility at Isfahan, which, among other things, is focused on producing important materials for the enrichment process.
Natanz has a hall of centrifuges, which are cylindrical devices that spin incredibly quickly to enrich uranium for creating either the fuel for a nuclear power program or the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
Much the same is happening at Fordow, as far as we know. It is a smaller facility than Natanz but much of it is buried deep under a mountain.
To make it weapons grade, uranium ought to be close to 90% purity. It is possible to create a bomb with uranium enriched to a lower level, but it is a much less efficient method. So around 90% is the target.
The key nuclear sites being targeted by Israel. CC BY-NC
The Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran signed in 2015 (in exchange for the US lifting sanctions) limited Iran’s enrichment capacities and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But Trump ripped up that deal in 2018.
Iran remained in compliance for a while, even while the US resumed its economic sanctions, but in recent years, has started to enrich to higher levels – up to about 60%. We know Iran still hasn’t got weapons-grade enriched uranium, but it’s a lot closer than it was to being able to build a bomb.
And worse, much of their stockpile of enriched uranium will now be effectively unaccounted for because of the strikes by Israel. There are no inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening there now and probably won’t be for some time.
Iran could also say some of its stockpile was destroyed in the strikes – and we’ve got no way of knowing if that’s true or not.
Both Natanz and Fordow have extensive, hardened, underground facilties. The above-ground facility at Natanz, at least, appears to have been badly damaged, based on satellite photos.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the centrifuges at Natanz were likely to have been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. This was likely caused by power cuts, despite the fact the underground facility was not directly hit.
Grossi said there was no visible damage to the underground facilities at Fordow, which is hidden some 80–90 metres beneath a mountain.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the very deep penetrating ordinance that can totally destroy such deeply buried structures.
So a key question is: has Israel done enough damage to the centrifuges inside? Or have Iran’s efforts at fortifying these facilities been successful? We may not know for some time.
Was Iran trying to hide its activities?
In the past, Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program laying out the foundation of how it would build a bomb.
We know that because, as part of the diplomatic process associated with the previous nuclear deal that Trump killed off, the IAEA had issued an assessment confirming that Iran previously had this plan in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran hadn’t actually built weapons or done a test, but it had a plan. And that plan, Project AMAD, was shelved in 2003. We also know that thanks to Israel. In 2018, Israeli special forces undertook a raid in downtown Tehran and stole secret documents revealing this.
When the Obama administration managed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, part of the deal was Iran had to accept greater oversight of its nuclear facilities. It had to accept restrictions, limit the number of centrifuges and couldn’t maintain large stockpiles of enriched uranium. This was in exchange for the US lifting sanctions.
These restrictions didn’t make it impossible for Iran to build a weapon. But it made it extremely difficult, particularly without being detected.
What did the IAEA announce last week and why was it concerning?
Last week, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution saying that Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT.
This related to Iran being unable to answer questions from inspectors about nuclear activities being undertaken at undeclared sites.
That’s the first time in 20 years the IAEA has come to this finding. This is not why Israel attacked Iran. But it helps explain the exact timing. It gives Israel a degree of cover, perhaps even legitimacy. That legitimacy is surely limited however, given that Israel itself is not a signatory of the NPT and has maintained its own nuclear arsenal for more than half a century.
In response to the IAEA announcement last week, Iran announced it would plan to build a third enrichment site in addition to Fordow and Natanz.
Can a militarised approach to counter-proliferation backfire?
Yes.
When Israel hit the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, it put Iraq’s nuclear program back by a few years. But the Iraqis redoubled their efforts. By the end of that decade, Iraq was very close to a fully-fledged nuclear weapons program.
Presumably, Israel’s thinking is it will have to redo these strikes – “mowing the grass”, as they say – in an effort to hinder Iran’s attempts to reconstitute the program.
Overnight, Iranian lawmakers also drafted a bill urging Iran to withdraw from the NPT. That is entirely legal under the treaty. Article X of the treaty allows that if “extraordinary events” jeopardise a state party’s “supreme interests” then there’s a legal process for withdrawal.
Only one state has done that since the NPT was opened for signature in 1968: North Korea. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed state.
Iran seems likely to withdraw from the treaty under this article. It has experienced a full-scale attack from another country, including strikes on key infrastructure and targeted assassinations of its top leaders and nuclear scientists. If that doesn’t count as a risk to your supreme interests, then I don’t know what does.
Iran’s withdrawal would pose a significant challenge to the wider non-proliferation regime. It may even trigger more withdrawals from other countries.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the next big questions are how much damage has Israel done to the centrifuge facilities? How quickly can Iran enrich its uranium stockpile up to weapons grade?
And, ultimately, how much damage has been done to the ever-fragile nuclear non-proliferation regime based around the NPT?
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran.Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images
Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by counter-strikes by Iran on Israel.
These attacks have come at a moment of growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, and have prompted larger questions over what this means for the global non-proliferation regime.
The short answer: it’s not good.
Where was uranium being enriched in Iran?
There are two main enrichment sites: one at Natanz and one at Fordow. There’s also a facility at Isfahan, which, among other things, is focused on producing important materials for the enrichment process.
Natanz has a hall of centrifuges, which are cylindrical devices that spin incredibly quickly to enrich uranium for creating either the fuel for a nuclear power program or the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
Much the same is happening at Fordow, as far as we know. It is a smaller facility than Natanz but much of it is buried deep under a mountain.
To make it weapons grade, uranium ought to be close to 90% purity. It is possible to create a bomb with uranium enriched to a lower level, but it is a much less efficient method. So around 90% is the target.
The key nuclear sites being targeted by Israel. CC BY-NC
The Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran signed in 2015 (in exchange for the US lifting sanctions) limited Iran’s enrichment capacities and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But Trump ripped up that deal in 2018.
Iran remained in compliance for a while, even while the US resumed its economic sanctions, but in recent years, has started to enrich to higher levels – up to about 60%. We know Iran still hasn’t got weapons-grade enriched uranium, but it’s a lot closer than it was to being able to build a bomb.
And worse, much of their stockpile of enriched uranium will now be effectively unaccounted for because of the strikes by Israel. There are no inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening there now and probably won’t be for some time.
Iran could also say some of its stockpile was destroyed in the strikes – and we’ve got no way of knowing if that’s true or not.
Both Natanz and Fordow have extensive, hardened, underground facilties. The above-ground facility at Natanz, at least, appears to have been badly damaged, based on satellite photos.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the centrifuges at Natanz were likely to have been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. This was likely caused by power cuts, despite the fact the underground facility was not directly hit.
Grossi said there was no visible damage to the underground facilities at Fordow, which is hidden some 80–90 metres beneath a mountain.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the very deep penetrating ordinance that can totally destroy such deeply buried structures.
So a key question is: has Israel done enough damage to the centrifuges inside? Or have Iran’s efforts at fortifying these facilities been successful? We may not know for some time.
Was Iran trying to hide its activities?
In the past, Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program laying out the foundation of how it would build a bomb.
We know that because, as part of the diplomatic process associated with the previous nuclear deal that Trump killed off, the IAEA had issued an assessment confirming that Iran previously had this plan in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran hadn’t actually built weapons or done a test, but it had a plan. And that plan, Project AMAD, was shelved in 2003. We also know that thanks to Israel. In 2018, Israeli special forces undertook a raid in downtown Tehran and stole secret documents revealing this.
When the Obama administration managed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, part of the deal was Iran had to accept greater oversight of its nuclear facilities. It had to accept restrictions, limit the number of centrifuges and couldn’t maintain large stockpiles of enriched uranium. This was in exchange for the US lifting sanctions.
These restrictions didn’t make it impossible for Iran to build a weapon. But it made it extremely difficult, particularly without being detected.
What did the IAEA announce last week and why was it concerning?
Last week, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution saying that Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT.
This related to Iran being unable to answer questions from inspectors about nuclear activities being undertaken at undeclared sites.
That’s the first time in 20 years the IAEA has come to this finding. This is not why Israel attacked Iran. But it helps explain the exact timing. It gives Israel a degree of cover, perhaps even legitimacy. That legitimacy is surely limited however, given that Israel itself is not a signatory of the NPT and has maintained its own nuclear arsenal for more than half a century.
In response to the IAEA announcement last week, Iran announced it would plan to build a third enrichment site in addition to Fordow and Natanz.
Can a militarised approach to counter-proliferation backfire?
Yes.
When Israel hit the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, it put Iraq’s nuclear program back by a few years. But the Iraqis redoubled their efforts. By the end of that decade, Iraq was very close to a fully-fledged nuclear weapons program.
