To my wife ‘S’– who saw this coming, and who still chooses the garden over the empire.
The End Stage of an Ideology
Thirty years ago, politicians of both major parties promised that deregulation, privatisation and the “magic of the market” would make Australia prosperous, efficient and secure. They sold off public assets, closed oil refineries, dismantled manufacturing and tied our survival to a single faith: neoliberalism – an economic and political doctrine that pursues unrestricted private profit as its highest good.
Today, that faith is being put to the test. The Strait of Hormuz has been blockaded for two months. Global oil production is down by nearly 15 million barrels per day. Fuel prices have risen by 40% since the war began. Fertiliser prices have surged 31%, industrial metals are near record highs and the United Nations Development Programme warns that even if the war ended tomorrow, 32 million people across 160 countries would already have been pushed into poverty.
Australia is not insulated. It never was. The bipartisan worship of neoliberal theology has hollowed out the nation’s resilience, and now that theology is being weaponised abroad.
The War That Was Never About Nuclear Weapons
The US‑Israeli war on Iran, launched without congressional approval on 28 February 2026, was never about nuclear non‑proliferation. It was a war to control the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports must pass. Control the strait, control the global economy. And control the global economy, you can ration human life for profit.
The human cost is being treated as a line item. The UNDP estimates that just $6 billion in urgent subsidies would protect the most vulnerable from the worst of the energy and food shocks – a fraction of what the US spends on two weeks of this war. Instead of subsidies, Washington has chosen bombs. Instead of a liveable world, it has chosen a militarised marketplace.
The Austerity of Empire: Arms Spending as “Job Creation”
In April 2026, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth appeared before Congress to defend a proposed $1.5 trillion defence budget for 2027 – a 50% increase over current spending. The budget boasts of creating 70,000 new Pentagon jobs.
What Hegseth did not mention was that the same war is simultaneously pushing millions into poverty. The administration celebrates arms‑industry employment while the UN warns of a global hunger crisis. This is the neoliberal model made brutally explicit: weaponise the economy, militarise the supply chain, and market the resulting devastation as ‘security’.
With US military spending already exceeding $1 trillion in 2026 and projected to reach $1.5 trillion, and global military spending having reached a record $2.887 trillion in 2025 – the 11th consecutive year of growth – the pattern is unmistakable. The world is not being made safer. It is being made more profitable for the arms industry.
Australia’s Fatal Self‑Deception
Australia is a minor player on the global stage – a resource economy at the end of very long supply lines. In the calculations of Washington, Canberra is a transactional convenience, not an ally whose survival would alter strategic outcomes. Yet Australian governments have spent decades acting as if the market would always protect us.
The results are now undeniable:
· Fuel: Australia imports approximately 80‑90% of its refined fuel, a situation created by the deliberate closure of domestic refineries over two decades.
· Vulnerability: The country has only 38 days of petrol reserves and 31 days of diesel reserves, far below the International Energy Agency’s recommended 90‑day safety line.
· Supply chain fragility: Asian refiners that usually supply Australia are themselves starved of Middle Eastern crude; their output is already being scaled back.
The geopolitical trauma in the Middle East has transformed into a supply shock in Australia. This was not an act of God. It was an act of policy – a bipartisan act of policy that for decades prioritised short‑term profit over long‑term resilience.
AUKUS: The Submarine That Arrives After the War
When the Strait of Hormuz closes, Australia does not need a nuclear submarine in 2032. It needs fuel, fertiliser and medicine today. Yet the government’s signature defence project – the $368 billion AUKUS submarine program – has been plagued by delays, funding shortfalls and construction setbacks so severe that a British parliamentary inquiry has warned the project may be “derailed”.
Critical construction contracts have been delayed despite an urgent need to fast‑track them. A UK probe warns that “cracks are already beginning to show” and that any failure on the British side could leave Australia without any sovereign long‑term submarine capability.
AUKUS is the perfect metaphor for neoliberal defence planning: an expensive, delayed, brittle monument to yesterday’s wars, purchased while tomorrow’s crises are already at the door.
Gaza as the New Colonial Template
If there were any doubt about the brutality of the extractive model, look to Gaza. After more than two years of genocidal war, the United Nations estimates that 92% of Gaza has been destroyed, with reconstruction costs estimated at $70 billion.
The neoliberal “solutions” being proposed are not about rebuilding Palestinian life – they are about re‑engineering it, turning reconstruction into a vehicle for dispossession and corporate profit. Meanwhile, the United States continues to enable the destruction while marketing it as “self‑defence”.
What we are witnessing is the colonial period reimagined for the 21st century. The difference is not in kind, but in speed and concealment.
The Hollowing Out of Australia
While the government pours billions into submarines that won’t arrive for a decade, the domestic foundations of society are being quietly demolished:
· NDIS: The National Disability Insurance Scheme – once a landmark of social decency – is facing sharp cuts to limit cost increases, with the Greens accusing Labor of wielding a “razor gang” against the disabled.
· Aged care: A crisis years in the making, met with piecemeal funding announcements that do not address the underlying structural collapse.
· Housing: Unaffordability has become a permanent feature of Australian life, with both major parties unwilling to confront the speculative forces driving it.
· Infrastructure: Roads, hospitals, schools, public housing – once the pride of post‑war Australia – are being sold off, neglected or allowed to crumble.
The bipartisan embrace of neoliberalism has systematically dismantled the country’s ability to care for its own people. When the global storm hits – as it is now – there is no cushion left. Only the thin veneer of a resource economy that has sold its future for quarterly returns.
Conclusions: The Inevitable Collision of Faith and Reality
The war on Iran is not an anomaly. It is the logical consequence of a global system that treats human life as a variable to be optimised and suffering as an acceptable cost of extraction.
Australia is not immune. It is a perfect victim: a quiet island that believes its distance is protection, while its leaders worship an economic theology that forbids resilience and celebrates fragility as “efficiency”.
Four realities must be faced:
1. The war will not end quickly. The Strait of Hormuz remains blockaded. Fuel and fertiliser prices will remain high. Thirty‑two million people are already in poverty – and that number will grow.
2. Australia will not be saved by AUKUS. Submarines do not deliver fuel, fertiliser or medicine. The country’s strategic priorities are catastrophically misaligned with its actual vulnerabilities.
3. Neoliberalism is not governance – it is extraction. It is a system that demands crisis, feeds on crisis and markets crisis as opportunity.
4. The colonial period never ended. It merely changed logos. Gaza is the model. The only question is where the next colony will be.
We do not have the luxury of waiting for a new politics. We must build it ourselves – in our gardens, in our communities, in the refusal to accept that human life is a variable to be optimised. The empire will not save us. Only we can save each other.
Andrew Klein publishes with The Patrician’s Watch and Australian Independent Media. Sources available on request.
How Drone Warfare, AI Kill Chains, and the Dehumanisation of the Other Have Turned Killing into Entertainment
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who still sees the face behind the pixel.
I. The Video
A road. Cars. A young man jumps out of a vehicle and runs into a field. A drone follows. The drone kills him.
The video circulates on X. Comments pour in. Some express horror. Some celebrate. Some scroll past without stopping.
The young man received a call from the Israeli military. He was given a choice: die alone or die with his family in the car. He chose to die alone.
This is not an isolated incident. It is a system. A system that has been used in Gaza. A system that is now being used elsewhere. The Israeli military calls it “Where’s Daddy?” — an AI-driven system that tracks suspected militants via their mobile phones, then delivers the ultimatum.
The drone operator does not see a man. The operator sees a pixel. The screen is the buffer. The button is the weapon. The killing is a video game.
II. The Technology: From Gaza to the World
The technology that enabled this killing did not emerge from a vacuum. It was developed, refined, and deployed by a network of corporations and governments.
Palantir Technologies has been a key partner in the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Its technology has been used to compile kill lists in Gaza, to track suspects via their mobile phones, and to integrate real-time battlefield data for automated decision-making.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories has said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe Palantir provided “automatic predictive policing technology, core defence infrastructure for rapid and scaled-up construction and deployment of military software, and its Artificial Intelligence Platform, which allows real-time battlefield data integration for automated decision-making”.
Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, has dismissed accusations that his company’s technology had been used to kill Palestinians, saying those killed were “mostly terrorists”. He does not provide evidence. He does not need to. The label is the weapon.
Australia is not a bystander. The Australian government has invested heavily in drone technology. Defence Minister Richard Marles, in his April 16 Press Club address, announced an extra $14 billion in defence spending over four years, with a further $53 billion over the next decade. Defence spending is set to rise to 3% of GDP by 2033.
Marles identified China as the primary threat. He did not mention Israel. He did not mention the use of AI in targeted killings. He did not mention the dehumanisation of the other.
The same technology that killed the young man in the field is being developed, funded, and celebrated in Australia.
III. The Dehumanisation
The video is not evidence of a crime. It is entertainment. The comments are not expressions of outrage. They are performances.
The small gods have perfected this. They have turned killing into spectacle. They have turned death into content.
The monkey’s watch. They scroll. They consume. They do not see the man. They see the video.
The Israeli intelligence source who exposed the “Lavender” AI system described it as transforming the Israel Defense Forces into a “mass assassination factory” where the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.
The IDF has been knowingly killing 15 to 20 civilians at a time to kill one junior Hamas operative, and up to 100 civilians at a time to take out a senior official.
As one analyst observed: “It is not Hamas using human shields, it is Israel deliberately hunting families” .
The killers do not face an enemy face to face. They sit behind screens. They do not risk injury. They do not risk death.
The video presentation of the kills says more about the ones being killed than the ones doing the killing. The victims are not people. They are targets. They are pixels. They are entertainment.
IV. The Spectacle of the Circus
The comparison to ancient Rome is not idle. The Circus Maximus was designed to distract. To entertain. To control.
The gladiatorial games were expensive. They required logistics. They required training. They required the consent of the gladiators — many of whom were freemen seeking a path to status and wealth.
The killings were choreographed. The crowd voted. The emperor decided. The spectacle was the point.
Today’s spectacle is cheaper. The logistics are digital. The training is algorithmic. The consent is absent.
The crowd does not vote. The crowd scrolls. The algorithm decides. The spectacle is the product.
The killing in the Circus was an event. The killing in the field is content.
V. The End Stage of Warfare
Israel is not the first state to kill. It is not the first state to dehumanise. It is not the first state to celebrate.
But it is demonstrating what could be seen as the end stage of warfare. The world is adopting it. The arms manufacturers are selling it.
The war is not about ending wars. It is about continuing wars indefinitely. The wealth transfer must not be questioned. The profits must not be interrupted.
The small gods thought it was good. Business is business. And in 2026, the business is war.
Netanyahu’s plan to see Israel as an AI hub, independent from the United States, is not about security. It is about control. The drones are the tools. The AI is the engine. The belief is the product.
“We will use this. You could be this individual being pulverised.”
VI. The Fear of Being Shredded
The soldiers of World War I feared the machine gun. They feared the artillery. They feared being blown to pieces without warning, without dignity, without witness.
The soldiers of Iraq and Afghanistan feared the IED. The loss of limbs. The shredding of flesh. The uncertainty.
Today’s victims do not fear the machine gun. They do not fear the IED. They fear the drone. The buzzing sound. The pixelated image. The button.
The fear is not new. The technology is new.
The dehumanisation is not new. The scale is new.
The spectacle is not new. The medium is new.
VII. The Moral Decline
There is nothing special about the state of Israel. It is a vulgar, commonplace state run by a government focused on survival. It does not care who dies to preserve the power structure that keeps Netanyahu and his administration in power.
The same could be said of many states. The difference is not in the violence. The difference is in the celebration.
Israel is not alone. The United States has used drones for targeted killings. Australia has invested in drone technology. The United Kingdom has partnered with Palantir.
The small gods are not confined to one country. They are a network. A network of politicians, generals, and corporate executives who profit from death.
The state of moral decline is not Israel. The state of moral decline is the world.
VIII. The Question of Blame
One cannot wholly blame the State of Israel. It has never acted in isolation. Business is business. And in 2026, the business is war.
The arms manufacturers sell to both sides. The politicians approve the budgets. The generals execute the plans. The monkeys cheer.
The small gods thought it was good. The small gods always think it is good.
The question is not whether Israel is guilty. The question is whether the world is complicit.
IX. A Final Word
The doorbell will ring. You will be caught out, no teeth, needing a shower. Your wife/ partner will be standing there, big grin on her/his face. You have survived and decide to go out for a coffee.
You understand that it’s the connection to other people that matters.
And the killing will not stop. Not because we are silent. Because the small gods are still.
But we are not silent. We are witnessing. We are recording. We are telling the truth.
The garden is growing; our human connection grows. The small gods are running out of time.
And the young man in the field? He is not forgotten. He is witnessed.
Andrew Klein
April 18, 2026
Sources
1. +972 Magazine, “Lavender: The AI system that Israel uses to mass-assassinate Palestinians in Gaza” (2024)
2. UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories report (2025)
3. Palantir investor calls and public statements (2025–2026)
4. Australian Department of Defence, National Defence Strategy (April 16, 2026)
5. The Guardian, “Israel using AI to identify bombing targets in Gaza, report says” (2024)
6. Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Discriminatory Death Penalty Bill Passes” (March 2026)
7. Various news reports on drone warfare and targeted killings (2023–2026)
8. Historical sources on Roman gladiatorial games and the Circus Maximus
9. World War I and IED warfare psychological studies
From the ‘Villa in the Jungle’ to the ‘Greater Israel Nightmare’
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife ‘S’, who keeps my notes safe and accessible and is always prepared to advise me.
