Category: Evening Report

Analysis by Keith Rankin, 2 March 2026.

We keep hearing that Iran is an “evil” regime run by “clerics”. This conflation of an unscientific and emotive concept (‘evil’) with a cultural occupation (‘cleric’) is made in the context of picking on an ethnic or religious group of people as inferior. In this context, ‘cleric’ applies to Shia Islam, a major denomination of one of the world’s major religions. In the context of white supremacism, that word ‘cleric’ – as applied to Shia Islam – could have been ‘negro’.

Iran has been attacked by forces representing Judeo-Christian techno-supremacy; western super-elites who worship at the altar of military and surveillance technology. And the mainstream media within the imperium parrot the talking points of these supremacists; supremacists, seeking a unipolar world order (aka global hegemony) masquerading as capitalist democracy and riding on the coat-tails of progressive liberalism.

The West is as much a theocracy as is the Iranian regime. Only bigger, and vastly more lethal; and prone to excesses of cowardly asymmetric violence. (In the present event, one of the first groups of fatal victims were over 100 schoolgirls in southern Iran; most western media outlets have not even reported this.) As well as being a zero-out-of-ten on the scale of political ethics, the attack on Iran was illegal in both United States and international law. Once again, Congress was bypassed.

Further, we note that Israel is the world’s most secretive nuclear power; without even the semblance of a nuclear energy program that might act as cover for this. Why do we never hear about Israel’s nuclear hammer-in-waiting?

At the head of the attacking forces is an American President playing the role of the useful fool; himself being simultaneously played by, on the one side, the manifestly-evil regime of Benjamin Netanyau, and the forces of the Dark Enlightenment among which Peter Thiel of Palantir – a New Zealand citizen – is prominent.

Secret City, and President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

Yesterday I watched the final two episodes of Season Two of Secret City, an Australian political thriller. [Secret City finishes on Netflix tomorrow!]

The story, filmed in Canberra and Adelaide in 2018, was about an innocent Australian family killed from the sky by a deliberately misdirected drone attack; an attack like many similar executions of civilians living in northwest Pakistan, as part of a highly secret US/Australian ‘security’ program. A central point of Secret City was to highlight the asymmetry of western sentiment, whereby the deaths of four white Australians elicit 100 times more outrage than 400 similar deaths in or near Pakistan. In the story, the fictitious American company, Trebuchet, served as an equivalent to Palantir. (We note that last month’s mosque bombing in Islamabad was barely reported in the New Zealand media; deeply ironic given the Christchurch attacks on 15 March 2019.)

The end of the last episode of Secret City replayed extracts from President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, televised in the United States on 17 January 1961.

Note these excerpts from Eisenhower’s address:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

And: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Much can be said about President Eisenhower’s tenure in office. I will note just this. It was Eisenhower who was able to settle a cease-fire of the Korean War in 1953, after the more-than-two years of extremely bloody stalemate – most of the blood was shed in North Korea – which endured under the previous Truman administration. Technically, that war has not finished. But the cease-fire has held since 1953, for as long as my life, and for longer than the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

Is Judeo-Christian techno-supremacy an imperial theocracy?

We note that the ‘First Reich’ – labelled well after its existence – was notionally an imperial theocracy; the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806). But, once created, it was not expansionist, rather it was a kind of Roman Catholic caliphate. Philosopher Voltaire claimed that it was neither ‘holy’, ‘Roman’, nor an ‘Empire’; it was essentially a German-led ‘commonwealth’ which made titular reference to the Church in Rome. It is arguable that the European Union is a Fourth Reich which references the First Reich.

The expansionist forces out of Europe, which have made the modern world – the world of the last 500 years – came from elsewhere: Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Amsterdam, London, Washington. Until the 1990s, those European-sourced forces of dominance were increasingly secular. Whether or not Judeo-Christian techno-supremacy represents a development of these religious traditions, there can be little doubt that world dominance and appeasement is a process of empire-building.

Especially in Washington circles, there was an air of triumphalism around 1990. This was the unipolar moment. Helping to maintain the new unipolar moment, a man called Jeffrey Epstein – an alleged Israeli asset – became a conduit between the Israeli and American administrations in the 1990s. That’s where and when I see the origins of twenty-first century entitled Judeo-Christian techno-supremacy. (On Epstein and Israel, see Starmer, Mandelson & Mossad – it’s worse than you think,Double Down News, Feb 2026; and The anatomy of the Epstein network The Listening Post, Al Jazeera, 9 Feb 2026.)

The greatest ever threat to humanity and the rest of the planetary biosphere

As noted, just about everyone in elite western politics and journalism is now, without analysis or knowledge, asserting that Iran is ‘evil’. Maybe. Though this is little more than believer rhetoric; the rhetoric of religious fundamentalists, the rhetoric of inflammation rather than resolution.

If this ‘evil’ moniker is accurate in some objective sense, then Iran – in the present conflict – is the ‘lesser evil’. The greater evil is clearly the philosophy and aggression of the Judeo-Christian techno-supremacists. Further, the appeasement of this greater evil is itself a most unsavoury thing to behold; almost as bad as the greater evil itself.

(On that appeasement, in a news report on Al Jazeera on Sunday [NZ time], Berlin correspondent Dominic Kane noted – with a straight face – that the governments of Britain, France and Germany all condemned “Iran’s retaliation”; and that Spain, in addition, condemned the American and Israeli aggression. Only Spain had the guts to demur from appeasement. One of the most important forms of  media appeasement is the omission of vital information from reports. According to those chairing the ‘Peace talks’ in Geneva, Iran was just about to present an accommodation which came very close to meeting President Trump’s stated demands, and that the aggressors were aware of this. These ‘negotiations’ were not conducted in good faith.)

The nihilistic logical endpoint of Judeo-Christian techno-supremacy is apocalypse. Indeed many of the ‘Christians’ in the Americanised conflation of Israel and Christianity are fully cognisant of, even excited by, the prophecies of the last book of the Christian Bible – the Book of Revelation.

Nuclear apocalypse – if or when it happens – will not only destroy humanity. Earth stands to become like Mars or Venus, if humanity ends in this way. In today’s circumstances, would it be acceptable to allow Israel or the United States to acquire nuclear weapons; we accept their weapons because they are already there, and because too many of us prefer hypocrisy over moral consistency.

But the Dark Enlightenment is still a developing supremacist project, embedded into Judeo-Christian techno-supremacy. Resistance to it and its premises need not be entirely futile. Worse things happen when good people look away.

PS

New Zealand is scheduled to play Iran in the Football World Cup. How will the politics of Iran’s presence in the World Cup play out, especially given that, in last weekend’s events, Iran was the aggresse, not the aggressor?

————-

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.

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/keith-rankin-analysis-the-greater-evil/

ANALYSIS: By Nury Vittachi

The West is in turmoil over countries’ top legal minds declaring the US-Israel attack on Iran to be illegal, as China did.

But Israel-friendly Western politicians, including Starmer, von der Leyen, Albanese, and others are desperately blocking their ears as they try to justify actual war crimes.

Here’s what the specialists say:

1. The European Journal of International Law is very clear that “this use of force by the US and Israel is manifestly illegal. It is as plain a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as one could possibly have.”

2. Other top European bodies have agreed. “Trump’s strikes on Iran are an illegal war of choice—and Europeans should say so,” said a report published by the European Council of Foreign Relations.

It said leaders must “communicate clearly that this is a war of choice by America, in contravention of the same UN charter the Europeans have themselves invoked to condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and insist on Greenland’s sovereignty.”

3. Arguably even more telling was a statement from the former legal chief at US Central Command, literally the people who are carrying out the bombings on Iran:

“Not only does this violate international law in numerous respects, it clearly violates the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution,” said retired Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Rachel Van Landingham.

Her entire career has been about establishing the difference between legal and illegal attacks by US Centcom, the people doing the attacking.

4. “Trump and Netanyahu’s attack on Iran is an illegal act of aggression” was the title of an essay by Kenneth Roth in the UK Guardian: “Their actions are no different from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine…”

This is interesting as Roth is best known as the former head of Human Rights Watch, a US foreign policy tool thinly disguised as an NGO (evidence for that is in a separate report).

5. The same argument, with arguably even more fire, is erupting in the UK. Unpopular Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, known for his pro-Trump and pro-Israel positions, is being taken to task by people speaking for the British people, who tend to be anti-war and are generally not fans of Trump.

Jeremy Corbyn, elder statesman of the UK left, described the US-Israel attack as “illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable”.

“Peace and diplomacy was possible,” he added. “Instead, Israel and the United States chose war. This is the behaviour of rogue states — and they have jeopardised the safety of humankind around the world with this catastrophic act of aggression.”

6. Even people on Starmer’s own team were clear. Labour MP Emily Thornberry, chairperson of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Press Association: “There is no legal basis for this attack.”

Israel loyalist Starmer pointedly chose not to repeat this point.

7. Patrick Harvie, Scottish parliamentarian, said: “It is part of a pattern of reckless and destructive behaviour from a White House that has shown total contempt for human rights, international law and negotiations… From arming Israel’s genocide against Palestinians to his illegal and immoral coup in Venezuela and his threats against Europe, Trump has acted like a gangster on the world stage.”

8. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, a strong backer of the Israeli government, is also in trouble.

Legal experts in Australia have been pointing out the illegality of the attacks on Iran since last year. “Why the US strikes on Iran are illegal and can set a troubling precedent,” was the title of a report by Professor Donald Rothwell of the ANU College of Law, after earlier attacks on Iran.

Many Australians are anti-war, but prominent politicians and the media are pushing a strongly pro-war line.

9. “Israel said the strikes were ‘preventive’, meaning they were to prevent Iran from developing a capacity to be a threat. But preventive war has no legal basis under international law,” said a statement from two political specialists at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Shannon Brincat and Juan Zahir Naranjo Caceres.

Marko Milanovic, editor of the European Journal of International Law (mentioned above), made the same point. “Even if the broadest possible understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as correct, Israel’s use of force against Iran would be illegal,” he said.

10. The point is echoed by multiple experts. “The possibility of acting in self-defence in view of an attack that might be coming is illegal in international law and we’re all very, very clear about that,” said Maria Gavouneli, a professor of international law at Athens University, in an interview with Al-Jazeera.

11. Even in the US, lawmakers on both sides have criticised the attack on Iran as being against the law. Senator Ed Markey called the actions “illegal and unconstitutional”.

12. Former US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes declared the attack to be an illegal war, ‘A war that has no domestic or international legal basis. A war that Americans do not support. A war in response to no imminent threat. A pointless war,’ he wrote on X.

Conclusion
Immediately after the US-Israel attack began, China’s Foreign Ministry said it was “a grave violation of Iran’s sovereignty and security”.

Legal experts across the Western nations agree.

There is no doubt that the US-Israel attacks on Iran are illegal, as numerous voices from around the world are saying.

Equally, there is also no doubt that the pro-Israel Western elite, who dominate politics and the media, will try to cover up this fact: Trump, von der Leyen, Starmer, Merz, and others.

Trouble is brewing in the West, as people realise just how controlled their rulers are.

Nury Vittachi is a Sri Lankan-born author based in Hong Kong and an independent writer. This article was first published on his X page.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/12-reasons-why-a-huge-split-is-opening-up-in-the-west-over-us-israels-manifestly-illegal-war-on-iran/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan A Mordaunt, Research Fellow, Faculty of Education, Health, and Psychological Sciences, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Flinders University; The University of Melbourne

To most of us, a visit to the local pharmacy feels like a simple transaction: we hand over a prescription slip and collect a box of pills.

What we don’t see is all the clinical judgement that precedes it: a pharmacist spotting a potentially dangerous drug interaction, or a GP untangling multiple conditions before deciding what or whether to prescribe.

This invisible work is precisely what prevents disasters and keeps patients out of hospital. Yet New Zealand’s primary care funding model barely recognises it.

Instead, the system relies on a “hidden subsidy” buried within dispensing fees and retail margins that actively penalises the deepest, most necessary clinical work.

It’s here where New Zealand’s primary care model begins to fail: not in the quality of its clinicians, but in how it pays for their time. Fixing that structural flaw couldn’t be more urgent.

When prevention goes unpaid

Just as pharmacists prevent harm through meticulous medication review, GPs prevent deterioration through time-intensive consultations with complex patients.

