MIL-OSI Export

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

Using one lens, you could view the present contest between the Albanese government and the Taylor-Canavan opposition as pragmatism versus populism.

A week ago the opposition, which perennially berates the government for economic irresponsibility, urged a cut in the fuel excise. True, the Coalition proposed offsets, but it was a policy seen as counterproductive by many economists.

The opposition knew it would be popular, however – a judgement shared by the government, which days later announced a cut.

On a totally different front, Special Minister of State Don Farrell had over the summer been in discussions with the Liberals and Nationals about his proposal to expand the size of the parliament. The Liberals were sceptical, although some privately supported it; the Nationals under David Littleproud were in favour.

Then Matt Canavan became Nationals leader and the right-wing lobby group Advance started campaigning against the idea (which has much to commend it once you get beyond the knee-jerk reaction).

This week, Canavan and Angus Taylor launched an attack on the plan. They were playing to sheer populism – people hate politicians. Within hours Albanese, judging the proposal would only bring him political grief, publicly killed it in parliament suggesting, in effect, he’d be a mug to pursue it. He said on Thursday the debate would not have been “healthy for our democracy”, and would end without change.

In the process, Albanese threw one of his most senior ministers under the bus, just like he did with Treasurer Jim Chalmers earlier this term when he pulled the rug from under part of Chalmers’ superannuation tax legislation.

The prime minister is fortunate these ministers are not like Paul Keating who, when dudded by Hawke on policy, didn’t take it lying down. Chalmers might sulk a bit, but stays calm publicly. Farrell, a factional hard man, just sucks it up.

Albanese is bringing his cautious, pragmatic approach to dealing with what is likely to be the worst crisis he will have to face in his prime ministership.

As the fuel crisis started to unfold, the prime minister mostly left the running to Energy Minister Chris Bowen. But a week ago, with the situation deteriorating, the PM changed tack, becoming engaged in a major way. By Monday, National Cabinet was meeting and the federal government announced its excise cut, together with and followed by other emergency measures.

Albanese’s strategy is multifold. Get ahead of the crisis where possible. Be seen to be responding. Try to maintain community calm, while at the same time warning about the risk of things worsening. And bring the public along.

Albanese became preoccupied with communicating, prompting his Wednesday night address to the nation. It was designed to grab public attention – paradoxically, with the PM so visible on a daily basis, “cut through” actually becomes harder.

Predictably, sections of the media panned the address. But that is to overthink it. It aimed to reassure, with the message that people should have a normal Easter, while realistically foreshadowing difficult months ahead. The suggestions of what people should do to save fuel (just take what you need, use public transport where you can) came with the message this would help those (like farmers, tradies and nurses) who have to drive.

Albanese is fighting off fears among some people that we’re headed to a COVID-like situation of extreme restrictions on daily life. He’s been anxious to avoid (so far) the “r” word, rationing, which is seen as having overtones of the COVID lockdowns.

In fact the comparisons with COVID are mostly irrational. COVID was totally different. This crisis might be full of danger for the economy and uncertainty for individuals, but COVID was about life and death. We’ve been through fuel crises before; there was no precedent in living memory for COVID.

Also, what Australia did during the pandemic, at least in the early stages and despite mistakes and excesses, was regarded as positive compared to many countries, in terms of lives saved. But in memory and in light of the lingering effects on young people, the response has come to be seen by many as wrong-headed.

The PM’s Thursday speech at the National Press Club was another effort to get messages out from an elevated platform. One notable feature was his declaration that the fuel crisis would not derail the government’s intentions to pursue reform in the May 12 budget.

Chalmers has been talking about plans to use the budget to advance tax reform and other changes. However many questioned whether new circumstances would lead Albanese to kill this drive.

But the prime minister said on Thursday this would be “our government’s most important budget to date and it will be our most ambitious. It has to be.”

“Economic reform that drives growth, boosts productivity, helps tackle inflation and lifts living standards is always necessary. And in times of uncertainty such as this, it is urgent,” he said.

They may be comforting words for Chalmers; they also set a marker for judging the budget. It’s more than a month away and a lot of its key decisions are yet to be taken – Chalmers has said it will be finalised later than usual.

