In the ongoing United States and Israel war on Iran, it appears that all the countries agree on “controlling” the media.
Despite differences in their political systems, all three governments follow an approach that prioritises “national morale” and “operational security” over press freedom and the flow of information.
This approach redefines the concept of fake news and extends its authority to managing public sentiment, making coverage more “positive” and “optimistic”.
The goal is unified: to turn media into a state mouthpiece that tells only the official narrative of the war.
The Trump administration’s political pressure In the US, media restrictions don’t appear as direct bans on journalism, as in more authoritarian systems. Instead, pressure comes through political and regulatory channels, alongside attempts to shape the war narrative against Iran.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr warned broadcasters they could lose their licences if they aired what he described as “false news” about the war.
In a post on X on March 14, Carr said stations airing “misleading” information had the opportunity “to correct course” before licence renewal. He added: “The law is clear: broadcast stations must operate in the public interest, or they will lose their licences.”
Later, President Donald Trump said he was extremely pleased to see Carr review licences of “corrupt” and “unpatriotic” news organisations because they “coordinate with Iran” and “should face treason charges”.
Regulatory pressure is accompanied by a political and media campaign to shape a specific image of the war.
Trump attacked major newspapers such as The New York Times and TheWall Street Journal for reports of damage to US military aircraft at a Saudi base, calling them “degenerate journalism” that wanted the country to “lose the war”.
This pressure has also extended to the military.
At a Pentagon press conference, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth accused the media of downplaying the success of the military campaign against Iran, criticised coverage of operations, suggested alternative headlines for television reports, and named CNN specifically, saying its performance would improve if ownership and management changed.
In an incident bordering on the absurd, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon barred journalists from attending war briefings after Hegseth’s team objected to his appearance in previously taken photos, restricting access to Pentagon photographers.
Nevertheless, pressures did not start with the war on Iran.
In October 2025, the Department of War announced a new policy regulating journalists’ work inside the Pentagon, requiring official approval before publishing any information, even if it was not classified.
The Trump administration justified the restrictions as necessary for national security. Hegseth said access to the Pentagon was “a privilege, not a right,” while Trump argued the limits were needed because the press was “dishonest”.
Measures included removing dedicated offices for some media outlets and replacing them with shared facilities under a new rotation system.
[embedded content] Israel kills three Lebanese journalists Video: Al Jazeera
Israel’s approach In Israel, media restrictions during war take a different form that is based on strict military censorship and obstructing journalists in the field, in addition to targeting media institutions in Iran and Lebanon.
This month, the Israeli military censor issued new instructions to foreign media limiting coverage of rocket attacks within Israel.
These included banning live broadcasts during sirens, forbidding filming missile interceptions or impact sites near security installations, and preventing the publication of exact impact locations or reposting videos from social media without prior approval.
Authorities justified the restrictions as a way to prevent opponents from using media coverage to “improve missile strike accuracy”.
Israeli forces detained CNN Türk reporter Emrah Cakmak and cameraman Khalil Kahraman during a live broadcast from Tel Aviv following an Iranian missile attack, confiscating their phones, camera, and microphone, and accessing a password-protected phone without permission.
The journalists stated that their equipment was not returned.
On the same day, Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Communications Minister Shlomo Karai announced stricter measures against foreign media violating military censorship instructions, adopting a policy of “zero tolerance”.
Authorities also detained Turkish journalists Ilyas Efe Ünal and Adam Metan while crossing from Egypt into Israel on March 4. Metan said they were interrogated for about six hours before being released.
The following day, Haifa municipal police attempted to remove international media teams covering war-related events, including CNN, Fox News, BBC, Anadolu Agency, and Al Arabiya, despite journalists following military censorship rules.
Days later, on March 8, Israeli police prevented Al Araby TV correspondent Abdelkader Abdel Halim from continuing coverage in Haifa, with an officer captured on video saying that “filming is prohibited in Haifa.”
Several Lebanese media outlets were hit during Israel’s raids, including Sawt Al-Farah radio in Tyre, Al Nour radio, and Al Manar TV in Haret Hreik in Beirut’s southern suburbs. And in a separate strike, Saksakiyah media centre in southern Lebanon was also targeted.
In Iran, strikes hit the state-run Radio Dezful offices in Khuzestan, the headquarters of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting in Tehran, a communications centre near the building, as well as the Kurdistan Network TV building in Sanandaj, and the reformist newspaper Sazandegi in Tehran.
Iran’s internet shutdown If the US uses regulatory tools and Israel relies on military censorship and field restrictions, Iran’s model is based on direct control of information flow. Hours after the US-Israeli aggression began, authorities cut the nationwide internet.
Journalists said the outage hampered communication with sources, sending reports and photos, and verifying field information, while a limited number of users, including state media, retained restricted access through a government-controlled “white internet”.
As the war continued, Tehran tightened legal restrictions on media coverage.
The judiciary criminalised filming or covering US or Israeli strikes in Iran, considering the publication of such material as potential “evidence of cooperation with an enemy“.
Confrontations escalated with calls to target opposition media.
The Tabnak website published an article urging the armed forces to target Iran International TV and suggesting taking action against the channel’s offices and the homes of some staff.
Security agencies carried out a series of arrests in several provinces for sending photos and information about strikes to foreign media, including Iran International, classified by Iran as a “terrorist channel”.
Majdoline Al-Shammouri is a writer based in Beirut. This article was translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari and was first published by The New Arab here.
Andrew Hastie hung out his leadership shingle in a weekend interview that may have a few Liberals wondering if the right’s factional heavyweights made the best judgement in choosing Angus Taylor for the top job.
Hastie wanted to run for the leadership earlier this year but the right’s numbers men decided it should be Taylor, more senior in the faction, who toppled Sussan Ley.
But so far Taylor has not cut through, and indeed, he looks like someone suited to more conventional times.
When Ley was leader, Hastie took himself to the backbench and conducted guerrilla warfare from there. Now, under Taylor, he is shadow minister for industry and sovereign capability, a job he says he is happy in, but, as Sunday’s interview on the ABC’s Insiders showed, he has no intention of being constrained by.
Taylor, who made Hastie deputy leader of the opposition in the House of Representatives (the actual deputy, Jane Hume, is a senator), knows it would be potentially dangerous to try to put a lead rope on the aspirant who will be stalking him over the next 18 months.
In Sunday’s interview, Hastie strongly called out US President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy. On the domestic front, he urged the need for comprehensive tax reform – even sounding open to some of the government’s thinking regarding the taxes on assets – rather than following the Liberals’ talking point that Labor only wants to tax people more.
Like the new Nationals’ leader, Matt Canavan, Hastie comes across as someone worth listening to (agree or disagree with him), not just a politician with a good memory for the cheat sheet.
In common with most Australians, Hastie isn’t a fan of Trump and the way he conducts policy. After a Trump outburst against allies earlier this month, he called the president “petulant”.
On Sunday, he said he had a “visceral” reaction to Trump’s Friday criticism of US allies not stepping up in the war with Iran.
I don’t know why we went in there [to the Iran war] now. I thought last year we did the job [with the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities].
There wasn’t consultation with allies, because had we had a bit more lead time, we wouldn’t be in the current crisis we are now where we’re trying to secure our liquid fuel.
I think this was a huge miscalculation. Iran has managed to pretty much hold the whole world economy to ransom.
While a critic of how Trump has handled things, Hastie is not going so far as to now reject the war.
If I have to choose between the United States and Israel, and Iran, I’m going to choose democracies rather than a murderous regime which has ambitions to build a nuclear weapon and potentially use it against Israel, the US and allies.
So don’t get me wrong here. But wounds from a friend can be trusted while an enemy multiplies kisses. As a close friend of the United States – I think that we can be honest, and we can ask hard questions.
Hastie warns against a ground war, fears for the United States’ credibility, and worries about Australians’ support for the US alliance being eroded.
I think the economic pain is going to be more acute, and they’re going to question the judgement of the president as this drags on.
As for a possible super profits tax on windfall gains gas exporters will make from the war – a policy both the Greens and One Nation urge – Hastie’s sympathies don’t lie with the large companies.
On that I’m open-minded because the Liberal Party is not the first line of defence for corporate Australia. I think multinationals and big business in this country have lost their social license, they’ve made no effort to recover it, and a lot of Australians feel like the system is rigged against them.
We [the Liberals] got smashed in 2022; we got smashed in 2025. Our primary vote is being cannibalised from both the right and the left. So I think adopting a posture of humility and being open minded is important – not being reactive.
So I think the bigger geopolitical frame here, and the macroeconomic frame here, is that we’re about to potentially slide into a recession. One of the things we’ve got going for us is our abundance of gas. Is introducing a new tax right at this time, going to help our situation? Before February 28 [the start of the Iran war], this conversation looked very different. We’re in a different period now.
This is a new era […] we need to overhaul the whole [tax] system. We either fix the system, or it’s torn down by people like Pauline Hanson.
No one’s going to reward us for a final last stand for neo-liberal politics, okay. There’s no medal for that. I actually want to win and deliver centre-right government for this country. And the best way to beat Labor is to start listening to people and meeting their concerns head on, rather than reactively slapping them down.
Labor will pick up on Hastie not being across the fine print when pressed about the Liberals saying last week the government’s batteries policy had integrity issues. This is evidence he’s not a details person, it will say.
But the Labor strategists looking to the longer term might be hoping the Liberals don’t eventually decide to install a third leader this term.
Meanwhile, and more immediately, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will hold a national cabinet on Monday morning to try to ensure maximum federal-state coordination as the fuel crisis deepens. The word from the federal government at the weekend was it wanted the next steps to be voluntary, rather than mandatory.
The government on Monday will also introduce legislation for new powers to enable it to underwrite companies’ additional imports of fuel, fertiliser and other essential items. Albanese said:
These powers will be used to help acquire the additional supply that’s so valuable for Australia’s fuel security, where it would be cost prohibitive for private suppliers to source on commercial terms without government support.
It will give suppliers the confidence to secure additional and discretionary cargoes and use it to service uncontracted demand, including for regional and independent fuel suppliers. So, we want more fuel here, and we want to make sure it gets to the right place as well.
I want us to have the strongest possible plans, so we’re ready for what may come.
New Caledonia’s domestic airline Air Calédonie filed for bankruptcy on Friday, following almost a month of blockades by customers in the French Pacific territory’s outer islands.
The protest movement had been initiated by groups of angry outer islands customers who intended to oppose the company’s decision to move Air Calédonie’s operations from the Nouméa Magenta airport to New Caledonia’s international La Tontouta base, more than 50 km away from Nouméa city.
The smaller airport of Magenta, until now dedicated to domestic traffic, is located closer to Nouméa.
The beginning of the protest movement, which effectively grounded all Air Calédonie aircraft, dates back to 2 March 2026.
The protesters are gathered under the name of “collective of users” and, on each participating island, are headed by local chiefs who are invoking custom rights.
In terms of law and order, and in defence of the principle of freedom of movement and “territorial continuity”, on the part of French State representatives, there have been no attempts to disrupt the movement by force.
