It's a well-known quirk of defo law that charts are safe for public consumption but graphs are cabinet-in-confidence

I recommend you buy a copy to see what the fuss is all about

My friend @amyremeikis.bsky.social has made waves with her book "Where it all went wrong: The case against John Howard". It's a terrific read and sets out how the Howard government put its stamp on Australia. Unsurprisingly, it has irked some people heavily invested in upholding the Howard mythology

A reminder to check out alternative media outfits like We Used to Be Journos, Deepcut and Lamestream who are all putting in the work to bring you news analysis and the stories/perspectives the mainstream sometimes misses. They need subscribers, to exist.
Feel free to add your own recommendations.

Despicable

Analysis Trump threats cause dilemma for US officers: disobey orders or commit war crimes

Been thinking about this headline all day (and for obvious reasons, feels extra relevant this afternoon). It's not a "dilemma". The law is clear.

UK to receive last tanker of jet fuel from Middle East this week Industry warnings of disruption contrast with government calls for calm

Turns out we actually needed renewables to firm fossil fuels for when the ship doesn't sail and the pipeline doesn't flow.

Important not to lose sight of the racism inherent in this threat: "We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong."

The thing to remember is his residual strategy is to commit war crimes as leverage attempt. Attacking Iran’s electrical grid will unambiguously be the deliberate bombing of a civilian target.

The strait 'will just open up naturally' he says. Problem solved

The emperor has no clothes

It was just 24 days between when Zuck went on Rogan and talked about how "never again" would he suppress info based on gov't demands (misrepresenting those demands) and when he texted top gov't employee Elon Musk to say "we're all set up to take down info you want removed."

I wrote about it here.

Headline from AFR home page: "Live: Trump, Starmer and Albanese all announce imminent ‘addresses to the nation’"

This is giving me flashbacks to the awkward 2021 AUKUS virtual presser from Biden, Johnson and Morrison ("that fella down under")

A million times - this!

Google co-founder spends $45m in fight against California billionaire tax Sergey Brin gives $25m on top of $20m he’s already given to Super Pac trying to block state’s proposed 5% wealth tax

These billionaires would prefer to shell out vast amounts of their cash to fight against being subject to a wealth tax than to contribute towards the public benefit www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...

On 28 February 2026, the United States commenced combat operations to defend the American people against attacks and ongoing threats from the Islamic Republic of Iran, in cooperation with our ally Israel. These combat operations were undertaken to protect United States Armed Forces in the region, to ensure the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz and to protect our regional allies and partners from Iran and its proxies. This is the latest stage in the ongoing international armed conflict that my Government previously addressed in a letter to this Council on 27 June 2025. The United States is taking these necessary and proportionate actions in exercise of the inherent right of self-defense as reflected in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. These combat operations are also being conducted in close cooperation with, and in the collective self-defense of, Israel. The Islamic Republic of Iran has rejected peaceful coexistence and chosen international armed conflict with Israel as well, waging an unprovoked religious war of annihilation against a once-friendly United Nations Member State located hundreds of miles distant from its borders. Since June 2025, the regime has also massively expanded its ballistic missile production for the purpose of overwhelming regional air defenses in order to provide a shield for its efforts to reconstitute its nuclear program, which it refuses to relinquish. Gaming the international legal system, the Iranian regime routinely seeks to conceal its unlawful acts and to shield itself from accountability by, among other things, deploying proxies such as Hamas, Hizballah and the Houthis. For example, in a letter dated 5 February 2024, my Government reported that the regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its partners and proxies had attacked United States personnel and facilities in Syria and Iraq. That letter identified nine prior letters sent to this Council between 2021 and 2024, a period th…

NEW

Somewhat unexpectedly, the US government has submitted an Article 51 letter to the UNSC articulating the US int'l law justification for attacking Iran.

As someone who used to help draft these letters for the USG, I find the administration's legal arguments completely unconvincing. 1/n

Strong vibes of "you can't fire me, I quit"

Yet another reminder - as if we needed one - that it doesn’t matter how much you give him. It’s never enough. This is always the outcome.