Presumably, Israel’s thinking is it will have to redo these strikes – “mowing the grass”, as they say – in an effort to hinder Iran’s attempts to reconstitute the program.
Overnight, Iranian lawmakers also drafted a bill urging Iran to withdraw from the NPT. That is entirely legal under the treaty. Article X of the treaty allows that if “extraordinary events” jeopardise a state party’s “supreme interests” then there’s a legal process for withdrawal.
Only one state has done that since the NPT was opened for signature in 1968: North Korea. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed state.
Iran seems likely to withdraw from the treaty under this article. It has experienced a full-scale attack from another country, including strikes on key infrastructure and targeted assassinations of its top leaders and nuclear scientists. If that doesn’t count as a risk to your supreme interests, then I don’t know what does.
Iran’s withdrawal would pose a significant challenge to the wider non-proliferation regime. It may even trigger more withdrawals from other countries.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the next big questions are how much damage has Israel done to the centrifuge facilities? How quickly can Iran enrich its uranium stockpile up to weapons grade?
And, ultimately, how much damage has been done to the ever-fragile nuclear non-proliferation regime based around the NPT?
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
Ever find yourself unable to stop scrolling through your phone, chasing that next funny video or interesting post?
Or maybe you’ve felt a rush of excitement when you achieve a goal, eat a delicious meal, or fill your online shopping cart.
Why do some experiences feel so rewarding, while others leave us feeling flat? Well, dopamine might be responsible for that. Here’s what it does in our brains and bodies.
It’s a chemical messenger
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter – a chemical messenger that facilitates communication between the brain and the central nervous system. It sends messages between different parts of your nervous system, helping your body and brain coordinate everything from your movement to your mood.
Dopamine is most known for its role in short-term pleasure, and the boost we get from things such as eating tasty foods, drinking alcohol, scrolling social media or falling in love.
It even plays a role in kidney function by regulating the levels of salt and water we excrete.
Conversely, low levels of dopamine have been linked to neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.
How dopamine motivates us to pursue pleasure
Dopamine is not just active when we do pleasurable things. It’s active beforehand and it drives us to pursue pleasure.
Say I go to a cafe and decide to buy a doughnut. When I bite into the doughnut, it tastes fantastic. Dopamine surges and I experience pleasure.
The next time I walk past the cafe, dopamine is already active. It remembers the doughnut I had last time and how delicious it was. Dopamine drives me to walk back into the cafe, purchase another doughnut and eat it.
From an evolutionary perspective, dopamine was incredibly important and it ensured survival of the species. It motivated behaviours such as hunting and foraging for food. It reinforced the pursuit of finding shelter and safety and keeping away from predators. And it motivated people to seek out mates and to reproduce.
However, modern technology has amplified the effects of dopamine, leading to negative consequences. Activities such as excessive social media use, gambling, consuming alcohol, drug use, sex, pornography and gaming can stimulate dopamine release, creating cycles of addiction and compulsive behaviours.
Our dopamine levels can vary
Our brain is constantly releasing small amounts of dopamine at a “baseline” rate. This is because dopamine is crucial to the functioning of our brain and body, irrespective of pleasure.
Everyone has a different baseline, influenced by genetic factors such as our DRD2 dopamine receptor genes. Some people produce and metabolise dopamine faster than other people. Our baseline levels can also be influenced by sleep, nutrition and stress in our lives.
If I play games on my phone all morning and get a dopamine release from that, then I eat something tasty for morning tea, I may not experience the same level of fulfilment or enjoyment that I would have had I not played those games.
The brain works hard to regulate itself and it won’t allow us to be in a constant state of dopamine “highs”. This means we can build a tolerance to certain exciting activities if we seek them out too much, as the brain wants to avoid being in a state of constant dopamine “highs”.
Healthy ways to get a dopamine boost
Thankfully, there are healthy, non-addictive ways to boost your dopamine levels.
Exercise is one of the most effective methods for boosting dopamine naturally. Physical activities such as walking, running, cycling, or even dancing can trigger the release of dopamine, leading to improved mood and greater motivation.
Research has shown listening to music you enjoy makes your brain release more dopamine, giving you a pleasurable experience.
And of course, spending time with people whose company we enjoy is another great way to activate dopamine.
Incorporating these habits into daily life can support your brain’s natural dopamine production and help you enjoy lasting improvements in motivation, mood and overall health.
Anastasia Hronis is the author of The Dopamine Brain: Your Science-Backed Guide to Balancing Pleasure and Purpose, published by Penguin Books Aus & NZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland
Last week, the Queensland government launched the ambitious Destination 2045 tourism plan, which aims to make the state a global leader in tourism. The plan highlights that one in six jobs in tropical north Queensland are supported by tourism.
However, earlier this year the same government tentatively withdrew support from a campaign to add Cape York to the UNESCO World Heritage List.
If the goal is to position Queensland as a leader in tourism, then linking Cape York’s landscapes to the World Heritage brand would certainly help achieve that.
Consultation is key
In June 2024, Steven Miles, Labor’s then-premier in Queensland, and Tanya Plibersek, the federal environment minister, announced they had placed seven of the cape’s national parks on Australia’s tentative World Heritage list.
In January, however, the newly elected Liberal-National government, under Premier David Crisafulli, ordered a review of the decision. The government cited concerns over a lack of sufficient consultation around the nomination.
If a lack of consultation is the main issue, there is an opportunity for the Crissafulli government to thoughtfully reopen negotiations.
Getting this step right could help conserve and encourage tourism to one of Australia’s most diverse landscapes – in line with the Destination 2045 plan.
How to get onto (and kicked off) UNESCO’s list
Cape York covers some 137,000 square kilometres. According to the 2021 census, it has a population of less than 8,000 people, including 3,678 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
Fruit Bat Falls is a waterfall located in the Apudthama National Park (Jardine River National Park) in Cape York. Jason Clark/Flickr, CC BY-NC
Inscription to the World Heritage list doesn’t mean the entire cape would be listed – just specific sites and landscapes within it.
It’s usually the responsibility of a country’s various governments to convince UNESCO, in a nomination bid, a certain place has the necessary “outstanding universal value” and meets at least one of UNESCO’s ten selection criteria.
Sites that are physically altered or damaged after receiving World Heritage status can be de-listed, either by a state party or by UNESCO. This has happened in Oman, Germany, the United Kingdom and Georgia.
We also recently saw the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in Western Australia, with its extraordinary record of rock engravings (petroglyphs), denied World Heritage inscription. This was mainly due to the threat of ongoing damage from industrial emissions from Woodside Energy’s nearby Karratha gas plant.
World Heritage status: a risk or benefit?
A carefully considered World Heritage inscription doesn’t necessarily block industries and tourism from the listed area.
Many of the archaeological sites of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area in New South Wales are located on sheep stations. These stations, established in the late 19th century, have individual property plans that ensure the sites are conserved while remaining viable for agricultural activity.
Another example is the tourism seen at the extraordinary eel trap system of Budj Bim in southwest Victoria. Budj Bim is one of Australia’s most recent additions to the World Heritage list. It is also the first site to be inscribed solely for its cultural value.
The Budj Bim eel traps were engineered some 6,600 years ago, and represent one of the world’s oldest aquaculture systems.
This cultural landscape is now home to a thriving tourism program that attracts thousands of visitors each year. The World Heritage listing ensures there are enough resources for the Gunditjmara Traditional Owners running the site to improve the health of Country through cultural and environmental management.
While Queensland’s current government has cited concerns over planning restrictions, these types of concerns are typically based on perception rather than proven harm. In Queensland, they were also clearly addressed in government memos and communications.
Tasmania’s forestry sector resisted World Heritage expansion (there were four expansions between 1989–2013), yet tourism in the region remains economically valuable.
It’s unlikely the Cape York nominations would threaten the pastoral or mining industries, since most of the nominated sites are already protected as national parks.
What makes a World Heritage site?
The list of Cape York sites submitted for World Heritage consideration has some strong contenders. Quinkan Country is undoubtedly the most significant site on the list, distinguished by its diversity and richness of Aboriginal paintings and engravings.
But the list isn’t exhaustive. There are several other Aboriginal cultural landscapes in Cape York that also deserve to be considered by UNESCO. These include the giant shell mounds around Weipa, Jiigurru (Lizard Island), and the Flinders Island Group with its extraordinary rock art galleries.
Moving forward
World heritage listings in Cape York have great potential to allow Aboriginal people to care for the landscapes and create tourism infrastructure that centres Aboriginal perspectives.
