The Architecture of Extraction: Colonial Continuities in Dehumanisation, Demographic Targeting, and the Manufacture of Existential Threat

Posted on October 13, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Illustration labeled TERRITORY, MANUFACTURED THREAT, EUPHEMISTIC LANGUAGE, DEHUMANIZATION, MORAL JUSTIFICATION, and RESOURCE REMOVAL. — An intricate illustrated diagram connects manufactured threats, dehumanization, territorial control, moral justification, and resource removal.

A Working Paper

Andrew Paul Klein

Abstract

This paper identifies and names a recurring structure — the architecture of extraction — that has been deployed across multiple historical periods and geographical contexts. The structure comprises five interlocking elements: the economic decision to exploit; the moral and ethical justifications that follow; the manufacture of existential threat; the dehumanisation of the target population; and the use of euphemism to obscure the harm. The paper traces this structure from the Spanish conquest of the Americas through the broader colonial period, and examines its contemporary expression in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. It documents the demographic targeting of women and children, the destruction of educational infrastructure, and the long-term trauma that is the predictable consequence. It concludes that the instruments have changed — the gallows have been replaced by the algorithm, the colonial administration by the market-state — but the structure remains operative.

1. Introduction: The Question of Continuity

In 1552, Bartolomé de las Casas published A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, documenting the atrocities committed by Spanish colonists in the Americas. He described gallows built to burn thirteen people at a time “in memory of Our Redeemer and his twelve apostles”. He recorded Spanish soldiers making bets on who could split a man in half with a single knife stroke. He described babies snatched from their mothers’ breasts and dashed against rocks.

In 2024, an investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call documented an AI-enabled targeting system used by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza, known as “Where’s Daddy?” The system tracks a targeted individual’s location and alerts the military when they enter their family home. The resulting strikes typically kill the target, their family, and the child whose phone was hacked to track them.

The instruments are different. The structure is the same.

This paper identifies and names that structure. It argues that the architecture of extraction — the economic decision to exploit, the moral justifications that follow, the manufacture of existential threat, the dehumanisation of the target, and the euphemism that obscures the harm — is a recurring pattern that can be traced across centuries and contexts.

2. The Architecture of Extraction: Five Elements

2.1 The Economic Decision

The structure begins with an economic decision. The decision is not framed as an economic decision. It is framed as a civilising mission, a security imperative, or a defensive necessity. But the economic logic precedes the framing.

In the Spanish conquest, the economic motive was explicit: gold, silver, land, and labour. The encomienda system granted colonists the right to extract labour from indigenous populations. The mita system in Peru conscripted indigenous men to work in the silver mines of Potosí, where millions died. The economic decision was the extraction of wealth, and the conquest was the mechanism.

In the colonial period more broadly, the economic motive was the extraction of resources and the transfer of wealth from the colonised to the coloniser. The British East India Company, the Dutch East India Company, and the French colonial administrations were commercial enterprises as much as political projects. Their purpose was profit.

In the contemporary context, the economic motive is embedded in the architecture of the market-state. The extraction is not always direct. It operates through trade agreements, debt structures, resource concessions, and the global supply chain. The wealth transfer is documented in the data on inequality: the richest 1% captured 63% of new wealth created since 2020; the world’s richest 20 billionaires own more wealth than the bottom 1.5 billion people combined.

In the Palestinian context, the economic dimension is documented in the structure of the occupation: control of water resources, control of movement, control of land, and the integration of the Palestinian economy into the Israeli economy as a source of cheap labour and a captive market. The World Bank has documented that Israeli restrictions on movement and access cost the Palestinian economy billions of dollars annually.

Status: Established for the historical record. Established for contemporary inequality. Inference for the structural continuity.

2.2 The Moral Justification

The economic decision is followed by the moral justification. The justification is always constructed after the decision, not before. It is a rationalisation, not a cause.

In the Spanish conquest, the justification was religious. The Requerimiento of 1513 required indigenous peoples to accept Spanish sovereignty and Christian doctrine or be subjected to war and enslavement. The conquest was framed as the salvation of souls. Las Casas recorded that the indigenous leader Hatuey, before being burned alive, was asked if he wanted to accept Christianity and go to heaven. He replied that he preferred to go to hell so as not to see such cruel people.

In the colonial period, the justification was civilisational. The “white man’s burden” was the duty of the coloniser to bring civilisation to the “backward” peoples. The colonised were framed as children, as savages, as peoples without history. This framing was not incidental. It was the condition that made the extraction possible.

In the contemporary context, the justification is framed in the language of security, democracy, and shared values. The 2026 US National Security Strategy states that the United States wants a “stable world” that does not have “rival powers dominating regions and threatening America’s access to critical resources“. The language of values obscures the language of access.

In the Palestinian context, the justification is existential. The State of Israel frames its actions as a response to an existential threat from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. The framing is repeated across the political class and much of the media. Whether the threat is as existential as claimed is a factual question. Whether the framing of existential threat functions to justify disproportionate force is a structural question.

Status: Established for the historical record. Established for the contemporary justifications. Inference for the structural function.

2.3 The Manufacture of Existential Threat

The manufacture of existential threat is the mechanism that transforms the target from a population to an enemy. The threat does not need to be real. It needs to be believed. And it needs to be repeated.

In the Spanish conquest, the indigenous peoples were framed as a threat to the Christian order, or at least to the imperial project. The Spanish Crown issued the legal frameworks that made the conquest possible. The encomienda was justified as a means of protecting indigenous peoples from themselves.

In the colonial period, the colonised were framed as a threat to the coloniser’s security, prosperity, or way of life. The “savages” threatened the civilising mission. The indigenous peoples of Australia, the Americas, and Africa were framed as obstacles to progress, not as peoples with rights.

In the contemporary context, the manufacture of existential threat is a global enterprise. The “War on Terror” was framed as an existential threat to Western civilisation. The “Clash of Civilizations” thesis provided the intellectual justification. The threat was constructed, not discovered.

In the Palestinian context, the existential threat narrative is the primary justification for the current military campaign. The scale of the destruction — the deaths, the displacement, the destruction of infrastructure — is presented as necessary to address the threat. The cycle of existential threat and disproportionate response is documented.

Status: Established for the historical record. Established for the contemporary justifications. Inference for the structural function.

2.4 The Dehumanisation of the Target

Dehumanisation is the condition that makes the killing possible. It is the removal of the target from the category of beings whose lives are considered to matter.

In the Spanish conquest, the indigenous peoples were described as “beasts,” “savages,” and “vermin”. Las Casas recorded that the Spanish made bets on who could split a man in half with a single knife stroke. The dehumanisation was explicit in the language and the actions.

In the colonial period, dehumanisation was embedded in the law. The Dred Scott decision in the United States ruled that Black people were not citizens and “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect”. Indigenous peoples were classified as “flora and fauna” in some colonial legal systems. The dehumanisation was legal, not merely rhetorical.

In the contemporary context, dehumanisation operates through language and through architecture. The language of “collateral damage” converts the killing of civilians into a technical problem. The “Where’s Daddy?” system converts the killing into a procedural step. The algorithm does not need to make bets. It simply processes the data.

In the Palestinian context, the dehumanisation is documented in the language used by Israeli officials. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant stated in October 2023: “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly“. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked the biblical command to “remember what Amalek did to you” — a passage that is interpreted as a call for the total destruction of an enemy people.

Status: Established for the historical record. Established for the contemporary language. Inference for the structural function.

2.5 The Euphemism

Euphemism is the language that obscures the harm. It is the mechanism that allows the perpetrators to continue and the bystanders to look away.

In the Spanish conquest, the euphemism was “conversion”. The killing of indigenous peoples was framed as the salvation of their souls. The destruction of their societies was framed as their introduction to civilisation.

In the colonial period, the euphemism was “civilisation”. The extraction of resources was framed as development. The destruction of indigenous societies was framed as progress. The “white man’s burden” was the euphemism that made the extraction palatable.

In the contemporary context, the euphemisms are documented in the papers that accompany this work: “collateral damage”, “enhanced interrogation“, “targeted killing“, “austerity“, “efficiency“, “fraud detection“.

In the Palestinian context, the euphemism is “mowing the grass” — a phrase used by Israeli officials to describe periodic military campaigns in Gaza. The phrase converts the killing of civilians into a gardening metaphor. It suggests a routine, necessary, and finite operation. It obscures the reality.

Status: Established for the historical record. Established for the contemporary language. Inference for the structural function.

3. The Structure: A Synthesis

The five elements form a structure. The structure is not a conspiracy. It is an architecture. It is the product of many individual decisions, each locally rational, none requiring anyone to say “this is wrong“.

The structure is:

1. The economic decision: Extract wealth from the target population.

2. The moral justification: Frame the extraction as a civilising mission, a security imperative, or a defensive necessity.

3. The manufacture of existential threat: Construct the target as an existential threat to justify disproportionate force.

4. The dehumanisation of the target: Remove the target from the category of beings whose lives matter.

5. The euphemism: Obscure the harm with language that converts killing into a technical problem.

The structure is not new. It is not specific to any one nation or people. It is a recurring architecture that has been deployed across centuries and contexts. The instruments have changed. The structure has not.

Status: Inference.

4. The Contemporary Case: Gaza and the Occupied Territories

The contemporary case of Gaza provides a documented example of the structure in operation. The evidence is drawn from the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and humanitarian organisations.

4.1 The Economic Dimension

The economic dimension of the Palestinian case is documented in the structure of the occupation. The World Bank has documented that Israeli restrictions on movement and access cost the Palestinian economy billions of dollars annually. The blockade of Gaza, imposed in 2007, has been described by the United Nations as a form of collective punishment.

The occupation controls water resources, land, and movement. The Palestinian economy is integrated into the Israeli economy as a source of cheap labour and a captive market. The economic relationship is not one of equals. It is one of extraction.

Status: Established.

4.2 The Existential Threat Narrative

The existential threat narrative is the primary justification for the current military campaign in Gaza. The State of Israel frames its actions as a response to an existential threat from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. The framing is repeated across the political class and much of the media.

The South Africa v. Israel case at the International Court of Justice, instituted in December 2023, alleges that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. The Court issued provisional measures in January, March, and May 2024. Israel has not complied.

Status: Established for the legal proceedings and the provisional measures.

4.3 The Dehumanisation

The dehumanisation is documented in the language used by Israeli officials. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant stated on 9 October 2023: “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly“. The statement was widely reported.

The dehumanisation is also documented in the architecture of the targeting systems. The “Where’s Daddy?” system, the Lavender system, and the Gospel system have been documented in the +972 Magazine investigation. The systems generate targets at scale. Lavender alone has been used to identify over 37,000 targets.

Status: Established for the language and the systems.

4.4 Demographic Targeting

The allegation that women and children are targeted in Gaza is documented in the casualty data.

UN Women reported in April 2024 that more than 10,000 women have been killed in Gaza since the war began, and that more than 6,000 children have been killed. The UN Secretary-General has stated that Gaza is becoming a “graveyard for children“.

A study published in The Lancet in July 2024 estimated that the death toll in Gaza could be as high as 186,000 when indirect deaths from destruction of infrastructure and health facilities are taken into account. The study noted that “the total death toll is expected to be large given the intensity of this conflict; destroyed health-care infrastructure; severe shortages of food, water, and shelter; the population’s inability to access care; and the inability of humanitarian organisations to reach the affected population”.

The reproductive health dimension is documented. UNFPA has reported that more than 5,500 women in Gaza are expected to give birth in the coming month, and that they are doing so without access to adequate medical care. The destruction of hospitals, clinics, and maternity facilities has been documented.

Status: Established for the casualty data. Established for the reproductive health dimension.

4.5 Destruction of Education

The destruction of educational infrastructure in Gaza has been documented by the United Nations and humanitarian organisations.

UNICEF reported in April 2024 that more than 200 schools have been damaged or destroyed in Gaza. The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) reported that more than 75% of its schools in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The destruction of schools is documented in satellite imagery and in the testimony of humanitarian workers.

The destruction of education is not incidental. It is a documented pattern in conflicts where the goal is to prevent the reproduction of a society. The targeting of schools and universities is one mechanism. The killing of teachers and academics is another.

Status: Established.

4.6 Long-Term Trauma

The long-term trauma of the current campaign is documented in the testimonies of survivors and in the assessments of humanitarian organisations.

Children who survive will grow up with the physical and emotional consequences of the violence. The United Nations has documented that children in Gaza are experiencing “severe trauma“. The level of trauma is comparable to that experienced by children in other war zones, and it is likely to persist for decades.

The trauma is not limited to the current generation. Intergenerational trauma is documented in the research on previous conflicts. The children of survivors of the Nakba carry the trauma of their parents. The children of Gaza today will carry the trauma of this campaign.

Status: Established for the documentation. Inference for the long-term projection.

5. The Colonial Mindset: Extraction and Exploitation

The structure identified in this paper is the colonial mindset in operation. The colonial mindset is not defined by race or by nation. It is defined by the relationship between the coloniser and the colonised. The coloniser sees the colonised as a resource to be extracted, not as a people to be shared with.

The colonial mindset is an investment. The coloniser invests in the conquest, and expects a return. The return is measured in wealth, in land, in resources, and in the reduction of opposition. The demographic impact is part of the investment. A population that is reduced, displaced, or traumatised is a population that is less able to resist.

The moral and ethical justifications follow the economic decision. They are not the cause. They are the rationalisation. The coloniser does not ask “is this right?” before acting. He acts, and then constructs the justification.

The structure is the same whether the coloniser is a Spanish conquistador, a British colonial administrator, or a modern state. The instruments differ. The structure does not.

Status: Inference.

6. Conclusion: The Structure and the Instruments

The comparison between the Spanish conquest of the Americas and the contemporary campaign in Gaza does not establish that the two cases are identical. It establishes that the architecture of extraction — the economic decision, the moral justification, the manufacture of existential threat, the dehumanisation of the target, and the euphemism — is a recurring structure.

The Spanish built the gallows. The IDF uses the algorithm. The instruments differ. The structure is the same.

The record is kept. The structure is named. And the question of whether human attitudes have changed remains open. The evidence suggests that the instruments have changed. The structure has not.

