Nuclear balance might bring peace to Middle East
The recent escalation of the Middle East war is allegedly to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but nobody is talking about the stabilising effects of mutually assured destruction (' Israel and Iran bomb each other as nuclear talks tank ', June 16). This was most recently seen in the exchange between the nuclear armed powers of Pakistan and India, where both parties talked a big game, had some symbolic interchanges, and took the first available off-ramp to de-escalate. Perhaps a nuclear armed Iran would lead to regional stability and temper Israel's increasingly dominant role in the Middle East. Just sayin' ... John Storer, Bulli
Your correspondents Judy Hungerford and John Rome (Letters, June 16) seem to have a blinkered view of the Israel/Iran conflict. Mr Rome goes so far as to compare Israel's actions with those of the US when it attacked Iraq in response to the false threat of weapons of mass destruction. By contrast Iran, ruled by a malignant theocratic dictatorship mired in the Middle Ages and publicly avowing Israel's destruction, has well-documented potential to produce nuclear weapons. This, coupled with its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, presented a real and present danger, not only to Israel. The International Atomic Energy Agency just a few days ago declared, for the first time in 20 years, that Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. Iran has waged war on Israel for decades through its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Would Ms Hungerford and Mr Rome prefer Israel to wait until a mushroom cloud envelops Jerusalem? Michael Berger, Bellevue Hill
What sort of dystopian, brutal world does the President of the USA live in (' Evacuate Tehran immediately, says Trump ', June 17)? Tehran has a population of nearly 10 million. Where does he expect them to go? How does he expect them to carry out such an insane direction? What sort of madness is this? Recently he wanted all Gazans to leave their homeland so he could turn it into some sort of Las Vegas. Now he wants to depopulate an entire metropolis of 10 million people. Does he want to turn that proud city into a Disneyland? Why does Australia still bend its knee to such a destructive fool? Terence Golding, Bolwarra
Correspondent David Lloyd defends Israel's actions on the grounds it is the 'only democracy in the Middle East' (Letters, June 17). Yet its government is controlled by an authoritarian, ultra-right religious group whose leaders have clearly stated their intention to wipe Palestine off the map. Surely, a true democracy would be putting all its efforts into securing a lasting and effective peace through diplomacy, rather than catastrophic warfare. And however hard Israel's supporters try to claim the fighting would stop if Hamas would release all the hostages, the history of the region tells us the opposite. Extremists on both sides want only one outcome – and we're seeing it in horrific operation as each day passes. Eric Hunter, Cook (ACT)
Putin no peacemaker
It is astounding that even the unstable Donald Trump could perceive Vladimir Putin as a peacemaker (' Putin a peacemaker? Only to Trump ', June 17). Stalin-like Putin is a killer. In addition to the brutal war he started and still wages against Ukraine, he eliminates any meaningful opposition to his murderous regime. Is it the Russian dictator's untrammelled power that Trump admires most? Is it the sort of dominance Trump is trying to exercise in a democracy which is fighting back against his authoritarianism? Trump's damaging tariffs, negativity on climate change, inability to curb China and threatening of the likes of Canada and Greenland connote a power-mongering mindset, which perhaps helps explain his admiration for, and temerity towards the despotic Putin. Ron Sinclair, Windradyne
We've been subject to Trump's delusions for some time, but Putin as a 'peacemaker' is quite something. As Trump fast becomes an irrelevancy of his own making on the global stage, the tinpot dictator would be ignored by global leaders if not for the residual strength of the US economy and military. The former now in danger of being sabotaged from within and the latter in danger of being issued illegal orders. What becomes of the US, we will see in time. Marie Del Monte, Ashfield
Of all the questionable decisions Donald Trump has made in his second reign as King of America, asking Putin to broker peace between Iran and Israel has to be one of the strangest – until you start to connect the dots. Russian influence on Hillary Clinton's campaign gave Trump inside running on his first presidency. Trump has personally received financial backing from Russia. Trump favours Russian interests when 'supporting' Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump has fired everyone dealing with foreign influence against the US. Trump's 79th birthday parade looked more like a Russian parade. Trump won't be shirtfronting Putin anytime soon. He behaves like a Russian sleeper agent, milking his position for both Russian and personal gain. Geoff Nilon, Mascot
Declining empire