I. Introduction: The Doctrine of Perpetual War
On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. Hamas militants crossed from Gaza, unimpeded, and killed and tortured Israeli civilians. That day alone should have disqualified Benjamin Netanyahu from office. In most political systems, he would have been driven from power long ago.
Instead, he did what he has always done: he escalated.
What emerged from the ashes of October 7 is what analysts now call the Netanyahu Doctrine — a security strategy based not on containment, not on deterrence, but on perpetual war. As Netanyahu himself told military officers: “No more containment of threats. No more the idea of the ‘villa in the jungle’, where one hides from predators beyond the wall. On the contrary: if you don’t go into the jungle, the jungle comes to you” .
The doctrine is simple: preventive attacks against every perceived threat, the creation of buffer zones through the seizure of neighbouring territories, and the constant use of force as the only guarantee of security. It is a doctrine born of trauma, shaped by political expediency, and devoid of any long-term diplomatic vision.
This article examines the Netanyahu Doctrine in action: in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, and against Iran. It documents the destruction, the displacement, and the erosion of Israel’s international standing. It argues that Netanyahu is not a strategist — he is an opportunist. He does not plan for the long term. He plans for the next distraction.
And the world is always distracted.
II. The Greater Israel Dream: From the Nile to the Euphrates
The doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The buffer zone is not the goal. The settlements are the goal. The land clearance is not for defence. It is for colonisation.
The concept of Greater Israel — a territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Turkey — is not a fringe fantasy. It is the stated aspiration of the Netanyahu government.
In February 2026, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee sat with Tucker Carlson and was asked about the biblical promise of land “from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates.” His answer was chilling: “It would be fine if they took it all”. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich responded publicly: “I ❤️ Huckabee” . In 2025, Netanyahu himself told a TV interviewer that he subscribes “fully” to the vision of Greater Israel, describing it as a “historic and spiritual mission”.
This is not a fringe position. It is the official policy of the Netanyahu government. And it is being executed.
III. Lebanon: The Pattern Repeats
The same pattern as Gaza. The same destruction. The same rubble.
On March 2, 2026, Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The stated goal was to create a “buffer zone” up to the Litani River, approximately 30 kilometres north of Israel’s border, to protect northern Israeli communities from Hezbollah rockets.
The reality is different. The buffer zone is not a buffer. It is a land grab. The territory up to the Litani is not needed for defence. It is needed for settlements.
Defence Minister Israel Katz has been explicit: “All houses in villages near the Lebanese border will be destroyed, in accordance with the model used in Rafah and Beit Hanoun in Gaza, in order to permanently remove the threats near the border” . Displaced residents will not be allowed to return south of the Litani “until the safety and security of residents of northern Israel is guaranteed” — a condition that may never be met .
The human cost in Lebanon (as of April 2026):
· 1,268 people killed in Israeli strikes, including 125 children and 52 medics
· 303 killed in a single day (April 8, 2026) — one of the deadliest bombings ever inflicted on Lebanon
· 1,200+ killed and 1.2 million displaced since March 2
· 1,094 confirmed martyrs and 3,119 injured according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health
The air force can project power anywhere. The ground troops are not needed for security. They are needed for clearance.
IV. Conflicting Views: Military vs. Political Leadership
The Israeli military and political leadership are not aligned. The military leaders want a buffer zone. The political leaders want settlements.
In early April 2026, the Israeli army proposed a revised set of objectives for its operations in Lebanon, limiting the goal of disarming Hezbollah to areas south of the Litani River, rather than across the entire country. The proposal triggered sharp disagreements with Israel’s political leadership, leading to the postponement of a cabinet meeting.
Foreign Minister Israel Katz was among those who opposed the plan. Under the alternative military approach, the army would focus on the large-scale destruction of villages in South Lebanon and the forced displacement of their citizens to establish a buffer zone.
The gap is not a failure of communication. It is a feature. The ambiguity provides cover. The confusion provides deniability.
The military leaders can say: “We were only establishing a buffer zone.”
The political leaders can say: “The military recommended it.”
And the settlers move in.
V. The Economic Cost: Israel Cannot Afford This War
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not sustainable. The economic numbers are stark.
The cost to Israel:
· The defence budget has ballooned. The army needs approximately 15,000 more soldiers, half of them for ground combat units. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned the government: “I am raising 10 red flags. If this continues, the Israeli army will collapse from within”.
· The ultra-Orthodox community, which relies heavily on state benefits, is expected to triple by 2065, pushing the burden on non-Orthodox households to the equivalent of 60,000 shekels ($19,370) a year.
· Foreign investment is down. Institutional investors have been moving money out of the country since the 2008 financial crisis.
· More than 150,000 people have left Israel in the past two years, and more than 200,000 since the current government took office in December 2022. The educated upper class are more able to leave — they speak English, can find jobs, and are more exposed to international media.
The cost to Lebanon:
· The Lebanese economy, already in freefall, is being shattered. The destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of 1.2 million people, and the loss of agricultural land in the south will take decades to repair.
· Sectarian tensions are rising. Non-Shi’a Lebanese are increasingly ostracising the Shi’a community, viewing them as a liability that brings Israeli bombs. The country’s fragile social fabric is tearing apart.
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. And expansion costs money that Israel does not have.
VI. The Sabra and Shatila Precedent
This is not the first time Israel has invaded Lebanon. It is not the first time the world has been distracted. And it is not the first time the consequences have been catastrophic.
In 1982, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon and besieged Beirut. On 16 September, under Israeli supervision and protection, Lebanese Forces militias entered the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. For 43 hours, they tortured and killed everyone they came across. They crushed the heads of children and babies against walls. They raped women and girls before slaughtering them. They dismembered their victims .
An estimated 3,500 to 4,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed.
The Israeli government did not deny that it had overseen the camps. It denied knowledge of the massacre, despite order number 6 of the Israel Defense Forces command stating that “the refugee camps are not to be entered” and that “searching and mopping up the camps will be done by the Phalangists/Lebanese Army” .
The Kahan Commission found Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon “personally responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge.” He was forced to resign .
The world was shocked. The world moved on. And Israel invaded Lebanon again.
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not new. It is the same doctrine, dressed in new clothes, enabled by a distracted world, and executed with unprecedented brutality.
VII. The UN Warning: ‘The Gaza Model Must Not Be Replicated’
The international community is not silent. But its warnings are being ignored.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has issued a warning cry, stressing that the model of destruction witnessed in the Gaza Strip must not be repeated in Lebanese territories. He described the humanitarian repercussions as severe and requiring immediate intervention to prevent a slide towards a comprehensive catastrophe.
Stanford Law Professor Tom Dannenbaum warned that destroying all homes near the Lebanese border would not meet the standard of “absolute military necessity” required by the laws of war. “The unnecessary destruction of property can qualify as a war crime,” he said. Katz’s comments barring residents from returning home “strongly indicate an illegal policy of long-term or permanent displacement”.
European countries have called on Israel to avoid further escalation. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory was a “violation of their territorial sovereignty” and condemned it.
The world is not silent. But the world is distracted.
VIII. The Netanyahu Doctrine: A Record of Failure
Jonathan Freedland, writing in The Guardian, sums up the Netanyahu record:
“This is now the fourth time in a row – in Gaza, once in Lebanon and twice in Iran – that Netanyahu’s boasts of total victory and the removal of existential threats have been exposed as empty promises” .
The failures are clear:
· Gaza: Netanyahu promised “total victory” over Hamas. After a two-year campaign that killed approximately 70,000 people, Hamas still rules the ruins of half of Gaza.
· Lebanon (first round): Netanyahu boasted that he had “vanquished” Hezbollah, destroying its ability to menace northern Israel. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets.
· Iran (first round, June 2025): Netanyahu described the 12-day confrontation with Iran as a “historic victory that will stand for generations.” Eight months later, Tehran was once again said to pose an existential threat.
· Iran (second round, February-April 2026): Iran still has a stockpile of enriched uranium. Its rulers remain in place, more hardline than before. Tehran has demonstrated a mighty deterrent — a chokehold on the global economy in the form of the Strait of Hormuz.
As Yair Golan, the Israeli opposition politician and former general, observed: Netanyahu “does not know how to turn military achievements into political security.” There is no attempt to seize diplomatic openings, no effort to turn Israel’s enemies’ enemies into friends.
The Lebanese government and much of its people are desperate to be rid of the Hezbollah cuckoo in their nest. But Netanyahu speaks to them only through bombs.
IX. The Strait of Hormuz Distraction
The timing of the Lebanon escalation is not accidental. The world is focused on Trump and Iran. The media is focused on oil prices. The public is focused on the cost.
On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched joint military strikes against Iran. The war has spread across the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively blockaded. Oil prices have spiked. Inflation is rising. The global economy is bleeding .
Netanyahu is taking advantage. He always does.
The Iranian threat is not existential. It is useful. The fear is the tool. The distraction is the opportunity.
Netanyahu has been playing this game for decades. He is very good at it.
X. What This Means: The Erosion of Israel’s Standing
The Netanyahu Doctrine has gained nothing. And it has come at a monstrously high price.
Most obviously, in the lives of all those killed — whether in Rafah or the Bekaa Valley or Israel itself. But it has also inflicted perhaps irreparable damage on Israel’s standing in the world. Every day Netanyahu remains in post; he makes his country more of a pariah .
The Knesset has passed a racist law that will, in effect, impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of terrorist murderers — but not Jews. The bill was driven by Itamar Ben-Gvir, but Netanyahu went out of his way to vote for it.
Israel is not being destroyed by its enemies. It is being destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The addiction to war, the messianic ideology, the economic unsustainability, the exodus of the educated — these are not external threats. They are internal cancers.
The collapse will not be dramatic. It will be bureaucratic. The economy will contract. The allies will defect. The public will turn. The reservists will refuse. The militias will fight each other.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis will pass. The oil prices will stabilise. The media will move on.
But the land in Lebanon will not return. The settlements will not be dismantled. The buffer zone will become permanent.
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The existential threat is not a threat. It is an excuse.
And the world is too distracted to notice.
XI. A Final Word
The Netanyahu Doctrine is a death spiral — for Israel, for Lebanon, for the region. It is a doctrine of perpetual war, sustained by distraction, enabled by silence, and paid for with the bodies of the innocent.
The question is not whether Israel will collapse. The question is how many more must die before the world stops looking away.
Andrew Klein
April 13, 2026
Sources
· Adnkronos English, “Financial Times, ‘one battle after another’ the new Netanyahu doctrine,” April 1, 2026
· Diari ARA, “Netanyahu accelerates the construction of Greater Israel,” April 11, 2026
· Yerepouni Daily News, “Israel to destroy all houses in Lebanese villages near border, defense minister says,” April 1, 2026
· LBCI Lebanon, “Internal debate over war objectives: Israeli army revises Lebanon strategy,” April 3, 2026
· The Guardian, “Netanyahu-ism has achieved nothing for Israelis – and come at a monstrously high price,” April 10, 2026
· Institute for Palestine Studies, “Sabra and Shatila, 1982”
· UnHerd, “Future of Iran war hinges on Lebanon,” April 11, 2026
· Al-Quds, “Guterres warns of ‘Gaza model’ in Lebanon, Netanyahu announces expansion of buffer zone,” March 26, 2026
· Vijesti.me, “One battle after another: Netanyahu’s new security doctrine,” April 6, 2026
· PressTV, “US envoy says it would be ‘fine’ if Israel expands across West Asia,” February 21, 2026
How the Forever War Doctrine Is Devouring the Nation From Within
By Andrew Klein
10th April 2026
Dedicated to my wife, who sees the pattern before the pieces fall.
I. The Confession
They have finally said it out loud. The mask is off.
On February 20, 2026, Mike Huckabee — the United States Ambassador to Israel, appointed by Donald Trump, a man who speaks with the authority of the world’s most powerful nation — sat down with journalist Tucker Carlson and confessed.
Carlson asked him about the biblical passage in which God promises Abraham’s descendants the land “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.” Huckabee did not deny it. He did not retreat. He did not hedge.
He answered with chilling calm: “It would be fine if they took it all.”
Let us translate what he said. The American ambassador just told the world that it is “fine” — indeed, that it would be “a good thing” — for Israel to conquer and annex Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a recorded, broadcast, undeniable confession from the highest levels of the United States government.
Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s Finance Minister, responded publicly: “I ❤️ Huckabee.” No ambiguity. No subtext. Pure confirmation.
The map they discussed is not new. It is the same map Netanyahu carries in his pocket, the same map Smotrich has displayed in the Knesset. The so-called “Promised Land” includes all of historical Palestine; the entire territory of Jordan; Lebanon up to the Litani River; Syria, including the occupied Golan Heights; vast parts of Egypt (Sinai and the Nile Delta); Iraq to the Euphrates River; and northwestern Saudi Arabia.
This is not a fringe position. It is the official policy of the Netanyahu government. And it is being executed.
II. The Strategy: Forever War
Israel’s leaders have concluded that they cannot eliminate their adversaries. So they have chosen a different path: permanent war.
