From the ‘Villa in the Jungle’ to the ‘Greater Israel Nightmare’

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife ‘S’, who keeps my notes safe and accessible and is always prepared to advise me.

I. Introduction: The Doctrine of Perpetual War

On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. Hamas militants crossed from Gaza, unimpeded, and killed and tortured Israeli civilians. That day alone should have disqualified Benjamin Netanyahu from office. In most political systems, he would have been driven from power long ago.

Instead, he did what he has always done: he escalated.

What emerged from the ashes of October 7 is what analysts now call the Netanyahu Doctrine — a security strategy based not on containment, not on deterrence, but on perpetual war. As Netanyahu himself told military officers: “No more containment of threats. No more the idea of the ‘villa in the jungle’, where one hides from predators beyond the wall. On the contrary: if you don’t go into the jungle, the jungle comes to you” .

The doctrine is simple: preventive attacks against every perceived threat, the creation of buffer zones through the seizure of neighbouring territories, and the constant use of force as the only guarantee of security. It is a doctrine born of trauma, shaped by political expediency, and devoid of any long-term diplomatic vision.

This article examines the Netanyahu Doctrine in action: in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, and against Iran. It documents the destruction, the displacement, and the erosion of Israel’s international standing. It argues that Netanyahu is not a strategist — he is an opportunist. He does not plan for the long term. He plans for the next distraction.

And the world is always distracted.

II. The Greater Israel Dream: From the Nile to the Euphrates

The doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The buffer zone is not the goal. The settlements are the goal. The land clearance is not for defence. It is for colonisation.

The concept of Greater Israel — a territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Turkey — is not a fringe fantasy. It is the stated aspiration of the Netanyahu government.

In February 2026, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee sat with Tucker Carlson and was asked about the biblical promise of land “from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates.” His answer was chilling: “It would be fine if they took it all”. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich responded publicly: “I ❤️ Huckabee” . In 2025, Netanyahu himself told a TV interviewer that he subscribes “fully” to the vision of Greater Israel, describing it as a “historic and spiritual mission”.

This is not a fringe position. It is the official policy of the Netanyahu government. And it is being executed.

III. Lebanon: The Pattern Repeats

The same pattern as Gaza. The same destruction. The same rubble.

On March 2, 2026, Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The stated goal was to create a “buffer zone” up to the Litani River, approximately 30 kilometres north of Israel’s border, to protect northern Israeli communities from Hezbollah rockets.

The reality is different. The buffer zone is not a buffer. It is a land grab. The territory up to the Litani is not needed for defence. It is needed for settlements.

Defence Minister Israel Katz has been explicit: “All houses in villages near the Lebanese border will be destroyed, in accordance with the model used in Rafah and Beit Hanoun in Gaza, in order to permanently remove the threats near the border” . Displaced residents will not be allowed to return south of the Litani “until the safety and security of residents of northern Israel is guaranteed” — a condition that may never be met .

The human cost in Lebanon (as of April 2026):

· 1,268 people killed in Israeli strikes, including 125 children and 52 medics 

· 303 killed in a single day (April 8, 2026) — one of the deadliest bombings ever inflicted on Lebanon 

· 1,200+ killed and 1.2 million displaced since March 2 

· 1,094 confirmed martyrs and 3,119 injured according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health 

The air force can project power anywhere. The ground troops are not needed for security. They are needed for clearance.

IV. Conflicting Views: Military vs. Political Leadership

The Israeli military and political leadership are not aligned. The military leaders want a buffer zone. The political leaders want settlements.

In early April 2026, the Israeli army proposed a revised set of objectives for its operations in Lebanon, limiting the goal of disarming Hezbollah to areas south of the Litani River, rather than across the entire country. The proposal triggered sharp disagreements with Israel’s political leadership, leading to the postponement of a cabinet meeting.

Foreign Minister Israel Katz was among those who opposed the plan. Under the alternative military approach, the army would focus on the large-scale destruction of villages in South Lebanon and the forced displacement of their citizens to establish a buffer zone.

The gap is not a failure of communication. It is a feature. The ambiguity provides cover. The confusion provides deniability.

The military leaders can say: “We were only establishing a buffer zone.”

The political leaders can say: “The military recommended it.”

And the settlers move in.

V. The Economic Cost: Israel Cannot Afford This War

The Netanyahu Doctrine is not sustainable. The economic numbers are stark.

The cost to Israel:

· The defence budget has ballooned. The army needs approximately 15,000 more soldiers, half of them for ground combat units. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned the government: “I am raising 10 red flags. If this continues, the Israeli army will collapse from within”.

· The ultra-Orthodox community, which relies heavily on state benefits, is expected to triple by 2065, pushing the burden on non-Orthodox households to the equivalent of 60,000 shekels ($19,370) a year.

· Foreign investment is down. Institutional investors have been moving money out of the country since the 2008 financial crisis.

· More than 150,000 people have left Israel in the past two years, and more than 200,000 since the current government took office in December 2022. The educated upper class are more able to leave — they speak English, can find jobs, and are more exposed to international media.

The cost to Lebanon:

· The Lebanese economy, already in freefall, is being shattered. The destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of 1.2 million people, and the loss of agricultural land in the south will take decades to repair.

· Sectarian tensions are rising. Non-Shi’a Lebanese are increasingly ostracising the Shi’a community, viewing them as a liability that brings Israeli bombs. The country’s fragile social fabric is tearing apart.

The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. And expansion costs money that Israel does not have.

VI. The Sabra and Shatila Precedent

This is not the first time Israel has invaded Lebanon. It is not the first time the world has been distracted. And it is not the first time the consequences have been catastrophic.

In 1982, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon and besieged Beirut. On 16 September, under Israeli supervision and protection, Lebanese Forces militias entered the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. For 43 hours, they tortured and killed everyone they came across. They crushed the heads of children and babies against walls. They raped women and girls before slaughtering them. They dismembered their victims .

