Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The End of the Free, Global Internet

By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | September 1, 2025

It appears that the free global internet, such as it was, which many of us loved and grew up with, is nearly dead. Long gone are the days of anonymous IRC chats or where only paranoiacs thought their emails were monitored. The growing standard is the government demanding websites know who you are all the time to “protect” you from a myriad of trivial things such as “hate speech” or videos of people eating too much.

As has become common, it is not any of the “authoritarian” states we hear about leading the way to the end of internet freedom, but instead the ethnic European parts of the former British Empire. The United Kingdom itself has just implemented legislation which demands all users upload ID to show they are over eighteen when using anything it deems “dangerous,” while Australia is restricting all of those sixteen and under from having social media accounts whatsoever, again to protect them primarily from thoughts the government dislikes. The British legislation is particularly dangerous as it is expected that sites based anywhere in the world comply with expansive moderation rules, while Australia’s law is a blanket ban on social media usage for an age category. In both cases, however, they kill internet anonymity and set a terrible precedent.

The internet has been under siege from many directions for many years. It is true that America’s regime change class found free internet useful for “Color Revolutions” and did at times use it to undermine foreign governments. As a consequence, it has historically acted as a defender of internet freedom when it advances other objectives. Thus, something like “The Great Firewall of China” which we were conditioned to care about, though it did not impact anyone outside of China.

The attacks on the internet have only grown more blatant, such as in Brazil where Judge Alexandre de Moraes has been on a rampage trying to “protect” the public from political speech he dislikes. In the United States, however, the bigger problem was originally just collecting enormous amounts of data secretly, which they did while encouraging people to use the internet however they wished—creating all the more data. The attempts at algorithmic mind control pushed by the Joe Biden administration and complacent—or enthusiastic—tech companies was again done while purporting to be for a free internet. Despite government hypocrisy and abuses, the internet remains the greatest communication tool in human history and we should protect it at all costs, while remaining mindful of government data collection activities, information control, and regime change operations.

The British and Australian laws are all the more nefarious as they impact almost all internet activity, and of course, they use the classic line “Won’t someone think of the children!” Age verification for pornography is one thing—that brings the internet in line with the laws of the physical world where you can’t walk into a store and buy that content without an adult ID; but this is much broader. As a recent Politico article explains, as well as pornography, there are age verification limits on, “hate speech, content promoting drugs and weapons, online harassment and depictions of violence… Large platforms restricted everything from X posts on Gaza to subreddits on cigars, and blocked content entirely in certain cases.” As Kym Robinson recently explained, they are rapidly medicalizing internet use and making it about physical and mental health, which for eKarens is an endless justification for meddling. In short, nearly anything fun or interesting could be considered adult content and the sites themselves are being made to police this or face significant fines, which intentionally creates a situation where cautious site owners will expand it past anything the government demands. No reasonable man can have any faith in any supposed privacy protections which are said to stop governments from accessing the ID used to age verify an account.

It’s easy as an adult to forget the experience of being a child, and imagine children lack the ability to understand anything about the world around them, when in fact they are learning such things at a rapid pace. It happens to be the case that I was twelve in the year 2000 when the first major law on this topic went into effect in the United States: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA.] This law, in its original form, stopped kids under thirteen from having accounts on any website without a parent’s permission. To recover your email address your parent had to put in credit card information, which many were hesitant to do back then in an era where online shopping was still fairly rare. The thing about that though was the sites simply removed the option to sign up if you were under thirteen and had no verification option, so no one’s privacy was made worse; it was just annoying and condescending towards children.

What is notable about this is that at the time I wrote a persuasive speech for English class against this law. I have a reason to remember at age twelve that my classmates and I were able to understand the policy being unfairly implemented and I was able to write a formal argument against it. Now, being a parent instead of a twelve-year old, I certainly have some different views about what is appropriate for children, but the ability of children to understand what is going on around them is greater than commonly realized. The Australian Communications Minister tried to defend their ban on all social media use, including YouTube, for kids under sixteen by likening it to teaching your kid to swim in the pool before putting them in the ocean with the sharks and rip currents. In fact it is the exact opposite: it throws kids right in at sixteen with no experience when they are the most irresponsible and difficult to control.