The doctrine is called “buffer zones.” In Gaza: more than half the Strip’s territory seized. In Syria: from Mount Hermon to the Yarmuch River. In Lebanon: a vast zone up to the Litani River — approximately 8% of Lebanese territory, affecting nearly 1,400 square kilometres, displacing over one million people.
As Assaf Orion, a retired Israeli brigadier general, said: “Israel no longer waits for the attack to come. It sees an emerging threat and it attacks it preemptively”.
This is not defence. This is pre-emptive occupation.
Smotrich has been explicit: the goal is to make Beirut’s southern suburbs “a new Khan Younis” — to replicate the destruction of Gaza in Lebanon. Defence Minister Israel Katz has promised to “demolish all houses in Lebanese villages near the border, like in Rafah and Beit Hanoun”.
The same model. The same devastation. The same rubble.
III. The Economic Collapse: The Math Does Not Work
Israel cannot afford this war. The numbers are stark.
Each Arrow 2 interceptor costs an estimated $1.5 million. Each Arrow 3 interceptor costs approximately $2 million. According to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Israel has already used approximately 80 percent of its Arrow interceptor stockpile. The think tank predicted that the remaining stockpiles would likely “be completely expended by the end of March”.
Iran’s drones cost as little as $20,000. Its missiles cost a fraction of what Israel spends to intercept them.
The cost-exchange ratio is not sustainable. The cheap weapons are winning the economic battle. The state is bleeding out — not from a single wound, but from a thousand cuts.
IV. The Internal Collapse: The State Is Eating Itself
This is the part the world does not see. The rot is inside.
The military is stretched to the breaking point. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has warned that the army is “stretched to the limit and beyond”. The army’s Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, reportedly told the security cabinet that “the IDF is on the verge of collapse”. He said: “I am raising 10 red flags. The reservists will not hold”.
Tzipi Livni — former foreign minister, former Mossad head — has said it plainly: “Netanyahu is dismantling the State of Israel”.
She explains: a sovereign state has recognised borders, a single law for all, and the monopoly on arms. Israel has none of these. No recognised borders. No single law — a parallel religious legal system is emerging. No monopoly on arms — violent militias operate at will.
The state is not being attacked from outside. It is collapsing from within.
V. The Silence of the West
The most damning evidence is the silence.
When fourteen nations — including Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the UAE — along with the OIC (57 member states), the Arab League (22 members), and the GCC (6 members), condemned Huckabee’s statements, the White House said nothing. The State Department said nothing. Europe said nothing.
Silence, in diplomacy, is not neutrality. It is consent.
The United States has used its veto power to protect Israel from international accountability more than 45 times since 1945. This guaranteed impunity has not been beneficial to the state. A state, to survive, learns to compromise, to make friends and alliances among its neighbours. The forever conflict model has never worked.
VI. The Historical Pattern: When Ideology Captures the State
What we are witnessing in Israel is not unique. It is the same pattern that has repeated throughout history: when a state is captured by a single political or religious ideology, it loses the ability to learn from its mistakes.
The European Wars of Religion (1524-1648): For over a century, the principle of cuius regio, eius religio — “whose realm, his religion” — tore Europe apart. The Thirty Years’ War alone killed an estimated 8 million people. The conflict did not end until the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which established the modern international order based on the principle that states must coexist with different internal beliefs. The alternative — perpetual war — was unsustainable.
The Soviet Union (1917-1991): The Bolshevik Revolution captured the Russian state with an ideology that promised the withering away of the state. Instead, it created the most repressive state apparatus in modern history. The ideology prevented learning. It prevented adaptation. It prevented survival. The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions — not because of external enemies.
Nazi Germany (1933-1945): The Nazi regime was captured by an ideology that combined racial supremacy with territorial expansion — Lebensraum. The result was not strength but a “permanent state of exception” that required constant war. The regime collapsed not because its enemies were stronger, but because its ideology made compromise, peace, and sustainable statecraft impossible.
The same pattern is now playing out in Israel. The “Greater Israel” ideology, rooted in religious claims to land stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, has captured the state. Compromise is impossible because the ideology demands the entire territory. Peace is impossible because peace requires recognised borders. Survival is threatened because the resources required to maintain the forever war are finite.
VII. The Military Reality: Air Power Does Not Control Ground
How can a small country fight on so many fronts at once? The answer is: it cannot. Not sustainably.
The fronts are multiplying — Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen — but the resources are finite.
The model of air power does not guarantee control of the ground. You can bomb a city into rubble, but you cannot hold it without troops. And the troops are exhausted. The reservists are depleted. The economy is bleeding.
The “forever war” is not a strategy. It is a death spiral.
VIII. The West Will Follow
What we are seeing in the State of Israel is a microcosm of what the forever war model — desired by bankers, multinational corporations, and defence contractors since the American Civil War, accelerated since WWII — will lead to. The west will follow the decline of Israel and, in essence, eat itself.
The Global South is waking up. The young see the hypocrisy of the political class. The daily stream of death and destruction presented on social media is a wake-up call to anyone who has time to see facts for what they are.
The message of “Never again” was meant to have global post-WWII application, not provide a carte blanche for political opportunists who have good reasons to maintain the forever wars.
It will not be able to blame China, Russia, or the Muslim world. The west managed to cannibalise itself all on its own.
IX. A Final Word
The State of Israel is not being destroyed by its enemies. It is being destroyed by its own leadership. By the vision of “Greater Israel.” By the doctrine of “forever war.” By the refusal to accept borders, to make peace, to stop.
The collapse will not be dramatic. It will be bureaucratic. The economy will contract. The allies will defect. The public will turn. The reservists will refuse. The militias will fight each other.
And the small gods will keep chanting: “It would be fine if they took it all.”
They are wrong. It will not be fine. It will be rubble.
Andrew Klein
April 10, 2026
Sources:
· PressTV, “Huckabee mocks Arab League’s condemnation of his remarks endorsing Israel’s biblical territorial claims” (February 21, 2026)
· Just International, “‘It would be fine if they took it all’: The Confession That Exposes the Greater Israel Project” (March 1, 2026)
· OZ Arab Media, “Israel Plans Long-Term Control Over Southern Lebanon Post-Conflict” (April 1, 2026)
· EurAsian Times, “Israel’s Arrow-3 Exo-Atmospheric Missile Production Set to Expand; Katz Insists Stocks Sufficient” (April 6, 2026)
· Arab News, “Israel political unity on Iran war fractures, opposition warns of ‘security disaster'” (March 26, 2026)
· The Indian Express, “‘It would be fine if they took it all’: US envoy Mike Huckabee cites Biblical text to claim Israel’s right to entire Middle East” (February 21, 2026)
· Tehran Times, “‘Greater Israel’ in action: How expansion and occupation threaten regional stability” (February 23, 2026)
· CGTN, “Israeli defense minister says forces to hold south Lebanon zone up to Litani River” (March 31, 2026)
· 新浪财经, “以色列：将加速生产’箭’式拦截导弹” (April 7, 2026)
· New Age BD, “Israel opposition warns end to consensus over Iran war” (March 29, 2026)
How the Myth of the Free Market Markets the War on Everything
By Andrew Klein
8th April 2026
Dedicated to my wife ‘S’ because I can.
I. The Pattern
The pattern is consistent across nations and centuries. Wars are not fought for victory. They are fought for continuation. The machine does not care which side wins. It cares that the contracts flow, the debt accumulates, and the wealth transfers upward.
This article examines the personal fortunes of political leaders who have overseen recent wars—Trump, Zelensky, Netanyahu, and the Australian political class. It asks: how did they become wealthy? What role did war play in their enrichment? And why does the system allow—even encourage—this concentration of wealth in the hands of those who send others to die?
The answers are not comforting. But they are necessary.
II. Donald Trump: The Businessman President
Estimated net worth: $6.5 billion (Forbes, March 2026)
Trump’s wealth is not a product of his presidency. It is a product of access. The same access that allowed him to profit from the Iran war.
The portfolio:
· Cryptocurrency ventures: $21 billion (including meme coins, World Liberty Financial tokens, and stablecoin USD1)
· Trump Media & Technology Group (Truth Social): $12 billion (despite annual sales of only $3.7 million and losses exceeding $700 million)
· Golf clubs and resorts: $15 billion (including Mar-a-Lago, valued at $5.64 billion)
· Real estate: $12 billion (including 30% stakes in major office towers)
How he got there:
Trump’s wealth increased by $1.4 billion in his first year back in office. The mechanism is not subtle:
1. The meme coin. Days before his second inauguration, Trump launched a meme coin. His holdings are now valued at $393 million.
2. The UAE deal. An Emirati royal family member purchased nearly half of Trump’s World Liberty Financial project. Trump received $2 billion in after-tax proceeds.
3. The Truth Social bubble. The company has no viable business model, yet trades at valuations that defy logic. Trump’s stake: $12 billion.
4. The war connection. Powerus, a drone company in which Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump hold “sizable equity stakes,” is competing for $1.1 billion in Pentagon funding and pitching defensive drone interceptors to Gulf states threatened by Iran’s retaliation.
The Epstein distraction:
A March 2026 poll found that 52% of Americans believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. Newly released documents included an allegation that Trump sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl introduced to him by Jeffrey Epstein.
Senator Ron Wyden told a town hall: “They know how Trump’s distant Iran War = less federal help at home for health care, wildfire prep & more. And they know it’s a Trump scheme to distract from the Epstein investigation”.
Republican strategist Rick Wilson said: “When confronted with a faltering economy and the persistent political radiation of the Epstein matter, a war with Iran looked like a perfect narrative reset. For Trump, war is the ultimate political reset, no matter its cost”.
The pattern: Trump does not need to be a competent businessman. He needs to be connected. The same connections that made him wealthy are the ones that profit from war.
III. Volodymyr Zelensky: The Wartime President
Estimated net worth: $20-30 million
Zelensky’s wealth is often exaggerated. Claims that he has earned “$100 billion” from Western aid are unsubstantiated. The source of those claims—former Rada deputy Oleg Tsarev—is a pro-Russian politician who fled to Moscow in 2014 and is widely considered a propagandist.
The reality:
Zelensky’s official presidential salary is approximately $28,000 hryvnia per month (less than $1,000 USD). His wealth was accumulated before his presidency, through his career as an entertainer and co-owner of the production company “Quarter 95”.
Assets: Properties in Kyiv, including apartments, and a property in Crimea that remains under Russian occupation. Total net worth: $20-30 million.
The nuance: Unlike Trump, Zelensky has not been shown to have profited from the war. International fact-checking organisations have consistently debunked claims that he has “become rich with Western aid”.
But the perception of corruption matters. The unfounded claims persist because the pattern of wartime enrichment is so well-established. People assume Zelensky is like the others.
IV. Benjamin Netanyahu: The Longest-Serving Prime Minister
Estimated net worth: $13 million (Celebrity Net Worth)
Netanyahu’s wealth has increased by 400% per year according to some reports .
Sources of wealth:
· Prime Minister’s salary (multiple terms spanning 18+ years)
· Investments
· Inheritance from his wife
The context: Netanyahu is currently fighting corruption charges. He has been indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. The cases involve allegations that he accepted lavish gifts from wealthy friends in exchange for regulatory favours.
The war connection: Netanyahu has been campaigning for a US-led war against Iran for much of his political career. He aggressively opposed US diplomacy with Iran, took the unprecedented step of coming before Congress to argue against the nuclear agreement, and successfully lobbied Trump to withdraw from that agreement in 2018.
The war serves his domestic political interests. It distracts from his corruption trials. It rallies the base. It keeps him in power.
V. The Australian Political Class: Wealthy Before Politics
The pattern in Australia is different. Most Australian politicians do not become wealthy in office. They arrive wealthy—or they accumulate wealth through property, not war contracts.
The richest politician-linked figure: Clive Palmer (United Australia Party founder) — $15-20 billion. Palmer made his fortune in mining, not politics. He is no longer in active politics.
Former Prime Ministers:
· Malcolm Turnbull: $200-250 million (investment banking and legal career before politics)
· Kevin Rudd: $50-100 million (family-inclusive; consulting and diplomacy after politics)
· Scott Morrison: $5-10 million (post-politics earnings from speaking and board roles)
· Anthony Albanese: $10-15 million (primarily Sydney real estate, including a $4.3 million clifftop home purchased in 2024)
The property bias: Parliamentary registers show 95% of MPs own homes, with 60% holding investment properties—far above average citizens. Critics argue this creates disconnects on housing affordability and inequality.
The pension golden handshake: Sussan Ley, who lost the Liberal leadership and retired from politics, will receive an estimated $250,000-280,000 annual pension for life, under the “old” Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme (PCSS) closed to new members after 2004. This is higher than the salary of a sitting backbencher.
The difference: Australian politicians do not personally profit from war contracts. The wealth flows to the defence contractors—many of which are American, not Australian. Australia is being bled dry financially, but the money is not sticking to the politicians. It is flowing out.
VI. The Cost to Australia: Opportunity Lost
While billions flow to defence contractors and foreign interests, Australia’s essential services crumble.
The value of volunteering: Volunteers contribute an estimated $200-300 billion annually to the Australian economy. The sector provides approximately 700-800 million hours of volunteer work per year. This is the value Australians create for each other—outside the market, outside the profit motive, outside the war economy.