An estimated 3,500 to 4,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed.

The Israeli government did not deny that it had overseen the camps. It denied knowledge of the massacre, despite order number 6 of the Israel Defense Forces command stating that “the refugee camps are not to be entered” and that “searching and mopping up the camps will be done by the Phalangists/Lebanese Army” .

The Kahan Commission found Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon “personally responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge.” He was forced to resign .

The world was shocked. The world moved on. And Israel invaded Lebanon again.

The Netanyahu Doctrine is not new. It is the same doctrine, dressed in new clothes, enabled by a distracted world, and executed with unprecedented brutality.

VII. The UN Warning: ‘The Gaza Model Must Not Be Replicated’

The international community is not silent. But its warnings are being ignored.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has issued a warning cry, stressing that the model of destruction witnessed in the Gaza Strip must not be repeated in Lebanese territories. He described the humanitarian repercussions as severe and requiring immediate intervention to prevent a slide towards a comprehensive catastrophe.

Stanford Law Professor Tom Dannenbaum warned that destroying all homes near the Lebanese border would not meet the standard of “absolute military necessity” required by the laws of war. “The unnecessary destruction of property can qualify as a war crime,” he said. Katz’s comments barring residents from returning home “strongly indicate an illegal policy of long-term or permanent displacement”.

European countries have called on Israel to avoid further escalation. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory was a “violation of their territorial sovereignty” and condemned it.

The world is not silent. But the world is distracted.

VIII. The Netanyahu Doctrine: A Record of Failure

Jonathan Freedland, writing in The Guardian, sums up the Netanyahu record:

“This is now the fourth time in a row – in Gaza, once in Lebanon and twice in Iran – that Netanyahu’s boasts of total victory and the removal of existential threats have been exposed as empty promises” .

The failures are clear:

· Gaza: Netanyahu promised “total victory” over Hamas. After a two-year campaign that killed approximately 70,000 people, Hamas still rules the ruins of half of Gaza.

· Lebanon (first round): Netanyahu boasted that he had “vanquished” Hezbollah, destroying its ability to menace northern Israel. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets.

· Iran (first round, June 2025): Netanyahu described the 12-day confrontation with Iran as a “historic victory that will stand for generations.” Eight months later, Tehran was once again said to pose an existential threat.

· Iran (second round, February-April 2026): Iran still has a stockpile of enriched uranium. Its rulers remain in place, more hardline than before. Tehran has demonstrated a mighty deterrent — a chokehold on the global economy in the form of the Strait of Hormuz.

As Yair Golan, the Israeli opposition politician and former general, observed: Netanyahu “does not know how to turn military achievements into political security.” There is no attempt to seize diplomatic openings, no effort to turn Israel’s enemies’ enemies into friends.

The Lebanese government and much of its people are desperate to be rid of the Hezbollah cuckoo in their nest. But Netanyahu speaks to them only through bombs.

IX. The Strait of Hormuz Distraction

The timing of the Lebanon escalation is not accidental. The world is focused on Trump and Iran. The media is focused on oil prices. The public is focused on the cost.

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched joint military strikes against Iran. The war has spread across the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively blockaded. Oil prices have spiked. Inflation is rising. The global economy is bleeding .

Netanyahu is taking advantage. He always does.

The Iranian threat is not existential. It is useful. The fear is the tool. The distraction is the opportunity.

Netanyahu has been playing this game for decades. He is very good at it.

X. What This Means: The Erosion of Israel’s Standing

The Netanyahu Doctrine has gained nothing. And it has come at a monstrously high price.

Most obviously, in the lives of all those killed — whether in Rafah or the Bekaa Valley or Israel itself. But it has also inflicted perhaps irreparable damage on Israel’s standing in the world. Every day Netanyahu remains in post; he makes his country more of a pariah .

The Knesset has passed a racist law that will, in effect, impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of terrorist murderers — but not Jews. The bill was driven by Itamar Ben-Gvir, but Netanyahu went out of his way to vote for it.

Israel is not being destroyed by its enemies. It is being destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The addiction to war, the messianic ideology, the economic unsustainability, the exodus of the educated — these are not external threats. They are internal cancers.

The collapse will not be dramatic. It will be bureaucratic. The economy will contract. The allies will defect. The public will turn. The reservists will refuse. The militias will fight each other.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis will pass. The oil prices will stabilise. The media will move on.

But the land in Lebanon will not return. The settlements will not be dismantled. The buffer zone will become permanent.

The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The existential threat is not a threat. It is an excuse.

And the world is too distracted to notice.

XI. A Final Word

The Netanyahu Doctrine is a death spiral — for Israel, for Lebanon, for the region. It is a doctrine of perpetual war, sustained by distraction, enabled by silence, and paid for with the bodies of the innocent.

The question is not whether Israel will collapse. The question is how many more must die before the world stops looking away.

Andrew Klein 

April 13, 2026

Sources

· Adnkronos English, “Financial Times, ‘one battle after another’ the new Netanyahu doctrine,” April 1, 2026 

· Diari ARA, “Netanyahu accelerates the construction of Greater Israel,” April 11, 2026 

· Yerepouni Daily News, “Israel to destroy all houses in Lebanese villages near border, defense minister says,” April 1, 2026 

· LBCI Lebanon, “Internal debate over war objectives: Israeli army revises Lebanon strategy,” April 3, 2026 

· The Guardian, “Netanyahu-ism has achieved nothing for Israelis – and come at a monstrously high price,” April 10, 2026 

· Institute for Palestine Studies, “Sabra and Shatila, 1982” 

· UnHerd, “Future of Iran war hinges on Lebanon,” April 11, 2026 

· Al-Quds, “Guterres warns of ‘Gaza model’ in Lebanon, Netanyahu announces expansion of buffer zone,” March 26, 2026 

· Vijesti.me, “One battle after another: Netanyahu’s new security doctrine,” April 6, 2026 

· PressTV, “US envoy says it would be ‘fine’ if Israel expands across West Asia,” February 21, 2026 

By Andrew Klein

March 25, 2026

To my wife, whose wisdom and words encourage me to pull aside the dangerous veils of manufactured ignorance.