James Massola reports that our prime minister has been asked in Canada 'whether Australia would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US if China attempted to take Taiwan by force' (' Defence ties with Australia key to Albanese's pitch in historic Trump meeting ', June 17)? Herein lies the real issue with the AUKUS submarines and the expansion of HMAS Stirling in WA, for the rotation of US submarines. It is patently absurd to contemplate that the declining empire of America, with a track record of failed military adventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone the current MAGA kleptocracy, could successfully prosecute a war on the other side of the Pacific against the resurgent empire of China. The sensible policy positions for Australia to take at this time are 1) Australia will not participate in any war between China and the USA over Taiwan. 2) Australia cannot be used as a base by any power involved in armed conflict over Taiwan. Graham Cochrane, Balmain
Death on the streets
In the US and Australia, officials issuing teeth-clenched demands that 'violence will not be tolerated' are as empty as a gun after a shooting (' In a dangerously polarised US, violence is becoming a part of life,' June 17). As long as firearms are readily available, no one on the streets of Minneapolis, or Auburn, is safe. Mark Paskal, Austinmer
Women will fix it
Tuesday's headlines feature male world leaders throwing verbal and actual missiles at each other, male locals aiming guns at one another. Then reports of women being murdered and dumped, injured in men's gun crossfire, male brawlers wanting to bring back bare-fist fighting and others playing run-it-straight, in which they slam into each other until only one is left standing. It is well and truly time to hand over the running of the world to women. This violence has to stop. Kate Fellowes, Glebe
Speak no evil
Poor Alistair Kitchen becoming the canary in the coal mine (' Australian deported from US targeted ', June 17). As a lifetime Americophile, if scrutinised, my email shows that unequivocally to be so. However, my free speech also has large dollops of criticism of the current US administration, albeit without any seditious or violent verbiage. Yet, I am wary that fascist proclivities of immigration 'policy' await people like me if I were to arrive in America, although I have done nothing unlawful, like Mr Kitchen, I might be summarily ejected. Fascism is when powers are exercised arbitrarily as opposed to upholding the law as enacted democratically. Andrew Cohen, Glebe
The problem with specialists
Jenna Price has commented on the poor communication skills of medical specialists (' Soaring fees are a pain, but doctors have another problem ', June 17). There is one thing they communicate very well: arrogance. While the occasional specialist does manage to see patients at the appointed time, the time management ability of the majority is abysmal. For people who charge several hundred dollars for a few minutes of their time, they show precious little respect, even contempt, for the time of others. After experiencing an inexcusable waiting time at a specialist appointment, walking out and asking my GP for a referral to someone who could see people in a timely fashion, I was mildly chastised and told that it is expected that patients wait an hour at specialist appointments, as he himself had done on occasions. Sorry, but in my book that is entirely unacceptable. Heather Johnson, West Pennant Hills
Medical consultations have drastically changed. Patients who would once have been diagnosed and treated by their GP are now too often referred to a specialist. As we are living longer, medical problems become more complex and frequent. The exorbitant specialist fees even for the better-heeled create enormous anxiety by anyone needing to access them. For too many it's not even an option – they must rely on the public health system, which does its best but is nowhere near fit for purpose. Old age ain't for sissies. Elizabeth Kroon, Randwick
Most of us know what it's like to wait for ages at the doctor's. This is due to some patients being late, and its flow-on effect, and some patients taking longer than their allotted times, again meaning a delay for the next patient. So it is a combination of inadequate appointment times and patients not being punctual. In regard to better communication, the trainee doctor program at the university where I am a volunteer simulated patient has a strong focus on the doctor-patient interaction, with a student doctor's interview with the simulated patient being recorded for the student to study later and critiqued by medical staff, other students and the 'patient' immediately following the session. This is followed by a staff-student group reflection session. This university is certainly aware of the problem of poor communication and is proactive in trying to improve doctor-patient communication. Paul Casey, Callala Bay
As an orthopaedic surgeon working in public and private settings, I feel compelled to respond to the Grattan Institute's recent report in Jenna Price's article suggesting that out-of-pocket costs for specialist care are driven primarily by excessive surgeon fees. This overlooks a crucial fact: Medicare rebates have not kept pace with inflation or the rising costs of delivering safe, high-quality care. Surgeons are increasingly absorbing the burden of underfunded procedures, or else charging gap fees transparently to cover real costs. More than 97 per cent of privately insured patients are treated under known-gap or no-gap arrangements. These are not surprise bills. They are the outcome of a system that relies on private practice to relieve pressure on overwhelmed public hospitals yet fails to fund that care adequately. Most concerning is the suggestion that patients should be denied their Medicare rebate if they choose a doctor who charges a gap. This punitive idea risks eroding clinical autonomy and punishing patients for seeking timely care from specialists they trust. We need serious, evidence-based reform – but that begins with addressing the core problem: under-indexed rebates, not so-called surgeon greed. Dr Manish Gupta, Glenhaven
