Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Samuel Perry, Associate Professor, Baylor University

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, at a prayer during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s affiliation with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – commonly called the CREC – drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. More recently, media reports highlighted a Pentagon prayer led by Hegseth and his pastor, Brooks Potteiger, in which they praised President Donald Trump, who they said was divinely appointed.

    As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. Hegseth’s membership in a church that belongs to the CREC drew attention because prominent members of the church identify as Christian nationalists, and because of its positions on issues concerning gender, sexuality and the separation of church and state.

    The CREC is most easily understood through three main parts: churches, schools and media.

    What is the CREC?

    The CREC church is a network of churches. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister.

    Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow. Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum, Canon Press is a publishing house and media company, and New Saint Andrews College is a university, all of which were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society.

    While he is not Hegseth’s pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another.

    Pastor Douglas Wilson leads others at a protest in Moscow, Idaho.
    Geoff Crimmins/The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY-SA

    As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, “Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.”

    The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from CREC theology. On its website, the CREC says that it is “committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.”

    CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion precludes the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office.

    The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson and members of CREC churches, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States.

    Researcher Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, “They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.”

    While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally. The CREC website claims to have over 130 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America.

    Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses “church planting” to grow its network. Plant churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church.

    CREC schools, home schools and colleges

    The CREC’s expansion also owes a debt to Wilson’s entrepreneurship. As the church expanded, Wilson founded an associated K-12 school called “Logos” in September 1981, which since then has grown into a network of many schools.

    In conjunction with its growth, Logos develops and sells “classical Christian” curriculum to private schools and home-school families through Logos Press. Classical Christian Schools aim to develop what they consider a biblical worldview. In addition to religious studies, they focus on classic texts from Greece and Rome. They have grown in popularity in recent years, especially among conservatives.

    Logos’ classical Christian curriculum is designed to help parents “raise faithful, dangerous Christian kids who impact the world for Christ and leave craters in the world of secularism.” Logos press regularly asserts, “education is warfare.”

    According to the website, Logos schools enroll more than 2,000 students across 16 countries. Logos also has its own press that supplies the curriculum to all of these schools. On the heels of Logos’ success, Wilson founded the Association of Classical Christian Schools in 1993 as an accrediting body for like-minded schools. The ACCS now boast 500 schools and more than 50,000 students across the United States and around the world.

    Additionally, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. New Saint Andrews is a Christian university that takes the classical Christian approach to education championed by Wilson into higher education.

    The New Saint Andrews College is consistent with other CREC institutions. It considers secularism a weakness of other universities and society more generally. Its website explains: “New Saint Andrews has long held a principled and clear voice, championing the truth of God’s word and ways, while so many other colleges veer into softness and secularism.” The school is governed by the elders of Christ Church and does not accept federal funding.

    CREC media

    In addition to the Logos Press, which produces the CREC school curriculum, Wilson founded Canon Press. Canon Press produces books, podcasts, a YouTube channel and assorted merchandise including apparel and weapons, such as a flamethrower. The YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers.

    Books published by Canon include children’s picture books to manuals on masculinity. A number of books continue the theme of warfare.

    The politics page of the press contains many books on Christian nationalism. Christian political theorist Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” is one of the most popular among books on Christian nationalism. The website has dozens of books on Christian nationalism and media dedicated to the construction of a Christian government.

    Author Joe Rigney, a fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and an associate pastor at Christ Church, warns of the “Sin of Empathy.” Rigney claims that empathizing with others is sinful because it requires compromise and makes one vulnerable in the fight against evil.

    CREC controversies

    Pete Hegseth at his confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. Wilson’s 1996 publication of a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated “affection among the races” drew national attention.

    Accusations of sexual abuse and the church’s handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice’s Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault is common. The Vice reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse will be directed to the proper authorities.

    Hegseth’s actions as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, have brought more attention to the CREC. I believe that given Hegseth’s role as secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC will likely remain a topic of conversation throughout the Trump presidency.

    Samuel Perry 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.

    ref. What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support – https://theconversation.com/what-is-crec-the-christian-nationalist-group-has-a-vision-for-america-and-defense-secretary-pete-hegseths-support-258273

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Samuel Perry, Associate Professor, Baylor University

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, at a prayer during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s affiliation with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – commonly called the CREC – drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. More recently, media reports highlighted a Pentagon prayer led by Hegseth and his pastor, Brooks Potteiger, in which they praised President Donald Trump, who they said was divinely appointed.

    As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. Hegseth’s membership in a church that belongs to the CREC drew attention because prominent members of the church identify as Christian nationalists, and because of its positions on issues concerning gender, sexuality and the separation of church and state.

    The CREC is most easily understood through three main parts: churches, schools and media.

    What is the CREC?

    The CREC church is a network of churches. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister.

    Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow. Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum, Canon Press is a publishing house and media company, and New Saint Andrews College is a university, all of which were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society.

    While he is not Hegseth’s pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another.

    Pastor Douglas Wilson leads others at a protest in Moscow, Idaho.
    Geoff Crimmins/The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY-SA

    As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, “Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.”

    The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from CREC theology. On its website, the CREC says that it is “committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.”

    CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion precludes the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office.

    The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson and members of CREC churches, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States.

    Researcher Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, “They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.”

    While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally. The CREC website claims to have over 130 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America.

    Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses “church planting” to grow its network. Plant churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church.

    CREC schools, home schools and colleges

    The CREC’s expansion also owes a debt to Wilson’s entrepreneurship. As the church expanded, Wilson founded an associated K-12 school called “Logos” in September 1981, which since then has grown into a network of many schools.

    In conjunction with its growth, Logos develops and sells “classical Christian” curriculum to private schools and home-school families through Logos Press. Classical Christian Schools aim to develop what they consider a biblical worldview. In addition to religious studies, they focus on classic texts from Greece and Rome. They have grown in popularity in recent years, especially among conservatives.

    Logos’ classical Christian curriculum is designed to help parents “raise faithful, dangerous Christian kids who impact the world for Christ and leave craters in the world of secularism.” Logos press regularly asserts, “education is warfare.”

    According to the website, Logos schools enroll more than 2,000 students across 16 countries. Logos also has its own press that supplies the curriculum to all of these schools. On the heels of Logos’ success, Wilson founded the Association of Classical Christian Schools in 1993 as an accrediting body for like-minded schools. The ACCS now boast 500 schools and more than 50,000 students across the United States and around the world.

    Additionally, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. New Saint Andrews is a Christian university that takes the classical Christian approach to education championed by Wilson into higher education.

    The New Saint Andrews College is consistent with other CREC institutions. It considers secularism a weakness of other universities and society more generally. Its website explains: “New Saint Andrews has long held a principled and clear voice, championing the truth of God’s word and ways, while so many other colleges veer into softness and secularism.” The school is governed by the elders of Christ Church and does not accept federal funding.

    CREC media

    In addition to the Logos Press, which produces the CREC school curriculum, Wilson founded Canon Press. Canon Press produces books, podcasts, a YouTube channel and assorted merchandise including apparel and weapons, such as a flamethrower. The YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers.

    Books published by Canon include children’s picture books to manuals on masculinity. A number of books continue the theme of warfare.

    The politics page of the press contains many books on Christian nationalism. Christian political theorist Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” is one of the most popular among books on Christian nationalism. The website has dozens of books on Christian nationalism and media dedicated to the construction of a Christian government.

    Author Joe Rigney, a fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and an associate pastor at Christ Church, warns of the “Sin of Empathy.” Rigney claims that empathizing with others is sinful because it requires compromise and makes one vulnerable in the fight against evil.

    CREC controversies

    Pete Hegseth at his confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. Wilson’s 1996 publication of a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated “affection among the races” drew national attention.

    Accusations of sexual abuse and the church’s handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice’s Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault is common. The Vice reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse will be directed to the proper authorities.

    Hegseth’s actions as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, have brought more attention to the CREC. I believe that given Hegseth’s role as secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC will likely remain a topic of conversation throughout the Trump presidency.

    Samuel Perry 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.

    ref. What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support – https://theconversation.com/what-is-crec-the-christian-nationalist-group-has-a-vision-for-america-and-defense-secretary-pete-hegseths-support-258273

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer D. Oliva, Professor of Law, Indiana University

    Evidence suggests that insurance companies use AI to delay or limit health care that patients need. FatCameraE+ via Getty Images

    Over the past decade, health insurance companies have increasingly embraced the use of artificial intelligence algorithms. Unlike doctors and hospitals, which use AI to help diagnose and treat patients, health insurers use these algorithms to decide whether to pay for health care treatments and services that are recommended by a given patient’s physicians.

    One of the most common examples is prior authorization, which is when your doctor needs to
    receive payment approval from your insurance company before providing you care. Many insurers use an algorithm to decide whether the requested care is “medically necessary” and should be covered.

    These AI systems also help insurers decide how much care a patient is entitled to — for example, how many days of hospital care a patient can receive after surgery.

    If an insurer declines to pay for a treatment your doctor recommends, you usually have three options. You can try to appeal the decision, but that process can take a lot of time, money and expert help. Only 1 in 500 claim denials are appealed. You can agree to a different treatment that your insurer will cover. Or you can pay for the recommended treatment yourself, which is often not realistic because of high health care costs.

    As a legal scholar who studies health law and policy, I’m concerned about how insurance algorithms affect people’s health. Like with AI algorithms used by doctors and hospitals, these tools can potentially improve care and reduce costs. Insurers say that AI helps them make quick, safe decisions about what care is necessary and avoids wasteful or harmful treatments.

    But there’s strong evidence that the opposite can be true. These systems are sometimes used to delay or deny care that should be covered, all in the name of saving money.

    A pattern of withholding care

    Presumably, companies feed a patient’s health care records and other relevant information into health care coverage algorithms and compare that information with current medical standards of care to decide whether to cover the patient’s claim. However, insurers have refused to disclose how these algorithms work in making such decisions, so it is impossible to say exactly how they operate in practice.

    Using AI to review coverage saves insurers time and resources, especially because it means fewer medical professionals are needed to review each case. But the financial benefit to insurers doesn’t stop there. If an AI system quickly denies a valid claim, and the patient appeals, that appeal process can take years. If the patient is seriously ill and expected to die soon, the insurance company might save money simply by dragging out the process in the hope that the patient dies before the case is resolved.

    Insurers say that if they decline to cover a medical intervention, patients can pay for it out of pocket.

    This creates the disturbing possibility that insurers might use algorithms to withhold care for expensive, long-term or terminal health problems , such as chronic or other debilitating disabilities. One reporter put it bluntly: “Many older adults who spent their lives paying into Medicare now face amputation or cancer and are forced to either pay for care themselves or go without.”

    Research supports this concern – patients with chronic illnesses are more likely to be denied coverage and suffer as a result. In addition, Black and Hispanic people and those of other nonwhite ethnicities, as well as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, are more likely to experience claims denials. Some evidence also suggests that prior authorization may increase rather than decrease health care system costs.

    Insurers argue that patients can always pay for any treatment themselves, so they’re not really being denied care. But this argument ignores reality. These decisions have serious health consequences, especially when people can’t afford the care they need.

    Moving toward regulation

    Unlike medical algorithms, insurance AI tools are largely unregulated. They don’t have to go through Food and Drug Administration review, and insurance companies often say their algorithms are trade secrets.

    That means there’s no public information about how these tools make decisions, and there’s no outside testing to see whether they’re safe, fair or effective. No peer-reviewed studies exist to show how well they actually work in the real world.

    There does seem to be some momentum for change. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which is the federal agency in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, recently announced that insurers in Medicare Advantage plans must base decisions on the needs of individual patients – not just on generic criteria. But these rules still let insurers create their own decision-making standards, and they still don’t require any outside testing to prove their systems work before using them. Plus, federal rules can only regulate federal public health programs like Medicare. They do not apply to private insurers who do not provide federal health program coverage.

    Some states, including Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Maine and Texas, have proposed laws to rein in insurance AI. A few have passed new laws, including a 2024 California statute that requires a licensed physician to supervise the use of insurance coverage algorithms.

    But most state laws suffer from the same weaknesses as the new CMS rule. They leave too much control in the hands of insurers to decide how to define “medical necessity” and in what contexts to use algorithms for coverage decisions. They also don’t require those algorithms to be reviewed by neutral experts before use. And even strong state laws wouldn’t be enough, because states generally can’t regulate Medicare or insurers that operate outside their borders.

    A role for the FDA

    In the view of many health law experts, the gap between insurers’ actions and patient needs has become so wide that regulating health care coverage algorithms is now imperative. As I argue in an essay to be published in the Indiana Law Journal, the FDA is well positioned to do so.

    The FDA is staffed with medical experts who have the capability to evaluate insurance algorithms before they are used to make coverage decisions. The agency already reviews many medical AI tools for safety and effectiveness. FDA oversight would also provide a uniform, national regulatory scheme instead of a patchwork of rules across the country.

    Some people argue that the FDA’s power here is limited. For the purposes of FDA regulation, a medical device is defined as an instrument “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Because health insurance algorithms are not used to diagnose, treat or prevent disease, Congress may need to amend the definition of a medical device before the FDA can regulate those algorithms.

    If the FDA’s current authority isn’t enough to cover insurance algorithms, Congress could change the law to give it that power. Meanwhile, CMS and state governments could require independent testing of these algorithms for safety, accuracy and fairness. That might also push insurers to support a single national standard – like FDA regulation – instead of facing a patchwork of rules across the country.

    The move toward regulating how health insurers use AI in determining coverage has clearly begun, but it is still awaiting a robust push. Patients’ lives are literally on the line.

    Jennifer D. Oliva currently receives funding from NIDA to research the impact of pharmaceutical industry messaging on the opioid crisis among U.S. Military Veterans. She is affiliated with the UCSF/University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy and Georgetown University Law Center O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law.

    ref. How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage – https://theconversation.com/how-artificial-intelligence-controls-your-health-insurance-coverage-253602

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer D. Oliva, Professor of Law, Indiana University

    Evidence suggests that insurance companies use AI to delay or limit health care that patients need. FatCameraE+ via Getty Images

    Over the past decade, health insurance companies have increasingly embraced the use of artificial intelligence algorithms. Unlike doctors and hospitals, which use AI to help diagnose and treat patients, health insurers use these algorithms to decide whether to pay for health care treatments and services that are recommended by a given patient’s physicians.

    One of the most common examples is prior authorization, which is when your doctor needs to
    receive payment approval from your insurance company before providing you care. Many insurers use an algorithm to decide whether the requested care is “medically necessary” and should be covered.

    These AI systems also help insurers decide how much care a patient is entitled to — for example, how many days of hospital care a patient can receive after surgery.