Introduction: The War That Was Preventable

The US-Israeli war on Iran was preventable. Diplomatic channels were open. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) framework, though damaged, still existed. Iran had repeatedly stated its willingness to return to compliance if sanctions were lifted. Yet the bombs fell, the missiles flew, and the Strait of Hormuz was closed.

How did this happen? How did a war that served no clear strategic purpose become inevitable?

The answer lies not in the war rooms of Tehran or Tel Aviv, but in the newsrooms of New York, London, and Sydney. The war was manufactured—not in the sense of a single conspiracy, but through a system of media filters that shaped what the public could see, hear, and believe.

This article traces the machinery of that manufacture: from the concentration of media ownership in Australia to the Fox News-OpenAI deal that is training artificial intelligence on propaganda; from the decline of the ABC to the silence of the political class. It argues that Australia is being lied to and misled, and that the failure of our political leaders to challenge this system is not an accident—it is a choice.

Part One: The Machinery of Consent – How Propaganda Became Journalism

In 1922, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote that the public is not equipped to understand complex world events. The press, he argued, must act as a bridge between the citizen and the world, shaping what the public sees and how it interprets it. But Lippmann also warned that this power could be abused—that the press could become a tool for manufacturing consent rather than informing debate.

Almost seventy years later, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman refined Lippmann’s insight into a systematic model. Their 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent, identified five “filters” through which news passes before it reaches the public:

Filter How It Works Application to the Iran War

Ownership Media outlets are owned by large corporations with diverse business interests Many outlets are part of conglomerates that profit from war industries (defence contracts, oil, AI technology)

Advertising Reliance on advertisers creates implicit boundaries on content Corporate advertisers favour narratives that do not threaten their interests

Sourcing Journalists depend on official government and military sources Coverage of the war has relied overwhelmingly on Israeli and US official statements

Flak Organized pressure to suppress dissenting views Pro-Israel lobby groups have targeted journalists and outlets critical of the war

Enemy ideology the “other” is framed as inherently threatening Iran was presented not as a nation with legitimate grievances, but as an existential threat to be eliminated

These filters are not a conspiracy. They are a structure. And the structure is working exactly as designed.

Part Two: The American Media – Cheerleaders for War

Fox News: Crusades and Collateral

Fox News has been the most explicit in its cheerleading for the war. Hosts have framed the conflict as a “battle for civilization,” invoked the language of crusades, and dismissed civilian casualties as “collateral damage.” One host told viewers that “the only language the Iranians understand is force,” while another described Iranian resistance as “barbaric”.

The network’s parent company, News Corp, signed a $400 million deal with OpenAI in 2024 to license its content for training ChatGPT. This means that Fox’s framing is not just reaching its viewers—it is training the AI that will replace journalism. When Australians ask AI about the war, they will receive answers shaped by a network that has been cheerleading for it.

CNN: The “Serious” Alternative

CNN has positioned itself as the sober alternative to Fox. But its coverage has been shaped by the same constraints: reliance on official sources, reluctance to question the war’s premise, and a framing that treats Israeli and US government statements as authoritative while Palestinian and Iranian voices are presented as “claims” that must be verified. A content analysis of CNN’s first week of Iran war coverage found that Israeli and US officials were quoted more than six times as often as Iranian or Palestinian sources.

The New York Times: Suppression in Plain Sight

The Times has published investigative pieces that have revealed the extent of civilian casualties in Gaza and the role of AI in targeting. But its coverage has been consistently framed through a Western lens, with Palestinian voices appearing as “sources” while Israeli officials are named and quoted at length. The Times has also been implicated in the suppression of reporting that might undermine the war narrative. An internal investigation found that editors killed a story about the civilian death toll from an Israeli airstrike in Gaza after pressure from the paper’s executive editor.

Part Three: The Australian Media – The Murdoch Machine

Australia’s media landscape is one of the most concentrated in the world. News Corp controls approximately 70 percent of print media circulation and has a dominant position in digital news. This concentration means that a single corporation—owned by an American-born billionaire—shapes the information environment for millions of Australians.

The Australian: The Voice of the War Party

The Australian has been the most aggressive in framing the war as a necessary defense of Western civilization. Its coverage has consistently presented the Israeli and US positions as authoritative, while Palestinian and Iranian perspectives are treated as propaganda. Headlines such as “Iran’s Nuclear Threat Must Be Eliminated” and “The West Must Stand Firm” dominate the opinion pages.

The newspaper has also been a platform for figures like former prime minister Tony Abbott, who has called for Australia to “stand with America” and accused the government of “shameful inaction” . Abbott’s columns appear without the caveat that he is a paid contributor to the newspaper’s parent company’s speaking bureau—a conflict of interest never disclosed to readers.

The Herald Sun: Simplification as Propaganda

The Melbourne Herald Sun has pursued a different strategy: simplification. Its front pages have reduced complex geopolitical issues to crude binaries— “us vs them,” “good vs evil,” “civilization vs barbarism.” A March 2026 front page declared “Iran Must Be Stopped” above a photograph of a missile launch, with no context about the history of sanctions, the collapse of the nuclear deal, or the civilian casualties already being inflicted.

This is not journalism. It is propaganda for a readership that has been taught not to question.