Play the ball, not the woman
Correspondent John Kempler's suggestion that Penny Wong's wings need to be clipped (Letters, June 17) is reminiscent of the treatment doled out to Jacinda Ardern when an infamous radio announcer stated that someone should shove a sock down her throat. Both statements are abhorrent and denigrate these strong women, both of whom are exceptional in their field. It is difficult enough for women in politics but why must Penny Wong, in fulfilling her duties as foreign affairs minister, her decisions supported by our government, be subject to such expressions? To put it in sporting parlance: play the ball, not the man – or in this case, the woman. Dian Dennis, Epping
Female bonding
Right on Q, a lady named Blaise (perhaps in the like of a comic strip) moves into the top position at the spy agency, the mother of clever children who through their covert investigations disclosed the true nature of her work (' MI6 names first female spymaster ', June 17). Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook
Housing indifference
Premier Chris Minns and Planning Minister Paul Scully show no desire to engage with councils or citizens about their housing plans (' Councils resist plans for pattern-book homes ', June 17). They are mouthpieces for the development industry, whose lunches and meetings they have attended on a regular basis. The Property Council of Australia has even bragged about being an 'active partner' with the government on pattern-book development, and about being the original architect of the government's housing policy. It's time people woke up to the sinister effects of the lobbying industry, and of politicians who shrug off conflicts of interest. Marie Healy, Hurlstone Park
Future options
Elizabeth Knight is right about the possible sale of oil and gas giant Santos to a Middle-Eastern consortium (' Jim Chalmers faces a mission-critical national security test ', June 17). More than that, however, the treasurer faces, as do we all, two alternative futures. One continues business as usual, and the desperately slow death-throes of the fossil fuel industry, spewing avoidable greenhouse gases, heads for climate catastrophe. The other takes the climate and cost-of-living crises and energy sovereignty seriously by implementing distributed and smart renewable energy solutions and electrifying everything as soon as possible. The technology is here. The incumbents either transform, fast, or go. Sell the stranded assets, then flip off fossil fuels fast. Start today by getting solar and a battery. David Sargent, Seaton (SA)
Space invaders
No, Jayce, it's not just at the gym where your personal space is invaded (' Cosmetic surgery ads have invaded my personal space', June 16). My husband and I have each received repeated emails that refer to 'being soft down there' and encourage us to try penis surgery/treatment. While I know these are spam, I resent advertisers invading my personal space with stuff that doesn't concern me, and definitely shouldn't concern them. None of your business! Go away! Mia David, Wollongong
Death of the obit
I know as readers we're encouraged to write in response to news reported in the paper, but I'd like to discuss the disappearance of a certain kind of story – the obituary. Does the Herald now have a policy of not printing obituaries and, if so, if the obituary page has in fact died, did I miss its obit? I hope I'm wrong as the one absolute certainty in a very uncertain world is death. As I get older I find I've developed an increasing interest in the recently departed – the good, the bad and the ugly. I suspect I'm not alone. I appeal to the editors: bring back the obit. Nick Franklin, Katoomba
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
How the innocuous pager set in motion a potentially catastrophic war
Future historians might one day marvel at how a device as innocuous as a pager came to play such a significant role in the destabilisation of the Middle East, and the threat of a potentially catastrophic war radiating across the region. On September 17, Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, issued an electronic instruction to thousands of pagers it had fed into the hands of unwitting members of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia that had embedded itself in Lebanon, posing a constant threat to Israel from its northern border. Two waves of explosions followed, as tiny and powerful charges in the devices detonated. Alongside the civilians killed and injured, the attack removed 1500 Hezbollah fighters from combat, many of them maimed or blinded, Reuters later reported, citing a Hezbollah source. But more significantly than that, its terrible success emboldened Israel. Israeli war planners had for years been concerned that an all-out confrontation with the powerful militia could provoke a devastating barrage of missiles. Hezbollah was known to have stockpiled thousands of the weapons, supplied by Iran. But with the militia in disarray, its communications obliterated, the threat was diminished. The scene for the current crisis was set. Days after what became known as Operation Grim