But negotiations have been taking place with leaders in order to find a concerted way out of the blockades.
Economic stakeholders have also alerted authorities of the negative repercussions of the inter-island crisis, especially on tourism and hospitality-related businesses.
On some islands, views expressed range from an outright rejection of any aircraft landing, while others would accept the landing of aircraft from other airlines, but not from Air Calédonie.
Outer islands airports blockaded Following weeks of blockade that have caused heavy losses for the company — dubbed “AirCal” — its board of directors, at a meeting on Friday in the capital Nouméa, decided to file for bankruptcy.
It said the current situation was no longer sustainable.
The blockade affected all of AirCal’s outer islands destinations, including the Loyalty Islands (Maré, Lifou, Ouvéa and Tiga) and the Isle of Pines (south of the main island of Grande Terre).
One of the options, if approved by a court, could allow a resumption of operations, if the process is deemed sustainable.
The company said under the proposed process, all debts would be frozen and provided it was allowed to resume inter-island flights, Air Calédonie could continue operating.
But if the plan is not approved by the judges, this could also mean an order for the company to go into receivership.
AirCal said the situation currently affected “almost 200 families”.
Vanuatu connection Air Calédonie, in its embryonic form, started operations in the mid-1950s.
It currently operates a fleet of four turbo-prop ATR-72 aircraft.
Due to previous hardships faced recently (including the covid crisis, which also badly affected inter-islands operations), Air Calédonie had also entered into agreements with Air Vanuatu in October 2025 to lease one of its aircraft for the neighbouring archipelago’s domestic airlinks, including to and from the capital Port Vila and Vanuatu’s other main islands of Espiritu Santo (North) and Tanna (South).
In September 2024, a Nouméa-Port Vila bi-weekly link was also established under a codeshare agreement between Air Calédonie and Air Calédonie international aboard an ATR-72 aircraft.
At the time, the agreement was perceived as one step towards a possible merger of the two entities’ domestic and international operations, in a bid to save costs in the face of recent crises.
The recent crisis situation was also compounded by the riots that broke out in New Caledonia — mainly in the capital Nouméa and its surrounding area — in May 2024.
The unrest caused about 14 dead and material damage of over 2 billion euros (about NZ$ 4 billion) due to arson and looting.
But it also affected the capacity to operate domestic and international flights out of the airports of Nouméa La Tontouta and New Caledonia’s outer islands.
The plan to relocate Air Cal’s operations from Magenta to La Tontouta had been mooted by previous governments of New Caledonia, on the basis that if the move was not effected, then the company would not survive.
‘It looks as if someone wants the death of AirCal — Alcide Ponga Commenting on the blockade, New Caledonia local government President Alcide Ponga was blunt. He told local media earlier this week: “It looks as if someone wants the death of AirCal.”
However, one of the blockaded small airports, on the Isle of Pines (South of Nouméa), announced earlier this week its intention to re-allow traffic, on the condition that Air Calédonie lands again at the small and nearby airport of Nouméa-Magenta and not at the main La Tontouta base.
The main shareholders of Air Calédonie are the government of New Caledonia and its three provinces (North, South and the Loyalty Islands group).
During heated debates on Thursday at New Caledonia’s Congress, politicians and board members from across the political chessboard called on the company to re-engage in negotiations to attempt an agreement to re-open all of the blockaded outer islands airfields and thus bring in fresh cash.
Another cash-generating option also envisaged by the company would be to persuade the board and stakeholders to set aside a financial package so that the company can go on operating.
Earlier this month, Air Calédonie was forced to put half of its staff into temporary unemployment mode, because the company’s financial situation (a cash flow estimated at only 3 million euros) did not allow any salary payment beyond April 2026.
Air Calédonie said it remained “mobilised to save a vital company for New Caledonia and design a viable recovery plan”.
A similar plan was already implemented in 2024 in the wake of the post-riots crisis.
A first humanitarian special flight took place on 21 March 2026 to transport about 50 patients between Ouvéa island and the capital Nouméa. Image: New Caledonia govt
Humanitarian special flights for patients In recent days, New Caledonia’s government introduced the notion of humanitarian “sanitary corridors” in the form of special flights to transport selected patients in dire need of care to and from the outer islands and the capital Nouméa, at an estimated cost of some 13,500 euros (about NZ$27,000) per trip.
In the Loyalty Islands, several tourism and hospitality facilities have also suffered the brunt of the disruption of inter-island traffic.
Some of those have already been forced to either close down or enter into receivership.
No maritime alternative The situation is further compounded by serious technical problems faced by the alternative means of inter-island transport — the ferry Betico has also been unable to operate, on a regular basis, over the past few months.
The ship is currently undergoing repairs to one of its engines and it announced tentative resumption of operations next week on April 3, the operating company said.
Until then, all trips to and from Nouméa have been cancelled.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
A French senator walked into the Luxembourg Palace, opened his mouth, and basically set the whole room on fire. Politely. In a suit.
Claude Malhuret didn’t yell nor wave his arms. He just listed things… calmly, methodically, like a doctor reading a very long and very depressing diagnosis.
And by the time he was done, the entire Trump administration had been reduced to a punchline that wasn’t even trying to be funny.
He started with an apology. Why? Because a year ago, he said, he had compared Trump’s presidency to Nero’s Court. He was wrong.
“It’s the miracle court,” he corrected himself on Friday.
And then he started naming names.
A former heroin addict running the Ministry of Health. A climate skeptic in charge of the economy. A TV host with a drinking problem commanding the armed forces. A lobbyist who used to work for Qatar now sitting as Attorney General. A woman who openly admires Putin in charge of national intelligence.
‘Clown in a palace’ Malhuret quoted a Turkish proverb for the occasion… “When a clown settles in a palace, he does not become king — it is the palace that becomes a circus.”
Nobody needed to ask who or what he meant. They just smiled.
And you know what? He wasn’t even being cruel. He was just being truthful and very accurate. Which, somehow, made it worse.
Then came the part that made people’s jaws drop a little.
Every time the Epstein files resurface, he said, bombs go off somewhere in the world. A new military strike. A fresh crisis.
Convenient timing. Every single time.
Malhuret didn’t call it a conspiracy. He just pointed at the pattern and let everyone draw their own conclusions.
Gulf investments The US$400 million Boeing jet from Qatar got a mention. The Gulf investments. The stock market moves that only a small circle of insiders seemed to profit from.
Any one of these, Malhuret said, would have triggered impeachment proceedings in France.
“But we are not here,” he added. “We are in MAGA’s America.”
Here’s what makes this 5 minute speech different from the usual political noise. Malhuret didn’t just wave his hands and say “America bad.” He went person by person, scandal by scandal, conflict by conflict — and built a picture so complete that by the end of it, you couldn’t really argue with any individual piece without defending the whole rotten structure.
It’s the kind of speech American senators could give. If they wanted to. If they weren’t so busy trying not to offend anyone.
The world is watching. While Americans debate whether the speech was fair or too harsh or whatever, the rest of the planet has already formed its opinion.
One man. One very powerful seat. And a world that keeps catching fire while everyone argues about the Epstein files — which, funny enough, never quite get released fully, do they?
“Trump, the Mar-a-Lago golfer, is the only bull in the world who walks around with his own china shop. When a clown takes over the Palace, he doesn’t become King. It’s the Palace that becomes a circus”
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on March 29, 2026.
Jonathan Cook: Does the tail wag the dog? How both sides are missing the bigger picture ANALYSIS: By Jonathan CookThe joint US-Israeli war on Iran has thrust back into the spotlight a divisive debate about whether the dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog. Who is in charge of this war: Israel or the United States? One side believes Israel lured Trump into a trap from which he
Cuban envoy makes strong plea for his country defying US blockade Asia Pacific Report Cuba’s Ambassador to New Zealand, Luis Morejón Rodríguez, last night made a passionate plea for his country’s sovereignty in defiance of the illegal US-led fuel blockade of the Caribbean nation. Speaking at a packed Auckland Trades Hall, he warned that the three-month oil blockade and energy blackouts threatened the country’s public health
The joint US-Israeli war on Iran has thrust back into the spotlight a divisive debate about whether the dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog.
Who is in charge of this war: Israel or the United States?
One side believes Israel lured Trump into a trap from which he cannot extricate himself. The tail is wagging the dog.
The other believes that the US, as the world’s sole military super-power, is the one that writes the geo-strategic script. If Israel acts, it is only because it serves Washington’s interests as well. The dog is wagging the tail.
Certainly, the idea that the tail, the client state of Israel, could be wagging the dog, the military juggernaut that is the US, seems, at best, counter-intuitive.
But then again, there is plenty of evidence that suggests advocates for the tail wagging the dog scenario may have a case.
They can point to the fact that Trump launched this war of choice on Iran despite winning the presidency on an “America First” platform in which he promised: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
Rushed into war His secretary of state, Marco Rubio, openly stated that the administration was rushed into war, finding itself apparently unable to restrain Israel from attacking Iran.
Joe Kent, Trump’s top counter-terrorism official, noted in his resignation letter that the administration “started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby”.
Addressing the Israeli Parliament last October, Trump appeared to confess to being under the thumb of the Israel lobby. As he praised himself for moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the illegally occupied city of Jerusalem, he repeatedly pointed to his most influential donor, the Israeli-American billionaire Miriam Adelson, before observing: “I actually asked her once, I said, ‘So, Miriam, I know you love Israel. What do you love more, the United States or Israel?’ She refused to answer. That means, that might mean, Israel, I must say.”
A video from 2001 shows Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israel’s Prime Minister, caught secretly on camera, telling a group of settlers: “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”
Former US president Barack Obama, who ran up against Netanyahu repeatedly as Obama tried and failed to limit the expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements, thought the same.
In his 2020 autobiography, he wrote that the Israel lobby insisted that “there should be ‘no daylight’ between the US and Israeli governments, even when Israel took actions that were contrary to US policy.”
Any politician who disobeyed “risked being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election”.
Obscuring the relationship But any rigid, binary way of framing the relationship between the US and Israel obscures more than it illuminates.
I addressed this issue in my 2008 book on Israeli foreign policy, titled Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iran, Iraq and the Plan to Remake the Middle East. My conclusion then, as now, was that the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv was better understood in different terms: as the dog and the tail wagging each other.
What does that mean?
Israel is Washington’s most favoured client state. It must, therefore, operate within the “security” parameters for the Middle East laid down by the US.
In fact, part of Israel’s job — the reason it is such an important client state — is because it has, until now, been able to enforce those parameters on others in the region.
But the story is more complicated than that.
At the same time, Israel seeks to maximise its ability to influence those parameters in its own interests, chiefly by shaping military, political and cultural discourse in the United States, through the many levers available to it.
Mobilised by Zionist lobbies Zionist lobbies, both Jewish and Christian, mobilise large numbers of ordinary people to support whatever Israel claims to be in both its and US interests.
Mega-donors like Adelson use their wealth to cajole and intimidate US politicians.
Think-tanks with murky funding write legislation on Israel’s behalf that US politicians wave through.
Legal organisations, again with opaque funding, weaponise the law to silence and bankrupt.