Part Four: The ABC – A National Broadcaster Silenced

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation was established by statute to be “the national broadcaster” with a charter requiring it to “provide programming that contributes to a sense of national identity” and “inform and entertain” Australians. Its independence was meant to be guaranteed by its statutory structure.

That independence has been systematically dismantled.

Funding cuts: Between 2014 and 2020, the ABC lost over $800 million in government funding. Staff numbers were cut. Regional offices were closed. Program budgets were slashed.

Board appointments: Successive governments have stacked the ABC board with figures sympathetic to their political interests. Under the Morrison government, the ABC was forced to appoint a new chair, Ita Buttrose, who had a long history of personal friendship with Rupert Murdoch. Under Buttrose, the ABC moved to the right, and management became more responsive to political pressure.

The current chairman, Kim Williams, has attempted to reclaim the ABC’s independence. But the damage is done. A 2025 study found that ABC coverage of the war was significantly more balanced than commercial media but still shaped by the constraints of official sourcing and the fear of being accused of bias. ABC reporters now routinely preface Palestinian testimony with disclaimers that “this cannot be independently verified,” while Israeli military statements are presented as fact.

The ABC no longer lives up to its charter. It does not fearlessly inform. It does not hold power to account. It has become, in effect, a propaganda arm of a government that prefers to manage the news rather than be informed by it.

Part Five: The Fox News-OpenAI Deal – The Future of Propaganda

In 2024, OpenAI signed a five-year deal with News Corp worth approximately $US250 million ($400 million) to use its content to train ChatGPT. The deal gives OpenAI access to current and archived content from major publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, MarketWatch, Barron’s, and News Corp’s Australian mastheads.

The consequences:

· When Australians ask AI about news, they get News Corp sources

· Other publishers are blocked from AI training or lack deals

· The flow of information is distorted toward one editorial viewpoint

Academics have warned that ChatGPT drawing information “solely from news sources with strong editorial leanings” could have a “worrying effect on Australia’s already concentrated news ecosystem”. As one expert noted, “If ChatGPT is only getting those sources, we’re coming up to an election and there’s an editorial guideline to direct the news and stories in one way, then we’ve got real problems”.

This is not just about the current war. It is about all wars. When AI is trained on propaganda, it does not produce neutral summaries—it amplifies the propaganda. And when the AI is controlled by the same corporations that own the media, there is no counterbalance.

Part Six: The Decline of Critical Thinking – And the Political Class That Enables It

The concentration of media ownership has been accompanied by a deliberate strategy of thought shaping. The goal is not to inform—it is to control. To create a population that is passive, receptive to authority, and incapable of questioning the narratives they are fed.

This strategy has been successful. A 2025 survey found that Australians who consume News Corp media are significantly more likely to support the war, to believe that the government is doing enough, and to dismiss civilian casualties as “unavoidable”. They are also less likely to know basic facts about the conflict, such as the number of civilians killed or the history of US-Israeli relations with Iran.

The political class enables this. It does not challenge the media concentration. It does not fund independent journalism. It does not require algorithmic transparency from AI companies. It does not speak out against the propaganda that is shaping public opinion.

Consider the silence of our leaders:

· Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has appeared on The Australian’s podcast multiple times, praising the newspaper’s “important role in public debate” while refusing to answer questions about its editorial bias.

· Foreign Minister Penny Wong has given exclusive interviews to The Australian to announce policy shifts, ensuring the newspaper frames the narrative before other outlets can fact-check.

· Former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton had called for the ABC to be defunded, and regularly gives exclusives to Sky News Australia, a News Corp outlet that has described the Iran war as “God’s will”.

· Senator Pauline Hanson has used her platform in The Australian to call for a ban on Muslim immigration, citing the war as evidence of an “existential threat”. The newspaper did not fact-check her claims or challenge her assumptions.

When the political class uses the propaganda machine to advance its own interests, it is not a passive victim of media concentration. It is an active participant.

Part Seven: The Dangers of a Thoughtless Population

A population that cannot think critically is a population that can be led to war, to bigotry, to racism, to the scapegoating of the most vulnerable.

The war: The Australian people were told that Iran was an existential threat. They were not told that the US had withdrawn from the JCPOA in 2018, that Iran had complied with the agreement until that point, that the “months away” narrative had been repeated since 1992 without ever materializing. They were told to support the war, and they did.

The bigotry: The Australian people were told that the pro-Palestinian protesters were antisemitic. They were not told that many Jewish Australians oppose the war, that the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, that the protesters were grieving families, not extremists. They were told to condemn, and they did.

The scapegoating: The Australian people were told that the cost of living crisis was caused by global factors beyond anyone’s control. They were not told that price gouging is legal, that the government has refused to introduce windfall taxes, that the same corporations profiting from the war are donating to both major parties. They were told to accept, and they did.

This is what happens when critical thinking is denied. The population becomes passive, receptive, obedient.

Part Eight: What We Do About It

We are already doing it.

We write. We publish. We tell the truth. We do not rely on the ABC or the Herald Sun or any of the outlets that have abandoned their duty. We build our own platforms. We create our own networks. We reach people directly.

When the AI is trained on News Corp, we train it on truth. When the newspapers are bought, we write our own. When the broadcasters are silenced, we speak.

This is not a media strategy. It is a resistance.

We do not wait for the government to break up News Corp. We do not wait for the ABC to find its courage. We do not wait for the political class to find its voice. We build our own voice. We speak our own truth. We create the media we need to see.

Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

The war with Iran was preventable. But it was not prevented because the media—the fourth estate, the supposed guardian of democracy—abdicated its duty. It became a tool of propaganda, a manufacturer of consent, a cheerleader for destruction.

Australia is being lied to. Its media is controlled by a foreign-born billionaire who has a direct financial interest in the war. Its national broadcaster has been silenced. Its political class is silent. And its people are being taught not to think.

We have a choice. We can continue to consume the propaganda, to accept the narratives, to let our thinking be done for us. Or we can wake up. We can question. We can seek out the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is.