Appointing Aboriginal rangers in the Flinders Island Group could help deliver a unique and sustainable cultural tourism experience, similar to that provided at the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Destination 2045 highlights the importance of developing Aboriginal ranger programs in such landscapes to boost cultural tourism and economic growth.
Inggal Odul (Denham Island part of Flinders Island Group). Source: Olivia Arnold (2023).
The Crisafulli government now has the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the Traditional Custodians of the Cape York landscapes that have been put forth. We argue that the World Heritage listing outcome could help the cape’s economic development and support its communities.
Michael Westaway receives funding from then Australian Research Council and has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Kaurarag Archipelago, around Mapoon and Weipa including on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve and in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay.
Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Ania previously sat on the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) World Heritage Nomination Bids review panel. Ania undertakes research with Aboriginal communities including within the Kaurareg Archipelago.
Denis Rose is on the board of the not-for-profit Country Needs People, which advocates for Indigenous Protected Areas and the Indigenous Rangers Program.
Olivia Arnold has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay, Kaurarag Archipelago and Jiigurru (Lizard Island group).
Rylee Smith 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 (Au and NZ) – By Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland
Last week, the Queensland government launched the ambitious Destination 2045 tourism plan, which aims to make the state a global leader in tourism. The plan highlights that one in six jobs in tropical north Queensland are supported by tourism.
However, earlier this year the same government tentatively withdrew support from a campaign to add Cape York to the UNESCO World Heritage List.
If the goal is to position Queensland as a leader in tourism, then linking Cape York’s landscapes to the World Heritage brand would certainly help achieve that.
Consultation is key
In June 2024, Steven Miles, Labor’s then-premier in Queensland, and Tanya Plibersek, the federal environment minister, announced they had placed seven of the cape’s national parks on Australia’s tentative World Heritage list.
In January, however, the newly elected Liberal-National government, under Premier David Crisafulli, ordered a review of the decision. The government cited concerns over a lack of sufficient consultation around the nomination.
If a lack of consultation is the main issue, there is an opportunity for the Crissafulli government to thoughtfully reopen negotiations.
Getting this step right could help conserve and encourage tourism to one of Australia’s most diverse landscapes – in line with the Destination 2045 plan.
How to get onto (and kicked off) UNESCO’s list
Cape York covers some 137,000 square kilometres. According to the 2021 census, it has a population of less than 8,000 people, including 3,678 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
Fruit Bat Falls is a waterfall located in the Apudthama National Park (Jardine River National Park) in Cape York. Jason Clark/Flickr, CC BY-NC
Inscription to the World Heritage list doesn’t mean the entire cape would be listed – just specific sites and landscapes within it.
It’s usually the responsibility of a country’s various governments to convince UNESCO, in a nomination bid, a certain place has the necessary “outstanding universal value” and meets at least one of UNESCO’s ten selection criteria.
Sites that are physically altered or damaged after receiving World Heritage status can be de-listed, either by a state party or by UNESCO. This has happened in Oman, Germany, the United Kingdom and Georgia.
We also recently saw the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in Western Australia, with its extraordinary record of rock engravings (petroglyphs), denied World Heritage inscription. This was mainly due to the threat of ongoing damage from industrial emissions from Woodside Energy’s nearby Karratha gas plant.
World Heritage status: a risk or benefit?
A carefully considered World Heritage inscription doesn’t necessarily block industries and tourism from the listed area.
Many of the archaeological sites of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area in New South Wales are located on sheep stations. These stations, established in the late 19th century, have individual property plans that ensure the sites are conserved while remaining viable for agricultural activity.
Another example is the tourism seen at the extraordinary eel trap system of Budj Bim in southwest Victoria. Budj Bim is one of Australia’s most recent additions to the World Heritage list. It is also the first site to be inscribed solely for its cultural value.
The Budj Bim eel traps were engineered some 6,600 years ago, and represent one of the world’s oldest aquaculture systems.
This cultural landscape is now home to a thriving tourism program that attracts thousands of visitors each year. The World Heritage listing ensures there are enough resources for the Gunditjmara Traditional Owners running the site to improve the health of Country through cultural and environmental management.
While Queensland’s current government has cited concerns over planning restrictions, these types of concerns are typically based on perception rather than proven harm. In Queensland, they were also clearly addressed in government memos and communications.
Tasmania’s forestry sector resisted World Heritage expansion (there were four expansions between 1989–2013), yet tourism in the region remains economically valuable.
It’s unlikely the Cape York nominations would threaten the pastoral or mining industries, since most of the nominated sites are already protected as national parks.
What makes a World Heritage site?
The list of Cape York sites submitted for World Heritage consideration has some strong contenders. Quinkan Country is undoubtedly the most significant site on the list, distinguished by its diversity and richness of Aboriginal paintings and engravings.
But the list isn’t exhaustive. There are several other Aboriginal cultural landscapes in Cape York that also deserve to be considered by UNESCO. These include the giant shell mounds around Weipa, Jiigurru (Lizard Island), and the Flinders Island Group with its extraordinary rock art galleries.
Moving forward
World heritage listings in Cape York have great potential to allow Aboriginal people to care for the landscapes and create tourism infrastructure that centres Aboriginal perspectives.
Appointing Aboriginal rangers in the Flinders Island Group could help deliver a unique and sustainable cultural tourism experience, similar to that provided at the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Destination 2045 highlights the importance of developing Aboriginal ranger programs in such landscapes to boost cultural tourism and economic growth.
Inggal Odul (Denham Island part of Flinders Island Group). Source: Olivia Arnold (2023).
The Crisafulli government now has the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the Traditional Custodians of the Cape York landscapes that have been put forth. We argue that the World Heritage listing outcome could help the cape’s economic development and support its communities.
Michael Westaway receives funding from then Australian Research Council and has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Kaurarag Archipelago, around Mapoon and Weipa including on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve and in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay.
Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Ania previously sat on the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) World Heritage Nomination Bids review panel. Ania undertakes research with Aboriginal communities including within the Kaurareg Archipelago.
Denis Rose is on the board of the not-for-profit Country Needs People, which advocates for Indigenous Protected Areas and the Indigenous Rangers Program.
Olivia Arnold has undertaken research with Aboriginal communities in the Flinders Island Group adjacent to Princess Charlotte Bay, Kaurarag Archipelago and Jiigurru (Lizard Island group).
Rylee Smith 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.
For millennia, First Nations people have shaped Australian ecosystems through the purposeful and skilful use of fire. This cultural burning is an important way for Aboriginal people to connect to and care for Country.
Under climate change, Earth is experiencing more frequent and severe bushfires. This has prompted a rethink of Western approaches to fire management, and triggered the development of cultural burning programs supported by government agencies.
At the same time, First Nations people have been calling to revitalise cultural burning as part of a generations-long pursuit of self-determination.
Our new research details the results of a Indigenous-led cultural burning program in critically endangered woodlands in New South Wales. It shows how Western science can support cultural burning to deliver benefits across cultures – as well as for nature.
What we did
Box-gum grassy woodland has been extensively cleared for agriculture, and only about 5% of its original extent remains. The woodlands are endangered in NSW and critically endangered across eastern Australia.
They feature diverse eucalypt trees, sparse shrubs and native tussock grasses, and support native fauna including the critically endangered regent honeyeater and swift parrot.
Our project brought together First Nations communities, ecologists from the Australian National University and officers from Local Land Services. It also involved the Rural Fire Service.
Cultural burns are relatively cool, slow fires. They trickle through the landscape, enabling animals to escape the flames. They promote the germination of plants, including culturally important food and medicine plants, among other benefits.
Cultural burns are important to First Nations people for a variety of cultural and social reasons. The practice is part of a broader suite of inherited cultural responsibilities shared through generations.
Our project involved cultural burns in the winter and spring of 2023. Wiradjuri people burned their Country around Young and Wagga Wagga, and Ngunnawal people burned their Country near Yass.
The burns took place on travelling stock reserves – remnant patches of vegetation historically used to move cattle from paddock to market. These reserves are very important for Aboriginal people because they often trace Songlines and Dreaming tracks. They are also important for farmers as places to graze cattle during drought.
Alongside the cultural burning program, ANU research ecologists monitored how the woodlands responded to the burns. They did this by surveying plants, soils and biomass before and about eight months after the burns, as well as in unburnt areas.
What we found
We measured plant responses by counting the number of plant individuals and recording germination.
Many native plant species germinated after the burn. They included native peas – one an endangered species, the small scurf pea, which germinated exclusively after the burns.