Beeper, Israeli warplanes dropped bunker-buster bombs on what it described as Hezbollah's headquarters in the southern suburbs of Beirut during a leadership meeting, killing 195 people, according to Lebanon's health ministry. Among them was Hassan Nasrallah, the Shiite cleric who had led the group since 1992. This signalled the grim dynamics of the region's geopolitics had shifted. For decades, Iran has advocated for the destruction of Israel, and for decades it propped up proxies to prosecute its conflict, channelling funds not only to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza. Israel and Iran fought by proxy in Yemen, where Iran supported the Houthis, and in the Syrian civil war, where Iran backed the Assad regime. But in recent years, Iran's network of proxies has been battered, leaving it temptingly vulnerable. Israel has largely annihilated Hamas in the vicious war in Gaza unleashed by the group's October 7 terrorist attacks in 2023. The Assad regime in Syria fell a year later. The Houthis have been diminished by an international bombing campaign against them, led by the US in response to that group's attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. All the while Israel has been building its ties with Arab states opposed to Iran's regional ambitions under the so-called Abraham Accords. The nuclear deal In July 2015, after two years of negotiations, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN security council, plus Germany and the EU, signed what was formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and informally as the Iran nuclear deal. Under the deal, Iran would agree to restrictions on its development of nuclear technologies and uranium enrichment program – and to international inspections of its nuclear facilities – in return for relief from crippling sanctions. Then-US president Barack Obama considered the deal to be a crowning achievement of his administration, but it was bitterly opposed Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the powerful Israel lobby in the US, which had become increasingly aligned with the US political right. 'It blocks every possible pathway Iran could use to build a nuclear bomb while ensuring – through a comprehensive, intrusive and unprecedented verification and transparency regime – that Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful moving forward,' the Obama White House said at the time. In his campaign against the deal, Netanyahu visited the US Capitol without a formal invitation from Obama, telling Congress that the deal would 'not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it would all but guarantee Iran gets nuclear weapons – lots of them'. The deal's opponents believed that it facilitated the Iranian pretence that its nuclear program was civilian in intent, and noted that its sunset clauses would allow Iran to resume various parts of its nuclear program within 10 to 16 years. Either way, when Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2017, he set about unravelling the Obama legacy. The Iran deal was one of his key targets. He dumped it 2018, describing it as a 'horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made'. It was at this point, says Amin Saikal, emeritus professor of Middle Eastern studies at the Australian National University, that the current crisis became inevitable. The deal contained a 'snap back' clause, nullifying the deal should one side break its terms. At the time, the UN's watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was no evidence that Iran was in contravention of the deal. But with the US out, Iran again ramped up its nuclear program. Israel, having diminished Iran's proxies around the region, prepared for strikes on Iran, which had always been Netanyahu's key target. In October last year, Iran lobbed a volley of missiles into Israel, which responded with a wave of airstrikes later that month. More than 100 Israeli aircraft attacked, targeting military sites including missile production facilities, a drone factory, and most notably, destroying much of Iran's Russian-supplied air defence system. All Israeli aircraft returned safely to their bases. Earlier this month, on June 11, the US pulled personnel out of the Middle East, which Trump said, 'could be a dangerous place'. The following day, the IAEA board declared Iran was in breach of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. On June 13, the Israel Defence Forces issued a statement saying it had intelligence that Iran was nearing 'the point of no return' in its race towards a nuclear weapon. 'The regime is producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralised and fortified enrichment compounds, in underground, fortified sites. This program has accelerated significantly in recent months, bringing the regime significantly closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. 'The Iranian regime has been working for decades to obtain a nuclear weapon. The world has attempted every possible diplomatic path to stop it, but the regime has refused to stop. The State of Israel has been left with no choice.' First strikes Israel's first strikes hit Iran's top military leadership and nuclear facilities on June 12, with Iranian media confirming the attacks killed Iranian Armed Forces General Staff Chief Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Major General Hossein Salami, Khatam-al-Anbiya Central Headquarters Commander Gholam Ali Rashid, nuclear scientist and former head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran Fereydoon Abbasi, and physicist and president of the Islamic Azad University Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, according to the Institute for the Study of War, a non-partisan US think tank. Since then, Israel has continued its attacks, targeting key personnel as well as dozens of military and nuclear sites. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks on Israel. Though hundreds of its missiles have been intercepted and destroyed, many have penetrated the nation's Iron Dome air defence system. Israeli air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran, said the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Israel has said at least 24 Israeli civilians have died in Iranian missile attacks. Reuters could not independently verify the death toll from either side. A key site Israel has been unable to destroy is the Fordow uranium enrichment facility buried deep beneath a mountain 30 kilometres north of the city of Quom, and this brings us back to the role of the US. So heavily hardened is Fordow that Israel lacks the capacity to destroy it, and most analyses of the facility suggest that only the US has the technology to do so. Multiple strikes on the facility by US B2 bombers carrying so-called bunker-buster bombs – 13.6 tonne 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators' – would be required, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. The madman theory To the extent that Donald Trump has a foreign policy doctrine, he might best be described as an adherent to the madman theory advanced by president Richard Nixon, who believed that if he fostered a reputation for being irrational and volatile, threats that might otherwise be viewed as untenable might carry more weight. Trump is leaning in to Nixon's lessons. When asked by The Wall Street Journal last year if he would use military force to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Trump said he wouldn't have to because Chinese leader Xi Jinping 'respects me and he knows I'm f---ing crazy'. Trump's response to the current conflict has been, at best, unpredictable. In April, he recommenced negotiations with Iran, demanding it agree to end all uranium enrichment and destroy its stockpile of 400 kilograms of enriched uranium at a 60 per cent purity level. Iran refused, while Israel opposed the talks being held at all. According to Saikal of the ANU, the talks failed because the US kept raising the bar. In keeping with the isolationist views of his MAGA movement, Trump spent the early months of his second term seeking to restrain Netanyahu, reversing course after his abrupt departure from the G7 talks earlier this week. Discussing engaging in strikes on Iran, he told reporters at the White House on Wednesday, 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. On social media that day, he declared, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now … Our patience is wearing thin.' Three minutes later, he posted, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' On Thursday, Trump announced he would give himself two weeks to decide. 'That could be cover for a decision to strike, immediately,' James G. Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral and the former supreme US commander in Europe, said on CNN. 'Maybe this is a very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency.' Loading Saikal believes Trump is likely to deploy a US bomber to hit Fordow, though he bases this on his years of analysis of the region rather than any specific information. He fears the implications. Even with its weakened network of proxies, Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world's oil and gas supply travels. He notes that even in its weakened state, Iran maintains close ties with China and Russia. And while Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remains an unpopular autocrat, leading a nation weakened by years of sanctions, the antibody response of an outside attack could firm his base, Saikal believes. So far, analysts have been surprised by how quickly Israel was able to dominate Iranian skies, suggesting that not only did earlier strikes weaken Iran's defence, but that the regime has been white-anted by corruption and patronage. As sanctions crippled civilian life in Iran over recent years, members of the Revolutionary Guard (which was founded after the revolution to defend the Islamic Republic from internal and external threats) profited from blackmarket oil sales and the development of monopolies over consumer goods, says Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert. The Australian specialist in Middle Eastern political science, now at Macquarie University, was imprisoned by the regime in an act of hostage diplomacy in 2018. 'I was arrested by the intelligence branch of the IRGC, and I spent a lot of time, unfortunately, talking to them and getting to know them over several years. And clearly, many of them are incompetent. They're in their roles because of ideological affinity, and who their family members are, not because of competence or expertise.' It may well be that the US hopes to eradicate Iran's nuclear program while allowing the regime to survive, but Netanyahu appears to determined to see it fall. Asked on Friday morning if he considered Khamenei a 'dead man', Netanyahu ducked the question. Loading 'Every option remains open, though I would rather not discuss such matters publicly and allow our actions to communicate our intentions,' he said. Moore-Gilbert believes the Revolutionary Guard, rather than some unnamed progressive movement, is the likely successor should the regime be toppled. No alternative exists. Should that happen, Israel might not like what emerges. 