And media owners, all too often in Israel’s camp, mould the public mood to stigmatise as “antisemitism” anything that opposes Israeli excesses.
This makes for a very messy arrangement.
The trouble with the idea that the US simply dictates to Israel — rather than that the two are constantly bargaining over what constitutes their shared interests — becomes apparent the moment we consider the two-and-a-half-year genocide in Gaza.
Desire to ‘disappear’ Palestinians Israel has long had a fervent desire to disappear the Palestinians, whether through ethnic cleansing or genocide.
It wants the whole of historic Palestine, and the Palestinians are an obstacle to the realisation of that goal. Should the opportunity arise, Israel is also keen to secure a Greater Israel that requires grabbing and annexing substantial territory from neighbours, particularly Lebanon and Syria — as it is doing again right now.
After the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, Israel seized on the chance to renew in earnest the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians it began in 1948, at the state’s founding.
It carpet-bombed Gaza, creating a “humanitarian crisis”, to force Egypt to open the floodgates into Sinai, where it hoped to drive the enclave’s population. Cairo refused.
As a result, Israel tried to increase the pressure by slaughtering and starving the people of Gaza. In legal terms, that constituted genocide.
But the idea that the US was deeply invested in Israel carrying out a genocide in Gaza, or directed that genocide, or had any particular interest in the genocide taking place, is hard to sustain.
Washington — first under Biden, then under Trump — gave Israel cover to carry out the mass slaughter of the Palestinian population, and armed and financed the genocide. But that is very different from it having a geostrategic interest in the mass slaughter.
Indifferent to Palestinians’ fate Rather, the US is and always has been largely indifferent as to the fate of the Palestinians, so long as they are contained. They can be locked up permanently in occupation prisons.
Or ethnically cleansed to Sinai and Jordan. Or given a pretend statelet under a compliant dictator like Mahmoud Abbas. Or exterminated.
The US will bankroll whichever option Israel believes best serves its interests — so long as that “solution” can be sold by pro-Israel lobbies to western publics as a legitimate “response” to Palestinian “terrorism”.
What Israel could get away with changed on 7 October 2023. The US was prepared to approve Israel shifting from a policy of intermittently “mowing the lawn” in Gaza — short wrecking sprees — to the incremental levelling of the whole of Gaza.
In other words, Israel worked all its levers to persuade Washington that it was the right time for it to get away with genocide. It sold to the US the plan that Gaza could now be destroyed.
To present that as Washington’s plan is simply perverse. It was decisively Israel’s plan.
That doesn’t diminish in any way US responsibility for the genocide. It is fully complicit. It paid for the genocide. It armed the genocide. It must own it too.
Similar Iran war analysis A similar analysis can be applied to the Iran war.
The US and Israel share the same larger policy towards Iran: they want it contained, weak, unable to exert influence. But they do so for slightly different reasons.
Israel demands to be regional hegemon in the Middle East, an invaluable client state with privileged access to Washington policymakers. Its supremacy and impunity, therefore, depend on Iran — its only plausible rival in the region — being as weak as possible and incapable of forging effective alliances with armed resistance groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Equally, Washington wants Israel unthreatened, leaving its ally free to project US imperial power into the Middle East.
But it has a more complex set of interests to consider. It needs to ensure that the Arab monarchies remain compliant, and it does so by both wielding a stick — threatening to unleash the attack dog of Israel on them should they disobey — and proffering a carrot — promising to shield them under its security umbrella against Iran so long as they stay loyal.
The ultimate goal is to guarantee unchallenged US control over the flow of oil and thereby the global economy.
In other words, the US has to weigh far more interests in how it deals with Iran than Israel does.
Effects on the global economy Unlike Israel, Washington has to consider the effects of an attack on Iran on the global economy, to assess any impact on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and protect against rival powers like China and Russia exploiting strategic missteps.
For those reasons, Washington has traditionally preferred maintaining a degree of stability in the region. Instability is very bad for business, as is being demonstrated only too clearly right now.
Israel, by contrast, regards its struggle against Iran in existential terms. Many in the Israeli cabinet view it as a religious war. They are not interested in simply containing Iran – a decades-old policy they believe has failed. They want Iran and its allies on their knees, or at least in so much chaos that they cannot pose any kind of challenge to Israeli regional hegemony.
That point was highlighted by Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden’s former national security adviser, this week in an interview with Jon Stewart. He cited recent comments to him by Israel’s former military intelligence lead on Iran, Danny Cintrinowicz, that Netanyahu’s aim is to “just break Iran, cause chaos”.
Why? “Because,” says Sullivan, “as far as they’re concerned, a broken Iran is less of a threat to Israel.”
In other words, Israel wants to engineer instability in Iran, which is sure to spread instability across the region.
Those two agendas, as should be clear by now, are not easily compatible. Which is why Netanyahu has spent decades working every lever at his disposal in Washington to create an appetite for war.
Had war been self-evidently in US interests, his efforts would have been superfluous.
Israel deployed its lobbies Instead, Israel has had to deploy its lobbies, marshal its donors and recruit sympathetic columnists to slowly shift the public mood to the point where a war was conceivable rather than patently dangerous.
And most importantly of all, Israel nurtured an intimate, ideological alliance with the neocons — hawkish, zealously pro-Israel US officials — who long ago gained a foothold in the inner sanctums of Washington.
Each recent administration has been a cat-fight over whether the neocons or more “moderate” voices would win out. Under George W Bush, the neocons dominated, leading to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Israel’s short war on Lebanon in 2006, and a failed plan to expand the war to Syria and then Iran.
Under Obama, the neocons were forced to take more of a back seat, which is why his administration was able to sign a nuclear deal with Iran that held until Trump ripped it up in 2018, during his first term as president. Biden, as with so much else, dithered.
In Trump’s second term, the neocons seem to be firmly back in charge, again weaving their mischief. The result — an illegal war on Iran — is likely to be a strategic catastrophe for the US, and a potential, if short-lived, victory for Israel.
So isn’t this the same as saying the tail wags the dog?
Sole repositories of power No, not least because that assumes the visible realm of US politics — the President, the Congress, the two main political parties — are the sole repositories of power in the system.
Even in this visible sphere, support for Israel has dramatically waned since the Gaza genocide. As the illegal war on Iran grows ever more costly, both in treasure and lives, support for Israel among US voters is going to fall off a cliff.
Israel is for the first time a deeply partisan issue, dividing Democrats and Republicans, as well as a generational divide between the young and old. It is even splitting the MAGA base Trump depends on.
Americans’ sympathies in the Middle East crisis. Source: Gallup World Affairs surveys
This political polarisation will continue to get much worse, ultimately freeing braver figures in US politics to start speaking out in franker terms about Israel’s nefarious role.
But power in the US isn’t just wielded at the formal, visible level. There is a permanent bureaucracy, with an institutional memory, that operates out of sight. We have gained brief glimpses of its covert operations from the work of Wikileaks, Julian Assange’s publishing platform for whistleblowers, and from Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who revealed illegal mass surveillance by the US state of its own citizens.
Both suffered serious consequences for their efforts to bring a little transparency to a profoundly corrupt system of secret power. Assange was locked away in a London high-security prison for many years as the US sought to extradite him on trumped-up “espionage” charges, while Snowden was forced into exile in Russia to evade arrest and long-term incarceration.
That bureaucracy — sometimes referred to as the Deep State, or the military-industrial complex — doesn’t play or fight fair. It doesn’t need to. It operates in the shadows.
Curtailing Israel’s influence Were it to so choose, it could undermine the Israel lobby, and thereby curtail Israel’s influence over the visible realm of US politics.
It could effectively do to the leaders of the lobby — AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organisation of America, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, Christians United for Israel, and others — what it did to Assange and Snowden.
It could, for example, influence public discourse to begin questioning whether these groups are really serving US interests or acting as foreign agents. That would, in turn, free up space for the media and legislators to call for tighter restrictions on these groups’ activities, requiring them to register as such.
The permanent bureaucracy is doubtless capable of doing much darker, underhand things too.
The fact that it hasn’t chosen to do any of this yet suggests Israel’s goals are not seen so far to be significantly in conflict with US goals.
But that could be about to change. In fact, the current, all-too-public debates about Israel driving the US into a war against Iran — an idea already seeping into popular consciousness — may be the first salvoes in the battle to come.
If the war on Iran turns out to be a catastrophic misstep, as it gives every appearance of being, there will be a price to pay — and leading US politicians are likely to scramble to shift the blame on to Israel. It may be that they are already getting in their excuses.
The all-too-visible freedom Israel has enjoyed in Washington to buy, bully and silence could soon become a central liability. It will not be hard to argue that a system so clearly open to manipulation that the US could be bounced into a self-sabotaging war needs to be remade, to prevent any repeat of such a disaster.
This may be the biggest lesson Washington learns from the war on Iran. That it is time to stop the tail wagging so vigorously.
Jonathan Cook is a writer, journalist and self-appointed media critic and author of many books about Palestine. Winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. This article was first published on the author’s Substack and reepublished with permission.
Cuba’s Ambassador to New Zealand, Luis Morejón Rodríguez, last night made a passionate plea for his country’s sovereignty in defiance of the illegal US-led fuel blockade of the Caribbean nation.
Speaking at a packed Auckland Trades Hall, he warned that the three-month oil blockade and energy blackouts threatened the country’s public health system with dire consequences for many patients.
“In Cuba today, approximately 16,000 patients undergoing radiotherapy and more than 2800 patients receiving hemodialysis depend every day on a stable electricity supply in hospitals across the country,” he said.
“These are life-sustaining treatments that cannot simply be postponed without risk.”
He said Cuba would continue to oppose Washington’s escalating military threats and economic pressure on his country.
New Zealand supporters of Cuba at last night’s solidarity public meeting in Auckland with Cuban Ambassador Luis Morejón Rodríguez. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Speaking alongside Ambassador Rodríguez was Dr Josephine Varghese, a Canterbury University lecturer who shared an eyewitness account of her recent trip to Havana.
She praised Cuba and “our collective fight against the global imperialism system”.
Military assault openly discussed A military assault on Cuba has been openly discussed by US President Donald Trump and other White House officials since the illegal January 2 strike against Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and also during the current war on Iran.
The Nuestra America Convoy humanitarian aid arrives in Havana this week. Image: Asia Pacific Report
However, two Mexican sailboats on the Nuestra America Convoy that has just arrived in Cuba this week were reportedly missing at sea and coast guard authorities from Cuba and Mexico are looking for them.
Ambassador Rodríguez said solidarity aid flotillas were really important for Cubans as they demonstrated global support.
During his speech last night, Ambassador Rodríguez said that when energy availability became uncertain, hospitals needed to prioritise essential services, and non-urgent procedures often needed to be delayed, preserving electricity and fuel resources.
“In other words, restrictions on fuel do not only affect economic indicators. They directly affect operating rooms, diagnostic equipment, medical treatments, and ultimately the health and well-being of patients,” he said.
University lecturer Dr Josephine Varghese talks about her recent Cuban solidarity experience on a visit to Havana. Image: Asia Pacific Report
‘Coercion and collective punishment’ “That is why Cuba has described these measures as economic coercion and collective punishment.”