Spending 30 minutes with a family doctor can sometimes be the difference between stability and a hospital admission. When it works, there is no adverse drug reaction and no trip to the emergency department.

Research consistently links primary care continuity to fewer hospitalisations. But our funding structures simply don’t reward the absence of harm.

New Zealand’s primary care sector runs on a model where complex, time-intensive care for the sickest patients is financially propped up by high-volume, transactional care for healthy ones.

Nobody explicitly pays for the time a pharmacist spends phoning a prescriber to challenge a risky dosage. That life-saving intervention is covered by the margin on dispensing 50 routine scripts, or by the markup on vitamins and sunscreen sold at the front of the shop.

The profits from simple transactions quietly bankroll the complex care. Far from being an accident, it is a structural feature of the Community Pharmacy Services Agreement.

For GPs, capitation funding models often fail to account for the extreme variation in patient complexity.

A practice in a deprived community serving patients with diabetes, chronic lung disease or depression often receives much the same base funding as one providing mostly routine check-ups in a wealthy neighbourhood.

The clinics doing the hardest work are financially penalised for it. Underpaying for clinical time burns out doctors, nurses and pharmacists. It also leaves the highest-need communities with less care than they require.

---

Read more: We studied primary care in 6 rich countries – it’s under unprecedented strain everywhere

---

Why price caps don’t work

When budgets are tight, governments trim fees and margins. Illness remains. The pressure moves from primary care to somewhere more expensive.

If a pharmacy is forced to increase dispensing volume just to stay solvent, pharmacists have less time for important safety checks. If a GP clinic is financially squeezed, consultation times shrink and doctors are forced to close their books. Complex needs go entirely unaddressed.

Often, this unmet need simply accumulates: economists call it latent demand.

The patient who missed out on a comprehensive medication review eventually turns up at an emergency department with a severe adverse reaction or an acute flare of a chronic condition.

By then, they’re far sicker, and the cost to the taxpayer is many times higher than the primary care intervention would have been. Underpaying for time in primary care is a catastrophic false economy.

Fixing the flaws

Addressing the hidden subsidy requires a definitive shift from volume-based transactions to complexity-based funding.

A pharmacist conducting a comprehensive medication reconciliation for an elderly patient on ten drugs should be compensated for that thinking, regardless of whether a physical product is dispensed. That clinical judgement has value in its own right.

The same applies in general practice. A consultation that prevents a hospital admission requires far more time and skill than a routine script renewal.

Funding models must recognise that variation and properly support practices serving high-need populations, so clinicians are enabled to spend more time with complex patients, not less.

When a primary care professional catches a prescribing error or intervenes to stop a chain of avoidable harm, that action saves the hospital system thousands of dollars. It should be explicitly recognised and paid for.

New Zealand cannot keep relying on retail margins and the goodwill of overworked clinicians to prop up its primary care sector. If it does, the safety net will continue to fray – and preventable harm will eventually follow.

– ref. Primary care prevents health problems from becoming more expensive – why doesn’t NZ fund it properly? – https://theconversation.com/primary-care-prevents-health-problems-from-becoming-more-expensive-why-doesnt-nz-fund-it-properly-275793

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/primary-care-prevents-health-problems-from-becoming-more-expensive-why-doesnt-nz-fund-it-properly-275793/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kenya Fernandes, Research Fellow, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney

Before antibiotics and antiseptics, healers across ancient Egypt, Greece, and China reached for honey to treat wounds. Archaeological evidence shows humans have been harvesting and collecting honey for thousands of years – and for much of that time, we understood it to be more than just food.

Today, honey sits in most kitchen cupboards as a perfectly ordinary pantry staple. But honey has never entirely shed its medicinal reputation. And modern research shows us why: it possesses genuine antimicrobial properties, capable of killing or inhibiting a wide range of bacteria, including drug-resistant strains.

This matters now more than ever. Antimicrobial resistance – where bacteria evolve to survive drugs designed to kill them – is one of the defining public health crises of our time. Infections caused by these resistant microbes are becoming harder and more expensive to treat, creating an urgent need for alternative therapies.

Our new study, published in the journal MicrobiologyOpen, shows honeys from Australia’s native flora might be a big part of the solution.

What did we do?

We analysed 56 honey samples collected from more than 35 apiaries across New South Wales. Many samples came from landscapes recovering from the 2019–2020 bushfires. Most were derived from native Australian plants such as eucalyptus, leptospermum and melaleuca.

We tested the honeys against two common bacterial pathogens: Staphylococcus aureus (golden staph) and E. coli – both among the six leading causes of deaths associated with antibiotic resistance. For each sample we measured the minimum concentration needed to stop bacterial growth. The lower the concentration, the more potent the honey.

We also carried out comprehensive chemical profiling, measuring sugars, organic acids, amino acids, enzymes and a wide range of plant-derived compounds. Statistical and machine-learning analyses helped us identify which chemical features best explained antibacterial strength.

What did we find?

More than three-quarters of the honey samples stopped bacterial growth even when the honeys were diluted to 10% or less. This places Australian native flora honeys alongside some of the world’s most potent varieties.

The most striking factor was floral diversity.

Honeys from mixed floral sources – where bees foraged across multiple native plant species rather than a single species – were consistently the most antimicrobial.

This potency wasn’t due to any single compound but to a chemically rich combination.

Multiple bioactive factors – substances that have a measurable effect on living cells or tissues – worked together to inhibit bacteria. These included naturally produced hydrogen peroxide, plant-derived phenolic compounds (naturally occurring chemicals that plants produce as part of their own defence systems), and antioxidants.

When bacteria encounter honey, this combination acts on several fronts at once. The low moisture content draws water out of bacterial cells, while the acidity disrupts their metabolism. Hydrogen peroxide damages their cellular structures, and phenolic and antioxidant compounds interfere with their ability to function and reproduce.

The strength of mixed floral honeys may also reflect the health of the bees themselves.

Access to diverse forage keeps colonies well nourished. And healthier bees produce more biologically active honey as their enzymes help integrate and activate the plant compounds into a complex antimicrobial mixture.

What does this mean for antimicrobial resistance?

Honey won’t replace antibiotics for serious or systemic infections.

But for topical applications – chronic wounds, burns, or surgical site infections – it is a genuinely promising option. Because honey attacks bacteria through multiple simultaneous mechanisms, resistance is far less likely to emerge than with single-target drugs. Our team is now exploring these applications in more detail.

Australia is particularly well-placed to lead in bioactive honey production. Around 70% of Australian honey comes from native plants. These plants are found not only in forests but also across farmland, regional landscapes, and urban green spaces.

Our findings show that prioritising floral diversity over monoculture isn’t just good for ecosystems – it produces more potent honey. With the beekeeping industry under serious pressure from bushfires, floods, and now the varroa mite, protecting and restoring florally-rich landscapes is critical: for bee health, for industry resilience, and for expanding our natural antimicrobial toolkit.

In the meantime, the next jar of Australian honey you buy may just be doing more good than you realise.

– ref. Honey from Australian wildflowers has potent power to kill bacteria – https://theconversation.com/honey-from-australian-wildflowers-has-potent-power-to-kill-bacteria-276630

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/honey-from-australian-wildflowers-has-potent-power-to-kill-bacteria-276630/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maryam Lotfi, Senior Lecturer in Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Cardiff University

The escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel has taken a critical turn. The strait of Hormuz – one of the most important shipping routes for oil and gas – is facing significant disruption. The strait is the main route connecting Persian Gulf ports in Iran and some of the region’s other oil producers to the open ocean.

The strikes on Iran are already having tangible effects: energy flows are slowing, markets are reacting and supply chains are under pressure. This is not just a regional conflict – it is a global supply chain crisis unfolding in real time.

As an expert on supply chains, I am acutely aware of how central the strait is – not only for the stability of the region but also to the functioning of the global economy.

This narrow corridor is one of the world’s most critical chokepoints – around a fifth of the world’s oil passes through the strait daily. Its sudden disruption represents a “chokepoint failure” – a breakdown at a critical node that triggers cascading effects across global systems.

Tanker traffic has dropped sharply, with vessels waiting in surrounding waters as ship owners reassess the risks. Oil prices surged in response to the strikes and the threat to shipping routes. Analysts have warned that prices could climb significantly higher if the disruption persists.

But crucially, this reaction was not driven solely by actual shortages. Markets respond to uncertainty itself. The mere possibility that several million barrels per day could be disrupted is enough to push prices up, even before supply is properly hit. This reflects a broader feature of geopolitical risk: expectations and perceptions can be as economically powerful as material disruptions.

Because energy underpins almost every sector, these price increases transmit rapidly through supply chains. Higher fuel costs raise transportation expenses, increase production costs and ultimately feed into inflation across goods and services that eventually land with consumers.

The strategic importance of the Gulf states

The disruption is not confined to the strait. Instability across the wider Gulf region also affects the United Arab Emirates, as well as other strategically important energy producers and logistics hubs, such as Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

This dimension matters because the Gulf functions not only as an energy supplier but also as a crossroads in global trade and logistics.

Ports such as Dubai handle vast volumes of international shipping, linking Asia, Europe and Africa. As tensions spread, the reliability of these logistics systems is increasingly called into question.

The result is a shift to more widespread insecurity, where both energy flows and trade infrastructure – things like major container ports, shipping lanes, export terminals and storage facilities – are simultaneously at risk.

Energy is the heart of global supply chains. Manufacturing depends on electricity and fuel, transport relies on oil-based logistics and agriculture depends heavily on natural gas-derived fertilisers. When energy flows are disrupted or become more expensive, the effects propagate across entire networks.

Research on geopolitical crises shows that disruptions to key inputs such as oil and gas quickly translate into broader supply chain instability. This affects production, trade and the availability of goods far beyond the conflict zone. The Iran crisis reflects this dynamic. What begins as disruption in a maritime corridor can become a global economic issue within days.

For decades, global supply chains have been optimised for efficiency. This means that they concentrate sourcing and production in regions that minimise costs. This model has delivered large economic benefits, but it has also created weaknesses in the structure.

The concentration of energy flowing through a single chokepoint such as the strait of Hormuz exemplifies this trade-off. When it is disrupted, the system lacks resilience.

In response, supply chains are likely to accelerate efforts to diversify and invest in alternative energy routes and sources. Countries that are heavily dependent on oil transiting through the Gulf will seek to expand strategic reserves, diversify their import routes and invest in pipelines that bypass maritime chokepoints.

But at the same time, geopolitical instability strengthens the case for renewable energy, electrification and regional energy integration. Expanding solar, wind and green hydrogen capacity reduces exposure to concentrated fossil fuel corridors. And cross-border electricity connections can improve flexibility during shocks. In this sense, resilience is also an energy transition issue.

At the same time, instability in conflict-hit regions can fuel the rise of informal and illegal supply chains, particularly where governance is weakened. These can include things like unregulated oil trading, goods being smuggled through informal maritime routes and labour exploitation hidden within subcontracting chains.

What’s more, supply chains themselves are increasingly shaped by geopolitical forces, as states use trade, energy and logistics networks as instruments of power.

For consumers, this could mean greater price volatility, shortages and reduced choice as firms adjust sourcing strategies in response to sanctions, trade restrictions or security risks. In some cases, it may also mean higher costs over the long term, as businesses prioritise resilience over efficiency.

A turning point for globalisation?

The situation in the strait of Hormuz may mark a turning point in how global supply chains are understood. It has shone a light on a fundamental tension at the heart of globalisation. Efficiency depends on sourcing and production being concentrated in a few locations, but resilience depends on diversification. When critical links in the chain fail, the consequences extend far beyond their immediate location.

This war demonstrates that supply chains are not merely economic systems. They are deeply embedded in geopolitical realities. The challenge ahead is not simply to manage disruption, but to redesign supply chains and energy sources for a world in which geopolitical risk is no longer exceptional, but structural.

– ref. The oil price surge is just one symptom of a supply chain network that is not fit for this age of global tensions – https://theconversation.com/the-oil-price-surge-is-just-one-symptom-of-a-supply-chain-network-that-is-not-fit-for-this-age-of-global-tensions-277277

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/the-oil-price-surge-is-just-one-symptom-of-a-supply-chain-network-that-is-not-fit-for-this-age-of-global-tensions-277277/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Australians are living longer, but we’re also living longer with disease and disability. Half of us now have at least one chronic condition.