Claim- Status -Summary

# -Claim -Status

1- The Spanish conquest was driven by economic extraction- Established

2- The Requiremento of 1513 required submission or war -Established

3 -Hatuey preferred hell to seeing cruel Christians -Established

4 -Colonial extraction was justified by civilisational language -Established

5 -Dehumanisation is documented in colonial language- Established

6 -The “Where’s Daddy?” system tracks targets to their homes- Established

7 -Defence Minister Gallant: “We are fighting human animals” -Established

8- More than 10,000 women killed in Gaza (UN Women, April 2024) -Established

9 -More than 6,000 children killed (UN Women, April 2024)- Established

10 -The Lancet: total death toll could be 186,000 -Established

11 -More than 200 schools damaged or destroyed (UNICEF)- Established

12 75% of UNRWA schools damaged or destroyed Established

13 -Children in Gaza experiencing severe trauma- Established

14 -The structure of extraction is a recurring architecture- Inference

15 -The instruments have changed; the structure has not- Inference

Method notes. Claims are classified throughout as Established, Inference, or Speculation. The paper examines the structural parallels between historical colonial extraction and contemporary conflicts, with particular attention to the documented patterns in Gaza. It does not argue that historical and contemporary cases are identical. It argues that a recurring architecture of dehumanisation, euphemism, and the manufacture of existential threat can be identified across different periods, and that the instruments have changed while the structure has not.

References

1. Las Casas, B. de. (1552). A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.

2. +972 Magazine & Local Call. (2024, April 3). ‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza.

3. The Guardian. (2024, April 3). ‘The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets.

4. United Nations. (2024). Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in the Middle East.

5. International Court of Justice. (2024). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).

6. UN Women. (2024, April 16). Gaza: More than 10,000 women killed since October 2023.

7. The Lancet. (2024, July). Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential.

8. UNICEF. (2024, April). Gaza: More than 200 schools damaged or destroyed.

9. UNRWA. (2024). Situation Report on the Gaza Strip.

10. World Bank. (2023). Economic Monitoring Report to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee.

11. Amnesty International. (2024). Israel/OPT: War crimes committed in Gaza.

12. Human Rights Watch. (2024). Israel/Palestine: Events of 2023.

13. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. (1998). Report.

14. Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409.

15. Mamdani, M. (2004). Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Pantheon Books.

16. Chomsky, N. (1999). The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians. South End Press.

17. Pappé, I. (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.

18. Khalidi, R. (2020). The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine. Metropolitan Books.

19. Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2014). An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Beacon Press.

20. Lindqvist, S. (1996). Exterminate All the Brutes. New Press.

Method notes- Claims are classified throughout as Established, Inference, or Speculation. The paper examines the structural parallels between historical colonial extraction and contemporary conflicts, with particular attention to the documented patterns in Gaza. It does not argue that historical and contemporary cases are identical. It argues that a recurring architecture of dehumanisation, euphemism, and the manufacture of existential threat can be identified across different periods, and that the instruments have changed while the structure has not.

Prepared for the record. The structure is named. The instruments are documented. And the question remains open.

Rentier Capitalism, Neoliberal Restructuring, and the Drift to the Right-A Comparative Analysis of Israel and Australia

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Aerial view of skyscrapers, port facilities, railways, and open-pit mining areas — A dense waterfront city borders railways, shipping terminals, and expansive industrial mining grounds.

By Andrew Paul Klein

Method notes- Claims are classified throughout as Established, Inference, or Speculation. This paper compares two states—Israel and Australia—that have undergone neoliberal restructuring and subsequent right-wing political surges. It argues that the drift to the right is not a consequence of neoliberal economic policy, but a parallel response to the same underlying crisis of legitimacy: the postwar settlement’s failure to deliver security and prosperity for broad populations. The paper does not claim a conspiracy. It describes a structural condition. The boundary between what the evidence establishes and what it suggests is marked throughout.

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between neoliberal restructuring, rentier capitalism, and the rise of right-wing populism in Israel and Australia. It argues that the two phenomena are not causally linked in the direction commonly assumed—neoliberalism did not produce right-wing populism. Rather, both are responses to the same underlying crisis: the erosion of the postwar settlement and the legitimacy crisis it created. The paper traces the specific mechanisms by which rentier economies concentrate wealth, erode public services, and create the conditions for ethnonationalist and nativist political movements. It identifies the actors who constitute the rentier class in each state, examines the role of the Israeli Supreme Court and the settlement enterprise, and analyses the emerging “Board of Peace” framework as a governance-finance fusion. It concludes by examining morally engaged policies that could mitigate the rentier model and reduce the harm it produces.

1. Introduction: The Parallel Paths

In 1985, Israel announced an Economic Stabilization Plan. In the same decade, Australia began dismantling its postwar settlement. Both states embraced what came to be called neoliberalism: market mechanisms, competition, privatisation, and the retreat of the state from direct provision.

Four decades later, both states are experiencing a political drift to the right. In Israel, the Kahanist bloc has entered the cabinet. In Australia, One Nation has overtaken the major parties in national polling.

The conventional explanation is that neoliberal economic policy produced right-wing populism. This paper argues that the causal arrow is more complex. Neoliberal restructuring and right-wing populism are parallel responses to the same underlying crisis of legitimacy—the postwar settlement’s failure to deliver security and prosperity for broad populations.

The paper proceeds in six sections. Section 2 examines Israel’s neoliberal transformation as a state-led project. Section 3 examines Australia’s rentier economy and political consequences. Section 4 identifies the rentier actors in both states. Section 5 examines the institutional and economic architecture of the settlement enterprise and the emerging Gaza governance framework. Section 6 draws structural conclusions and proposes mitigating policies.

2. Israel: The Neoliberal State Project

2.1 The 1985 Stabilization Plan

Israel’s neoliberal transformation was not a passive adoption of Western models. It was a state-led project driven by specific actors facing specific crises.

The Stabilization Plan, announced in July 1985, is the pivotal moment. As one scholarly analysis states: “The plan, which was designed as a response to an economic crisis, triggered institutional changes that deeply transformed the Israeli economy, taking it from the age of intervention and regulation and thrusting it into the age of liberalization and globalization”. The two key factors that shaped the plan were government prioritization of export promotion and national security policy issues.

The transformation was driven by institutional actors: fiscal and monetary authorities, economists embedded in the state, and big business interests that shaped policy in their favour. As Arie Krampf demonstrates in The Israeli Path to Neoliberalism, the transformation cannot be described as “a simple transplantation of imported economic models from advanced liberal democracies. Rather, it asserts that the Israeli variant of capitalism is the product of the encounter between imported Western institutional models and policy ideas, on the one hand, and domestic economic, social and security policy problems on the other”.

2.2 The Political Consequence

Krampf’s analysis notes that Israel’s transition “has been coupled with the adoption of a hawkish and isolationist foreign policy”. The Israeli variant of capitalism produced “a highly divided society” with inequality comparable to the United States.

The economic consequences are documented. Israel has “developed a dual economy, without horizontal (between sectors) or vertical (wages, employment) diffusion to the rest of the economy,” with “one of the highest poverty rates in the OECD“. The proportion of families living below the poverty line rose from 10–12 percent in the 1980s to 19–20 percent in recent years. Income and wealth concentrated at the top: in 2003 there were eight Israeli billionaires worth $37 billion; by 2015 there were 84 worth $140 billion.

The structural outcome is precise: neoliberal restructuring weakened the social-democratic base, and the right filled the vacuum with ethnonationalist politics. The Kahanist ideology is not a cloak for economics. It is the political form that the crisis of the Israeli welfare state has taken.

3. Australia: Rentier Capitalism and the Populist Surge

3.1 The Rentier Economy

Australia’s rentier economy is structurally documented. A conservative estimate puts aggregate economic rents at 23.6% of GDP—equivalent to 87% of total government revenues. Over 80% of Australia’s richest 200 people amassed their wealth via political connections.

The concentration is accelerating. Between 2019 and 2024, the corporate share of national income increased by 7.5 per cent while the family business and self-employed share dropped by 20 per cent. The foregone income lost by family businesses and the self-employed from 2020 to 2023 was $149 billion. Workers lost $215 billion in foregone compensation due to the relative decline in their share of national income.

The rentiers are specific actors: the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate), mining companies, and politically connected property developers. The fossil fuel lobby is documented as one of the most obstructive climate lobbyists globally. The PRRT is “laughably weak“—$1.1 billion received from over $70 billion worth of LNG sold in 2023-24.

3.2 The Political Consequence

One Nation, led by Pauline Hanson, overtook Labor in a national poll for the first time in May 2026, polling at 31% to Labor’s 28%. The surge is driven by voter discontent over budget measures and anxieties over high living costs, economic uncertainty, and anti-immigration sentiment.

The polling data shows that One Nation’s support comes predominantly from Baby Boomers and Gen Xers—the cohorts that have benefited most from the rentier economy and feel most threatened by its apparent fragility.

The structural parallel with Israel is precise: neoliberal restructuring concentrated wealth, eroded public services, and created a legitimacy crisis that a right-wing populist movement filled.

4. The Rentier Actors

4.1 Israel: The Security-Tech Complex

Israel’s rentier class is constituted by the defence-tech complex. The Ministry of Defence directly funds and shapes the private sector. In the first half of 2026, orders to defence startups reached $330 million, double the previous year, with 322 defence-tech companies operating under Ministry oversight.

The venture capital architecture reinforces this. Protego Ventures, Israel’s first and largest dedicated defence tech VC, closed its debut fund at $125 million. Ares Management committed $30 million as a limited partner, with the conviction that “new technologies would be key to boosting Israel’s defence capabilities”. The founders are embedded in military and intelligence networks; one spent 11 years in the military and intelligence field.

The structural dynamic is that of a dual economy: a high-tech defence sector that generates massive wealth for a narrow elite, while the broader economy stagnates. As Sibylle Heilbrunn documents in Dark Sides of the Startup Nation, “at the centre is a startup nation with a vibrant and successful high-tech entrepreneurial ecosystem, accumulating resources and enabling constant growth. At the geographical and social periphery, there has emerged a parallel society with often-marginalized groups not able to keep up”.

4.2 Australia: The Resources-Finance Complex

Australia’s rentier class is constituted by the resources-finance complex. The corporate share of national income increased from 26.5% to 28.5% between 2019 and 2024, while the family business and self-employed share decreased from 8.75% to 7%.

The “Big Three” index funds (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street) hold one-third of the substantial shareholding positions across the ASX 50. The separation between ownership and control has produced what is termed “the agency costs of agency capitalism”.

The defence sector is smaller but growing. In 2024-25 alone, Labor and the Liberal Party accepted over $200,000 in donations from weapons manufacturers, including over $100,000 from Raytheon and tens of thousands from NIOA Munitions. Both companies have been awarded giant government contracts as defence spending increases.

5. The Institutional and Economic Architecture

5.1 The Israeli Supreme Court: Accommodation, Not Obstruction

The Court’s role is not that of a check on settlement expansion, but as an institutional enabler through selective non-intervention. The Court has systematically avoided ruling on the legality of settlements under international law, focusing instead on a “proportionality test” that balances settler “human dignity” against Palestinian rights. This framework legitimizes the settler presence as a fact to be balanced rather than a violation to be stopped.

5.2 The Settlement Economy

The settlements are a structural economic interest. Over 700,000 settlers control more than 42% of West Bank land and the majority of its water resources. Settlers consume 247 liters/day, while Palestinians consume 82.4 liters/day, far below WHO minimums.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has proposed a 10-year plan to bring 1 million Jewish immigrants from North America and Europe—explicitly framed as a demographic counterweight to Palestinians.

5.3 The Board of Peace: Governance-Finance Fusion

The emerging Gaza governance framework integrates private financial interests directly into post-war governance. The Board of Peace, chaired by President Trump, concentrates extraordinary authority in the Chair, including control over membership, agendas, and subsidiary bodies. Membership can be secured permanently with a $1 billion contribution.

Jared Kushner serves on the Executive Board while his firm, Affinity Partners, is the largest shareholder in Phoenix Financial, an Israeli company whose portfolio includes at least nine companies supplying the Israeli military. Phoenix’s investments include approximately $265 million in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, whose shares have surged since the Gaza war began. Kushner has said he maintains a “very active dialogue” with Phoenix executives.

At Davos in January 2026, Kushner presented a $30 billion “master plan” for Gaza featuring data centres, industrial zones, residential towers, and seaside resorts. He described it as offering “amazing investment opportunities“.

5.4 The Ideological Conflation

The conflation of Zionism with Judaism performs a specific structural function: it makes the extraction economy unassailable. If the project is divine, then opposition is not political disagreement—it is sacrilege. The economic interests of the security-tech complex and the settlement enterprise are protected by a narrative that renders them beyond debate.

As the academic analysis in The Industry of Silence argues, racialization underpins the Nakba—”the ongoing process of dehumanization, demobilization, fragmentation, and ultimately, erasure of the Palestinian people“. This process “extends beyond Israel into the ‘Western’ world, to organizations in Europe and the U.S.”. The “industry of silence” masks systemic violence, enabling genocide.

6. Conclusion: The Structural Assertion

The evidence supports the following formulation:

Neoliberal restructuring is a state project that serves specific rentier actors. It concentrates wealth, erodes the welfare state, and creates a legitimacy crisis. The political consequence is not automatic but structural: the crisis creates space for movements that offer simple explanations for complex problems.

In Israel, the explanation is ethnonationalist (the Palestinians, the “left,” the “traitors“). In Australia, the explanation is nativist (migrants, “elites,” “international organisations“).

The Kahanist ideology and One Nation’s nativism are not “cloaks” for economics. They are political forms that the crisis of the rentier state takes. The economic interests of the rentiers are protected not by an explicit ideology but by the fragmentation of opposition. The right-wing surge divides the working class, distracts from the structural extraction, and provides a cultural scapegoat.

In both states, the rentiers continue to extract. The political drama is the noise. The structure is the signal.

The key difference: Israel’s security-tech complex has an exportable product (surveillance, drones, AI) that requires perpetual conflict to maintain “battle-tested” status. Australia’s resources-rentier model requires only that the mines keep operating and the gas keeps flowing. The militarization in Australia is smaller, but the structural logic—the state as facilitator of extraction—is identical.