One area that should be addressed in the budget, or separately but urgently, is a plan to put Australia’s fuel situation on a stronger long term footing. Australia has only a month’s supply in reserve, much less than many countries. Our refineries are down to two. Albanese was vague when asked about the longer term plans for fuel security, saying the government would consider measures “in a practical way” but pointing to the huge cost of going to a 90 day reserve (our international obligation).

The Iran war has shown how easily our position can be compromised. How our supply chains would be placed in a conflict in the Pacific doesn’t bear thinking about. A comprehensive, detailed, credible fuel plan should be at the centre of any “reform” agenda.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: A future plan on fuel should be central to Albanese government’s reform agenda – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-a-future-plan-on-fuel-should-be-central-to-albanese-governments-reform-agenda-278789

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/grattan-on-friday-a-future-plan-on-fuel-should-be-central-to-albanese-governments-reform-agenda-278789/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Dwyer, Research Director, Energy Futures, University of Technology Sydney

As conflict in the Middle East sends diesel and petrol prices skyrocketing, more and more Australians and New Zealanders are showing interest in electric vehicles.

But is this translating to sales? March data shows the answer is yes – EV registrations have shot up sharply in Australia and New Zealand.

Manufacturer order books are filling up, EV subscription services are full and wait times have blown out to months for popular models.

Much of the focus to date has been on new cars. But most people don’t buy new. When Australians buy cars, they tend to buy them secondhand. The ratio of used to new cars is almost two to one. EVs are cheaper to run, but have – until very recently – been more expensive to buy, which acts as a barrier.

Demand for secondhand EVs is surging through auctions and car yards, as cost-conscious households seek out ways to immediately cut costs and reduce exposure to global oil shocks. The Australian government is now expected to introduce fuel rationing after Easter.

Fuel price pain is driving the change

The Iran conflict has triggered the second global oil crisis in the past five years. The first was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which drove major disruption to oil markets. If the Iran war drags on, this crisis could be far larger. The International Energy Agency expects this crisis to be much bigger than the 2022 crisis and the oil shocks of the 1970s.

The Australian government has responded by temporarily halving fuel excise tax, just as it did in 2022. This will give immediate relief, but will do nothing if supply tightens as expected this month.

The oil crisis comes as many people struggle in earnest with the cost of living. Fuel is a major expense, especially in car-dependent regional towns and outer suburbs. Many early EV adopters live in outer suburbs of major cities, where cars are the main mode of transport.

Since the start of the war, petrol prices have increased by about 80 cents per litre and diesel by more than a dollar a litre. For those who need a weekly fill of 50 to 60 litres, this would equate to an extra $40 to $50 for petrol or an extra $50 to $60 for diesel.

Fuel prices are expected to make food and many other products and services more expensive. It’s small wonder more people are looking for cheaper alternatives – especially for households where other forms of transport aren’t viable.

Secondhand EVs in demand

By world standards, Australia has been slow to take up battery electric vehicles. Sales hit 8% of new car sales late last year (14% including plug-in hybrid vehicles).

One reason for this is that EVs have long been more expensive than their combustion engine equivalents. The upfront price difference has dropped rapidly, but is still a deterrent.

That’s why used EVs are now in such demand as a way for households under financial strain to get access. EVs were already much cheaper to run than combustion engine cars, even before the oil crisis. The difference is now even starker, especially for those who can charge at home.

It has taken time for a secondhand market in EVs to develop. The cars for sale now are often coming from expired novated lease agreements, or from government and corporate fleets once they are replaced as part of regular fleet renewal cycles.

Lower income households need support to shift

To date, Australia has offered little targeted support to encourage lower income households to switch to electric vehicles. This means the current trends are both significant and fragile.

Overseas, governments in parts of Europe and the United States have more actively encouraged uptake.

France has pioneered social leasing since 2024 to address affordability barriers for EVs targeting low and middle income households. It works by offering eligible households a new EV from A$170 per month with no upfront deposit, made possible through government subsidies of up to A$12,000 to reduce the total cost. At the end of the lease period, the car can be purchased outright or returned to the dealer.

In the US, Washington State’s EV Instant Rebate Program included social leasing provisions which helped 4,000 lower income households get an EV. Of these, almost 90% said they would not have been able to purchase the EV without the rebate.