As rates of disease rise, so does demand for health care. In the 40 years since Medicare began, the average number of visits to the GP per person has increased by more than 60%.

Now general practice – where most people go first for check-ups, diagnoses, and ongoing management of chronic conditions – is under pressure. In 2024, nearly 30% of Australians said they waited too long to get the primary care they needed.

But Australia has more nurses per person than many similar countries. Removing barriers that prevent nurses from using all their skills could help meet the growing demand for care.

Nurses’ skills are being wasted

Primary care works best when delivered by a team: with doctors working alongside nurses, pharmacists, allied health professionals and other health workers.

When the team can safely use all their skills and training, patients benefit from improved access, equal or better health outcomes, improved efficiency and potential cost savings.

However GPs in Australia are less likely than those in similar countries to delegate tasks tasks such as immunisations, routine health checks and health promotion to nurses.

Two recent independent reviews found that while many practices employ a nurse, most are not using all their skills.

Nurses working in primary care agree. A 2024 workforce survey found only one-third of surveyed nurses in general practice regularly work to their full scope of practice.

Nurses are spending too much time doing basic tasks that others could do, taking them away from giving the care they are trained to provide. About 60% of surveyed nurses said they regularly emptied bins or did photocopying.

Meanwhile, less than one-third regularly provided health education and promotion services to patients, despite good evidence that doing so is safe and effective.

Nurses want to do more. Four in ten said they want to provide health education and promotion services more often.

Nearly half (48%) said they had asked to do more complex clinical activities or extend their role in the past year.

While there is a long way to go, there has been some progress. The proportion of primary care nurses who said they regularly work to their full scope of practice rose from 29% in 2019 to 35% in 2024.

Nurses are being allowed to do more

In the past year and a half, reviews commissioned by the federal government have identified three key areas for reform.

First, the 2024 Scope of Practice Review found confusion across the sector about what nurses can do, and inconsistent rules between states that make it harder for practices to employ their nursing workforce effectively.

It called on federal and state governments to create a national framework that clearly sets out what different health workers can do.

Second, governments and accreditation bodies need to change the way health workers are regulated. Regulation should reflect the activities health workers are trained and qualified to perform safely, not rigid professional boundaries.

State governments should harmonise their legislation – including drugs and poisons acts – so the rules align with workers’ capabilities and are consistent across jurisdictions.

In October, there was a big step forward in expanded and nationally consistent nurse roles. Specially qualified registered nurses will now be able to prescribe medicines.

A funding fix is needed too

Both the Scope of Practice Review and the 2024 Review of General Practice Incentives found changes like these won’t fully succeed without another change: fixing the way Australia funds primary care.

The new rules allowing registered nurse prescribing are one example. Just last week a senate committee unanimously recommended nurse prescriptions should get the same subsidy at the pharmacy as scripts from doctors, instead of costing more as a private script.

Medicare funding needs to keep up too. The current fee-for-service model pays health workers for the number and type of services they provide. This restricts nurse-led care in three ways:

• many services performed by nurses have no Medicare item number
• those that do often have payments that are too low to be viable
• the rules require excessive oversight from a doctor that creates inefficiency.

Outdated funding rules are the biggest obstacle to unlocking team-based care. Among surveyed nurses who sought to extend their role and were refused, the single most common reason was a lack of financial incentive for the clinic.

The Scope of Practice Review also found health professionals in fee-for-service settings face the greatest barriers to working to their full scope, while those under more flexible funding models face the fewest.

The solution is a blended funding model

Under blended funding, general practices would receive a lump sum payment to manage a patient’s ongoing care, with higher payments for patients with more complex needs.

This would sit alongside fee-for-service payments for individual consultations and procedures.

More flexible funding would enable clinics to decide how best to deliver care, including when it should be delivered by nurses.

Most countries with similar health systems to ours already use blended funding, and it was backed by both the recent reviews.

Australians’ health needs are getting more complex, and GPs can’t meet them alone. Australia has a large, trusted, and highly skilled nursing workforce. Governments should act now to remove the funding and regulatory barriers holding them back.

– ref. Emptying bins and photocopying: nurses’ skills are too often wasted in general practice – https://theconversation.com/emptying-bins-and-photocopying-nurses-skills-are-too-often-wasted-in-general-practice-269493

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/emptying-bins-and-photocopying-nurses-skills-are-too-often-wasted-in-general-practice-269493/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Humphries, Associate Professor in Ecology, Charles Sturt University

In many parts of Europe, the common carp is a prized table fish. But the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) is arguably Australia’s most vilified fish. Nicknamed the “river rabbit” for its prolific breeding, carp is blamed for degrading rivers, lakes and billabongs.

Despite its popularity overseas, and among catch-and-release anglers and koi enthusiasts, carp in Australian rivers cause significant damage to aquatic plants, denuding the riverbanks and riverbeds when they feed.

In the 1960s, a European strain of carp entered Victoria’s Latrobe Valley and the Murray River near Mildura, believed to originate from a fish farm in Boolarra, in the south east of the state. This strain spread through the Murray–Darling Basin, prompting extensive research and attempted control programs, including the proposed cyprinid herpesvirus.

While debate continues over management, a question rarely asked is why carp was a strong candidate for introduction in the first place? For this, we need to take a two-thousand-year trip back in time.

Roman troops needed food

Common carp comprises two subspecies: the European form (Cyprinus carpio carpio) and East Asian form (Cyprinus carpio haematopterus). Historically, the former’s range extended as far west as present-day Vienna, along the River Danube and as far east as Central Asia and Kazakhstan.

Archaeological remains suggest carp were especially abundant where a breakpoint in the Danube’s gradient and its tributaries, the Morava, Váh, Hron, Drava and Tisza rivers, converged. For millennia, large permanent and seasonal floodplains provided ideal conditions for carp.

Two thousand years ago, after crossing the Alps and pushing north to the Danube, the Roman army established military bases between modern-day Vienna and Budapest. Across the river, Celts and Germans watched with gritted teeth and weapons at the ready. Although only 240 km long, the frontier needed four Roman garrisons to hold out. Around 20,000 legionnaires, accompanied by families, slaves and tradespeople, meant a population of more than 100,000. And they all needed food.

Fortresses upstream and downstream of the Morava River lined one of the Danube’s largest floodplains. Czech-Canadian fish biologist Eugene Balon argues this frontier marked the beginning of Western Europe’s enduring love affair with carp. Archaeological excavations of these forts have uncovered abundant fish remains, predominantly carp, supporting his hypothesis.

Carp becomes European fish du jour

Whether legionnaires carried carp back toward Rome remains uncertain, but by the early Medieval period, carp was steadily spreading westward. Evidence from monastic latrine deposits (poo, to you and me) has shown carp moving through what are now France, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg by the late 13th century. By 1400, carp was the fish du jour in Parisian cuisine. The “Carpocene” had arrived.

Canadian historian Richard Hoffmann has documented carp’s westward spread, as it followed sweeping changes to European riverine landscapes, especially the rise of water mills. From about 1000 CE, an energy revolution of sorts shifted grain milling and paper production from oxen to water power. Thousands of mill dams transformed free-flowing streams into ponds and races, disrupting habitats and effectively expunging the previously abundant trouts, salmons and sturgeons. These heavily modified riverscapes proved ideal for carp.

This growing dominance of carp in Western Europe coincided with the rise of Christianity and founding of monasteries. Carp domestication in China may date back thousands of years, but Western European aquaculture probably had its origins in 11th and 12th century France, through monasteries and the nobility.

[embedded content]

Christian precepts restricted meat on holy days and Fridays, but fish and laurices (unborn rabbit) were exempt. Monastic ponds, perhaps initially adapted from drainage works, were soon stocked with local fish. Monasteries with their own ponds meant monks could harvest carp and other fish for fasting days.

The techniques of pond construction and fish keeping by the Normans in continental Europe made their way over the Channel with the Norman Invasion in 1066, and were adopted in England. Carp arrived around the mid-1300s, and English monasteries quickly embraced this hardy, tasty and fast-growing new fish on the block.

Carp’s transformation from a monastic delicacy to national favourite in England came in 1536 through Henry VIII. During the “Dissolution”, Henry closed more than 600 monasteries as part of the Protestant Reformation. These changes formed part of the wider political and religious manoeuvres of Henry in England, including his effort to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. Monastic wealth was redirected to the Crown, with lands and buildings commonly purchased by nobles and elites.

In England, fishponds became status symbols, with aristocratic owners keeping ponds for private use and sport. But as pond upkeep lost its appeal, many were leased to commoners who operated them as commercial enterprises. Fish, including carp, entered expanding markets, especially in fashionable London. By then, carp had spread across the Kingdom, outperforming other cultured species by growing faster and reaching market size years earlier.

Carp was now the most popular fish in England, widely recognised for its hardiness, and even appearing in Shakespeare’s All’s Well That Ends Well (c. 1603–06), in which Parolles is compared to a carp that can survive in a pool of excrement. Fifty years before Izaak Walton’s The Compleat Angler (1653), carp was as familiar to the average English person as it had become on continental Europe centuries earlier.

Carp comes to Australia

Fast forward to mid-1800s Australia. Environmental destruction wrought by gold mining, especially in Victoria, was widespread. Acclimatisation societies were founded to introduce familiar “useful” species and “renovate” degraded ecosystems.

For those wanting a fish tolerant of heavily altered rivers, that provided sport, grew rapidly and was good eating, they had to look no further than carp. A fish that had once been on the outskirts of Western Europe, virtually unknown, was now an obvious candidate for introduction to the other side of the world.

The first carp arrived in Hobart on February 22 1858 aboard the Heather Bell and was released into Cascades Reservoir. And so began the story of carp in Australia.

This is an edited extract from Carp in Australia, by Paul Humphries and Katherine Doyle, published by CSIRO Publishing.

– ref. Australians scorn this fish once adored by monks and kings – https://theconversation.com/australians-scorn-this-fish-once-adored-by-monks-and-kings-276278

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/australians-scorn-this-fish-once-adored-by-monks-and-kings-276278/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leonora Risse, Associate Professor in Economics, Queensland University of Technology

Since 2024, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) has been publishing the gender pay gaps of Australia’s largest companies. Now, we have enough data to make some meaningful comparisons – and this public spotlight seems to be paying off.

Today, the agency released its latest employer gender pay gaps report. Drawing on this data, my calculations show the average gender gap in total pay fell from 13.1% to 12.7% between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

That’s based on more than 7,000 organisations that provided their numbers for both years.

While the gender pay gap narrowed in more than half of these employers, driving the overall improvement, it still widened in about 45%.

There are signs that companies are, on the whole, heading in the right direction. But gender pay gaps still overwhelmingly favour men. There’s still work to do – especially at Australia’s major banks and airlines.

Still far from ideal

Overall, today’s release gives us data on 10,500 employers and 5.9 million workers in the public and private sectors.

The WGEA has a target gender pay gap range of -5% to +5%, suggesting an employer doesn’t significantly favour men or women.

Only one in five private companies covered in today’s release fall into this range, compared to roughly two in five Commonwealth public sector employers.

Around seven in ten private employers have a gender pay gap that favours men. And many are still far from the ideal range: a quarter of private companies have a gender pay gap of 20% or more.

Several employers have a gender pay gap in favour of women, but they make up a very small share of the overall picture: only about 7%.

Companies’ scorecard

Of the ten biggest companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), banking giant Macquarie Group reports the largest gender pay gap, at 29.6%.

The Commonwealth Bank follows with a gap of 21.3%, while ANZ and NAB have gaps of 18.4% and 18.1%, respectively.

Among the largest private employers with the biggest gender pay gaps are airlines Qantas and Virgin, with gaps of 40.1% and 45.1%, respectively. This is partly due to the gender mix of jobs within this sector, with women comprising only a small fraction of the highest-paying occupations.

This occupational segregation is a common picture across Australia’s workforce. And it continues to fuel the overall gender gap in earnings.

Men are 1.8 times more likely to be in the top 25% of earners (where the average total annual pay is A$221,000). In contrast, women are 1.4 times more likely to be in the bottom 25% (where the average is $60,000 a year).