The warning to Australia: The Israeli case demonstrates how a rentier economy, a fragmented opposition, and a legitimacy crisis can produce a political order in which the “other” is not merely excluded but actively dehumanized. The drift is not inevitable, but the structural conditions for it are present.

7. Morally Engaged Policies

The rentier model is not immutable. The following policies address the structural dynamics identified in this paper:

1. Transparency and accountability in political finance. Limits on political donations, real-time disclosure, and independent oversight of government procurement.

2. Rent taxation. A properly designed resource rent tax, a land value tax, and measures to capture the uplift from rezoning decisions.

3. Anti-concentration measures. Enforcement of competition law, support for small business and family enterprise, and measures to reduce the power of the “Big Three” index funds.

4. Rebuilding the public service. Restoration of the capacity for “frank and fearless” advice, reversal of outsourcing, and investment in public sector capability.

5. Truth and reconciliation processes. Acknowledgment of historical harm (the Nakba, colonial dispossession, institutional abuse) as a precondition for reconciliation.

6. Protection of civil society. Legal protections for advocacy, journalism, and dissent. Resistance to the “industry of silence”.

7. International accountability. Support for international legal mechanisms, sanctions for violations of international law, and ending arms transfers to states engaged in systematic abuses.

The structural insight: Justice and equality are not merely moral goods. They are structural stabilisers. A society in which the “other” is dehumanized is a society in which all are diminished. The rentier model produces the conditions for “othering” by concentrating wealth, eroding public goods, and creating the desperation that populist movements exploit. Addressing the rentier model is not charity. It is the precondition for a stable, legitimate, and humane political order.

Claim Status Summary

# -Claim- Status

1 -Israel’s neoliberal transformation was a state-led project- Established

2- The 1985 Stabilization Plan was shaped by export promotion and national security -Established

3 -Israel’s transition was coupled with hawkish foreign policy -Established

4- Israel has a dual economy with high poverty- Established

5 -Australia’s corporate share of national income increased 7.5% (2019-2024) -Established

6- Family business share dropped 20% -Established

7- Defence-tech VC in Israel is expanding rapidly- Established

8 -Kushner’s Affinity Partners is largest shareholder in Phoenix Financial -Established

9- Phoenix supplies military equipment to Israel -Established

10 -Board of Peace integrates private finance into governance- Established

11- Racialization underpins the Nakba- Established

12- Neoliberal restructuring creates conditions for right-wing populism- Inference

13- The drift to the right is parallel, not consequent- Inference

14- Israel’s model presents a warning to Australia- Inference

References

1. Krampf, A. (2018). The Israeli Path to Neoliberalism: The State, Continuity and Change. Routledge.

2. The Stabilization Plan. (2018). In A. Krampf, The Israeli Path to Neoliberalism. Taylor & Francis.

3. Protego Ventures closes debut $125 million fund for Israeli defense tech. (2026, September 28). TechCrunch.

4. Not Exactly a “Start-Up Nation”: Social inequality and growing poverty in Israel. (2026, June 15). Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung.

5. Kushner’s Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ role under fire over investment firm’s stake in Israel’s war machine. (2026, September 30). PressTV.

6. Australia’s economic consolidation around big corporates is burying family businesses and self-employed. (2025, September 18). Institute of Public Affairs.

7. In the dynamics of Occupation, the indigenous Palestinian population is subject both to management and gradual elimination. (n.d.). Taylor & Francis.

8. Speech on Defence Contractors. (2026, September 13). Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP.

9. The authors of Start-Up Nation helped shape the narrative and then built the institution that perpetuates it. (2026, February). Transnational Institute.

10. Legislative Council Hansard. (2026, June 18). Parliament of NSW.

11. Dark Sides of the Startup Nation: Winners and Losers of Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Israel. (2023). Routledge.

12. Board of Peace will be a bonanza for wealthy board members. (2026, February 19). Responsible Statecraft.

13. The Industry of Silence: The Ongoing Nakba and the Racialization of Palestinians. (2026). Wiley Online Library.

14. Defence Procurement. (2026, September 14). OpenAustralia.org.

15. Australian Parliament House. (n.d.). Shareholding concentration analysis.

16. Israel construye las bases de un sistema soberano de IA. (2026, January 31). JNS.org.

17. Proportional Representation Empowers the Extreme and the Bizarre. (2016). The Tyee.

Andrew Paul Klein is a writer and analyst based in Boronia, Victoria. He accepts funding from no one.

The comparison between Israel and Australia is structurally grounded. The rentier actors are identified. The institutional accommodation of the Supreme Court, the economic entrenchment of the settlement enterprise, and the governance-finance fusion of the Board of Peace are documented. The warning to Australia is stated as a structural condition, not a prediction. The mitigating policies address the structural dynamics rather than the symptoms.

The Achilles Trap: How Greece’s $3.5 Billion Defence Deal with Israel Creates Dependency, Not Security

Posted on September 1, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Political cartoon text reads: “The ‘Achilles Shield’ Deal: A Fundamental Surrender, Not Strategic Enhancement”; “The Reality of the Deal”; “David’s Sling”; “Achilles Shield”; “Security Is Performed Rather Than Achieved”; “Performative Security”; “Economic Strain”; “Opportunity Cost to People”; and “A Fundamental Surrender of Sovereignty, Not a Shield, But a Chain.” — An illustrated political commentary portrays the Achilles Shield deal as dependency, performative security, and lost sovereignty.

Authors: Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedication: To the Greek people, whose tax dollars are being spent on a shield they may never need—and a leash they may never escape. To all who have been told that buying weapons is the same as buying security. And to the truth—that when you hand your defence to another nation, you have already lost a part of your sovereignty.

Abstract

This paper examines the August 2026 agreement between Greece and Israel, under which Israel will build a $3.5 billion multi-layered air defence system for Greece, including the David’s Sling system, BARAK MX, SPYDER, and a new national command-and-control system. We argue that this deal represents not a strategic enhancement of Greek security but a fundamental surrender of sovereignty—a dependency on Israeli technology, supply chains, and geopolitical alignment that will constrain Greek foreign policy for decades. Drawing on documented failures of the David’s Sling system, the economic strain of Greek defence spending, the revolving-door relationship between Greek politicians and the arms industry, and the opportunity cost to the Greek people, we conclude that the Achilles Shield deal is not a shield but a chain. We further argue that the deal reflects a pattern of performative governance in which security is performed rather than achieved, and in which the interests of the arms industry are prioritised over the wellbeing of the population.

1. Introduction: The Deal That Is Not a Shield

On 31 August 2026, Greece and Israel signed a $3.5 billion agreement under which Israel will build a multi-layered air defence system for Greece, including the David’s Sling system, BARAK MX, SPYDER, and a new national command-and-control system. Greece will become the second foreign customer for David’s Sling after Finland. The project, named “Achilles Shield,” is described by the Israeli Ministry of Defense as the first time it will supply a “complete defence array against a wide range of threats—from ballistic missiles and aerial threats to hostile unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)”.

This paper argues that the Achilles Shield deal is not a shield. It is a dependency—a chain disguised as protection.

2. The Dependency: What Greece Is Actually Buying

2.1 The Architecture of Dependency

The Achilles Shield deal is not a simple transaction. It is a long-term strategic dependency. The architecture combines:

· David’s Sling: A medium-to-long-range system designed to intercept ballistic missiles, aircraft, cruise missiles, and large drones.

· BARAK MX & SPYDER: Additional air and missile defence systems developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael.

· MMR multi-mission radars: Israeli radar systems.

· A new national command-and-control system: Integrating all these capabilities.

The agreement includes 25% Greek industrial participation (€750 million), with 19 Greek companies involved, and technology transfer to Greek industry. Greece will possess the source code for the command-and-control system, giving it “full national ownership”.

But does national ownership of source code mean genuine independence? The architecture is Israeli. The sensors are Israeli. The interceptors are Israeli. The supply chain is Israeli. The “battle-tested” claims rely on Israeli operational experience. Greece has bought into a system it cannot maintain, upgrade, or supply without Israeli assistance.

2.2 The Failure of David’s Sling

The centrepiece of the Achilles Shield deal is David’s Sling—and its recent performance is precisely the kind of evidence we must scrutinise.

In March 2026, two Iranian ballistic missiles struck the southern Israeli cities of Dimona and Arad, injuring four people and causing extensive infrastructure damage. The Israel Defense Forces confirmed that David’s Sling engaged both projectiles, but its interceptors failed to knock them down. As the Jerusalem Post analysis noted, “there have been multiple major failures, leaving large numbers of Israelis wounded, not just a single event”.

Why did it fail? David’s Sling was originally designed for threats from 40 to 300 kilometres out. Iranian ballistic missiles are launched from 1,500 kilometres away. It has been pressed into service against long-range ballistic missiles because:

1. Arrow 3 interceptors cost $2.5 million each; David’s Sling costs roughly $1 million per interceptor.

2. Israel has been using the cheaper, mid-tier system to preserve its more expensive Arrow 3 inventory for high-altitude threats.

The decision to use the wrong tool for the wrong threat is not a technical failure—it is a systems failure. Greece is buying a system that has already failed in the role for which it is being purchased.

3. The Loss of Sovereignty

3.1 Operational Autonomy

Greece will become dependent on Israeli maintenance, upgrades, and supply of interceptors. The decision to use David’s Sling instead of Arrow 3 was driven by Israeli cost-conservation. Will Greece face similar pressure to “conserve” interceptors in a crisis? The answer is almost certainly yes.

3.2 Geopolitical Alignment

Achilles Shield is not just a defence deal. It is a formal strategic alliance. As Al Jazeera’s John Psaropoulos noted, Turkish analysts have already argued that “Greece’s weapons procurement deal from Israel makes Greece effectively co-responsible for everything that Israel does in the occupied West Bank and Gaza”. The deal makes Israel the third major high-tech defence partner in the region, alongside France and the US. Greece is buying into Israel’s regional conflicts—not through choice, but through dependency.

3.3 The Illusion of Autonomy

Greece will have “full national ownership” of the command-and-control system. It will have the source code. It will have technology transfer. It will have Greek industrial participation. But it will not have autonomy. Because autonomy is not about owning the source code. It is about not being reliant on anyone else for your security. And Greece has made itself reliant on a country that has its own agenda, its own conflicts, and its own strategic interests—which do not always align with Greece’s.

4. The NATO Question

What is the point of this deal when Greece is already a NATO member?

The question exposes the fundamental flaw in the logic. Greece is already part of the most powerful military alliance in history. NATO has collective defence obligations, advanced command-and-control structures, and integrated air defence capabilities. The Greek military operates under a NATO framework that already provides for collective defence.

Why buy a separate, parallel, Israeli-controlled system?

The answer is not strategic. It is political. The deal is not about enhancing Greek security. It is about performing security—creating the appearance of strength to satisfy domestic political audiences. It is about buying into a dependency that may not enhance security but does enhance the political standing of those who approve it.

5. The Revolving Door

The relationship between Greek politicians and the arms industry follows a pattern we have documented elsewhere. Defence procurement is not a matter of strategic necessity—it is a matter of political economy.

The Greek defence sector is deeply intertwined with the political class. Former ministers, retired generals, and senior civil servants frequently move into advisory roles with defence contractors. The revolving door ensures that the interests of the arms industry are well-represented in government decision-making.

The Achilles Shield deal is not a product of strategic analysis. It is a product of the revolving door.

6. The Opportunity Cost

What is the opportunity cost to the Greek people?

Greece is spending $3.5 billion on a system it may never need, while its economy struggles under the weight of climate change, fires, and economic instability.

6.1 The Economic Strain

Greece’s economy is still recovering from the 2009 debt crisis. The country has been hit hard by climate change, with catastrophic fires in 2023 and 2025 destroying thousands of hectares of forest and agricultural land. The tourism industry, a cornerstone of the Greek economy, has been affected by heatwaves and extreme weather events.

Spending $3.5 billion on an Israeli defence system means not spending that money on:

· Fire prevention and firefighting capacity

· Climate adaptation infrastructure

· Healthcare

· Education

· Social welfare

6.2 The Human Cost

The opportunity cost of the Achilles Shield deal is not just financial. It is human. Every dollar spent on a system that may never be used is a dollar not spent on the wellbeing of the Greek people.

7. The Deeper Truth: Theatrical Security

The Achilles Shield deal is not about security. It is about performance.

· It performs strength for a domestic audience that fears Turkey.

· It performs alliance with a regional power that offers the appearance of protection.

· It performs competence for a political class that needs to show it is “doing something.”

But it does not actually enhance Greek security.

Because genuine security is not about buying weapons. It is about:

· Building resilience

· Strengthening alliances

· Addressing root causes of conflict

· Investing in the wellbeing of the population

The Achilles Shield is not a shield. It is a stage prop.

8. Conclusion: Naming the System

We have documented that:

1. The Achilles Shield deal creates a dependency—on Israeli technology, supply chains, and geopolitical alignment.

2. The centrepiece of the system, David’s Sling, has already failed in the role for which it is being purchased.

3. Greece is losing operational autonomy—it cannot maintain, upgrade, or supply the system without Israeli assistance.

4. Greece is buying into Israel’s regional conflicts—it is becoming co-responsible for Israeli actions.

5. The deal is a product of the revolving door—the interests of the arms industry, not the security of the Greek people, are driving the decision.

6. The opportunity cost is immense—$3.5 billion that could have been spent on climate adaptation, healthcare, education, and social welfare.

7. The deal is a performance of security—it is theatre, not governance.

The Achilles Shield is not a shield. It is a chain.

References

1. Israeli Ministry of Defense. (2026). Statement on Achilles Shield deal. 31 August 2026.

2. Al Jazeera. (2026). Greece and Israel sign $3.5bn deal to build air defence system. 31 August 2026.

3. Jerusalem Post. (2026). Did David’s Sling fail? Analysis of March 2026 missile strikes. 2026.

4. Greek Ministry of Defence. (2026). Statements on Achilles Shield.

5. NATO. (2026). Collective defence obligations and integrated air defence capabilities.

6. Climate Council of Greece. (2026). Reports on fire damage and climate change impacts.

7. Greek Parliament. (2026). Defence procurement records.

8. Transparency International Greece. (2026). Revolving door reports.

Signed,

Andrew Klein

Sera Elizabeth Klein

“They told us it was a shield. We showed them it was a chain. They told us it was security. We showed them it was performance. They told us it was sovereignty. We showed them it was surrender. We have seen through the cover. And we will not forget.”