These approaches could work to encourage uptake among households who would benefit most from going electric in both Australia and New Zealand. For many households and small businesses, private vehicles are a lifeline and the only option available. But for many, secondhand or more affordable EVs are still unaffordable.

This week, Australia’s clean energy bank announced a $100m program of discounted car loans to reduce the cost of finance for new and used EVs. These types of initiatives are a good start, but more will be needed to expand access to new and used EVs.

New measures could include targeted financial incentives to improve affordability and broaden access (including encouraging carmakers to bring more affordable and smaller EVs to market), a commitment from all levels of government to continue to expand EVs within their fleets, and consistent national policy to avoid boom and bust cycles in what’s still an emerging market. Over time, these measures would boost the supply of secondhand EVs.

While temporary cuts to fuel duty will reduce fuel bills in the short term, they won’t be enough. Coordinated action, tailored incentives and consistent policy will be needed to support households and businesses in going electric while making sure no-one is left behind.

– ref. Fuel prices are driving more Australians to EVs – and secondhand cars are in high demand – https://theconversation.com/fuel-prices-are-driving-more-australians-to-evs-and-secondhand-cars-are-in-high-demand-279835

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/fuel-prices-are-driving-more-australians-to-evs-and-secondhand-cars-are-in-high-demand-279835/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice Chancellor’s Fellow, La Trobe University

Last week, the International Olympic Committee announced it will determine whether athletes are eligible for women’s events by mandating a once-in-a-lifetime screening for the male-determining gene, SRY.

But this new rule raises many questions – about why “female” is being defined this way, whether there is evidence trans women have an advantage, and whether a “level playing field” in sport is even possible.

Testing for sex

In humans and other mammals, the SRY gene determines sex in the early embryo. This gene kickstarts the development of testes and their production of androgens – male hormones (testosterone and its derivatives), which drive male development.

The SRY gene lies on the Y chromosome. Males have an X and a Y chromosome, whereas females have two X chromosomes.

Over the decades, sex tests changed from anatomical inspection to using microscopes to detect the second X in women or the Y chromosome in men. But testing was slow, and misdiagnosed athletes with sex chromosome variation.

So a test was developed to detect the SRY gene directly. This is the test the International Olympic Committee will use.

But it’s not as simple to determine “male” or “female” as you might think. The SRY gene activates a network of dozens of genes that promote testis development or block ovary formation. Variation in any of these genes can produce girls with SRY or boys with no SRY.

Indeed, the scientist who co-discovered the SRY gene has warned that this test misdiagnoses athletes with variant sex genes and chromosomes.

For example, some women have an inactive form of the SRY gene that does not induce testis development. Other women have a typical SRY gene, and testes that produce androgens, but have an inactive form of the molecule that activates androgens, so their bodies can’t use male hormones. The SRY test would misdiagnose these women as biological males and ban them.

Likewise, there are men with two X chromosomes who lack SRY but have other variant genes that override it. According to the SRY test they would be allowed to compete in Olympic women’s events.

The International Olympic Committee test must take account of these variants.

What is the evidence for male advantage in sport?

Over decades, physiological studies have shown men have, on average, larger hearts, more efficient lung function and greater muscle mass than women.

As for any trait, there are wide distributions that overlap – for example, there are tall women and short men. However, on average, there can be no doubt men are bigger and stronger than women.

Recent evidence implies that these differences are just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly all our 20,000-odd genes are not on the Y chromosome and are shared by both sexes. But research in 2017 shows that nearly one-third of our 20,000 genes act differently in men and women. Not just in reproductive tissues, but in heart, lungs, brain – everywhere. The same sex differences are seen in monkeys and are apparent before birth.

In three kinds of muscle cells, 2,100 genes work differently in men and women. So sex differences are much more profound than we had appreciated.

Traditionally, these differences have been attributed to the powerful effects of androgens on development at every stage – in the embryo, through childhood and particularly at puberty.

But experiments with mice with genetically manipulated sex chromosomes have showed many fundamental aspects of physiology – such as fat and energy metabolism – are associated not with SRY or hormones, but with the number of X chromosomes.

And the ongoing health advantages provided by the Y chromosome can be seen by the negative effects when men lose it in some cells as they age.