What is the most nefarious about these “age verification” laws is that the United Kingdom and Australia both regularly arrest internet users for posts that they don’t like. The end of anonymity will kill the most valuable discourse coming from either country. Both of these countries in many ways seem completely defeated and devoid of the love of liberty, but in fact have thriving and creative “anon” communities still carrying the fire of freedom. The ability to express opinions and tell the world what is happening will all but disappear under a regime where you have to verify your age to use Spotify—not to mention how ridiculous it is to ban seventeen-year olds from using Spotify even if it impacted no one eighteen and above. Everything that has happened up to now shows that age verification laws in these countries will set the stage for an even larger crackdown on all unapproved thoughts.

Something I have noticed in my time on this Earth is that you can tell a lot by a man for how he uses the term “the Wild West.” It is generally either used by liberty lovers to mean, “You’re allowed to do what you want and it’s awesome,” or by sniveling Mandarins to mean “This is terribly dangerous and needs to be regulated.” I have long feared a future where the young say that the internet used to be like the Wild West and view this as scary and dangerous. Now, the younger generation seems to be coming up tired of the schoolmarm government, but it will be a hard fight to keep any of the internet’s Wild West charm as it is consumed by meddlesome nanny states.

If these laws in the United Kingdom and Australia are allowed to stand it will represent a major step in a perhaps irreversible process whereby the internet will become ever more broken up by the country of the user, and in most of them much less free. I would be able to take some comfort in the idea that this could send people back to the pubs to talk in person, but the Brits are also cracking down on pub banter, and I somehow doubt other states are far behind them.

September 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

The reek of desperation hangs over Albanese’s Iran conspiracy theories

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | August 31, 2025

The Australian Prime Minister and his government are resorting to increasingly laughable measures to deflect public anger at their continued support for “Israel”.

A day after “Israel” had committed yet another massacre against journalists in Gaza, luring them with a strike on a hospital before eliminating them in a “double-tap” maneuver, the Labor government of Australia announced a major imminent foreign policy measure.

For a brief, fleeting moment, it appeared as though Anthony Albanese had listened to the demands of hundreds of thousands of protesters marching almost constantly throughout the country and was going to impose sanctions on the Israeli entity or even expel its ambassador over the Gaza slaughter.

Instead, the PM and his foreign minister, Penny Wong, engaged in a kind of public humiliation ritual, in which they asserted that Iran had “attacked” Australia by sponsoring the firebombing of a Melbourne synagogue and a Jewish delicatessen in Sydney through a convoluted web of criminal intermediaries.

Based on this “intelligence” provided by the national spy agency ASIO, the PM then announced the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador and his staff and the proscription of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, an institutional part of Iran’s political system, as a “terrorist organization”.

When questioned live on national television on the specifics of what he was claiming, Albanese cut the figure of a lying schoolboy caught in the act, refusing to disclose any level of detail beyond the assertions themselves.

Scarcely a day has gone by, and already members of the Israeli government are crowing that they were involved in pushing Australia to take this action. Whether the Mossad was a source of the “intelligence” provided to the Australian Prime Minister is unclear, but to this and almost every other query for the specifics of the claims underpinning this major foreign policy shift, Albanese has steadfastly refused to comment.

The public reaction to the government’s assertions, at least online, has been less than charitable. Elementary questions of why, amid the full spectrum of military, economic, and political pressure on the country, Iran’s leaders would choose to pay local vandals in Australia to firebomb a Melbourne synagogue and a Sydney deli, are curiously uninteresting to much of the country’s media, which is all too willing to accept the government’s assertions at face value.

What benefit would Tehran possibly achieve by doing this, in Australia, of all places? The only other country possibly more removed from the Islamic Republic’s circle of concern, at least physically, might be New Zealand.

Of course, many will, and already have, concluded that this charade has less to do with any actual facts than it does the government’s ham-fisted attempts to deflect growing public outrage at its obstinate refusal to impose sanctions on “Israel” or even censure it for its genocidal behavior.

For nearly two years, since Oct. 7, 2023, the foreign minister, Penny Wong, has made it a near-daily ritual that each successive Israeli atrocity, rather than being condemned, is deemed merely a source of “concern” to the government.