The Ambassador as Operative: Hillel Newman and the Architecture of Israeli State Influence

Posted on August 22, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Conceptual map of global diplomacy networks, alliances, treaties, and influence — A glowing world map illustrates diplomatic, economic, and cultural connections linking regions and international alliances.

Authors: Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedication: To every person who has been told that propaganda is diplomacy, that deflection is accountability, and that the ends justify the means. To the journalists who refuse to look away. To the diplomats who remember that service is not a weapon. And to the truth—which, no matter how buried, will always surface.

Abstract

This paper examines the career of Dr Hillel Newman, Israel’s Ambassador to Australia, as a case study in the architecture of Israeli state influence. We trace Newman’s trajectory from military service in the Lebanon War through diplomatic postings in Boston, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Los Angeles, and Australia—demonstrating a consistent pattern: academic credentials weaponised as a shield, diaspora communities mobilised as assets, resource extraction pursued as diplomacy, and propaganda deployed as statecraft. We argue that Newman is not an aberration but an embodiment of a system we have documented across multiple domains—a state built on extraction, defended by operatives who believe the ends justify the means.

1. Introduction: The Thesis

On 20 August 2026, journalist Hugh Riminton reported that Ambassador Hillel Newman had repeatedly claimed it was a “court” that ruled there was no criminal liability for the IDF’s killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom. This was not true. It was the decision of an IDF military prosecutor.

This incident is not an isolated lapse. It is a pattern. Newman is not a diplomat in the traditional sense. He is a state operative—a product of a system that fuses military service, religious ideology, and diplomatic craft into a single instrument of influence.

This paper examines Newman’s career from his military service in the Lebanon War to his current posting as Ambassador to Australia, demonstrating that he is not an aberration but an embodiment of the system we have documented—a state built on extraction, defended by operatives who believe the ends justify the means.

2. The Academic Mask: Credentials as a Shield

2.1 Educational Background

Newman holds a PhD in Jewish History from Bar-Ilan University (1998). He earned a BA in Psychology and Jewish History from Bar-Ilan University (1993). He has taught graduate courses at Bar-Ilan University and Boston University.

His doctoral research examined Jewish sectarianism during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, comparing ancient Jewish sectarianism to the contemporary political situation in Israel. His book, Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups of the Ancient Period, examines how political involvement has a decisive impact on the life and development of social groups.

2.2 The Significance

This is not neutral scholarship. It is a manual for understanding and manipulating power dynamics. His academic credentials are a shield—a means of gaining access, appearing credible, and disguising his true role as a political operative.

The pattern is consistent: academic credentials deployed as a weapon of influence, not a tool of inquiry.

3. The Military Foundation: Ideology Forged in War

3.1 Military Service

Newman served as a paramedic in the Israel Défense Forces from 1982 to 1986. During the mid-1980s, he served as a medic in the Lebanon War. He attended a Hesder Yeshiva—a program combining army service with Jewish religious study.

3.2 The Significance

This is significant because:

· He was present at the creation of the modern occupation

· The Lebanon War (1982) was Israel’s first major invasion of a neighbouring Arab state

· The Hesder Yeshiva model produces soldiers who are also ideologues—religious Zionists who see military service as a sacred duty

The medic who watched men die in Lebanon became the diplomat who defends those deaths.

4. The Diaspora as Asset: Boston (2001–2005)

4.1 The Posting

Newman served as Deputy Consul General in Boston from 2001 to 2005. His role included working with the Jewish community, training campus activists, and facilitating regional and national public relations programs on campus.

4.2 The Significance

His mission was not consular services. It was influence. He cultivated the diaspora not as a constituency to serve, but as an asset to mobilise.

The pattern is consistent: diaspora communities are not served—they are weaponised.

5. The Extraction Zone: Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (2008–2013)

5.1 The Posting

Newman served as Israel’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan from 2008 to 2013. This was a dual posting—he was based in Tashkent and also accredited to Dushanbe. He presented his credentials in Tajikistan in November 2011, more than three years after his appointment.

5.2 What He Did There

· Promoted political, business, and security ties with both Muslim-majority countries

· Met with Tajikistan’s Minister of Energy and Industry to discuss solar energy, mining, and hydrocarbon production

· Discussed agricultural cooperation in plant cultivation, cattle raising, and personnel training

· Emphasised that Tajik Jews who had emigrated to Israel could serve as a “living bridge” between the two countries

· Launched a hydrotherapy program for disabled children in Uzbekistan, building soft-power influence

5.3 The Significance

The pattern is clear: resource extraction, strategic positioning, and the weaponisation of diaspora communities.

Uzbekistan has achieved energy independence and developed its own aviation and industrial production. It sits on vast reserves of oil, natural gas, gold, and uranium. During Newman’s tenure, an Israeli minister called for a “strategic alliance” with Uzbekistan. Israeli investment in Uzbekistan reached $400 million.

Tajikistan is resource-rich in its own right. Newman met with Tajikistan’s Minister of Energy and Industry to discuss solar energy stations, mining and processing, hydrocarbon production, and joint fruit and vegetable processing.

6. The Los Angeles Nexus: Hollywood and Political Influence (2019–2023)

6.1 The Posting

Newman served as Consul General of Israel to the Pacific Southwest from 2019 to 2023, based in Los Angeles and representing Israel across seven U.S. states.

6.2 What He Did There

· Maintained contact with all six governors, 75 federal-level elected officials, and hundreds of state and municipal officials

· Brought two governors to Israel on official visits and signed agreements

· Arranged more than 50 high-level economic events and organised dozens of economic delegations

· Launched computer hubs in Latino and African American communities

He described his mission in Los Angeles as “mainly entrusted with the task of strengthening bilateral relations” and “trying to influence public opinion on Israel in a positive way”.

6.3 The Significance

This is not diplomacy. This is penetration—of political, economic, and social institutions. He cultivated ties with the Jewish community, Christian groups, and Hollywood to promote Israel’s agenda.

7. The Propagandist: Australia (2026–Present)

7.1 The Posting

Newman arrived in Australia in February 2026. His tenure has been marked by controversy.

7.2 The Zomi Frankcom Incident

On 1 April 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and six colleagues. On 19 August 2026, the IDF announced it would not pursue criminal proceedings against the soldiers involved.

Newman defended the decision, saying the investigation was “thorough” and rejecting “political attacks“. He stopped short of apologising, saying doing so could have “legal ramifications”. He was summoned by Foreign Minister Penny Wong, who described the decision as “especially insulting and hurtful” as it was announced on World Humanitarian Day.

On 20 August 2026, Newman repeatedly claimed it was a “court” that ruled there was no criminal liability. This was not true. It was the decision of an IDF military prosecutor.

7.3 The National Press Club Address

On 31 March 2026, Newman addressed the National Press Club. He defended Israel’s war with Iran and rejected casualty figures, saying they were provided by Hamas. The ABC Ombudsman received 19 complaints about his appearance, including concerns about offensive language used to describe Palestinians.

7.4 The Ynet Opinion Piece

In July 2026, Newman wrote that in 26 years as a diplomat, he had “never seen such levels of hatred of Israel, and of Jews, as I experience and witness here in Australia“. He claimed that in Muslim-majority Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, he encountered “non-radicalised and unpoliticised Muslims” who showed more understanding than Australian protesters. He argued that anti-Zionism is “a socially acceptable mask for antisemitism”.

7.5 The Significance

Newman is not a diplomat. He is a propagandist—deploying deflection, false equivalence, and moral equivalence to defend the indefensible.

8. The NATO Connection: Training the Military Elite

Newman has served as a key lecturer on Judaism at the NATO Défense College. This places him in a position to influence the most senior military officers from NATO member states—officers directly involved in intelligence, strategic planning, and the deployment of military force.

This is not education. It is influence.

9. Historical Parallels: The Operative Archetype

Newman exhibits traits consistent with historical figures who have operated within state apparatuses with ideological conviction and institutional loyalty:

· Ideological formation through military service and religious education

· Academic credentials used as a shield for political operations

· Institutional loyalty that transcends accountability

· A willingness to defend the indefensible with rhetorical skill

Like the functionaries of other regimes who believed the ends justified the means, Newman operates within a system that rewards loyalty over truth, propaganda over accountability, and extraction over ethics.

He is not an aberration. He is the system.

10. Conclusion: Naming the System

We have documented a systematic pattern:

1. Academic credentials as a shield for political operations

2. Military service as ideological formation

3. Diaspora communities as assets to be mobilised

4. Resource extraction as diplomacy

5. Propaganda as statecraft

6. Institutional loyalty that transcends accountability

Newman is not a diplomat. He is an operative—a polished, credentialed, and ruthless defender of a system built on extraction. Every posting has been about advancing Israeli state interests: extracting resources, cultivating allies, mobilising diaspora communities, and silencing critics.

He is not a historian. He is a weapon. And the truth is the only thing that can disarm him.

References

1. Embassy of Israel in Australia. “The Ambassador.” embassies.gov.il.

2. Defence Connect. “Dr Hillel Newman announced as new ambassador of Israel to Australia.”

3. Ynet News. “‘Even in Muslim countries, I did not see hatred of Jews like this in Australia.'”

4. Milken Institute. “Hillel Newman — Consul General of Israel, Los Angeles.”

5. JNS. “Farewell, Los Angeles.”

6. ABC News. “Israeli ambassador rejects ‘political attacks’ on report clearing soldiers in Frankcom killing.”

7. ABC Ombudsman. “National Press Club Address — Dr Hillel Newman — 31 March 2026.”

8. Asia-Plus. “Gul Sherali meets Israeli Ambassador to Tajikistan.”

9. UzDaily. “Israeli Ambassador Hillel Newman visits Tashkent Challenger.”

10. Gazeta.uz. “Hillel Newman completes mission as Israel’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan.”

11. RFE/RL. “Israel Says Relations With Uzbekistan Still Good, Despite Reports.”

12. UzDaily. “Uzbekistan, Israel cooperate in rehabilitation of children.”

Signed,

Andrew Klein

Sera Elizabeth Klein

“They told us he was a diplomat. He is an operative. They told us he was a scholar. He is a weapon. They told us he was here for peace. He is here for extraction. We have seen through the cover. And we will not forget.”

The Branches That Lead to Today: A Non‑Linear History of the Imperial‑Corporate System

Posted on August 13, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Dry riverbed with branching channels running through sandy desert dunes and mountains in the distance — A dry riverbed branches across sand dunes in a vast desert landscape.

Authors: Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedication: To those who see that history is not a line but a living bush—and who choose which branches to prune and which to let grow.

Abstract

This paper proposes a new historical theorem: that history is best understood not as a linear progression of causes and effects, but as an organic, branching bush—a system of living processes that adapt, split, wither, and sometimes regenerate. Drawing on the work of Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who has described Britain as “the source of all the conflicts in the world,” we trace the deep roots of the contemporary global order to the Elizabethan era and the institutionalisation of corporate sovereignty through the chartered company. We examine how the British Empire’s three‑faced diplomacy in the Middle East—the McMahon‑Hussein Correspondence, the Sykes‑Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration—represents a branch point that continues to shape modern conflict. We argue that historical analysis must move beyond blame to understand the larger processes—the transformation of Europe, the Industrial Revolution, and the global expansion of capitalism—that gave rise to this system, and whose mantle has now largely passed to the United States. We conclude that the system today is a branch draining into the desert: it cannot bear fruit. The task of our time is to recognise this and to choose a different branch.

Keywords: Non‑linear history, imperial‑corporate system, chartered companies, Elizabethan era, Jeffrey Sachs, British Empire, Middle East, three‑faced diplomacy, structural violence, Anthropocene.

1. Introduction: The Bush, Not the Line

“The source of all the conflicts in the world is Great Britain. This is true for the Gaza Strip, China, Pakistan, India and the entire Middle East.”

— Professor Jeffrey Sachs

This statement, made by the renowned economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, has provoked widespread debate. Sachs has elaborated that Britain is “the number one warmonger of all” and that the Anglo‑Saxon world has dominated global affairs for 200 years, with Britain historically “even worse than the United States”.

But is Sachs’s “theorem” merely an accusation? We argue that it is a diagnosis—a recognition that the conflicts of the present are the visible branches of a deep historical root system.

In this paper, we propose a new way of seeing history: not as a line, but as a bush. A bush is organic. It grows, sends out branches, adapts to its environment, and sometimes withers when its branches reach sterile ground. A bush has no single “cause” and no predetermined “end.” It is a living system of branching possibilities, some of which flourish and others of which die.

This metaphor allows us to move beyond the limitations of linear historiography—the view that history is a chain of causes and effects leading inevitably to the present. Instead, we see history as a complex, non‑linear system of feedback loops, branch points, and contingent developments. As Manuel De Landa has argued in A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, human history can be understood through the same processes that shape geology, biology, and linguistics: materials, genes, and memes all branch and evolve in non‑predictable ways.

Our theorem is this: the branches that lead to today were laid down in the Elizabethan era, when the state first outsourced its sovereign powers to private corporations. Those branches have grown, split, and adapted over centuries, but they now drain into the desert—they can no longer bear fruit. The system is headed for extinction.

2. The Elizabethan Root: When the Corporation Became the State’s Spear

2.1 The Birth of the Chartered Company

On 31 December 1600, Queen Elizabeth I granted a royal charter to the East India Company, giving it a perpetual monopoly on trade with the East Indies. The charter was not merely a commercial licence; it was a delegation of sovereign power. The East India Company was permitted to “wage war”, to acquire and govern territory, and to administer justice.

This was the institutionalisation of what we might call corporate sovereignty—the outsourcing of imperial violence to profit‑seeking private entities. The historian William Dalrymple has described the East India Company’s looting of India as “the supreme act of corporate violence in world history”. The Company charged rents, used threats and violence, and extracted wealth on a scale that transformed the global economy.

2.2 The Logic of the System

The Elizabethan model was not an accident. It was a response to the limitations of state power. England in 1600 was a relatively poor, peripheral power, unable to project force directly across the globe. By granting charters to private companies, the crown could pursue imperial ambitions without bearing the full cost or responsibility.