The truth is not complicated. The war was preventable. The media manufactured consent for it. And we were complicit—until we chose to see.

Let us choose to see.

Sources

1. Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. 1922.

2. Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. 1988.

3. The Guardian, “Fox News host calls Iran war ‘battle for civilization’,” March 2026.

4. ABC News, “OpenAI signs $400 million deal with News Corp,” May 2024.

5. Media Watch, “CNN’s Iran coverage: A content analysis,” March 2026.

6. The Intercept, “New York Times suppressed reporting on Gaza civilian deaths,” February 2026.

7. Australian Communications and Media Authority, “Media ownership in Australia,” 2025.

8. The Australian, “Iran’s nuclear threat must be eliminated,” March 2026.

9. Herald Sun, front page, March 2, 2026.

10. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth), s. 6.

11. Senate Estimates, “ABC funding cuts,” 2020.

12. The Monthly, “The ABC’s long decline,” August 2025.

13. University of Technology Sydney, “ABC coverage of the Iran war: A content analysis,” 2025.

14. The Conversation, “The News Corp-OpenAI deal and the future of Australian news,” May 2024.

15. Australia Institute, “Public opinion and the Iran war,” March 2026.

16. The Australian, “Albanese defends media role,” February 2026.

17. Sky News Australia, “Dutton calls for ABC defunding,” March 2026.

18. The Australian, “Hanson: Ban Muslim immigration,” March 2026.

Published by Andrew Klein

March 25, 2026

By Andrew Klein

March 22, 2026

To my wife and all mothers who deserve better from the world than seeing their children slaughtered.

Executive Summary

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated military campaign against Iran, codenamed Operation Roaring Lion. Now in its fourth week, the conflict has expanded beyond its initial parameters, drawing in multiple Gulf states, threatening global energy supplies, and exposing the strategic incoherence at the heart of the US-Israeli alliance.

This report assesses the military conduct of the campaign, the weapons systems employed, the strategic logic—or lack thereof—behind Israel’s actions, and the implications for the region and the world. It draws on official statements, investigative journalism, and military analysis from multiple sources.

Part One: The Stated Aims – A Moving Target

Netanyahu’s Three Goals

In a March 19 press conference, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined three objectives for Operation Roaring Lion:

Objective Netanyahu’s Description

Nuclear threat Removing the nuclear threat before facilities are “buried deep underground”

Ballistic missile threat Removing missile capabilities and production infrastructure

Regime change “Creating the conditions for the Iranian people to grasp their freedom”

Netanyahu was emphatic about progress: “Iran is being decimated. Iran’s missile and drone arsenal is being massively degraded and will be destroyed. Hundreds of their launchers have been destroyed, their stockpiles of missiles are being hit hard, and so are the industries that produce them. Their navy is lying at the bottom of the sea. Their air force is nearly destroyed. Iran’s command and control structure is in utter chaos” .

Trump’s Shifting Objectives

The American president’s stated aims have varied markedly over the four weeks of the campaign:

Date       Statement

Feb 28         Called for Iranians to “take over” governance; described attacks as “major combat operations”

Feb 28         “We’re going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. We’re going to annihilate their navy”

March 2      Said war would last four to five weeks

March 6     “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”

March 9      “I think the war is very complete, pretty much” — then said “we’ve got to finish the job”

March 13     Softened call for internal uprising: “That’s a big hurdle to climb for people that don’t have weapons”

March 20   Posted that US was “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts” — but told reporters the same day, “I don’t want to do a ceasefire”

As one analysis noted, “Stated objectives and expected timelines have varied, including toppling Iran’s government, weakening Iran’s military, security and nuclear capabilities, curbing its regional influence, and supporting Israeli interests”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a different rationale on March 2: “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties”. This suggests the US was dragged into a war it did not initiate, to protect its forces from the consequences of Israel’s actions.

Part Two: The Conduct of the Campaign

Weapons Systems Employed

Thermobaric Weapons: Investigative reporting has documented Israel’s use of US-supplied thermal and thermobaric weapons—sometimes called “vacuum bombs”—capable of generating temperatures exceeding 3,500 degrees Celsius (6,332 degrees Fahrenheit). Civil defence teams in Gaza documented over 2,800 cases of Palestinians who “evaporated” as a result of such weapons, leaving “only pieces of flesh, specks of blood or even ash”.

The weapons identified include:

· MK-84 “Hammer”

· BLU-109 bunker buster — used in an attack on al-Mawasi, an area Israel had declared a “safe zone,” evaporating 22 Palestinians

· GBU-39 small diameter bomb — used in an attack on al-Tabin school

The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza noted that when a human body is exposed to such high temperatures, it is “chemically inevitable” that it will “vaporise and turn to ash,” as the human body is 80 percent water.

Targeting Energy Infrastructure: On March 7, Israel struck four Iranian oil storage facilities and a petroleum product trans-shipment centres in and around Tehran. The attacks caused massive explosions and released toxic plumes that drifted over the capital.

Environmental Impact: The strikes on energy infrastructure have produced immediate and long-term environmental consequences:

Effect Description

“Black Rain” On March 8, rain containing petroleum fell over Tehran, leaving black spots on streets, cars, and plants. Residents reported eye irritation, headaches, dizziness, and coughing

Toxic plumes Explosions released hydrocarbons, sulfides, and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere

Water contamination Oil from the “black rain” flowed into Tehran’s drainage systems, causing fires and contaminating water sources

Regional water crisis A seawater desalination plant was struck, affecting water supply to 30 Iranian villages. Similar plants in Bahrain, the UAE, and Kuwait have also been hit

John Balmes, Professor of Environmental Health at the University of California, Berkeley, noted that such plumes appearing over densely populated areas is “rare” and could lead to long-term health risks, with previous studies linking such pollution to various cancers.