Albanese himself, when the question of sanctions against “Israel” is raised, clearly seems to resent even having to address the issue, at one point rhetorically questioning what sanctions Australia should impose, seeming blissfully ignorant of his obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The government’s total disengagement stands in marked contrast to the Australian public, which has kept up one of the most consistent routines of public protest in support of Gaza, anywhere in the world. Just weeks ago, despite attempts to ban it, a protest spanning the Sydney Harbour Bridge drew global media attention. Just the following week, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets around the country.

As of this week, tens of thousands of university students are voting in a nationwide referendum on whether to condemn the government for its inaction and to demand diplomatic expulsions and sanctions against Israel.

In May, the Australian Labor government was returned to power in a landslide election victory. The Liberal party, the official right-wing opposition, is widely considered unable to win back government even in the next election three years away, facing potentially as much as a decade in the wilderness.

Given its lack of any political rival, the government’s obstinate ignoring of public opposition to genocide hardly seems motivated by electoral calculations. In the face of an unstable Trump administration bringing the US alliance into question, it is more content to fall back on politicized narratives of “national security” written by the intelligence community rather than reacting dynamically to a changed world.

Whatever the real reasons for this government’s industrial-scale obfuscation, it speaks to a profound moral rot at the heart of its politics, rather than it needs to invent excuses to expel an ambassador, but cannot bring itself to expel that of an entity committing the defining slaughter of the century in real-time.

August 31, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

These “Iran Bombings” in Australia Are a Setup for Further False Flags

By Andrew Anglin | Daily Stormer | August 26, 2025

As we get ready for the next round of the Iran war, Western governments need to come up with an explanation as to why we are going to war for Israel beyond “shielding Jews from blowback as a result of their genocide in Gaza.”

Enter: “Iranian backed terror.”

You have probably heard the claim in various Jewish media that Iran is a “state-backer of terrorism.” However, this claim, when dissected, does not refer to ISIS or al-Qeada style terrorism, but rather is a reference to Iran’s funding of various militias around the Middle East. For example, the media categorizes Iran’s support for Hezbollah and the Houthis as “backing terrorism.” Whatever you think of the militias Iran does back, this is something different than blowing up buildings or running people over with a big truck in Europe or America.

There have been some shaky claims of Iran sponsoring bombings in Saudi and Argentina in the 1990s, and in 2012, India said Iranians tried to kill an Israeli diplomat with a bomb. The same guy was accused of doing a bombing in Thailand, however, and after being extradited to Thailand from Malaysia, the Thai authorities refused to charge him and released him to Iran.

All of this is to say that this week’s accusations by the Australian Prime Minister that the Iranian government was behind the bombing of a synagogue and a Jewish deli in Australia are something different than we’ve seen before. The Melbourne synagogue was bombed on December 6th of last year. The Sydney deli, which burned up last October, was not even originally investigated as foul play by the cops. No one died in either “attack.”

As those who study the Jews are all too aware, Jewish very often commit hate crimes against themselves. Even before terrorism was a thing, Jews would regularly burn down their own properties to collect insurance money. The term “Jewish lightning” is in the lexicon to refer to anyone burning down their own property for the insurance, as Jews were so famous for this behavior (similarly to how a non-Jewish person viewed as greedy might be called “Shylock”).

It’s maybe worth noting that since the bombing, the rabbi from the synagogue in question has been on a donations tour, and with the announcement it was Iran, is on another tour asking for even more free money.

What’s more, if these were indeed intentional attacks from someone, their timing, in the middle of the Gaza genocide, could mean that literally anyone could be responsible. Although Moslems would probably be more likely, it is not hard to imagine a non-Moslem outraged at the scenes on TikTok doing something like this. On its face, blaming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps for the bombing of a random deli and synagogue in Australia sounds ridiculous, and it seems they would be some of the last people on the list of suspects.

Even if you believe Iran was responsible for the attacks they were accused of in the 1990s and then the 2012 events, those were all political or military targets. The idea of a serious military organization ordering random restaurants and synagogues in a random country blown up is silly. Iran is capable of sending rockets at Israel, they are capable of cutting off Israel’s access to shipping lanes. It makes no sense they would sink to street level random acts of random violence, which would not need any central planning.

Further, the fact that the firebombing would not need to be centrally planned means that it would be impossible to trace it to Iranian authorities. What would even be the claim? That they found text messages from a general in the IRGC? And that it took them nearly a year to find these text messages?