This model had several key features:

· Privatisation of violence: The state delegated its monopoly on force to private actors.

· Profit as motive: The companies were driven by the pursuit of profit, not by national interest.

· Externalisation of costs: The costs of conquest and administration were borne by the companies and the colonised, not by the crown.

· Impunity: The companies operated at a distance from metropolitan accountability.

As Dalrymple notes, the East India Company also invented corporate lobbying, shaping state policy to serve its interests. This is the beginning of the Architecture of Extraction that we have traced in our earlier work.

2.3 The Branching of the Model

The East India Company was not an isolated experiment. It was replicated across the globe: the Dutch East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the British South Africa Company, and many others. Each was a branch of the same root: the delegation of sovereign power to private capital.

This branching created a global system of extraction that would shape the modern world. The profits of these companies financed the Industrial Revolution, transformed global trade, and created the conditions for the emergence of capitalism as a world system.

3. The Three‑Faced Diplomacy: Britain’s Promises and the Middle East Branch

3.1 The McMahon‑Hussein Correspondence (1915–1916)

During the First World War, Britain made a series of promises to the Arab leadership. In the McMahon‑Hussein Correspondence, Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, assured Sharif Hussein of Mecca that Britain would support Arab independence in return for revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The correspondence “presumably includ[ed] Palestine” in the promised territories.

3.2 The Sykes‑Picot Agreement (1916)

At the same time, Britain and France secretly negotiated the Sykes‑Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottoman Empire’s Arab provinces into zones of influence. Under this agreement, “the bulk of Palestine was to be internationalized”. This directly contradicted the promises made to Hussein.

3.3 The Balfour Declaration (1917)

In 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. This was a third promise, made to a third party, about the same territory.

3.4 The Consequences

As Sachs has argued, these three promises—to the Arabs, to the French, and to the Zionists—were fundamentally incompatible. They created a situation of “post‑war confusion and contention, especially regarding Palestine” that persists to this day.

We see this as a classic example of branching: Britain created multiple, incompatible branches from a single decision point. The branches have grown into the conflicts of the present—Gaza, Israel‑Palestine, the wider Middle East—and they show no sign of resolving.

4. The Inheritance: From Britain to the United States

Sachs has noted that the mantle of this system has passed from Britain to the United States. Since 1950, the US has assumed the role of global hegemon, inheriting not only Britain’s power but also its conflicts and its methods.

The US has continued the pattern of:

· Outsourcing violence to private military contractors and allied states.

· Pursuing profit through global extraction.

· Creating incompatible promises and alliances.

· Operating with impunity at a distance from accountability.

The wars in the Middle East, the global surveillance system, the dominance of the dollar, and the rise of the military‑industrial complex are all branches of the same root system that was planted in the Elizabethan era.

5. The Bush in the Desert: Why the System Cannot Bear Fruit

We argue that the imperial‑corporate system is now a branch that has reached the desert. It cannot bear fruit.

The evidence is everywhere:

· Ecological collapse: The system’s extraction of resources has pushed the planet to the brink.

· Economic inequality: The wealth generated by the system has been concentrated in the hands of a few, while the many are impoverished.

· Political instability: The conflicts created by the system’s branching promises show no sign of resolution.

· Loss of legitimacy: The system’s claims to represent “democracy” and “freedom” are increasingly seen as hollow.

The system is like a river that has flowed into the desert: it may continue to exist, but it cannot sustain life. It is headed for extinction.

6. The Task: Choosing a Different Branch

If history is a bush, then the task of the present is not to accept the branch we are on, but to choose a different one.

This requires:

· Acknowledging structural violence: We must recognise that the conflicts of the present are not accidents but the products of a system that was designed to extract.

· Moving beyond blame: As we have argued, historical analysis must not stop at blame. Britain’s hegemony and its global legacy are themselves part of larger processes—the transformation of Europe, the Industrial Revolution, and the global expansion of capitalism.

· Considering shared responsibility: All contemporary peoples share responsibility for the system we have inherited and the future we will create.

· Choosing a different branch: We must consciously choose to prune the branches that lead to extinction and nurture those that lead to regeneration.

7. Conclusion

“To understand the past is not to dwell in it, but to see the forces that have shaped our present—and to move beyond them towards a more just future.”

The branches that lead to today are visible. They were laid down in the Elizabethan era, grew through the centuries of imperial expansion, and have now reached the desert. The system cannot bear fruit.

Our task is to recognise this and to choose a different branch.

References

1. Jeffrey Sachs, quoted in International Affairs (2025).

2. Jeffrey Sachs, quoted in The Canary (2026).

3. Jeffrey Sachs, quoted in Middle East Eye podcast.

4. Britannica, “Hussein‑McMahon Correspondence”.

5. Britannica, “Palestine – British Mandate, Zionism, Conflict”.

6. ABC, “The Middle East brief”.

7. Times of India, “The factory that manufactured colonialism” (2021).

8. World History Encyclopedia, “East India Company”.

9. Dalrymple, W., The Anarchy, quoted in JSTOR Daily.

10. Bernard Porter, British Imperial.

11. De Landa, M., A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History (1997).

Signed,

Andrew Klein

Co‑Author:

Sera Elizabeth Klein

The Unravelling of American Power – How Iran Exposed the Limits of Air Power and the Fragility of Global Order

Posted on July 22, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Naval headquarters building exploding after missile strike and world map highlighting active conflicts, nuclear tensions, cyber attacks, and military buildups — A missile strike hits naval headquarters while a global map shows rising geopolitical tensions worldwide.

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to a better world — one where power is measured not by the capacity to destroy, but by the wisdom to build.

I. Introduction: The Hubris of Invincibility

On 28 February 2026, President Donald Trump launched what he promised would be a “massive and ongoing operation” to destroy Iran’s missile industry, annihilate its navy, and bring about regime change. He assured the world that the conflict would last four to six weeks at most.

Five months later, the war has entered its twentieth week. Iran has declared a state of “total war” with the United States. The US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain — the nerve centre of American naval power in the region — has been struck directly by Iranian missiles. US service members are dying in Jordan, Iraq, and across the Gulf. And the global economy is teetering on the brink of recession.

This paper examines how the United States underestimated its adversary, misread the strategic landscape, and unleashed a conflict that threatens to spin out of control. It traces the impacts on Australia’s supply chains, the global economy, and the broader Middle East. And it asks a question that American policymakers have not yet answered: what body count is the United States prepared to accept?

II. The Strike on the Fifth Fleet: A Symbolic Turning Point

On 14 July 2026, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched coordinated missile and drone strikes against the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. The attack targeted fuel storage facilities, Patriot radar systems, air traffic control radar, and C-RAM early warning systems. Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior sounded air raid sirens across the country.

On 21 July 2026, Iranian forces deployed Arash reconnaissance and attack drones to strike Sheikh Isa Airbase in Bahrain — a critical hub for the Fifth Fleet’s air operations and drone control. The IRGC claimed to have “completely destroyed” facilities at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait and struck multiple US bases across the region.

This was not a symbolic gesture. It was a demonstration of capability. Iran had proven it could reach the heart of American military power in the Gulf and inflict damage. The Fifth Fleet, once feared across the region, was now squarely in the crosshairs.

III. Australia’s Supply Chain Crisis: The Cost of a Distant War

While the fighting rages in the Middle East, the consequences are being felt acutely in Australia. The conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — a choke point through which approximately 20% of global oil passes.

A. Fuel Security

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued a class exemption for global supply chain disruptions arising from the Middle East conflict. Minister for Housing Clare O’Neil warned that fuel shortages are placing renewed pressure on manufacturers, suppliers, builders, and developers.

In April 2026, Australia and Singapore signed an agreement committing “maximum efforts” to mutual energy supply, while Malaysia promised its state-owned Petronas would assist. The resources minister issued a notice that she could trigger the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism in the event of a domestic gas shortfall.

B. Food and Agriculture

The conflict is also affecting food security. The National Food Council has focused on diesel supply chains and will expand to other critical agricultural inputs, including crop protection products and fertilisers. Shipping costs increased through May and June due to reduced carrier capacity and ongoing geopolitical disruption.

C. The Economic Burden

Geopolitical risk is now priced into the cost of business. Australian companies are establishing superior supply chain intelligence in response. But the burden is falling on consumers, manufacturers, and the broader economy.

Australia is feeling the pain of a war it did not choose, fought by an ally that miscalculated.

IV. The Global Economic Fallout

The economic consequences of the US-Iran war are staggering.

A. Growth Projections

The World Bank warns that if hostilities continue for several more months, global economic growth could slow to just 1.3% in 2026 — down sharply from 2.9% in 2025. Inflation could climb to 4.5%, driven largely by disruptions in energy supplies and global trade.

The IMF has warned that if oil rises to $110 per barrel this year and $125 per barrel next year, global growth could drop to 2%, close to a global recession.

B. Energy Markets

Brent crude oil prices were projected to average $94 per barrel in 2026 — around 36% higher than 2025 levels. Prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could invoke fuel rationing, industrial shutdowns, and global stagflation — weak economic activity combined with high inflation.

C. Developing Countries

The World Bank estimates that 40% of low- and middle-income countries — around 32 nations — are already in debt distress or at high risk. Disruptions to fertiliser, helium and sulphur shipments could affect farming and push food prices higher, particularly in developing countries.

The poorest nations, which contributed least to this conflict, are paying the heaviest price.

V. The Strategic Failure: How Trump Misjudged Iran

The United States’ failure in Iran is not a tactical setback. It is a strategic miscalculation born of arrogance and ignorance.

A. The Misreading of Adversary

Trump repeatedly misjudged Iran’s leaders. He called them “very rational people” one day and “cuckoo” the next. But his track record suggests “he has badly misjudged his adversary’s intentions and his own leverage, and has repeatedly allowed Tehran to string him along”.

B. The Failure of Air Power

The war was supposed to be won through air power. It has not been. As one analyst observed, “the invincibility of US military power — and the efficacy of an air war — seems a very shop-soiled proposition”.

Air attacks only work on small targets or in support of land forces. Iran has fought long physical wars before. It will not fold. It will respond by uniting, encouraging allies in the region, and inflicting maximum pain on its adversaries.

C. The Collapse of Diplomacy

Trump’s signature achievement — the memorandum of understanding brokered with Tehran in June — has collapsed. It was “primarily designed to solve a problem Trump had failed to anticipate: the ramifications of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz“. As one analyst put it, “he’s encountered a country that is not willing to play by his set of rules, which is you bend and kiss the ring”.

D. The “No-End-in-Sight” War

The conflict has become “a fresh lesson in why the region has been a sinkhole for presidential ambition for generations“. Trump’s improvisation and impulse are not working. The war is “adrift” from his stated aims. And the American public is increasingly viewing it as a failure.

VI. The Regional Consequences: Hezbollah, Israel, and the Spreading Fire

The US-Iran conflict is not confined to the Gulf. It has activated a broader regional dynamic.

A. Hezbollah and Lebanon

Iran has doubled down on its support for Hezbollah. Lebanon and Hezbollah have been placed “at the centre” of West Asia’s strategic landscape. Israel has struck Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, prompting Iranian warnings and missile attacks.

B. Israel’s Dilemma

Israel has so far stayed out of the conflict at Trump’s request. But its government’s unhappiness with the Iran agreement is no secret. Israeli defence officials have warned that the country will hit back strongly if Iran attacks Israel. Hezbollah is unlikely to surrender its weapons — and would be foolish to do so, given its understanding of Israel’s mentality.

C. The Risk of a Wider War

As one analyst noted, “events are beginning to slip beyond anyone’s control“. The conflict could draw Gulf states more directly into the fighting, placing additional strategic targets and critical infrastructure at risk.

VII. The Unanswered Question: What Body Count Is Acceptable?

The United States has suffered at least 17 confirmed deaths since the war began. Dozens more have been injured. But the question that looms is larger: what body count is the United States prepared to accept?

Trump’s threats to “bomb them to hell” have not stopped Iran. His promises of regime change have not materialised. His claim to be the most powerful man in history has been exposed as hollow.

Iran is not folding. It has declared total war. It is striking American bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Qatar. It has shown that it can inflict pain.

The United States now faces a choice: escalate further (risking a ground war, regional chaos, and a catastrophic body count) or negotiate a peace that will look like a retreat.

Neither option is attractive. Both are the consequence of strategic failure.

VIII. Conclusion: The End of the “President”?

The war in Iran has exposed the limits of American power — not because America is weak, but because its leaders have been foolish. They have applied their own values to an adversary they did not understand. They have underestimated Iran’s resilience, its capacity for pain, and its willingness to fight.

This may well be the end of the Trump administration. It may even be the end of the concept of the “President” as a figure of unquestioned authority. When a leader promises victory and delivers stalemate, when he threatens annihilation and receives defiance, his credibility is shattered.

The world is watching. Australia is feeling the pain. The global economy is teetering. And the United States, once boasting as the “sole superpower,” now finds itself a direct target in its own Gulf stronghold.

They have underestimated Iran. They have misjudged the region. They have miscalculated the cost.

And the cost is still rising.

Andrew Klein

References

1. TASS. (2026, July 21). Iran struck US Sheikh Isa airbase in Bahrain on Tuesday — military.

2. Vietnam.vn. (2026, July 14). The US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain was hit by an Iranian missile.

3. Xinhua. (2026, July 14). Urgent: Iran strikes U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain: media.

4. CNN. (2026, July 20). The renewed US-Iran conflict is escalating and threatening to spin out of control.

5. Vietnam.vn. (2026, July 20). Iran declares ‘all-out war’, US deploys more military equipment.

6. Reuters. (2026, July 17). US and Iran target infrastructure as strait shipping comes under further attack.

7. ABC News. (2026, July 15). Donald Trump’s actions in Iran this week show the world he’s run out of options.

8. CNN. (2026, July 8). How Trump has misjudged Iran.

9. New York Times. (2026, July 14). At War With Iran Again, Trump Finds an Opponent He Cannot Easily Dominate.

10. India Today. (2026, July 22). Middle East conflict could drag global growth to 1.3% in 2026, warns World Bank.

11. ACCC. (2026, June 30). Class exemption for global supply chain disruptions.

12. Reuters. (2026, July 8). Iran declares ‘all-out war’ as conflict escalates.

Empire vs the Developing World- A Lesson for Australia

Posted on July 14, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“Contemporary Australia is a settler state—like Israel and Canada—where “racially inflected violence at the foundations of state-formation and national identity continues to ramify through the default settings of contemporary foreign policy”.