    If an insurer declines to pay for a treatment your doctor recommends, you usually have three options. You can try to appeal the decision, but that process can take a lot of time, money and expert help. Only 1 in 500 claim denials are appealed. You can agree to a different treatment that your insurer will cover. Or you can pay for the recommended treatment yourself, which is often not realistic because of high health care costs.

    As a legal scholar who studies health law and policy, I’m concerned about how insurance algorithms affect people’s health. Like with AI algorithms used by doctors and hospitals, these tools can potentially improve care and reduce costs. Insurers say that AI helps them make quick, safe decisions about what care is necessary and avoids wasteful or harmful treatments.

    But there’s strong evidence that the opposite can be true. These systems are sometimes used to delay or deny care that should be covered, all in the name of saving money.

    A pattern of withholding care

    Presumably, companies feed a patient’s health care records and other relevant information into health care coverage algorithms and compare that information with current medical standards of care to decide whether to cover the patient’s claim. However, insurers have refused to disclose how these algorithms work in making such decisions, so it is impossible to say exactly how they operate in practice.

    Using AI to review coverage saves insurers time and resources, especially because it means fewer medical professionals are needed to review each case. But the financial benefit to insurers doesn’t stop there. If an AI system quickly denies a valid claim, and the patient appeals, that appeal process can take years. If the patient is seriously ill and expected to die soon, the insurance company might save money simply by dragging out the process in the hope that the patient dies before the case is resolved.

    Insurers say that if they decline to cover a medical intervention, patients can pay for it out of pocket.

    This creates the disturbing possibility that insurers might use algorithms to withhold care for expensive, long-term or terminal health problems , such as chronic or other debilitating disabilities. One reporter put it bluntly: “Many older adults who spent their lives paying into Medicare now face amputation or cancer and are forced to either pay for care themselves or go without.”

    Research supports this concern – patients with chronic illnesses are more likely to be denied coverage and suffer as a result. In addition, Black and Hispanic people and those of other nonwhite ethnicities, as well as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, are more likely to experience claims denials. Some evidence also suggests that prior authorization may increase rather than decrease health care system costs.

    Insurers argue that patients can always pay for any treatment themselves, so they’re not really being denied care. But this argument ignores reality. These decisions have serious health consequences, especially when people can’t afford the care they need.

    Moving toward regulation

    Unlike medical algorithms, insurance AI tools are largely unregulated. They don’t have to go through Food and Drug Administration review, and insurance companies often say their algorithms are trade secrets.

    That means there’s no public information about how these tools make decisions, and there’s no outside testing to see whether they’re safe, fair or effective. No peer-reviewed studies exist to show how well they actually work in the real world.

    There does seem to be some momentum for change. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which is the federal agency in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, recently announced that insurers in Medicare Advantage plans must base decisions on the needs of individual patients – not just on generic criteria. But these rules still let insurers create their own decision-making standards, and they still don’t require any outside testing to prove their systems work before using them. Plus, federal rules can only regulate federal public health programs like Medicare. They do not apply to private insurers who do not provide federal health program coverage.

    Some states, including Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Maine and Texas, have proposed laws to rein in insurance AI. A few have passed new laws, including a 2024 California statute that requires a licensed physician to supervise the use of insurance coverage algorithms.

    But most state laws suffer from the same weaknesses as the new CMS rule. They leave too much control in the hands of insurers to decide how to define “medical necessity” and in what contexts to use algorithms for coverage decisions. They also don’t require those algorithms to be reviewed by neutral experts before use. And even strong state laws wouldn’t be enough, because states generally can’t regulate Medicare or insurers that operate outside their borders.

    A role for the FDA

    In the view of many health law experts, the gap between insurers’ actions and patient needs has become so wide that regulating health care coverage algorithms is now imperative. As I argue in an essay to be published in the Indiana Law Journal, the FDA is well positioned to do so.

    The FDA is staffed with medical experts who have the capability to evaluate insurance algorithms before they are used to make coverage decisions. The agency already reviews many medical AI tools for safety and effectiveness. FDA oversight would also provide a uniform, national regulatory scheme instead of a patchwork of rules across the country.

    Some people argue that the FDA’s power here is limited. For the purposes of FDA regulation, a medical device is defined as an instrument “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Because health insurance algorithms are not used to diagnose, treat or prevent disease, Congress may need to amend the definition of a medical device before the FDA can regulate those algorithms.

    If the FDA’s current authority isn’t enough to cover insurance algorithms, Congress could change the law to give it that power. Meanwhile, CMS and state governments could require independent testing of these algorithms for safety, accuracy and fairness. That might also push insurers to support a single national standard – like FDA regulation – instead of facing a patchwork of rules across the country.

    The move toward regulating how health insurers use AI in determining coverage has clearly begun, but it is still awaiting a robust push. Patients’ lives are literally on the line.

    Jennifer D. Oliva currently receives funding from NIDA to research the impact of pharmaceutical industry messaging on the opioid crisis among U.S. Military Veterans. She is affiliated with the UCSF/University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy and Georgetown University Law Center O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law.

    ref. How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage – https://theconversation.com/how-artificial-intelligence-controls-your-health-insurance-coverage-253602

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Low-income homeowners hit by disasters may get less help from the government, as Trump administration nixes rules on fairness, community input and resilience

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ivis García, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

    Hurricane Helene caused extensive damage to homes in North Carolina in 2024. AP Photo/Kathy Kmonicek

    Imagine that a hurricane has destroyed your home.

    The roof is gone. The floors are flooded. Your family’s belongings are ruined.

    When this happens, you can apply for federal disaster aid, hoping for a lifeline. For many low-income families and other people of modest means, funding for that aid is often channeled to the states through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program.

    Known as CDBG-DR, this program mainly provides funding to repair and rebuild homes belonging to people of low-to-moderate income who either have no insurance at all or whose coverage falls short of what is needed to making housing safe again.

    When homes are damaged beyond repair or located in areas where it’s too dangerous to rebuild because of the likelihood of future bouts of flooding in the same place, the CDBG-DR program can help pay for residents to move somewhere else that is less prone to disasters. In both cases, it covers costs that the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not pay for.

    But in 2025, with hurricane season underway, the rules for who gets help and how it’s distributed have changed significantly.

    As an urban planner who has researched disaster recovery efforts, I’m alarmed by Memorandum 2025-02, which HUD published on its website in March 2025.

    The memo changes the rules for nearly US$12 billion in disaster recovery funding approved by Congress for disasters occurring in 2023 and 2024. And HUD is implementing these changes early in the process, before any of this money has been distributed.

    This home in Puerto Rico was destroyed when Hurricane Fiona struck the island in September 2022.
    Ivis Garcia

    What has changed

    The memo does away with the civil rights certifications, fair housing assessments, environmental standards and citizen advisory groups
    that have long been mandatory for the recipients of disaster recovery funds.

    Civil rights certification means that CDBG-DR grantees must verify that disaster aid will be distributed without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, age, disability status, or other characteristics known as “protected classes.” Without this certification, there’s no formal process to ensure disaster aid is distributed fairly.

    Fair housing obligations are assessments of whether middle- and lower-income families, people of color or people with disabilities can find safe, affordable housing without facing any discrimination.

    In addition, HUD no longer requires detailed demographic reporting on who is applying for or receiving aid. This includes information such as gender, race, age, disability status and the language someone speaks.

    Another change is that HUD’s updated disaster recovery guidelines no longer require economic development funds to emphasize people of modest incomes or their communities. Under the new rules, any business hit by a disaster can get recovery funds. It doesn’t matter how much money the owners make, as long as they can show that the disaster affected them.

    And several important environmental protections have been rolled back. HUD previously mandated that disaster recovery projects comply with federal building standards.

    Those codes are tougher than the local housing codes. These included rules for building homes higher off the ground to avoid future flooding and using stronger construction methods to withstand extreme weather events. Without them, new construction may be less durable and less safe – especially in areas hit hard by hurricanes or other natural disasters.

    Strong energy efficiency standards help keep long-term utility costs low and reduce pressure on power grids during extreme weather events. They also make rebuilt homes more sustainable by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Tina Brotherton, 88, right, gets help from 9-year-old neighbor Lainey Hamelink as she surveys the wreckage of her business, Tina’s Dockside Inn. It was completely destroyed in Hurricane Idalia, as was Brotherton’s nearby home, in Horseshoe Beach, Fla., in 2023.
    AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell

    Less coordination and communication

    HUD has also removed a requirement for the nonprofits, local governments and other recipients of CDBG-DR grants to create and convene citizen advisory groups. That change took effect on March 24, 2025.

    These groups, which have long made it easier for local communities to have a say regarding federally funded disaster recovery efforts, have played an important role in making sure those efforts reflect the needs and priorities of local residents – especially those most affected.

    While eliminating this step may make it easier and faster for local governments to spend the recovery funds allocated for their communities, it also means there’s less opportunity for their own communities to influence how those funds are spent. Without that input, recovery efforts fail to resolve the real challenges people are facing.

    Staffing and funding cuts

    The White House’s 2026 budget proposal retains the HUD program that distributes disaster recovery grants while eliminating the related Community Development Block Grant program, which helps people experiencing homelessness and also funds everything from child care to services for older people.

    I’m concerned about how CDBG-DR grants will be distributed, apart from the program’s changes. HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development, which administers the CDBG-DR program, is slated to lose 84% of its staff, according to widespread media reports published earlier this year.

    The Trump administration is also calling for cutting HUD’s staff, and President Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 budget would cut the agency’s entire budget in half.

    In its March 25 HUD memo, the Trump administration framed these policy changes as a way to streamline recovery efforts and provide greater flexibility in the use of federal disaster funds. The memo also asserted that the changes were needed for compliance with executive orders that banned the use of diversity, equity and inclusion criteria and hiring practices that the administration considers to be discrimintory.

    But critics of the policy rollbacks, including the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which advocates affordable housing, worry that removing long-standing safeguards could weaken the CDBG-DR program’s core mission of equitably distributing aid and building resilient communities. The standards and community input systems HUD has abandoned, the coalition says, have historically helped ensure that disaster recovery funds reach the people who need them most.

    Ivis García 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.

    ref. Low-income homeowners hit by disasters may get less help from the government, as Trump administration nixes rules on fairness, community input and resilience – https://theconversation.com/low-income-homeowners-hit-by-disasters-may-get-less-help-from-the-government-as-trump-administration-nixes-rules-on-fairness-community-input-and-resilience-257439

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.

    The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.

    The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.

    Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
    sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.

    So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.

    Australia closes embassy in Tehran

    Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.

    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.

    “At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”

    Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”

    Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.

    Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.

    Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.

    Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.

    About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.

    Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-decides-against-pursuing-donald-trump-to-nato-258972

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.

    The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.

    The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.

    Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
    sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.

    So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.

    Australia closes embassy in Tehran

    Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.

    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.

    “At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”

    Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”

    Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.

    Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.

    Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.

    Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.

    About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.

    Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-decides-against-pursuing-donald-trump-to-nato-258972

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shumi Akhtar, Associate Professor, University of Sydney

    Marlon Trottmann/Shutterstock

    The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.

    Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.

    This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).

    Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.

    The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.

    But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.

    Who’s trying to buy – and why?

    Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.

    First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.

    They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.

    Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.

    And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.

    ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
    Marco Curaba/Shutterstock

    Defining national interest

    For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.

    One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.

    Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.

    There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.

    This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.

    And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.

    The national interest checklist

    On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.

    If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?

    The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:

    • national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
    • the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
    • energy security and domestic gas supply
    • other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
    • the character of the investor
    • the complexity of regulation.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.

    This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.

    The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.

    All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.

    It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.

    Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.

    ref. Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-more-foreign-investment-thats-why-a-29-billion-bid-for-santos-puts-the-treasurer-in-a-tricky-position-259153

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shumi Akhtar, Associate Professor, University of Sydney

    Marlon Trottmann/Shutterstock

    The Australian origins of Santos have made an indelible mark on the company’s very name. The energy giant was first incorporated in 1954 under the acronym for “South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search”. It was publicly listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange that same year.

    Fast forward to today, there are pressing questions about whether Santos could serve Australia’s national interest if it was largely in the hands of a foreign government.

    This week, it was announced a consortium led by the investment division of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) had made an all-cash takeover bid of almost A$29 billion for Santos. This would value the company at $36.4 billion (including its debt).

    Santos’ board has said it will support the deal if there isn’t a better offer on the table. But it will first have to clear a raft of regulatory approvals – not only in Australia but also Papua New Guinea and the United States, where Santos has operations.

    The acquisition would be a monumental event in Australia’s corporate history. Key elements of this country’s critical energy infrastructure are at stake.

    But it’s set to put a difficult decision before the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. On the FIRB’s advice, Chalmers will have to balance Australia’s stated desire to attract foreign investment with the need to protect national interests.

    Who’s trying to buy – and why?

    Also in the ADNOC-led consortium of prospective buyers are US private equity firm Carlyle and a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company (ADQ). There are a few key reasons for their interest.

    First, ADNOC is keenly interested in expanding its footprint in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Acquiring Santos would give it a stake in much of Australia’s gas production and established LNG export facilities. This includes major operations at Gladstone and Darwin.

    They would also gain a share in two important Papua New Guinean projects: PNG LNG and the yet-to-be-developed Papua LNG. These assets are particularly attractive because they offer direct access to the growing Asian LNG markets, where future demand is projected to be strong.

    Second, the acquisition would allow ADNOC to diversify its portfolio and gain control of export capacity from Australia and PNG to the Asia Pacific region. Santos’s Gladstone LNG plant, for example, has significant export capacity. Much of Santos’ LNG capacity is under medium and long-term contracts.

    And third, the timing of this bid is strategic. Santos has recently been in a period of high capital expenditure. A number of major projects are nearing completion. A successful takeover could free up funding for further development.

    ADNOC is the state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
    Marco Curaba/Shutterstock

    Defining national interest

    For regulators assessing the move, the potential takeover touches upon many national security, energy supply, and economic concerns for Australia.

    One of the primary concerns is the potential loss of control over critical energy infrastructure.

    Foreign ownership, especially by a state-linked investor such as ADNOC, raises questions about whose interests will ultimately shape strategic decisions about Australia’s essential gas flows, pricing, or even the integrity of operational technology systems.

    There’s also concern that a foreign owner could prioritise LNG exports over domestic supply. That could potentially exacerbate domestic gas shortages and price hikes. In the eastern states of Australia, such issues are already a concern.

    This is not the first time the Australian government has faced a tough decision on a foreign takeover bid in the oil and gas sector. In 2018, the Morrison government blocked a $13 billion Chinese bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group. It said a single foreign owner should not control Australia’s largest pipeline business.

    And the then-Treasurer Peter Costello blocked Royal Dutch/Shell’s $10 billion blockbuster offer for Woodside Petroleum in 2001, also in the national interest.