The identities of the accused have not been revealed, but the claim by the government is that they are street criminals who also committed other crimes who the IRGC hired through their networks to carry out these very serious firebombings that had no political purpose and where no one even died.

Here’s the Thing

This announcement by the weasel Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Iran ordered the bombing of these random civilian locations in a white, Western country has been a top news story all over the world. Although no one is likely to look too deeply into it, because again, literally no one died, this gets the idea that “Iran is funding terrorist attacks on civilians” into the minds of the masses of the people.

With the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, the FBI had previously coordinated an attempted bombing of the same buildings in 1993 as a kind of precursor. Then you had the second attack, with the airplanes, lead to an invasion of Afghanistan. Then, in the weeks and months after 9/11, someone was sending Anthrax all around to media and government people, which is when the media/government started talking about Iraq as working with the al-Qeada. In 2008, they then said it was actually some random white guy that did the anthrax. He was, conveniently, already dead.

This is the note that was with the Anthrax sent to Tom Brokaw:

The FBI never really bothered to try to explain why a white guy would do that.

But refencing the Anthrax mailed around, Colin (pronuonced “Colon” for some reason) Powell brought white powder as a prop to his UN presentation on the need to. invade Iraq,

There was an ongoing triangle of disinformation and fake news passing from the New York Times, Dick Cheney, and Fox News. They were accusing Saddam of all kinds of things, just like they are with Iran right now, but the core of it was Cheney’s “Sinister Nexus of Terror.”

You still had the steam from 9/11 when they did the Iraq war less than two years later. But with Iran now, are we really supposed to do a massive war because of October 7th? Or is there going to need to be something more significant to motivate people?

I would very much expect that this Australian cafe and synagogue is the beginning of something bigger. With 9/11 and the Anthrax, when people were saying “oh they can’t be false flags, the government wouldn’t do that,” it was like “well, they started fake wars and killed like a million people, so why wouldn’t they blow up some buildings or send some powders?”

Looking back now, it feels like the “12 Day War” (the term they are using for the back and forth between Israel and Iran that involved Trump also dropping bombs on Iran) was a kind of probing event, where they wanted to see what Iran had. I think they were possibly a bit surprised at how capable Iran was. They were not the superpower capable of wiping Israel off the map that Scott Ritter had told everyone they were, but they were able to hit Israel and with missiles and cause real damage, and it was going to be impossible for Israel to keep going much longer before they were running out of their interceptor missiles.

Israel’s view on Iran has not changed, they are saying they are going to attack them again, and there is no way they can do it without the US, and involving the US on a large scale will probably take more than some all caps Trump tweets.

Obviously, at this point, huge numbers of people are going to be saying “false flag,” even if it is something on the scale of 9/11. So I don’t claim to know how this would work. If I was Donald Trump, I’d be worried the Mossad was going to assassinate me and blame Iran. That would get all the Trump supporters behind a war and it would leave leftists confused as to how they should feel, because if they said “false flag,” they might feel like they were defending Trump. Also, there has already been a “foreshadowing” event where Trump was allegedly scraped on the ear. And, I would add, that a personality like Trump getting shot would just generally be a bigger shock to the world than a bombing, which we’ve all already seen a lot of.

Or maybe I’m wrong and there is already enough noise and there doesn’t need to be some big event to justify further action in Iran. I guess the issue is that I don’t know really what it would take. If there needed to be an Iraq style invasion, then you would need some pretty big justification. But no one understands the logistics of this war. Like I said, I think the first thing was a test as much as anything.

But there are a lot of questions.

If there was large scale bombing of Tehran, could they do a “regime change” from the air? If so, could they keep shooting rockets without a “regime”? How stable is the domestic situation in the country? How do the Arabs, Azeris, and other minorities feel? (I think we know how the Kurds feel, lol. But the others, who knows? I don’t know. I do know that Persians are barely half the population.) Are there terrorists that can be moved in through Azerbaijan? What happened all those terrorists in Syria now that their guy is in charge? Can they be moved through Iraq and into Iran? It’s much more mountainous in Iran.

This is a lot different than when ISIS was able to just roll around wherever on the flats in the Iraqi/Syrian desert.

The mountains also provide a lot of cover for hydra-type break-off groups to operate if the government falls or is at least incapable of operating normally. I’m sure they have caves loaded up with drones and cheap missiles, and as we saw in the 12 Day War, the cost of shooting them down is too much for Israel to absorb. Even if they have infinity money from Big Daddy Donald, they can’t make that many interceptor missiles.