The public sector leads the way

For the first time in WGEA’s reporting, public employers’ gender pay gaps are available alongside those of private companies.

The average gender pay gap for Commonwealth public sector employers was 7.5% for 2024-25. This is a little over half that of private employers, at 12.3%.

Among the Commonwealth public sector employers with the largest workforces, the Australian Federal Police report a gender pay gap of 11.5%, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has a gap of 7.3% and Australia Post is at 6.5%.

Among public organisations within WGEA’s target range, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has a gender pay gap of 4.3%, Services Australia records a gap of 3.9%, the Australian Taxation Office is at 3.7% and Treasury sits at 3.4%.

Actions to speed up progress

Pay gap transparency was legislated as part of reforms to the Workplace Gender Equality Act in 2023. This was done in response to progress on gender equality stalling in Australia’s private sector.

These reforms put the onus on leaders and employers – rather than individual women – to take responsibility for addressing gender inequities within their workforces.

The public spotlight is prompting more intentional action by employers. Around two in three employers are now conducting a gender pay gap analysis.

Shining a spotlight

Among employers who crunched the numbers at their own organisation, half detected the causes of the gap and a quarter were prompted to review their performance system to check for, and undo, gender biases.

Roughly a quarter of all employers covered in the report have a target to reduce the gender pay gap.

Evidence from other countries shows that pay gap transparency leads to a narrowing of the gender pay gap, but it’s through men’s pay rising less quickly rather than women’s pay growth speeding up.

This can bring potential risks such as an erosion in morale and productivity among workers: women come to learn how much more their male colleagues earn, while men face the prospect of their future wage growth being curbed.

The pitfalls of ‘greedy jobs’

Discretionary payments – such as bonuses, overtime, penalty rates, shift and leave loadings – are a big driver of the total pay gap, especially in fields such as finance.

When we strip out these extra payments, along with superannuation, and look only at base salaries, the average size of the employer gender pay gap falls to 10% in the private sector and 6.5% in the public sector.

This should prompt employers to review their discretionary payments, to ensure all workers have access to these opportunities and are rewarded fairly.

It also prompts us to guard against the harms of “greedy jobs”, where long hours are rewarded with bonuses and higher overtime pay.

It’s this type of analysis, matched with evidence-based action, that pay gap transparency is aiming to achieve.

– ref. Australia’s gender pay gap is narrowing – and the public spotlight seems to be helping – https://theconversation.com/australias-gender-pay-gap-is-narrowing-and-the-public-spotlight-seems-to-be-helping-276957

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/australias-gender-pay-gap-is-narrowing-and-the-public-spotlight-seems-to-be-helping-276957/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey Martin, Lecturer/Podcast Producer, Swinburne University of Technology

From new releases to rediscovered classics, this month’s streaming list is brimming with both spectacle and nostalgia.

We see a pared-back return to the world of Game of Thrones, a glossy portrayal of one of America’s most high-profile romances, some bingeable courtroom drama, and the welcome reappearance of the much-loved Muppet Show.

Add in a distinctly Australian shark survival thriller and you’ve got plenty to pad out the long, warm evenings.

A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms

HBO Max

At first glance, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms appears to be a modest spin-off of Game of Thrones – a franchise previously defined by dragons, dynasties and spectacular bloodshed.

Instead, this show trades dynastic spectacle for something more intimate and unexpectedly incisive. Rather than centring rulers and succession wars, it follows Ser Duncan the Tall (Peter Claffey), a hedge knight with no inheritance, title or powerful allies. Honour is his only currency.

Travelling with Egg (Dexter Sol Ansell), a prince moving incognito among commoners, Dunk learns that virtue carries little weight in a world organised around bloodline and inherited power. Land and lineage determine outcomes more than moral conviction.

[embedded content]

By narrowing its focus to outsiders, the series exposes how hierarchy sustains itself. Power circulates through status, inheritance and masculine codes of “honour” that reward proximity to authority and exclude those outside it.

The world is structured around male succession and elite consolidation, leaving women largely peripheral in the series. What emerges is not triumphant masculinity, but a glimpse of patriarchal systems that reproduce themselves and limit even well-intentioned men.

Where Game of Thrones asked who deserves the throne, this prequel asks why the throne endures. It shows how the powerful remain powerful, and decency without structural backing rarely prevails.

– Corey Martin

Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr & Carolyn Bessette

Disney+

There are many reasons to be sceptical about this new series from TV super-producer Ryan Murphy – whose track record with real people and events is patchy. But writer-creator Connor Hines’ 1990s fever dream is lucidly rendered, nuanced, and sparkling with chemistry.

Relative newcomers Sarah Pidgeon as Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and John Anthony Kelley as John F. Kennedy Jr crackle together, helped along by Kelley’s uncanny resemblance to Kennedy Jr. And although not a direct facsimile of Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, Pidgeon perfectly captures the aloof, formidable, slightly mean, but enigmatic charm of a fashion girl in her element.

[embedded content]

There are no real surprises here plot wise, but Love Story is more than a Wikipedia page come to life. It captures the limerence of infatuation, the seemingly magnetic connection between two forceful personalities, and the very real trauma of living under intense scrutiny, both at home and in public.

The costuming, sets and music capture the feeling of being at the centre of 1990s New York culture – whether smoking out the window of the Calvin Klein offices or fighting in Washington Square Park. Naomi Watts as Jackie O, Grace Gummer as Caroline Kennedy and Alessandro Nivola as Calvin Klein fill out the expertly drawn world. The delicious nostalgia will bring you in, and the love story will hold your attention.

– Jessica Ford

The Lincoln Lawyer, season four

Netflix

The new season of The Lincoln Lawyer, the Netflix courtroom drama inspired by Michael Connelly’s bestselling novel The Law of Innocence, returns with its core cast intact. Defence lawyer Mickey Haller (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) appears alongside Maggie (Neve Campbell), Lorna (Becki Newton), Izzy (Jazz Raycole) and Cisco (Australian actor Angus Sampson). Prosecutor Dana Berg (Constance Zimmer) makes a guest appearance.

Framed by iconic Los Angeles vistas, from the Hollywood hills to the imposing modernist Stanley Mosk Courthouse, season four shifts its emotional centre, taking on a more intensive focus on Mickey’s ex-wives. They pull together to save him from life in prison. Developed as strong characters, Maggie and Lorna risk their careers without hesitation.

[embedded content]

Mickey’s wonderful classic 1963 Lincoln Continental convertible, highlighted in previous seasons, symbolises individualism. But in this series, he spends more time in his two town cars, emphasising interdependence on those around him.

Previously characterised as a suave operator working from the back seat of his Lincoln Continental, Mickey is now more exposed and uncertain, following the broader trend in legal dramas towards emotionally vulnerable male protagonists, and communal – rather than individual – heroism.

His team and ex-wives never doubt his innocence and pull out all stops in a compelling story of the “wrongfully accused”. They are loyal, and provide the emotional safety one would expect from family. This season is light, fun and easy to binge.

– Lisa French

The Muppet Show

Disney+

The Muppet Show is back – at least for one episode.

A lovingly made continuation of Jim Henson’s original, which debuted on television in the United Kingdom 50 years ago, the new episode features recreations of the original set, format and characters.

Fozzy Bear hurling terrible one liners? Check (or Wukka Wukka). Miss Piggy battling for the Best Diva on Set? Check. The Great Gonzo with delightfully absurd stunts that provide satisfying call backs for trainspotters? Check. Statler and Waldorf (aka the old grumpy critics) providing dry critic? Check. Beaker and Professor Honeydew presenting a particularly experimental experiment? Check.

[embedded content]

Come for the nostalgia; stay for the energy provided by Sabrina Carpenter, the show’s musical guest who delights as a musician and hams it up with Piggy perfectly (all puns intended).

Cameos by Seth Rogan and Maya Rudolph are also delightful, and, like the original series, the vibrant Muppets’ covers of contemporary songs really are the biggest draw.

The only real gap is Henson’s voice as Kermit. While new voice actor Matt Vogel has been in place since 2017, in this familiar context the difference is a bit more noticeable.

– Liz Giuffre

L’Eclisse

Mubi

I’m always pleased to see a Michelangelo Antonioni film become available to stream in Australia. Although I’ve seen his 1962 masterpiece, L’Eclisse (The Eclipse), several times now – and dedicated a thesis chapter to it – it still leaves me at a loss for words.

Succeeding L’Avventura (The Adventure, 1960) and La Notte (The Night, 1961), L’Eclisse constitutes the final piece in Antonioni’s so-called “trilogy of alienation”. This defining three-film run – often cited among the most influential in modern cinema – explores themes of emotional disconnect, and the unknowable conditions of modern life.

Set largely among the modernist architecture of the Mussolini-era EUR (Esposizione Universale Roma) district, and chaotic events at the Borsa stock exchange, L’Eclisse’s narrative centres on the doomed love affair between Piero and Vittoria, played by the inimitable Alain Delon and Monica Vitti.

[embedded content]

Beyond the love affair, however, Antonioni’s film also explores far deeper existential and emotional concerns.

As epitomised through the haunting final seven-and-a-half-minute montage, L’Eclisse is a film enveloped in uncertainty and opacity. Like other titles by Antonioni, the film lays bare the texture of our human condition, capturing the enigmatic, ever-unfolding mysteries that characterise the modern world.

It continues to feel more groundbreaking and devastating with each rewatch.

– Oscar Bloomfield

The Royal Tenenbaums

Netflix

I recall Wes Anderson’s The Royal Tenenbaums as charming but confusing to my 20-something brain when it came out in Australian theatres in 2002. What would I make of it more than 20 years later?

Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) is the mercurial patriarch. His artful antics have estranged him from his family, which consists of his self-possessed wife Etheline (Angelica Huston) and his brilliant brood, Margot, Chas and Richie (Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller and Luke Wilson, respectively). Each child is a prodigy in their chosen domain of art, business and sport.

When forced to leave his decades-long residence at the Lindberg Palace Hotel, Royal formulates a last-ditch plan to win back his family’s affection in league with his longtime companion, Pagoda (Kumar Pallana).

[embedded content]

The time is modern but unclear, suggesting the late 1970s but with props that date it closer to Y2K. Stacks of vintage boardgames and Chas’ Dalmatian mice linger in the Flemish revival family residence, located in an imagined New York City. These elements coalesce with a killer soundtrack featuring Nick Drake, The Clash and The Velvet Underground.

Watching The Royal Tenenbaums with maturity on my side, what hit me was how deeply troubled this family is. Trauma, mental health, neurodivergence and arrested development aren’t so much lurking in the background as front and centre.

The film succeeds in offering viewers a way through familial messiness. It left me feeling reflective, hopeful and grateful.

– Phoebe Hart

Beast of War

Netflix

Australian writer-director Kiah Roache-Turner’s Beast of War is a unique blend of war and shark flicks of the “survival horror” kind. It’s a short, sharp, gory joyride at 87 mins.

Set in 1942, a warship full of Australian soldiers is suddenly sunk on the Timor Sea. Seven men cling to a makeshift raft to survive.

Our hero is an Aboriginal private, Leo (Mark Coles Smith). Among the soldiers are Will (Joel Nankervis), Des (Sam Delich) and Teddy (Lee Tiger Halley). As Japanese fighter planes strafe from above, the soldiers must defend themselves against a giant great white shark circling below.

[embedded content]

Beast of War is visceral. It gushes with affect. Its stylistic trait is close-up after close-up of soldiers’ faces, each one brutal in conveying pure horror.

As you watch, you become absorbed in the shock and horror of it all, but without getting too drawn under. As soon as there’s a moment’s calm, literally rendered onscreen in the lulls between the shark’s attack, you’re jolted with something scary, surprising and gruesome.

It’s also a very Australian film. Alongside themes of mateship and racism experienced by Indigenous soldiers is over-the-top Aussie slang. In one comical line, Des points a puny rifle at the enormous shark surging towards them and yells: “Come on you toothy bastard!”

– Roger Dawkins

---

Read more: Beast of War is a beautifully shot survival thriller with bite

---

– ref. Westeros, Wes Anderson and Sabrina Carpenter meeting the Muppets: what to watch in March – https://theconversation.com/westeros-wes-anderson-and-sabrina-carpenter-meeting-the-muppets-what-to-watch-in-march-276510

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/westeros-wes-anderson-and-sabrina-carpenter-meeting-the-muppets-what-to-watch-in-march-276510/

Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. –

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

When I heard the terrible news that the Americans and Israelis had killed more than 165 children this week in an elementary school in Minab in Southern Iran it took me back to a wonderful day I spent in Isfahan in 2018.