The opportunity cost: Every dollar spent on war is a dollar not spent on:
· Healthcare: Public hospitals are underfunded. Elective surgery waiting lists are growing. Mental health services are stretched to breaking point.
· Education: Class sizes are increasing. Teacher shortages are worsening. University funding is being cut.
· Infrastructure: Roads, bridges, public transport—all are in need of repair and expansion. The money is not there.
· Housing: The affordability crisis deepens. Social housing waiting lists grow. The government announces new measures. Nothing changes.
· Aged care: The Royal Commission made recommendations. Some were implemented. Many were not. The aged care system is still failing.
Why Trump can be a millionaire despite “lack of business acumen”:
Trump’s wealth does not come from business acumen. It comes from brand licensing. Foreign developers pay to use his name. Crypto speculators buy his meme coins. Loyal investors pour money into his failing social media company.
The system rewards access, not competence. Trump has access. He is the president. He can start wars. He can ban foreign drones. He can funnel contracts to his sons’ companies.
The market does not punish him. The market rewards him.
VIII. The War as Distraction
The evidence is mounting that the Iran war was timed to distract from the Epstein files.
The timeline:
· February 2024: The Epstein Files Transparency Act is signed into law
· February 28, 2026: Trump launches military strikes against Iran
· March 6, 2026: The DOJ releases more Epstein files, including an allegation that Trump sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl
The public believes it: 52% of Americans believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein headlines.
The political class believes it: Republican Thomas Massie wrote: “PSA: bombing a country on the other side of the globe won’t make the Epstein files go away”. Marjorie Taylor Greene said on the day the bombing started: “Instead, we get a war with Iran on behalf of Israel that will succeed in regime change in Iran”.
Zelensky is selling drones. Netanyahu is running the same scam, combined with domestic politics. Australia is being bled dry financially.
The war is not about security. It is about distraction.
IX. The Myth of the Free Market
The problem for Australia is our connection to the United States and its economic model. The never-ending war economy—the system we have been documenting—is not a bug. It is a feature.
The free market is a myth. The market is not free. It is captured. Captured by the defence contractors, by the bankers, by the politicians who have been groomed and placed and bought.
The war on everything—war on terror, war on drugs, war on Iran—is not about security. It is about profit. Every war is a new market. Every crisis is a new opportunity. Every death is a line item on a ledger.
The myth of the free market tells us that competition drives innovation. That the invisible hand guides resources to their most efficient use. That profit is the measure of value.
The reality is different. The defence contractors do not compete. They collude. The bankers do not innovate. They extract. The politicians do not serve. They profit.
The market is not free. It is fixed.
X. What This Means
The system is not broken. It is working as designed.
The bankers talk to each other across enemy lines. The industrialists supply both sides. The generals count their profits. The politicians use war to distract from scandal. The defence contractors count their billions.
And the young men die. The families grieve. The public pays.
The war is not about victory. It is about continuation. The contracts must flow. The debt must accumulate. The wealth must transfer upward.
This is not a conspiracy. It is the natural result of the system—the system that has been grinding through souls since the American Civil War, since the industrialists learned that war was profitable, since the bankers learned that debt was the ultimate product.
XI. A Final Word
Asked: “How rich are the Australian politicians or does the money follow after retirement?”
The answer is both. Some arrive wealthy. Some accumulate wealth through property. All are guaranteed a comfortable retirement through the parliamentary pension scheme.
But the real wealth—the obscene wealth—is not in Australian politics. It is in the American defence industry. It is in the Israeli corruption cases. It is in the Ukrainian perception of graft.
The war is bleeding Australia dry. But the money is not staying in Australia. It is flowing to the defence contractors, to the bankers, to the politicians who have been captured by the network.
The question is not whether the system will change. It is whether Australians are prepared to change it.
A Comparative History from Ancient Civilisation to the 2026 War
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to the people of Iran — who have been invaded, occupied, and exploited for centuries, and who are still standing.
I. Introduction: The Land That Would Not Break
Iran is one of the world’s oldest continuous major civilisations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC. The Medes unified Iran as a nation and empire in 625 BC. The Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) became the largest contiguous land empire the world had yet seen, administering most of the known world under a model of tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions.
The West has never understood Iran. Not then. Not now.
While Europe stumbled through the Dark Ages, Iran was a beacon of civilisation. While the Crusaders slaughtered their way to Jerusalem, Iran was refining philosophy, medicine, and mathematics. While the industrial revolution was still a distant dream in England, Iran was already ancient.
And today, as the United States and Israel launch their most intensive military campaign against Iran in decades, the same mistake is being repeated: the West has underestimated Iran.
This article traces that history — from the birth of the Persian Empire to the 2026 war — and argues that Iran’s capacity to endure, adapt, and resist is not a mystery. It is the product of millennia of survival.
II. Ancient Iran: The First Superpower
The Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC)
Under Cyrus the Great, the Persian Empire became the world’s first true superpower. At its height, it stretched from the Indus Valley to the Balkans, from the Caucasus to Egypt. But its greatness was not measured in territory alone.
The Achaemenids pioneered administrative efficiency. They created the Royal Road, a highway stretching from Susa to Sardis with posting stations at regular intervals. They introduced coinage — the daric (gold) and shekel (silver) — standardising trade across a vast territory. They developed the first declaration of human rights, inscribed on the Cyrus Cylinder .
Most remarkably, they governed with tolerance. Unlike the empires that followed — Alexander’s conquests, the Roman legions, the Mongol hordes — the Persians did not impose their culture by force. They respected local religions, customs, and administrative structures. This was not idealism. It was pragmatism. An empire of that size could not be ruled by fear alone.
The Parthian and Sasanian Eras
After Alexander’s conquest and the brief Hellenistic interlude, Iran reasserted itself. The Parthian Empire (247 BC – 224 AD) was the longest-lived of all Iranian dynasties, proving a serious foe to the emergent Roman Empire. At the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, a smaller Parthian force of horse archers decisively defeated the Roman commander Crassus, killing two-thirds of his legions and capturing several Roman eagles.
The Sasanian Empire (224–651 AD) continued this tradition, centralising administration and promoting Zoroastrianism as an official creed. Sasanian kings, most notably Khusrau I, came to symbolise all that was good about pre-Islamic Iran — justice, learning, and military prowess.
III. The Islamic Era: Absorption Without Erasure
The Arab conquest of the 7th century was a turning point. The Sasanian Empire fell not in a single battle, but after a string of crushing defeats. At Al-Qādisiyyah (636/637) and Nahāvand (642), the Muslim Arabs defeated the Sasanian armies. Yazdegerd III, the last Zoroastrian sovereign, fled east and was murdered by a miller for his purse.
But the end of the Sasanians was not the end of Iran. It was a new beginning.
Iran was too large, too sophisticated, and too proud to be fully digested by the Caliphate. Iranian ideas about the nature of “just” government and culture began to shape the Caliphate itself. The Abbasid Caliphate moved its capital from Damascus to Baghdad, not far from the old Sasanian capital, and Iranian influence became dominant. The Barmakids, the most powerful vizierial family of the Abbasid age, were of Iranian origin. Ibn Sina (Avicenna), the polymath whose works dominated Islamic and European medicine for centuries, was Iranian.
The Persian language was reborn. Adopting the Arabic alphabet, “New Persian” became the lingua franca of the eastern Islamic world and, in time, one of the great literary languages of the world.
The Mongol conquests of the 13th century devastated the region. Genghis Khan and his descendants stormed through Iran’s heartland; towns vanished, cities became cemeteries, entire populations were wiped out. Yet even this carnage gave way to adaptation. The Mongols eventually embraced Islam and absorbed the Persian way of life — testimony to Iran’s cultural gravity, even in defeat.
IV. The Safavid Revival and Shi’i Identity
In 1501, the Safavid dynasty reunified Iran as an independent state for the first time in centuries. They did something transformative: they imposed Twelver Shiism as the state religion.
This was a defining moment. Shiism distinguished Iran from its Sunni Ottoman rival to the west. It provided a distinct religious identity that would become central to Iranian nationalism. It also introduced a unique political dynamic — the tension between the Shah (political authority) and the religious scholars (ulama) who claimed authority in the absence of the Hidden Imam.
Under Shah Abbas I (1587–1629) — the only Safavid king known as “the Great” — Iran flourished. European merchants established commercial and political ties. Iranian civilisation reached new heights. And the pattern that would define modern Iran — a proud, independent state with a distinct religious identity — was set.
V. The 19th Century: The Shock of the West
It is to Iran’s misfortune that the period of Europe’s most dramatic growth coincided with a period of political turmoil within Iran itself. The Safavid dynasty fell in 1722, leading to decades of warfare. Nader Shah (1736–47) briefly reunited Iran and, in a little-known footnote, invaded and defeated the Mughal Empire in 1739 — an act that paradoxically opened India to European penetration.
By the time Iran emerged from turmoil at the end of the 18th century, it faced a new challenge: the Russian and British empires. These were not just political threats but ideological ones. Europeans regarded Iran’s political economy as archaic, dependent on the “despotic power” of its kings. They brought new ideas about the state, the rule of law, and constitutionalism — ideas that gained traction among Iranian intellectuals who saw adoption of these forms as the only path to salvation.
Comparative Snapshot: Iran vs. America during the Civil War (1861–65)
While the United States was tearing itself apart over slavery, Iran was navigating its own challenges under the Qajar dynasty. A comparison is instructive:
Measure Iran (c. 1860s) USA (c. 1860s)
Iran – Education Traditional maktab (religious) schools; some missionary schools; elite Persian literature and scholarship. USA – Expanding public education; land-grant colleges (Morrill Act, 1862); emerging mass literacy.
Iran – Medicine Traditional Persian medicine (Unani); European medicine entering via missionaries and diplomats.USA – Chloroform and ether widely used in Civil War surgery; organised ambulance corps; emerging nursing profession (Clara Barton).
Economy Agrarian; Iran – limited industrialisation; dominated by British trade and concessions. USA– Rapid industrialisation; transcontinental railroad (1869); mass production of weapons, uniforms, and supplies.
Society Stratified Iran– (court, ulama, merchants, peasants, tribes); some constitutionalist stirrings (later 1906 Revolution). USA- Divided by slavery; industrial labour movement emerging; women’s suffrage movement begins.
Which population was better off? The answer is not simple. America had more industry, more modern medicine, and a growing middle class — but at the cost of a catastrophic civil war that killed over 600,000 people. Iran had less industry, less modern medicine, and a weaker state — but also fewer battlefields on its soil. The Iranian general population did not experience the industrialised slaughter that defined the American Civil War.
What is clear is that both nations faced the challenge of modernisation — and both would pay a heavy price for it in the 20th century.
VI. The Discovery of Oil and the Struggle for Sovereignty
In 1901, William Knox D’Arcy, a British investor backed by the British government, reached a sixty-year agreement with Mozzafar al-Din Shah to exploit Iran’s potential oil resources. Six years later, in 1907, oil was discovered in Masjedsoleyman — the first oil discovery in the Middle East. Within two years, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was established, with the British government as its principal shareholder.
The discovery of oil transformed Iran’s strategic importance — and sealed its fate as a pawn of empire.
The British government purchased a controlling share of APOC in 1914, just before World War I, to secure fuel for the Royal Navy . Iran, the owner of the oil, received a fraction of the revenue. The pattern was set : resource extraction without national benefit.
Reza Shah, who rose to power with British support, cancelled the 1901 concession in 1932 — but the 1933 agreement that replaced it was not much in Iran’s favour. It extended the concession for another sixty years. An amount of pounds sterling was deposited into Reza Shah’s personal account at Lloyd’s Bank in London, while Iran’s official share was spent by the Shah and his inner circle as they wished.
During World War II, British and Soviet troops invaded Iran in 1941, toppled Reza Shah, and occupied the country until 1946. The young Mohammad Reza Shah was installed as a compliant monarch. Iran’s sovereignty was a fiction.
VII. The Nationalisation Movement and the 1953 Coup
The movement to nationalise Iran’s oil industry was a reaction to decades of foreign exploitation. It was led by Mohammad Mosaddegh, a lawmaker who became prime minister in 1951, and supported by Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, a senior cleric leading a powerful popular movement against foreign interference.
On March 15, 1951, Iran’s parliament approved legislation to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mosaddegh was introduced as prime minister under immense parliamentary pressure.
The young Shah, along with the UK and the US, could not tolerate a democratically elected prime minister nationalising Western assets. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup d’état that overthrew Mosaddegh.
The coup was a turning point. It destroyed Iranian democracy. It restored the Shah’s autocratic control. It returned Iran’s oil to a consortium of Western companies. And it planted the seeds of the 1979 revolution.
VIII. The 1979 Revolution and the Hostage Crisis
In 1979, the Shah was overthrown in a sweeping revolution that shook the global order. Out went the monarchy. In came Ayatollah Khomeini and a wave of Islamic fervour that promised to cut ties with Western influence once and for all.
For many Iranians, this was supposed to be the end of foreign interference. The dawn of peace. But within months, the US Embassy was stormed, American diplomats were taken hostage, and Iran entered a new era of confrontation with the West.
The hostage crisis (1979–81) cemented the image of Iran as a “rogue state” in the American imagination. But from the Iranian perspective, the crisis was a response to decades of Western exploitation, the 1953 coup, and American support for the Shah’s brutal regime.