'It is a hardline fundamentalist Islamist organisation with a kind of worldview that believes in exporting the ideology of the Iranian Revolution, particularly to other parts of the Shia Islamic world, but more broadly as well. 'It's virulently antisemitic and anti-American, anti-Western. It is conspiratorial and paranoid.' Saikal believes that whatever form of Iranian leadership emerges from the current crisis will be even more determined to secure nuclear weapons. It will, after all, have seen what happens without them.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
How the innocuous pager set in motion a potentially catastrophic war
Future historians might one day marvel at how a device as innocuous as a pager came to play such a significant role in the destabilisation of the Middle East, and the threat of a potentially catastrophic war radiating across the region. On September 17, Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, issued an electronic instruction to thousands of pagers it had fed into the hands of unwitting members of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia that had embedded itself in Lebanon, posing a constant threat to Israel from its northern border. Two waves of explosions followed, as tiny and powerful charges in the devices detonated. Alongside the civilians killed and injured, the attack removed 1500 Hezbollah fighters from combat, many of them maimed or blinded, Reuters later reported, citing a Hezbollah source. But more significantly than that, its terrible success emboldened Israel. Israeli war planners had for years been concerned that an all-out confrontation with the powerful militia could provoke a devastating barrage of missiles. Hezbollah was known to have stockpiled thousands of the weapons, supplied by Iran. But with the militia in disarray, its communications obliterated, the threat was diminished. The scene for the current crisis was set. Days after what became known as Operation Grim Beeper, Israeli warplanes dropped bunker-buster bombs on what it described as Hezbollah's headquarters in the southern suburbs of Beirut during a leadership meeting, killing 195 people, according to Lebanon's health ministry. Among them was Hassan Nasrallah, the Shiite cleric who had led the group since 1992. This signalled the grim dynamics of the region's geopolitics had shifted. For decades, Iran has advocated for the destruction of Israel, and for decades it propped up proxies to prosecute its conflict, channelling funds not only to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza. Israel and Iran fought by proxy in Yemen, where Iran supported the Houthis, and in the Syrian civil war, where Iran backed the Assad regime. But in recent years, Iran's network of proxies has been battered, leaving it temptingly vulnerable. Israel has largely annihilated Hamas in the vicious war in Gaza unleashed by the group's October 7 terrorist attacks in 2023. The Assad regime in Syria fell a year later. The Houthis have been diminished by an international bombing campaign against them, led by the US in response to that group's attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. All the while Israel has been building its ties with Arab states opposed to Iran's regional ambitions under the so-called Abraham Accords. The nuclear deal In July 2015, after two years of negotiations, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN security council, plus Germany and the EU, signed what was formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and informally as the Iran nuclear deal. Under the deal, Iran would agree to restrictions on its development of nuclear technologies and uranium enrichment program – and to international inspections of its nuclear facilities – in return for relief from crippling sanctions. Then-US president Barack Obama considered the deal to be a crowning achievement of his administration, but it was bitterly opposed Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the powerful Israel lobby in the US, which had become increasingly aligned with the US political right. 'It blocks every possible pathway Iran could use to build a nuclear bomb while ensuring – through a comprehensive, intrusive and unprecedented verification and transparency regime – that Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful moving forward,' the Obama White House said at the time. In his campaign against the deal, Netanyahu visited the US Capitol without a formal invitation from Obama, telling Congress that the deal would 'not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it would all but guarantee Iran gets nuclear weapons – lots of them'. The deal's opponents believed that it facilitated the Iranian pretence that its nuclear program was civilian in intent, and noted that its sunset clauses would allow Iran to resume various parts of its nuclear program within 10 to 16 years. Either way, when Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2017, he set about unravelling the Obama legacy. The Iran deal was one of his key targets. He dumped it 2018, describing it as a 'horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made'. It was at this point, says Amin Saikal, emeritus professor of Middle Eastern studies at