I met lots of Iranian school children and their teachers that day. They were keen to practise their English and ask lots of questions. I want to share that day with you because it was filled with hope, with promise for a better world.

My wife and I were visiting Iran, both for the second time.

Right at the end of our time there we spent a day in Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan. It is a massive square that could enclose a dozen football fields.

Built by Shah Abbas I in the 17th Century, during the Safavid period, it is a UNESCO World Heritage site with markets, palaces and other cultural sites framing its four sides.  At one end is the magnificent Imam Mosque where a string of memorable moments happened to me.

I even saw a most astonishing one-woman demonstration.

We were just approaching the Imam Mosque when I noticed a young woman removing her head scarf. A mass of black hair fell down to her waist and then she began dancing.

‘Is this a protest?’
Rhythmically she swirled her upper body in a circular motion that sent her hair out horizontally around her. I was gob-smacked.

After a minute or two she stopped and started talking to her male companion who had been photographing her. I approached.

“Is this a protest?” I asked, somewhat gormlessly.  Yes, against the clothing restrictions.

Today the courage and determination of such people has, to a degree, paid off. Those restrictions, particularly in the cities, have effectively been lightened.  I have seen lots of footage of Iranian women without any head covering.

I salute their courage and determination and know their struggle will continue.

I also salute the courage and determination of the millions of Iranians who have turned out this week to support their government against the violent assault on the sovereignty of Iran by the racist, fascist genocidal Israeli state and its powerful vassal the USA.

Following the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I saw remarkable footage of that same vast square in Isfahan filled to the four corners with what must have been hundreds of thousands of people. As with millions around the country, they were defying the missiles to protest the violation of their sovereignty.

The inconvenient truth
The scale of the pro-government demonstrations is virtually never shown in the Western media but to understand the contested political landscape that is Iran you need to understand that inconvenient truth.

Iranian politics in the Western view has been reduced to a cartoon, to a Manichean world of black and white — which partly explains why Westerners, most particularly the leaders, fail to grasp the fierce nationalism that has seen millions of Iranians rally round their government as their state comes under an existential threat.

That day in 2018 in that square I chatted with pro-government and anti-government people; all incredibly nice and open and welcoming. Everyone was keen to discuss Iran and the wider world.

There were lots of school parties and both the teachers and their students were keen to speak with us. It was an unalloyed pleasure for us. Iranians are remarkably hospitable, cultured and kind. For me, they are the finest people in the Middle East.

That is partly why I felt sad and bitter when I watched the footage of the bombed-out Shajareh Tayyebeh girls elementary school (6-12 year-olds) in Minab and heard the screams of mothers calling for children whom they will never walk to school again.

The Western empire has a long history of killing children. I recently referenced Madeleine Albright’s infamous comment on the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children being “a price worth paying”.

This is just standard modus operandi for the West.

Protected by Mossad
Israeli football hooligans travel through Europe chanting “Why is school out in Gaza? Because there are no kids left!” They are protected by Mossad, local police and politicians like British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Australian PM Anthony Albanese recently welcomed Isaac Herzog, the President of Israel, who in October 2023 said: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.”

This is as clear a statement of genocidal intent as you could get and Israel made good on it.

Israel, the killer of tens of thousands of school kids, presents itself as a liberator for Iran? You don’t have to be an A-grade student to spot that lie.

Many people around the Western world want to commit the children of Iran into the hands of the President of the United States.

According to US Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA), Vice-Chair of the House Democratic Caucus: “In the Epstein files, there’s highly disturbing allegations of Donald Trump raping children, of Donald Trump threatening to kill children.”

Lieu, one of the architects of the Epstein Files Transparency Act is also one of those legislators who has had access to some of the files still kept out of the public record.

Iranian children have as much right to grow up in safety as our own children.

infamous bro-talk
We should all also recall Trump’s infamous bro-talk with the vile radio host Howard Stern. Stern asked if he could refer to Ivanka Trump as a “piece of ass,” and Donald Trump salivated back at him: “Yeah.”

While they were joking about this “piece of ass”, Trump said he would try to date Ivanka if she wasn’t his daughter. It is a relevant anecdote because we live in the age of American Geopolitical Epsteinism — a world of predators seeking to violate those weaker than them.

You don’t have to like the Iranian government to support the UN Charter and the insistence on the sovereign equality of nations.

Nothing in the Charter says it is okay for powerful white countries to attack other countries.  The West needs to bring its leaders to justice for the crime of genocide not launch yet another war on innocents.

Hands off Iran, Netanyahu. Hands off the children of Iran, Trump.

Eugene Doyle is a community organiser based in Wellington, publisher of Solidarity and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam war. This article was first published by Solidarity on 2 March 2026.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/eugene-doyle-minab-school-massacre-hands-off-the-children-of-iran-donald-trump/

COMMENTARY: By Gordon Campbell

Funny . . . back when Russia invaded Ukraine, New Zealand didn’t wait for Vladimir Putin to tell us whether his acts of aggression were legal under international law. Instead, we immediately decided the invasion was illegal, and forthrightly condemned Russia’s actions at the time, and ever since.

Different story when it comes to the Americans. Apparently, we’re on Team USA when it comes to international law, which forbids aggression against a sovereign state in the absence of an imminent threat to the aggressor.

Repeatedly though, Christopher Luxon told RNZ this morning that it is up to the US and Israel to tell us whether their attacks on Iran are in breach of international law.

Given that diplomatic negotiations were still under way in Geneva to find a peaceful compromise — a process supported by all of Iran’s immediate neighbours — there is no credible case that Iran was posing an imminent threat.

For 20 years, Israel has been claiming that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon, but this threat has never materialised.

Last June, the US claimed to have “obliterated” Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon. (Israel, btw, has a large stockpile of them.)

Unfortunately, the babbling doofus we have in place of a Prime Minister seems to be intent on remaining in denial about such matters.

Luxon appears determined to exempt his friends — the US and Israel — from compliance with the rules of international law that apply to everyone else. So much for us being honest brokers on the world stage.

In reality, letting our traditional allies break international law whenever they see fit, is the surest way of undermining the entire system.

Regime change – how?
US President Donald Trump says he aims to bring about regime change in Iran. If so, that can’t be brought about entirely from the air, no matter how intensive the bombing campaign may be.

Decapitation strikes against the top tiers of Iranian leadership will also not, in themselves, bring about regime change. Others will surely replace the fallen.

Besides, the US and Israel can hardly urge Iran to negotiate a peace, while continuing to kill everyone with the authority to make a credible deal.

In all likelihood, it will take tens of thousands of foreign troops on the ground to (a) topple the regime and (b) protect from guerrilla action whatever regime the US puts in its place.

The last 20 years of Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein should have taught the Americans just how long, bloody, costly and unpredictable that aftermath is likely to be.

Yet here we go again. As veteran political analyst Fred Kaplan put it on Slate:

“It is worth recalling that, in 2003, President George W. Bush sent 150,000 troops to depose Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, yet even they were unable to impose order but instead incited an insurgency and a civil war that lasted nearly a decade and destabilised the entire region.

“It is not clear how Trump’s stab at regime change without any ground support — in a country three times the size of Iraq — will be any smoother . . . [even] assuming the war succeeds in its strategic aim of regime change, the likeliest outcome will be a new dictatorship, a civil war among various armed factions, or utter anarchy and chaos, reminiscent of Libya after the killing of Muammar Gaddafi.”

Do we care about the outcome? Or are we waiting for the US to tell us not to worry out little heads about such matters?

Bombing is the easy part
Before launching this offensive, Trump made no attempt to enlist allied countries — in Europe or elsewhere — in this campaign. At present, this is solely a US/Israeli joint operation, with the indirect help of those states in the region that have American bases on their soil.

So far — cross fingers — Iran has chosen not to sabotage the Straits of Hormuz, a key transit route for oil and gas exports from the region, and a waterway on which global commerce depends.

At this point, Trump is talking of waging a bombing campaign lasting for days, or a week, after which . . . what? Trump has also called on the Iranian people to rebel. (That seems unlikely for a variety of reasons, including the ferocity of the suppression of Iran’s recent “cost of living” protests.)

The mullahs appear to be planning on a longer conflict. Reportedly, Iran has been limiting its initial missile responses in order to conserve its estimated 3000 missile stockpile for attacks on Israel and regional US bases in the weeks and months ahead.

From this distance, and given the internet blackout, it is impossible to gauge where the balance of public opinion currently lies in Iran.

No doubt, there will be elation in some quarters that the leaders of a hated regime are dead or suffering, and that the regime’s survival is now in question. “Anything but the status quo” is likely to be a common response.

Millions of other Iranians however resist the attacks, and have been out on the streets mourning the Supreme Leader. If the regime falls, its true believers will still regard it as their sacred duty to continue to resist, by all means possible.

Even the current elation is likely to be tempered by the knowledge that Iran’s “liberators” — the US, Israel, the Gulf states — do not have the wellbeing of the Iranian people in mind.

Meaning: the last democratically elected government in Iran was the Mosaddegh government. This was overthrown in 1953 by the Americans, who bankrolled a coup and then installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne.

The coup gave American oil companies continued access to Iran’s vast oil supplies, until the Islamic revolution occurred in 1979. In the 1980s, the West also backed Saddam Hussein in his war of aggression against Iran, a conflict that turned into a grinding deadlock estimated to have cost a million lives.

America has earned the hostility of Iran, over decades.

Iran, at a crossroad
Iran has a proud history, and a rich national culture. Normally, the mullahs could have relied on that fierce national pride to unite the country against foreign forces. In addition, Shia Islam has a strong tradition of sacrifice and martyrdom, commemorated annually in the day of Ashura.

That said, the recent slaughter of tens of thousands of people protesting the country’s economic conditions (caused by global sanctions) has put a question mark over how many Iranians will be willing to bury their differences, and fight back against foreign domination.

To repeat: the US had no credible reason for starting this war, and has no credible end game for it.

Over the weekend, Trump has desperately — and absurdly — delved back into history to paint Iran as posing an existential threat to the United States and the region, in order to justify this war to his MAGA sceptics.

Let’s be clear. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Furthermore, its ability to intervene in the affairs of the Middle East has been sharply reduced over the past 18 months.

This hasn’t stopped the US from distorting the relevant history. For example: Trump and his minions have cited the deaths of 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983, and laid the blame at Iran’s door.

For the record, those 241 Marines — and 58 French troops — were killed by suicide bombers, in attacks claimed by Islamic Jihad, a Sunni extremist group only later linked to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia.

These attacks came in the wake of (a) the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and (b) the return of a multinational peacekeeping force to Beirut after (c) hundreds of Palestinians living in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps had been massacred by Christian gunmen, egged on by the Israeli commander, Ariel Sharon.

To paint this terrible episode as being caused solely by Iran is a travesty. Undaunted, Trump has also blamed Iran for the attack in 2000 on the American warship the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in the port of Aden.

Even the US intelligence agencies have attributed the USS Cole attack to Al Qaeda. Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda are Sunni Islamic extremist groups, and were long time opponents of the Shia theocracy in Iran.

I’m not trying to defend the regime in Tehran. The point is to emphasise that there was no credible justification for the US offensive and New Zealand should be backing up UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his criticism of the US aggression.

(Not) going nuclear
As for the nuclear weapons “threat” that Iran allegedly posed . . . In 2015, Iran signed a deal with the US via which Iran promised to forego the development of nuclear weapons in return for the US (and Europe) lifting trade sanctions.

This was a victory for the Iranian moderates within the regime.

Iran also agreed to allow in UN inspectors, who regularly confirmed that Iran was in full compliance with the terms of that deal. However, Trump tore up the deal as soon as he was elected, thereby boosting the hardliners in Tehran who had claimed all along that the US could not be trusted to keep its word.

Since then, Trump has engaged in indirect talks with Iran to re-negotiate a new version of the 2015 pact, and twice Israel and the US have bombed Iran and killed its leaders while those negotiations were still being held.