Ambassador Rodríguez said the world was living in a moment when the international system was being tested.
“Increasingly, we see the logic of power challenging the logic of law.
“For countries like Cuba — small countries — international law is not an abstract concept. It is our main protection.”
He criticised President Trump’s claim in January that Cuba represented an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security.
“Let us pause for a moment and reflect on that statement. Cuba is a Caribbean island of 10 million people,” he said.
‘We do not project power’ “We do not possess nuclear weapons. We do not have military bases abroad. We do not project military power internationally.
“And yet we are described as an extraordinary threat.
“But this declaration is not merely rhetorical. It has very concrete consequences.”
With Cubans continuing to live under prolonged blackouts and the government preparing for military confrontation, the audience last night celebrated Cuba’s courageous resistance, saying it was an inspiration to the world.
The fuel blockade, enforced by the US naval armada in the Caribbean, piles pressure on top of Washington’s economic embargo that has been in place since the early 1960s.
Discussing the impact of the blockade on Cubans that she witnessed on her travel to Cuba in January, Dr Varghese said the unjust US measures “denied working people access to the most basic necessities, from medicines to electricity and transportation”.
She linked the Cuban crisis to the Palestinian, Iranian and Venezuelan struggles for peace and justice.
The Cuba Friendship Society, which sponsoring last night’s meeting chaired by retired trade unionist Robert Reid, noted that the only crime of Cuba and its people was that of overthrowing a US-backed dictator in 1959, and then defending their sovereignty and other conquests of their revolution in the six decades since.
The ambassador is also due to speak at public meetings in Christchurch and Wellington.
The Cuban flag and an iconic image of Ernesto “Che” Guevara, an Argentine Marxist revolutionary and guerrilla leader who played a key role in the Cuban Revolution at a solidarity meeting in Auckland last night. Image: Asia Pacific Report
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on March 28, 2026.
Why is the West dancing to Israel’s tune? What’s leading us to disaster DOCUMENTARY: Double Down News The Middle East is in flames. Britain is being dragged into an illegal war, the aims of which are entirely unclear, reports Richard Sanders of Double Down News. “It’s a war of choice, and the man who chose it is Benjamin Netanyahu. Why, yet again, is the West dancing to Israel’s
Cameras have quietly appeared in thousands of US cities – now, their integration with AI is sounding alarms Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Reia, Assistant Professor of Data Science, University of Virginia For decades, cars dictated urban planning in the United States. Few could have predicted that they would one day also double as nodes for surveillance. In thousands of towns and cities across the U.S., automatic license plate
‘Torture and genocide’ – UN expert Francesca Albanese denounces Israeli abuse of Palestinians Democracy Now! AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. NERMEEN SHAIKH: An Israeli court has closed an investigation into the death of Walid Ahmad, a 17-year-old from the occupied West Bank who died in an Israeli jail six months after he was arrested, held without charges and accused of throwing
Ancient bones show dogs have been woven into human life for nearly 16,000 years Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Fairbairn, Professor of Archaeology, The University of Queensland Odin was a kelpie. Attentive and protective, with a happy smile and an endless hope for food, he succumbed to a terminal disease late last year. At his death, a deep sense of grief ripped through the household
The TGA wants to overhaul sunscreen labels. Will scrapping SPFs work? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yousuf Mohammed, Associate Professor in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Queensland On Thursday, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) released a raft of proposed changes to improve how sunscreens are tested and sold, including simplifying sun protection factor (SPF) labelling. In its statement, the TGA highlighted
Why hasn’t the US military used force to secure the Strait of Hormuz? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Bergman, International Affairs Editor, The Conversation Since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran in late February, Iran has retaliated by targeting commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, effectively shutting down the narrow channel of water. It’s caused a global fuel crisis,
Albanese gives tit-for-tat response to Trump’s criticism of Australia over Iran war Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese has pushed back at Donald Trump’s crack at Australia for not providing the United States with as much backing over the Iran war as the president believed it should. Trump, who made his comment about Australia when asked
The Olympics’ transgender athlete ban is a legal and moral minefield Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Nichol, Lecturer in Law, CQUniversity Australia The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has confirmed it is introducing a controversial new policy that will ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s events. The IOC stated eligibility for women’s events will be determined by a “once-in-a-lifetime” sex test, which
Keith Rankin Analysis – The Enigma of the Iranian President Analysis by Keith Rankin. One puzzling feature of the present Israel-Iran war is the almost complete absence of reference – in the western media at least – to the Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian. The American president claimed that Israel had killed the Iranian President, but he was referring to the Supreme Leader. Killing Ali Khamenei,
Keith Rankin Analysis – USS Tripoli: What’s in a Name? Analysis by Keith Rankin – This analysis was first published on 26 March 2026. One of the United States’ navy ships heading towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Tripoli. (USS = United States Ship.) How the heck did it get that name? (Will the next two United States’ naval ships be called the USS
Keith Rankin Analysis – Has New Zealand just signed up for World War Three? Analysis by Keith Rankin – this analysis was first published on 24 March 2026. A minute after my radio-alarm went off this morning, I was ‘privileged’ to hear this deeply scary interview with the Deputy Prime Minister: Deputy PM Seymour on NZ, Iran and fuel relief, RNZ 24 March 2026. For most of the interview
Rift widens within French Polynesia’s ruling party following municipal election losses By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk A rift within French Polynesia’s ruling Tavini Huiraatira party has widened this week, pitting the leadership “old guard” against a younger generation embodied by the territory’s President, Moetai Brotherson. The main reason for the rift is the outcome of the recent French municipal elections, especially in
“It’s a war of choice, and the man who chose it is Benjamin Netanyahu. Why, yet again, is the West dancing to Israel’s tune?
“I’ve made a number of videos exposing Israeli crimes. This one is different. It’s directed at conservatives and people generally who support the state of Israel.
“I believe our indulgence of Israel is not just morally wrong. It’s against the interests of the US and the UK and ultimately against the interests of Israel itself.
“It is leading us all to disaster. Palestine is the place you come thundering, crashing into the buffers, the limits of the Western liberal moral imagination.
“The tragedy and complexity of Israel is that it’s both a product of the most unspeakable racism and a cause of it. Zionism was born from the suffering of Jewish people in Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, from a desire for a safe haven, a territory where Jews would for once be the hosts and not the eternal guests.
“It was framed as a return to a historic biblical homeland. and for its supporters. These two factors give it an entirely different complexion morally from other enterprises where predominantly European populations have settled far-flung parts of the world.
Dispossession and subjugation “There’s no doubt that the Zionist dream has enormous emotional power. The problem, of course, is the other side of the equation, the people. It was inflicted upon the Palestinians whose experience of dispossession and subjugation was no different from that of countless other peoples subjected to European colonialism.
“In fact, arguably, it’s been considerably worse than many, precisely because of the licence and indulgence granted to the Israeli state.
“Let’s lay out the bold, indisputable facts. In 1948, more than 80 percent of the Palestinian population of what became Israel fled their homes. Now, if you want to believe this was not an act of deliberate ethnic cleansing, fine.
“What’s undeniable is that they were never allowed to return. In 1947, they were there. In 1949, they were not. The granting of the vote to that small fragment of the Palestinian population that remained provided a democratic fig leaf for the new state, one that was blown away once the Israelis occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967.
[embedded content] The End of Israel Documentary: Double Down News
“There Palestinians have no right to vote for the political entity, the state of Israel that controls their lives. Jewish settlers, on the other hand, occupying the same territory do.
“Even in East Jerusalem, which as far as the Israeli government is concerned has been formally annexed to Israel, Palestinians cannot vote. Political rights depend upon ethnicity. That is not democracy.
“Israel is and has always been a state whose defining feature is that it’s structured to ensure the domination of one ethnicity over another. What else does the term a Jewish state mean?
‘Elephant in the room’ “This is the elephant in the room. the simple, blindingly obvious, undeniable fact that the Western political media class has decided that we must never mention or acknowledge, despite the fact that all of the world’s leading human rights organisations, including the Israeli NGO B’Tselem, have denounced Israel as an apartheid state.
“Now scour the history of the modern world. No people has ever resigned itself to being second class citizens in their own country. Spend just 10 minutes at a checkpoint in the West Bank and you get it.
“The disfiguring dehumanisation, the humiliation of elderly men and women forced to stand in the sun for hours waiting for 18-year-olds to search them.
“The brutalisation of young men in particular, the daily control of rage that is the lot of every Palestinian. It is simply emotionally, psychologically intolerable.”
Few could have predicted that they would one day also double as nodes for surveillance.
In thousands of towns and cities across the U.S., automatic license plate readers have been installed at major intersections, bridges and highway off-ramps.
The system and its successors were seen as useful crime fighting tools. Over the next two decades, they expanded to other cities in the U.K. and around the world. In 1998, U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented this technology. By the 21st century, it had started appearing in cities across the U.S.
There are different ways for a jurisdiction to implement these systems, but local governments usually sign contracts with private companies that provide the hardware and service.
These companies often entice authorities with free trials of surveillance equipment and promises of free access to their data in ways that bypass local oversight laws.
The vehicle information that’s captured is typically stored in the cloud, creating a massive web of data repositories. If a camera collects information from a suspect’s car or truck – say, one also listed in the National Crime Information Center – AI can flag it and send an instant alert to local law enforcement.
In fact, that’s a selling point of Flock Safety, one of the biggest providers of automatic license plate readers. The company uses infrared cameras to capture images of vehicles. AI then analyzes the data to identify subjects and quickly alert local authorities.
On the surface, automatic license plate readers seem like a logical way to fight crime. More information about the whereabouts of suspects can potentially help law enforcement. And why worry about cameras if you’re following the law?
Furthermore, installation and maintenance are costly.
For example, Johnson City, Tennessee, signed a 10-year, US$8 million contract with Flock in 2025. Richmond, Virginia, paid over $1 million to the company between October 2024 and November 2025 and recently extended its contract, despite opposition from some residents.
The Conversation reached out to Flock for comment and did not hear back.
A Houston resident photographs a Flock license plate reader in his neighborhood in October 2025.AP Photo/David Goldman
Erosion of civil liberties in plain sight
The technology seems to highlight the pitfalls of what scholars call “technosolutionism,” the belief that complex issues like crime, poverty and climate change can be solved by technology.
Even more disquieting, to me, is the fact that these camera systems have created a mass location tracking infrastructure knitted together by artificial intelligence.
As a result, data gathered through surveillance infrastructure in the U.S. can circulate with limited transparency or accountability.
License plate readers can easily be accessed or repurposed beyond their original goals of managing traffic, meting out fines or catching fugitives. All it takes is a shift in enforcement priorities – or a new definition of what counts as a crime – for the original purpose of these cameras to recede from view.
Civil liberties groups and digital rights organizations have been sounding the alarm about these cameras for over a decade.
The promise of these cameras was simple: more data, less crime.
But what followed has been murkier: more data, and a significant expansion of power over the public.
Without robust legal safeguards, this data can possibly be used to target political opposition, facilitate discriminatory policing or chill constitutionally protected activities.