    The national interest checklist

    On the other hand, Australia generally welcomes foreign investment. It brings capital, creates jobs, and supports economic growth.

    If this deal proceeds to final stages, the decision could become a “test case” for Australia. Can we still attract global capital while also diligently safeguarding our sovereign interests?

    The consortium has made commitments to maintain Santos’s headquarters in South Australia, preserve jobs and invest in growth and decarbonisation initiatives. But this is only part of the picture.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer will need to consider how the deal would affect:

    • national security and critical infrastructure, including ownership and control risk, system integrity and supply chain vulnerability
    • the economy (such as on jobs and investment, tax revenues)
    • energy security and domestic gas supply
    • other Australian government policies, such as climate targets
    • the character of the investor
    • the complexity of regulation.

    The FIRB and the Treasurer must be acutely aware that few other nations have extended the same generosity to foreign investors as Australia has over recent decades.

    This generosity, while attracting capital, has also raised concerns about the nation’s control over its vital assets.

    The SA government has already signalled it won’t stand idly by if the deal is “not in the interests of South Australians”.

    All of this sits in the context of ongoing questions about how little tax is being paid by some multinationals while exploiting Australia’s natural resources.

    It is paramount the Australian government makes a forward-looking, informed decision. This should serve Australia’s best interests, rather than those of foreign entities.

    Associate Professor Akhtar has been invited to make several submissions to national Senate inquiries on tax, trade, and investment, and some of the material from those submissions has been drawn upon in writing this article.

    ref. Australia wants more foreign investment. That’s why a $29 billion bid for Santos puts the Treasurer in a tricky position – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-more-foreign-investment-thats-why-a-29-billion-bid-for-santos-puts-the-treasurer-in-a-tricky-position-259153

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place’: new study sheds light on the emotional toll for emergency volunteers

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Roche, PhD Candidate, Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, La Trobe University

    Sergey Dolgikh/Getty Images

    In Australia, there are around 235,000 emergency service volunteers who help communities respond and recover after natural disasters and other traumatic events.

    These include volunteers with metropolitan and rural fire services and other rescue organisations.

    As natural disasters grow more frequent and severe with climate change we rely on these volunteers now more than ever. Yet volunteer numbers are shrinking.

    Our new research reveals an important but often hidden toll from natural disasters – the mental health of emergency service volunteers, who risk physical and emotional burnout.

    In our study, we interviewed 32 Victorian State Emergency Service (SES) and Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers. They told us they’re often not getting adequate support.

    Exposure to death

    Death is something commonly hidden behind clinical curtains. But for emergency service volunteers, exposure to dying and death is just part of the job. Death on jobs arrives unpredictably – on roads, in burned homes, after storms, floods and suicides.

    Given their work often takes place in the local community, victims are frequently known to the volunteer, which can further complicate grief. As one participant told us:

    You’re bound to come across someone you know, or someone you love at some point […] in a bad situation.

    Another recounted a colleague’s experience:

    It wasn’t until the next day that she found out that she actually knew the deceased person, but didn’t recognise them.

    Volunteers described often being first on scene to assist but not fully prepared for what they find. They recounted experiences including retrieving children who had drowned, watching people dying on the roadside, and finding burnt and maimed human remains.

    These encounters provoke intense emotional responses, from shock and sadness to feeling powerless and vulnerable. For many, feelings of helplessness and grief reverberate into everyday life. As one volunteer told us:

    I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place […] having flashbacks […] struggling to hold emotions and do my day job.

    A lack of formal support

    We identified over-reliance on informal team support and individual resilience to cope with difficult emotions.

    Structured debriefs depended on leadership and team dynamics. Leaders with “tough it out” mindsets unintentionally perpetuated stigma around seeking help. One participant explained:

    People generally will just sit there and not talk about how they feel […] They’re feeling ashamed or embarrassed.

    The mindset of some teams seems to be that those who can’t manage the demands of the job should leave. One volunteer said:

    It’s mostly very hard and tough. But if you’re going to survive in the game, you gotta be hard.

    Support programs exist, but often focus on major disasters rather than the more everyday jobs. Referral depends on leaders flagging those seen as at-risk or individual volunteers asking for support. One participant explained:

    We do a debrief with peer support, but some people put on a brave face […] There needs to be more follow up.

    What’s more, support is sometimes difficult to access. One participant, a team leader, explained what happened when a volunteer in their team wasn’t coping:

    I called the mechanisms that [we] were told that we need to access. I’ve got somebody here that’s suicidal, nobody escalated it. I still hadn’t heard back six hours later.

    Importantly, our findings also highlighted that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. For some, peer support is a lifeline for processing experiences and building resilience, but not for others.

    Five women killed. And the peer support was all over us. You know, we got to the stage where it was ridiculous. We’ve had enough, we don’t want this. It re-traumatises people who want to move on.

    Support for emergency service volunteers isn’t one-size-fits-all.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Protecting those who protect us

    Talking to emergency service volunteers from only two organisations in one jurisdiction may limit the extent to which we can generalise our findings to other regions, countries or cultures.

    However, Victoria does have the second largest number of emergency service volunteers in Australia (behind New South Wales).

    Emergency service volunteers are extremely proud and passionate about serving their community and show up with care, calm and strength. But our findings show this comes at a personal cost, especially without the right supports.

    Volunteer exposure to death and dying must be recognised as a serious occupational health and safety issue, not just an emotional side effect of the job. We need proactive, not reactive reform if we want to recruit, retain and protect the people we count on in a crisis.

    Legislators and organisations should work collaboratively with emergency service volunteers to develop and implement responsive and consistent support services, culture and leadership.

    Without targeted, systemic and consistent support, we risk the future of our community-based emergency response. It’s time to protect those who protect us.


    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. ‘I was in a semi-breaking-down sort of place’: new study sheds light on the emotional toll for emergency volunteers – https://theconversation.com/i-was-in-a-semi-breaking-down-sort-of-place-new-study-sheds-light-on-the-emotional-toll-for-emergency-volunteers-259145

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Howe, PhD candidate in International Relations, Monash University

    A recently announced Pentagon review of the AUKUS pact has sparked a renewed bout of debate in Australia. Led by the “AUKUS-agnostic” US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, the review raises serious questions over whether Australia will receive its US-made Virginia-class submarines on schedule from 2032.

    AUKUS supporters suggest the review is not overly concerning – they point out governments typically review major programs after taking office. As they note, the UK Labour government did the same when it commissioned Sir Stephen Lovegrove to review AUKUS in 2024. Moreover, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is currently reviewing AUKUS.

    Crucially, however, not all reviews are created equal. Given the US assessment is, according to US officials, being conducted to ensure alignment with the imperatives of “America first”, there is a risk the US will not supply Australia with the Virgina-class submarines it feels it requires to deter China. The UK reviews, on the other hand, did not and do not carry such risks.

    The findings of the Lovegrove review remain confidential, but have been shared with Canberra and were incorporated into the UK government’s recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The Defence Select Committee is yet to report, but being public, its findings are likely to generate further debate in Australia.

    Why are the UK reviews different?

    The Defence Select Committee review, launched independently of the government, is an accountability mechanism that scrutinises progress but lacks the power to set policy.

    Meanwhile, the Lovegrove review was never intended to question AUKUS, as its terms of reference made clear. Instead, its focus was more on what progress has been made so far and any barriers that might inhibit future success.

    There was never any real chance the Lovegrove review would end or amend the UK’s participation in AUKUS, because it has widespread support across mainstream British politics. In foreign and security policy terms, cross-party consensus is the norm in the UK.

    However, in the case of AUKUS, two specific factors stand out.

    First, AUKUS provides a welcome means to share the burden on a project the UK was already pursuing. Even before AUKUS was announced, the UK had initiated plans for its next generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines, awarding initial design contracts to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth £85 million (A$170 million).

    Considering this, AUKUS – and specifically Australia’s £2.4 billion (A$4.6 billion) investment into Rolls-Royce’s reactor production line – was a welcome boon for the cash-strapped British government.

    Second, AUKUS has been a crucial component of the UK’s post-Brexit re-emergence. Coming after a period in which Brexit negotiations consumed the British government, it provided important substance to “Global Britain” and its Indo-Pacific tilt.

    AUKUS’s cross-party appeal might initially seem strange, given its close association with Boris Johnson’s Brexiteer government. After all, with its “Britain Reconnected” plan, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has been keen to demonstrate how it differs from its Conservative predecessors. This most recent example comes with the SDR’s NATO-first approach, which some interpreted as a sharp break.

    However, this is a difference in style rather than substance. Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government had announced Britain had delivered the tilt and would focus on consolidating its position.

    In other words, it was making no new commitments. The SDR does not amend this position. It makes clear that “NATO first does not mean NATO only”. This means continuing support for agreements such as AUKUS, which, according to the review, are crucial to shaping the global security environment.

    Whether Britain has the capability to shape the global security environment is a question the SDR addresses, if implicitly, by acknowledging the “hollowing out” of the UK’s armed forces. Reconstituting Britain’s armed forces is consequently a key focus of Starmer’s government, which sees rearmament as a route to reindustrialisation.

    Militarisation as central to ‘rebirth’

    In this rebirth, the government is focusing heavily on the arms industry as a means to bring well-paid, high-skilled jobs to post-industrial parts of the country. There is debate about whether this is the best way to create jobs and growth, but the Starmer government has gone all-in on the strategy.

    Indeed, one of the most notable outcomes of the SDR is that the UK plans to invest substantial sums in its fleet of attack submarines, as it plans to go from seven Astute-class boats to 12 AUKUS-class ones.

    This ambition may provide some comfort to Australian observers as it indicates the scale of the UK’s commitment to AUKUS. Still, achieving the goal will require a significant increase in industrial capacity, as Britain will need to produce a new submarine every 18 months. The record of the UK government on major capital projects suggests this is a heroic ambition.

    For example, the last three Astute-class boats to be commissioned took between 130 and 132 months to build. The sixth and seventh boats of the nearly 25-year-old program are yet to enter service. Moreover, even the active Astute boats are beset by problems; in the first half of 2024, none of the five in-service boats completed an operational deployment due to maintenance issues.

    So, while in the context of the US review, Britain’s commitment is likely welcomed, any comfort must be tempered by the expectation that problems will also likely emanate from Britain.

    Tom Howe is a Young Professionals Member of the AIIA.

    ref. Britain’s support for AUKUS is unwavering – but its capacity to deliver is another matter – https://theconversation.com/britains-support-for-aukus-is-unwavering-but-its-capacity-to-deliver-is-another-matter-259266

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: 15 months after ‘flour massacre’ shock, Israel commits daily Gaza food aid killings

    BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem

    Kia ora koutou, 

    I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground.

    At least 16 killed by Israeli airstrike on al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza. 92 killed across Gaza in total, a significant number while seeking aid. 15 months after the shocking “flour massacre”, Israeli forces are now committing daily massacres against Gazan residents desperately seeking food due to Israel’s policy of forced starvation. These ongoing war crimes have been met with indifference, justification, and ongoing impunity from global leaders.

    *

    Jerusalem’s Old City markets remain closed for the seventh consecutive day after restrictions were imposed under the pretext of “wartime emergency”. Meanwhile, across the besieged West Bank the occupation forces continue demolishing homes in Tulkarm and Jenin refugee camps, where more than 40,000 residents have been displaced by Israel’s months-long “military operation”.

    Israeli soldiers occupying houses south of Jenin as military barracks, embedding themselves among Palestinian civilians as they have for several days in Al Khalil/Hebron.

    Around two-dozen young men detained in Asakra village south-east of Bethlehem, and several more in Laban village, south of Nablus. A young man, Moataz, 22, was executed by Israeli forces in his home village of Wolja west of Bethlehem. Movement of ambulances has been affected by gasoline shortages in Bethlehem. Forces invaded Plata camp in East Nablus for the second day in a row.

    *

    Israel bombed the outskirts of Shabaa town, in southern Lebanon, yet another violation of ceasefire agreements.

    *

    An Iranian missile hit Beersheba’s Soroka hospital in southern Israel last night, with no resulting casualties — Iran claiming it targeted a nearby military site. Outrage at the war crime has highlighted widespread double-standards across Israeli society and globally. Israeli forces have destroyed, bombed, or damaged 38 hospitals in Gaza over their 20-month genocidal war on the enclave, with the World Health Organisation recording around 700 attacks on Gazan healthcare facilities in that same period. Israeli residents have erected tents, transforming an underground parking lot into a bomb shelter.

    *

    Several more retaliatory volleys of Iranian missiles targeted the Israeli territories throughout the day, as heavy Israeli assaults continued on Iranian territories. Israel’s reported death toll has risen to 24, with Iran’s rising to 639.

    Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 20, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 20, 2025.

    Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack

    Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack

    Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack

    West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland CUHRIG/Getty This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room

    Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran
    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic. Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling

    Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University MAYA LAB/Shutterstock Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that

    A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal. The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the

    6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University Wander Women/ Getty Images Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools. About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting

    Keith Rankin Analysis – America’s imperial ‘gifts’: ‘Crusader Democracy’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’
    Analysis by Keith Rankin. The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export. ‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history.

    Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the

    Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University Louise Beaumont/Getty When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react? Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting

    Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and

    Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized

    Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever. Unlike the

    New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if

    Grattan on Friday: Sussan Ley has her first big outing with the national media next week, so here are some questions for her
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal? For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as opposition leader. For another, it’s a formidable forum for a

    A war on diplomacy itself – Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran
    ANALYSIS: By Joe Hendren Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.

    Why New Zealand has paused funding to the Cook Islands over China deal
    BACKGROUNDER: By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor/presenter;Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific; and Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year. This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local

    Egyptian crackdown on Gaza blockade busters but Kiwi activists vow to ‘defeat genocide’
    SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo. In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo

    The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher White, Historian, The University of Queensland The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one. As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate,

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 20, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 20, 2025.

    Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack

    Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack

    Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack

    West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland CUHRIG/Getty This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room

    Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran
    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic. Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling

    Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University MAYA LAB/Shutterstock Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that

    A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal. The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the

    6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University Wander Women/ Getty Images Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools. About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting

    Keith Rankin Analysis – America’s imperial ‘gifts’: ‘Crusader Democracy’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’
    Analysis by Keith Rankin. The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka ‘Democracy’). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export. ‘America’ became involved in Africa and the ‘Middle East’ very early in its history.

    Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the

    Bribe or community benefit? Sweeteners smoothing the way for renewables projects need to be done right
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University Louise Beaumont/Getty When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react? Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting

    Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lovering, Lecturer in International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images Recent controversies over New Zealand’s Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch program have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals, scalding packaging and

    Is there any hope for a fairer carve-up of the GST between the states?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania When the Western Australian state government handed down its state budget on Thursday, it showed a balance sheet solidly in the black with a A$2.5 billion surplus. But, as it has for seven years, the state has received an outsized

    Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Jeffery, Sessional Academic, Discipline of Film Studies, University of Sydney Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever. Unlike the

    New cases of meningococcal disease have been detected. What are the symptoms? And who can get vaccinated?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney Two Tasmanian women have been hospitalised with invasive meningococcal disease, bringing the number of cases nationally so far this year to 48. Health authorities are urging people to watch for symptoms and to check if

    Grattan on Friday: Sussan Ley has her first big outing with the national media next week, so here are some questions for her
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal? For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as opposition leader. For another, it’s a formidable forum for a

    A war on diplomacy itself – Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran
    ANALYSIS: By Joe Hendren Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.

    Why New Zealand has paused funding to the Cook Islands over China deal
    BACKGROUNDER: By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor/presenter;Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific; and Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year. This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local

    Egyptian crackdown on Gaza blockade busters but Kiwi activists vow to ‘defeat genocide’
    SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Ōtautahi and Ava Mulla in Cairo Hope for freedom for Palestinians remains high among a group of trauma-struck New Zealanders in Cairo. In spite of extensive planning, the Global March To Gaza (GMTG) delegation of about 4000 international aid volunteers was thwarted in its mission to walk from Cairo

    The 28 Days Later franchise redefined zombie films. But the undead have an old, rich and varied history
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher White, Historian, The University of Queensland The history of the dead – or, more precisely, the history of the living’s fascination with the dead – is an intriguing one. As a researcher of the supernatural, I’m often pulled aside at conferences or at the school gate,

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.

    The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.

    “[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”

    Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.

    “Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”

    Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.

    Ensured good outcomes
    Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.

    “I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.

    “Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”

    The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.

    The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.

    In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.

    The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.

    ‘Beg forgiveness’
    Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.

    “[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”

    But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.

    “It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.

    “What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”

    Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.

    Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.

    The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.

    “[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”

    Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.

    “Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”

    Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.

    Ensured good outcomes
    Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.

    “I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.

    “Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”

    The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.

    The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.

    In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.

    The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.

    ‘Beg forgiveness’
    Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.

    “[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”

    But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.

    “It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.

    “What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”

    Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.

    Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.

    While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.

    Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.

    So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?

    Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?

    Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.

    This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.

    These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.

    However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.

    Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

    In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.

    That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.

    The PMF in Iraq, with an estimated 200,000 fighters, remains formidable. The Houthis have similarly sized contingent of fighters in Yemen.

    Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.

    The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:

    If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.

    Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.

    Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?

    Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.

    For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.

    Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.

    These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.

    Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.

    In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.

    These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.

    It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.

    Iran’s key global allies, Russia and China, have also condemned Israel’s strikes. They have previously shielded Tehran from punitive resolutions at the UN Security Council.

    However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.

    Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.

    However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.

    Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.

    China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.

    Ali Mamouri 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.

    ref. Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-irans-allies-and-would-any-help-if-the-us-joins-israel-in-its-war-259265

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.

    While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.

    Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.

    So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?

    Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?

    Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.

    This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.

    These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.

    However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.

    Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

    In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.

    That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.

    The PMF in Iraq, with an estimated 200,000 fighters, remains formidable. The Houthis have similarly sized contingent of fighters in Yemen.

    Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.

    The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:

    If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.

    Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.

    Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?

    Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.

    For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.

    Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.

    These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.

    Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.

    In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.

    These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.

    It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.

    Iran’s key global allies, Russia and China, have also condemned Israel’s strikes. They have previously shielded Tehran from punitive resolutions at the UN Security Council.

    However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.

    Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.

    However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.

    Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.

    China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.

    Ali Mamouri 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.

    ref. Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-irans-allies-and-would-any-help-if-the-us-joins-israel-in-its-war-259265

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hessom Razavi, Clinical Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, The University of Western Australia

    We are at a dinner party in suburban Perth, a home away from home for our diaspora. As guests arrive, a Persian ballad plays in the background: Morq-e Sahar (Dawn Bird), a freedom song, a century-old protest against dictatorships and tyranny in Iran. This version was sung by the late Mohammad-Reza Shajarian, Iran’s most decorated maestro.

    Dawn bird, lament!
    Make my brand burn even more.
    With the sparks from your sigh, break
    And turn this cage upside down.

    Shajarian’s virtuoso voice frames an old question. One I’ve heard, it seems, at every Iranian gathering since my childhood. It hangs in the air like a cloud, unanswered, as guests greet each other with customary bowing and rooboosi (cheek kissing). We settle around a table laden with âjil (trail mix), fruit and wine, the smell of saffron rice and ghorme sabzi (herb stew) all around.

    For me, the scene is both familial and familiar. As is the question, which circles back around. “When will this regime change?” someone asks. The “regime” is Nezâm-e Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân, or the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    A missing voice

    Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, there has been a voice sometimes missing in the mainstream coverage – that of the Iranian people themselves.

    “Israel is not our enemy, the regime is our enemy,” chant many Iranians in Tehran and in the diaspora, a common sentiment in our community. They cite the regime that they have endured for 46 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: a government most of them oppose and reject, with the vast majority of Iranians preferring democratic, if not secular, reform.

    I hear some Iranians, on social media and in conversation with people who live there, commending Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for assassinating Iran’s top military brass. These are the leaders of the Sepah, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the most powerful branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Together with the mullahs – Iran’s Shia Muslim clerical class – they form the backbone of Iran’s government and economy.

    So far, Israel has assassinated Hossein Salami, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, as well as Mohammad Kazemi, its intelligence chief, plus senior nuclear scientists and dozens of other officers. Israel has also indicated an interest in killing Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

    Damet garm, aghayeh Netanyahu,” some Iranians are saying, literally “may your breath be warm”, or “good job, Netanyahu”. Amid the terror and confusion – not to mention the civilian deaths, so far, of over 200 Iranians – there is a rare and distinct sense of hope.

    State of corruption

    In view of Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza, this support for Israel may come as a surprise to many Australians, and Western liberals in general. Certainly, reconciling Israel’s role in Gaza versus Iran is jarring.

    But for now, I hear some Iranians saying “maybe our regime can finally be toppled”. Maybe Iran can reclaim its place in the international community, as the proud and prosperous nation it should be? As this crisis escalates, as buildings collapse and distressed Tehranis, including my family, flee the capital for the safety of the countryside, there is a heady sense of possibility.

    Wing-tied nightingale come out of the corner of your cage, and
    Sing the song of freedom for human kind.
    With your fiery breath ignite,
    The breath of this peopled land …

    I understand the allure of this hope; to an extent, I feel it myself. My family lives in Australia, not Iran, precisely because of the Iranian regime’s tyranny. We fled Iran in 1983 due to political persecution, after most of the adults in our extended family were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned by the government.

    Two of my imprisoned uncles and one of my aunties were executed. Another uncle was beaten to death in custody. My grandfather, a noble old man, was imprisoned and tortured. We were far from unique; during the 1980s, the government imprisoned tens of thousands of its own people, executing many thousands of them.

    Little has changed since then. The Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guards have shown a pervasive disregard for human rights. They execute more of their own people than any country except China. They are a world leader in the use of torture; they deny freedoms of expression and press, association and assembly; they discriminate against women, girls, religious minorities, LGBTI people, and refugees. Tightly controlled elections ensure the success of desired candidates.

    Freedom House, a nonprofit organisation based in the US, gives Iran a score of 11 out of 100 for its provision of political rights and civil liberties. For many Iranians, it felt overdue when, in 2019, the US listed the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, a decision followed by other countries, including Canada and Sweden. In 2023, the European parliament overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to do the same, with calls to expedite this motion in early 2025.

    In parallel to their human rights abuses, the Revolutionary Guard has hobbled the Iranian economy. Their corruption, financial incompetence and operation of black markets have compounded the effects of international sanctions. Consequently, the Iranian rial hit a historic low this year. It is now worth around one twentieth of its value in 2015.

    People’s life savings have dwindled in value, rendering older Iranians financially vulnerable. Inflation was 38.7% in May of this year, down from highs of over 40%. My family in Iran experience this as grocery and commodity prices that may rise in a single day, higher in the afternoon than in the morning. Some cities have experienced water cuts and power outages.

    While it hasn’t yet qualified as a failed state, Iran has been failing.

    All of this has occurred despite the country being richly endowed with the second- and third-highest natural gas and oil reserves in the world, respectively. Iran has a GDP of over $US404 billion – 36th in the world. Its youth are highly educated and literate, with more women enrolled in universities than men.

    Rather than accelerating the nation’s domestic development, however, the Iranian government has by its own admission spent tens of billions of dollars to expand its empire by funding terrorist proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the recently deposed Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    The Iranian people have suffered financially, but the Revolutionary Guards have not. They are estimated to control at least 10%, and up to 50%, of the country’s total economy, including up to an estimated 50% share of Iran’s US$50 billion per year oil profits. They have achieved this by commandeering an industrial empire, made up of hundreds of commercial companies, trusts, subsidiaries and nominally charitable foundations.

    A further US$2 billion or more per year comes from the government’s military budget, with periodic boosts during crises. Add to this the alleged shadowy operation of black markets, extortion, and the smuggling of alcohol, narcotics and weapons, accounting for an estimated US$12 billion per year in revenue.

    Contemplating this corruption, I am reminded of an anecdote from a personal associate who worked for a firm affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. They shared stories of officers, the nation’s purported “guardians of Islam”, hosting parties where alcohol, firearms and sex workers were readily available.

    My associate recounted several instances of fraud and theft, one of them monumental in scale. In this “tea smuggling scandal”, the Revolutionary Guard defrauded billions of dollars from a government fund by illicitly exchanging some funds on the open market, falsely labelling cheap tea to on-sell as superior quality tea, and falsely labelling domestically produced machinery as “Made in Germany”.

    “They’re untouchable, and they know it”, my associate said. Another Iranian community member described them to me as “Iran’s super-mafia”.

    Speaking to family in Iran, they say many of the middle tier Revolutionary Guards live in their own shahrak-ha (towns) with dedicated markets, schools and resorts. Many of the Guards’ elite, meanwhile, live in mansions in the exclusive parts of north Tehran, with children who pursue conspicuously American “lifestyles of the rich and famous”. For an organisation that leads the chants of “marg bar America!” (death to America), one wonders if they see the irony in this.

    Turn our dark night to dawn

    I find myself sickened by the events of this war, and the harm it is causing. Struck with anxiety, some of our family members in Tehran haven’t slept for days. “The Israeli bombardments are non-stop, and so loud,” one family member told me.

    This week our extended family has struggled frantically to leave Tehran. Petrol is hard to come by and, in a mass exodus, the bumper-to-bumper traffic stands still for hours. I know some of the neighbourhoods being bombed; we lived in one of them in my childhood.

    “For every military commander that’s assassinated, a whole building might collapse, and with a dozen civilians trapped or killed,” another person told me, intimating that the civilian toll is higher than official counts.

    I am also worried about the raised hopes of Iranians. I have seen this before, when a spark – sometimes an inspirational act of courage from an ordinary citizen – leads to public surges in solidarity. At these moments during my childhood, my parents would tell me that the regime’s time was limited, it’s downfall inevitable. Iranians would see better days and people power would prevail.

    Truth and goodness rise like cream, my Dad would say, as if echoing Dr Martin Luther King’s arc of the moral universe bending towards justice.

    A beautiful sentiment no doubt, but one that has become difficult to believe over time. It often appears that the universe’s arc bends towards power, not justice. Fairness seems the exception, hardly the rule. At the time, Dad’s reassurances were protective, even noble. But as the 1979 revolution and its aftermath have shown, might beats right most days of the week.

    The cruelty of the cruel and the tyranny of the hunter
    Have blown away my nest.
    O God, O Heavens, O Nature,
    Turn our dark night to dawn.

    As I explain to Australian friends: how can a people surpass a government that has (1) the military on its side, (2) a stranglehold on oil revenue, and (3) a purported mandate from God?

    Guns, money and a holy book – a hard trifecta to crack, and powerful enough to attract a sufficient minority of cronies, bottom feeders and sycophants.

    What’s the size of this ruling minority? It’s difficult to be sure, but a 2023 survey of 158,000 respondents within Iran found that only 15% supported the Islamic Republic. Small, but sufficient to produce crowds burning American and Israeli flags. I’ve always marvelled at the regime’s ability to manufacture these images; I’m told by associates that they now use AI to produce some of these.

    Women Life Freedom

    As current events unfold, I find myself deeply sceptical of all the political actors, whether Iranian, Israeli, American, Arab or Russian. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, none of them have shown any serious interest in supporting democratic reform in Iran. “They’ve all profited from this government,” a senior community member told me. “Why would that change now?”

    For the sake of sanity, I find myself searching for credible sources of hope. The only one I settle on is faith in the Iranian people themselves. This the culture that has surrounded me since childhood, the qualities I’ve seen first hand in my countrywomen and men, whether young or old, home or abroad, Muslim, Bahai or secular: a resilience, a resourcefulness, a propensity for joy, a confidence and pride in culture, and an ability to prevail, over and again.

    It’s a new spring, roses are in bloom…
    …O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.

    These qualities are periodically staged for the world to see. Iranian people have not taken their oppression lying down, rising in (mainly) peaceful protests. There have been some 10 mass protests since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The largest of these was the Green Movement in 2009, when it was estimated that over a million citizens marched in Tehran alone. As recently as May 2025, strikes took place in over 150 cities, involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

    For the most part, these demonstrations have been met with severe repression by state authorities. One episode, from September 2022, deserves special mention. The world watched in horror as the regime cracked down on young women in Iran. This was their response to the Zan Zendegi Azadi (Woman Life Freedom) movement, where mass protests were triggered by the death in custody of Mahsa Jina Amini.

    Amini was a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who had been detained by the government’s “Morality Police” for wearing an improper hijab. Three days into her detention she died under suspicious circumstances. A leaked CT scan showed a skull fracture and brain haemorrhage. This corroborated eyewitness accounts that Amini had been severely beaten by police.

    Intentionally or not, a dress code infringement had been punished by death. Even for Iranians long accustomed to state violence, this was too much. Mass protests erupted in more than 100 cities across all of Iran’s 31 provinces.

    The protests were led by women, many of them defiantly removing their headscarves. True to its nature, the regime responded violently. In the months that followed, over 20,000 protesters were imprisoned, many later testifying to having been tortured through electric shock, flogging, waterboarding and rape.

    Human Rights Watch estimates that over 500 civilians – including 68 children and adolescents – were killed by security forces, which included the paramilitary Basijis, Revolutionary Guard Corps, police and prison guards.