To the US and the Israelis, diplomacy seems to be merely a trick to lure out into the open the people that they have been planning to assassinate, all along.

Footnote: In Venezuela, the US has taken military action to secure control of that country’s oil reserves. It may well have oil wealth in mind in Iran, too.

If the US can install another puppet in Tehran as obedient as the Shah, Iran’s refineries will once again be at the mercy of US oil companies. No doubt, access to oil will be at heart of any further “negotiations” over a ceasefire.

Republished with permission from Gordon Campbell’s column in partnership with Scoop.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/03/gordon-campbell-why-the-us-has-no-credible-reason-or-credible-end-game-for-its-war-on-iran/

Asia Pacific Report

Iran’s ambassador to New Zealand says the joint US and Israeli strikes on his country need stronger condemnation, reports TV1 News.

Ambassador Reza Nazar Ahari described the strikes as “explicit aggression” and a violation of the UN Charter.

“There is no doubt about it, and it deserves a very clear type of condemnation,” he told TV1 News in an interview broadcast tonight.

In a statement on Sunday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon “acknowledged” the US-Israeli strikes and condemned Iran.

“New Zealand has consistently condemned Iran’s nuclear programme, its destabilising activities in the region and elsewhere, and its repression of its own people.”

Ahari said the strikes on Iran were unilateral.

“What Iran is seeking is, since the beginning, through the diplomatic negotiations and all other measures Iran has taken, is a kind of commitment to multilateralism.”

Iran maintained regular diplomatic contact with New Zealand officials, including Foreign Minister Winston Peters, Ahari said, expressing confidence of continuing bilateral relations.

“Of course, there are difference of opinions and ideas between any other any country in the world. We are in a direct and regular contact with each other.”

My statement this afternoon on the current situation in the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/N1Zdgj9El8

— Christopher Luxon (@chrisluxonmp) March 2, 2026

No plans to expel ambassador
TV1 News also reports that a spokesperson for Prime Minister Luxon said there were no plans to expel the Iranian Ambassador.

“It’s important we have a way of talking to other countries, including those we disagree with,” the spokesperson said.

“New Zealand’s Ambassador to Iran was withdrawn in January because it wasn’t safe to remain there, so the Iranian Ambassador to New Zealand is our best way of conveying our position to Tehran.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/explicit-aggression-against-iran-needs-clear-condemnation-envoy-tells-nz/

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

Paul Scarr, dumped as opposition immigration spokesman by Angus Taylor, has crossed the floor to vote with Labor to censure Pauline Hanson over her comments about Muslims.

The Senate passed the government motion 36 to 17, censuring Hanson “for her inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to vilify Muslim Australians”.

Scarr, a Liberal moderate who worked on the opposition’s immigration policy before he was dropped, was one of two Liberals to cross the floor – the other was Andrew McLachlan, also a moderate.

Hanson has been widely criticised for saying on Sky News “You say, ‘Well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ How can you tell me there are good Muslims?”

Scarr told The Conversation after the vote: “There are people creating division and there comes a time when you have got to make a stand”.

Scarr said he had a close relationship with his “wonderful” Muslim community in his home state of Queensland and with other Muslim communities around the country.

He said he had picked up community feeling about Hanson’s comments at the five Iftar dinners he had attended in the past week. (These are dinners held during Ramadan to break the daily fast.)

“I know the real world consequences of divisive language”, he said. Young girls wearing the hijab would be attacked.

“I also think of the great work being done by so many Muslim leaders and members in the community – supporting fellow Australians in their time of need, seeking to establish interfaith dialogue and looking to give back to the community.

“It is really for them that I had to cross the floor.”

The opposition wanted to amend the motion to “condemn” Hanson rather than censure her but was prevented from moving an amendment under rules for the motion. It then voted against.

The censure was passed with the support of Labor, the Greens, independent senators David Pocock, Tammy Tyrrell, Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe, plus the two dissident Liberals.

Moving the motion the government’s Senate leader Penny wong said: “The words of parliamentarians echo into classrooms, workplaces, communities. They help shape how others see each other and how they see themselves.

“This censure motion is about drawing a line and sending a message to the people of faith in this country, and sending a message to children in this country that your leaders believe that condemning an entire religion is not acceptable.”

Opposition’s Senate leader Michaelia Cash said, “I don’t think that Senator Hanson’s comments were appropriate. Why? Because I personally have Muslim friends. My mum’s best friend is a Muslim. So I have to say, I think that there are good Muslims in Australia.”

But, she said, “the censure is one of the Senate’s most serious institutional sanctions and it should therefore be rare and sober. Not used as a routine tactic to score political points.”

Hanson described the motion as an “absolute stunt” and said her remarks had been misreported without the full context of what she said.

“The people out there will actually judge One Nation and my comments. Let the people judge me. I’m not going to be judged by you at all.”  After speaking Hanson stormed out of the chamber without voting.

– ref. Liberals’ former immigration spokesman Paul Scarr crosses floor to support Hanson Muslim censure – https://theconversation.com/liberals-former-immigration-spokesman-paul-scarr-crosses-floor-to-support-hanson-muslim-censure-277188

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/liberals-former-immigration-spokesman-paul-scarr-crosses-floor-to-support-hanson-muslim-censure-277188/

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

The Albanese government has backed the American strike on Iran, while confirming Australia was not given prior warning.

Federal cabinet’s national security committee met early Sunday. Although supporting what has been done, the government is emphasising Australia is not a central player in Middle East issues.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said after the death of Ayatollah Khamenei was confirmed that “his passing will not be mourned.”

In a joint statement, Albanese, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong said: “It has long been recognised that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to global peace and security.

“The international community has been clear that the Iranian regime can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

“We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson told the ABC: “A coordinated attack to address what has been an ongoing build-up of their nuclear programme is something that’s very good for international peace and security. Of course, we hope the situation is contained.”

Shadow foreign minister Ted O’Brien said: “Our position is clear: Israel has the right to defend itself and Iranians have the right to live free of oppression.”

But Greens leader, Larissa Waters, said: “The Greens condemn these illegal, abhorrent and unilateral attacks. Australians do not want to be dragged into another US-Israeli war.

“Australia’s support of Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal attack last night was disgraceful. We cannot bomb our way to peace.”

A sceptical note from within the Coalition came from Nationals senator Matt Canavan. He told The Conversation “not a single regime change war has left the world a better place in my lifetime – not sure why this would be any different”.

Canavan said it was great to see the Ayatollah gone. “But it was great to see Saddam and Gaddafi gone too. Now things are much worse for those countries and the region. Add the Taliban to that list too.”

Shadow industry minister Andrew Hastie, an Afghanistan veteran, said: “As a veteran of the so-called forever wars, I’m very suspicious about regime change by force. But Iran has a terrible regime – they’re a proxy, they’re underwritten by Chinese and Russian tech,” he told Sky News.

The Iranians orchestrated two attacks in Australia in 2024, one of them the firebombing of the Adass Synagogue in Melbourne. Iran’s ambassador was later expelled.

Asked whether the weekend attack was legal and whether he was concerned this might erode further the international rules-based order, Albanese said those judgements were for the US and those involved directly.

He said he hoped the actions taken would lead to a “swift  resolution”.

Wong said Australia did not want to see the situation escalate into a wider regional war. “We seek the resumption of dialogue and diplomacy”, she said. “We join our partners in calling on all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law.”

On whether Australia had any prior warning, Wong said: “We weren’t told in advance. You wouldn’t expect us to be.

“We are not at the centre of the issues in the Middle East but we obviously play a role in the international community.”

Quizzed on whether Australia supported regime change, Wong said, “We stand with the people of Iran in fighting against  an oppressive regime. Ultimately, Iran’s future must be determined by the people of Iran.”

Australians in Iran continue to be advised to leave if it is safe to do so, which is difficult given the air space is closed.

The government said its ability to provide consular assistance in Iran was “extremely limited”. The Australian embassy is closed.

As well as being advised not to travel to Iran Australians are also advised not to travel to Israel, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, among other countries in the region.

Australians requiring urgent consular assistance can contact the Consular Emergency Centre 24/7 on 1300 555 135 in Australia or +61 2 6261 3305 from outside Australia.

The local Iranian community in Australia numbers some 50,000, with many anxiously trying to contact family and friends in Iran.

– ref. Bipartisan support for US attack on Iran, but Greens say it is ‘abhorrent’ – https://theconversation.com/bipartisan-support-for-us-attack-on-iran-but-greens-say-it-is-abhorrent-277187

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/bipartisan-support-for-us-attack-on-iran-but-greens-say-it-is-abhorrent-277187/

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

When I heard the terrible news that the Americans and Israelis had killed more than 165 children this week in an elementary school in Minab in Southern Iran it took me back to a wonderful day I spent in Isfahan in 2018.

I met lots of Iranian school children and their teachers that day. They were keen to practise their English and ask lots of questions. I want to share that day with you because it was filled with hope, with promise for a better world.

My wife and I were visiting Iran, both for the second time.

Right at the end of our time there we spent a day in Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan. It is a massive square that could enclose a dozen football fields.

Built by Shah Abbas I in the 17th Century, during the Safavid period, it is a UNESCO World Heritage site with markets, palaces and other cultural sites framing its four sides.  At one end is the magnificent Imam Mosque where a string of memorable moments happened to me.

I even saw a most astonishing one-woman demonstration.

We were just approaching the Imam Mosque when I noticed a young woman removing her head scarf. A mass of black hair fell down to her waist and then she began dancing.

‘Is this a protest?’
Rhythmically she swirled her upper body in a circular motion that sent her hair out horizontally around her. I was gob-smacked.

After a minute or two she stopped and started talking to her male companion who had been photographing her. I approached.

“Is this a protest?” I asked, somewhat gormlessly.  Yes, against the clothing restrictions.

Today the courage and determination of such people has, to a degree, paid off. Those restrictions, particularly in the cities, have effectively been lightened.  I have seen lots of footage of Iranian women without any head covering.

I salute their courage and determination and know their struggle will continue.

I also salute the courage and determination of the millions of Iranians who have turned out this week to support their government against the violent assault on the sovereignty of Iran by the racist, fascist genocidal Israeli state and its powerful vassal the USA.

Following the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I saw remarkable footage of that same vast square in Isfahan filled to the four corners with what must have been hundreds of thousands of people. As with millions around the country, they were defying the missiles to protest the violation of their sovereignty.

The inconvenient truth
The scale of the pro-government demonstrations is virtually never shown in the Western media but to understand the contested political landscape that is Iran you need to understand that inconvenient truth.

Iranian politics in the Western view has been reduced to a cartoon, to a Manichean world of black and white — which partly explains why Westerners, most particularly the leaders, fail to grasp the fierce nationalism that has seen millions of Iranians rally round their government as their state comes under an existential threat.

That day in 2018 in that square I chatted with pro-government and anti-government people; all incredibly nice and open and welcoming. Everyone was keen to discuss Iran and the wider world.

There were lots of school parties and both the teachers and their students were keen to speak with us. It was an unalloyed pleasure for us. Iranians are remarkably hospitable, cultured and kind. For me, they are the finest people in the Middle East.

That is partly why I felt sad and bitter when I watched the footage of the bombed-out Shajareh Tayyebeh girls elementary school (6-12 year-olds) in Minab and heard the screams of mothers calling for children whom they will never walk to school again.

The Western empire has a long history of killing children. I recently referenced Madeleine Albright’s infamous comment on the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children being “a price worth paying”.

This is just standard modus operandi for the West.

Protected by Mossad
Israeli football hooligans travel through Europe chanting “Why is school out in Gaza? Because there are no kids left!” They are protected by Mossad, local police and politicians like British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Australian PM Anthony Albanese recently welcomed Isaac Herzog, the President of Israel, who in October 2023 said: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.”

This is as clear a statement of genocidal intent as you could get and Israel made good on it.

Israel, the killer of tens of thousands of school kids, presents itself as a liberator for Iran? You don’t have to be an A-grade student to spot that lie.

Many people around the Western world want to commit the children of Iran into the hands of the President of the United States.

According to US Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA), Vice-Chair of the House Democratic Caucus: “In the Epstein files, there’s highly disturbing allegations of Donald Trump raping children, of Donald Trump threatening to kill children.”