Germination was greater in burned than unburned sites, including for sensitive species that commonly respond well to fire such as native glycine (a herb) and lomandra grasses.
Importantly, the condition of a site before the burn affected how well plants responded. Condition refers to factors such as the diversity of native plants (including sensitive species) and the presence of weeds.
After the burn, native plants were more abundant on sites with a better starting condition, than on those in poor condition. This highlights the importance of improving the health of poor-condition areas after burns.
The type of appropriate management will depend on the site, but may include weed control and planting or seeding native species. More monitoring will also help quantify longer term responses after burning.
Investing in community and nature
Indigenous community members led the burns on their Country and were represented by women and men of multiple generations. They were paid for their work and offered fire-safety training and personal protective equipment.
The burns were often community events – days of connection and sharing knowledge within communities, and between cultures. This fostered opportunities for “two-way learning” and “two-eyed seeing” – ways of respectfully bringing together Indigenous and Western knowledge.
Our project shows how cross-cultural partnerships can be central to conserving and restoring Australia’s unique and highly diverse ecosystems, during a period of environmental change. But for this to happen, cultural burning must be better integrated into mainstream land management.
This is especially needed in some parts of southern Australia, where government-funded programs have been less resourced than in parts of northern and Central Australia.
Government agencies and institutions can support Indigenous land stewardship in various ways.
These include:
designing projects with Indigenous people from the outset, and being directed by community aspirations which supports self-determination
forming meaningful cross-cultural partnerships across agencies to navigate complex bureaucratic processes
providing Indigenous people with resources and land access to manage Country, including funding for labour, training and equipment. Provisions for sufficient resources must be made from the beginning, in grant applications
protecting and acknowledging the rights of Indigenous people to their cultural heritage, such as traditional knowledge, through formal protection agreements.
Elle Bowd receives funding from the NSW Government, the ACT Government, the ACT government, the Local Land Services, and the Australian Research Council.
David Lindenmayer receives funding from the NSW Government, the ACT Government, the 4AM Foundation, NSW Local Land Services, and the Australian Research Council. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council and a Member of Birds Australia.
Geoff Cary receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Bushfire Research Centre of Excellence funded by ANU and Optus, and previously received funding from Future Ready Regions EDIS Development, Australian Research Council, ACT Government, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Greenhouse Office/Department of Climate Change Greenhouse Action in Regional Australia funding schemes, Desert Knowledge CRC, NSW Department of Environment & Conservation, Tasmanian Government and US National Science Foundation.
Braithan Bell-Garner and Dean Freeman 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.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 17, 2025.
In view of Trump’s review of AUKUS, should Australia cancel the subs deal? We asked 5 experts Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Andrews, Senior Manager, Policy & Engagement, Australian National University Speculation is swirling around the future of the A$368 billion AUKUS agreement, following Washington’s decision to review the nuclear submarine deal to ensure it meets President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was planning
Australians in the bush want tougher penalties on crime. Here’s why – and what’s needed now Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Davey, Lecturer of Criminology, Griffith University New research has found that while Australians generally support strong punishments, people living in the bush are significantly more likely than city dwellers to want to punish more harshly those who break the law. It means Australians living in rural
Judy Davis gives a singularly vivid performance in The Spare Room – but the play falls short Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Moya Costello, Adjunct Lecturer in Creative Writing, Southern Cross University Brett Boardman/Belvoir In The Spare Room, Judy Davis lights up the stage with a singularly vivid performance. Adapted by Eamon Flack from Helen Garner’s 2008 novel of the same name, Davis plays sharp-tongued Helen (or Hel) to
US travel ban on Pacific 3 – countries have right to decide over borders, Peters says RNZ Pacific New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters says countries have the right to choose who enters their borders in response to reports that the Trump administration is planning to impose travel restrictions on three dozen nations, including three in the Pacific. But opposition Labour’s deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni says the foreign minister should push
Attack on Iran’s state media – Israel bombs IRIB building in new war crime Pacific Media Watch Israel targeted one of the buildings of the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) in Tehran on the fourth day of attacks on Iran, interrupting a live news broadcast, reports Press TV. The attack, involving at least four bombs, struck the central building housing IRIB’s news department, while a live news
What is ‘cognitive shuffling’ and does it really help you get to sleep? Two sleep scientists explain Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melinda Jackson, Associate Professor at Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University Ursula Ferrara/Shutterstock If you’ve been on social media lately – perhaps scrolling in the middle of the night, when you know you shouldn’t but you just can’t sleep –
New research shows Australians see influencers as major sources of misinformation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sora Park, Professor of Communication, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra As consumption of traditional news continues to fall, audiences are turning to social media personalities and influencers for their information. These figures are increasingly shaping public debates. But Australian news audiences are sceptical. More
Why does my phone sometimes not ring when people call? A communications expert explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jairo Gutierrez, Professor, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Auckland University of Technology Tada Images There’s a certain feeling I get in the pit of my stomach when I’m waiting for an important call to come through. You know the type – maybe a call from your
Wetland restoration is seen as sunk cost – but new research shows why it should be considered an investment Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wei Yang, Senior Scientist in Environmental Economics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University Shutterstock/Wirestock Creators As extreme weather intensifies globally, governments are seeking nature-based solutions that deliver both climate and economic benefits. The restoration of wetlands is an often overlooked opportunity. As our recent study shows,
Jaws at 50: a cinematic masterpiece – and an incredible piece of propaganda Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University Jaws turns 50 on June 20. Last year, Quentin Tarantino called Stephen Spielberg’s film “possibly the greatest movie ever made”. Though he was quick to add that it isn’t the best film in terms of script, cinematography
Ancient termite poo reveals 120 million-year-old secrets of Australia’s polar forests Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alistair Evans, Professor, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University Witsawat.S/Shutterstock Imagine a lush forest with tree-ferns, their trunks capped by ribbon-like fronds. Conifers tower overhead, bearing triangular leaves almost sharp enough to pierce skin. Flowering plants are both small and rare. You’re standing in what is now
When new dads struggle, their kids’ health can suffer. Tackling mental distress early can help Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Delyse Hutchinson, Associate Professor, Clinical Psychologist, and NHMRC Leadership Fellow, SEED Centre for Lifespan Research, School of Psychology, Deakin University D-BASE/Getty In Australia, an estimated one in ten men experience mental health issues such as anxiety and depression before and after their child is born (the perinatal
A weird group of boronias puzzled botanists for decades. Now we’ve solved the pollination mystery Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Douglas Hilton, Chief Executive, CSIRO Andy Young Boronias, known for their showy flowers and strong scent, are a quintessential part of the Australian bush. They led Traditional Owners to the best water sources and inspired Australian children’s author and illustrator May Gibbs to pen one of her
Some students learning English can take at least 6 years to catch up to their peers. How can we support them better? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucy Lu, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney Rawpixel/ Getty Images About one quarter of Australian school students are learning English as an additional language or dialect. This means their first language or dialect is something other than English and they
Ice Age shelter high up in the Blue Mountains reveals Aboriginal heritage from 20,000 years ago Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Wilkins, Aboriginal Cultural Educator, Trainer and Facilitator, Indigenous Knowledge Artist’s impression of Dargan Shelter as it would have looked during the last Ice Age. Painting by Leanne Watson Redpath Travel back 20,000 years into the last Ice Age, to a time when the upper reaches of
‘Be brave’ warning to nations against deepsea mining from UNOC By Laura Bergamo in Nice, France The UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) concluded today with significant progress made towards the ratification of the High Seas Treaty and a strong statement on a new plastics treaty signed by 95 governments. Once ratified, it will be the only legal tool that can create protected areas in international waters,
Samoan fashion designer fatally shot at Salt Lake City ‘no kings’ protest RNZ Pacific A renowned Samoan fashion designer was fatally shot at the “No Kings” protest in Salt Lake City on Saturday, the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) has confirmed. Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, known as Afa Ah Loo, an “innocent bystander” at the protest, died despite efforts by paramedics to save his life, police
Israelis ‘now realise’ what Palestinians and Lebanese have been suffering, says analyst Asia Pacific Report A Paris-based military and political analyst, Elijah Magnier, says he believes the hostilities between Israel and Iran will only get worse, but that Israeli support for the war may wane if the destruction continues. “I think it’s going to continue escalating because we are just in the first days of the war
What is uranium enrichment and how is it used for nuclear bombs? A scientist explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaitlin Cook, DECRA Fellow, Department of Nuclear Physics and Accelerator Applications, Australian National University Uranium ore. RHJPhtotos/Shutterstock Late last week, Israel targeted three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, killing several Iranian nuclear scientists. The facilities are heavily fortified and largely underground, and
Issa Amro: Youth Against Settlements – ‘life is very hard, the Israeli soldiers act like militia’ RNZ News Palestinian advocate Issa Amro has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this year for his decades of work advocating for peaceful resistance against Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The settlements are illegal under international law — and a record 45 were established last year under cover of the war
Israel targeted one of the buildings of the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) in Tehran on the fourth day of attacks on Iran, interrupting a live news broadcast, reports Press TV.