Then there’s reproductive health care. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, there were fears that people traveling across state lines to get an abortion could potentially be identified through automatic license plate reader databases. In Texas, authorities accessed Flock’s surveillance data as part of an abortion investigation in 2025.
Flock told NPR in February 2026 that cities control how this information is shared: “Each Flock customer has sole authority over if, when, and with whom information is shared.” The company noted that it has made efforts to “strengthen sharing controls, oversight and audit capabilities within the system.” But NPR also reported that many city officials around the U.S. didn’t realize how widely the data was being shared.
In response, some states have sought to regulate the technology.
Washington state lawmakers are deliberating the Driver Privacy Act. The legislation would prohibit agencies from using the surveillance technology for immigration investigations and enforcement, and from collecting data around certain health care facilities. Protests would also be shielded from surveillance.
Meanwhile, grassroots initiatives such as DeFlock have also emerged.
DeFlock’s online platform documents the spread of automatic license plate reader networks in order to help communities resist their deployment. The movement frames these systems not merely as traffic technologies, but also as linchpins of an expanding government data dragnet – one that demands stronger democratic oversight and community consent.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: An Israeli court has closed an investigation into the death of Walid Ahmad, a 17-year-old from the occupied West Bank who died in an Israeli jail six months after he was arrested, held without charges and accused of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers.
An autopsy showed Ahmad likely starved to death after suffering extreme weight loss, muscle wasting and untreated scabies. Human rights groups say nearly 100 Palestinians have died in Israeli jails since October 2023.
Meanwhile, local and international media outlets report Israeli forces recently tortured a Palestinian toddler in Gaza to coerce a confession from his father.
According to reports from Palestine TV, Al Jazeera and others, the child’s father, Osama Abu Nassar, was detained near the al-Maghazi refugee camp after he came under fire from Israeli soldiers.
He was forced to approach an Israeli checkpoint, where he was separated from his 18-month-old son, stripped naked and forced to watch as soldiers used a cigarette to burn one of the toddler’s legs while using a nail to puncture the other.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as a new UN report warns Israel is systematically torturing Palestinians on a scale that “suggests collective vengeance and destructive intent”.The report, titled “Torture and Genocide”, was written by Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory.
In July, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on her over her report naming dozens of companies she says are profiting from Israeli occupation and genocide in Gaza. Amnesty International blasted the sanctions as a “shameless and transparent attack on the fundamental principles of international justice”. Francesca Albanese’s new book is When the World Sleeps: Stories, Words and Wounds of Palestine. She joins us from Geneva, Switzerland.
Francesca, thank you so much for being with us. Why don’t you lay out what you found in your new report, “Torture and Genocide,” that you just presented at the U.N. Human Rights Council?
[embedded content] Torture and Genocide — a new UN report. Video: Democracy Now!
Transcript
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Thank you. Thank you, Amy and Nermeen.
I’ve been investigating genocide for over two years now. So, five out of eight reports I’ve produced for the United Nations focus on genocide, acts of genocide, the context in which a genocide happens, why the genocide is not stopped, the layers of complicity from states and private companies, which is the reason why also I’m sanctioned by the United States, against which now my 13-year-old daughter, who’s an American citizen, is the only one to take action suing the Trump administration.
But of all the investigations I’ve carried out, this has been absolutely the most excruciating, that led me to say that Israel uses torture in a systematic and widespread fashion, intentionally and sadistically, to break the spirit of the Palestinians, not just as individuals, but as a people, considering the scale and intensity of torture.
And I monitored torture behind bars, collecting hundreds, hundreds of testimonies, directly and from Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, but also analyzing what experts call torturous environment, meaning the cumulative impact of all the practices, of all the crimes that Israel has massively inflicted on the Palestinians — again, beyond the torture, sodomisation, raping in jail, the enforced disappearance, which is touching 4000 people.
This is new. This is a new crime, including for Israel, toward the Palestinians. But also starvation, constant forced displacement, not just in Gaza, but in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and home demolition, the fear of being always threatened with death or other crimes, it creates a torturous environment for the Palestinians, which is an essential element of genocide.
And it is genocide.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Francesca, if you could elaborate on this point that you’ve just made and that you make in the report, namely, that torture has effectively become state policy for Israel since October 2023? So, what are the kinds of transformations you’ve seen, both in terms of Israeli security personnel, as well as settlers, against the Palestinians?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah, I have to say that what I’ve investigated is something on which even the United Nations Committee Against Torture and the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on Israel/Palestine had shed light already, the fact that Israel, after October 7, has massively used torture to punish the Palestinians vindictively.
In fact, the concept of torture has become a state policy is something that the Committee Against Torture found out recently.
I have zoomed in: What does it mean, and where does it come from? Surely, one of the main engineers or architects of this, what’s been called — what he has called the “prison revolution,” is Itamar Ben-Gvir, was — immediately after October 7, has declared that the Palestinians in jail will not be afforded luxury treatment or five-star treatment anymore, as if it was a five-star hotel, what the Israeli prison system afforded Palestinians before October 7.
By the way, in 2023, in July 2023, I produced a report showing how widespread and systemic was the arbitrary treatment of Palestinian detainees, so, just to give a context.
But the conditions have become more and more brutal, and intentionally so. What does it mean? Palestinians have routinely been abducted — I mean, detained without charge or trial. They’ve been arrested, because Palestinians, if they were specific professionals, like journalists and doctors or headed medical personnel, all the more.
Seventeen hundred Palestinian healthcare personnel have been killed. Hundreds remain in jail. And they have been shackled, blindfolded, beaten, humiliated, stripped naked, photographed, filmed, exposed to Israeli civilians, including settlers, coming in to document and to film, to participate into this orgy of depravity, of how a person can be humiliated.
But the most painful, excruciating thing — and I’ve read some of the testimonies — is how Palestinian women and men have been sodomised, have been raped, with bottles, with knives, with metal rods. Even the prisoner who was sodomised through — was raped with a knife, brought to the hospital.
Five Israeli officials were identified and pressed charged against, and now the charges have been dropped. And the person who leaked the video from within the military apparatus is under house arrest on top of it.
So, not only that I’ve documented the vindictiveness toward the Palestinians, the humiliation, the continuous abuses against them in jail, really to break their spirit once and for all as a people, but also the fact that there has been almost something celebratory against the mistreatment of Palestinians in jail among the society.
The legislative power, the Knesset, has been discussing the right to rape Palestinians, and so other members of the executive. The judiciary has not looked into it. And as I said, even those who were found, caught on video, committing this crime were released.
AMY GOODMAN:Francesca, in this last 30 seconds, what are you calling for?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Oh, for justice. Justice. Israel must be stopped, because, Amy, I can’t even use the past tense. As we speak, there are still over 9000 Palestinian hostages, hostages to an unlawful occupation in Israeli jail.
The only thing this — International Court of Justice has spoken. Israel must withdraw the occupation, the troops, the colonies. And the exploitation of Palestinian resources must end.
Meanwhile, the settlers continue to terrorise people. Very few Israelis are engaged against this. So member states must intervene, cut ties and stop weapons transfers to Israel once and for all, and bring the perpetrators to justice.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesco Albanese, we thank you so much for being with us, UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory. We’ll link to your report, “Torture and Genocide,” and have you back on to talk about your book.
Odin was a kelpie. Attentive and protective, with a happy smile and an endless hope for food, he succumbed to a terminal disease late last year. At his death, a deep sense of grief ripped through the household of one of us (Andrew): while Odin was not human, he was an irreplaceable member of the family.
Our new research, published in Nature this week, helps explain the unique and striking way dogs like Odin fit into the human world – whether reading our moods, following our movements or becoming part of the rhythm of everyday life.
Based on international collaborations lasting decades, the two new studies have unlocked previously unavailable information from the bones of dogs long dead. Yet these papers are not just about the dusty old bones found in our archaeological sites, or the cutting-edge science applied to them.
They shine light on a relationship that has been part of the human social world for at least 16,000 years.
Vale Odin.Andrew Fairbairn
The earliest known dog
Dogs are the earliest known animals to be both tamed and separated from their wild relatives over generations by humans. This process is known as domestication.
It has long been thought that dogs were domesticated from wolves, their closest relatives, during the last Ice Age. Solid evidence to test this has been hard to find in archaeological sites as dog bones are difficult to tell apart from those of wolves using their shape alone.
It has taken the successful extraction of ancient DNA (aDNA), a recently developed technique, to provide definitive identification of dogs, which differ genetically from wolves.
One of the new studies confirmed the earliest known dog is now from Pınarbaşı, a rockshelter site in Karaman, central Turkey. This dog lived around 15,800 years ago.
Excavated in 2004, the bones could have been from either dog pups or wolf cubs. But aDNA analysis confirmed their identity as dogs 20 years later, following 10 years of analysis and comparison with other aDNA results.
The dog pups were buried carefully and treated in death similarly to the humans buried nearby. This continued a close relationship with people during life, as shown by chemical analyses suggesting the dogs and humans shared similar foods, including small fish from the local wetlands. Dogs were not just animals lingering around the edges of campsites. They were already an integral part of human societies.
Integration of dogs into the human social world could have resulted from close cooperation during hunting. Dogs may also have acted as guardians and sentinels for their communities who lived in a world with many dangerous predators such as wolves and leopards.
Artistic reconstruction of Pınarbaşı 15,800 years ago, based on evidence from archaeological excavations by University of Liverpool.Kathryn Killackey
Moving with people
The same analysis found dogs genetically similar to those at Pınarbaşı at Gough’s Cave in Britain around 14,300 years ago. This suggests a group of closely related dogs spread rapidly from Eurasia all the way to the far end of Europe, moving with people but also moving between different human communities.
These dogs were not related to European wolves and evidence from the second new study, suggests that European dogs were not domesticated separately to those elsewhere, rejecting a long held hypothesis. Their difference to east Asian dogs is due to the spread into Europe with farmers 8,500 years ago from Turkey of dogs which had interbred with local wolves.
We know this because of the DNA of a dog from our site of Boncuklu, an 11,000-year-old village, near Konya in central Turkey. Our excavations showed that pups were buried in the graves of people directly related to those earlier communities at Pınarbaşı, located 30 kilometres to the southeast, though they lived a very different life in permanent houses supported by small-scale farming.
Genetically related farmers from this region spread into Europe around 8,500 years ago, with dogs also genetically related to those at Boncuklu at their heels. The incoming dogs interbred with those already in Europe, but didn’t replace them entirely.
From the deep past to the present
Together, the studies show that dogs were already living alongside people across a surprisingly wide area from Anatolia to the far edge of western Europe in the last Ice Age, long before farming began, and that their history is older, more mobile and more entangled with human history than we once thought.
The detailed archaeological evidence from Boncuklu and Pınarbaşı show just how close dogs and humans had become and the larger scale analysis sees them repeatedly moving through human networks that crossed cultural boundaries.
We still do not know exactly where and when dog domestication began, and the patient research that will answer that question is already under way in excavations across the world.