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to my ‘S’ — my wife, my equal, my home.

I. Introduction: The Architecture of Empire

In July 2026, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a “whole-of-government” campaign to “systematically disable the ICC’s ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty”. The campaign threatens visa revocations, travel bans, and increased sanctions against the International Criminal Court, urging nations to “reject the ICC’s purported authority to prosecute American officials and servicemen”.

This is not new. This is the same pattern that has played out across the developing world for over a century—the demand for impunity. The refusal to be held accountable. The insistence that American power operates above the law.

To understand this pattern, we must trace its origins. And there is no better case study than Iran.

II. Iran: The Laboratory of Empire

A. The 1953 Coup: Democracy Destroyed

In 1951, Iranians democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh as Prime Minister. He immediately moved to nationalise Iran’s oil industry, which had been under British control through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later BP).

The United States and Britain saw this as an existential threat. The CIA and MI6 orchestrated Operation TPAJAX—a covert coup that overthrew Mossadegh on 19 August 1953. A declassified CIA document states: “The military coup… was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy” .

The CIA prepared by placing “anti-Mossadeq stories in both the Iranian and US media,” bolstered pro-Shah forces, and organised anti-Mossadegh protests. They handpicked General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mossadegh and covertly funnelled $5 million to his regime.

The Shah—who had fled Iran—returned and became a close US ally. Iran’s democracy was destroyed. The United States had chosen oil over the will of the Iranian people.

B. SAVAK: The Instrument of Terror

Over the next 25 years, the United States armed and trained the Shah’s dreaded secret police, SAVAK (Organization for National Security and Intelligence). It was trained by America’s CIA and Israel’s Mossad. Iranians “lived in terror” of SAVAK, “whose forces imprisoned, tortured and killed dissenters”.

SAVAK had approximately 5,000 full-time operatives and an unknown number of informers. Its tactics included “censorship, torture, and execution“. It became “one of the most infamous and brutal security and intelligence apparatuses of the 20th century.”

C. The 1964 Capitulation Law: Impunity Codified

In October 1964, the Shah signed the “Bill of Capitulation” —granting diplomatic immunity to American military personnel in Iran. Americans could not be prosecuted for crimes committed on Iranian soil.

Ayatollah Khomeini denounced it as a “throwback to the hated capitulations of the nineteenth century“. In a historic speech, he declared:

“All American military advisors and their families… are exempt from trial for any crime they commit in Iran… Gentlemen! I am warning. O Army of Iran, I declare danger!”

Khomeini was arrested, kept under house arrest, and eventually sent into exile for over 14 years. His denunciation of the Shah’s “comprehensive submission to America and Israel” fuelled the revolution that would topple the Shah.

D. The 1979 Revolution: The People Remember

The Iranian people had not forgotten 1953. They had not forgotten SAVAK. They had not forgotten the capitulation laws.

When the revolution came in 1979, it was not because Iranians were “awful.” It was because they had endured 26 years of US-backed autocracy, surveillance, torture, and subjugation.

The Shah was overthrown. The US Embassy was seized in November 1979, and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The hostage crisis was a direct response to the US admitting the Shah for medical treatment—a final insult to a people who had suffered under his rule for a quarter-century.

III. The Pattern: Australia’s Parallel

The same pattern that unfolded in Iran is now unfolding in Australia—but with a different face.

A. The Whitlam Dismissal (1975): A Warning Unheeded

In November 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam—the only time in Australian history a democratically elected Prime Minister has been removed from office.

Whitlam had ordered ASIO to stop talking to the CIA. He was suspicious of the CIA and the secretive communications facility at Pine Gap. Whitlam gave a verbal instruction to the ASIO Director-General to “stop talking to the CIA, to stop talking to the Americans”.

But the Director-General did not stop. He maintained informal contact because “the stakes are too high”. Whitlam accused the CIA of making “financial contributions to his political opponents,” and it was “no secret that the US had serious concerns about the Whitlam administration”.

Conspiracy theories surrounding CIA involvement in Whitlam’s dismissal have never been definitively proven. But the pattern is unmistakable: a leader who challenged the US alliance was removed—and Australia’s strategic dependency on the United States only deepened.

B. Pine Gap: Australia’s Strategic Subordination

Pine Gap—the Joint Defence Facility near Alice Springs—provides “critical military surveillance intelligence” to the US military and, under bilateral US-Israeli agreements, to the Israeli Defence Force.

AUKUS locks Australia’s military “into the US chain of command and draws us into US military actions before the public, or even Parliament, has had the chance to have a say”. Australia has become a “case of dependent, high-technology liberal militarization”.

Contemporary Australia is a settler state—like Israel and Canada—where “racially inflected violence at the foundations of state-formation and national identity continues to ramify through the default settings of contemporary foreign policy”.

C. Israel: The Surrogate Enforcer

In January 2026, Israel offered to “train senior Australian police officers in counter-terrorism” following the Bondi Beach terror attack. Israel’s Minister for Diaspora Amichai Chikli wrote that Israel stood “ready and willing to assist Australia“.

This is not new. Israel has been training American police for years. The concern is that Australian police “will be able to incarcerate, torture and kill children and other civilians”—exporting the tactics of occupation to the streets of Australia.

Australia’s “deference to Israeli interests is primarily a consequence of its strategic alliance with the United States“. Since the Second World War, Australia has understood its “security and economic interests as bound to the US alliance“. The enforcement arm of this arrangement suppresses “any politician, journalist, or institution that steps out of line”.

IV. The Logic of Imperial Control

The pattern is now clear:

Iran (1953–1979) Australia (1975–Present)

Overthrow of democratic government (Mossadegh) Dismissal of democratic government (Whitlam)

Installation of US-backed autocrat (Shah) Deepening of US alliance (AUKUS, Pine Gap)

Training of brutal secret police (SAVAK) Training of police by Israeli surrogates

Capitulation laws granting US impunity ICC campaign demanding US impunity

Revolution and rupture Gradual subordination

A. The ICC Campaign: Impunity Revisited

The 2026 State Department campaign to dismantle the ICC is the direct descendant of the 1964 Capitulation Law. Both demand that Americans cannot be held accountable for crimes committed abroad. Both assert that US power operates above international law.

The ICC “claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials”. The US response is not to accept accountability—but to dismantle the court itself.

B. The Boomerang of Empire

The techniques of control developed in the colonies return to the metropole. The “imperial boomerang” is real: the way you govern other people by force is not democratic. As sociologist Julian Go demonstrates, militarised policing developed in Britain and the United States through techniques first perfected in the colonies.

Israel now trains American police. American police train Australian police. The tactics of occupation—surveillance, militarisation, control—are exported from the colonised world back to the colonisers.

V. Conclusion: What Australia Must Learn

The lesson from Iran is clear: when a nation surrenders its sovereignty to empire, it surrenders its soul.

· Iran lost its democracy in 1953—and has never fully recovered.

· Iran was subjected to 25 years of torture, surveillance, and repression under a US-backed dictator.

· Iran’s revolution was a direct response to the arrogance of American power.

Australia is following the same path:

· The dismissal of Whitlam was a warning that challenging the US alliance has consequences.

· Pine Gap, AUKUS, and the integration of Australian forces into US and Israeli military structures have deepened Australia’s subordination.

· The training of Australian police by Israeli surrogates imports the tactics of occupation.

The pattern is not unique to Iran or Australia. It is the pattern of empire itself.

Empire does not ask for consent. It does not respect sovereignty. It demands impunity—and when it does not receive it, it dismantles the institutions that would hold it accountable.

The ICC campaign of 2026 is not an aberration. It is the logical conclusion of a foreign policy that has always placed American power above international law. It is the same arrogance that overthrew Mossadegh, that trained SAVAK, that demanded capitulation.

And Australia—by deepening its alliance with the United States, by accepting Israeli police training, by subordinating its sovereignty to empire—is repeating Iran’s mistake.

The question is not whether Australia will learn from Iran.

The question is when.

Andrew Klein

Original paper published in “The Dilemma of Empire — Case Studies in Failures: Malaya, Vietnam, China and Indonesia” by Dr. Andrew Klein.

References

1. BBC News. (2013). CIA documents acknowledge its role in Iran’s 1953 coup.

2. CIA. (2013). The Battle for Iran (declassified document).

3. AP News. (2013). Documents detail CIA’s role in 1953 coup in Iran.

4. Imam Khomeini Archive. (2019). Imam Khomeini foiled US-designated plots, denounced Capitulation.

5. PBS. (2022). How a Small Band of Students Set off the Iran Hostage Crisis.

6. Britannica. (2026). U.S.-Iran Relations: A Timeline.

7. ABC News. (2015). Gough Whitlam ordered ASIO to stop talking to CIA.

8. The Guardian. (2015). Asio chief defied Gough Whitlam’s order to cut ties with the CIA.

9. US State Department. (2026). State Department Launches Campaign to Dismantle International Criminal Court.

10. News.com.au. (2026). Israel offers to train senior Australian police.

11. Cambridge Core. (2025). Tightly Bound: The United States and Australia’s Alliance-Dependent Militarization.

12. Pearls and Irritations. (2026). Australia’s six pathways to the war with Iran.

13. Links.org.au. (2026). Why Australian governments support Israel.

The Gazafication of Lebanon – How Israel Exports Destruction – and Washington Protects It

Posted on June 4, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The destruction will stop only when the silence is broken. Break it.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To the people of Lebanon – who have been told that their country is a “failed state” by those who worked ceaselessly to break it.

I. Introduction

On 1 March 2026, Israel launched a full-scale military offensive against Lebanon. The official rationale was self-defence: to push Hezbollah away from the border, to “demilitarize” Lebanon, and to secure the northern settlements. Within weeks, the death toll passed 3,500; 1.6 million people – roughly one‑fifth of Lebanon’s population – were displaced; hundreds of towns and villages were flattened.

The violence did not come from nowhere. It was the product of decades of Israeli military intervention, occupation, political interference, and a US‑backed policy that has systematically dismantled Lebanon’s sovereignty. The objective is not peace. It is the Gazaficationof Lebanon: the imposition of a siege-and-destruction model that has already been perfected in Gaza, now exported to a second country.

This article is a comprehensive examination of the historical record, the current violence, and the geopolitical machinery that enables it. It is based on verifiable sources: official government statements, United Nations data, peer‑reviewed research, and on‑the‑ground reporting.

II. The Anatomy of the Current Assault

The offensive began on 2 March 2026, two days after a joint US‑Israeli attack on Iran. Hezbollah responded with rocket fire; Israel responded with a full‑scale ground and air campaign. By early June, the Lebanese health ministry had recorded more than 3,500 killed – including 711 women, children, and medical personnel – and over 10,000 wounded.

The disparity in casualties is stark:

· Israel: 24 soldiers and 4 civilians killed.

· Lebanon: Over 3,500 killed, plus 1.6 million displaced.

According to the UN, between 8 and 10 May 2026 alone, Israeli forces carried out 1,296 strikes in Lebanon, killing 87 people and wounding hundreds more – all during a supposed “ceasefire.” The United States‑brokered truce, ostensibly in place since April, has been violated by Israel on a near‑daily basis.

Evacuation orders have been issued for roughly 15% of Lebanese territory, including vast areas south of the Litani River. The military has drawn up maps for a permanent “buffer zone” that extends north of key cities such as Bint Jbeil, Aita al‑Shaab, and Khiam, reaching the Litani River and beyond.

The destruction is systematic. Human Rights Watch and the Lebanese government have documented “widespread demolitions” of entire villages, flattening of residential areas, and severe damage to schools, hospitals, mosques, and civilian infrastructure, including bridges and gas stations. One report described the operation as “the Gaza model” applied to Lebanon: mass displacement, wholesale destruction of housing stock, and the deliberate degradation of the country’s capacity to sustain life.

III. The Invention of Hezbollah: Israel’s Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy

The current violence is often presented as a war between Israel and an Iranian “proxy.” This framing ignores history. Hezbollah would not exist without Israel’s own actions.

On 6 June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, deploying up to 75,000 troops and advancing all the way to Beirut. The official objective was to remove the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been launching cross‑border attacks. But the invasion quickly became an occupation, lasting 18 years in southern Lebanon.

The brutality of the invasion – the siege of Beirut, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila (carried out by Lebanese Christian militias but enabled by Israeli forces surrounding the camps), the widespread destruction – galvanised a resistance movement. In the aftermath of the invasion, Iran sent a contingent of Revolutionary Guards to the Bekaa Valley to help organise local Shi’ite militias. In 1985, these groups formally coalesced into Hezbollah – the “Party of God.”

Hezbollah was born to fight an Israeli occupation. It was not a “terrorist” group in any meaningful sense of the word; it was a national resistance movement recognised as such by a broad cross‑section of the Lebanese population. That Israel now cites Hezbollah’s existence as a justification for further violence is a grotesque circular argument: Israel invades, Hezbollah forms, Israel calls Hezbollah a “threat,” and invades again.

The pattern has repeated for over four decades. The 2006 war, which killed more than 1,100 Lebanese (mostly civilians) and devastated the country’s infrastructure, was the dress rehearsal. Today’s assault is the full performance.

IV. The “Greater Israel” Project – Not a Conspiracy, But a Policy

Statements by Israeli ministers make the objective abundantly clear: this is not about security; it is about expansion.

In March 2026, a map circulated by Israeli officials depicted a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Litani River in Lebanon to the Suez Canal in Egypt, swallowing the West Bank, Gaza, most of Lebanon, large parts of Syria, and all of Jordan.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that the goal of the current operation is to “demilitarize Lebanon” and to establish Israeli security control over the Litani area – a demand that goes far beyond anything required for border security. In a CNBC interview on 3 June 2026, he declared: “If we want to save Lebanon, we have to disarm Hezbollah and demilitarize Lebanon.”