The emperor has no clothes

Single frame. Trump at whiteboard with pointer. A line of backs of heads of various world leaders. (Macron Carney Albo Starmer Merz Von der Leyen). Written on whiteboard: “INTERNATIONAL RULES-BASED ORDER. 1. I RULE. 2. I ORDER THE REST OF THE WORLD AROUND.

Rules-based order.
My @smh cartoon.

Guardian live blog extract: Headline: "US attacked Iran 'pre-emptively' after learning Israel was going to launch strikes - Rubio" Text: "The US attacked Iran “pre-emptively” on Saturday to protect US forces from retaliation after learning that Israel was going to strike, Marco Rubio told reporters on Monday. The US secretary of state said: “There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was, that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed that they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.” He added: “We knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” Six US service members have been killed since Saturday."

This justification of an "imminent" threat is extraordinary. The US's position is that it had to strike because it knew that its ally Israel was going to attack and induce Iran to respond

Politico: Exclusive White House officials believe ‘the politics are a lot better’ if Israel strikes Iran first As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials argue it’d be best ifIsrael makes the first move.

Extract from Politico story: "The calculus is a political one — that more Americans would stomach a war with Iran if the United States or an ally were attacked first. Recent polling shows that Americans, and Republicans in particular, support regime change in Iran, but are unwilling to risk any U.S. casualties to achieve it. That means Trump’s team is considering the optics of how an attack is conducted in addition to other justifications — such as Iran’s nuclear program. “There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” said one of the people familiar with discussions. Both individuals were granted anonymity to describe private conversations. With hopes dimming in Washington for a diplomatic resolution to the standoff with Iran, the primary question is becoming when and how the U.S. attacks."

It’s pretty clear this was all agreed in advance. Here is a Politico story from 25 Feb stating Trump admin officials “are privately arguing that an Israeli attack would trigger Iran to retaliate, helping muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike” www.politico.com/news/2026/02...

Guardian live blog extract: Headline: "US attacked Iran 'pre-emptively' after learning Israel was going to launch strikes - Rubio" Text: "The US attacked Iran “pre-emptively” on Saturday to protect US forces from retaliation after learning that Israel was going to strike, Marco Rubio told reporters on Monday. The US secretary of state said: “There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was, that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed that they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.” He added: “We knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” Six US service members have been killed since Saturday."

This justification of an "imminent" threat is extraordinary. The US's position is that it had to strike because it knew that its ally Israel was going to attack and induce Iran to respond

US defense secretary Pete Hegseth: "The United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it."

10 October 2023: Israel didn't start this war but will finish it: Benjamin Netanyahu

This line sounds familiar

Extract from Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong's press conference on 1 March 2026: Journalist: Israel described this as a pre-emptive strike, so was there an imminent threat? Was there talk of that? Is that why this was [indistinct]? Foreign Minister: I'll leave it for the United States and Israel to speak of the basis, the legal basis for the attacks. What I would say to Australians is that Iran has been a destabilising force in the region for decades. It has orchestrated attacks on Australia, and I think we all understand that this issue did not start yesterday.

A very illuminating moment in Penny Wong's press conference today. The Australian foreign minister won't claim the attacks were legal #auspol

Reminder: you can oppose oppressive rulers AND be aware that illegal regime-change wars rarely end well

John Howard’s 2003 march to war with Iraq appears to have taught our current parliament little Coalition senators offered both vague laments and staunch justifications, while the Greens found an unlikely ally

Re-upping this analysis from three years ago:

John Howard’s 2003 march to war with Iraq appears to have taught our current parliament little
www.theguardian.com/world/2023/m...

Honestly - this book/fever was so easy to spot as being fraudulent from the start. This sort of pretend progressivism only ever benefits the worst people

australiainstitute.org.au/post/gripped...

Nicely done. And only you are rigorous enough to include a caveat about event inflation!

Incredible how much the media has spent talking about hate speech laws and yet none of the thousands of articles on Hanson mention she recently was found by a federal court of breaching hate speech laws.