But these two new studies make one thing very clear: by the end of the Ice Age, dogs were already deeply woven into human life and had become part of the community, forging deep bonds that continue to this day.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yousuf Mohammed, Associate Professor in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Queensland
On Thursday, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) released a raft of proposed changes to improve how sunscreens are tested and sold, including simplifying sun protection factor (SPF) labelling.
Since then, many Australians have been left confused about how SPF testing works and what information to trust.
The TGA aims to address these concerns by reforming labelling. One option is to add more detail to the SPF label. Another is to remove the numbers – such as SPF15+ or SPF50 – altogether. In this case, visual categories would indicate low, medium, high, and very high sun protection.
But Choice, which commissioned the original investigation, issued a statement on Thursday saying it did not support replacing the SPF numbering system. However Choice commended the TGA for other proposed changes, such as improving sunscreen testing, accreditation of testing labs, and greater transparency.
So, is simplifying the labelling a good idea? And what are the potential downsides? Let’s take look.
3 different options for SPF labelling
The TGA’s consultation report says there is a general lack of understanding about how the SPF rating system works and what it actually means for people applying sunscreen. SPF testing has also exposed too many products not meeting Australian standards.
So the TGA outlines three options for SPF labelling, as well as potential advantages and downsides.
1. Stay the same
The first option is the “status quo” – keeping the current SPF system.
This sets standards for what can be sold in Australia. Anything below 4 is not allowed, and SPF between 4–14 is considered “low” and sold as cosmetics.
The advantages of maintaining this system are that it’s already known as the benchmark for sun protection, is consistent worldwide, and wouldn’t require manufacturers to change their packaging.
But leaving the system untouched will not address the issues that have been identified, including ambiguity about how a product’s SPF has been tested and whether it meets the standards.
2. Add more detail
Option two is providing extra information, in addition to current SPF numbers. For example, “SPF30 filters 97% of UVB rays”.
This may increase consumer trust in scientific accuracy and transparency, without replacing the entire system.
But as the TGA points out, labels are already crowded. People may still misunderstand how the numbers relate to how much sunscreen they should apply and how often. So significant public education campaigns would still be needed.
3. Simplify
Option three is the most drastic – to replace the current SPF rating system with words: low, medium, high and very high. The words could be used by themselves, or with a graphic.
The TGA says this kind of labelling is best practice for conveying complex scientific data to the public, and could make it easier for people – especially those with low health literacy – to quickly understand a product’s protection level and whether it offers what they need.
But this would be a major overhaul, involving changes to legislation and packaging redesign. A new system could also confuse consumers. There is a risk symbols or bars could be too simple and mislead people about the level of protection. So a widespread education campaign would be essential.
This change would also mean Australia would be out of step with other countries.
Some other pros and cons
Overall, reforming and simplifying the SPF labelling is a good idea. The recent confusion and variability in protection exposed by SPF testing shows the current system isn’t working.
Under the proposed word categories, what is currently labelled SPF30 or SPF50 would be considered “high”. This is an excellent sunscreen that would suit most people’s needs, and include sunscreens that use mineral filters such as zinc as their main UV-blocking ingredient.
However, most mineral sunscreens would not meet the requirements for the “very high” protection category, which covers products currently labelled SPF60 and over.
This is because it’s very hard to make mineral sunscreens with SPF higher than 50 – a very high amount of the mineral filter (up to 30% of the product’s ingredient) is needed.
At these high concentrations, the aesthetic feel of the sunscreen is compromised and stability across time and temperature can also be low.
This means the “very high” category would be predominantly chemical sunscreens.
Many people may think they need the highest protection.
However, there are some concerns about chemical active ingredients if used in high concentrations, over large areas and for an extended period of time. In contrast, mineral sunscreen types are generally regarded as safe and effective.
So an education campaign would also need to explain that “very high” sunscreens may not be suited for day-to-day use for everyone.
Anthony Albanese has pushed back at Donald Trump’s crack at Australia for not providing the United States with as much backing over the Iran war as the president believed it should.
Trump, who made his comment about Australia when asked about British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, said he was “surprised” at the Australian government’s response.
“[Starmer] didn’t want to help us,” he said. “Australia too, Australia was not great. I was a little surprised by Australia,”
“I wouldn’t say anybody was great other than the five countries in the Middle East.”
In a tit-for-tat response, Albanese reiterated to reporters there had been no request to Australia that had not not been agreed to, and said it was up to Trump “to explain his comments.
“But of course I make the point as well that Australia wasn’t consulted before this action was undertaken, and I respect that. That’s a matter for the United States.
“What Australia is responsible for and what I, as the Prime Minister of Australia, [is] responsible for is Australia’s response. And we’ve been constructive,” he said, noting the military plane Australia sent to the Middle East.
Albanese was speaking at a news conference about the fuel crisis, at which he sought to reassure the public while acknowledging uncertainty about the future and emphasising his commitment to national planning.
“While Australia’s fuel supply outlook remains secure over the near term due to the actions that the government’s taken to date, the government has been clear that the longer this war goes on, the greater the impact will be,” the prime minister said.
“But we continue to act to prepare and shield Australians from the worst of it.”
He stressed the importance of a “truly national coordinated response with all levels of government fulfilling their responsibilities to make sure that the national interest is served”.
Albanese highlighted the need to avoid the COVID experience where responses varied dramatically between governments.
“One of the lessons of the COVID pandemic is that we made a number of decisions as a nation that could have been made better if there was proper consideration. We also had different systems operating across the eight states and territories.”
Meanwhile the federal opposition has called for a halving of the excise on fuel for three months.
In a joint statement Liberal leader Angus Taylor and Nationals leader Matt Canavan said this would reduce fuel prices by about 25 cents a litre. A corresponding cut in the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge should also be provided, they said.
Taylor and Canavan proposed offsets to pay for the relief. These were ending the Electric Car Discount, reversing green hydrogen subsidies and tax credits, and pausing and strengthening integrity controls on the Home Battery Scheme.
“These measures will fully fund the approximate $1.5 billion temporary tax cut for Australian motorists while also easing the broader demand pressures that are driving inflation,” the leaders said.
Asked about this, Albanese said the opposition wanted cuts to things “that are making a difference to cost of living”, such as help for buying batteries and EV support.
“My government has always been strong on cost of living measures. We’ll continue to do so. We do so in a responsible way in the context of our budget considerations,” Albanese said.
The government has previously indicated it has not plans to cut excise.
Since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran in late February, Iran has retaliated by targeting commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, effectively shutting down the narrow channel of water.
It’s caused a global fuel crisis, even though some ships are managing to get through the strait. US President Donald Trump has given Iran an ultimatum to fully reopen the waterway to oil and gas shipments, and called on NATO allies to help in the effort.
We asked naval expert Jennifer Parker, who served for 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy, to explain what kind of military force would be required to reopen the strait to commercial shipping and why the US hasn’t yet taken this step.
Why is it so hard to prevent attacks on ships?
The geography of the region has a lot to do with this.
Iran clearly dominates the northern part of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. That proximity allows it to use its cheaper weapons such as drones to target ships.
Creating the conditions to make merchant shipping safe – or at least reduce the risk – requires a two-phase campaign.
The first phase is taking out Iran’s ability to target ships. There are two ways to do this:
persuade or force Iran to stop attacking ships
destroy Iran’s ability to attack ships by taking out its radar facilities, command and control structure and weapons bunkers along the coast.
The US has air power, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to identify and destroy most of these targets. Locating and destroying Iran’s masses of drones will be harder, as they can be stored almost anywhere, so intelligence will be crucial here.
The Malta-flagged container vessel Safeen Prestige on fire in the Strait of Hormuz on March 18 after being hit by Iranian explosives.Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite, CC BY-SA
Once you reduce the risk through a bombing campaign, the second element of getting ships back through the strait is a reassurance campaign.
This requires airborne early warning aircraft and maritime patrol aircraft to monitor not only the strait, but also the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf and along Iran’s coastline.
Fighter aircraft would need to be stationed above the strait and gulf, as combat air patrol and helicopters would need to be ready to deploy against attacks, if necessary. And in the water, the US would need to station warships to provide the occasional escort.
If mines are confirmed or even suspected of being in the strait, this complicates things. The US would require an extensive and time-consuming mine clearance operation.
So, why won’t the US try to militarily secure the strait?
There are four key reasons the US won’t attempt to militarily secure the strait without first achieving phase one (taking out Iran’s ability to target ships) — and why it hasn’t been a focus of the campaign thus far.
First, it would divert military assets, such as aircraft, that are needed elsewhere to carry out Trump’s war objectives.
Second, to make the strait safe for shipping, you actually need to secure not just the water, but the land on either side of it. And this would likely require ground forces – or perhaps raiding parties on Iran’s coastline – which would be complicated and risky for the US military.
Third, securing shipping would require a significant number of naval ships. Realistically, you’d need one or two naval ships per escort operation. A convoy any larger than that would be at increased risk of attack, unless the US and Israel have dramatically reduced Iran’s ability to target the ships.
President Trump has ordered reinforcements from two naval groups into the Middle East, consisting of around 4,500 marines and dozens of aircraft.The Conversation, NYT, Al Jazeera, CC BY-SA
And fourth, the military needs to think about the risk to its assets versus the benefits of opening the strait. A US warship has a crew of more than 200 personnel. Given Iran’s ability to hit ships with uncrewed surface vessels, drones and cruise missiles, is it worth putting those personnel at risk before you’ve reduced the threats from Iran’s coastline?
What about mines in the strait?
This would be a significant challenge. But one thing first: Iran doesn’t actually need to physically lay the mines, it just needs to convince the US and others that it has. This is enough to prevent civilian ships from wanting to transit through the strait.
The possible types of mines Iran may have laid in the Strait of Hormuz, though there has been no clear evidence mining has occurred.NYT, CC BY-SA
Sometimes mines can be floating on the surface of the water, so they’re visible. Often, though, mines are submerged or moored. The US would need to send in divers or remote-controlled vehicles launched from ships to remove them. This would take weeks or perhaps even months.
Although it’s not been confirmed publicly, I think it’s unlikely Iran would extensivley lay mines. There are two reasons for this.
First, Iran’s economy relies on its ability to ship its own oil from Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf through the strait. Iran does have other ports outside the strait, but they can’t accommodate bigger ships, so mining would interfere with their trade.
Second, some reports have suggested Iran has used acoustic mines, a type of influence mine that detonates based on an acoustic “signature”, essentially what a ship sounds like as it moves through the water. While this technology certainly exists, it is unlikely such mines would be designed to reliably differentiate between Iranian-flagged merchant vessels and those flagged to other countries.
Maintaining accurate and comprehensive signature data for large numbers of commercial vessels — particularly in a dense and dynamic shipping environment such as the strait — would be extremely challenging. In practice, these mines would pose risks to a wide range of shipping.
The US also has significant intelligence assets and surveillance and reconnaissance systems along the Iranian coast, so it would likely detect mine-laying operations, although this can also occur from any vessel, including fishing boats.
And what about Iran’s ability to target ships with drones?