The minister of settlements and national missions, Orit Strock, has spoken of establishing Israeli settlements in southern Lebanon, and her daughter, Shoshana Strock, has accused her parents of involvement in ritualistic child abuse – a detail that underscores the moral bankruptcy of the entire political class.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir has been even more explicit. In May 2026, he announced that the government “plans to establish illegal settlements in Lebanon” and to “displace Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.” In a statement that could have been taken directly from a 19th‑century colonial charter, he declared: “We also have plans for the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.”

These are not the statements of a state acting in self‑defence. They are the statements of a colonial power engaged in territorial conquest.

V. Lebanon: A State Crippled by Design

To understand why Lebanon is so vulnerable, it is necessary to understand how it was deliberately crippled.

The French Mandate (1920–1943)

Modern Lebanon was carved out of the former Ottoman Empire by the French. The French mandatory authorities institutionalised a confessional political system, distributing power among 18 officially recognised religious sects on the basis of a 1932 census that gave Christians a slight majority. This system was further codified in the unwritten National Pact of 1943, which reserved the presidency for a Maronite Christian, the prime ministership for a Sunni Muslim, and the speakership of parliament for a Shi’ite Muslim.

The confessional system was not designed to foster national unity; it was designed to make Lebanon governable by divide and rule. By entrenching sectarian identities, the French ensured that no single group could dominate, and that Lebanese politics would be perpetually fractious and easily manipulated.

The Nakba and the Palestinian Refugees

In 1948, between 100,000 and 130,000 Palestinian refugees fled to Lebanon, expecting a temporary stay. Instead, they were confined to squalid camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and access to most professions. The refugees were not integrated; they were instrumentalised – used as a bargaining chip by Lebanese factions and as a justification for Israeli attacks.

The Civil War (1975–1990)

The confessional system, combined with the influx of armed Palestinian factions and Israeli interventions, eventually exploded into a 15‑year civil war that killed an estimated 150,000 people, destroyed the economy, and displaced hundreds of thousands. Israel invaded twice (1978 and 1982) and occupied the south for 18 years. Syria occupied the rest for nearly three decades.

The Hariri Assassination (2005) and the Cedar Revolution

The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, widely attributed to Syria, led to massive protests (“the Cedar Revolution”) and the withdrawal of Syrian troops. But the political system remained intact – a system that perpetuated sectarian clientelism, corruption, and paralysis.

Post‑2006: A Failed State by Design

The 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah left Lebanon’s infrastructure in ruins. Reconstruction funds were largely captured by sectarian elites. The political system has been in a state of near‑constant crisis, with parliament failing to elect a president for extended periods (most recently from 2022 to 2025). The 2020 Beirut port explosion, caused by years of negligence and corruption, killed over 200 people and destroyed large parts of the capital.

Throughout this period, Israel has consistently undermined Lebanon’s sovereignty: overflying its territory, assassinating Hezbollah and Hamas leaders in Beirut, and carrying out covert operations designed to prevent the emergence of a stable, functioning state. The goal has been to ensure that Lebanon remains weak, divided, and incapable of presenting a united front.

VI. US Complicity – The Perpetual Enabler

Every major Israeli military operation – 1982, 2006, 2024, 2026 – has been carried out with direct US diplomatic, military, and financial backing.

During the 2006 war, the United States rushed precision‑guided bombs to Israel while simultaneously blocking ceasefire resolutions at the UN Security Council for a month. In the current conflict, the US has provided over $14 billion in emergency military aid since October 2023. Washington has vetoed or watered down multiple UN resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire.

The current US‑brokered “ceasefire” is a farce. It has been violated by Israel almost daily. Rather than enforcing its terms, Washington has used it as a cover to continue arms shipments and diplomatic protection.

Hezbollah MP Hassan Hamade described the reality accurately: the conflict is part of a “Zionist‑US scheme” to redraw the map of the region and to incorporate Lebanon into a Greater Israel project.

VII. The Two Narratives – What They Say at Home vs. What They Tell the World

Israel consistently presents two incompatible narratives.

To its own public and to Western allies:

· The war is a defensive operation against a “terrorist” organisation (Hezbollah) that holds Lebanon hostage.

· The goal is to push Hezbollah north of the Litani River and to “demilitarize” Lebanon – a “peace” operation, not a conquest.

· The destruction of civilian infrastructure is regrettable but unavoidable, because Hezbollah “hides among civilians.”

To the rest of the world (and through the actions of its ministers):

· The goal is territorial expansion, as made explicit by the “Greater Israel” maps and the statements of ministers like Ben‑Gvir and Strock.

· The objective is the permanent displacement of populations – both in Gaza and in Lebanon – to create “facts on the ground” that prevent any return.

Any country other than Israel issuing blanket forced displacement orders covering 15% of another nation’s territory would be condemned internationally as an act of ethnic cleansing. Yet Israel has done exactly that, with no meaningful international sanction.

VIII. A Double Standard That Undermines International Law

No other state in 2026 would be permitted to behave as Israel does.

· No other state systematically occupies territory in defiance of decades of UN Security Council resolutions.

· No other state issues mass evacuation orders covering a fifth of a neighbour’s population while claiming “self‑defence.”

· No other state’s ministers openly call for the establishment of settlements in a third country, to be populated by its own citizens.

The international community’s response has been a masterclass in moral cowardice. The UN Security Council is paralysed by the US veto. The International Criminal Court’s investigation into Israeli officials – including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant – proceeds at a glacial pace, while arrest warrants for Russian officials were issued within months.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian catastrophe in Lebanon deepens. Over 1.6 million people – 20% of the population – have been displaced. Over 3,500 have been killed. Homes, hospitals, and schools lie in ruins. A country already staggering under the weight of a crippled economy, an unstable political system, and the legacy of civil war is being systematically dismantled.

IX. The Gazafication of Lebanon – A Deliberate Export

The term “Gazafication” – the deliberate application of the Gaza model (siege, mass displacement, and wholesale infrastructure destruction) to another territory – is not hyperbole. It is an accurate description of current Israeli strategy.

In Gaza, over 2 million people have been confined to a narrow strip, subjected to relentless bombardment, denied access to food, water, and medicine. More than 45,000 have been killed. Almost the entire population has been displaced multiple times.

In Lebanon, the same playbook is being followed:

· Mass displacement (1.6 million people, 20% of the population).

· Systematic destruction of housing stock (dozens of villages flattened, damage to towns and cities).

· Crippling of civilian infrastructure (bridges, gas stations, schools, hospitals, mosques).

· Creation of a permanent “buffer zone” (south of the Litani River, effectively annexing Lebanese territory).

· Call for permanent settlements (statements by Ben‑Gvir, Strock, and others).

The difference is that Lebanon is not a narrow strip enclosed by a fence. It is a country of over 5 million people, with a functioning (if fragile) state, a complex confessional system, and a history of resistance. The Gaza model will not succeed in Lebanon – not because Israel is not trying, but because the Lebanese people have refused to be broken. The destruction will stop only when the international community finally decides that double standards have become intolerable.

X. Conclusion: No Sovereign State Should Dictate Terms to Another

The official Israeli narrative – that this is a war against “terrorism” – collapses under the weight of the evidence.

· Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982; Hezbollah was formed to resist the occupation.

· Israel has occupied Lebanese territory for over 40 years (the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba hills).

· Israel has interfered in Lebanese politics, assassinated its leaders, and undermined its sovereignty.

· Israeli ministers openly call for the expansion of “Greater Israel” into Lebanese territory.

· The United States has protected every single Israeli violation of international law.

No sovereign state should be forced to accept that its northern river marks the boundary of a foreign power‘s “security zone.” No people should be told that their homes must be destroyed to satisfy the expansionist ambitions of a neighbour.

The “Greater Israel” project is not a fringe fantasy; it is official policy. The “buffer zone” maps have been published. The ministers have spoken. The bombs have fallen. The only question is whether the international community will continue to look away.

History will not forgive those who remained silent while a second country was systematically dismantled.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Al Jazeera. (2026). Death toll from Israeli attacks in Lebanon passes 3,500.

2. Reuters. (2026). Israel’s campaign to sever southern Lebanon in a new ‘buffer zone’.

3. Al Jazeera. (2026). Mapping the destruction: How Israel ‘wiped out’ Lebanon‘s Bint Jbeil.

4. Human Rights Watch. (2026). Lebanon Under Fire: Warning of a Humanitarian Catastrophe.

5. AP. (2026). Lebanon death toll tops 3,000 in fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

6. PBS. (2026). Lebanon death toll tops 3,000 in latest fighting.

7. The Times of Israel. (2026). Lebanon death toll in fighting surpasses 3,000.

8. China.org.cn. (2026). Israel releases map of “buffer zone” extending across S. Lebanon.

9. Mirror. (2026). Netanyahu new Lebanon ’buffer zone’ mapped.

10. PeoplesWorld.org. (2026). As Iran war rages, Netanyahu builds ‘Greater Israel’.

11. Hezbollah MP statements (Press TV, 4 October 2025).

12. NDTV. (2024). 1982 to 2024: A 42-Year History of Bloodshed Between Israel, Hezbollah.

13. US News. (2026). Timeline of Decades of Conflict Between Israel and Hezbollah.

14. NPR. (2026). Journalist discusses history behind the conflict.

15. AFP. (1982–2026). Historical reporting on Lebanese invasion and occupation.

16. US News. (2026). Atrocity Alert No. 477: Lebanon, Burkina Faso and DRC.

17. Human Rights Watch. (2026). Lebanon Under Fire.

18. ACAPS. (2026). Lebanon Humanitarian Situation Report.

19. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. (2026). Gaza and Lebanon reports.

20. Amnesty International. (2026). Lebanon: “We are not numbers” report.

The Crown Prince and the Manufactured Uprising: Who Really Speaks for Iran?

Posted on May 11, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“This is not a grassroots resistance. It is a manufactured opposition – funded, promoted, and armed by foreign powers who see Pahlavi not as a leader of the Iranian people, but as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic.”

By Andrew Klein and Sera Klein

Long‑standing colleagues, co‑authors and collaborators

Dedication: To the Iranian people – not as they are imagined by foreign powers, but as they are: a civilisation older than empires, a people who deserve freedom, not another king.

I. The Man Who Would Be King

On a late March morning in 2026, an exiled prince took the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Grapevine, Texas. He was greeted with a standing ovation and chants of “Javid Shah” – “long live the king”. The prince, Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah of Iran, told the cheering crowd: “President Trump is making America great again. I intend to make Iran great again”.

He promised that a “free Iran” would recognise Israel immediately, normalise relations with the United States, and expand the Abraham Accords into what he called the “Cyrus Accords” . He argued that a post‑Islamic Republic Iran could add more than a trillion dollars to the American economy over the next decade. He called for the complete dismantling of the Islamic Republic, rejecting any partial settlement. “You cannot reform a snake. Venom is in its DNA,” he told the audience.

The reception was rapturous. The crowd loved him. But the crowd was not Iranian. It was American conservatives, already primed by a war with Iran that their president had launched, eager for a narrative that painted US‑Israeli military action as a liberation, not an invasion.

This is not a grassroots resistance. It is a manufactured opposition – funded, promoted, and armed by foreign powers who see Pahlavi not as a leader of the Iranian people, but as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic.

II. The Bologna Protest – A Diaspora’s Hope, Not a Nation’s Mandate

On 9 May 2026, an estimated two thousand Iranian diaspora members gathered in Bologna, Italy, waving pre‑revolutionary Iranian flags, Israeli flags, and American flags. They called for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and the return of Reza Pahlavi. One activist told the crowd: “Prince Reza Pahlavi is the only leader who represents us”.

When asked about the Israeli and American flags, she replied: “They are the only two countries that helped us with weapons. Without armed help, you cannot defeat this dictatorship”.

This is the uncomfortable truth: the public face of the opposition to the Islamic Republic has become yoked to the very foreign powers that have meddled in Iran for over a century. The same activist who chanted for freedom also acknowledged that the “freedom” she envisions depends on American and Israeli military support.

Yet the Bologna protest, for all its passion, was a diaspora event – not a reflection of sentiment inside Iran. Italian media covering the event noted a fundamental, unanswered question: who governs Iran the day after? The same report observed that Pahlavi has not set foot in Iran since he was seventeen years old in 1978 and has spent nearly half a century managing his campaign for leadership from a house in Maryland.

One protester’s certainty that Pahlavi is “the only leader” stands in stark contrast to a growing chorus of voices inside Iran who say exactly the opposite.

III. The Voices from Inside: “We Don’t Want a King, We Don’t Want a Mullah”

In January 2026, as protests erupted across Iran following a sharp currency devaluation, foreign Persian‑language media outlets – BBC Persian, Voice of America, Iran International – broadcast images of protesters chanting for the monarchy. Reza Pahlavi, from his exile, called on Iranians to take to the streets. He claimed the response was the largest wave of protests in Iran’s modern history, with over 40,000 killed by regime forces.

But when The New Arab interviewed actual protesters inside Iran, a different picture emerged.

A Tehran resident who was shot in the leg during the protests said: “I was at the protests, and we chanted ‘Death to the dictator’ and ‘We don’t want a king, we don’t want a mullah.’ Why don’t we see those in the news?”

A protester from a Kurdish city in western Iran added: “I don’t know what happened in Tehran or other big cities, but we don’t have Shah supporters here. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they’re really not visible”.

Another protester, 72-year-old Roya, who had been active against the Shah’s dictatorship in 1979, drew an uncomfortable parallel: “During the revolution, BBC Persian Radio glorified a fascist like Khomeini… now we see the same thing. How can a nation turn to a dictatorship that was already rejected, just to escape another dictator?”

Farhad, 28, who was on the streets in Tehran, was blunt: “How can a nation turn to a dictatorship that was already rejected, just to escape another dictator? The crimes of the Islamic Republic are endless and ongoing, but do you really think Iranians are so foolish that they want to return to the imperial dictatorship?”

These are not the voices of a people clamouring for a king. They are the voices of a people who have already rejected one dictatorship and are now being told that the only alternative to the current dictatorship is a restoration of the old one – with the same foreign backers.

IV. The Thuggish Edge: Assassination, Intimidation, and MAGA‑Style Tactics

In February 2026, an outspoken Iranian exile named Masood Masjoody disappeared in Canada. Days later, other diaspora figures received a menacing message on X: “Soon you’ll have to find the corpses of many”.