So there are major sex differences in function in every tissue, and it’s not all due to hormones.

But what’s the evidence for transgender advantage in sport?

This is much less clear.

Transitioning from male to female requires hormone replacement. This means suppressing androgens and taking oestrogen, which is much more active in females.

This dramatically changes the body. A trans woman taking oestrogen will develop breasts and more body fat, and lose muscle mass. Her testes will also atrophy.

Trans girls may also take puberty blockers before going through male puberty. These medications stop the body producing the surge of androgens that leads to irreversible physical changes.

So the question of whether trans women athletes have a physical advantage over cis women comes down to understanding what irreversible sex differences took place before and during puberty to organ growth and function, as well as any ongoing non-hormonal differences that might affect function in relevant tissues.

Here the evidence is contradictory, and varies according to when and how someone transitioned. Some studies show significant differences in performance indicators and others don’t. There is some agreement that trans women have, on average, longer limbs, a stronger hand grip and greater muscle mass. But after two years, their cardiac and respiratory function resembles that of cis women.

We have no data on gene activity in trans women athletes, so there are questions we can’t answer. Do the 2,100 genes in their muscle cells revert to a female pattern of activity? Do other genes on the Y chromosome protect their heart and kidney function? Does the lack of a second X improve their fat and energy metabolism?

Where is this level playing field?

So where does this leave the International Olympics Committee ban on transgender athletes? Do we need more data? Do we need to modify our thinking?

I would expect more data would just confirm that trans women who went through male puberty do, on average, have some advantages in organ size and function that are not reversible by hormone therapy or are hormone-independent. Even if transition was before puberty, non-hormone effects apparent in the early embryo probably manifest as more subtle differences in performance.

These differences may be slight. But cis women may contend they are significant in elite sports, where competitors can win medals by running or swimming 0.01 seconds faster than everyone else.

Like many attempts to regulate human behaviour, this ban founders on human variability.

Further complicating things, there is already great physical variation among cisgender athletes in the very attributes that make them excel at sport. For instance, variation in androgen levels has already provoked calls to ban hyper-androgenised women and to mandate allowable hormone levels.

This gets a bit ridiculous – do we ban exceptionally tall women from playing basketball?

Participation in sport is important for health and social connections. Sometimes it’s a lifesaver for trans women.

So discussing alternatives – such as open competitions that run alongside the Olympics, or categories based on something other than sex – remains crucial.

But maybe we need to admit that the playing field in sport can never be truly level. Elite athletes are probably off the charts in many physical and physiological attributes. Is this fair on the rest of us?

– ref. Do trans women have an advantage in sport? The genetics of sex are complex – https://theconversation.com/do-trans-women-have-an-advantage-in-sport-the-genetics-of-sex-are-complex-279647

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/do-trans-women-have-an-advantage-in-sport-the-genetics-of-sex-are-complex-279647/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Thomas, Professor of Public Health, Deakin University

More than 1,000 days after the release of the Murphy report, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally announced decisive action on tackling gambling advertising in Australia.

In mid-2023, the late Labor MP Peta Murphy presented a report that recommended a ban on gambling advertising due to the harms caused by those ads on TV, at sports venues and online.

Despite widespread cross-party support for the recommendations, Albanese failed to commit to any action – until this week.

So, what are the changes, do they go far enough and will they work?

What did the Murphy report recommend?

Murphy made 31 recommendations in her 2023 report, You win some, you lose more.

Its terms of reference covered online gambling, with Murphy calling for a

phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media, broadcast and online, that leaves no room for circumvention.

The report was broadly supported by all sides of politics, but many were left frustrated by Albanese’s delay in pushing tangible reforms.

What are the new reforms?

After almost three years, Albanese told the National Press Club in Canberra on Thursday he was implementing several restrictions to “minimise children’s exposure to gambling harm”. These are

• restricting gambling advertising on broadcast television to no more than three ads each hour between 6am-8:30pm, with a complete ban during live sport broadcasts within those hours

• banning gambling ads on the radio during school drop-off and pick up times (8am-to 9am and 3pm-4pm)

• banning gambling ads through online platforms, unless people have a logged-in account, are over 18 and have the option to opt out of gambling advertising

• banning the use of celebrities and sports players in gambling ads, along with odds-style ads targeting sports fans

• banning gambling ads in sports venues and on players’ and officials’ uniforms.