Those are some of the big questions. There are more questions. I’m sure the people within intelligence have better estimates than I would be able to come up with as to what the answers to these questions might be, but I think even US/Israeli intelligence can’t give definite answers regarding most of these factors.

What I do think is that slowly drilling away at it until the armor cracks like they did with Syria is not a potential strategy given that unlike Syria, Iran can hit Israel with missiles. So I’m sure what Bibi wants is the full force of the US military to be brought to bear in a full invasion type war. And for that to happen, it is most likely that something very extreme would have to precipitate it.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | 2 Comments

Iran FM says Australia’s envoy expulsion ‘appeasement’ of Israel

Press TV – August 26, 2025

Iran’s Foreign Minister has condemned Australia’s decision to expel Tehran’s ambassador over allegations of attacks on Jewish sites, describing it as an act of appeasement toward a “regime led by war criminals.”

In a post on X on Tuesday, Abbas Araghchi rejected Canberra’s allegation, citing Iran’s longstanding protection of its Jewish community.

“Iran is home to among the world’s oldest Jewish communities, including dozens of synagogues. Accusing Iran of attacking such sites in Australia while we do our utmost to protect them in our own country makes zero sense,” he said.

Araghchi said “Iran is paying the price for the Australian people’s support for Palestine”, referring to rising pro‑Palestine protests across Australia in the wake of the war in Gaza.

Earlier on Tuesday, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese accused Iran of orchestrating two attacks on Jewish sites in October and December, allegations made without presenting evidence.

Media reports suggested the move could be aimed at countering Israeli criticism of Albanese’s government.

Tensions between Israel and Australia have already been running high after Canberra announced earlier this month it would join France and other nations in formalizing recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to that decision, accusing Albanese of “betraying Israel” and “abandoning Australia’s Jews” and labeling him a “weak politician.”

Araghchi said he was “not in the habit of joining causes with wanted War Criminals, but Netanyahu is right about one thing: Australia’s PM is indeed a ‘weak politician’.”

Issuing a warning to Australia, he added, “Canberra should know better than to attempt to appease a regime led by War Criminals. Doing so will only embolden Netanyahu and his ilk.”

Tehran has vowed reciprocal action in response to Australia’s move.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

The Illusion of Israeli Self Sufficiency in Intelligence

By José Niño | The Libertarian Institute | August 26, 2025

Casual onlookers salivate at the supposed brilliance of Israel’s intelligence services. From Mossad’s assassinations abroad to daring sabotage campaigns in hostile territory, the Jewish state has been elevated in popular imagination as a scrappy David with unmatched cunning, capable of pulling off operations that leave even world powers like the United States in awe. Books, films, and mainstream pundits reinforce this myth, presenting Israel’s intelligence machine as self-sufficient and independent.

But when one peels back the layers, the narrative quickly unravels. Israel’s most celebrated operations—from targeted killings in Europe to sabotage inside Iran—were rarely the product of Israeli ingenuity alone. They relied on cooperation with the CIA, NSA cyberwarfare expertise, European intelligence networks, and even covert collaboration with Arab regimes that publicly denounce Israel while privately working with it. Much like its dependence on U.S. military aid and diplomatic cover, Israel’s intelligence empire survives not through independence but through reliance on Western logistics, intelligence sharing, and political approval. What is sold as the story of a bootstrapping nation is a case study in multinational complicity.

According to investigative reporting by Israeli journalists Melman and Ronen Bergman, Israel’s intelligence community relied heavily on intelligence partnerships with Western and allied nations to conduct clandestine activities in foreign territories.

The foundation of this intelligence cooperation traces back to the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. According to Dr. Aviva Guttmann’s research, which Melman has covered extensively, the Berne Club—a secret European intelligence alliance founded in 1969—provided crucial support for Israel’s subsequent assassination campaign against Palestinian operatives. This multinational intelligence network initially included Switzerland, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and later expanded to include the United States, Canada, Australia, and other nations. Through an encrypted communication system called “Kilowatt,” thousands of cables were exchanged among eighteen Western intelligence services after the system was established in 1971. The network functioned as a secret clearinghouse for raw intelligence. Shared reports contained the locations of safe houses, vehicle registrations, the movements of high-value targets, updates on Palestinian guerrilla tactics, and analytical assessments, all of which provided Israel with crucial operational support for its clandestine operations.