    Things would get darker. That December the regime was accused of deliberately poisoning over 1,200 students at Kharazmi and Ark universities on the eve of a planned protest. Soon thereafter, there were allegations of toxic gas attacks against thousands of schoolgirls, in apparent retaliation for removing their hijabs. By 2024, the UN had accused Iran of a coordinated campaign of crimes against humanity, a claim rejected by the regime.

    As an eye surgeon, I was distressed to read a letter signed by over 100 Iranian ophthalmologists detailing eye injuries among protesters. The letter alleged that security forces had deliberately targeted people’s eyes with teargas canisters, rubber bullets and shotgun fire, resulting in traumatic injuries and irreversible blindness among protesters.

    Dew drops are falling from my cloudy eyes
    This cage, like my heart, is narrow and dark.
    O fiery sigh set alight this cage
    O fate, do not pick the flower of my life.

    There were separate reports of women’s faces and genitals being targeted by shotgun fire. The regime appeared to have interfered with medical services: protestors transported to police stations in ambulances were arrested after surgery or denied treatment. Doctors were reportedly coerced to supply false death certificates to disguise the true cause of protestors’ deaths. The British Medical Journal documented healthcare professionals being arrested, intimidated, kidnapped or killed in retaliation for treating protesters.

    If we didn’t know it already, Zan Zendegi Azadi reminded us of the risks, if not futility, of advocating for change in Iran.

    When mass civil movements like this, performed ten times over, have not worked, what alternatives are the people left with? Brutalised and impoverished by their own government, should we be surprised when a traditionally Islamic people welcome a Jewish state’s decapitation of their political leaders? Is it not tempting, even if lazy, to invoke the historical comparison of Cyrus the Great, Persian King of the Achaemenid Empire, who freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity?

    For the people of Iran and Israel – at the risk of naivety and romanticism – are we approaching an age of karma?

    O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.
    O heart-lost bird, shorten, shorten, shorten,
    The tale of separation.

    An uncertain scenario

    Regarding Operation Rising Lion, it is safe to say that Iranians, like any healthy community, hold a diversity of views.

    At one end of the spectrum, those who unconditionally condemn Israel’s attack should consider that the Iranian government has stockpiled over 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. While not enough to build a nuclear warhead, this is far more enriched uranium than is needed for peaceful purposes.

    The Iranian government has also vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” for decades. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei lauded the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. In other words, Iran has said to Israel “we want to annihilate you, we’ll celebrate your deaths, and we could do it with nuclear weapons if we wished to”.

    Following Iran’s recent breach of its nonproliferation obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel says it has acted lawfully in attacking Iran for self-defense – a claim disputed by some international law experts. Even if one does not agree with Israel’s action, it is evident that they’ve long been baited by Iran.

    On the other side of the coin, Iranians who salute Israel and the US as their saviours should take caution. The US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declared as recently as March 2025 that there was no evidence that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, a finding corroborated by over a dozen other US intelligence elements including the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Insitute for Defense Analyses.

    One cannot ignore the disturbing echoes of the 2003 war on Iraq, where the absence of evidence for weapons of mass destruction was intentionally misrepresented by the US and UK governments. The consequences for Iraq have been disastrous.

    As for Netanyahu and his administration, they have shown a ruthless pursuit of narrow self-interest in Gaza. The deaths and injuries inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces on more than 50,000 Palestinian children appear to have done nothing to quell their ambitions.

    With regards to Netanyahu himself, he is facing corruption charges that could result in his domestic imprisonment and he has more recently been the subject of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including starvation and murder.

    What can Iranians learn from this? The evidence suggests this could be a war of passion and opportunism for Israel, rather than one of legitimate self-defence. In any case, they are not waging it for the benefit of Iranians.

    Israel has a tendency to set ambitious military goals that it can’t achieve. While it promises Operation Rising Lion will soon end, its track record suggests otherwise.

    A protracted conflict would see Iran’s civilian toll rise much higher. Power outages and fuel shortages have already begun; what happens once water, medical and food scarcity set in? Since Iran doesn’t allow many international aid agencies onto its soil, who will come to the rescue of Iranians as things escalate?

    Truth’s life has come to an end
    Faith and fidelity have been replaced by the shield of war.
    Lover’s lament and beloved’s coyness,
    Are but lies and have no power.

    Even if Israel succeeds in capturing or killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, what happens next? With the Revolutionary Guard’s roots in place, there is no guarantee, and in fact a low likelihood, of true democratic reform. In recent times, foreign interference in the region has not gone well. Look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: all evidence of catastrophic worsening after the removal of autocrats.

    This is a complex and uncertain scenario with little room for moral grandstanding. Disabling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities could be a net win, but the manner in which it is being done sets a dangerous precedent. For the Iranian people, Netanyahu’s ambitions could ultimately prove both heroic and villainous.

    The cup of the rich is full of pure wine,
    Our cup is filled with our heart’s blood.
    O anxious heart, cry out aloud
    And avoid those who have powerful hands.

    As I watch coverage of the war, I find myself drifting back to Shajarian’s voice and to Morq-e Sahar, probably for distraction and comfort. What is real is my faith in my fellow Iranians. Many examples comes to mind. One, during a trip to Iran, was when I stayed with family at a roadhouse. That evening, we heard music emanating from the courtyard and followed some steps into an dark basement beneath the accommodation.

    There we found a large gathering of young Iranians, two dozen or more men and women risking the law by hanging out together to sing. We joined them as strangers, seated on the floor and holding hands at times. In the dim light, the group sang and sang, a couple of them playing instruments.

    I can’t say I knew the songs or comprehended all the lyrics; I didn’t need to, to understand their meaning. You may force our people underground, you may cage them, bombard and even kill them. But you will never extinguish their eternal Persian spirit.

    O rosy-cheeked cup-bearer, give the fiery water,
    Play a joyful tune, O charming friend.
    O sad nightingale lament from your cage.
    Because of your grief my heart is
    Full of sparks, sparks, sparks.

    Hessom Razavi 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.

    ref. Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-my-heart-is-full-of-sparks-as-war-escalates-can-i-hope-for-irans-liberation-from-a-tyrannical-regime-259275

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hessom Razavi, Clinical Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, The University of Western Australia

    We are at a dinner party in suburban Perth, a home away from home for our diaspora. As guests arrive, a Persian ballad plays in the background: Morq-e Sahar (Dawn Bird), a freedom song, a century-old protest against dictatorships and tyranny in Iran. This version was sung by the late Mohammad-Reza Shajarian, Iran’s most decorated maestro.

    Dawn bird, lament!
    Make my brand burn even more.
    With the sparks from your sigh, break
    And turn this cage upside down.

    Shajarian’s virtuoso voice frames an old question. One I’ve heard, it seems, at every Iranian gathering since my childhood. It hangs in the air like a cloud, unanswered, as guests greet each other with customary bowing and rooboosi (cheek kissing). We settle around a table laden with âjil (trail mix), fruit and wine, the smell of saffron rice and ghorme sabzi (herb stew) all around.

    For me, the scene is both familial and familiar. As is the question, which circles back around. “When will this regime change?” someone asks. The “regime” is Nezâm-e Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân, or the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    A missing voice

    Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, there has been a voice sometimes missing in the mainstream coverage – that of the Iranian people themselves.

    “Israel is not our enemy, the regime is our enemy,” chant many Iranians in Tehran and in the diaspora, a common sentiment in our community. They cite the regime that they have endured for 46 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: a government most of them oppose and reject, with the vast majority of Iranians preferring democratic, if not secular, reform.

    I hear some Iranians, on social media and in conversation with people who live there, commending Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for assassinating Iran’s top military brass. These are the leaders of the Sepah, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the most powerful branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Together with the mullahs – Iran’s Shia Muslim clerical class – they form the backbone of Iran’s government and economy.

    So far, Israel has assassinated Hossein Salami, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, as well as Mohammad Kazemi, its intelligence chief, plus senior nuclear scientists and dozens of other officers. Israel has also indicated an interest in killing Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

    Damet garm, aghayeh Netanyahu,” some Iranians are saying, literally “may your breath be warm”, or “good job, Netanyahu”. Amid the terror and confusion – not to mention the civilian deaths, so far, of over 200 Iranians – there is a rare and distinct sense of hope.

    State of corruption

    In view of Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza, this support for Israel may come as a surprise to many Australians, and Western liberals in general. Certainly, reconciling Israel’s role in Gaza versus Iran is jarring.

    But for now, I hear some Iranians saying “maybe our regime can finally be toppled”. Maybe Iran can reclaim its place in the international community, as the proud and prosperous nation it should be? As this crisis escalates, as buildings collapse and distressed Tehranis, including my family, flee the capital for the safety of the countryside, there is a heady sense of possibility.

    Wing-tied nightingale come out of the corner of your cage, and
    Sing the song of freedom for human kind.
    With your fiery breath ignite,
    The breath of this peopled land …

    I understand the allure of this hope; to an extent, I feel it myself. My family lives in Australia, not Iran, precisely because of the Iranian regime’s tyranny. We fled Iran in 1983 due to political persecution, after most of the adults in our extended family were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned by the government.

    Two of my imprisoned uncles and one of my aunties were executed. Another uncle was beaten to death in custody. My grandfather, a noble old man, was imprisoned and tortured. We were far from unique; during the 1980s, the government imprisoned tens of thousands of its own people, executing many thousands of them.

    Little has changed since then. The Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guards have shown a pervasive disregard for human rights. They execute more of their own people than any country except China. They are a world leader in the use of torture; they deny freedoms of expression and press, association and assembly; they discriminate against women, girls, religious minorities, LGBTI people, and refugees. Tightly controlled elections ensure the success of desired candidates.

    Freedom House, a nonprofit organisation based in the US, gives Iran a score of 11 out of 100 for its provision of political rights and civil liberties. For many Iranians, it felt overdue when, in 2019, the US listed the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, a decision followed by other countries, including Canada and Sweden. In 2023, the European parliament overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to do the same, with calls to expedite this motion in early 2025.

    In parallel to their human rights abuses, the Revolutionary Guard has hobbled the Iranian economy. Their corruption, financial incompetence and operation of black markets have compounded the effects of international sanctions. Consequently, the Iranian rial hit a historic low this year. It is now worth around one twentieth of its value in 2015.

    People’s life savings have dwindled in value, rendering older Iranians financially vulnerable. Inflation was 38.7% in May of this year, down from highs of over 40%. My family in Iran experience this as grocery and commodity prices that may rise in a single day, higher in the afternoon than in the morning. Some cities have experienced water cuts and power outages.

    While it hasn’t yet qualified as a failed state, Iran has been failing.

    All of this has occurred despite the country being richly endowed with the second- and third-highest natural gas and oil reserves in the world, respectively. Iran has a GDP of over $US404 billion – 36th in the world. Its youth are highly educated and literate, with more women enrolled in universities than men.

    Rather than accelerating the nation’s domestic development, however, the Iranian government has by its own admission spent tens of billions of dollars to expand its empire by funding terrorist proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the recently deposed Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    The Iranian people have suffered financially, but the Revolutionary Guards have not. They are estimated to control at least 10%, and up to 50%, of the country’s total economy, including up to an estimated 50% share of Iran’s US$50 billion per year oil profits. They have achieved this by commandeering an industrial empire, made up of hundreds of commercial companies, trusts, subsidiaries and nominally charitable foundations.

    A further US$2 billion or more per year comes from the government’s military budget, with periodic boosts during crises. Add to this the alleged shadowy operation of black markets, extortion, and the smuggling of alcohol, narcotics and weapons, accounting for an estimated US$12 billion per year in revenue.

    Contemplating this corruption, I am reminded of an anecdote from a personal associate who worked for a firm affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. They shared stories of officers, the nation’s purported “guardians of Islam”, hosting parties where alcohol, firearms and sex workers were readily available.

    My associate recounted several instances of fraud and theft, one of them monumental in scale. In this “tea smuggling scandal”, the Revolutionary Guard defrauded billions of dollars from a government fund by illicitly exchanging some funds on the open market, falsely labelling cheap tea to on-sell as superior quality tea, and falsely labelling domestically produced machinery as “Made in Germany”.

    “They’re untouchable, and they know it”, my associate said. Another Iranian community member described them to me as “Iran’s super-mafia”.

    Speaking to family in Iran, they say many of the middle tier Revolutionary Guards live in their own shahrak-ha (towns) with dedicated markets, schools and resorts. Many of the Guards’ elite, meanwhile, live in mansions in the exclusive parts of north Tehran, with children who pursue conspicuously American “lifestyles of the rich and famous”. For an organisation that leads the chants of “marg bar America!” (death to America), one wonders if they see the irony in this.

    Turn our dark night to dawn

    I find myself sickened by the events of this war, and the harm it is causing. Struck with anxiety, some of our family members in Tehran haven’t slept for days. “The Israeli bombardments are non-stop, and so loud,” one family member told me.

    This week our extended family has struggled frantically to leave Tehran. Petrol is hard to come by and, in a mass exodus, the bumper-to-bumper traffic stands still for hours. I know some of the neighbourhoods being bombed; we lived in one of them in my childhood.

    “For every military commander that’s assassinated, a whole building might collapse, and with a dozen civilians trapped or killed,” another person told me, intimating that the civilian toll is higher than official counts.

    I am also worried about the raised hopes of Iranians. I have seen this before, when a spark – sometimes an inspirational act of courage from an ordinary citizen – leads to public surges in solidarity. At these moments during my childhood, my parents would tell me that the regime’s time was limited, it’s downfall inevitable. Iranians would see better days and people power would prevail.

    Truth and goodness rise like cream, my Dad would say, as if echoing Dr Martin Luther King’s arc of the moral universe bending towards justice.

    A beautiful sentiment no doubt, but one that has become difficult to believe over time. It often appears that the universe’s arc bends towards power, not justice. Fairness seems the exception, hardly the rule. At the time, Dad’s reassurances were protective, even noble. But as the 1979 revolution and its aftermath have shown, might beats right most days of the week.

    The cruelty of the cruel and the tyranny of the hunter
    Have blown away my nest.
    O God, O Heavens, O Nature,
    Turn our dark night to dawn.

    As I explain to Australian friends: how can a people surpass a government that has (1) the military on its side, (2) a stranglehold on oil revenue, and (3) a purported mandate from God?

    Guns, money and a holy book – a hard trifecta to crack, and powerful enough to attract a sufficient minority of cronies, bottom feeders and sycophants.

    What’s the size of this ruling minority? It’s difficult to be sure, but a 2023 survey of 158,000 respondents within Iran found that only 15% supported the Islamic Republic. Small, but sufficient to produce crowds burning American and Israeli flags. I’ve always marvelled at the regime’s ability to manufacture these images; I’m told by associates that they now use AI to produce some of these.