Albanese said:

We’re getting the balance right here, letting adults have a punt if they want to but also making sure Australian children don’t see betting ads everywhere they look. What we don’t want is kids growing up thinking that footy and gambling are the same thing.

The government will also look to crack down on online “pocket pokies”, offshore gambling providers and also strengthen BetStop – the national self-exclusion register.

He said his government would aim to enforce these changes from January 1, 2027.

So, will they work?

Australians gamble the highest amount per capita globally: more than $30 billion annually.

But research shows the majority of Australians wanted action on gambling ads: about 75% supported a total ban, while about 80% supported a ban on social media, online, in stadiums and on players’ uniforms.

The proposed measures fall well short of the comprehensive reforms recommended by Murphy.

Sure, this is a step in the right direction. But it’s a pretty small and underwhelming one – the government is offering a diluted package of gambling reforms.

Young people in Australia are growing up in environments saturated with betting promotions, normalised through sport, media and digital platforms. Our research shows young people see gambling advertising “everywhere” and think it can be highly influential in shaping attitudes and encouraging gambling.

The proposed reforms do little to address this exposure in a meaningful way.

Limiting ads to three per hour during the day on television does little to reduce children’s exposure to gambling ads. It just regulates the pace of the exposure. A child watching afternoon or early evening programming will still be exposed to a steady stream of gambling messages.

Likewise, banning ads during live sport sounds significant but only applies within certain hours, leaving ample opportunity for exposure before and after games, and across other programming and media channels.

Perhaps most concerning is what these reforms do not include.

There is no comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, despite this being a central recommendation of the Murphy report. Without such a ban, the industry retains significant freedom to continue promoting its products – simply shifting strategies across platforms, time slots and formats to maintain reach.

And while the reforms focus on banning celebrities and athletes in gambling advertising, they miss how marketing is already evolving.

Young people consistently tell us that influencer content embedded into their social media feeds can be even more powerful than traditional celebrity endorsements. They say influencer promotions feel more relatable, more authentic, and are often harder to recognise than advertising.

They are exactly the kinds of strategies the industry will continue to lean into.

The problem with partial regulation

The most fundamental problem with partial regulation is that industries adapt. Online gambling is a high-tech industry that has demonstrated on multiple occasions that when one channel is restricted, marketing spending flows into another.

Without a comprehensive approach, including a national regulator to set the rules, these reforms risk creating an illusion of action.

Research is already showing us how quickly these strategies shift. As traditional sports betting audiences become more regulated, our recent research shows how the industry is increasingly targeting women through lifestyle branding, influencer marketing, and the integration of gambling into social and digital spaces.

The inconsistencies in the policy also raise an important question: if gambling promotions are deemed harmful enough to be removed from stadiums and player uniforms, why are they still acceptable across other forms of media that children consume daily?

What we are seeing is not a bold public health response but a cautious, politically palatable compromise. It allows the government to claim it is acting, while avoiding more substantive reforms that would likely face resistance from the gambling industry, sporting codes, and broadcasters.

Peta Murphy was serious about protecting young Australians from gambling industry harm. The government’s proposed reforms fail the Murphy test.

– ref. ‘Small and underwhelming’: Albanese’s gambling reforms won’t do much to reduce harm – https://theconversation.com/small-and-underwhelming-albaneses-gambling-reforms-wont-do-much-to-reduce-harm-279847

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/small-and-underwhelming-albaneses-gambling-reforms-wont-do-much-to-reduce-harm-279847/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Elms, Senior Lecturer, School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology

The global economy is undergoing major transformation as artificial intelligence (AI) filters into almost every industry – reshaping business models and investment decisions.

For those who sit on a company’s board, setting overall strategy and holding management to account, the shift is raising the bar on what’s required. Board members need to understand the new technology they’re investing in. They must also be equipped to oversee complex technological risks.

Given this, you’d expect to see large companies stacking their boards with directors who have science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) expertise. But that isn’t the case.

Our new research shows that at the largest 500 listed companies in Australia, many boards lack members with sufficient technological expertise. More than half had no directors with STEM expertise on their board.

Here’s why that’s a problem – and why all of us have a stake in fixing it.

