Tuesday 28th of May 2024

aussie leadershit is a dunny servicing american turds.....

Some days I wake up and don’t recognise the country we have become. It is not the country I grew up in. It is not a country I can be proud of. It is not a country that has a bright future under current leadership.

Today was such a day. Iran launched its much-anticipated strikes against Israel, a clearly articulated response to Israeli airstrikes on the Iranian Consulate facilities in Damascus Syria on 1 April 2024 which reportedly killed 16 people.


Australia’s leadership is destroying the very fabric of this country    By Cameron Leckie


Diplomatic facilities, to this point, have largely been sacrosanct. As Guyana’s representative to the United Nations Security Council rightly explained, ‘any attack against a diplomatic facility is unacceptable and contravenes the fundamental safeguards established in international law.’ Specifically, the United Nations Charter and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Israel’s airstrikes were an incredibly reckless and provocative act, undermining a vital component of international diplomacy, the protection of diplomatic premises. Given the violations of one of the well-established ‘norms’ of the international system, you may expect the Australian Government to have a view on Israel’s actions. You would be wrong. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Minister condemned or criticised Israel’s action. Yet the Foreign Minister on 12 April 2024 had the gall to raise Australia’s concerns about preparations by Iran for military action against Israel.

Then after Iran’s retaliation Prime Minister Albanese released a statement condemning Iran without even mentioning Israel’s actions. A statement that appears to have been coordinated with the ‘international community’, also known as the collective West.

This vignette is an example of everything that is wrong with Australian foreign policy. It demonstrates how, as Paul Grenier describes it, conformance to the policy objectives of the United States [and increasingly Israel] has become the measure of truth.

The frequency of examples of this nature is frankly disturbing. In recent months we have had:

  • The Australian Government suspending funding to the UNRWA just one day after the International Court of Justice’s ruling against Israel with regards to genocide in Gaza (funding which was restored just 10 days after the Prime Minister and other senior politicians were referred to the International Criminal Court for complicity to genocide).
  • The Australian Defence Force supporting illegal US and UK military strikes against the Houthi’s in Yemen commencing just one day after a United Nations Security Council Resolution ‘urged caution and restraint to avoid further escalation in the Red Sea and the broader region’ (see Australia: A ‘rogue state’? for more on this example).
  • The Australian Government’s silence on the United States providing cluster munitions to Ukraine, despite the extensive and pivotal efforts Australia made in the implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

In late 2022 we had the Foreign Minister explaining how she is motivated by principle and that she will bring all aspects of Australian power, and employ every strategy at the Government’s disposal to uphold human rights. And the Government does take action when the alleged perpetrators of human rights abuses are from countries such as China, Russia or Iran.

Yet just two years later, in the face of an active genocide in Gaza, the Government’s response has been slow, pathetically weak and obfuscatory. A response that appears motivated not so much by stopping the death and destruction, but rather to appease mounting public anger. Whilst in 2022 the Foreign Minister celebrated the legacy of Australia’s role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are now left with a shameful legacy of complicity to genocide.

Through its actions the Australian Government continually highlights that its concerns over human rights are not universal, but rather only as deep as its geopolitical priorities. I guess that is what the Foreign Minister means when she states that we will take actions to uphold human rights consistent with our ‘interests.’

This cynical, hypocritical and, over the long term, untenable approach to international relations has insidious side effects, none of which are to the benefit of Australia.

Australia has lost the ability to think and act independently. This is a direct result of alliance entrapment, where Australia is being used by the United States in its interests, not ours.

Our political leadership is destroying the trust and legitimacy in our democratic institutions through the hypocrisy of its actions and deceptions, half-truths and omissions in its messaging. There appears to be a growing sense that our political leadership has betrayed the Australian population in the interests of foreign powers.

Outside a collective West that’s power, in all its forms, is rapidly contracting the rest of the world must view Australia as a weak, toadying accoutrement to an increasingly belligerent, yet visibly collapsing hegemon. A country that behaves in this manner neither deserves respect, nor will be respected, by allies, other countries, or potential adversaries alike.

Finally, Australia is consistently on the losing side of the conflicts we unnecessarily involve ourselves in. The list of defeats or strategic failures such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan which Australia has involved itself in continues to grow. Australia, enthusiastically supported the proxy war against Russia being fought in Ukraine, with Ukraine now appearing to be on the cusp of military collapse. Operation Prosperity Guardian against the Houthis in the Red Sea, which Australia supported, has been a dismal and embarrassing failure and demonstrated significant weaknesses in the military strength of the United States and its vassals.

As the collapse of the United States imperial system (the keystone of the collective West) accelerates, it is increasingly likely that not only will Australia be on the losing side of future conflicts, but we will also be on the wrong side of history. Desperately clinging to a Western dominated world, which no longer exists (AUKUS is an expression of this anachronistic world view).

Despite the mounting evidence of a colossal failure in Australian foreign policy (which would be topped off by being dragged into an unnecessary and likely unwinnable war with China at the behest of the United States) there appears to be little in the way of reflection, or re-assessment of how we may engage with a rapidly evolving world amongst our political leadership.

This is in stark comparison to the manifesto for a reinvigorated Australia that Yanis Varoufakis offered at his recent National Press Club address, where he stated:

“Imagine an Australia that helps bring a just Peace in Ukraine, as opposed to a mindless forever war. A non-aligned Australia that is never neutral in the face of injustice but, also, not automatically aligned with every warmongering adventure decided in Washington.”