Direct American involvement in Israeli operations became particularly evident during the George W. Bush administration. The February 2008 assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus was reportedly approved by President Bush himself after being briefed by then-CIA Director Michael Hayden. This was not merely intelligence sharing but active operational participation. “The Mossad agent would ID Mughniyeh, and the CIA man would press the remote control,” a Newsweek report noted. The CIA designed and built the bomb that killed Mughniyeh, tested it at a secret facility in North Carolina, and smuggled it into Syria through Jordan, while Mossad provided intelligence and logistical support.

When it came to confronting Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel collaborated on the creation of the Stuxnet computer virus in a joint operation codenamed “Olympic Games.” The malware was designed to sabotage centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility. According to Ronen Bergman, the virus was developed with input from Israeli cybersecurity experts alongside the U.S. National Security Agency. This operation represented a quadrilateral effort involving the CIA, NSA, Mossad, and Israel’s military intelligence agency, AMAN. It was conceived during the administrations of W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and ultimately executed in 2010 under President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The scope of American involvement extended to Israel’s broader targeted killing policies. Ronen Bergman revealed that during Ariel Sharon’s tenure, a secret deal was struck with then-U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that committed Israel to “significantly reduce the construction of new settlements in exchange for American backing of the war with the Palestinians and of Israel’s targeted killing policy” of high-value Palestinian figures.

American intelligence cooperation facilitated Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, with Melman documenting extensive Western knowledge of and potential involvement in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists between 2007-2012. The Obama administration was aware of the assassination campaign carried out by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization, which was being financed, armed, and trained by Mossad. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) reportedly trained MEK members starting in 2005, and U.S. intelligence was providing crucial information for these operations. As one former senior intelligence official told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, “the United States is now providing the intelligence” for assassinations carried out “primarily by MEK through liaison with the Israelis.”

Israeli dependency on foreign support went beyond Western allies to include collaborationist elements in the Arab world. Bergman revealed extensive details about Mossad’s regional cooperation during Meir Dagan’s tenure (2002-2010) as director of the Mossad, including secret partnerships with Arab intelligence services that publicly condemned Israel while privately cooperating with it. These arrangements involved joint operations with countries that “share more or less the same set of interests” despite public hostility, coordination in counter-terrorism operations across the Middle East, and partnerships that enabled many operations attributed solely to Mossad.

The pattern of foreign dependence continues in contemporary operations. An August 2025 ProPublica report by Yossi Melman and fellow journalist Dan Raviv showcased Israel’s enlistment of Iranian dissidents for executing missions inside Iran during “Operation Rising Lion.” They specifically outlined Mossad’s strategic shift from using Israeli personnel to cultivating a “foreign legion” of Iranian and regional operatives to carry out activities ranging from support functions to covert action.

This pattern of intelligence reporting by Melman and Bergman reveals that Israel’s reputation for independent intelligence capabilities obscures a reality of extensive foreign dependence, particularly on Western intelligence services, for conducting operations that extend Israeli influence and security interests globally.

Far from being a model of independence, Israel’s intelligence record underscores how deeply its operations are embedded in Western power structures. The myths of self-sufficiency and unmatched brilliance collapse under the weight of evidence: Mossad’s reach is extended only because Washington, European capitals, and even regional neighbors provide the pipelines of intelligence, technology, and manpower that make its operations possible.

The true scandal lies not in Israel’s dependency but in the willingness of other nations to abet its destabilizing campaigns by supplying the bombs, intelligence streams, and diplomatic cover that allow Tel Aviv to operate with impunity. To strip away the mythology is to confront the uncomfortable truth that Israel’s “miraculous” intelligence victories are collective endeavors, outsourced across continents, exposing not a triumph of independence but a parasitic reliance on collaborators who enable its shadow wars.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Preconditions, symbolic recognition and the ongoing erasure of Palestine

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | August 12, 2025

September seems to be the month several Western countries have chosen to symbolically recognise the State of Palestine. The countdown to the hypothetical recognition, if it happens, will likely generate more attention than recognition itself. This is what Western diplomacy is all about, after all, when it comes to Palestine. The illusion of action.