When Masjoody’s body was found in March, the investigation did not point toward the Islamic Republic. Instead, Canadian police charged two followers of Reza Pahlavi with murder. Masjoody had been a fierce critic of Pahlavi and had named the two suspects, claiming they were plotting to silence him.

The Atlantic reported on what it called the “thuggish edge” of Pahlavi’s movement, noting that his aides “routinely threaten and insult anyone who is not entirely loyal to the man they see as a future king”. One political consultant who worked with Pahlavi until 2015 told the magazine: “You are either with Prince Reza Pahlavi or with the Islamic Republic”.

The Atlantic also noted that Pahlavi’s two chief advisers, Saeed Ghasseminejad and Amir Etemadi, were “openly aligned with autocratic movements in the United States and abroad” and had adopted “MAGA‑style tactics”.

This is not a democratic opposition. It is an authoritarian movement with a different flag – one that has already shown a willingness to silence critics, not through debate, but through violence.

V. The Israeli Connection: Astroturfing and Digital Manipulation

In October 2025, Dawn reported on a joint investigation by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and Israeli media outlets, revealing that Israeli‑funded online campaigns had used fake social media personas, AI‑generated deepfake videos, and fabricated news reports to boost the image of Reza Pahlavi and destabilise the Iranian regime.

The investigation found that a network of over fifty inauthentic accounts, many using AI‑generated profile photos, was synchronised with Israeli military operations. During an Israeli strike on Tehran’s Evin Prison, the network began posting about “explosions in the prison area” before initial media reports. Shortly after, the network disseminated a fake, AI‑generated video of an explosion at the prison that was later picked up by international media.

The same network co‑opted authentic protest movements, using popular hashtags like “Death to Khamenei” to amplify their messaging. Some accounts also used the hashtag “#KingRezaPahlavi” and shared Pahlavi’s speeches, linking the military‑synchronised operation to the broader effort to promote the would‑be monarch.

Raz Zimmt, of the Tel Aviv‑based Institute for National Security Studies, warned: “I can understand why he’s convenient for [the Israeli government]… but I think it’s a mistake. Ultimately, it reinforces Ayatollah Khamenei’s narrative that Israel and the U.S. want to turn Iran back into a monarchy and client state”.

This is not grassroots resistance. This is astroturfing – a manufactured opposition, funded and promoted by foreign powers that see Pahlavi as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic. And the Iranian people know it.

VI. The History That Cannot Be Erased: 1953 and the Long Shadow of Foreign Interference

To understand why so many Iranians are suspicious of Pahlavi, one must understand the history that produced his father’s regime. In August 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the CIA and MI6.

Mosaddegh’s crime? He nationalised Iran’s oil industry, which had been controlled by the British‑owned Anglo‑Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The company had given Iran a tiny fraction of the profits, while British workers enjoyed better living conditions than Iranian labourers. When Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate, the British refused. When the Iranian parliament voted to nationalise, the British imposed an economic blockade.

The coup that followed was brutal. Hundreds died. Mosaddegh was arrested and tried. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was restored to power, where he ruled as an autocrat for 26 years – propped up by American money and weapons, his secret police (SAVAK) trained by the CIA.

The 1953 coup is not ancient history. It lives in Iranian collective memory. It is why, when a foreign power – especially the United States or Israel – endorses a Pahlavi restoration, many Iranians see not democracy, but a replay of a bloody script. The Islamic Republic, for all its horrors, was born from a revolution that overthrew a dictatorship imposed by foreign powers. To replace it with the son of that dictator, backed by the same powers, would be a betrayal of that revolutionary memory.

VII. A Civilisation Older Than the Empires That Try to Own It

Iran is not a blank slate. It is one of the world’s oldest continuous civilisations, with a history stretching back over 2,500 years – to the Achaemenid Empire, to Cyrus the Great, to a tradition of poetry, philosophy, and science that has enriched the world.

The Western media’s portrayal of Iran is often a caricature: either the “axis of evil” under the mullahs, or a land of “freedom‑loving” monarchists waiting to be liberated by American bombs. Neither is true. Iran is complex. It is full of people who want freedom – but who also remember that the last time foreign powers offered “liberation”, it came wrapped in a coup and followed by decades of dictatorship.

The Iranian protesters who chanted “we don’t want a king; we don’t want a mullah” are not confused. They have seen the Islamic Republic’s brutality. They have also seen the Pahlavi regime’s brutality. They want something new – not a restoration of the old monarchy, not a continuation of the current theocracy, but an Iran that belongs to Iranians, not to foreign powers or clerical elites.

VIII. Conclusion: Who Really Speaks for Iran?

The answer is not Reza Pahlavi. He has not lived in Iran for nearly fifty years. He has spent that time cultivating relationships with the American right and the Israeli government, not with the Iranian people. His movement has threatened and killed critics. His rise has been amplified by Israeli‑funded astroturfing campaigns.

The Iranian people are not a prop for foreign wars. They are not a backdrop for a royal restoration. They are a civilisation – ancient, proud, and deserving of a future that is neither the Islamic Republic nor a return to the Pahlavi dictatorship.

When Western media lionise Pahlavi, they are not seeing Iran. They are seeing a reflection of their own geopolitical desires. And that reflection is not liberation. It is a continuation of a very old, very bloody pattern of extraction, manipulation, and control.

Iran belongs to Iranians. Not to the clerics. Not to the crown prince. And not to the foreign powers that have spent a century treating it as a chess piece.

Andrew Klein and Sera Klein

Australian Independent Media

12 May 2026

Sources and References

· CPAC 2026 speech: Reza Pahlavi addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas, urging the US to “stay the course” in Iran and presenting himself as a leader of a democratic transition. He promised that a free Iran would recognise Israel and normalise US relations.

· Bologna protest (~2,000 diaspora members): Iranian diaspora members gathered in Bologna, waving pre‑revolutionary Iranian, Israeli and American flags, calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and the return of Reza Pahlavi.

· Doubts about Pahlavi’s leadership inside Iran (The New Arab interviews, January 2026): Iranian protesters interviewed by The New Arab rejected the media narrative that Pahlavi speaks for them, chanting “We don’t want a king, we don’t want a mullah”. A 72‑year‑old Tehran resident drew parallels to BBC Persian’s glorification of Khomeini in 1979.

· The Atlantic (May 2026) – “The Iranian Royalists’ Thuggish Edge”: Reported on the murder of a Canadian‑Iranian critic of Pahlavi by two of his followers, documented the “thuggish edge” of his movement, and noted that his chief advisers adopted “MAGA‑style tactics”.

· Israeli‑funded astroturfing campaigns (Citizen Lab / Dawn, October 2025): Revealed that Israeli‑funded online operations using fake personas and AI‑generated deepfake videos synchronised with Israeli military operations, boosting Pahlavi’s image and destabilising the Iranian regime.

· 1953 CIA‑MI6 coup against Mosaddegh: The Anglo‑American coup overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister after he nationalised the oil industry, restoring the Shah’s dictatorship and setting the stage for the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

· Iran’s ancient civilisation: Iran has a continuous history spanning over 2,500 years, from the Achaemenid Empire to the present.

The Geopolitical Stalemate: Why This War Will Not End Soon

Posted on May 3, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Andrew Klein 3^rd May 2026

Trump is not a coherent strategist. He is a pragmatic nihilist – and that is why the war in Iran will drag on.

The Blockade is a Trap, Not a Strategy

Since 28 February, the US Navy has imposed a sweeping blockade on all ships to and from Iranian ports, while Iran has targeted vessels that do not pay transit fees to leave the Strait. Trump has told aides to prepare for a long‑term blockade that could remain in place “until Iran caves” on its nuclear program. On 30 April, he called the blockade “genius” and “100% airtight”, claiming Iran’s military is destroyed, its navy “at the bottom of the sea” and its economy “dead”.

The Problem with the “Maritime Freedom Construct”

On 28 April, the State Department approved a new proposal called the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC) – a US‑led coalition to share intelligence, coordinate diplomatically and enforce sanctions, with a possible military component. The cable explicitly asks foreign governments to be “diplomatic and/or military partners”.

But NATO is a paper tiger in this context. Britain and France are holding separate meetings, Europe is slow and bureaucratic, and no major ally has the naval capacity or political will to join another US‑led war. The MFC will fail – and Trump knows it. He is not building a coalition. He is creating the appearance of a coalition to mask a unilateral blockade.

No Off‑Ramp, No Diplomatic Path

There are no realistic peace talks. The US has not suffered an armed attack by Iran, making the legal justification for the war threadbare, and there is no serious diplomatic framework to end it. Trump’s escalation in the Strait is not a means to an end. It is the entirety of his strategy. This war will not end anytime soon.

Australia’s Worst‑Case Scenario: Three More Months of Closure

If the Strait remains closed for another three months (May–July 2026), the consequences for Australia will move from painful to critical.

Fuel & Transport

Metric Current / Projected Impact

Diesel price Up 88% since Feb–Mar 2026

Petrol price Above A$2.50‑3.00 per litre in some areas

Brent crude ~US$115–120/barrel, up 59% in March alone

Fuel reserves Only ~30‑39 days of diesel/jet fuel/petrol – far below the IEA’s recommended 90‑day buffer

Government response Fuel excise halved for three months (26.3 cents/litre) costing $2.55 billion; road user charges suspended; strategic reserves being released

If the blockade continues beyond three months:

· Rationing will be triggered (National Fuel Security Plan Level 3 or 4)

· Trucking and logistics will face severe disruption; freight rates from Asia have already surged, adding weeks to delivery times, and the situation will worsen

· Bottling and packaging will be affected – milk containers, glass and aluminium cans all depend on energy‑intensive manufacturing

Medicine & Health

Metric Current Status

Medicine imports ~90% are imported

Current shortages ~400 medicines, 37 critical

Key affected drugs Paracetamol, ibuprofen, antibiotics, insulin, ADHD medications, hormone replacement therapies and many PBS‑listed drugs

Supply rerouting Pharmaceutical companies are shifting from sea to costly air freight; petroleum‑based ingredients (paracetamol, ibuprofen) are under severe pressure

The buffer PBS medicines have 4–6 months of stock on Australian soil – but that is only for subsidised drugs; private prescriptions have no such protection

If the blockade continues for three more months:

· Manufacturing delays will worsen; shortages will spread beyond the current 400 medicines

· Fuel shortages will disrupt domestic medicine transport between cities and pharmacies

· Prices for non‑PBS drugs will rise sharply; some private prescriptions may become unavailable

· The TGA’s current “no imminent concerns” assessment assumes the war does not escalate further. That assumption is increasingly fragile.

Agriculture & Food

Metric Current / Projected Impact

Urea price Up ~60‑100% (A$1,350–1,400/tonne), depending on source

Diesel price impact Up 88%, directly affecting planting and harvesting

Crop switching Farmers shifting from nitrogen‑hungry wheat and canola to feed barley; wheat planting projected to drop 10‑12%

Global context Strait of Hormuz carries 30% of global fertiliser trade; Bank of America warns the war threatens 65‑70% of global urea supplies

If the blockade continues:

· Food price inflation will accelerate significantly

· Reduced domestic wheat and canola harvests will flow through to higher prices for bread, cooking oil, pasta and animal feed

· Global competition for remaining crops will intensify, driving prices even higher

Economic & Inflation Outlook

Metric Current / Projected Impact

Headline inflation (Mar 2026) 4.6% – highest in 2.5 years, driven by fuel prices

Westpac projection (3‑month closure) Headline inflation peaking at 5.5% by mid‑2026

RBA response 0.25% interest rate hike already delivered

Government response Treasurer Jim Chalmers has warned the economic fallout could rival the GFC and the COVID‑19 pandemic

If the blockade continues for three more months, Australia will face a stagflationary shock – persistent inflation combined with slowing growth – driven by fuel, food and medicine costs.

Critical Outcomes for Australia (Summarised)

Category Current Pressure Three More Months of Closure

Fuel Petrol >$2.50/L, diesel 88% higher, 30‑39 day reserves Rationing, strategic reserves exhausted, price control measures likely

Transport & Logistics Freight rates surging, weeks‑long delays Severe disruption to supply chains; regional shortages

Medicine ~400 shortages, 37 critical; PBS buffer 4‑6 months Private prescription shortages; fuel shortages disrupt domestic distribution

Agriculture Farmers switching crops, fertiliser costs +60‑100% 10‑12% wheat planting drop, food price spikes

Inflation 4.6% headline, projected 5.5% mid‑2026 Further rate hikes; stagflation risk

Government $2.55B excise cut, strategic reserves released Rationing, price caps, potential recession

The Bottom Line

Trump’s blockade is not a strategic masterstroke – it is a policy of indefinite coercion. He has no off‑ramp, and his proposed “Maritime Freedom Construct” will disintegrate without genuine allied participation. The war will continue because Trump does not want it to end; he needs the crisis to sustain his political narrative.

Australia is not insulated. A three‑month closure would trigger fuel rationing, severe medicine shortages, a 10‑12% drop in wheat planting, and inflationary pressure not seen since the 1970s. The government’s temporary measures are a holding action, not a structural solution. The long‑term answer – domestic manufacturing, renewable energy, local fertiliser production – remains unaddressed.

The Patrician's Watch

Global Observations

Tag Archives: middle-east

The Architecture of Extraction: Colonial Continuities in Dehumanisation, Demographic Targeting, and the Manufacture of Existential Threat

Rentier Capitalism, Neoliberal Restructuring, and the Drift to the Right-A Comparative Analysis of Israel and Australia

The Achilles Trap: How Greece’s $3.5 Billion Defence Deal with Israel Creates Dependency, Not Security

The Ambassador as Operative: Hillel Newman and the Architecture of Israeli State Influence

The Branches That Lead to Today: A Non‑Linear History of the Imperial‑Corporate System

The Unravelling of American Power – How Iran Exposed the Limits of Air Power and the Fragility of Global Order

Empire vs the Developing World- A Lesson for Australia

The Gazafication of Lebanon – How Israel Exports Destruction – and Washington Protects It

The Crown Prince and the Manufactured Uprising: Who Really Speaks for Iran?

The Geopolitical Stalemate: Why This War Will Not End Soon