The attack, involving at least four bombs, struck the central building housing IRIB’s news department, while a live news broadcast was underway.
The transmission was briefly interrupted before Hassan Abedini, IRIB’s news director and deputy for political affairs, appeared on air to condemn the “terrorist crime”.
At the time of the attack, news anchor Sahar Emami was presenting the news. Despite the building trembling under the first strike, she stood her ground and continued the broadcast.
“Allah o Akbar” (God is Great), she proclaimed, drawing global attention to the war crime committed by Israel against Iran’s national broadcaster.
Moments later, another blast filled the studio with smoke and dust, forcing her to evacuate. She returned shortly after to join Abedini and share her harrowing experience.
“If I die, others will take my place and expose your crimes to the world,” she declared, looking straight into the camera with courage and composure.
Casualties unconfirmed While the number of casualties remains unconfirmed, insiders reported that several journalists inside the building had been injured in the bombing.
Israel’s war ministry promptly claimed responsibility for the attack.
Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the aggression on the state broadcaster as a “war crime” and called on the United Nations to take immediate action against the regime.
. . . But after a brief interruption on screen as debris fell from a bomb strike, Sahar Emami was back courageously presenting the news and denouncing the attack. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei denounced the attack and urged the international community to hold the regime accountable for its assault on the media.
“The world is watching: targeting Iran’s news agency #IRIB’s office during a live broadcast is a wicked act of war crime,” Baghaei wrote on X.
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) also condemned the bombing of the IRIB news building, labeling it an “inhuman, criminal, and a terrorist act.”
CPJ ‘appalled’ by Israeli attack The Committee to Protect Journalists said it was “appalled by Israel’s bombing of Iran’s state TV channel while live on air.”
“Israel’s killing, with impunity, of almost 200 journalists in Gaza has emboldened it to target media elsewhere in the region,” Sara Qudah, the West Asia representative for CPJ, said in a statement after the attack on an IRIB building.
The Israeli regime has a documented history of targeting journalists globally. Since October 2023, it has killed more than 250 Palestinian journalists in the besieged Gaza Strip.
The regime launched its aggression against the Islamic Republic, including Tehran, early on Friday, leading to the assassination of several high-ranking military officials, nuclear scientists, and civilians, including women and children.
In response, Iran launched a barrage of missiles and drones late Friday night, followed by more retaliatory operations on Saturday and Sunday as part of Operation True Promise III.
In Israel, 24 people have been killed and hundreds wounded since hostilities began. In Iran, 224 people have been killed.
Plumes of black smoke billowing after an Israeli attack against Iran’s state broadcaster yesterday. Image: PressTV
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters says countries have the right to choose who enters their borders in response to reports that the Trump administration is planning to impose travel restrictions on three dozen nations, including three in the Pacific.
But opposition Labour’s deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni says the foreign minister should push back on the US proposal.
Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu have reportedly been included in an expanded proposal of 36 additional countries for which the Trump administration is considering travel restrictions.
The plan was first reported by The Washington Post. A State Department spokesperson told the outlet that the agency would not comment on internal deliberations or communications.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Peters said countries had the right to decide who could cross their borders.
“Before we all get offended, we’ve got the right to decide in New Zealand who comes to our country. So has Australia, so has . . . China, so has the United States,” Peters said.
US security concerns He said New Zealand would do its best to address the US security concerns.
“We need to do our best to ensure there are no misunderstandings.”
Peters said US concerns could be over selling citizenship or citizenship-by-investment schemes.
Vanuatu runs a “golden passport” scheme where applicants can be granted Vanuatu citizenship for a minimum investment of US$130,000.
Peters says citizenship programmes, such as the citizenship-by-investment schemes which allow people to purchase passports, could have concerned the Trump administration. Image: 123rf/RNZ Pacific
Peters said programmes like that could have concerned the Trump administration.
“There are certain decisions that have been made, which look innocent, but when they come to an international capacity do not have that effect.
“Tuvalu has been selling passports. You see where an innocent . . . decision made in Tuvalu can lead to the concerns in the United States when it comes to security.”
Sepuloni wants push back However, Sepuloni wants Peters to push back on the US considering travel restrictions for Pacific nations.
Labour Party Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni . . . “I would expect [Peters] to be pushing back on the US and supporting our Pacific nations to be taken off that list.” Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
Sepuloni said she wanted the foreign minister to get a full explanation on the proposed restrictions.
“From there, I would expect him to be pushing back on the US and supporting our Pacific nations to be taken off that list,” she said.
“Their response is, ‘why us? We’re so tiny — what risk do we pose?’”
Wait to see how this unfolds – expert Massey University associate professor in defence and security studies Anna Powles said Vanuatu has appeared on the US’ bad side in the past.
“Back in March Vanuatu was one of over 40 countries that was reported to be on the immigration watchlist and that related to Vanuatu’s golden passport scheme,” Dr Powles said.
However, a US spokesperson denied the existence of such a list.
“What people are looking at . . . is not a list that exists here that is being acted on,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said, according to a transcript of her press briefing.
“There is a review, as we know, through the president’s executive order, for us to look at the nature of what’s going to help keep America safer in dealing with the issue of visas and who’s allowed into the country.”
Dr Powles said it was the first time Tonga had been included.
“That certainly has raised some concern among Tongans because there’s a large Tongan diaspora in the United States.”
She said students studying in the US could be affected; but while there was a degree of bemusement and concern over the issue, there was also a degree of waiting to see how this unfolded.
In The Spare Room, Judy Davis lights up the stage with a singularly vivid performance.
Adapted by Eamon Flack from Helen Garner’s 2008 novel of the same name, Davis plays sharp-tongued Helen (or Hel) to the irrational Nicola (Elizabeth Alexander), who visits seeking alternative treatments for her cancer-ridden body.
But unfortunately, the production does not match Davis’ star performance.
A shaky reality
Set and costume, by Mel Page, echo Garner tropes: bed linen, windows, back door onto shared backyard with family as neighbours, curtains, lounge, kitchen, vodka, music, bicycle and miniature pink backpack.
But I’m increasingly unable to suspend belief in stage designs whose purpose is to mimic reality. A curtain is used inconsistently to indicate a change of space. The kitchen table is appropriated for medical professionals’ desks and magician’s table without any change of lighting or further demarcation of space and time.
Kitchens and cooking are important to Garner’s domestic settings. There’s a brief smashing of apricot kernels. Bananas, licorice bullets and lemonade get a mention. But Hel’s chopping of a limp celery comes out of nowhere, and means very little.
Garner’s writing captures the minutiae of the home. This is echoed on stage. Brett Boardman/Belvoir
If the adaptation is going to use food, meal preparation and cooking, then use it substantially as a motif.
For time changes, Hel yells out the day. The pace is speedy, with Davis firing off dialogue and scampering across stage. We get no sense of the dragging time that Hel experiences as carer.
The same actors playing multiple characters without much change of physical appearance lacks credulity. Nicola, in particular, is presented as a cliché of an older, suburban woman – not Garner’s wealthy bohemian. Nicola is based on Jenya Osborne – a friend of Garner and her third husband, Murray Bail, who described Osborne as “alternative virtually everything”.
Garner is the queen of sustained metaphor. In the novel, a broken mirror and a creature scuttling in dried leaves are early images of death.
In Flack’s adaptation, the mirror is only spoken of, accompanied by a strum across the cello by Anthea Cottee (music composed by Steve Francis).
A live cello, played by Anthea Cottee, accompanies the play. Brett Boardman/Belvoir
There may have been a flourish of flamenco on the cello as Hel prances in imitation of the liveliness of her granddaughter, Bess (who is only referred to once), but it is too unimpactful to recall.
At one point, Hel plays on a toy piano accompanying the cello, a comedic reference to Garner’s most acclaimed novel The Children’s Bach (1984).
On death and dying
The clearest image of dying and death is central in the play: a magician’s show that Hel has to review. “The most beautiful things happen secretly and privately”, the magician (Alan Dukes) says, as he whisks away then recovers various objects.