Australia is one recent example. Almost two years since the start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese surmised that “the war” has dragged on for far too long, and that it is time to recognise the State of Palestine, based upon “the commitments Australia has received from the Palestinian Authority.”

According to Australian media, the PA guaranteed that it would “recognise Israel’s right to exist, demilitarise and hold general elections,” as well as exclude Hamas from future governance. While Australia would not be the only country seeking such guarantees, the fact is that the PA is guaranteeing that recognising the State of Palestine will not move beyond symbolic recognition.

Not only is Israel fast encroaching upon what remains of Palestinian territory – the latest being the plans to occupy Gaza. The PA is giving guarantees that do not allow a state to emerge from symbolic recognition. Democratic elections do not ban electoral rivals, as the PA plans to do with Hamas. Neither should democratic elections include the elimination of opponents as happened with Nizar Banat in 2021. Recognising Israel is validating, normalising and accepting colonial plunder and the entire colonial enterprise, including genocide. Demilitarisation leaves a colonised population with no options for defence.

For Albanese, however, “This is an opportunity to deliver self-determination to the people of Palestine in a way that isolates Hamas, disarms it and drives it out of the region once and for all.” He added, “The international community is moving to establish a Palestinian state, and it is opposing actions which undermine the two-state solution.”

Albanese’s statements do not even sugarcoat the surface of the international community’s complicity in Israeli colonisation of Palestine and genocide in Gaza. Recognising the state of Palestine without a real emergence of a Palestinian state does not help to establish a Palestinian state. The international community has, for decades, approved of Israeli international law violations that undermined the two-state compromise, which has been declared obsolete several years back.  What the move does is merely extend a life line to the defunct diplomacy which the international community adopted to force Palestinians into subjugation to colonisation, giving Israel time to plan its next steps and normalise the outcome. Nothing can save international diplomacy after the role it played in maintaining Israel’s genocide in Gaza, especially pathetic demonstrations of symbolic recognition of a state that cannot function as a state due to Israel’s colonial enterprise and the diplomatic support colonialism received from former colonial powers.

When Western countries discuss their reasons for their symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state at a time when Palestinians are experiencing genocide and further territorial loss, what is “recognition” a euphemism for?

August 13, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK cautions it could fight China over Taiwan

RT | July 27, 2025

The United Kingdom could resort to military force against China in the event of an escalation over Taiwan, British Defense Secretary John Healey has said, though he emphasized that London continues to prefer a diplomatic resolution.

Speaking to The Telegraph during a visit to Australia, Healey said Britain would “secure peace through strength” if necessary – marking one of the clearest signals yet from a senior UK official regarding the possibility of direct confrontation with Beijing.

Healey made the remarks as the HMS Prince of Wales, a British aircraft carrier equipped with F-35 fighter jets, docked in the northern Australian city of Darwin. It is the first time in nearly 30 years that a British strike group has arrived in the region. The carrier is on a nine-month Pacific deployment, participating in Australia’s Talisman Sabre exercise and visiting ports in Japan and South Korea.

”If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together,” Healey said when asked what London would do in case of an escalation around Taiwan.

The secretary then said he was speaking in “general terms.” According to Healey, London’s approach to Taiwan has not changed.

China considers the island of Taiwan part of its territory under the One-China principle, and insists on eventual reunification. According to the Chinese government, peaceful reunion is preferable, but it reserves the right to use force if necessary.

Taiwan has been self-governed since 1949, when nationalist forces retreated to the island after losing the Chinese Civil War. Most nations, including Russia, recognize Taiwan as part of China. The UK, as well as the US, also formally stick to the One-China principle while maintaining informal ties with Taiwan and supplying it with weapons and ammunition.

Last month, Beijing criticized a British warship’s passage through the Taiwan Strait in Chinese territorial waters. Such actions “deliberately cause trouble” and undermine peace in the area, it said.

July 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 2 Comments

Officer exits Australian army after showing more loyalty to ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | July 26, 2025

An Australian army officer has left the Australian Defence Force (ADF) after the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) stripped him of his security clearance, citing concerns over his loyalty to “Israel”. The case, first reported by The Guardian, has raised broader questions about foreign influence, undisclosed training, and security integrity within Australia’s military ranks.