Lieu, one of the architects of the Epstein Files Transparency Act is also one of those legislators who has had access to some of the files still kept out of the public record.

Iranian children have as much right to grow up in safety as our own children.

infamous bro-talk
We should all also recall Trump’s infamous bro-talk with the vile radio host Howard Stern. Stern asked if he could refer to Ivanka Trump as a “piece of ass,” and Donald Trump salivated back at him: “Yeah.”

While they were joking about this “piece of ass”, Trump said he would try to date Ivanka if she wasn’t his daughter. It is a relevant anecdote because we live in the age of American Geopolitical Epsteinism — a world of predators seeking to violate those weaker than them.

You don’t have to like the Iranian government to support the UN Charter and the insistence on the sovereign equality of nations.

Nothing in the Charter says it is okay for powerful white countries to attack other countries.  The West needs to bring its leaders to justice for the crime of genocide not launch yet another war on innocents.

Hands off Iran, Netanyahu. Hands off the children of Iran, Trump.

Eugene Doyle is a community organiser based in Wellington, publisher of Solidarity and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam war. This article was first published by Solidarity on 2 March 2026.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/minab-school-massacre-hands-off-the-children-of-iran-donald-trump/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley O’Neill, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University

Have you ever heard someone claim they have a “fast metabolism”? This typically means they can eat whatever they want without gaining weight.

Meanwhile, others blame their inability to lose weight on having a “slow metabolism”.

But can you actually have a fast or slow metabolism? Let’s see what the science says.

Remind me, what’s metabolism?

Metabolism refers to all the chemical processes which allow your body to function. This includes everything from breathing to circulating blood and repairing cells.

When we talk about metabolism in the context of weight, we’re usually referring to metabolic rate. This is a measure of how quickly your body converts food and stored energy into usable fuel.

To understand how your metabolism works, it’s helpful to know these four terms:

• basal metabolic rate, which is the amount of energy your body uses to keep itself running when at rest. It usually accounts for about 60% to 75% of your daily energy use. It is largely determined by body size, but factors such as age, sex, race, and height may also contribute

• diet-induced thermogenesis, which is the amount of energy you use while digesting and processing food. It usually accounts for between 10% and 15% of your daily energy use

• non-exercise activity thermogenesis, which is the amount of energy you use for everyday movements such as fidgeting, standing and walking. It generally accounts for between 20 and 30% of the energy you use each day

• exercise activity thermogenesis, which is the amount of energy you use while doing structured physical activity, such as going for a run or lifting weights at the gym. It usually represents 10 to 50% of your daily energy use, but this varies depending on how active you are.

So, can I have a ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ metabolism?

The answer is: it’s complicated.

If you have a condition called hypermetabolism, you could technically say you have a fast metabolism. Hypermetabolism occurs where your resting energy expenditure, or the amount of energy you use while your body is at rest, is at least 10% higher than average. Hypermetabolism is mainly associated with medical conditions such as hyperthyroidism, diabetes and certain genetic disorders.

In contrast, there are two conditions which may slow your metabolism. These are hypothyroidism (where your thyroid gland releases fewer hormones than normal) and polycystic ovary syndrome (which affects how the ovaries work). Both conditions can cause you to gain weight because they reduce how much energy your body uses while at rest. In this way, they could be said to give you a slow metabolism.

However, these three conditions tend to arise when your metabolism isn’t working as it should. So if you are generally healthy, your metabolic rate should stay within a normal range without significant highs and lows.

What actually does affect your metabolism?

There are many different factors. These include:

Genetics

We can observe the effect of genetics on metabolism in studies examining weight loss in identical twins. One study looked at pairs of identical female twins who were put on a calorie-restricted diet. It found these twins lost a similar amount of weight. In comparison, the researchers recorded significant variation in how much weight non-twins lost under the same conditions.

Eating habits

What and how often we eat shapes how much energy we consume each day. This is why dietary choices can affect your metabolic rate. However, there are some misconceptions to clear up. These include the idea that eating small, frequent meals boosts your metabolism. Shortening your feeding window may help you lose weight. But on the whole, timing matters less than how much food you actually eat. If you do lose weight, your body may respond by burning fewer calories. This process, known as adaptive thermogenesis, can make losing more weight difficult.

Exercise

Let’s compare two people of a similar weight: one who works at a desk and one who has an active job. Even if neither does structured exercise, the latter may use up to 1,000 calories more per day than her sedentary colleague.

And that’s before you add formal exercise, such as going for a run, into the mix. On a biological level, muscle tissue burns more energy compared to fat tissue. This means doing resistance training, which is designed to build muscle, may increase your metabolic rate.

Sleep

Current research suggests sleep deprivation does not reduce metabolic rate. However, it may cause your body to produce more hunger-inducing hormones such as ghrelin, which tells your brain to eat. But we need more research in this space.

But these ‘metabolism myths’ are still around today?

Yes. Here are three reasons why.

1. They’re easy to understand

If you struggle with losing or maintaining a healthy weight, it’s easier to say you have a slow metabolism than to unpack the many interacting factors that influence weight.

2. They’re embedded in diet culture

Many products claim to boost metabolism without providing any scientific evidence. Some weight loss drugs may increase your metabolic rate, but only for a few hours at most.

3. They’re difficult to disprove

It’s difficult to accurately measure how your body uses energy. This is because you generally consume and use a different number of calories each day. Current methods of measuring energy use can be expensive and time-consuming to run.

The bottom line

Many different factors influence your metabolic rate. So to understand how our bodies work, we need to debunk the idea that people are born with either a “fast” or “slow” metabolism. Our bodies are much more nuanced, and fascinating, than that.

– ref. Can you actually have a ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ metabolism? – https://theconversation.com/can-you-actually-have-a-slow-or-fast-metabolism-275556

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/can-you-actually-have-a-slow-or-fast-metabolism-275556/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University

US-Israeli joint strikes on Iran over the weekend have seen war break out in the region once again and the death of Iran’s supreme leader. Iran has retaliated with volleys of ballistic missiles and drones targeted at Israel, but also several of its Persian Gulf neighbours.

Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones across the gulf, at targets in United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar, grounding planes as a result. This is in spite of none of these nations coordinating officially with the US and Israel in their initial operations.

This is a deliberate strategy by the Iranian government, designed to exact early and substantial costs on its neighbours and overall stability in the region.

An unpopular neighbour

In spite of Iran’s relative size and military power in the region, the Iranian government is not well liked by its neighbours. At best, Iran is seen as a rival, at worst an adversary.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have spent more than a decade in a proxy war over Yemen.

Iran also claimed historical ownership over Bahrain as recently as December last year.

[embedded content]

The rest of the gulf states, namely the UAE, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, have fostered more pragmatic relations with Iran by keeping regular diplomatic channels open and offering to mediate disputes within the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Despite simmering tensions, Iran has never been in a direct military confrontation with any of these states.

So why send the bombs?

Almost all of the gulf states have one important thing in common: they all have security guarantees from the US and host US military bases.

Iran sees this as one of the most effective ways it can retaliate for a few reasons. Firstly, these bases are firmly in the range of its most plentiful ballistic missiles.

Bases in the gulf also have significant strategic value to the US. The base struck in Bahrain over the weekend was the headquarters of the US Fifth Navy Fleet.

Al Udeid Airbase, just outside of Doha, the capital of Qatar, was also targeted with Iranian ballistic missiles. Al Udeid is home to US Central Command (US-CENTCOM), coordinating military operations across the region. It’s also home to 10,000 US troops – the most in the area.

However, Iran is aware of how sophisticated US early warning systems are and likely doesn’t expect to significantly damage US infrastructure.

What’s the aim then?

Instead, the strategy is to make the region less stable and ensure all its neighbours feel it. It’s effectively vowing that if operations continue, the relative peace and prosperity the gulf has enjoyed will come to an end.

Iran is hoping its neighbours will see this as a war of choice by the US and Israel, with them being dragged into the hostilities. Gulf states will be forced to either double-down on their alliance with the US or work toward deescalation.

It’s not clear if this strategy will pay off. It’s possible this could lead to even more military pressure on Iran if the gulf states become more involved in operations.

At the same time, the increasingly strained relations between the gulf states and Israel over the last two years would likely make several of them reluctant to get more involved.

It’s also impossible for Iran to keep this strategy up indefinitely. Even though it has the region’s most extensive and varied arsenal of missiles, at some point it will run out of ordnance. Other countries may choose to just wait it out.

Iran has made this kind of action a signature of its long-held “forward defence” strategy – attacking targets far away from its borders to show the depth of its reach. Using its drone and missile arsenal is simply one way to tell the region, and the world, the regime will not go quietly.

Dragging the whole region into chaos

Alongside this, Iran has a damaged, but still far-reaching network of independent proxies across the region. Groups in Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon are likely to stay loyal to the Islamic Republic and employ long-term insurgent strategies in its name.

The Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah has already fired projectiles into Israel. This has restarted hostilities across the Lebanese border, opening up another front for Israel.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil travels, is another part of the region Iran can weaponise. Already, two oil tankers have been attacked in the strait and the price of Brent Crude has risen 13%.

---

Read more: Trump and Netanyahu want regime change, but Iran’s regime was built for survival. A long war is now likely

---

Put another way, the extent of these attacks are a signal. These are not the same as the calculated deescalatory strikes Iran conducted in 2024 and 2025.

This war is existential for the Islamic Republic. Its strikes across the gulf are designed as a reminder that it will do all it can to drag the entire region into chaos, uncertainty and instability to save itself.

At a minimum, Iran wishes to create political consequences for all involved. The question is whether the regime will survive long enough for these consequences to have an effect.

– ref. Why did Iran bomb Dubai? A Middle East expert explains the regional alliances at play – https://theconversation.com/why-did-iran-bomb-dubai-a-middle-east-expert-explains-the-regional-alliances-at-play-277218

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/why-did-iran-bomb-dubai-a-middle-east-expert-explains-the-regional-alliances-at-play-277218/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology

As Israel and the United States strike Iran, global oil markets are on edge.

Oil prices have begun rising even before any disruption to supply. Oil traders are factoring in the possibility the Strait of Hormuz might close.

Roughly 20% of the world’s traded oil passes through this narrow waterway between Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirate to the south. One oil tanker has been bombed and traffic has all but halted. In global energy markets, the mere threat of interruption can push prices higher.

Oil isn’t like most commodities. Control of the energy-dense fuel shapes geopolitics. Three-quarters of the world’s population live in countries dependent on oil imports for cars, trucks and other uses. Controlling the flow of oil and, increasingly, gas, has long been used as leverage, from the oil shocks of the 1970s to Russia cutting European gas supplies in 2022.

Any serious disruption to tanker traffic in the Gulf would send shockwaves through global oil markets and threaten economic stability. Long queues have already been reported in Australia as motorists vie to fill up before possible price spikes.

As international tensions increase, nations from Cuba to Ukraine to Ethiopia are accelerating plans to reduce their oil dependence and boost energy security.

Half a century of oil leverage

The power of oil became obvious during the 1973 oil embargo, when major Middle East oil producers slashed supply in a bid to reshape US foreign policy. Prices quadrupled, economies stalled and energy security became a central political issue almost overnight. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries have since coordinated supply to drive up prices.

Today, the mechanisms of control look different but the power created by oil dependence remains.

Even before US military action, sanctions on major producers such as Iran and Venezuela have cut supply and reshaped trade flows.

[embedded content]

Current tensions near chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz introduce risk premiums into prices.

Oil markets are forward-looking, meaning prices reflect not only current supply and demand but expectations of what might happen next.

The strikes on Iran have seen prices of Brent crude – the global benchmark – trading around US$76 (A$107) per barrel, up from roughly US$68 (A$96) a few weeks earlier. Because prices are global, political instability anywhere can have economic consequences everywhere.

Who’s reducing dependence on oil?

In 2015, India blocked Nepal’s oil imports, triggering chaos. In response, authorities encouraged the very rapid growth of electric vehicles. Oil imports have begun to fall.

More recently, the Russia–Ukraine war and US strikes on Venezuela and Iran have brought new focus on reducing oil imports and bolstering domestic energy security.

In oil-dependent Cuba, US pressure has slashed the supply of oil. Blackouts are common and cars stay put. In response, authorities and businesses are importing 34 times as many Chinese solar panels as they did a year ago. Imports are 34 times higher than a year ago.