the Australian National University, that the current crisis became inevitable. The deal contained a 'snap back' clause, nullifying the deal should one side break its terms. At the time, the UN's watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was no evidence that Iran was in contravention of the deal. But with the US out, Iran again ramped up its nuclear program. Israel, having diminished Iran's proxies around the region, prepared for strikes on Iran, which had always been Netanyahu's key target. In October last year, Iran lobbed a volley of missiles into Israel, which responded with a wave of airstrikes later that month. More than 100 Israeli aircraft attacked, targeting military sites including missile production facilities, a drone factory, and most notably, destroying much of Iran's Russian-supplied air defence system. All Israeli aircraft returned safely to their bases. Earlier this month, on June 11, the US pulled personnel out of the Middle East, which Trump said, 'could be a dangerous place'. The following day, the IAEA board declared Iran was in breach of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. On June 13, the Israel Defence Forces issued a statement saying it had intelligence that Iran was nearing 'the point of no return' in its race towards a nuclear weapon. 'The regime is producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralised and fortified enrichment compounds, in underground, fortified sites. This program has accelerated significantly in recent months, bringing the regime significantly closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. 'The Iranian regime has been working for decades to obtain a nuclear weapon. The world has attempted every possible diplomatic path to stop it, but the regime has refused to stop. The State of Israel has been left with no choice.' First strikes Israel's first strikes hit Iran's top military leadership and nuclear facilities on June 12, with Iranian media confirming the attacks killed Iranian Armed Forces General Staff Chief Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Major General Hossein Salami, Khatam-al-Anbiya Central Headquarters Commander Gholam Ali Rashid, nuclear scientist and former head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran Fereydoon Abbasi, and physicist and president of the Islamic Azad University Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, according to the Institute for the Study of War, a non-partisan US think tank. Since then, Israel has continued its attacks, targeting key personnel as well as dozens of military and nuclear sites. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks on Israel. Though hundreds of its missiles have been intercepted and destroyed, many have penetrated the nation's Iron Dome air defence system. Israeli air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran, said the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Israel has said at least 24 Israeli civilians have died in Iranian missile attacks. Reuters could not independently verify the death toll from either side. A key site Israel has been unable to destroy is the Fordow uranium enrichment facility buried deep beneath a mountain 30 kilometres north of the city of Quom, and this brings us back to the role of the US. So heavily hardened is Fordow that Israel lacks the capacity to destroy it, and most analyses of the facility suggest that only the US has the technology to do so. Multiple strikes on the facility by US B2 bombers carrying so-called bunker-buster bombs – 13.6 tonne 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators' – would be required, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. The madman theory To the extent that Donald Trump has a foreign policy doctrine, he might best be described as an adherent to the madman theory advanced by president Richard Nixon, who believed that if he fostered a reputation for being irrational and volatile, threats that might otherwise be viewed as untenable might carry more weight. Trump is leaning in to Nixon's lessons. When asked by The Wall Street Journal last year if he would use military force to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Trump said he wouldn't have to because Chinese leader Xi Jinping 'respects me and he knows I'm f---ing crazy'. Trump's response to the current conflict has been, at best, unpredictable. In April, he recommenced negotiations with Iran, demanding it agree to end all uranium enrichment and destroy its stockpile of 400 kilograms of enriched uranium at a 60 per cent purity level. Iran refused, while Israel opposed the talks being held at all. According to Saikal of the ANU, the talks failed because the US kept raising the bar. In keeping with the isolationist views of his MAGA movement, Trump spent the early months of his second term seeking to restrain Netanyahu, reversing course after his abrupt departure from the G7 talks earlier this week. Discussing engaging in strikes on Iran, he told reporters at the White House on Wednesday, 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. On social media that day, he declared, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now … Our patience is wearing thin.' Three minutes later, he posted, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' On Thursday, Trump announced he would give himself two weeks to decide. 'That could be cover for a decision to strike, immediately,' James G. Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral and the former supreme US commander in Europe, said on CNN. 