Iran has used different types of drones so far in the war. The uncrewed aerial craft or uncrewed surface vessels are remotely controlled and have been used to hit merchant tankers.
Compared with other weapons, such as missiles, it’s much harder for the US and Israel to target Iran’s drones on the ground because they can be launched from almost anywhere. And while they can’t be built anywhere, drones don’t require the same advanced manufacturing facilities as missiles. In short, they are harder to detect and wipe out.
But the US can bomb some of Iran’s launching points and drone stockpiles along the coast to prevent some attacks on ships.
What is the main priority for the US in Iran right now?
Although there has been much debate about regime change, the Trump administration has been clear about its four key military objectives, which are to destroy:
Iran’s ballistic missile capability
its nuclear capability
its navy (which has largely been achieved)
and its proxy networks, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has been under attack by Israel for the past several weeks.
The destruction of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities requires significant aircraft and weaponry – as the US and Israeli bombing campaigns have already made clear. Diverting these assets to secure the Strait of Hormuz could undermine the achievement of these military objectives.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has confirmed it is introducing a controversial new policy that will ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s events.
The IOC stated eligibility for women’s events will be determined by a “once-in-a-lifetime” sex test, which would prevent transgender women and those with differences in sexual development from competing.
From a legal point of view, it opens up a can of worms and will no doubt affect many athletes from the top level down to grassroots.
What is the test?
The IOC says “eligibility for the female category is to be determined in the first instance by SRY gene screening to detect the absence or presence of the SRY gene”.
It added:
Based on scientific evidence, the IOC considers the presence of the SRY gene is fixed throughout life and represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development.
SRY stands for “sex determining region Y” gene. The presence of the SRY gene is associated with men’s typical sexual development.
Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene will be banned from the women’s category.
The screening will be done via an athlete’s saliva, a cheek swab or blood sample.
The IOC stated it is not retroactive and does not apply to any grassroots or recreational sports.
Why did the IOC make this move?
In September 2025 the IOC established a working group to examine scientific, medical and legal developments in this space.
The IOC said the group reached a consensus that “male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and endurance”.
IOC president Kirsty Coventry said:
At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.
The IOC added it had surveyed more than 1,100 Olympic athletes, which revealed “a strong consensus that fairness and safety in the female category required clear, science-based eligibility rules, and that protecting the female category is a common priority”.
At the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard became the first openly transgender woman to compete at an Olympic Games. She finished last in the super‑heavyweight category.
The policy is widely expected to be adopted by individual sports federations, although many have already implemented similar testing in recent months, including World Athletics and World Aquatics.
It will be implemented for women’s events at the Olympic Games, Youth Olympics and Games qualifiers, from Los Angeles 2028 onwards.
Human rights law and sport
The IOC’s decision may be in opposition to several laws that aim to ensure everyone has the right to participate in sport.
In 2019, a UN Human Rights Council resolution called on sports governing organisations such as the IOC to implement policies and practices that comply with international human rights.
International human rights laws require countries protect and promote human rights.
As many international sports governing organisations such as the IOC are based in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights also applies to the new genetic testing rule. The IOC policy may violate this.
The UN Human Rights Council states genetic sex testing as an eligibility requirement for women’s sport violates athletes’ international rights to equality, bodily and psychological integrity and privacy.
While many support the IOC’s new policy, others argue the athletes now banned from competing in women’s sports are not being granted basic, long-agreed human rights.
Affected athletes may challenge the new rules in the Court of Arbitration for Sport – world sport’s top court, which has in the past heard cases on gender eligibility.
The IOC’s new rule may also violate the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and domestic laws in many countries that prohibit genetic testing unless a health purpose is achieved.
Those left on the sidelines
This policy is a monumental shift from world sport’s most powerful authority.
It has sparked celebration among some, and anger and disbelief among others.
There will be aftershocks, maybe in the form of appeals or lawsuits. Where it leaves the few transgender and intersex athletes who want to compete in elite women’s sports is anyone’s guess.
One puzzling feature of the present Israel-Iran war is the almost complete absence of reference – in the western media at least – to the Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
The American president claimed that Israel had killed the Iranian President, but he was referring to the Supreme Leader. Killing Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Shia Islam – and, when he was alive, the Patriarch of Iran – was comparable to the assassination of Pope Leo or King Charles. (These last two are both ‘supreme leaders’, though neither of these two are anything like the administrative or military leader of a nation state; they are moral and morale leaders.) Iran’s President, Masoud Pezeshkian, is still very much alive; and would prefer to build bridges than bombs.
Admittedly, the Iranian constitution is somewhat complex – especially to casual western onlookers – having distinct power centres for religious, military, and civilian authority. Do we dismiss Pezeshkian simply because he is neither a ‘cleric’ nor a ‘revolutionary guard’? I think there is much more to our dismissal of him than some consideration that he’s unimportant.
Ali Khamenei was, during the 1980s, the third President of Iran. His two predecessors had fewer religious credentials than Khamanei, reflecting the comparatively secular nature of the role of president. Their presidencies were short-lived however; the first president was impeached in mid-1981, and his successor was assassinated by bombing four weeks later; revolutionary Iran was a tumultuous place.
President Khamenei clearly played a critical role in the 1980s’ Iran-Iraq War, from which Iran survived; unexpectedly to many, and stronger from having been tested through a war in which the western powers supported the other side and its president Saddam Hussein.
The Presidency of Iran is clearly a very important political role. Problematically for the West, who wishes to cast Iran as an anti-democracy, it’s a highly-contested democratically-elected position of power. Indeed the President has featured in most political news stories throughout the history of the Islamic Republic, at least until the election of the present president in 2024 (following the death of his predecessor, Ebrahim Raisi, in a helicopter crash).
In the 2024 election, Pezeshkian, the ‘progressive left’ candidate defeated Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Saeed Jalili, the ‘conservative right’ candidates. I heard recently that, when Ingrid Hipkiss asked who the Americans might negotiate with, given President Trump’s claim to have killed several tiers of Iranian leadership, the answer suggested by Simon Marks was Ghalibaf, who was high up in the regime and had even stood for president. Not a single mention of the actual President! (Refer Morning Report, RNZ 24 March 2026, Trump suspends strikes on Iran’s power plants.)
I would argue that Pezeshkian’s success was more reflective of popular preference than the other elections that year, which delivered Donald Trump in the United States and Keir Starmer in the United Kingdom. Both Trump and Starmer were widely disliked by their countries’ electorates (now even more disliked than in 2024), only winning because the only other options for political leadership were deemed by voters to be worse.
Pezeshkian, on the other hand, was a progressive and genuinely popular choice; not a person wanting to align Iran with the West, but a person wanting to build strong relationships. Through, for example, Iran joining the BRICSnetwork of economically powerful countries which favour geopolitical multipolarity rather than Western unipolarity. (See this picture of BRICS 2024, with Pezeshkian very prominent, and neither looking like a Shia cleric – as Raisi had looked – nor conforming with western dress codes.) He comes across as a statesman, certainly not a demagogue.
My take on the Iranian presidential enigma is this. Politics is substantially propaganda – aka ‘narrative’ – and geopolitics involves such messaging on a global scale. Much narrative is conducted through images rather than through words, and is largely shaped by which images are missing; propaganda is as much about deamplification of unwanted messages as it is about amplifying regime (and prevalent media) narratives.
President Pezeshkian does not present the imagery of smarminess (being unpleasantly suave) or of evilness or of rigid fundamentalism; he does not present the images that Israel and the West would like to portray in conveying their story about Iran. Rather, he presents as honest, pragmatic, constructive, and electable. He is quietly spoken. I have heard mention that one of Iran’s political strategies is the so-called good cop, bad cop strategy. If so, Pezeshkian is certainly the good cop. I think he is a good cop, period.
Pezeshkian is neither a clerical ideologue nor a shouty military spokesperson. He is not a newsreader with head covered, dressed all in black. Those are the images which western media push about Iran. Too moderate to assassinate; such grotesque (albeit routine) geopolitical violence would increase Pezeshkian’s profile in the West, which the West seems not to want. Better to just pretend he doesn’t exist, even though he’s the President. (Though some – including Al Jazeera’s Israeli-born political analyst, Marwan Bishara – suggest that Israel prefers to assassinate their more moderate opponents, given that such people [when alive and visible] might distract us from consuming Israel’s dehumanising narratives.)
To glean a semblance of truth in contentious times, you often have to hear what is not being said, and see what is not being shown. You have to look out for softly spoken messages; looking past caricatures and scapegoats, and looking past CAPITAL LETTERS and !!!
————-
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Analysis by Keith Rankin – this analysis was first published on 24 March 2026.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
A minute after my radio-alarm went off this morning, I was ‘privileged’ to hear this deeply scary interview with the Deputy Prime Minister: Deputy PM Seymour on NZ, Iran and fuel relief, RNZ 24 March 2026. For most of the interview David Seymour outlines why Ruthanasia politics is essential for New Zealand, even as a global existential crisis may be unfolding. While he didn’t use the word ‘Ruthanasia’, he may as well have.
(Ruthenasia was supposed to have been a policy to deliver relatively ‘more money’ to younger New Zealanders; that is, such policies of fiscal austerity are commonly conducted in the name of intergenerational equity, though that notion – as represented by the ‘financial literacy’ community – is a logical fallacy of the first order. Money, a set of claims on wealth, a social technology, is regarded by austerians such as Ruth Richardson and David Seymour as a form of intrinsic wealth. Seymour claimed that “the previous government maxed out the credit card”; New Zealand is about 105th out of 190 countries for government debt. Turkmenistan, Brunei and Kuwait are the top performers by Seymour’s criterion (with Afghanistan, Haiti and Russia also in the top 10); Sudan and Japan are the worst. According to Trading Economics, New Zealand now has a projected 47% government debt to GDP ratio, up from 39% in 2023. Truth is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity.)
The real problem though, contained in this interview, is in the presenter’s introduction, and also in the quasi-acceptance of the alarming content of that introduction.
In the recording, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte claims that New Zealand has signed up to a 22-country Nato-led initiative “to implement his vision [referring to the President of the United States] of making sure the Strait of Hormuz is free, is opening up as soon as possible”.
First, we should note that the Strait of Hormuz is presently open to all neutral countries; it is not open to those countries waging a war of aggression on Iran (a country along with Oman which has, by virtue of geography, sovereignty over that narrow Strait). (Much as Egypt has sovereignty over the Suez Canal.) Although there is some ambiguity regarding countries (such as New Zealand) which condemn Iran but choose to not-condemn Israel or the USA.
What New Zealand should do, if it really wants trade access to the Persian Gulf, is to condemn – equally – all the belligerents in this war. Beyond that, the paucity of ships passing through the Strait is an insurance matter; a matter that can be most easily resolved by the aggressors stopping the present war rather than (literally and figuratively) inflaming it. Does New Zealand want to be safe, and to have safe access to the Gulf States, or does it want to be egregiously stupid?