A failure of both Garner’s book and the stage adaptation is that Hel complains of exhaustion after only a few weeks caring for Nicola. But many people spend years caring for a sick loved one, giving up another possible trajectory of their own lives.
Hel complains of exhaustion after only a few weeks caring for Nicola. Brett Boardman/Belvoir
The balance is wrong, too, between the humanity of Hel and Nicola: the audience guffawed at Hel’s exasperated wit and Nicola’s investment in fraudulent therapies. This, perhaps, is a feature of Garner’s work. While Garner is self-critical in her writing, she also consistently exposes others.
Bail is critical of Garner’s use of their friend’s life as fodder for a novel. He writes:
[Osbourne] was all kindness and consideration, which was rewarded as she was dying by being portrayed in [Garner’s book], where her harmless foolishness was pitied and scorned.
In Garner’s novel, Nicola and Hel “[dissect] with cheerful meanness the latest escapades” of her ex-husband. But in the play, Hel recounts her acts of revenge against him in their Sydney flat, drawing on Garner’s third diary, How to End a Story: Diaries 1995–1998, published in 2021. Bail is not named in either play or novel, but fans of Garner’s work know of whom she speaks.
The play is part monologue by Davis. Monologues and choruses effectively give oversight and insight to the narrative, but here it only further spotlights Hel’s story, not Nicola’s who is the one dying in pain.
With some details in the dialogue of Nicola’s dying processes – and with her plan to take an entourage for residency in an expensive hotel – Hel then “handed her over”.
As the play opens with a reference to the life-filled antics of Hel’s granddaughter, we know that the granddaughter, now assumed to be recovered from a cold, can be handed over to her. It is a rational ending, but lacking vitality.
The Spare Room is at Belvoir, Sydney, until July 13.
Moya Costello 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.
New research has found that while Australians generally support strong punishments, people living in the bush are significantly more likely than city dwellers to want to punish more harshly those who break the law.
It means Australians living in rural and regional areas are more likely to support tougher penalties for crime than those in the cities.
However, it’s not for the reasons you might expect.
So, what drives this divide?
In short: fear of crime and a lack of confidence in the justice system.
Our research, published today in the Journal of Rural Studies, surveyed a representative sample of Australians to better understand their views on punishment and what shaped their views.
We found city residents with tough attitudes toward crime tend to focus on the individual and personal blame, thinking offenders commit crime due to internal attributes (such as having “a poor moral compass”). They tended to see lawbreakers as lacking the capacity to redeem themselves.
But in rural areas, people are more likely to focus on what’s happening around them. Specifically, we found support for tougher penalties for crime was related to wider concerns about rising crime rates and a general lack of confidence in the criminal justice system.
Consider the role of ‘rurality’
To understand these differences, we thought about how living in rural areas may shape punitive attitudes.
Contrary to popular belief, crimes occur at higher rates in many rural communities than in some urban areas.
Crime may also be more visible and more confronting because towns are smaller. Personal relationships are denser, meaning people often know the victims or the offenders.
This closeness creates a stronger emotional response and a heightened sense of risk at the local level – even if the actual chances of being victimised are statistically low.
There’s also the issue of access to the criminal justice system. Courts may sit infrequently, meaning it can take a long time to get a case heard in court. In some cases, victims and offenders are forced to share courtroom space due to limited facilities.
Police stations might not be staffed around the clock.
Add to this long wait times for justice, and it’s no wonder rural Australians may feel the system isn’t working for them.
The power of perception
It’s important to understand perception doesn’t always match reality.
Urban areas often have more total crime, but rural areas may have higher rates of certain offences, especially violent ones.
But what really matters in shaping public opinion is not necessarily the total numbers, but how close, immediate and personal crime feels.
Other research has found people who feel crime is psychologically “close” – meaning, that’s likely to happen to them or someone they know – are much more worried about it.
That worry can translate into calls for tougher sentencing, stricter laws, and less tolerance for rehabilitation.
This fear is made worse by a lack of confidence in the justice system. Many rural residents feel the system is too slow, too distant, or simply doesn’t understand local issues.
When people feel justice won’t be done, they’re more likely to demand punishment that feels immediate and severe.
Why it matters
These findings are more than just a snapshot of attitudes; they have real implications for public policy.
Politicians often draw on public opinion when shaping criminal justice policies.
If rural voters are more likely to support tough-on-crime platforms, that can influence laws that affect the whole country.
But one-size-fits-all solutions won’t work.
The factors shaping crime perceptions in Brisbane or Sydney are very different from those in Longreach or Wagga Wagga.
To build trust and improve safety, we need justice strategies that take into account local realities, especially in rural areas.
This means investing in better access to police and courts, improving communication between justice systems and rural communities, and helping the public understand what crime is really happening and what’s not.
Australians in rural areas aren’t more punitive because they’re harsher people. Our research shows they are more worried, feel less supported, and have less confidence in the system designed to protect them.
Understanding this difference is key to building smarter, fairer justice policies because when people feel seen, heard, and safe, they’re less likely to demand punishment to solve feelings of insecurity and more likely to support holistic solutions.
What’s needed now
Rural communities need tailored strategies that improve access to justice, rebuild trust, and respond to their unique experiences of crime.
That means policymakers need to go beyond reactive, headline-driven responses.
Rural justice strategies should include mobile court services, better resourcing for regional police and victim support, and culturally appropriate services for Indigenous communities.
Community education campaigns can also help close the gap between crime perception and reality.
Importantly, involving local voices in justice reform, through consultation and community partnerships, can help rebuild trust and ensure policies reflect rural realities, not just urban assumptions.
As political debate over law and order grows, especially in rural communities, leaders must address the divide in how city and country Australians view crime and punishment.
Kyle Mulrooney is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology and co-director of the Centre for Rural Criminology at the University of New England.
Caitlin Davey and Sue Watt 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.
Speculation is swirling around the future of the A$368 billion AUKUS agreement, following Washington’s decision to review the nuclear submarine deal to ensure it meets President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was planning to use talks with Trump at the G7 to demand the US continue to back the deal – but the meeting has been cancelled.
With the Pentagon taking another look at AUKUS, we ask five experts whether the government should rethink Australia’s own commitment to the pact.
Jennifer Parker
Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University
Absolutely not. Another review would consume time and capacity better spent delivering AUKUS on its tight timelines.
To understand why, we must put the decision in context.
The leaked details of the US Department of Defense review does not alter the position of any of the three AUKUS partners. Much of the commentary has missed the broader picture: Washington is undertaking its regular review of defence strategy.
It makes sense the Pentagon would also assess AUKUS – a central element of its Indo-Pacific posture.
While some have fixated on Colby’s supposed scepticism, the reality is different. In March, Colby told the US Senate Armed Services Committee the US should do everything in its power to make AUKUS work.
Why now? Because the strategy review is being accelerated under the new administration. As for the leak, it is plausible it was designed to apply pressure to Australia over its defence spending commitments.
The more important question is: what is the likely outcome? While nothing is certain, AUKUS enjoys strong bipartisan support in the US, as it does in Australia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called it a “blueprint” for cooperation, echoed by other senior officials.
Crucially, the real driver of this so-called “America First” review is what the US gets out of AUKUS. The answer is quite a lot. It secures access to Southeast and Northeast Asia from a location beyond the range of most Chinese missiles, adds a fourth maintenance site for Virginia-class submarines, and delivers an ally with an independent nuclear-powered submarine industrial base.
Beyond AUKUS, Australia has expanded its support for Marine and bomber rotations and other posture initiatives. Australia is central to US strategy in the Indo-Pacific. They need us as much as we need them. All signs point to a constructive outcome from this short, sharp review.
While AUKUS carries risks and Australia must remain clear-eyed, alarmism is unhelpful. Much of the public debate has taken that tone. Nothing fundamental has changed since the optimal pathway was announced in 2023. The risks we face now were known then.
There is no basis for an Australian review at this point. It would only distract from delivering this ambitious program. If core assumptions materially change, then a review may be warranted. But until then, such talk is a distraction.
Albert Palazzo
Adjunct Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney
The AUKUS review should be welcomed by all Australians as an opportunity for the Albanese government to scrap the agreement and wean itself off US dependency.
The review is a chance for our political leaders to exercise their most important responsibility: asserting the nation’s sovereignty and equipping Australia to provide for its national security on its own.
Since AUKUS already contains clauses the US could use to cancel the pact, a termination now would benefit Australia. It would save the nation huge sums of money, and force the government to formulate a more useful and appropriate security policy.
Elbridge Colby has previously questioned the logic of “giving away” America’s “crown jewels”, namely its nuclear-powered submarines, and argued the US will need all its boats against China.