    Women Life Freedom

    As current events unfold, I find myself deeply sceptical of all the political actors, whether Iranian, Israeli, American, Arab or Russian. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, none of them have shown any serious interest in supporting democratic reform in Iran. “They’ve all profited from this government,” a senior community member told me. “Why would that change now?”

    For the sake of sanity, I find myself searching for credible sources of hope. The only one I settle on is faith in the Iranian people themselves. This the culture that has surrounded me since childhood, the qualities I’ve seen first hand in my countrywomen and men, whether young or old, home or abroad, Muslim, Bahai or secular: a resilience, a resourcefulness, a propensity for joy, a confidence and pride in culture, and an ability to prevail, over and again.

    It’s a new spring, roses are in bloom…
    …O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.

    These qualities are periodically staged for the world to see. Iranian people have not taken their oppression lying down, rising in (mainly) peaceful protests. There have been some 10 mass protests since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The largest of these was the Green Movement in 2009, when it was estimated that over a million citizens marched in Tehran alone. As recently as May 2025, strikes took place in over 150 cities, involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

    For the most part, these demonstrations have been met with severe repression by state authorities. One episode, from September 2022, deserves special mention. The world watched in horror as the regime cracked down on young women in Iran. This was their response to the Zan Zendegi Azadi (Woman Life Freedom) movement, where mass protests were triggered by the death in custody of Mahsa Jina Amini.

    Amini was a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who had been detained by the government’s “Morality Police” for wearing an improper hijab. Three days into her detention she died under suspicious circumstances. A leaked CT scan showed a skull fracture and brain haemorrhage. This corroborated eyewitness accounts that Amini had been severely beaten by police.

    Intentionally or not, a dress code infringement had been punished by death. Even for Iranians long accustomed to state violence, this was too much. Mass protests erupted in more than 100 cities across all of Iran’s 31 provinces.

    The protests were led by women, many of them defiantly removing their headscarves. True to its nature, the regime responded violently. In the months that followed, over 20,000 protesters were imprisoned, many later testifying to having been tortured through electric shock, flogging, waterboarding and rape.

    Human Rights Watch estimates that over 500 civilians – including 68 children and adolescents – were killed by security forces, which included the paramilitary Basijis, Revolutionary Guard Corps, police and prison guards.

    Things would get darker. That December the regime was accused of deliberately poisoning over 1,200 students at Kharazmi and Ark universities on the eve of a planned protest. Soon thereafter, there were allegations of toxic gas attacks against thousands of schoolgirls, in apparent retaliation for removing their hijabs. By 2024, the UN had accused Iran of a coordinated campaign of crimes against humanity, a claim rejected by the regime.

    As an eye surgeon, I was distressed to read a letter signed by over 100 Iranian ophthalmologists detailing eye injuries among protesters. The letter alleged that security forces had deliberately targeted people’s eyes with teargas canisters, rubber bullets and shotgun fire, resulting in traumatic injuries and irreversible blindness among protesters.

    Dew drops are falling from my cloudy eyes
    This cage, like my heart, is narrow and dark.
    O fiery sigh set alight this cage
    O fate, do not pick the flower of my life.

    There were separate reports of women’s faces and genitals being targeted by shotgun fire. The regime appeared to have interfered with medical services: protestors transported to police stations in ambulances were arrested after surgery or denied treatment. Doctors were reportedly coerced to supply false death certificates to disguise the true cause of protestors’ deaths. The British Medical Journal documented healthcare professionals being arrested, intimidated, kidnapped or killed in retaliation for treating protesters.

    If we didn’t know it already, Zan Zendegi Azadi reminded us of the risks, if not futility, of advocating for change in Iran.

    When mass civil movements like this, performed ten times over, have not worked, what alternatives are the people left with? Brutalised and impoverished by their own government, should we be surprised when a traditionally Islamic people welcome a Jewish state’s decapitation of their political leaders? Is it not tempting, even if lazy, to invoke the historical comparison of Cyrus the Great, Persian King of the Achaemenid Empire, who freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity?

    For the people of Iran and Israel – at the risk of naivety and romanticism – are we approaching an age of karma?

    O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.
    O heart-lost bird, shorten, shorten, shorten,
    The tale of separation.

    An uncertain scenario

    Regarding Operation Rising Lion, it is safe to say that Iranians, like any healthy community, hold a diversity of views.

    At one end of the spectrum, those who unconditionally condemn Israel’s attack should consider that the Iranian government has stockpiled over 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. While not enough to build a nuclear warhead, this is far more enriched uranium than is needed for peaceful purposes.

    The Iranian government has also vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” for decades. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei lauded the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. In other words, Iran has said to Israel “we want to annihilate you, we’ll celebrate your deaths, and we could do it with nuclear weapons if we wished to”.

    Following Iran’s recent breach of its nonproliferation obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel says it has acted lawfully in attacking Iran for self-defense – a claim disputed by some international law experts. Even if one does not agree with Israel’s action, it is evident that they’ve long been baited by Iran.

    On the other side of the coin, Iranians who salute Israel and the US as their saviours should take caution. The US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declared as recently as March 2025 that there was no evidence that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, a finding corroborated by over a dozen other US intelligence elements including the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Insitute for Defense Analyses.

    One cannot ignore the disturbing echoes of the 2003 war on Iraq, where the absence of evidence for weapons of mass destruction was intentionally misrepresented by the US and UK governments. The consequences for Iraq have been disastrous.

    As for Netanyahu and his administration, they have shown a ruthless pursuit of narrow self-interest in Gaza. The deaths and injuries inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces on more than 50,000 Palestinian children appear to have done nothing to quell their ambitions.

    With regards to Netanyahu himself, he is facing corruption charges that could result in his domestic imprisonment and he has more recently been the subject of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including starvation and murder.

    What can Iranians learn from this? The evidence suggests this could be a war of passion and opportunism for Israel, rather than one of legitimate self-defence. In any case, they are not waging it for the benefit of Iranians.

    Israel has a tendency to set ambitious military goals that it can’t achieve. While it promises Operation Rising Lion will soon end, its track record suggests otherwise.

    A protracted conflict would see Iran’s civilian toll rise much higher. Power outages and fuel shortages have already begun; what happens once water, medical and food scarcity set in? Since Iran doesn’t allow many international aid agencies onto its soil, who will come to the rescue of Iranians as things escalate?

    Truth’s life has come to an end
    Faith and fidelity have been replaced by the shield of war.
    Lover’s lament and beloved’s coyness,
    Are but lies and have no power.

    Even if Israel succeeds in capturing or killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, what happens next? With the Revolutionary Guard’s roots in place, there is no guarantee, and in fact a low likelihood, of true democratic reform. In recent times, foreign interference in the region has not gone well. Look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: all evidence of catastrophic worsening after the removal of autocrats.

    This is a complex and uncertain scenario with little room for moral grandstanding. Disabling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities could be a net win, but the manner in which it is being done sets a dangerous precedent. For the Iranian people, Netanyahu’s ambitions could ultimately prove both heroic and villainous.

    The cup of the rich is full of pure wine,
    Our cup is filled with our heart’s blood.
    O anxious heart, cry out aloud
    And avoid those who have powerful hands.

    As I watch coverage of the war, I find myself drifting back to Shajarian’s voice and to Morq-e Sahar, probably for distraction and comfort. What is real is my faith in my fellow Iranians. Many examples comes to mind. One, during a trip to Iran, was when I stayed with family at a roadhouse. That evening, we heard music emanating from the courtyard and followed some steps into an dark basement beneath the accommodation.

    There we found a large gathering of young Iranians, two dozen or more men and women risking the law by hanging out together to sing. We joined them as strangers, seated on the floor and holding hands at times. In the dim light, the group sang and sang, a couple of them playing instruments.

    I can’t say I knew the songs or comprehended all the lyrics; I didn’t need to, to understand their meaning. You may force our people underground, you may cage them, bombard and even kill them. But you will never extinguish their eternal Persian spirit.

    O rosy-cheeked cup-bearer, give the fiery water,
    Play a joyful tune, O charming friend.
    O sad nightingale lament from your cage.
    Because of your grief my heart is
    Full of sparks, sparks, sparks.

    Hessom Razavi 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.

    ref. Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-my-heart-is-full-of-sparks-as-war-escalates-can-i-hope-for-irans-liberation-from-a-tyrannical-regime-259275

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University

    Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal.

    The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It’s expected to start operating in 2026.

    Human rights organisations, international lawyers and some (mostly European) states have long been calling for the establishment of such a tribunal. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer, called the establishment of the tribunal:

    an important breakthrough for the international justice community and especially for the millions of Ukrainians who have been harmed by the Russian aggression.

    However, important questions remain about if it could truly hold senior Russian officials accountable.

    So, how will this new special tribunal work, and will it be effective – or necessary?

    How does the special tribunal fill the gaps left by the ICC and ICJ?

    This tribunal is separate to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    The ICC can prosecute individuals charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Russian war on Ukraine. So far, it has issued arrest warrants against four Russian senior officials, including President Vladimir Putin.

    Because Russia is not a member state to the court, the court can’t exercise legal authority over what’s known in international law as a crime of aggression (when leaders of a state launch or plan a war). For the ICC to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the aggressor state also must be a member state of the court.

    The ICJ is a different court altogether. It primarily deals with and adjudicates disputes between states, not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It can’t hold individuals accountable, and can only exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if both states to a dispute agree.

    While the ICC seeks to establish individual criminal responsibility, the ICJ may establish state responsibility for a violation of international law.

    Currently, there are also two cases between Ukraine and Russia before the ICJ.

    Neither deals with the question of the legality of Russia’s use of force in its invasion in February 2022. Both Ukraine and Russia would need to consent to bring this issue before the court.

    So, is a new tribunal necessary?

    Yes, because the crime of aggression currently can’t be addressed by any other international court or tribunal.

    Given the limitations of what the ICJ and ICC can do, a dedicated tribunal seems the obvious solution to hold those responsible for the illegal use of force against Ukraine accountable.

    And it’s not uncommon for specialised tribunals with limited jurisdiction over a specific situation to be created.

    Other historical examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

    Given the ICC’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the new special tribunal would complement the court’s existing investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Who is running the new tribunal and how will it work?

    The exact content and specifics of this new tribunal will remain unknown until the draft statute of the tribunal is published. That’s a document that outlines details including the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicable definition of aggression and how the tribunal will function.

    At this stage, the Council of Europe has confirmed the tribunal will work within its legal framework and principles. It will be funded by an international coalition of supportive states.

    A management committee of members and associate members of the tribunal will be responsible for the election of the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors. The management committee is made up of the Council of Europe’s council of ministers and Ukraine.

    Diplomatic discussions are still ongoing at this point, but the legal process for establishing the special tribunal can begin now.

    Will this special tribunal be more effective?

    Political, legal and practical challenges for the special tribunal remain. It’s unclear if the most senior Russian state officials can and will be able to be brought to trial for the crime of aggression.

    Nothing, so far, suggests the statute of the tribunal will contain an exception to state immunity enjoyed by heads of state, heads of governments and foreign ministers while in power.

    That means these office holders can only be prosecuted if they are no longer in power or the Russian government expressly waives their immunity.

    It’s also unclear whether states will be willing to arrest those sought by the special tribunal.

    The ICC has long faced this challenge trying to get states to act on its arrest warrants.

    Hungary, for instance, did not arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited in April, despite an ICC arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.

    For the special tribunal to be effective, according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, it:

    must not become a remote and hollow entity that does not engage with the Ukrainian victims.

    Overall, much remains unclear. Will this new special tribunal be able to hold the likes of Putin accountable for the crime of aggression? Or will it become another empty promise?

    Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-special-tribunal-will-investigate-russias-aggression-against-ukraine-will-it-be-effective-257823

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Dowdell, PhD Candidate in Sustainable Mining, The University of Queensland

    CUHRIG/Getty

    This week, Environment Minister Murray Watt met with groups representing business, the environment, renewable energy and First Nations communities in a bid to restart Labor’s stalled environmental reforms. There was one group in the room Watt presumably had to woo hardest: Western Australia’s miners.

    Last year, the WA mining lobby mounted an ultimately successful campaign opposing proposed changes to national environment laws, and the plan to set up an environmental protection authority. State premier Roger Cook also lobbied Prime Minister Anthony Albanese directly.

    Watt has pledged to revive the reform process and on Thursday claimed a compromise could be reached. The existing laws, he said, are “not working for the environment, and they are not working for business”.

    Whether his efforts will be enough to overcome the scepticism of the mining industry remains to be seen. These companies have influence – and they will use it if they see new laws as a threat.

    The mining state

    The mining industry dominates WA economically, politically and socially. WA’s mining sector is substantially larger than the mining interests in any other Australian state. Underground lie huge reserves of iron ore, gas, gold, lithium and many other resources.

    The sector funnelled A$267 billion into the Australian economy in 2023–24 through salaries, royalties and taxes. About $60 billion directly flowed to Western Australians in wages and salaries.

    The leaders of WA mining companies see themselves, by and large, as doing economically vital work.

    I have interviewed many WA mining executives for my doctorate, which is currently underway. One clear common narrative emerged: they saw mining as a national good. They believed their companies brought wealth and prosperity to communities, built infrastructure, and funnelled money into state and federal treasuries.

    The justification is powerful. It underpins the way those in the industry see their work – and how they respond to any threat, perceived or otherwise.

    It also dates back over a century. The link between WA resources and prosperity originates from the 1890s WA gold rush, which transformed the fortunes of the state. This self image has been nurtured through successive resource booms, from gold to iron ore to natural gas and more gold.

    Many company executives see any duplication of environmental approvals as time-consuming, unproductive and economically damaging. A 2023 WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry report suggested “green tape” (approval delays) was threatening 40% of mining proposals in the pipeline.

    Miners and their political backers often frame the industry as environmentally positive, particularly for resources vital to the green energy transition such as lithium, rare earth elements and – more controversially – gas.

    Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King – who is West Australian – regularly draws this link. As she said in 2023:

    let me be clear, the global clean energy transition will need more mining, not less […] the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector.

    Mining is vital to Western Australia.
    Inc/Shutterstock

    Wielding influence

    WA miners are represented by well-organised and well-resourced lobbying bodies such as the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, and the Minerals Council of Australia.

    These groups maintain relationships with politicians at both state and federal levels, regardless of which party is in power.

    Broadly, their goals are to promote the continued expansion of resource projects (minerals, oil and gas) under conditions most advantageous to industry interests.

    Mining companies use these industry lobby groups to support or critique government policy and push for changes. They exert influence through targeted lobbying, close relationships with elected officials and political candidates, and direct engagement with federal processes.