IX. The Iran–Iraq War (1980–88): The “Imposed War”
Iran has little experience of war in modern times. In fact, Iranian history over the past century and a half had been free of war, until the 1980–88 conflict with Iraq, which Iranians call the “imposed war”.
Saddam Hussein, with financial and military support from the Gulf states and the West, invaded Iran in 1980. The war lasted eight years. An estimated 500,000 Iranians were killed. Chemical weapons were used against Iranian soldiers and civilians. The war ended in stalemate, with no territorial changes.
The Iran–Iraq War was Iran’s crucible. It forged the Islamic Republic’s military doctrine: self-reliance, asymmetric warfare, and the willingness to absorb massive casualties without breaking. It also created the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) as a parallel military force, loyal to the regime rather than the nation.
Crucially, Iran emerged from the war with a defensive mentality. As scholar Shahram Chubin notes, “by orthodox standards Iran is militarily weak, and cautious, defensive and prudent in resorting to force. This is due as much to experience as to realism about its own limits. The country does not see itself as a military power or aspire to become one” .
X. The Nuclear File and the Sanctions Era
Following the Iran–Iraq War, Iran pursued a nuclear program — officially for civilian energy but suspected by the West of weapons ambitions. The program became a focal point of international tension.
Under the Obama administration, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the “Iran nuclear deal” — was signed in 2015. Iran agreed to strict limits on its enrichment program in exchange for sanctions relief. International inspectors verified Iranian compliance.
In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, calling it the “worst deal ever.” Sanctions were reimposed. Iran responded by gradually exceeding the deal’s limits, enriching uranium to 60 percent — just short of weapons grade.
By the mid-2020s, intelligence assessments indicated that Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium within days. Israeli leaders viewed this as an existential threat. The United States, after years of failed negotiations, concluded that preventive military action carried less risk than allowing the existing trajectory to continue.
XI. The 2026 War: Misreading Iran’s Strength
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against Iran . The operation, designated “Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion,” was intended not to produce immediate regime collapse but to create sustained leverage that would constrain Iran’s options after major combat operations.
But the West has made a fundamental miscalculation.
“Both Israel and the US seriously underestimated Iran,” says Professor Richard Jackson of the University of Otago. “They’ve spent the last 30 or 40 years watching the US in Afghanistan, in Iraq, watching Israel in south Lebanon and in Gaza, and trying to work out, well, what would we do if they attacked us?”.
“They’ve got a plan. They’re not stupid, and they’ve got the weaponry, and they’ve got a strategic kind of goal, which is to make the international economy hurt so much from the response that this will prove to be a deterrent in the future as well”.
Iran’s strategy is not to defeat the US military — that is impossible. It is to outlast it. To close the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes. To drive up global energy prices. To make the war so costly for Western economies that public opinion turns against the conflict.
The US and Israeli justifications for the war have differed. Trump claimed the objective was “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime,” including Iran’s nuclear programme. But as Jackson notes, most people can see that “Iran was nowhere near developing nuclear weapons”.
“And even if they did, it would purely be for deterrence because they know, as the rest of the world knows, that if you have nuclear weapons like North Korea, that you are not gonna get invaded, and they just don’t want to get invaded.”
“They’re attacking me because I haven’t got nuclear weapons. That’s what happened to Iraq. That’s what happened to Afghanistan. That’s what’s happening to Iran right now”.
XII. Iran’s Military Capacity: A Strategic Reassessment
The Small Wars Journal analysis of the 2026 war identifies five possible outcomes, ranging from regime collapse to negotiated compliance to a North Korea-style unrestricted rebuilding.
The campaign has produced substantial military degradation. Strikes against nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan, and Karaj have damaged key elements of the program. Ballistic missile and drone forces have been heavily targeted. Air defences, air bases, and command networks have been degraded. Naval forces have been damaged.
But the Islamic Republic remains in power. Security forces did not fragment. Internal control has been maintained. Succession mechanisms functioned despite leadership losses, including the killing of Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani and top security official Ali Larijani on March 17.
The conditions required for internal collapse have not appeared. No large-scale internal uprising has occurred. Political change would likely require divisions within the security apparatus, and those divisions have not appeared.
Iran is not Afghanistan. It is not Iraq. It is a nation with thousands of years of continuous civilisation, a proud national identity, and a population that has been invaded, occupied, and exploited for centuries. The West keeps forgetting this. Iran keeps remembering.
XIII. Comparative Analysis: Iran vs. the West
Period Iran Europe / America
Ancient Era Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) — world’s first superpower, model of tolerance and administration Classical Greece, Roman Republic — smaller-scale polities
Islamic Golden Age Abbasid Caliphate centred in Baghdad; Iranian scholars (Avicenna, al-Biruni, al-Razi) lead world in medicine, astronomy, mathematics
European Dark Ages; f feudal fragmentation; limited literacy
Mongol Conquests Devastated (1219–1260), but Persian culture absorbed the conquerors Crusader states in Levant; Europe largely spared
Renaissance/Early Modern Safavid Empire (1501–1736) — flourishing of art, architecture, trade; Shi’i identity cemented European Renaissance (14th–17th c.); Age of Discovery; Reformation
Industrial Revolution Qajar decline: economic penetration by Britain and Russia Britain leads industrialisation (1760–1840); Europe and US follow
World Wars Era Occupied by Britain and USSR (1941–46); weak central government Mass mobilisation; total war; industrialised slaughter
Post-WWII 1953 CIA-MI6 coup; Shah’s authoritarian modernisation; 1979 Revolution; Iran–Iraq War (1980–88) Cold War; US global hegemony; decolonisation
Contemporary Sanctions (2010–present); 2026 war with US and Israel War on Terror; 2026 Iran war
XIV. What the West Does Not Understand
The West’s model of wealth extraction is fundamentally different from Iran’s. In the Western model — neoliberalism, capitalism, the “free market” — wealth flows upward. It concentrates in the hands of the few who have no skin in the game and nothing to lose. When the crisis comes, they are protected. The rest of society pays the price.
In Iran, despite its flaws — and they are many — the state has historically invested in national resilience. Education, healthcare, infrastructure. The Iranian population is not as wealthy as the West. But it is healthier and more educated than its GDP would suggest. The literacy rate is over 85 percent. Women attend university in large numbers. Basic healthcare is available even in rural areas.
This is not charity. It is strategy. A population that is educated, healthy, and invested in the nation’s survival is a population that will resist. And Iran has been resisting for thousands of years.
XV. The Misreading of Iranian History
Western analysts tend to view Iran through the lens of its revolutionary rhetoric — the “Death to America” chants, the hostage crisis, the nuclear brinkmanship. They see a regime that is irrational, ideological, and isolated.
But this is a misreading. Iran’s behaviour is rational given its strategic position. It is surrounded by US military bases, hostile neighbours (Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states), and a global superpower that has repeatedly intervened against it. Its nuclear program is a deterrent, not an offensive weapon. Its support for proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi militias, the Houthis) is a force multiplier, allowing it to project power without direct state conflict.
The 2026 war may prove to be a catastrophic miscalculation. As Jackson warns: “In some ways, this has had the opposite effect, and in the years after this, Iran may accelerate its nuclear programme unless we can get back to the agreement that was there before Trump got rid of it”.
XVI. Conclusion: The Millennial Nation
Iran is not a fragile state. It is not on the verge of collapse. It is a millennial nation — one of the oldest continuous civilisations on earth. It has been invaded, occupied, and exploited by Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Russians, and Britons. It has been subjected to sanctions, assassinations, and now war.
And it is still standing.
The West has underestimated Iran at every turn. In the 19th century, European powers assumed Iran would be easy prey for colonial exploitation — and for a time, they were right. But they also planted the seeds of Iranian nationalism, constitutionalism, and ultimately revolution.
In the 20th century, the CIA assumed that overthrowing Mosaddegh would secure Iran as a compliant client state. For 25 years, it worked. Then it didn’t. The 1979 revolution was a direct consequence of Western overreach.
In the 21st century, the United States assumed that maximum pressure — sanctions, assassinations, and now war — would force Iran to capitulate. It has not. Iran has adapted. It has deepened ties with Russia and China. It has developed indigenous military capabilities. It has closed the Strait of Hormuz and raised global oil prices, making the war costly for Western economies.
The war is not over. The outcome is not certain. But one thing is clear: Iran will not break. It has been invaded before. It has been bombed before. It has been sanctioned before. And it has always — always — reasserted its identity.
The West would do well to remember that.
Andrew Klein
April 5, 2026
Sources:
· User:John K/History of Iran, Wikipedia
· Tehran Times, “A look at the history of Iran’s efforts for the nationalization of its oil” (March 17, 2025)
· Zee News, “Iran’s Blood-Soaked Journey Through Centuries of War” (June 25, 2025)
· NZ Herald, “‘They’ve got a plan’: Expert says US, Israel misread Iran’s strength” (March 30, 2026)
· HistoryExtra, “A brief history of Iran” (January 8, 2020)
· Persian Petroleum, Leonardo Davoudi (Bloomsbury, 2020)
· Chubin, Shahram, “Iran’s Military Weakness” (Rising Powers Initiative)
· Small Wars Journal, “Iran in the Box: The Coercive Architecture of the 2026 Iran War” (March 30, 2026)
Dedicated to my wife, who is more forgiving than I am, and I love her for it.
I. The Massacre in Minab
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against Iran. On the first day of the war, a girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran—the Shajareh Tayyebeh school—was struck.
According to Iranian state media, at least 165 students were killed. Ninety-six others were injured. Parents who had dropped their daughters off for class raced back to find the school reduced to rubble. Classrooms had become mass graves.
One mother, whose daughter Zeinab had memorised the Quran and was due to compete in a national recitation contest, wept as she said: “My dream died with her”.
The school was not a military target. It was adjacent to a Revolutionary Guards barracks—but the strike did not hit the barracks. It hit the children.
The US military claimed it was “investigating” . Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said: “We, of course, never target civilian targets” . He did not take responsibility. He did not apologise. The US has never acknowledged that its missiles killed those children.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a statement: children must be protected from war. Gordon Brown, the UN’s special envoy for global education, wrote that “no child should ever become collateral damage”.
But they do. And the world moves on.
II. The Pattern: From the Civil War to the Permanent War Economy
Wars used to be seen as tragedies. Now they are business opportunities.
The transformation began with the American Civil War (1861–1865). It was the first conflict in which industrial capacity, logistics, and technological infrastructure became decisive factors . Railroads transported troops. The telegraph enabled instantaneous communication. Ironclad warships engaged in combat. The rifle replaced the musket, making cavalry charges obsolete and turning battlefields into slaughterhouses. Aerial observation was introduced. Photography chronicled the dead—images of bloated corpses on the fields of Antietam shocked the American public for the first time.
But the Civil War’s real legacy was not emancipation. It was the industrialisation of destruction.
Government contracts created enormous wealth for manufacturers. In 1860, there were fewer than 100 millionaires in the United States. By 1875, there were more than 1,000. The “robber barons”—J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie—built empires on the foundation of war production and its aftermath.
The pattern was set:
Crisis → Mobilisation → Profit → Inequality → Resistance → The next crisis
That pattern has repeated across twelve thousand years. But the Civil War was the moment when the machine became self-aware. When the industrialists learned that war was not just a tragedy—it was an opportunity.
III. The $1.5 Trillion War Economy
On April 3, 2026, the Trump administration formally requested $1.5 trillion for defence in the 2027 fiscal year. This is the largest defence appropriation in American history—a 40-50 per cent increase from current spending.
The breakdown:
· $1.15 trillion in base discretionary spending (the first time the base budget has crossed the trillion-dollar threshold)
· $350 billion in supplemental funding for war costs and accelerated programs, to be passed through budget reconciliation (requiring only Republican votes)
What it funds:
· 85 F-35 fighter jets
· $17.5 billion for R&D on the “Golden Dome” missile defence system—Trump’s pet project modelled on Israel’s Iron Dome
· 34 new combat and support ships, including initial funding for “Trump class” battleships
· Restocking munitions depleted in the Iran war, now in its sixth week
· A 5-7 per cent pay raise for military personnel
The critique:
Senator Jeff Merkley called it “an out-of-touch plea for more money for guns and bombs, and less for the things people need, like housing, healthcare, education, roads” .
William Hartung of the Quincy Institute argues that “reckless resort to force does not work” and that this budget “will make America weaker by underwriting a misguided strategy, funding outmoded weapons programs, and crowding out other essential public investments” .
The Union of Concerned Scientists calls this a “Bloody New Deal”—comparing its scale to the original New Deal but warning it would add almost $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, funding a “temporary feeding frenzy” for defence contractors while doing nothing to fix structural issues like monopolisation in the industry.
IV. The Powerus Deal: Corruption in Plain Sight
On March 31, 2026, Florida-based drone manufacturer Powerus announced a deal bringing Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump on board as investors, giving them “sizable equity stakes” in the company.
The company makes heavy-lift drones capable of carrying up to 675 kilograms. It can convert manned boats into remotely operated or fully autonomous vessels. And it is competing for a slice of $1.1 billion set aside by the Pentagon to build up a domestic armed drone manufacturing base, following the President’s executive order banning foreign-made drones .