Elbridge Colby is in charge of the AUKUS review.
More alarmingly, in his book The Strategy of Denial, Colby concludes the ideal way for the US to deny China regional hegemony is to use its allies to minimise its own “risks, commitment and expense”. Additionally, he says the US needs to retain the opportunity to walk away from a China conflict if that proves to be in America’s best interest.
Colby’s track record suggests he will recommend Australia make a larger military contribution to the alliance — as his boss Pete Hegseth demanded at the Shangri-La Dialogue. This is even as the US reserves its right to desert us at a time of its own choosing, as the United Kingdom did during the second world war with the Singapore Strategy.
At one time, the existing defence policy of reliance on the US made a degree of sense. But that is no longer the case. Instead, Australia’s leaders have an opportunity to recalibrate defence policy from one of dependency to one of self-defence.
As I outline in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix, Australia should adopt the philosophy of “strategic defensive”. This is a method of waging war in which the defender only needs to prevent an aggressor from achieving its objectives.
This would eliminate the risks and enormous cost of AUKUS while securing the nation’s future. A strategic defensive approach is well within Australia’s capabilities to implement on its own.
While it would be an ironic act of dependency if the US was to save Australia from itself by either cancelling AUKUS or by making it too unpalatable to swallow, the chance to reconsider should not be missed.
AUKUS remains an affront to Australian sovereignty.
Ian Langford
Executive Director, Security & Defence PLuS and Professor, UNSW Sydney
Australia should not walk away from AUKUS in light of the Pentagon’s newly announced review. However, it should seize the moment to increase defence spending to meet short-term challenges not addressed by the submarine deal.
Despite the noise, AUKUS remains Australia’s most straightforward path to acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, deepening strategic interoperability with the United States and United Kingdom, and embedding itself in the advanced defence technology ecosystems of its closest allies.
But clinging to AUKUS without confronting the deeper risks it now exposes would be a strategic mistake. From an Australian perspective, the submarine pathway is on a slow fuse: first deliveries are not expected until the early 2030s.
Meanwhile, the risk of major power conflict in the Indo-Pacific is accelerating, with a potential flashpoint involving China and the US as early as 2027. Naval brinkmanship in the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas is already routine.
Submarines that arrive too late do little to shape the strategic balance in the next five years. Canberra must therefore confront a hard truth: AUKUS may enhance Australia’s deterrence posture in the 2030s, but it does little to prepare the ADF for a near-term fight.
That fight, should it come, will demand capabilities the ADF currently lacks in sufficient quantity: long-range missiles, deployable air defence, survivable command and control, and more surface combatants.
Yet under current spending plans, Australia is trying to fund both the AUKUS build and short-term deterrence within a constrained budget. It will not work. Even after recent increases, defence spending remains around 2% of GDP. This is well below the level needed to fund both long-term deterrence and immediate readiness.
Without a step change – closer to 2.5–3% of GDP – or a major reprioritisation of big-ticket programs, the ADF faces a dangerous capability gap through the second half of this decade.
Australia should hold firm on AUKUS. The strategic upside is real, and the alliance commitments it reinforces are indispensable. But we should not pretend it is cost-free.
Unless the defence budget is significantly expanded, AUKUS risks hollowing out the rest of the Defence Force. The result would be a future submarine fleet paired with an underpowered ADF, unready to meet the threats of today.
In reaffirming AUKUS, Australia must confront the complex reality that it won’t address the threats of this decade, and should plan accordingly.
Maria Rost Rublee
Professor, International Relations Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne
Let’s be honest – Australia is not going to withdraw from AUKUS.
The United States is our most important military and diplomatic partner; in the words of the 2024 National Defence Strategy, “our alliance with the US remains fundamental to Australia’s national security”.
Unilaterally extracting ourselves from AUKUS would significantly damage our relationship with the US. Given the bipartisan and public support for the alliance within Australia, it simply won’t happen.
As we navigate the complexities of AUKUS under Trump 2.0, we should remember that as a defence industrial agreement, AUKUS creates numerous benefits for Australia. In both Pillar I (nuclear submarines) and Pillar II (advanced defence capabilities), Australia is developing deep partnerships, collaboration and even integration with both the US and the UK in shipbuilding, advanced technology, and stronger supply chains.
In addition, a rarely discussed benefit of AUKUS is the total life-cycle climate impacts, given nuclear submarines are superior to diesel alternatives. Diesel is a non-renewable energy source with significant global warming potential, while nuclear power is generally acknowledged to be low-carbon.
However, AUKUS does offer very significant risks for Australia. Flexibility is baked into the arrangement for the three partner nations – leading to the very situation we are in today. There are significant concerns Washington may not sell nuclear Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the 2030s, as agreed.
We have known for years the US is not producing enough nuclear attack submarines for its own domestic use, but we seem to have hoped this would change or the US would sell us the subs anyway.
The current US review of AUKUS makes it clear Australia needs to think seriously about other options for submarines. Without the Virginia-class, we will be without any subs at all, at least until the SSN-AUKUS submarines are delivered by the mid-2040s.
Our current ageing Collins-class subs, already beset with operational problems, will not be fit for purpose much past mid-2030. At this point, the most likely viable option is off-the-shelf conventional submarines from Japan or South Korea.
The fact is, while Australia is unlikely to withdraw from AUKUS, the US may force the issue by refusing to sell us its nuclear-powered submarines. Refusing to acknowledge this does not change the risks.
President Donald Trumps wants US allies to lift their defence spending. Rawpixel/Shutterstock
David Andrews
Senior Manager, Policy & Engagement, Australian National University
I want AUKUS to succeed. It offers a unique opportunity to substantially upgrade Australia’s maritime capabilities with access to world-leading submarine technology and a suite of advanced and emerging technologies.
However, we cannot realistically pursue “AUKUS at any cost”. There must be an upper limit to how much time, effort and resources are committed before the costs – financial, political and strategic – outweigh the potential long-term benefits.
Of course, the government must not be hasty. Any decision should wait until the completion of the US review. Likewise, AUKUS should not be abandoned merely because it is being reviewed.
Reviews are not inherently negative processes. A review after four years of a project of this size and significance is not a particularly surprising development. As seen in the UK, reviews can refocus efforts and commit greater resources, if needed.
However, it doesn’t look like that’s what the US review is setting out to do. Rather, it’s focused on ensuring AUKUS is aligned with the America First agenda. That indicates an altogether different set of considerations.
People often describe Trump as a “dealmaker” or “transactional”, but these are misleading euphemisms. This review, and recent language from senior US officials, gives the impression of a shakedown – of coercion, not partnership.
The need to “win” and extract money from alliances is antithetical to their purpose. It misunderstands their nature and the fundamental importance of trust between partners. AUKUS is not an ATM.
Past behaviour suggests no deal Trump makes will last without further demands being imposed. No amount of money is likely to be satisfactory. Even if Australia’s defence spending was lifted to 3.5% of GDP, the question would be “why isn’t it 5%?” For AUKUS, there is no such thing as an offer he cannot refuse.
I do not say this lightly, but if the outcome of this process is a series of gratuitous or untenable demands by the US, the Albanese government should strongly consider walking away from AUKUS.
The consequences would be significant, so the threshold of such a decision would need to be similarly calibrated. But no single project should be put above the integrity of our wider defence enterprise and the sovereign decision-making of our government.
David Andrews has not personally received funding from any relevant external bodies, but he has previously worked on projects funded by the Australian Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Home Affairs, and Defence. David is a member of the Australian Labor Party and Australian Institute of International Affairs, and previously worked for the Australian Department of Defence.
Albert Palazzo is not a member of a political party but does occasional volunteer work for The Greens. In 2019, he retired from the Department of Defence. He was the long-serving Director of War Studies for the Australian Army.
Ian Langford is affiliated with Security & Defence PLuS, a collaboration between the University of New South Wales, Arizona State University and Kings College, London.
Maria Rost Rublee has received grant funding from the Australian Department of Defence and the US Institute of Peace. She is affiliated with Women in International Security-Australia and Women in Nuclear-Australia.
Jennifer Parker 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 (Au and NZ) – By Melinda Jackson, Associate Professor at Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University
If you’ve been on social media lately – perhaps scrolling in the middle of the night, when you know you shouldn’t but you just can’t sleep – you might have seen those videos promoting a get-to-sleep technique called “cognitive shuffling”.