    What happens when the sector sees a potential threat from policymakers in Canberra? Often, the mining companies unify against it.

    For example, WA miners were prominent in the 2010 campaign against efforts by the Rudd government to introduce a super profits tax on mining.

    Why WA miners oppose nature law reform

    A tax is one thing. But what did the WA miners see as the key problems in the environmental reforms?

    One issue was a perceived contradiction between the federal government’s intention to streamline developmental approvals and introduce a federal Environmental Protection Agency, while failing to deal with existing duplication between state and federal processes.

    The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies lobby group gave another reason in a submission to government: the proposed independence of the EPA would remove the discretionary power of the minister.

    Rather than an independent federal EPA, they pushed for a model similar to the WA version – the advice of which the minister can overrule. The group also warned the laws would impede the global competitiveness of the mining industry and hinder investment.

    The state government echoed these statements, calling the reforms an overreach that would stifle economic development.

    This alignment of government and industry messaging shows how closely their interests are intertwined.

    Premier Roger Cook leaves no ambiguity about this. Ahead of this year’s WA and federal elections, Cook warned the “latte sippers” over east:

    do not for a moment think that we will stand by idly and allow you to damage our economy because, ultimately, it will damage your standard of living.

    Is a deal possible?

    Across Australia, there is broad support for environmental law reform, because the current national laws are seen as not fit for purpose.

    Murray Watt came to the role of environment minister with a reputation as a fixer. The question now is, what will he trade to get the miners on side?

    The industry will be cautious and will insist on much more detail about any changes. It’s possible a deal could be struck. But we can expect to continue to see very strong pushback if Watt tries to expand federal powers into what is seen as state responsibilities.

    The industry will also expect greater federal resourcing for delivery of timely approvals. Nationally important industries don’t like to wait.

    Diane Dowdell is a PhD Candidate in the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) within the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland. She was the recipient of an industry scholarship from Newcrest Mining for her PhD research. She works for SLR Consulting Pty Ltd. Diane is a fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ).

    ref. West Australian miners flexed their muscle to block a federal EPA last year. Will it be different this time? – https://theconversation.com/west-australian-miners-flexed-their-muscle-to-block-a-federal-epa-last-year-will-it-be-different-this-time-257892

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic.

    Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling mid-air refuelling, bombs and an array of intelligence.

    If successful they will destroy or, more likely, destabilise the uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz and possibly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, causing them to vibrate and spin uncontrollably, generating centrifugal forces that could rupture containment systems.

    Spinning at more than 50,000 rpm it wouldn’t take much of a shockwave from a blast or some other act of sabotage to do this.

    There may be about half a tonne of enriched uranium and several tonnes of lower-grade material underground.

    If a cascade of bunker-busting bombs like the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators got through, the heat generated would be in the hundreds, even thousands, of degrees Celsius. This would destroy the centrifuges, converting the uranium hexafluoride gas into a toxic aerosol, leading to serious radiological contamination over a wide area.

    The head of the IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, warned repeatedly of the dangers over the past few days. How many people would be killed, contaminated or forced to evacuate should not have to be calculated — it should be avoided at all cost.

    Divided opinions
    Some people think this attack is a very good idea; some think this is an act of madness by two rogue states.

    On June 18, Israeli media were reporting that the US had rushed an aerial armada loaded with bunker busters to Israel while the US continued its sham denials of involvement in the war.

    Analysts Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares warned this week of “Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims”.  They point out that for some decades now Netanyahu has warned that Iran is weeks or even days away from having the bomb, begging successive presidents for permission to wage Judeo-Christian jihad.

    In Donald Trump — the MAGA Peace Candidate — he finally got his green light.

    The centrifugal forces destabilising the Iranian state
    The other — and possibly more significant — centrifugal force that has been unleashed is a hybrid attack on the Iranian state itself.  The Americans, Israelis and their European allies hope to trigger regime change.

    There are many Iranians inside and outside the country who would welcome such a development.  Other Iranians suggest they should be careful of what they wish for, pointing to the human misery that follows, as night follows day, wherever post 9/11 America’s project to bring “democracy, goodness and niceness” leads.  If you can’t quickly think of half a dozen examples, this must be your first visit to Planet Earth.

    Iranian news presenter Sahar Emami during the Israeli attack on state television which killed three media workers . . . Killing journalists is both an Israeli speciality and a war crime. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    Is regime change in Iran possible?
    So, are the Americans and Israelis on to something or not? This week prominent anti-regime writer Sohrab Ahmari added a caveat to his long-standing call for an end to the regime.  Ahmari, an Iranian, who is the US editor of the geopolitical analysis platform UnHerd said:  “The potential nightmare scenarios are as numerous as they are appalling: regime collapse that leads not to the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and the ascent to the Peacock Throne of its chubby dauphin, Reza, but warlordism and ethno-sectarian warfare that drives millions of refugees into Europe.

    “Or a Chinese intervention in favour of a crucial energy partner and anchor of the new Eurasian bloc led by Beijing . . .  A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on the Persian Gulf monarchies.”

    Despite these risks, there are indeed Iranians who are cheering for Uncle Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).  Some have little sympathy for the Palestinians because their government poured millions into supporting Hamas and Hezbollah — money that could have eased hardship inside Iran, caused, it must be added, by both the US-imposed sanctions and the regime’s own mismanagement, some say corruption.

    As I pointed out in an article The West’s War on Iran shortly after the Israelis launched the war: the regime appears to have a core support base of around 20 percent.  This was true in 2018 when I last visited Iran and was still the case in the most recent polling I could find.

    I quoted an Iranian contact who shortly after the attack told me they had scanned reactions inside Iran and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government at this critical moment.  Like many, I suggested Iranians would — as typically happens when countries are attacked — rally round the flag.  Shortly after the article was published this statement was challenged by other Iranians who dispute that there will be any “rallying to the flag” — as that is the flag of the Islamic Republic and a great many Iranians are sick to the back teeth of it.

    Some others demur:

    “The killing of at least 224 Iranians has once again significantly damaged Israel’s claim that it avoids targeting civilians,” Dr Shirin Saeidi, author of Women and the Islamic Republic, an associate professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, told The New Arab on June 16.  “Israel’s illegal attack on the Iranian people will definitely not result in a popular uprising against the Iranian state. On the contrary, Iranians are coming together behind the Islamic Republic.”

    To be honest, I can’t discern who is correct. In the last few of days I have also had contact with people inside Iran (all these contacts must, for obvious reasons, be anonymous).  One of them welcomed the attack on the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps).  I also got this message relayed to me from someone else in Iran as a response to my article:

    “Some Iranians are pro-regime and have condemned Israeli attacks and want the government to respond strongly. Some Iranians are pro-Israel and happy that Israel has attacked and killed some of their murderers and want regime change, [but the] majority of Iranians dislike both sides.

    They dislike the regime in Iran, and they are patriotic so they don’t want a foreign country like Israel invading them and killing people. They feel hopeless and defenceless as they know both sides have failed or will fail them.”

    Calculating the incalculable: regime survival or collapse?
    Only a little over half of Iran is Persian. Minorities include Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Balochis, Turkmen, Armenians and one of the region’s few post-Nakba Jewish congregations outside of Israel today.

    Mossad, MI6 and various branches of the US state have poured billions into opposition groups, including various monarchist factions, but from a distance they appear fragmented. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) armed opposition group has been an irritant but so far not a major disruptor.

    The most effective terrorist attacks inside Iran have been launched by Israel, the US and the British — including the assassination of a string of Iranian peace negotiators, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, nuclear scientists and their families, and various regime figures.

    How numerous the active strands of anti-regime elements are is hard to estimate. Equally hard to calculate is how many will move into open confrontation with the regime. Conversely, how unified, durable — or brittle — is the regime? How cohesive is the leadership of the IRGC and the Basij militias? Will they work effectively together in the trying times ahead? In particular, how successful has the CIA, MI6 and Mossad been at penetrating their structures and buying generals?

    Both Iran’s nuclear programme and its government — in fact, the whole edifice and foundation of the Islamic Republic — is at the beginning of the greatest stress test of its existence.  If the centrifugal forces prove too great, I can’t help but think of the words of William Butler Yeats:

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Peace and prosperity to all the people of Iran.  And let’s never forget the people of Palestine as they endure genocide.

    Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

    MAYA LAB/Shutterstock

    Technologies to enforce the Australian government’s social media ban for under 16s are “private, robust and effective”. That’s according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that has nearly finished testing them.

    The findings, released today, may give the government greater confidence to forge ahead with the ban, despite a suite of expert criticism. They might also alleviate some of the concerns of the Australian population about privacy and security implications of the ban, which is due to begin in December.

    For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and released by the government earlier this week found nine out of ten people support the idea of a ban. But it also found a large number of people were “very concerned” about how the ban would be implemented. Nearly 80% of respondents had privacy and security concerns, while roughly half had concerns about age assurance accuracy and government oversight.

    The trial’s preliminary findings paint a rosy picture of the potential for available technologies to check people’s ages. However, they contain very little detail about specific technologies, and appear to be at odds with what we know about age-assurance technology from other sources.

    From facial recognition to hand movement recognition

    The social media ban for under 16s was legislated in December 2024. A last-minute amendment to the law requires technology companies to provide “alternative age assurance methods” for account holders to confirm their age, rather than relying only on government-issued ID.

    The Australian government commissioned an independent trial to evaluate the “effectiveness, maturity, and readiness for use” of these alternative methods.

    The trial is being led by the Age Check Certification Scheme – a company based in the United Kingdom that specialises in testing and certifying identity verification systems. It includes 53 vendors that offer a range of age assurance technologies to guess people’s ages, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand-movement recognition.

    According to the preliminary findings of the trial, “age assurance can be done in Australia”.

    The trial’s project director, Tony Allen, said “there are no significant technological barriers” to assuring people’s ages online. He added the solutions are “technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online”.

    However, these claims are hard to square with other evidence.

    High error rates

    Yesterday the ABC reported the trial found face-scanning technologies “repeatedly misidentified” children as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. These tools could only guess children’s ages “within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases”. This means a 14-year-old child might gain access to a social media account, while a 17-year-old might be blocked.

    This is in line with results of global trials of face-scanning technologies conducted for more than a decade.

    An ongoing series of studies of age estimation technology by the United States’ National Institute of Standards and Technology shows the algorithms “fail significantly when attempting to differentiate minors” of various ages.

    The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women compared to young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones.

    These studies show that even the best age-estimation software currently available – Yoti – has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options mistake someone’s age by 3.1 years on average.

    This means, at best, a 16-year-old might be estimated to be 15 or 17 years old; at worst, they could be seen to be 13 or 19 years of age. These error rates mean a significant number of children under 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban being in place, while some over 16 could be blocked.

    Yoti also explains businesses needing to check exact ages (such as 18) can set higher age thresholds (such as 25), so fewer people under 18 get through the age check.

    This approach would be similar to that taken in Australia’s retail liquor sector, where sales staff verify ID for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25. However, many young people lack the government-issued ID required for an additional age check.

    It’s also worth remembering that in August 2023, the Australian government acknowledged that the age assurance technology market was “immature” and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without circumvention and balancing privacy and security.

    Outstanding questions

    We don’t yet know exactly what methods platforms will use to verify account holders’ ages. While face-scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial also tested voice and hand movements to guess young people’s ages. But those methods also have accuracy issues.

    And it’s not yet clear what recourse people will have if their age is misidentified. Will parents be able to complain if children under 16 gain access to accounts, despite restrictions? Will older Australians who are incorrectly blocked be able to appeal? And if so, to whom?

    There are other outstanding questions. What’s stopping someone who’s under 16 from getting someone who is over 16 to set up an account on their behalf? To mitigate this risk, the government might require all social media users to verify their age at regular intervals.

    It’s also unclear what level of age estimation error the government may be willing to accept in implementing a social media ban. The legislation says technology companies must demonstrate they have taken “reasonable steps” to prevent under 16s from holding social media accounts. What is considered “reasonable” is yet to be clearly defined.

    Australians will have to wait until later this year for the full results of the government’s trial to be released, and to know how technology companies will respond. With less than six months until the ban comes into effect, social media users still don’t have all the answers they need.

    Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the international Association for Information Science and Technology.

    ref. Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective’, trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence – https://theconversation.com/technology-to-enforce-teen-social-media-ban-is-effective-trial-says-but-this-is-at-odds-with-other-evidence-259373

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Israel — and potentially the U.S. — is sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

    As the war between Israel and Iran escalates, Israel is increasing its calls on the United States to become involved in the conflict.

    Former Israeli officials are appearing on U.S. news outlets, exhorting the American public to support Israel’s actions.

    President Donald Trump has signalled a willingness for the U.S. to become involved in the conflict. He’s gone so far, in fact, to suggest in social media posts that he could kill Iran’s supreme leader if he wanted to.

    Segment on Trump’s threats against Iran’s leader. (BBC News)

    The American military could certainly make an impact in any air campaign against Iran. The problem from a military standpoint, however, is that the U.S., based on its forces’ deployment, will almost certainly seek to keep its involvement limited to its air force to avoid another Iraq-like quagmire.

    While doing so could almost certainly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, it will likely fall short of Israel’s goal of regime change.

    In fact, it could reinforce the Iranian government and draw the U.S. into a costly ground war.




    Read more:
    Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here?


    Israel’s need for American support

    The initial stated reason for Israel’s bombing campaign — Iran’s nuclear capabilities — appears specious at best.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued several times in the past, without evidence, that Iran is close to achieving a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence, however, have assessed that Iran is three years away from deploying a nuclear weapon.

    Regardless of the veracity of the claims, Israel initiated the offensive and now requires American support.

    Israel’s need for U.S. assistance rests on two circumstances:

    1. While Israel succeeded in eliminating key figures from the Iranian military in its initial strikes, Iran’s response appears to have exceeded Israel’s expectations with their Arrow missile interceptors nearing depletion.

    2. Israel’s air strikes can only achieve so much in disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Most analysts note that Israel’s bombings are only likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few months. This is due to the fact that Israeli missiles are incapable of penetrating the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which estimates place close to 300 feet underground.

    The United States, however, possesses munitions that could damage, or even destroy, the Fordow facility. Most notably, the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (more commonly known as a bunker buster) has a penetration capability of 200 feet.

    Multiple strikes by said munition would render Fordow inoperable, if not outright destroyed.

    Romanticizing air power

    The efficacy of air power has been vastly overrated in the popular media and various air forces of the world. Air power is great at disrupting an opponent, but has significant limitations in influencing the outcome of a war.

    Specifically, air power is likely to prove an inadequate tool for one of the supposed Israeli and American objectives in the war: regime change. For air power to be effective at bringing about regime change, it needs to demoralize the Iranian people to the point that they’re willing to oppose their own government.