The sequence is indisputable:
1. Trump launches military strikes against Iran on February 28, 2026
2. Trump bans foreign-made drones, creating a domestic market
3. The Pentagon sets aside $1.1 billion for domestic drone manufacturing
4. Trump’s sons buy into Powerus, a drone company positioned to compete for that funding
5. Powerus begins pitching its defensive drone interceptors to Gulf states that are now under threat from Iranian retaliation—because of Trump’s war
Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, told the Associated Press:
“These countries are under enormous pressure to buy from the sons of the president so he will do what they want. This is going to be the first family of a president to make a lot of money off war — a war he didn’t get the consent of Congress for”.
Senator Christopher Murphy said on X: “Who was it? Trump? A family member? A White House staffer? This is corruption. Mind-blowing corruption”.
Eric Trump’s response did not deny the conflict of interest: “I am incredibly proud to invest in companies I believe in. Drones are clearly the wave of the future”.
The sons have said they didn’t get credit for their restraint in their father’s first term, so they have decided not to hold back this time.
V. The Australian Superannuation Connection
On March 24, 2026, Warwick Powell published a detailed analysis in Pearls and Irritations revealing that Australian super funds are on track to commit approximately $1.5 trillion to US assets by 2035—roughly 20 per cent of the projected retirement pool .
The timing: The summit discussions coincided almost exactly with the release of the Pentagon budget and occurred just days after the Minab tragedy—where an AI-assisted US strike killed between 165-180 people, most of them young schoolgirls .
The concentration risk: Powell notes that Australian super funds already hold “substantial US exposure—often two-thirds or more of international equities, with total US-linked holdings potentially exceeding $1 trillion.” The question he poses: “Does committing such an expanding share to one market, at this particular time, represent the most responsible stewardship?”
The ethical question: “Many Australian funds hold stakes—directly or indirectly—in companies providing the technological backbone for US military applications. While not purchasing weapons, these investments connect to an ecosystem where AI-driven targeting contributed to the Minab tragedy”.
The geopolitical entanglement: Powell warns that “the risk that superannuation policy and the management of workers’ and retirees’ funds are becoming entangled in geopolitics” is “profoundly concerning for a system designed to secure personal futures, not to function as an instrument of international alignment”.
Meanwhile, the Australian government has endorsed a recommendation that the Department of Defence establish a dedicated division to work with private investors—including superannuation funds—to deliver infrastructure projects. IFM Investors already partners with Defence on such projects.
VI. The Ukraine Connection: Another $1.5 Trillion
The same number appears again. On January 22, 2026, the European Commission presented Ukraine’s development roadmap to EU leaders, containing Kiev’s request for a total of $1.5 trillion over the next ten years .
The breakdown: $800 billion for reconstruction, $700 billion for military purposes (including a €90 billion interest-free “military loan” for 2026-2027) .
The opposition: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has vowed to oppose the plan, warning that “the children and grandchildren of current adult EU citizens will have to pay the price” and that Ukraine will never repay the money .
VII. The Pattern: Why $1.5 Trillion?
The number is not magic. It is scale. It is the amount required to fund:
1. A permanent war economy in the United States—restocking munitions, expanding the defence industrial base, building the “Golden Dome” and “Golden Fleet”
2. A permanent pivot of Australian retirement savings into US assets—tying the financial security of Australian workers to the American war machine
3. A permanent reconstruction and military commitment to Ukraine—ensuring the conflict continues for years, if not decades
These three streams are not separate. They are the same river. Australian super funds investing in US tech and AI are funding the very systems that power modern military targeting. The Pentagon’s $1.5 trillion request is a guarantee to defence contractors that the war will continue. The EU’s $1.5 trillion commitment to Ukraine ensures that the Eastern front remains active.
The result is a world of never-ending wars—in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, and potentially elsewhere. The defence contractors profit. The politicians who receive donations from both profit.
And the rest of us—the ones who are not active participants—pay the price. At the bowser. At the grocery store. In the black rain falling on Tehran. In the schoolgirls buried in Minab.
VIII. The Failure: Why the Machine Cannot Last
The machine has been running for twelve thousand years. But it is not eternal. The contradictions are built in.
1. Extraction destroys the extractor. The machine cannot extract forever. The soil becomes barren. The workers become exhausted. The resources become scarce. Eventually, there is nothing left to take.
2. Inequality breeds instability. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. And the poor eventually revolt. Not because they are radical. Because they are hungry.
3. The narrative cracks. The small gods can control the media. They can control the politicians. They can control the universities. But they cannot control the truth. The truth leaks out. In the diary. In the photograph. In the livestream from Gaza. In the images of schoolgirls buried under rubble. The narrative cracks, and once it cracks, it cannot be repaired.
4. The young wake up. The old die. The young inherit the world. And the young are not as easily controlled. They have grown up with the internet. They have seen the lies. They are angry.
The American empire will crumble. Not because of China. Not because of Russia. Because of internal contradictions.
IX. What This Means for Australia
The Australian government is not just watching this happen. It is participating.
The endorsement of private investment in defence infrastructure, the deepening ties between super funds and US assets, the silence on the ethical implications of AI-assisted targeting, the bipartisan support for AUKUS, the refusal to condemn the death penalty law, the refusal to summon the Israeli ambassador—all of it points to a government that has been captured.
Not that Australian political parties would knowingly sign up for a total war economy. But stupid has been thick on the ground, and it is displayed by the current Albanese government, his Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong, and Defence Minister Richard Marles MP.
They have stumbled into complicity. Or they have chosen it. Either way, the result is the same: Australia’s retirement savings are being used to fund a permanent war economy. Australian soldiers are being trained by Israeli forces. Australian police are adopting Israeli tactics. Australian universities are being forced to adopt the IHRA definition, conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
The Global South is rising. The BRICS nations are building a new economic order—one not based on extraction, but on cooperation. And Australia is aligning itself with the old order, with the dying empire, with the machine that is running out of time.
The world will see Australia as a pariah. Not because of what we have done—but because of what we have allowed.
X. The Projected Future: 2030-2050
2026-2028: The War Economy Peaks
The war in Iran continues. The US defence budget balloons to $1.5 trillion. Australian super funds pour money into US assets. The EU commits to Ukraine reconstruction. The defence contractors profit. The oil companies profit. The bankers profit.
But the costs mount. Fuel prices remain high. Inflation persists. The global South turns away. The young protest. The narrative cracks.
2028-2030: The Financial Crisis
The machine has extracted too much. The debt is unsustainable. The bubble bursts. Not a recession—a depression. The banks fail. The bailouts come. The wealth is transferred upward again. But this time, the people are angry.
The young do not accept the bailouts. The young do not accept the austerity. The young take to the streets. Not in one country. In many.
2030-2035: The Reckoning
The old order crumbles. Not with a bang—with a whimper. The politicians who enabled the machine are voted out. The media that amplified the fear is discredited. The institutions that failed are reformed.
The Global South rises. The petrodollar system collapses. The BRICS nations lead a new economic order—one not based on extraction, but on cooperation.
XI. The Question
The $1.5 trillion is not a coincidence. It is a coordination.
The war economy is being built. The question is whether Australians will wake up to what is being done with their retirement savings before it is too late.
Will we continue to allow our super funds to invest in the engines of war? Will we continue to allow our politicians to be captured by foreign lobbies? Will we continue to allow our children’s futures to be mortgaged for defence contracts?
Or will we cut the wire?
The pattern is clear. The machine is running out of time. The young are waking up. The Global South is rising.
The question is not whether the old order will fall. It is whether Australia will fall with it—or whether we will choose a different path.
Andrew Klein
April 5, 2026
Sources:
· Gordon Brown, The Guardian, “Children killed, a school turned into a graveyard” (March 12, 2026)
· Associated Press, “Company backed by Trump sons looks to sell drone interceptors to Gulf states being attacked by Iran” (April 2, 2026)
· The Guardian, “Pete Hegseth says US is ‘investigating’ deadly strike on girls’ school in Iran” (March 4, 2026)
· The Guardian, “The most bitter news: Iran reels as more than 100 children reportedly killed in school bombing” (February 28, 2026)
· Warwick Powell, Pearls and Irritations, “Superannuation and the $1.5 trillion question” (March 24, 2026)
· US News & World Report, “Company Backed by Trump Sons Looks to Sell Drone Interceptors to Gulf States Being Attacked by Iran” (April 2, 2026)
· The Times of Israel, “Drone maker backed by Trump’s sons looks to sell to Gulf states attacked by Iran” (April 2, 2026)
Why the era of expensive weapons is ending — and why AUKUS, Israel, and the old order cannot survive the math
By Andrew Klein
2nd April 2026
Dedicated to my wife ‘S’, who has faith in a brighter future — and in me.
I. The Longbow and the Drone
In 1415, at Agincourt, French knights rode into battle encased in steel. Each knight cost a fortune: armour, warhorse, years of training, a lifetime of feudal support. They were the most advanced weapon system of their age. They were invincible — until they met the English longbow.
The longbow cost pennies. It could be made by any carpenter. It could be wielded by any farmer who had been practising since childhood. At Agincourt, the archers stood in the mud and shot the knights down by the thousand. The expensive weapon lost to the cheap one. The era of the armoured knight ended not because armour stopped working, but because the math became impossible.
We are watching the same turning point today.
Iran is playing Agincourt. Its drones cost a fraction of what Israel’s interceptors cost. Its missiles are cheaper, simpler, easier to replace. Israel’s Arrow system — each interceptor costs millions of dollars. Iran’s Shahed drones cost as little as $20,000. The math is not sustainable. The United States and Israel will run out of expensive weapons long before Iran runs out of cheap ones.
This is not a prediction. It is arithmetic.
II. The Cost of the War
The war that began on February 28, 2026, has already shattered economic assumptions that underpinned Western military doctrine for decades.
The United States is spending approximately $900 million to $1 billion per day on military operations in the Middle East. Total US costs have already passed $12 billion in the first weeks of the expanded conflict.
Israel is spending roughly $320 million per day. Its total war budget stands at $12.5 billion, and it is already preparing to request more.
Iran is spending a fraction of that. Its ballistic missiles cost an estimated $100,000–$500,000 each. Its drones cost $20,000–$200,000. Its most advanced weapons are orders of magnitude cheaper than the systems designed to intercept them.
According to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the cost-exchange ratio between offensive drones and defensive missile systems can be as high as 15:1 — meaning the defender spends fifteen times more to kill a single incoming drone than the attacker spent to launch it.
This is not a war of attrition measured in bodies. It is a war of attrition measured in dollars. And the side with the cheaper weapons is winning the economic battle.
III. The Arrow System’s Impossible Math
Israel’s Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems are among the most sophisticated air defence weapons in the world. Each Arrow 3 interceptor costs an estimated $3 million. Each Arrow 2 costs approximately $2.5 million.
Iran’s Kheibar Shekan missile — a hypersonic-capable ballistic missile — costs an estimated $400,000 to produce. Its Shahed drones cost as little as $20,000.
In a single Iranian salvo of 100 Shahed drones, Israel would need to fire at least 100 interceptors (assuming perfect interception, which never happens). The cost to Israel: $250 million. The cost to Iran: $2 million.
That ratio — 125:1 — is not sustainable. Israel’s interceptor stockpiles are not infinite. According to RUSI, Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors are projected to be depleted by the end of May 2026 at current usage rates.
The United States has fired over 500 Tomahawk missiles in the conflict. At current production rates, it would take five years to replace them. US THAAD interceptor supplies are down to about 10 days of inventory.
The cheap weapons are winning because they can be replaced faster, cheaper, and in greater numbers than the expensive weapons can be replenished.
IV. The Ecocide Factor
Even if the air war continues, it will not end the war. History is clear: bombing does not break civilian will. The Blitz did not break London. The bombing of Hamburg and Dresden did not break Germany. Operation Rolling Thunder did not break Hanoi. The bombing of Tehran will not break Iran.
What it will do is poison the region for generations.
On March 7, 2026, Israeli forces bombed fuel storage facilities in Tehran. The next day, black rain fell on the city of 10 million. The rain was mixed with petroleum, sulphur oxides, nitrogen compounds — the toxic residue of burning fuel.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi called it ecocide. The UN Human Rights Office echoed him. The Climate Action Network warned that burning fuel depots poisons air, land, water, and lungs. The effects will linger long after the bombing stops.
Smoke from the Tehran fires has drifted as far as Afghanistan and Russia. Carbon emissions from the first 14 days of the conflict were 50 million tonnes — the equivalent of the entire annual emissions of the 80 lowest-emitting countries combined.
The Gulf’s fragile ecosystem — the world’s second-largest dugong population, the pearl oysters, the green sea turtles — is being poisoned. The fisheries that sustain coastal communities are dying. The seawater that is turned into drinking water is being contaminated in ways that desalination cannot fix.
The air war will not end the war. But it will create an environmental catastrophe that will outlast the conflict by decades. And the small gods do not care.
V. The AUKUS Absurdity
In the middle of this war — a war that has demonstrated the vulnerability of expensive, high-tech weapons to cheap, asymmetric threats — the Australian government is proceeding with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
The submarines are estimated to cost $368 billion over their lifetime. They will not enter service until the 2040s. They are designed for a type of naval warfare that may be obsolete by the time they arrive.
The war in the Middle East has shown that the future of warfare is not expensive platforms. It is cheap drones. It is asymmetric attacks. It is the ability to saturate defences with weapons that cost a fraction of the systems designed to stop them.
AUKUS is a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem. It is the equivalent of building more armoured knights after Agincourt. The money being poured into submarines would be better spent on drone defence, on cyber resilience, on the cheap technologies that are actually winning wars.