That is an Australia that we could all be proud of. That is an Australia that would be respected in the world. That is an Australia where the trust in our political institutions and leadership could be restored. That is an Australia with a sense of purpose and whose actions align with its purported values. That is an Australia, freed from the odious entanglements of an unnecessary alliance, that could also focus on addressing the myriad of domestic challenges that we face.

This is the Australia that we must demand from our political leadership!



it's time for being earnest.....

success in failure.....

GUS: According to many pundits, Iran failed in its “retaliation” against Israhell for having bombed its Damascus diplomatic compound… Iran claims it was a success…

Israhell says that 99 per cent of the Iranian missiles got intercepted… Big call…

Some serious analysts also point out  that though “no-one got killed by Iran’s rain of drones”, yet more than 10 per cent got through and did damage…

But the main point is the cost differential. Iran used mostly oldish drones and few new one, for a few million US dollars — the lot. Israhell spent more than $1.2 billion in expensive rockets to intercept these drones. As well, this gave a “reveal” to Iran as to where the Israhelli, the French, the UK, the US  and Jordanian anti-drone defence systems were, and capable of, while Iran has much better drones in reserve. Had Iran sent another 50 drones, the Israhelli defences would not have coped.

According to TV footage though, more than 20 drones hit their targets, unless the same drone was shown at least 20 times…

It would be prudent for Israhell to stop “revenge” now, because the Iranian’s own revenge from this "revenge" would be much more severe…

Meanwhile, the American drone, Joe Biden himself, needs his staff to clean his diapers for the occasion…






Iran’s strike on Israel was much more successful than it seems. Here’s why

Tehran’s retaliatory attack may not have caused much destruction, but it was far from a failure


By Abbas Juma


On the night of April 14, Iran and its proxy forces launched a series of cruise missile and kamikaze drone strikes on Israeli territory. The attacks did not come as a surprise. Tehran had warned that it would respond to the Israeli airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, Syria, on April 1, which killed several high-ranking officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including two generals. The retaliatory strike was called Operation True Promise. 

There is still much debate on whether Iran’s retaliatory strike was successful. Most military experts agree that there was nothing unusual about Tehran’s actions, except that this was Iran’s first direct attack on Israel. From a technical point of view, the strategy was simple and correct: Iran first suppressed the enemy’s air defense systems with drones and then launched hypersonic missiles which the Israelis and Americans were not able to intercept. Incidentally, in light of this, Ukraine’s statements about shooting down Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles sound ridiculous.

Do not jump to conclusions 

Many experts were skeptical about Iran’s strike and hastened to say that the retaliation did not live up to expectations. Given the clip thinking of most commentators, this reaction is hardly surprising. Their reasoning resembles a Hollywood blockbuster stuffed with special effects, where the end of the world and its miraculous salvation fit into 90-120 minutes, with a love scene in the middle. In real life, things are different. As Sun Tzu wrote in ancient times, to fight 100 battles and win 100 battles is not the height of skill. The best way to win is not to fight at all. This is Iran’s strategy. Its strike against Israel was not so much a military response as a grandmaster’s move in a big chess game. And the game is not over yet. 

After the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital, Tehran found itself in a tough situation. It had to respond in a way that would look convincing and would achieve specific military goals, but would not start World War III.

To achieve the first point, Iran had to carry out a direct strike without resorting exclusively to proxy forces – and that is indeed how it acted. Regarding the second point, even though most of the missiles and drones were indeed shot down, some managed to penetrate Israeli air space and hit military targets. The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri, said that the information center on the Israeli-Syrian border and Israel’s Nevatim air base were hit. And finally, as to the third point – war didn’t happen. This resembled the situation in 2020, when the Iranians hit US bases in Iraq in response to the assassination of General Soleimani.

However, it is still too early to speculate as to whether Iran’s attack was a success or not. The big question now is how Israel will respond. 

What Iran has accomplished

It’s important to emphasize that Iran’s operation carried more political than military weight. In this sense, it was carried out subtly and was a success. Obviously, the Iranians did not want to start a war which would involve the US, even though that is what Netanyahu wanted. In other words, Israel didn’t manage to provoke Iran. 

It is also obvious that the Islamic Republic possesses more powerful drones and missiles than those used in the attack on April 14. However, even the less advanced drones and missiles were able to penetrate Israeli air space and inflict economic damage, since Israel spent much more money on shooting down the missiles and drones than Iran spent on launching them. 

Tehran has once again demonstrated that Israel is not invulnerable, and it is possible to attack it. As for the degree of inflicted damage, which some commentators were unsatisfied with, it largely depends on the type of missiles and drones used in the attack – and Iran has a lot of military equipment. 

Finally, Iran’s main achievement is that it has managed to confuse Israel in the same way that it was confused after the October 7 Hamas attack. The country has to respond. But how? Should Israel strike Iranian proxy forces? This is possible, but Israel does it all the time without much result. Should it hit Iran directly? But that would start a war which no one is prepared for, including the US.


The ball is now in Israel’s court, and the country faces the same challenges that the Islamic Republic did after April 1. But will Israel be able to solve these challenges as efficiently? 

It is noteworthy that IRGC Commander-in-Chief, Hossein Salami, said that from now on, if Israel attacks the interests of Iran and Iranian citizens, Tehran will strike it again.

This is an important statement. Essentially, the attack carried out by Iran on April 14 was not just a retaliatory strike, but established a new order. Iran demonstrated that it is ready to resort to new means of influence in a situation where words are not sufficient. It attacked Israel directly not in order to start a war, but to demonstrate what could happen if all other methods of pressure on Israel fail. 

A new option has been put forward. Israel may be deprived of its most important advantage – absolute impunity, which until recently had been guaranteed by the US.