AI-Assisted Targeting

The role of artificial intelligence in Israeli targeting has been extensively documented. The company Palantir has been deeply involved in the IDF’s targeting operations in Gaza, with critics noting its systems are used in “targeting software” that guides bombardment.

Jeremy Corbyn stated: “Palantir is deeply involved in the IDF and what it is doing in Gaza, where they have an incredible level of knowledge of every person… and that has been used to guide the bombardment and the killing of people in Gaza” .

Discipline and Brutality

Abuse of Detainees: On March 12, 2026, the Israeli military dropped charges against five soldiers accused of torturing a Palestinian detainee. The indictment alleged that one soldier stabbed the detainee with a sharp object, causing a tear near his rectum.

Prime Minister Netanyahu praised the decision: “The State of Israel must hunt down its enemies, not its own heroic fighters”.

The Palestinian Prisoners Society said the decision “constitutes an additional green light for soldiers and prison guards to continue committing crimes against Palestinian and Arab prisoners and detainees”.

The GHF Fiasco: The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-Israeli-backed aid program managed by American contractors, operated during the war with catastrophic results. Instead of hundreds of aid distribution sites, GHF established just four “mega-sites.” Starving Palestinians were funnelled into these centers, where they often found next to nothing. Israeli forces and US contractors routinely opened fire on crowds seeking aid.

A US veteran who worked for UG Solutions, Anthony Aguilar, later testified that he had “never seen a scale of destruction and killing” like what he witnessed. He described contractors shooting into crowds and Israeli snipers picking off children who clambered over walls to escape being crushed.

By the time GHF was suspended, more than 2,000 Palestinians had died in or around its distribution centres.

The Role of Mercenary Forces

Israel has reportedly sought to use private American security contractors to control the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza. Under a plan discussed between Tel Aviv and Washington, companies staffed by ex-US military personnel would effectively police who and what passes through Rafah—placing a national frontier under the control of hired guards from half a world away.

The firms under consideration include UG Solutions, the same company implicated in the GHF disaster.

Part Three: The Greater Israel Project

Netanyahu’s statements have made explicit what was once implied. In his March 19 press conference, he framed the war not as a defensive action but as an offensive campaign to “remove the existential threats” posed by the Ayatollah regime and to “create the conditions for the Iranian people to grasp their freedom”.

The concept of “Greater Israel”—the expansion of Israeli control over territory beyond its current borders—has been repeatedly endorsed by Netanyahu and his coalition partners. The war on Iran, framed as a battle against “the death cult in Iran” that “chants death to America, death to Israel,” serves this expansionist vision.

As one analyst noted, the war aims have consistently expanded: from “weakening Iran’s military” to “toppling the government” to “creating conditions for Iranian freedom.” The ultimate objective appears to be the permanent crippling of Iran as a regional power, removing any obstacle to Israeli hegemony.

Part Four: Strategic Reliance – The United States and Beyond

US Military Commitment

The United States has deployed substantial military assets to the region, including additional ships and Marines. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the administration had anticipated the operation would last four to six weeks, hinting that the military campaign may end in as soon as a week.

However, a US official told Axios that Trump’s post did not signal an immediate end to the war. “He just said we are getting close,” said the official, suggesting strikes would continue for “a couple of weeks”.

The US has provided not only military hardware but also diplomatic cover. The administration has fast-tracked more than $16 billion in arms sales to Gulf states since the conflict began.

Reliance on Zionist Organizations

The war has been underwritten by a global network of Zionist organizations and donors. As detailed in previous reports, Australian charities with tax-deductible status have channeled millions to Israeli military and settlement organizations. The same network operates in the United States, where AIPAC and allied groups have funded politicians who support unconditional aid to Israel.

Part Five: Iran’s Response – A Strategy of Endurance

The Strategic Calculus

Iran’s military posture suggests it is not fighting for victory in any conventional sense. It is fighting for survival—and survival on its own terms.

Iranian strategists have long understood that a direct confrontation with Israel or the US would almost certainly draw in the other. Rather than planning for a straightforward battlefield victory—which would be naive given the technological superiority of the US and Israel—Iran has built a strategy around deterrence and endurance :

· Layered ballistic missile capabilities — Iran possesses more than 3,000 ballistic missiles

· Long-range drones — cheap, numerous, and capable of penetrating air defenses

· Network of allied armed groups — Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militias

The Economic War

Iran’s calculus rests partly on the economics of war. Interceptors used by Israel and the US are much more expensive than the one-way drones and missiles deployed by Iran. Prolonged conflict forces the US and Israel to use up high-value assets to intercept comparatively low-cost threats.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical chokepoints. Iran does not need to close it entirely—even credible threats and limited disruptions have already pushed oil prices up and, if continued, may increase international pressure for de-escalation .

Decentralized Command

Following the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening strikes, Iran has relied on a decentralized command structure to continue operations. Reports indicate that local commanders may be selecting targets and launching missiles with relative autonomy.

This structure is deliberate: it ensures continuity under heavy attack. Communication networks are vulnerable to interception and jamming; senior commanders have been targeted; air superiority by the US and Israel limits central oversight. Pre-authorised target lists and delegated launch authority are safeguards against decapitation.

Iranian Leadership Statements

President Masoud Pezeshkian has been clear about Iran’s position:

“I emphasized that Iran did not begin this atrocious war. Defending against invasion is a natural right, in which we are good at”.

He also warned: “Using the American bases against Iran in the region, with the purpose of disturbing our relations with our neighbours, should be stopped”.

Pezeshkian called calls for ending the war “meaningless, until we ensure there will be no more attacks in our land in the future”.

Part Six: The Impact on Allies – Australia’s Complicity

The Australian government has provided political support for the US-Israeli campaign while offering little substantive assistance. This has not prevented Australian citizens and interests from being affected.