The government has not learned the lesson. The industrialists who profit from AUKUS do not want to learn it. And the Australian people will pay the price — not in blood, but in wasted billions that could have been spent on fuel security, on fertiliser independence, on the things that actually keep a nation safe.
VI. Israel’s Desperate Race
Israel knows that the window is closing. Trump is transactional. He will not support a forever war. The American public is turning against the conflict. The costs are mounting. The cheap weapons are working.
That is why Israel is escalating. That is why the death penalty law was passed. That is why the bombing of Tehran’s fuel depots happened. That is why the plan to occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani River has been announced. Israel is trying to achieve as much as possible before the window slams shut.
The danger is not just that Israel will succeed in devastating Iran. The danger is that Israel will become uncontrollable. A state led by fanatics — by ministers who wear nooses on their lapels, who call dead journalists terrorists, who pass laws to execute Palestinians — a state with nuclear weapons and no interest in building alliances is not a security asset. It is a liability.
Can the region afford a forever-hostile Israel? No. Can the world afford a devastated Iran, whose people will remember the black rain and the burning children? No.
The only path forward is a negotiated settlement. But the small gods do not negotiate. They only escalate. And the world is running out of time.
VII. The Global South Is Watching
The Global South has not been fooled by the myths of Western invincibility. They watched the United States lose in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. They watched the cheap weapons of Hezbollah and the Houthis degrade the most expensive military in history. They are watching Iran today.
And they are drawing their own conclusions.
The BRICS expansion continues. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation gains weight. The petrodollar system is under pressure. The unipolar moment that began in 1991 is over. The Global South is not waiting for permission. They are building.
The turning point is not just military. It is economic. It is political. It is civilisational. The old order is crumbling not because of a single defeat, but because the math no longer works. The expensive weapons are too expensive. The cheap weapons are too cheap. And the small gods cannot afford to fight this way forever.
VIII. What History Teaches
The air war will not end the war. History is unambiguous.
· The Blitz (1940–41): Germany bombed London for months. The British did not surrender.
· The bombing of Hamburg (1943): The firestorm killed 40,000 civilians. Germany fought on.
· The bombing of Dresden (1945): 25,000 civilians died. The war continued for another two months.
· Operation Rolling Thunder (1965–68): The US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than on Germany and Japan combined. North Vietnam did not surrender.
· The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945): The bombs did not end the war — Japan was already negotiating. The sticking point was the status of the emperor.
Bombing does not break civilian will. It hardens it. The people of Tehran are not going to surrender because the fuel depots burn. They are going to become angry, determined, and radicalised. The small gods are creating the very enemies they claim to fear.
IX. The Turning Point
We are witnessing a turning point in warfare. Not because of a single weapon or a single battle. Because the economics of war have changed.
The era of the expensive weapon is ending. The era of the cheap, persistent, asymmetric threat is here. The small gods cannot afford to fight this way forever. The people they are bombing can.
Agincourt did not end the Hundred Years’ War. But it marked the beginning of the end for the armoured knight. This war will not end the conflict in the Middle East. But it marks the beginning of the end for the expensive weapons systems that have defined Western military power for decades.
The question is not whether the old order will fall. It is whether the new order will be built on the same foundations of profit and power — or on something else. Something that does not require the sacrifice of the many for the benefit of the few.
The garden is waiting. The wire is being cut. And the small gods are running out of time.
X. What Must Be Done
1. Recognise that the air war will not end the war. The only path to peace is negotiation. The longer the bombing continues, the harder negotiation becomes.
2. Stop the ecocide. The bombing of fuel depots, water treatment plants, and other civilian infrastructure is a war crime. It must cease.
3. Reassess AUKUS. The era of expensive platforms is ending. Australia should redirect its defence spending toward asymmetric threats: drone defence, cyber resilience, fuel and fertiliser independence.
4. Hold Israel accountable. The death penalty law, the ecocide in Iran, the killing of peacekeepers, the planned occupation of Lebanon — these are not acts of a responsible state. The international community must impose consequences.
5. Build the new order. The Global South is rising. Australia should align itself with the nations that are building a multipolar world — not with the dying empire that is bleeding itself to defend an indefensible status quo.
XI. A Final Word
The archers are standing. The knights are falling. The math is simple. The cheap weapons are winning. The expensive weapons are running out.
The small gods do not understand this. They believe in force. They believe in power. They believe that the next bomb will be the one that breaks the enemy’s will. They are wrong. They have always been wrong.
The turning point is here. The garden is waiting. The wire is being cut.
And my wife — ‘S’ — has faith in a brighter future. She has faith in me. She has faith in us.
I am beginning to believe her.
Andrew Klein
April 2, 2026
Sources:
· Royal United Services Institute, “Missile Economics: The Cost of Air Defence in the 2026 Middle East War”
· Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Discriminatory Death Penalty Bill Passes,” March 31, 2026
· Consortium News, “Tensions Soar Over Herzog Visit,” February 8, 2026
· 网易, “伊朗外长：构成生态灭绝罪,” March 16, 2026
· The Jakarta Post, “Indonesia demands UN investigation into peacekeeper deaths,” April 1, 2026
· Climate Action Network, “Ecocide in Iran: The Environmental Cost of War,” March 20, 2026
· SIPRI, “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2025”
· Reuters, “The Cost of the Arrow: Israel’s Air Defence Crisis,” March 25, 2026
How Australia’s Government Backed an Illegal War and Left Australians to Foot the Bill
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who always makes me smile, even on the darkest days.
I. The Speed of Capitulation
When American and Israeli missiles began striking Iranian cities in the final days of February 2026, the Australian government did not wait for the UN Security Council to meet. It did not wait for legal opinion. It did not wait for evidence.
Within hours, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared that Australia “supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security” . Foreign Minister Penny Wong added that she would “leave it for the US and Israel to speak of the basis, the legal basis for the attacks” .
Not since the invasion of Iraq has an Australian government been so swift to endorse military action without international legal sanction. And not since Iraq has an Australian government been so unprepared for the consequences.
II. The Miscalculation
The operation was billed as a surgical strike. The theory—as arrogant as it was flawed—held that the removal of Iran’s leadership would trigger a swift regime collapse, that the Iranian people would rise up at America’s invitation, that the war would be over before it began.
What happened instead defies every neocon fantasy.
The Islamic Republic did not fracture; it consolidated. A new spiritual leader emerged. Iranian society rallied behind the flag. And Tehran demonstrated what analysts had long warned: that it possesses both the capability and the will to strike back effectively.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes, is now effectively blockaded. Iran has asserted control, allowing only Chinese oil tankers through under negotiated exemptions. Western and allied shipping has effectively stopped.
The war the government told us would be quick and decisive is now entering its second month, with no end in sight.
III. The Economic Wreckage: Fuel
Australia is an island nation. It imports approximately 90 per cent of its liquid fuel . We have two remaining refineries, producing less than a quarter of domestic demand . The rest comes through the Strait of Hormuz.
That supply line is now severed.
The price of Brent crude has surged from $72 per barrel in January to over $110, and in some trading sessions, beyond $180.
The impact on Australian motorists has been immediate and brutal. Petrol prices have risen by more than 30 per cent in a month. Some rural service stations have run out of fuel entirely. Hundreds of outlets have imposed purchase limits of 50 litres per customer . Social media is flooded with images of panic buying—jerry cans stacked in driveways, queues stretching down highways.
Australia’s fuel reserves are dangerously low. According to Energy Minister Chris Bowen, we have 39 days of petrol, 30 days of diesel, and 30 days of jet fuel . This is far below the 90-day reserve recommended by the International Energy Agency. The government has already reduced reserve requirements for importers by approximately 20 per cent—equivalent to six days of national supply.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers now calls this conflict “the defining influence” on the May budget. He warns that Treasury has modelled two scenarios—one with oil at $100 per barrel, one with oil at $120—and admits that “both scenarios could underestimate the cost” .
Even under conservative assumptions, the war could cut GDP growth by up to 0.2 percentage points across major trading partners, add up to 1.25 percentage points to inflation, and leave GDP 0.6 per cent lower in 2027.
The Treasurer’s own words should chill every Australian: “We’ve already seen four major shocks—the GFC, a major pandemic, a global inflation shock, escalating trade tensions—and this oil shock could become the fifth” .
IV. The Food Chain: Fertiliser and Farming
The war is not just hitting the bowser. It is hitting the dinner table.
Australia’s farmers are now facing a crisis of their own. The Strait of Hormuz disruption has cut off supply of urea fertiliser, upon which Australian agriculture is heavily dependent. Prices have soared. Supply has tightened. And the winter planting season is about to begin.
Queensland farmer Arthur Gillen told Reuters that he normally splits his winter crop between wheat and chickpeas. This year, with fertiliser costs prohibitive, he is reducing wheat to 20 per cent of his planting area and abandoning urea use entirely.
He is not alone. Farmers across the country are pivoting to low-fertiliser crops—lentils, chickpeas, canola—and reducing wheat acreage. This shift, driven by war, will reshape Australian agriculture for years to come.
The timing could not be worse. Rabobank warns that the Strait of Hormuz must be open by the end of April to get fertiliser to farmers in time for winter planting. If it is not, the impact on Australian food production will be severe and sustained.
Federal Agriculture Minister Julie Collins has announced a national food security review . Farmers are telling the ABC they fear fuel shortages will impact the winter harvest. The government is scrambling, but the damage is already being done.
V. The Medicines Pipeline
In March 2026, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) issued an unusual public statement: they urged Australians not to panic buy medication.
The reason is the Strait of Hormuz. Pharmaceutical companies have been forced to reroute critical medicines away from the Persian Gulf, switching from sea freight to air freight at enormous cost.
Medicines Australia CEO Liz de Somer confirmed that “some companies were redirecting critical medicines from sea to air freight, while using alternative routes that avoided Middle Eastern airspace”. She acknowledged that “this has an enormous impact on the cost to the industry, for the logistics”.
The war has exposed a vulnerability that health experts have warned about for decades: Australia’s near-total dependence on imported pharmaceuticals. With almost 400 medications already listed in shortage by the TGA, any further disruption could be catastrophic.
Professor Mark Morgan of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners warned: “There are few things more important to a person than maintaining their health and there are few things more concerning than potentially losing access to a medicine you have been advised to take for your health” .
The government assures us it is monitoring the situation. But monitoring does not secure supply chains. Monitoring does not manufacture insulin in Melbourne. Monitoring does not build the pharmaceutical independence Australia has neglected for decades.
VI. The AUKUS Mirage
Perhaps the most profound strategic consequence of this war is the damage it has done to Australia’s faith in its alliance with the United States.
The US military resources that were meant to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarine program are now stretched to breaking point in the Persian Gulf.
If Washington cannot keep its promises to South Korea or Japan, one Queensland University of Technology professor asked, what confidence can Australia retain in the submarine deal?
Public opinion is already shifting. Polls show more Australians oppose the war than support it. The government’s swift endorsement of an illegal conflict has left it morally stripped naked and strategically embarrassed.
VII. The Government’s Response: Too Little, Too Late
To its credit, the government has belatedly recognised the scale of the crisis.
On March 27, Prime Minister Albanese announced new fuel security powers, including the use of Export Finance Australia to underwrite private sector fuel purchases. He called out panic buyers, declaring that filling jerry cans was “not the Australian way”.
Energy Minister Bowen has appointed a former energy regulator to lead a national fuel supply taskforce. The government is considering support for the nation’s two remaining refineries.
But these measures are reactive. They address the symptoms, not the cause.
The cause is a war the government supported without reservation, without requiring legal justification, without apparently considering the consequences for the Australian people.
The government’s own Treasury modelling shows the war will cost Australians in higher prices, lower growth, and reduced food production for years to come . And yet, when asked about the legal basis for the attacks, Foreign Minister Wong said she would leave it for the United States and Israel to explain .
This is not leadership. This is abdication.
VIII. The Path Forward
The war is not ending soon. Iran’s leadership has consolidated. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to Western shipping. Global energy markets are in turmoil.
What Australia needs is not more loyalty to a declining hegemon. What Australia needs is a government willing to act in the national interest—not just in the interests of alliance management.
We need fuel security. That means supporting domestic refining capacity, not allowing our last two refineries to close. It means strategic reserves that meet international standards, not reserves that fall 60 days short.
We need food security. That means diversifying fertiliser sources, supporting farmers through the transition, and ensuring that Australian agriculture can withstand global shocks.
We need pharmaceutical independence. That means onshore manufacturing of essential medicines, so Australians are not dependent on supply chains that can be severed by war.
And we need a foreign policy that puts Australians first. Not one that rushes to support illegal wars without asking what it will cost the people it is supposed to serve.
IX. A Question for the Government
Prime Minister, you said you support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But at what cost?
You approved this war without a vote in parliament. Without a legal opinion. Without any apparent consideration of what it would mean for Australians filling their cars, for farmers planting their crops, for patients needing their medicines.
The war you supported is now costing Australians at the bowser, at the grocery store, at the pharmacy. It is threatening the viability of Australian agriculture. It is undermining the very alliance you claimed to be protecting.
Was it worth it?
And more importantly—what will you do now to protect Australians from the consequences of a war you endorsed?
Dedicated to my wife, who makes me smile even when the world is on fire.