It’s not ideology driving this shift – it’s necessity. Electric vehicle imports, too, are soaring. “Cuba may experience the fastest energy transition in the world,” a Cuban economist told The Economist.

Why renewables change the equation

Unlike oil, solar panels and wind turbines can avoid being shipped through maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz. Renewables are not traded in the same globally centralised way. Power is generated locally and increasingly across many smaller sites.

Russia has long targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and power plants during the war. In response, Ukraine is ramping up renewables as fast as possible, as decentralised power generation is much harder to destroy. As a Ukrainian energy expert told Yale360, a single missile “could take out” a coal power station, while a wind farm would require 40 missiles.

Decentralised power is more resilient, meaning damage to one farm won’t collapse the grid.

Resilience through electric transport

Electrification of transport is a key plank of these new approaches to energy security.

Electric vehicles powered by locally-produced electricity reduce exposure to global oil markets. This thinking is visible in Ethiopia’s decision to ban new internal combustion cars.

China imports most of its oil – much of it from Iran. Beijing has been accelerating its rapid shift to electric vehicles. Last year, EVs made up 50% of new cars in China and 12% of the total fleet. China is increasingly using oil to make plastics, not for transport. Last year’s uptick in imports was due to stockpiling of huge volumes amid global uncertainty.

Australia’s exposure

Australia imports the vast majority of its refined fuels. We would have about a month’s worth of petrol before we ran out.

If wars drive up oil prices, pain at the petrol pump will flow through to freight costs, food prices and inflation.

While the EV shift is accelerating, Australia is slow by global standards. Even as electricity rapidly goes green, transport remains overwhelmingly dependent on foreign oil. That leaves Australia exposed.

Energy policy is security policy

Renewables do not eliminate geopolitical risk. Power grids face cyber threats. Critical mineral supply chains introduce new dependencies – and much of today’s solar panel, battery and EV manufacturing is concentrated in China.

But there is a clear structural difference. Decentralised systems are harder to manipulate through supply chokepoints. Solar panels, once installed, generate energy locally. The vulnerability shifts from ongoing fuel imports to upfront manufacturing dependence.

Oil has shaped global politics for decades because it’s transportable, globally traded and only a few countries have large reserves.

Reducing oil dependence is often framed as climate policy. But it is also vital to energy security and national security. Cutting oil use boosts resilience to shocks and reduces the leverage of other nations.

The Iran crisis may not lead to sustained price spikes. Supply may adjust. Markets may stabilise. But leaders will be rethinking the wisdom of exposure to globally traded oil in a volatile world.

– ref. The strikes on Iran show why quitting oil is more important than ever – https://theconversation.com/the-strikes-on-iran-show-why-quitting-oil-is-more-important-than-ever-277192

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/the-strikes-on-iran-show-why-quitting-oil-is-more-important-than-ever-277192/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bianca Baggiarini, Lecturer, International Relations, Deakin University

In the leadup to the weekend’s US and Israeli attacks on Iran, the US Department of Defense was locked in tense negotiations with artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic over exactly how the Pentagon could use the firm’s technology.

Anthropic wanted guarantees its Claude systems would not be used for purposes such as domestic surveillance in the US and operating autonomous weapons without human control.

In response, US president Donald Trump on Friday directed all US federal agencies to cease using Anthropic’s technology, saying he would “never allow a radical left, woke company to dictate how our great military fights and wins wars!”

Hours later, rival AI lab OpenAI (maker of ChatGPT) announced it had struck its own deal with the Department of Defense. The key difference appears to be that OpenAI permits “all lawful uses” of its tools, without specifying ethical lines OpenAI won’t cross.

What does this mean for military AI? Is it the end for the idea of “ethical AI” in warfare?

AI companies and regulation

Last week’s events come at what was already a worrying time for AI ethics. The Trump administration last year banned states from regulating AI, claiming that it threatens innovation.

Meanwhile, many AI companies have aligned themselves with the administration, with executives including OpenAI boss Sam Altman making million-dollar donations to Trump’s inauguration fund. (Altman noted at the time that he has also donated to Democratic politicians.)

Anthropic has been less effusive, working on national security while warning that AI can sometimes undermine democracy and that current systems are not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons.

An emerging international consensus

Much of the concern around military applications of AI has focused on lethal autonomous weapons systems. These are devices and software which can choose targets and attack them without human intervention.

Just a few years ago, an international consensus about the risks of these weapons seemed to be emerging among governments and technology companies.

In February 2020 the US Department of Defense announced principles for the use of AI across the entire organisation: it needed to be responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable and governable.

Likewise, in 2021 NATO formulated similar principles, as did the United Kingdom in 2022.

The US plays a unique leading role among its international allies in shaping global norms around military conduct. These principles signalled to countries such as Russia, China, Brazil and India how the US and its allies believed military use of AI should be governed.

Military AI and private enterprise

Military AI has relied extensively on partnerships with private industry, as the most advanced technology has been developed by private companies.

Project Maven, which set out in 2017 to increase the use of machine learning and data integration in US military intelligence, relied heavily on commercial tech companies.

The US Defense Innovation Board noted in 2019 that in AI the key data, knowledge and personnel are all in the private sector.

This is still the case today. However, the norms around how AI should be used are shifting rapidly, both in government and in much of the industry.

Trump and Silicon Valley

When Trump was re-elected in 2024, many in Silicon Valley welcomed the prospect of less regulation. Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, author of The Techno-Optimist Manifesto, claimed Trump’s victory “felt like a boot off the throat”.

Joe Lonsdale, cofounder of AI-powered data analytics company Palantir, has been another vocal Trump backer. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman personally gave US$25 million to a Trump-supporting organisation last year.

We are a long way from the days of 2019 and 2020.

AI ethics assumes democratic norms

The question of whether an AI-enabled system is ethical or not is often seen as a question about the technology itself, rather than how it is used.

In this view, with the right design you can make an inherently ethical AI system. This often includes “algorithmic transparency” – being clear and honest about the rules the system uses to make decisions. The idea here is that ethics can be “baked in” to these rules.

The idea of ethical military AI also assumes it is operating under democratic principles. The idea behind algorithmic transparency is that “the people” should know how these systems work, because “the people” ultimately hold power in a democracy.

However, in an autocratic regime it doesn’t matter how transparent the algorithms are. There is no sense that civilians have a stake, and deserve to know what their government is doing, that its activities are in accordance with the law.

Free and public discussion is often seen as a key feature of liberal democracies. While eventual consensus may be valued, constructive disagreement and even conflict can be signs of a healthy democracy.

Decisions and consequences

In this light, Anthropic’s desire to have genuine discussions with the government about ethical red lines is an example of democratic practice in action. The company signalled both a desire for reasoned communication and the value of constructive disagreement.

In return, the Trump administration on Friday labelled Anthropic a “supply chain risk”, a rare designation previously only given to foreign companies, with secretary of defense Pete Hegseth writing that

effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.

Anthropic plans to challenge the declaration in court, as it may have profound economic and reputational consequences for the company.

Meanwhile, OpenAI has largely conceded that it will have no ethical limits, only legal ones. As a result, it is open for business with the US government – but faces reputational consequences of its own as consumer backlash mounts.

AI in a world without democratic norms

What does it all mean for ethical AI in the military? One hard-to-avoid conclusion is that if we want military AI to be used in an ethical way – following transparent rules and laws – we need strong democratic norms, which are in peril as the rules-based international order crumbles.

So far, little has changed in practice. Mere hours after Trump’s denunciation of Anthropic, the US launched strikes on Iran – reportedly planned with the aid of the company’s software.

– ref. The Pentagon strongarmed AI firms before Iran strikes – in dark news for the future of ‘ethical AI’ – https://theconversation.com/the-pentagon-strongarmed-ai-firms-before-iran-strikes-in-dark-news-for-the-future-of-ethical-ai-277198

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/the-pentagon-strongarmed-ai-firms-before-iran-strikes-in-dark-news-for-the-future-of-ethical-ai-277198/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

As the US and Israel began their joint assault on Iran, reports emerged from Iran that a strike hit the Shajarah Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in the southern city of Minab.

The school was reportedly packed with young pupils at the time. Iranian authorities say more than 150 people were killed, including children, and 60 more injured (these figures are yet to be independently verified).

Videos verified by international media show rescue workers digging through collapsed concrete, school bags being pulled from the debris, and scorch marks along the remaining walls.

---

Warning: this gallery contains graphic images.

---

The New York Times says it has verified videos that show the school next to a naval base belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC, and a strike hitting that base.

Iranian representatives at the United Nations have characterised the strike as a deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and labelled it a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Neither the United States nor Israel have publicly confirmed hitting the school. The US military’s Central Command (Centcom) said:

We are aware of reports concerning civilian harm resulting from ongoing military operations. We take these reports seriously and are looking into them. The protection of civilians is of utmost importance, and we will continue to take all precautions available to minimize the risk of unintended harm.

At present, we do not have enough verified facts to reach a firm legal conclusion about what happened.

But given the questions about the legality of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran – and deeper questions about whether we’re witnessing the “death of international law” more broadly – incidents like this illustrate the continuing importance of the law, especially in times of conflict.

Which targets are protected under the law?

In armed conflict, international humanitarian law applies. International humanitarian law is built on foundational principles that must inform all decisions by armed forces concerning what they target:

• distinction

• proportionality

• military necessity

And precautions must be taken to avoid incidental harm to civilians.

So what do these terms mean?

The principle of distinction requires parties to an armed conflict to always distinguish between civilian objects and military objects.

Attacks may only be directed against combatants and military objects. Civilians and civilian objects, such as schools, hospitals and public transport, are protected and may not be directly targeted.

If there is any doubt about whether a target is military or civilian in nature, it must be presumed to be civilian.

Schools are not merely buildings. They are protective spaces, and their destruction can cause immediate loss of life and long-term societal damage.

Children under 18 also enjoy special protection under international humanitarian law. They, too, may not be directly targeted.

This protection is not absolute, however. Any civilian object (including schools) can lose their protected status if they become military objectives. A school used as a military base, artillery position or command post could meet that definition.

So far, we have no evidence the school in Minab was being used for military purposes or that it was intentionally targeted.

Proportionality and precautions in attacks

What, then, if the school was not intentionally targeted, but was incidental collateral damage from an attack directed at the IRGC barracks nearby?

International humanitarian law recognises civilian objects may be affected by attacks on military objectives.

Incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects is only lawful if it satisfies the test of proportionality and military necessity under the law. All feasible precautions must also have been taken to minimise harm to civilians.

So, if a school near a military target is hit, the legality of that strike turns on whether the expected harm to children and the school was excessive compared to the military advantage gained by striking the target.

Also important: did the military commanders take all feasible precautions to assess the effect of the attack on nearby civilians or civilian infrastructure? This includes the specific weapons that are used and the timing of the attack.

Why international law matters

In recent years, we have witnessed a number of countries and their leaders openly flouting international law and the rules-based order. Yet, it would be a profound mistake to conclude that international law has ceased to matter. Even grave breaches do not negate the system itself.

As renowned American international law scholar Louis Henkin famously wrote in 1979:

Almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time.

Henkin’s point was not naïve optimism. Daily compliance of international law remains the norm in diplomacy, trade, aviation, maritime navigation, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute settlement.

Violations do occur – sometimes brazenly – but they are exceptions to an overwhelmingly compliant pattern of behaviour.

The fact that some states breach foundational rules such as the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter does not render international law illusory.

Rather, it underscores the importance of naming breaches for what they are and defending the legal order that most states, most of the time, continue to respect.

If the strike on the Minab school is ultimately shown to have violated the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity, it would not prove Henkin wrong; it would prove his point.

International law matters precisely because departures from it can be identified, judged and condemned.

The rubble of a girls’ school is not evidence that the law is meaningless; it is a stark reminder of why the law exists, and why insisting on compliance remains essential.

– ref. Does international law still matter? The strike on the girls’ school in Iran shows why we need it – https://theconversation.com/does-international-law-still-matter-the-strike-on-the-girls-school-in-iran-shows-why-we-need-it-277196

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/02/does-international-law-still-matter-the-strike-on-the-girls-school-in-iran-shows-why-we-need-it-277196/