    Early air enthusiasts believed that a population’s demoralization would be an inevitable consequence of aerial bombardment. Italian general Giulio Douhet, a prominent air power theorist, argued that air power was so mighty that it could destroy cities and demoralize an opponent into surrendering.

    Douhet was correct on the first point. He was wrong on the second.

    Recent history provides evidence. While considerable ink has been spilled to demonstrate the efficacy of air power during the Second World War, close examination of the facts demonstrate that it had a minimal impact. In fact, Allied bombing of German cities in several instances created the opposite effect.

    More recent bombing campaigns replicated this failure. The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War did not significantly damage North Vietnamese morale or war effort. NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, likewise, rallied support for the unpopular Slobodan Milosevic due to its perceived injustice — and continues to evoke strong emotions to this day.

    Iran’s political regime may be unpopular with many Iranians, but Israeli and potentially American bombing may shore up support for the Iranian government.

    Nationalism is a potent force, particularly when people are under attack. Israel’s bombing of Iran will rally segments of the population to the government that would otherwise oppose it.

    Few positive options

    The limitations of air power to fuel significant political change in Iran should give Trump pause about intervening in the conflict.

    Some American support, such as providing weapons, is a given due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But any realization of American and Israeli aspirations of a non-nuclear Iran and a new government will likely require ground forces.

    Recent American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show such a ground forces operation won’t lead to the swift victory that Trump desires, but could potentially stretch on for decades.

    James Horncastle 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.

    ref. Why Israel — and potentially the U.S. — is sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran – https://theconversation.com/why-israel-and-potentially-the-u-s-is-sure-to-encounter-the-limits-of-air-power-in-iran-259348

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: 6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Miller, Lecturer in Education (Classroom Management), Southern Cross University

    Wander Women/ Getty Images

    Bullying is arguably one of the most serious issues facing Australia’s schools.

    About one in four students between Year 4 and Year 9 report being bullied regularly. This can have serious and lasting consequences. Research suggests students who are bullied are at an increased risk of mental health problems and self-harm.

    On Friday, submissions close for the federal government’s rapid review into school bullying. Here, we suggest six key areas on which governments, schools and education authorities need to focus to re-imagine Australia’s approach to tackling bullying.




    Read more:
    With a government review underway, we have to ask why children bully other kids


    1. A national approach to bullying

    At the moment, there is no clear, consistent definition of bullying in Australian schools. Nor are there consistent policies.

    This naturally leads to confusion about current best practice to both prevent bullying and support students who have been bullied.

    For example, there are several definitions of cyberbullying between the different states and territories.

    2. Consistent data to track bullying

    Australia also has no nationally consistent approach to track or measure bullying and cyberbullying.

    This means it is impossible to say whether bullying is getting worse or better – or if certain parts of the country are more successfully addressing it.

    So we need metrics to better track, analyse, report and respond to bullying incidents across schools, regions, states and territories.

    For years, researchers have noted schools themselves also need accurate data to analyse, monitor and evaluate the degree to which an intervention is effective.

    3. A whole-school approach

    A national strategy should also prioritise whole-school approaches to bullying prevention – this is what research shows to be most effective.

    A whole-school approach sees anti-bullying efforts as the responsibility of everyone connected to a school. School leaders, teachers, support staff, students, families and the wider community are all expected to promote safety and inclusion.

    Addressing bullying should see strategies implemented across multiple locations, including the classroom, wider school and home environments.

    This goes beyond simply dealing with individual bullying incidents as they arise.

    Research also suggests schools should focus on proactive, non-punitive strategies and a positive school culture. This includes clear procedures to report bullying, effective education programs, and establishing consistent classroom and school rules.

    If bullying occurs, schools can respond with a restorative approach, which focuses on repairing harm done to relationships.

    Studies suggest whole-school approaches such as these can reduce bullying behaviours by 20-23% and victimisation by 17-20%.

    4. Teach social and emotional skills

    As part of the whole-school approach, we also need to make sure schools are teaching social and emotional skills. This includes how to identify and manage emotions as well as communicating and cooperating with others.

    While it is part of the Australian Curriculum, research shows social and emotional skills are not always taught using evidence-based, formal approaches.

    A large body of research demonstrates that schools which teach social and emotional learning across all aspects of school engagement, report higher academic achievement, lower rates of bullying, improved student wellbeing, and stronger connections between students and adults.

    In part, this is because these approaches empower students to take ownership of their behaviour.




    Read more:
    Schools today also teach social and emotional skills. Why is this important? And what’s involved?


    5. Training for teachers

    Teachers play a pivotal role in making sure all students feel safe and supported at school, helping children and young people to understand and manage their emotions.

    A 2014 study found teachers who had participated in anti-bullying training were able to provide this support more effectively.

    Teachers specifically need training that helps them provide safe, inclusive spaces for students from marginalised groups, including students with disability and young people who face homophobic or transphobic bullying.

    School staff should receive consistent, culturally responsive training, so they are equipped with the most current and effective ways to support all students.

    6. Give students an active role

    We should also look at ways to give students a greater role in shaping anti-bullying policies.

    Research shows when students are included in decisions that affect them, it increases their engagement with learning and motivation at school.

    Along with helping to make policies, students can also be involved in peer-mentoring programs and leading campaigns to raise awareness about respectful relationships. This can create a sense of shared ownership for anti-bullying interventions.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. 6 things Australia must do if it’s serious about tackling school bullying – https://theconversation.com/6-things-australia-must-do-if-its-serious-about-tackling-school-bullying-258924

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University

    Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal.

    The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It’s expected to start operating in 2026.

    Human rights organisations, international lawyers and some (mostly European) states have long been calling for the establishment of such a tribunal. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer, called the establishment of the tribunal:

    an important breakthrough for the international justice community and especially for the millions of Ukrainians who have been harmed by the Russian aggression.

    However, important questions remain about if it could truly hold senior Russian officials accountable.

    So, how will this new special tribunal work, and will it be effective – or necessary?

    How does the special tribunal fill the gaps left by the ICC and ICJ?

    This tribunal is separate to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    The ICC can prosecute individuals charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Russian war on Ukraine. So far, it has issued arrest warrants against four Russian senior officials, including President Vladimir Putin.

    Because Russia is not a member state to the court, the court can’t exercise legal authority over what’s known in international law as a crime of aggression (when leaders of a state launch or plan a war). For the ICC to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the aggressor state also must be a member state of the court.

    The ICJ is a different court altogether. It primarily deals with and adjudicates disputes between states, not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It can’t hold individuals accountable, and can only exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if both states to a dispute agree.

    While the ICC seeks to establish individual criminal responsibility, the ICJ may establish state responsibility for a violation of international law.

    Currently, there are also two cases between Ukraine and Russia before the ICJ.

    Neither deals with the question of the legality of Russia’s use of force in its invasion in February 2022. Both Ukraine and Russia would need to consent to bring this issue before the court.

    So, is a new tribunal necessary?

    Yes, because the crime of aggression currently can’t be addressed by any other international court or tribunal.

    Given the limitations of what the ICJ and ICC can do, a dedicated tribunal seems the obvious solution to hold those responsible for the illegal use of force against Ukraine accountable.

    And it’s not uncommon for specialised tribunals with limited jurisdiction over a specific situation to be created.

    Other historical examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

    Given the ICC’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the new special tribunal would complement the court’s existing investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Who is running the new tribunal and how will it work?

    The exact content and specifics of this new tribunal will remain unknown until the draft statute of the tribunal is published. That’s a document that outlines details including the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicable definition of aggression and how the tribunal will function.

    At this stage, the Council of Europe has confirmed the tribunal will work within its legal framework and principles. It will be funded by an international coalition of supportive states.

    A management committee of members and associate members of the tribunal will be responsible for the election of the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors. The management committee is made up of the Council of Europe’s council of ministers and Ukraine.

    Diplomatic discussions are still ongoing at this point, but the legal process for establishing the special tribunal can begin now.

    Will this special tribunal be more effective?

    Political, legal and practical challenges for the special tribunal remain. It’s unclear if the most senior Russian state officials can and will be able to be brought to trial for the crime of aggression.

    Nothing, so far, suggests the statute of the tribunal will contain an exception to state immunity enjoyed by heads of state, heads of governments and foreign ministers while in power.

    That means these office holders can only be prosecuted if they are no longer in power or the Russian government expressly waives their immunity.

    It’s also unclear whether states will be willing to arrest those sought by the special tribunal.

    The ICC has long faced this challenge trying to get states to act on its arrest warrants.

    Hungary, for instance, did not arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited in April, despite an ICC arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.

    For the special tribunal to be effective, according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, it:

    must not become a remote and hollow entity that does not engage with the Ukrainian victims.

    Overall, much remains unclear. Will this new special tribunal be able to hold the likes of Putin accountable for the crime of aggression? Or will it become another empty promise?

    Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-special-tribunal-will-investigate-russias-aggression-against-ukraine-will-it-be-effective-257823

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University

    Australia’s Jaclyn Narracott competes in the women’s skeleton at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images

    As the end of the 2024-25 financial year nears, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), in partnership with the Australian Sports Foundation (ASF), has launched a new joint fundraising initiative allowing Australians to make tax-deductible donations directly to Australia’s Olympians and Paralympians.

    The ASF is an “Item 1” Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) and is the only organisation in Australia that allows a donor to claim a tax deduction for philanthropic donations to sport.

    This is because sport is not currently eligible for either DGR or charitable status under Australian law.

    But is this new joint fundraising initiative a gold medal idea for our athletes, or one that falls short of a podium finish?

    Aussies tax payers and Olympic dreams

    The new initiative, named the “Aspiring Australian Olympian Funding program”, means individual donations of A$2 or more made through the ASF are tax-deductible.

    Australians can direct funds to a specific athlete, coach or official selected to participate in representative, elite or high performance sport in the Olympic/Paralympic program (summer and winter).

    Depending on the donor’s marginal tax rate, the effective cost of a donation may be reduced up to 62% for the highest earners (over $250,000).

    For instance, a $1,000 donation could yield a tax refund of up to $470, bringing the net cost down to just $530.

    Companies paying the full company tax rate that donate $1,000 would reduce their tax by $300 (30%).

    Ahead of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, more than 30 Australian athletes (from disciplines such as alpine skiing, bobsleigh and figure skating) have signed up to use the platform.

    However, many Australian athletes are struggling financially, so more financial support is needed.

    The brutal reality for many athletes

    The ASF’s 2023 “Running on Empty” report found many of Australia’s elite athletes were under significant financial pressure: 46% of those over the age of 18 were earning less than $23,000 per year. This places them below the poverty line at $489 a week.

    The report also found 67% of elite athletes said their financial struggles affected their parents and support networks. Also, 42% of elite athletes aged 18-34 reported they were suffering poor mental health as a result of their financial predicament.

    The report also found the costs of training, equipment, travel and accommodation continued to rise, resulting in many questioning the sustainability of elite sport funding models both here and abroad.

    Pros and cons

    The new funding program’s use of tax incentives as a funding carrot is good in principle, but there are potential unintended consequences.

    This includes athletes being pitted against one another: there is a danger the athletes best skilled in marketing and public relations will receive more funding.

    The current economic climate doesn’t bode well for the program. Many Australians are facing cost-of-living pressures, which means a lot of people may not be able to donate even if they want to.

    Also, what happens if an athlete who benefits from the program is injured or found to be a drug cheat, and can’t compete? Can a donor request a refund?

    Finally, taxpayers who have the most capacity to donate are likely high income earners, some of whom may donate to sport entities already. Now, their donations will be subsidised by the tax system.

    Some alternative ideas

    In the United Kingdom, National Lottery revenue plays a significant role in funding Olympic and Paralympic sports. Administered by UK Sport (the UK’s equivalent of the ASC) funds from the lottery are directed to high performance sports programs and athletes.

    This approach could be replicated in Australia.

    Another idea is to redirect a portion of government taxes collected from sports betting, which could be lucrative given Australia’s love of sports gambling.




    Read more:
    Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?


    The federal government could offer a further incentive by matching peoples’ donations dollar for dollar.

    As we direct funds to athletes, we need also think about the potential tax impact for them. Will the funds they receive be considered income and be taxed? The government could consider making the payment to the athlete tax free.

    If we are going to succeed on the world stage, especially as the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games approach, we need to financially support our athletes so they can focus on representing their country.

    Michelle O’Shea receives funding from the Olympic Studies Centre.

    Connie Vitale receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. She is affiliated with the Institute of Public Accountants and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

    Robert B Whait receives funding from the federal government as part of the National Tax Clinic Program, Financial Literacy Australia (now Ecstra Foundation), ANZ Bank, and the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC). He is affiliated with the Tax Institute of Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

    ref. Many elite athletes live below the poverty line. Tax-deductible donations won’t solve the problem – https://theconversation.com/many-elite-athletes-live-below-the-poverty-line-tax-deductible-donations-wont-solve-the-problem-258914

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nuclear scientists  have long been targets in covert ops – Israel has brought that policy out of the shadows

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jenna Jordan, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists killed in Israel’s June 13, 2025, attack are displayed on a sign as a plume of heavy smoke and fire rise from an oil refinery in southern Tehran Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images

    At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities.

    Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran’s knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran’s Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

    Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel.

    As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call “scientist targeting” from 1944 through 2025.

    The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel’s recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations.

    But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country’s desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality.

    A policy with a long history

    Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler’s ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs.

    In our data set, we classified “targeting” as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs.

    The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks.

    Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries’ nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli’s home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project.

    Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development.

    The wrecked cars in which four of Iran’s nuclear scientists were assassinated in recent years are displayed on the grounds of a museum in Tehran in 2014.
    Scott Peterson/Getty Images

    By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria’s Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities.

    With its proxy “axis of resistance” defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward.

    And in the months leading up to Israel’s recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump’s first term, the president withdrew the U.S. from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement – and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war.

    Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site.

    Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks’ purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical.

    Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory.

    Israel’s logic in going after scientists

    Why target nuclear scientists?

    In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force.

    Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state’s efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation.

    Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary’s nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as “a significant blow to the regime’s ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

    Posters featuring images of Iranian nuclear scientists are displayed in Tehran, Iran, on June 14, 2025.
    Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Despite Israel’s focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists.

    Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs.

    Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development.

    Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond.

    Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

    Jenna Jordan 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.

    ref. Nuclear scientists  have long been targets in covert ops – Israel has brought that policy out of the shadows – https://theconversation.com/nuclear-scientists-have-long-been-targets-in-covert-ops-israel-has-brought-that-policy-out-of-the-shadows-259263

    MIL OSI – Global Reports