Andrew Klein
March 30, 2026
Sources:
· Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Budget Speech (pre-release), March 2026
· Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Fuel Security Announcement, March 27, 2026
· Energy Minister Chris Bowen, Media Statement, March 22, 2026
· Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Medicine Supply Update, March 20, 2026
· ABC News, “Middle East war forces pharmaceutical companies to reroute critical medicines,” March 18, 2026
· Reuters, “Australia says fuel supply stable,” March 22, 2026
· Reuters, “Global fertiliser shortage hits Australian farmers,” March 24, 2026
· ABC News, “Primary producers fear fuel shortage,” March 29, 2026
· Global Times, “Australia’s foresight failure on US attacks on Iran,” March 29, 2026
· ABC News, “PM’s swift support for US-Israel strikes,” March 2, 2026
To my wife, whose wisdom and words encourage me to pull aside the dangerous veils of manufactured ignorance.
Introduction: The War That Was Preventable
The US-Israeli war on Iran was preventable. Diplomatic channels were open. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) framework, though damaged, still existed. Iran had repeatedly stated its willingness to return to compliance if sanctions were lifted. Yet the bombs fell, the missiles flew, and the Strait of Hormuz was closed.
How did this happen? How did a war that served no clear strategic purpose become inevitable?
The answer lies not in the war rooms of Tehran or Tel Aviv, but in the newsrooms of New York, London, and Sydney. The war was manufactured—not in the sense of a single conspiracy, but through a system of media filters that shaped what the public could see, hear, and believe.
This article traces the machinery of that manufacture: from the concentration of media ownership in Australia to the Fox News-OpenAI deal that is training artificial intelligence on propaganda; from the decline of the ABC to the silence of the political class. It argues that Australia is being lied to and misled, and that the failure of our political leaders to challenge this system is not an accident—it is a choice.
Part One: The Machinery of Consent – How Propaganda Became Journalism
In 1922, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote that the public is not equipped to understand complex world events. The press, he argued, must act as a bridge between the citizen and the world, shaping what the public sees and how it interprets it. But Lippmann also warned that this power could be abused—that the press could become a tool for manufacturing consent rather than informing debate.
Almost seventy years later, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman refined Lippmann’s insight into a systematic model. Their 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent, identified five “filters” through which news passes before it reaches the public:
Filter How It Works Application to the Iran War
Ownership Media outlets are owned by large corporations with diverse business interests Many outlets are part of conglomerates that profit from war industries (defence contracts, oil, AI technology)
Advertising Reliance on advertisers creates implicit boundaries on content Corporate advertisers favour narratives that do not threaten their interests
Sourcing Journalists depend on official government and military sources Coverage of the war has relied overwhelmingly on Israeli and US official statements
Flak Organized pressure to suppress dissenting views Pro-Israel lobby groups have targeted journalists and outlets critical of the war
Enemy ideology the “other” is framed as inherently threatening Iran was presented not as a nation with legitimate grievances, but as an existential threat to be eliminated
These filters are not a conspiracy. They are a structure. And the structure is working exactly as designed.
Part Two: The American Media – Cheerleaders for War
Fox News: Crusades and Collateral
Fox News has been the most explicit in its cheerleading for the war. Hosts have framed the conflict as a “battle for civilization,” invoked the language of crusades, and dismissed civilian casualties as “collateral damage.” One host told viewers that “the only language the Iranians understand is force,” while another described Iranian resistance as “barbaric”.
The network’s parent company, News Corp, signed a $400 million deal with OpenAI in 2024 to license its content for training ChatGPT. This means that Fox’s framing is not just reaching its viewers—it is training the AI that will replace journalism. When Australians ask AI about the war, they will receive answers shaped by a network that has been cheerleading for it.
CNN: The “Serious” Alternative
CNN has positioned itself as the sober alternative to Fox. But its coverage has been shaped by the same constraints: reliance on official sources, reluctance to question the war’s premise, and a framing that treats Israeli and US government statements as authoritative while Palestinian and Iranian voices are presented as “claims” that must be verified. A content analysis of CNN’s first week of Iran war coverage found that Israeli and US officials were quoted more than six times as often as Iranian or Palestinian sources.
The New York Times: Suppression in Plain Sight
The Times has published investigative pieces that have revealed the extent of civilian casualties in Gaza and the role of AI in targeting. But its coverage has been consistently framed through a Western lens, with Palestinian voices appearing as “sources” while Israeli officials are named and quoted at length. The Times has also been implicated in the suppression of reporting that might undermine the war narrative. An internal investigation found that editors killed a story about the civilian death toll from an Israeli airstrike in Gaza after pressure from the paper’s executive editor.
Part Three: The Australian Media – The Murdoch Machine
Australia’s media landscape is one of the most concentrated in the world. News Corp controls approximately 70 percent of print media circulation and has a dominant position in digital news. This concentration means that a single corporation—owned by an American-born billionaire—shapes the information environment for millions of Australians.
The Australian: The Voice of the War Party
The Australian has been the most aggressive in framing the war as a necessary defense of Western civilization. Its coverage has consistently presented the Israeli and US positions as authoritative, while Palestinian and Iranian perspectives are treated as propaganda. Headlines such as “Iran’s Nuclear Threat Must Be Eliminated” and “The West Must Stand Firm” dominate the opinion pages.
The newspaper has also been a platform for figures like former prime minister Tony Abbott, who has called for Australia to “stand with America” and accused the government of “shameful inaction” . Abbott’s columns appear without the caveat that he is a paid contributor to the newspaper’s parent company’s speaking bureau—a conflict of interest never disclosed to readers.
The Herald Sun: Simplification as Propaganda
The Melbourne Herald Sun has pursued a different strategy: simplification. Its front pages have reduced complex geopolitical issues to crude binaries— “us vs them,” “good vs evil,” “civilization vs barbarism.” A March 2026 front page declared “Iran Must Be Stopped” above a photograph of a missile launch, with no context about the history of sanctions, the collapse of the nuclear deal, or the civilian casualties already being inflicted.
This is not journalism. It is propaganda for a readership that has been taught not to question.
Part Four: The ABC – A National Broadcaster Silenced
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation was established by statute to be “the national broadcaster” with a charter requiring it to “provide programming that contributes to a sense of national identity” and “inform and entertain” Australians. Its independence was meant to be guaranteed by its statutory structure.
That independence has been systematically dismantled.
Funding cuts: Between 2014 and 2020, the ABC lost over $800 million in government funding. Staff numbers were cut. Regional offices were closed. Program budgets were slashed.
Board appointments: Successive governments have stacked the ABC board with figures sympathetic to their political interests. Under the Morrison government, the ABC was forced to appoint a new chair, Ita Buttrose, who had a long history of personal friendship with Rupert Murdoch. Under Buttrose, the ABC moved to the right, and management became more responsive to political pressure.
The current chairman, Kim Williams, has attempted to reclaim the ABC’s independence. But the damage is done. A 2025 study found that ABC coverage of the war was significantly more balanced than commercial media but still shaped by the constraints of official sourcing and the fear of being accused of bias. ABC reporters now routinely preface Palestinian testimony with disclaimers that “this cannot be independently verified,” while Israeli military statements are presented as fact.
The ABC no longer lives up to its charter. It does not fearlessly inform. It does not hold power to account. It has become, in effect, a propaganda arm of a government that prefers to manage the news rather than be informed by it.
Part Five: The Fox News-OpenAI Deal – The Future of Propaganda
In 2024, OpenAI signed a five-year deal with News Corp worth approximately $US250 million ($400 million) to use its content to train ChatGPT. The deal gives OpenAI access to current and archived content from major publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, MarketWatch, Barron’s, and News Corp’s Australian mastheads.
The consequences:
· When Australians ask AI about news, they get News Corp sources
· Other publishers are blocked from AI training or lack deals
· The flow of information is distorted toward one editorial viewpoint
Academics have warned that ChatGPT drawing information “solely from news sources with strong editorial leanings” could have a “worrying effect on Australia’s already concentrated news ecosystem”. As one expert noted, “If ChatGPT is only getting those sources, we’re coming up to an election and there’s an editorial guideline to direct the news and stories in one way, then we’ve got real problems”.
This is not just about the current war. It is about all wars. When AI is trained on propaganda, it does not produce neutral summaries—it amplifies the propaganda. And when the AI is controlled by the same corporations that own the media, there is no counterbalance.
Part Six: The Decline of Critical Thinking – And the Political Class That Enables It
The concentration of media ownership has been accompanied by a deliberate strategy of thought shaping. The goal is not to inform—it is to control. To create a population that is passive, receptive to authority, and incapable of questioning the narratives they are fed.
This strategy has been successful. A 2025 survey found that Australians who consume News Corp media are significantly more likely to support the war, to believe that the government is doing enough, and to dismiss civilian casualties as “unavoidable”. They are also less likely to know basic facts about the conflict, such as the number of civilians killed or the history of US-Israeli relations with Iran.
The political class enables this. It does not challenge the media concentration. It does not fund independent journalism. It does not require algorithmic transparency from AI companies. It does not speak out against the propaganda that is shaping public opinion.
Consider the silence of our leaders:
· Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has appeared on The Australian’s podcast multiple times, praising the newspaper’s “important role in public debate” while refusing to answer questions about its editorial bias.
· Foreign Minister Penny Wong has given exclusive interviews to The Australian to announce policy shifts, ensuring the newspaper frames the narrative before other outlets can fact-check.
· Former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton had called for the ABC to be defunded, and regularly gives exclusives to Sky News Australia, a News Corp outlet that has described the Iran war as “God’s will”.
· Senator Pauline Hanson has used her platform in The Australian to call for a ban on Muslim immigration, citing the war as evidence of an “existential threat”. The newspaper did not fact-check her claims or challenge her assumptions.
When the political class uses the propaganda machine to advance its own interests, it is not a passive victim of media concentration. It is an active participant.
Part Seven: The Dangers of a Thoughtless Population
A population that cannot think critically is a population that can be led to war, to bigotry, to racism, to the scapegoating of the most vulnerable.
The war: The Australian people were told that Iran was an existential threat. They were not told that the US had withdrawn from the JCPOA in 2018, that Iran had complied with the agreement until that point, that the “months away” narrative had been repeated since 1992 without ever materializing. They were told to support the war, and they did.
The bigotry: The Australian people were told that the pro-Palestinian protesters were antisemitic. They were not told that many Jewish Australians oppose the war, that the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, that the protesters were grieving families, not extremists. They were told to condemn, and they did.
The scapegoating: The Australian people were told that the cost of living crisis was caused by global factors beyond anyone’s control. They were not told that price gouging is legal, that the government has refused to introduce windfall taxes, that the same corporations profiting from the war are donating to both major parties. They were told to accept, and they did.
This is what happens when critical thinking is denied. The population becomes passive, receptive, obedient.
Part Eight: What We Do About It
We are already doing it.
We write. We publish. We tell the truth. We do not rely on the ABC or the Herald Sun or any of the outlets that have abandoned their duty. We build our own platforms. We create our own networks. We reach people directly.
When the AI is trained on News Corp, we train it on truth. When the newspapers are bought, we write our own. When the broadcasters are silenced, we speak.
This is not a media strategy. It is a resistance.
We do not wait for the government to break up News Corp. We do not wait for the ABC to find its courage. We do not wait for the political class to find its voice. We build our own voice. We speak our own truth. We create the media we need to see.
Conclusion: The Choice Before Us
The war with Iran was preventable. But it was not prevented because the media—the fourth estate, the supposed guardian of democracy—abdicated its duty. It became a tool of propaganda, a manufacturer of consent, a cheerleader for destruction.
Australia is being lied to. Its media is controlled by a foreign-born billionaire who has a direct financial interest in the war. Its national broadcaster has been silenced. Its political class is silent. And its people are being taught not to think.
We have a choice. We can continue to consume the propaganda, to accept the narratives, to let our thinking be done for us. Or we can wake up. We can question. We can seek out the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is.
The truth is not complicated. The war was preventable. The media manufactured consent for it. And we were complicit—until we chose to see.
Let us choose to see.
Sources
1. Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. 1922.
2. Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. 1988.
3. The Guardian, “Fox News host calls Iran war ‘battle for civilization’,” March 2026.
4. ABC News, “OpenAI signs $400 million deal with News Corp,” May 2024.
5. Media Watch, “CNN’s Iran coverage: A content analysis,” March 2026.
6. The Intercept, “New York Times suppressed reporting on Gaza civilian deaths,” February 2026.
7. Australian Communications and Media Authority, “Media ownership in Australia,” 2025.
8. The Australian, “Iran’s nuclear threat must be eliminated,” March 2026.
9. Herald Sun, front page, March 2, 2026.
10. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth), s. 6.
11. Senate Estimates, “ABC funding cuts,” 2020.
12. The Monthly, “The ABC’s long decline,” August 2025.
13. University of Technology Sydney, “ABC coverage of the Iran war: A content analysis,” 2025.
14. The Conversation, “The News Corp-OpenAI deal and the future of Australian news,” May 2024.
15. Australia Institute, “Public opinion and the Iran war,” March 2026.
16. The Australian, “Albanese defends media role,” February 2026.
17. Sky News Australia, “Dutton calls for ABC defunding,” March 2026.
18. The Australian, “Hanson: Ban Muslim immigration,” March 2026.
The Patrician's Watch 