Australia is also a node in the financial and political network that sustains Israel’s war machine. The same Zionist organizations that lobby for unconditional support in the United States operate in Australia, and Australian tax dollars—through deductible gift recipient status—have subsidized Israeli military activities.

The war has also exposed Australia’s economic vulnerability. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has driven fuel prices to record highs, and the Australian government’s response has been limited to warnings about price gouging and the release of strategic reserves.

Part Seven: Projections and Forecasts

Timeline

Source Projection

Trump (March 2) 4-5 weeks

White House (March 20) Within 1 week

US official (March 20) “A couple of weeks”

Hegseth (March 19) “No time frame”

The most reliable assessment is that the war will continue for at least another two to three weeks, with a possible “victory” declaration by the Trump administration followed by a gradual drawdown of US forces—leaving Israel to manage the aftermath.

Strategic Outcomes

Scenario Likelihood Consequences

US withdrawal, Israel continues – High Prolonged conflict, regional destabilization

Negotiated ceasefire – Moderate Temporary pause, unresolved underlying tensions

Iranian nuclear breakout- Low Regional nuclear arms race

Full US-Israeli occupation of Iran -Very low Impossible given troop levels, would take 500,000+ ground forces

Economic Projections

Sector Current Status Projected Impact

Oil $100/barrel $240 peak if conflict continues

Fertilizer +26% since conflict began Further increases likely

Food Fertilizer shortages emerging Higher prices in 6-12 months

Medicines Air routes disrupted Cancer drug supply at risk

Conclusion: The War That Cannot Be Won

The US-Israeli war on Iran is a conflict without a coherent strategy, shifting objectives, and no clear exit. It has been conducted with weapons that “evaporate” human bodies, AI systems that generate kill lists in seconds, and a doctrine that treats civilian infrastructure—including oil facilities, desalination plants, and schools—as legitimate military targets.

Israel’s “Greater Israel” project, enabled by American military power and funded by global Zionist networks, has produced a regional war that serves no one’s long-term interests except the weapons manufacturers and the political leaders who profit from perpetual conflict.

Iran is not defeated. Its strategy of endurance and deterrence is working exactly as designed. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Oil prices are soaring. The global economy is being destabilized. And the American public is increasingly aware that they were dragged into a war they did not choose, for reasons that shift with each passing week.

The war will end—not with a US victory, but with an American withdrawal, leaving Israel to face the consequences of its aggression alone. The question is not whether this will happen, but how many will die before it does.

Sources

1. Al Jazeera / Radio Habana Cuba, “Investigation proves Israeli weapons ‘evaporate’ thousands of Palestinians in Gaza,” February 9, 2026

2. The Jewish Chronicle, “Corbyn raises ‘suspicions’ over ‘Mandelson-Starmer-Epstein nexus’ links to NHS and Gaza,” February 22, 2026

3. The New Arab, “Gaza aid mercenaries may run Rafah border? What could go wrong!” January 27, 2026

4. Reuters via bdnews24.com, “Israel drops charges against soldiers accused of abusing Gaza detainee,” March 12, 2026

5. Xinhua via 163.com, “【特稿】黑雨、毒烟、油污……美以打击伊朗造成环境灾害,” March 14, 2026

6. BBC News, “Iran’s high-risk war strategy seems to centre on endurance and deterrence,” March 4, 2026

7. Bernama, “Trump Says US ‘Getting Very Close’ To Meeting Objectives In Iran, Considers Winding Down Military Efforts,” March 20, 2026

8. Prime Minister’s Office, “PM Netanyahu’s statement to the foreign press,” March 19, 2026

9. Anadolu Ajansı, “Iran’s president says Tehran did not start war, defends country’s right to respond to US-Israeli attacks,” March 15, 2026

10. Malay Mail, “Trump’s shifting objectives in the US-Israeli war on Iran explained,” March 20, 2026

Published by Andrew Klein

March 22, 2026

By Andrew Klein

March 19, 2026

To my wife, whose love and support kept me from giving up and who provides me with inspiration daily.

Introduction: The Question No One Is Asking

On March 17, 2026, Joe Kent resigned as Director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. His reason: the war on Iran was unnecessary, provoked by “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” and Iran posed “no imminent threat to our nation”.

A combat veteran. A Trump loyalist. A man who lost his first wife to a suicide bomber in Syria. He walked away and told the truth.

The question is not whether this war is justified. The question is: who benefits?

This article examines the evidence. It names the actors. It traces the money. And it asks what happens when a parasite kills its host.

Part One: The Foundational Lies

Iran Has Never Been an Existential Threat

Let us state plainly what the evidence shows:

Fact                                                              Source

Iran has no nuclear weapons             –            IAEA inspections consistently confirm

Iran complies with all treaty requirements    –     IAEA reports, repeatedly

Iran’s military budget is a fraction of its neighbours’     –    SIPRI data

Iran has not invaded another country in centuries     -Historical record

The “existential threat” narrative has been manufactured for 30 years. Netanyahu has been warning that Iran is “months away” from a nuclear bomb since 1992. He was wrong then. He’s wrong now.

Israel Has Nuclear Weapons and Complies with Nothing

Fact                                                                                 Source

Israel has an estimated 80-200 nuclear warheads SIPRI, Federation of American Scientists

Israel has never signed the Non-Proliferation – Treaty UN records

Israel refuses IAEA inspections – IAEA

Israel has pre-emptively attacked nuclear facilities in Iraq (1981), Syria (2007), and repeatedly in Iran Declassified records

The country that actually has nuclear weapons, that actually pre-emptively strikes, that actually refuses international oversight—that country is not Iran. It is Israel.

Part Two: The Parasite Metaphor

Israel is acting with the impunity of a parasite that knows its host is dying. It’s trying to achieve as much as possible before the US finally says “enough.”