'Maybe this is a very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency.' Loading Saikal believes Trump is likely to deploy a US bomber to hit Fordow, though he bases this on his years of analysis of the region rather than any specific information. He fears the implications. Even with its weakened network of proxies, Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world's oil and gas supply travels. He notes that even in its weakened state, Iran maintains close ties with China and Russia. And while Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remains an unpopular autocrat, leading a nation weakened by years of sanctions, the antibody response of an outside attack could firm his base, Saikal believes. So far, analysts have been surprised by how quickly Israel was able to dominate Iranian skies, suggesting that not only did earlier strikes weaken Iran's defence, but that the regime has been white-anted by corruption and patronage. As sanctions crippled civilian life in Iran over recent years, members of the Revolutionary Guard (which was founded after the revolution to defend the Islamic Republic from internal and external threats) profited from blackmarket oil sales and the development of monopolies over consumer goods, says Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert. The Australian specialist in Middle Eastern political science, now at Macquarie University, was imprisoned by the regime in an act of hostage diplomacy in 2018. 'I was arrested by the intelligence branch of the IRGC, and I spent a lot of time, unfortunately, talking to them and getting to know them over several years. And clearly, many of them are incompetent. They're in their roles because of ideological affinity, and who their family members are, not because of competence or expertise.' It may well be that the US hopes to eradicate Iran's nuclear program while allowing the regime to survive, but Netanyahu appears to determined to see it fall. Asked on Friday morning if he considered Khamenei a 'dead man', Netanyahu ducked the question. Loading 'Every option remains open, though I would rather not discuss such matters publicly and allow our actions to communicate our intentions,' he said. Moore-Gilbert believes the Revolutionary Guard, rather than some unnamed progressive movement, is the likely successor should the regime be toppled. No alternative exists. Should that happen, Israel might not like what emerges. 'It is a hardline fundamentalist Islamist organisation with a kind of worldview that believes in exporting the ideology of the Iranian Revolution, particularly to other parts of the Shia Islamic world, but more broadly as well. 'It's virulently antisemitic and anti-American, anti-Western. It is conspiratorial and paranoid.' Saikal believes that whatever form of Iranian leadership emerges from the current crisis will be even more determined to secure nuclear weapons. It will, after all, have seen what happens without them.
The Age
10 hours ago
- The Age
Few believe Iran has nuclear weapons. We can't afford to repeat the Iraq War lie
The Middle East is once again in danger of exploding, with massive global geopolitical and economic implications. The leader who bears most responsibility for this is undoubtedly Benjamin Netanyahu. For years, the Israeli prime minister has doggedly pursued the demise of the Iranian Islamic regime in line with his power interests and his vision of Israel's security requirements. His stated goal has long been to bring down the 'Islamic empire in Iran', 'expand the Abraham Accords with Arabs' and once and for all end the Palestinians' aspirations for an independent state. As part of this Middle East master plan, he has also zeroed in on Iran's nuclear program. But let's not forget: No concrete evidence exists that Iran has been manufacturing nuclear weapons. In a congressional hearing earlier this year, the United States' Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard confirmed this fact. And earlier this week, Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that 'on the basis of our evaluation, we came to the conclusion that we could not affirm that there is any systematic effort in Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon'. Despite this, Netanyahu continues to insist that Iran is on course to produce nuclear weapons within weeks, and the US is teetering on entering the war in Israel's support. Meanwhile, he omits the fact that Israel itself has its own nuclear program. Though Israel has never formally confirmed or denied its nuclear arsenal, its national Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1952. By 1958, researchers believe the government had established a weapons development site in Dimona, and American intelligence from the 1960s stated that there was a reprocessing plant for plutonium production at the site. Loading As the Federation of American Scientists wrote in 2007, 'the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a 'public secret' by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons'. According to the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Israel today has at least 90 nuclear warheads and enough material to produce hundreds more. The United Nations' nuclear watchdog has also found that of the 30 countries capable of developing nuclear weapons, Israel is among nine that possess them (Russia, US, China, France, United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea).