What we found

We examined the backgrounds and expertise of directors from the largest 500 firms listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) and compared board composition in 2007 to 2022.

We were interested in whether the number of directors with STEM expertise had increased to match the significant technological advancements that had taken place over that time.

We were surprised by the results.

We found the backgrounds and expertise of directors from Australia’s largest firms changed very little over 15 years. Directors with STEM expertise remained underrepresented on boards, increasing from 8% to just 13% over the period.

By comparison, directors with backgrounds in the traditional fields of accounting, banking and law occupied 42% of board seats (up from 40% in 2007). Directors with “C-suite” experience – roles such as chief executive officer, chief financial officer and so on – made up 35% of all board positions in 2022.

Even in industries with a scientific focus, such as technology and health care, we found accountants and bankers still outnumbered directors with STEM expertise.

Our study only goes up to 2022, when AI was relatively new on the scene. But newer data suggest the picture hasn’t changed much.

The 2025 Watermark Search International Board Diversity Index (which covers the largest 300 companies on the ASX) paints a similar picture. Directors with expertise in accounting, financial, legal or general management backgrounds still dominated boards (75%).

Why is this a problem?

Research shows corporate strategy and investment decisions are shaped by the backgrounds and characteristics of the top management team – including board members.

Our research makes a clear case for getting more STEM expertise into the boardroom. We found companies with greater STEM representation on their boards invested more in innovation and investors valued them more highly.

This aligns with other research, which shows “innovativeness” is linked to better company performance, growth and survival.

STEM expertise becomes even more valuable in low-tech industries or companies where the chief executive doesn’t have a STEM background. Here, a director can step in to provide technical expertise and fill critical gaps in innovation strategy and capabilities.

Australia is falling behind

On innovation more broadly, Australia is falling behind many of its peers. A recent independent report the federal government commissioned found Australia’s research and innovation system was “broken” and needed significant reform.

But Australia still wants to be an innovation leader. This week, the federal government and global AI giant Anthropic signed a memorandum of understanding, backing plans to expand Australia’s AI infrastructure and attract big tech to Australia. Anthropic has previously announced it will open an office in Sydney this year.

At the same time, data centre operators are attracting high-profile investors and billions in investment.

There is clearly a strong appetite to invest in innovation and Australian firms that are willing to embrace it. The question is whether boards are adequately equipped to make the most of this momentum.

Managing risks

A lack of STEM expertise doesn’t just limit firms’ innovation, it also increases their exposure to cyber risks. With a cyber attack reported in Australia every six minutes this has become one of the biggest threats to business growth and profits.

Major breaches have repeatedly made headlines in recent years, placing added pressure on boards to have robust cybersecurity measures in place.

Regulators, including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, have reinforced this message, cautioning boards that cybersecurity is their responsibility.

In the new global economy shaped by the opportunities of AI and the threat of cyberattacks, technology is no longer a back-office function. It’s at the forefront of company policy and strategy.

To keep pace with this shift, companies should look to bring more technical expertise to the boardroom. All their customers, employees and suppliers – and Australians as a whole – have a stake in whether the boards get this right.

– ref. In the age of AI, why do Australian company boards have so few technology experts? – https://theconversation.com/in-the-age-of-ai-why-do-australian-company-boards-have-so-few-technology-experts-279752

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/in-the-age-of-ai-why-do-australian-company-boards-have-so-few-technology-experts-279752/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University

Invasions of ancient Persia were always daunting tasks. They often led to disaster.

In the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, the Persian empire came to dominate a vast and varied geography with Iran at its heart.

Comprising modern Iran, Iraq, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and parts of other neighbouring countries, the Persian Empire was established and ruled by the Achaemenids. This powerful dynasty lasted all the way to about 330 BCE when Alexander the Great defeated its last ruler, Darius III.

But in the early days of this Achaemenid Persian expansion (546 BCE), the legendary King Croesus (from Lydia, in western Turkey) decided to challenge it.

Reputedly the richest man in the world, Croesus consulted the famed Oracle of Apollo at Delphi (in Greece). The oracle, according to ancient writer Herodotus, told Croesus:

that if he should send an army against the Persians he would destroy a great empire.