Regional Wars too easily become World Wars
At present there are two ‘regional’ wars of global significance in ‘play’. We note that in World War Two there was something similar. In November 1941 there was an all-out European war in which Germany was fighting the Soviet Union on one front and fighting the United Kingdom on the other. And there was a war in the western Pacific in which Japan was fighting China and Indo-China; kind of a world war in that most of Indo-China was ‘colonies’ of the European powers France, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
Then, in December 1941, Japan attacked the United States’ fleet in Hawaii (noting that Hawaii was not a part of the United States then). Three days later, Japan sank two British battleships – Prince of Wales, and Repulse – in the South China Sea, effectively declaring war on the United Kingdom. And then, another day later, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States – his biggest strategic mistake. Two regional geopolitical wars had become a world war.
Goliath 2.0; a modern-day unsophisticate and anti-intellectual, and his band of orcs
In 2026, the two wars are between Nato and Russia, with most of the action taking place in the territory of the Nato proxy-state, Ukraine. The second war is between Israel and Iran, with Israel being helped out by its much larger proxy with its Goliath president. Much of the violence is taking place in other countries; countries either sandwiched between Israel and Iran or coveted by Israel as part of its Greater Israel project.
What is now connecting these two wars – both being fought in parts of central Eurasia – the war in Europe and the war in the ‘Middle East’? First is that Ukraine became involved, earlier this year, as a military ally of Israel. Second is that Nato, one of the combatants in the Ukraine War, is now trying to join in the Middle East War as a formal ally of Israel and its subservient Goliath. And little New Zealand is showing all the signs that it is trying to become a formal ally of Nato, a willing participant of both regional wars; awestruck by Goliath and his band of merry orcs.
When two globally significant regional wars combine today to become a single war, we have World War Three. Why, on Earth, would New Zealand want to be a part of that? Why would we want to be a party to both ecocide and economic suicide? And why would we want to become a target in a nuclear war? Is that egregiously stupid?
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Analysis by Keith Rankin – This analysis was first published on 26 March 2026.
One of the United States’ navy ships heading towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Tripoli. (USS = United States Ship.) How the heck did it get that name? (Will the next two United States’ naval ships be called the USS Abbottabad and the USS Santo Domingo?)
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
The answer will be a surprise to many. The American Revolution which began in 1776 was completed in 1783, with the British capitulation to the American patriotic forces. So, the history of the United States as an independent sovereign state goes back to 1783. The British and Americans fought again from 1812 to 1815, during the Napoleonic Wars (what I suggest is better called either World War Zero or Great World War One, and my favoured dates are 1798 to 1815, with Waterloo being the final battle; Great World War One contextualises 1914 to 1945 as Great World War Two). Wikipedia describes the outcome of the War of 1812 as ‘inconclusive’.
We may note that Encounter Bay, in South Australia, is named after a World War Zero encounter between British and French naval ships – Investigator and Géographe. The encounter was in 1802. The name Tripoli dates from another encounter (a much more violent encounter) within World War Zero, in this case a war between Libya (then known as Ottoman Tripolitania) and the United States. That encounter, a war within a war, was the First Barbary War (1801-1805).
The genesis of the Barbary Wars (see this famous picture of the USS Philadelphia in Tripoli Harbour, depicting the saving-from-capture of that ship in February 1804) was an earlier war. The American-Algerian War of 1785 to 1795was the first foreign military adventure of the United States since its independence in 1783. Wikipedia lists the ‘result’ of this war as an ‘Algerian victory’. It will be a surprise to many people that America’s first foreign war was so soon after independence, and in the Mediterranean rather than somewhere close to home; independent America has a long history of violence in the ‘Middle East’. It will be no surprise that, in 1795, the United States lost that war.
The context of the 1785-1795 war was that Great Britain, piqued by the loss of its American colonies, refused the United States the ‘protection’ of the British Navy.
We note here that imperial nations traditionally extracted ‘tribute’ from both their subjugated territories, and other populated territories which might otherwise be candidates for subjugation. Further, smaller maritime states traditionally extracted rent from passing ships.
These ‘clipping-the-ticket’ relationships still exist, of course. Egypt, for example, extracts monopoly rents from its possession of the Suez Canal; as does Panama re the Panama Canal. As would New Zealand if South American merchant ships were to transit through Cook Strait on their way to Australia. Indeed, as international airports charge landing fees. Further, the extraction of imperial tribute has become apparent once again, as the American president tries to use import taxes – tariffs – and bilateral ‘deals’ as ways of ‘making lots of money’; as a way of leveraging imperial power. This is extortion through protection money, in the very worst sense of that concept of power.
In the 1780s, and before, Britain and Algeria ‘scratched each other’s backs’. Britain let Algeria – literally a ‘pirate state’ – do its thing, so long as it did not charge rents from ships under the protection of the British Empire. Thus, after 1783, American ships ceased to benefit from British protection. The conflict ended in 1795, with the United States agreeing to pay rents to Algeria, and – by implication – to other ‘pirate kingdoms’ on the North African Barbary Coast.
The Barbary Wars began when newly elected president – Thomas Jefferson – refused to pay rents to Tripolitania, aka Libya. As a result, Tripolitania declared war on the United States. The United States sent a number of frigates, including the USS Philadelphia.
To this day, the United States commemorates the 1804 burning of the USS Philadelphia by Stephen Decatur as a heroic rescue, an act of derring do which Lord Nelson reputedly claimed was “the most bold and daring act of the Age”. It was this action which led to the naming of three United States naval ships, including the current ship, as ‘Tripoli’. Decatur went on to become a hero, once again, in the 1812 to 1815 war with Britain. And many American towns came to be named after him. (We may note that, in another ‘heroic’ action in World War Zero, in 1812, the Russian military burned the city of Moscow in order to save it from Napoleon’s invading army. One significant aftermath was a literary novel: War and Peace.)
This war was not an American victory; importantly for the United States, it was not the ignominious defeat that it might otherwise have been. The United States – or at least mercenaries in the pay of the United States – did win the subsequent 1805 Battle of Derna, which the USS Tripoli officially commemorates.
The First Barbary War ended inconclusively in 1805, with a deal. Wikipedia says: “In agreeing to pay a ransom of $60,000 (equivalent to $1.3 million in 2025) for the American prisoners, the Jefferson administration drew a distinction between paying tribute and paying ransom.” Jefferson agreed to pay a ransom. We should note that the Second Barbary War of 1815, also involving Decatur, lasted just two days, and was an American victory (under President Madison).
Another reason for the naming of the USS Tripoli, which is essentially the same reason.
In 2011, the United States (as NATO), under President Obama, fought in another war against Libya. This was a successful war of ‘regime change’, this time through air power rather than sea power; though few would say that the replacement regimes have improved either the stability of Libya or of the Eastern Mediterranean. This war of ‘decapitation’ of Libya was Obama’s dress rehearsal for an even more ambitious attempt to do the same in Syria. The subsequent Syrian Civil War was another distressing failure of United States’ foreign bellicosity. At least Obama asked Congress, and as a result he was unable to escalate; Obama was thwarted in his further attempts to become a decapitating conqueror (noting Abbottabad as well as Tripoli). Much of Syria descended into anarchy, until Russia intervened.
The USS Tripoli was commissioned in 2012, as much in commemoration of recent American adventurism as it was in commemoration of that country’s earliest acts of violence in a land far far away.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
A rift within French Polynesia’s ruling Tavini Huiraatira party has widened this week, pitting the leadership “old guard” against a younger generation embodied by the territory’s President, Moetai Brotherson.
Since the Tavini party came back to power after the 2023 territorial elections, Brotherson brought with him a new wave of young MPs, who sometimes were questioning the traditional political line.
This was often regarded as “radical” (in favour of a quick independence process), defended by the party’s iconic 81-year-old president Oscar Temaru and his close associates, including Territorial Assembly Speaker Antony Géros.
At the recent municipal elections, Géros was one of the most symbolic of Tavini casualties. He lost his stronghold city of Paea at the first round of votes to pro-autonomy Tapura Huiraatira leader Tepuaraurii Teriitahi, who secured more than 50 percent of the votes, making it unnecessary to hold a second round of polls.
Even though Temaru was re-elected Lord Mayor in his stronghold of Faa’a at the first round, other Tavini-held municipalities also suffered significant setbacks.
But it was in Pape’ete that the divisions between the two Tavini antagonistic trends materialised most visibly.
Two Tavini candidates While no Tavini member was in a position to claim the lead (the new Lord Mayor remains an “autonomist”, in favour of continuing the current relationship with France under an “Autonomy” status), there were two Tavini candidates and lists — one officially endorsed by the party, under the name of Tauhiti Nena, who secured 11.03 percent of the votes.
The other was not officially endorsed but it fared much better. It was led by 25-year-old Tematai Le Gayic and received 23.3 percent of the vote.
Since the kick-start of the municipal elections campaign, Le Gayic’s list (Tutahi ia Pape’ete) was openly backed by Brotherson.
In his already long political career, despite his young age, Le Gayic’s was French Polynesia’s representative MP (2022-2024). He was once known for being the youngest French MP ever elected in the French National Assembly.
This week, the debate is now out in the open, sparking a controversy between the two antagonistic Tavini trends.
Adding fuel to fire, in an open letter to Temaru earlier this week, widely publicised through social networks, he announced his decision to leave Tavini and, as a member of the Territorial Assembly, will from now on sit as an independent member.
Family business Brotherson reacted to the decision, saying Le Gayic’s move was a “responsible” decision.
Brotherson also belongs to the Tavini Huiraatira, a party led by his father-in-law Temaru (Brotherson’s wife, Teura, is Temaru’s daughter).
Since 2023, other young, newly-elected Tavini MPs had already voiced their questions about the party political line.
This was the case of Hinamoeura Cross-Morgant, a young female MP who has tried to get a few bills tabled in the Assembly.
She was later subjected to sanctions from the party, ranging from suspension to outright eviction.
Since then, she has been sitting as an independent MP.
Reactions from the other side (pro-autonomy) of the political spectrum were also swift.
Nicole Sanquer, who heads “A Here Ia Porinetia” party (and leader of the opposition in the current Assembly), said there were many subjects of discord within the Tavini Huiraatira which were never addressed.
“What we’re expecting now is the creation of a new group within the Assembly. You ask me, I call this the beginning of a political crisis”, she told local media.
Brotherson ‘not surprised’ Brotherson, 56, regarded as a moderate, favours a non-confrontational approach to the independence subject, vis-à-vis France.
He said the recent municipal election results were “catastrophic” and that the Tavini party he belongs to was now disconnected from reality.
He said he was not surprised at Le Gayic’s resignation.
“It was predictable. Tematai Le Gayic has been asking for Tavini’s support for months in his bid to contest (the municipal elections) in Pape’ete.
“He’s not the first one and unfortunately I think he won’t be the last if the party doesn’t react.”
“You don’t win elections through posturing,” he added, stressing the need to stay in touch with bread-and-butter issues when it comes to elections, especially municipal ones.
“Because voters simply don’t feed on ideology.”
He warned that as new territorial polls will take place in 2028, if the Tavini does not address the issue, it would face more “explosive” results and setbacks.
Speaking to local media Tahiti Nui Television on the recent municipal election results, Temaru admitted a few “tactical and strategic mistakes”.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