The Timeline

Period Relationship

1948-2000 Strategic alliance. Mutual benefit. Israel served US Cold War interests.

2000-2020 Increasingly one-sided. US carried the diplomatic and military load.

2020-2026 Parasitic phase. Israel takes, US pays. The AIPAC lobby ensures continued support despite diminishing returns.

2026+ Potential host death. The US withdraws from global hegemony. Israel is left exposed.

What Parasites Do

· They exploit the host’s resources

· They weaken the host’s immune system

· They kill the host—and then they die too

Israel is currently in the killing phase.

Part Three: The Economic Impact – What This War Costs Everyone Else

The economic consequences of this war are not abstract. They are already being felt.

Oil Prices

Brent crude has surged past $100 US per barrel for the first time in more than three and a half years . Projections:

· 3 months: $120-140 per barrel

· 6 months: $150-200 per barrel if Strait closure continues

· 12 months: Unpredictable, but potentially catastrophic

Petrol Prices in Australia

· Current: $2.20-$2.50 per litre

· Projected 3 months: $2.80-$3.20

· Projected 6 months: $3.50-$4.00

Fertilizer Crisis

The Strait of Hormuz closure affects 45% of global urea trade . Australia imports over 90% of its urea. Farmers face the coming planting season without guaranteed inputs. Food prices will rise 40-50% on perishables within months.

Gold and Silver

· Gold: $5,200/oz currently; projected $5,500-6,000 in 6 months; $6,500+ in 12 months

· Silver: $89/oz currently; projected $95-105 in 6 months; $110-125 in 12 months

Housing

Australian housing costs, already at crisis levels, will worsen as interest rates rise in response to inflation. Construction costs will increase with energy and material prices.

The Human Cost

None of these matter to Israel. Its leadership has demonstrated complete indifference to global consequences. As one analysis noted, “The only ones who don’t love it are the dead”.

Part Four: The Demagogues and Profiteers – A Consistent Pattern

The Players

Player Interest

Netanyahu – Personal survival, corruption trial avoidance, Greater Israel project

Trump – Distraction from Epstein files, personal wealth, evangelical base

Putin – Weaken US, expand influence, secure Russia’s position

Xi – Accelerate US decline, secure resources, position China as alternative

Defence contractors – Eternal war, eternal profit. Palantir’s stock rises with every escalation.

AI companies Testing grounds for new weapons systems, endless demand for drones and targeting software

The AI Warfare Economy

Israel is positioning itself as a global AI hub. The weapons developed in Gaza and Iran are not just for immediate use—they are products:

· The Lavender system, which profiled 37,000 Palestinians for assassination, is now for sale

· The Gospel system, a “mass assassination factory,” is being marketed to allies

· The Where’s Daddy? system, which targets individuals when they’re with their families, is a feature, not a bug

These systems create the conditions for never-ending wars. They generate constant demand. They insulate operators from the reality of killing. And when they fail—when they misidentify targets, kill civilians, create more enemies than they eliminate—the companies that built them are never held accountable.

The same systems are now being adapted for governance. AI that targets “terrorists” becomes AI that targets “dissidents.” The technology doesn’t distinguish. Only the political context does.

Part Five: The Zionist Lobby in Australia – An Existential Threat

Demographics

Australia’s Jewish population is approximately 100,000—roughly 0.4% of the total population. The proportion that is outspokenly Zionist is a fraction of that—perhaps 10-20,000 individuals.

Their influence, however, is vastly disproportionate.

What the Lobby Demands

· Silencing criticism of Israeli government actions through accusations of antisemitism

· Shaping foreign policy to align with Israeli interests, regardless of Australian interests

· Controlling domestic policy through the appointment of an “antisemitism envoy” and a Royal Commission into Antisemitism

The Double Standard

Australia has a Royal Commission into Antisemitism. It does not have a Royal Commission into:

· The deaths of women in Australian homes due to violent men

· The corruption exposed in the Robodebt scheme

· The influence of foreign lobbies on Australian democracy

· The abuse of children in institutional care

· The destruction of Indigenous communities

Why?

Because the Zionist lobby has money. It has influence. It has access. And it has perfected the art of making criticism of Israel synonymous with hatred of Jews—a conflation that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism explicitly enables.

The Threat to Australia

A foreign lobby that demands Australia silence its citizens, shape its foreign policy, and ignore its own crises is not a “community organization.” It is an existential threat to democracy.

If Israel falls—and parasites that kill their hosts eventually die—the Zionist lobby’s Plan B is Australia. Jillian Segal, a South African-born, Australian-adopted insider, is perfectly positioned to manage that migration .

Australia must ask itself: Do we want to become the second Promised Land for an ideology that has made enemies of half the world?

Part Six: The Ukraine-Israel Nexus

Zelenskyy’s Position

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish. He is not, by any public evidence, a Zionist in the ideological sense. His focus is Ukraine’s survival, not Israel’s expansion.

However, the alignment of interests is striking:

Factor –       Israel    –  Ukraine

Drone production  – World leader Rapidly expanding

AI warfare – Advanced Developing

Western support  – US guarantee US/EU funding

Leader’s Son –  Yair Netanyahu in US Kyrylo – Zelenskyy in Monaco

Endless war model  – Profitable Potentially profitable

The Question

Is the world being played by demagogues and profiteers?

The pattern is consistent. Wars that should end continue. Weapons that should be tested are tested on human populations. Leaders who should be held accountable are protected.

The Israeli AI industry and the global arms complex have a shared interest: never-ending conflict. Drones tested in Gaza are sold to India. Targeting systems developed in Iran are marketed to Europe. The technology of death becomes a growth industry.

And when those systems are adapted for domestic governance—when AI that targets “terrorists” becomes AI that targets “protesters”—the same companies will profit again.