Croesus’ subsequent invasion and defeat by the Persian king, Cyrus, saw the destruction of his own empire. The oracle accurately foretold the outcome but not as Croesus had hoped.

Croesus wasn’t the last ruler to invade Persia and realise he’d bitten off more than he could chew.

From the 6th century BCE to the 4th century CE, Greeks and Romans invaded Persia multiple times. The risks were high, the logistics complicated.

In fact – as US President Donald Trump is now discovering – wars like these, in this part of the world, are a lot easier to start than they are to end.

Complex and high-risk

The vast resources and manpower of the Achaemenid empire, together with its varied geography, made any invasion of Persia complex and high-risk.

When Alexander the Great (also known as Alexander III of Macedon) invaded in 334 BCE, he led stunning military successes against the Persians over the next few years.

But by the time of his premature death in Babylon in 323 BCE, organisation of the vast territory he had conquered was a hodge-podge of short-term arrangements.

Over time, the memory of Alexander in the Iranian territories he conquered was one of contempt. The Persian territory he conquered couldn’t be held by his successors.

Around 70 years after Alexander’s death, a new dynasty emerged in Iran.

Known as the Arsacid Parthians, they would dominate much of the former Achaemenid territory for centuries.

The Arsacid Parthians became the key rivals of the Romans as they (the Romans) expanded further east from the 1st century BCE onwards.

The first invasion of the Parthian empire by the Romans ended in total disaster – for the Romans.

The Roman general Crassus invaded Parthian imperial territory in southern Turkey in 53 BCE. The Parthian army annihilated Crassus’ forces near the city of Carrhae. Around 20,000 Roman soldiers died (including Crassus and his son) and 10,000 were captured.

This disaster would live in the Roman memory for centuries.

‘A source of constant wars and great expense’

Even when Roman invasions of the Parthian empire in the 2nd century CE were successful, there was often a sting in the tail. The emperor Trajan invaded all the way to the Persian Gulf in 116/117 CE but couldn’t hold any of his gains.

Later in the 2nd century CE, Roman invasions of the Parthian empire did see territorial gains in Mesopotamia (southern Turkey).

But one contemporary Roman writer, Cassius Dio, thought these gains were more trouble than they were worth:

He [emperor Septimius Severus] used to declare that he had added a vast territory to the empire and had made it a bulwark of Syria. On the contrary, it is shown by the facts themselves that this conquest has been a source of constant wars and great expense to us.

From loss to ultimate humiliation

In the 3rd century CE, the Sasanian dynasty took control of Iran and Mesopotamia from the Parthians. The Sasanian Persians inflicted serious defeats on invading Roman armies in the centuries ahead.

The Roman emperor Gordian III died in battle against the Sasanians in 244 CE. He led a large-scale invasion of the Persian empire but died trying to attack the capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon. His successor (Philip I) signed a humiliating peace treaty to ransom what was left of the army.

But the ultimate humiliations for Roman emperors were yet to come.

In 260 CE, the emperor Valerian was captured by the Persian king, Shapur I.

Legendary accounts claimed Valerian served as a footstool for Shapur when he mounted his horse.

Rock reliefs from the 3rd century depicting Valerian and Philip I in subjection to Shapur survive in Iran to this day.

Around a century later, the emperor Julian died while invading the Persian empire. Leading an army of 60,000 men, Julian suffered a heavy defeat and was killed north of the Persian capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

The ensuing peace treaty saw Rome lose key territory and fortresses in northern Mesopotamia.

It would take more than a century for Rome to recover from this defeat.

Most ancient invasions of the Persian empire caused serious problems for those who prosecuted them.

The varied and sometimes harsh nature of the geography was an important factor. The national resolve and military preparedness were others.

While the current US-Israel war against Iran is different in many ways to ancient wars directed at Persia, the 3rd-century Sasanian rock reliefs are reminders of what can go wrong.

– ref. An ancient oracle warned invading Persia would backfire – from Croesus to Trump, rulers have failed to listen – https://theconversation.com/an-ancient-oracle-warned-invading-persia-would-backfire-from-croesus-to-trump-rulers-have-failed-to-listen-279750

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/an-ancient-oracle-warned-invading-persia-would-backfire-from-croesus-to-trump-rulers-have-failed-to-listen-279750/