The idea, proponents say, is to engage your mind with random ideas and images via a special formula:
pick a random word (such as “cake”)
focus on the first letter of the word (in this case, C) and list a bunch of words starting with that letter: cat, carrot, calendar and so on
visualise each word as you go along
when you feel ready, move onto the next letter (A) and repeat the process
continue with each letter of the original word (so, in this case, K and then E) until you feel ready to switch to a new word or until you drift off to sleep.
It’s popular on Instagram and TikTok, but does “cognitive shuffling” have any basis in science?
Where did this idea come from?
The cognitive shuffling technique was made famous by Canada-based researcher Luc P. Beaudoin more than a decade ago, when he published a paper about how what he called “serial diverse imagining” could help with sleep.
One of Beaudoin’s hypothetical examples involved a woman thinking of the word “blanket”, then thinking bicycle (and imagining a bicycle), buying (imagining buying shoes), banana (visualising a banana tree) and so on.
Soon, Beaudoin writes, she moves onto the letter L, thinking about her friend Larry, the word “like” (imagining her son hugging his dog). She soon transitions to the letter A, thinking of the word “Amsterdam”:
and she might very vaguely imagine the large hand of a sailor gesturing for another order of fries in an Amsterdam pub while a rancid accordion plays in the background.
a neutral or pleasant target and frequently [switch] to unrelated targets (normally every 5-15 seconds).
Don’t try to relate one word with another or find a link between the words; resist the mind’s natural tendency toward sense-making.
While the research into this technique is still in its infancy, the idea is grounded in science. That’s because we know from other research good sleepers tend to have different kinds of thoughts in bed to bad sleepers.
People with insomnia are more focused on worries, problems, or noises in the environment, and are often preoccupied with not sleeping.
Good sleepers typically have dream-like, hallucinatory, less ordered thoughts before nodding off. fran_kie/Shutterstock
Sorting the pro-somnolent wheat from the insomnolent chaff
Cognitive shuffling attempts to mimic the thinking patterns of good sleepers by simulating the dream-like and random thought patterns they generally have before drifting off to sleep.
In particular, Beaudoin’s research describes two types of sleep-related thoughts: insomnolent (or anti-sleep) and pro-somnolent (sleep-promoting) thoughts.
Insomnolent thoughts include things such as worrying, planning, rehearsing, and ruminating on perceived problems or failings.
Pro-somnolent thoughts on the other hand involve thoughts that can help you fall asleep, such as dream-like imagery or having a calm, relaxed state of mind.
Cognitive shuffling aims to distract from or interfere with insomnolent thought. It offers a calm, neutral path for your racing mind, and can reduce the stress associated with not sleeping.
Cognitive shuffling also helps tell your brain you are ready for sleep.
In fact, the process of “shuffling” between different thoughts is similar to the way your brain naturally drifts off to sleep. During the transition to sleep, brain activity slows. Your brain starts to generate disconnected images and fleeting scenes, known as hypnagogic hallucinations, without a conscious effort to make sense of them.
By mimicking these scattered, disconnected, and random thought patterns, cognitive shuffling may help you transition from wakefulness to sleep.
And the preliminary research into this is promising. Beaudoin and his team have foundserial diverse imagining helps to lower arousal before sleep, improve sleep quality and reduce the effort involved in falling asleep.
However, with only a small number of research studies, more work is needed here.
It didn’t work. Now what?
As with every new strategy, however, practise makes perfect. Don’t be disheartened if you don’t see an improvement straight away; these things take time.
Stay consistent and be kind to yourself.
And what works for some won’t work for others. Different people benefit from different types of strategies depending on how they relate to and experience stress or stressful thoughts.
Other strategies to help create the right conditions for sleep include:
keeping a consistent pre-bedtime routine, so your brain can wind down
writing down worries or to-do lists earlier in the day so you don’t think about them at bedtime.
If, despite all your best efforts, night time thoughts continue to impact your sleep or overall wellbeing, consider seeking professional help from your doctor or a trained sleep specialist.
Melinda Jackson has received funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Aged Care Research & Industry Innovation Australia (ARIIA) and Dementia Australia. She a board member of the Australasian Sleep Association.
Eleni Kavaliotis has previously received funding from an Australian government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship. She is a member of the Australasian Sleep Association’s Insomnia and Sleep Health Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melinda Jackson, Associate Professor at Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University
If you’ve been on social media lately – perhaps scrolling in the middle of the night, when you know you shouldn’t but you just can’t sleep – you might have seen those videos promoting a get-to-sleep technique called “cognitive shuffling”.
The idea, proponents say, is to engage your mind with random ideas and images via a special formula:
pick a random word (such as “cake”)
focus on the first letter of the word (in this case, C) and list a bunch of words starting with that letter: cat, carrot, calendar and so on
visualise each word as you go along
when you feel ready, move onto the next letter (A) and repeat the process
continue with each letter of the original word (so, in this case, K and then E) until you feel ready to switch to a new word or until you drift off to sleep.
It’s popular on Instagram and TikTok, but does “cognitive shuffling” have any basis in science?
Where did this idea come from?
The cognitive shuffling technique was made famous by Canada-based researcher Luc P. Beaudoin more than a decade ago, when he published a paper about how what he called “serial diverse imagining” could help with sleep.
One of Beaudoin’s hypothetical examples involved a woman thinking of the word “blanket”, then thinking bicycle (and imagining a bicycle), buying (imagining buying shoes), banana (visualising a banana tree) and so on.
Soon, Beaudoin writes, she moves onto the letter L, thinking about her friend Larry, the word “like” (imagining her son hugging his dog). She soon transitions to the letter A, thinking of the word “Amsterdam”:
and she might very vaguely imagine the large hand of a sailor gesturing for another order of fries in an Amsterdam pub while a rancid accordion plays in the background.
a neutral or pleasant target and frequently [switch] to unrelated targets (normally every 5-15 seconds).
Don’t try to relate one word with another or find a link between the words; resist the mind’s natural tendency toward sense-making.
While the research into this technique is still in its infancy, the idea is grounded in science. That’s because we know from other research good sleepers tend to have different kinds of thoughts in bed to bad sleepers.
People with insomnia are more focused on worries, problems, or noises in the environment, and are often preoccupied with not sleeping.
Good sleepers typically have dream-like, hallucinatory, less ordered thoughts before nodding off. fran_kie/Shutterstock
Sorting the pro-somnolent wheat from the insomnolent chaff
Cognitive shuffling attempts to mimic the thinking patterns of good sleepers by simulating the dream-like and random thought patterns they generally have before drifting off to sleep.
In particular, Beaudoin’s research describes two types of sleep-related thoughts: insomnolent (or anti-sleep) and pro-somnolent (sleep-promoting) thoughts.
Insomnolent thoughts include things such as worrying, planning, rehearsing, and ruminating on perceived problems or failings.
Pro-somnolent thoughts on the other hand involve thoughts that can help you fall asleep, such as dream-like imagery or having a calm, relaxed state of mind.
Cognitive shuffling aims to distract from or interfere with insomnolent thought. It offers a calm, neutral path for your racing mind, and can reduce the stress associated with not sleeping.
Cognitive shuffling also helps tell your brain you are ready for sleep.
In fact, the process of “shuffling” between different thoughts is similar to the way your brain naturally drifts off to sleep. During the transition to sleep, brain activity slows. Your brain starts to generate disconnected images and fleeting scenes, known as hypnagogic hallucinations, without a conscious effort to make sense of them.
By mimicking these scattered, disconnected, and random thought patterns, cognitive shuffling may help you transition from wakefulness to sleep.
And the preliminary research into this is promising. Beaudoin and his team have foundserial diverse imagining helps to lower arousal before sleep, improve sleep quality and reduce the effort involved in falling asleep.
However, with only a small number of research studies, more work is needed here.
It didn’t work. Now what?
As with every new strategy, however, practise makes perfect. Don’t be disheartened if you don’t see an improvement straight away; these things take time.
Stay consistent and be kind to yourself.
And what works for some won’t work for others. Different people benefit from different types of strategies depending on how they relate to and experience stress or stressful thoughts.
Other strategies to help create the right conditions for sleep include:
keeping a consistent pre-bedtime routine, so your brain can wind down
writing down worries or to-do lists earlier in the day so you don’t think about them at bedtime.
If, despite all your best efforts, night time thoughts continue to impact your sleep or overall wellbeing, consider seeking professional help from your doctor or a trained sleep specialist.
Melinda Jackson has received funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Aged Care Research & Industry Innovation Australia (ARIIA) and Dementia Australia. She a board member of the Australasian Sleep Association.
Eleni Kavaliotis has previously received funding from an Australian government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship. She is a member of the Australasian Sleep Association’s Insomnia and Sleep Health Council.