The officer, anonymized as “HWMW” in tribunal documents, was removed from active service after the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) upheld ASIO’s findings earlier this year. Initially placed in the inactive reserve, The Guardian reports that he has now formally exited the ADF.

ASIO flagged serious loyalty concerns during interviews, where the officer declared he did not consider “Israel” a foreign government. He also admitted he would share classified Australian military information with the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) if asked.

These revelations led ASIO to conclude that he lacked the “appropriate character and trustworthiness” necessary to hold any security clearance.

Further investigations revealed the officer had failed to disclose participation in training programs conducted in “Israel” in 2016 and 2019. Despite serving 19 years in the ADF, he concealed courses involving self-defense, firearms training, and security techniques.

These sessions were linked to his volunteer role in a Sydney-based Community Security Group (CSG), which provides intelligence and protection services to the Jewish community. He was affiliated with the CSG between 2014 and 2023. When questioned, he claimed the omission was not a lie but “not a complete disclosure.” He further admitted that such CSG programs could serve as “natural recruiting pools” for Mossad, “Israel’s” intelligence service.

Political reactions

Greens Senator David Shoebridge, the party’s defence spokesperson, sharply criticized the government’s response. In Senate estimates, Shoebridge questioned whether the defence department had conducted a broader review of ADF personnel with ties to similar CSG training.

He expressed frustration over the lack of answers, stating: “This should have been a simple exercise. Having discovered an ADF member undertook secret training associated with a foreign government, then the exit should have been rapid.” Shoebridge also criticized what he described as Australia’s inconsistent stance on foreign affiliations, pointing to a double standard in the acceptance of loyalty to the US and its allies.

ASIO Director General Mike Burgess emphasized that while community security groups serve a legitimate and important purpose, transparency is key.

“There is nothing wrong with the community security groups,” Burgess said, but noted that foreign training, even for community protection, must be declared. “Training done overseas in Israel might present an opportunity,” he added.

The defense department has reiterated that all holders of security clearances undergo regular evaluations, including reviews of foreign connections and external loyalties. Individuals are required to report any affiliations that might compromise their suitability.

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , | 1 Comment

Visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to the PRC

By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – July 26, 2025

The official visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, to the PRC, which took place from July 12 to 18 this year at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Li Qiang, became a notable event in the rapidly developing process of reshaping the situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

Formally, Albanese’s visit was considered a reciprocal event following the visit to Australia by Chinese Premier Li Qiang in June last year, during the latter’s regular tour of several countries in the region. However, the current visit of the Australian Prime Minister coincided with a period of rapid acceleration in the long-anticipated transformation of the global order and therefore deserves special attention.

Geopolitical uncertainty stimulates the continuation of the China-Australia dialogue

The very fact and nature of this visit serve as yet another testament to the increasing relevance of the “strategy of balancing,” which is being adopted by all more or less significant participants in the current phase of the “Great Game.” This is especially evident in its focal point, which is rapidly shifting toward the Indo-Pacific. One of the most striking examples of this trend toward “balancing” has previously been noted in the policy of one of the leading Asian powers — Japan. To reiterate, this trend itself is a characteristic feature of the reshaping of the world order that began with the end of the Cold War, and it is inevitably accompanied by the emergence of various factors of uncertainty in global politics.

Lately, particularly significant among those factors are the ones triggered by the “tariff war,” launched on April 2 of this year by the 47th President of the United States. Although outwardly motivated by fairly understandable considerations of a “purely economic” nature, it has inevitably affected the sphere of political relations. And this includes countries with which Washington remains in military-political alliances that were once formalized through binding agreements.

Australia belongs to such countries. Along with New Zealand, it has been part of the trilateral ANZUS alliance (Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty) with the U.S. since 1951. Although the alliance had shown few signs of life after the end of the Cold War — primarily due to New Zealand’s de facto boycott — the sharp escalation of the international situation that began at the end of the last decade, as well as the coming to power of the conservative National Party in Wellington in early 2023, appear to be breathing new life into the pact. Australia also participates in “politically non-binding” configurations with the United States (Quad, AUKUS).

All these alliances and configurations are aimed, directly or indirectly, at Washington’s current primary geopolitical opponent — China — which, however, has been Australia’s main trading partner for over ten years. This fact constitutes a fundamentally important departure from the Cold War era and compels Canberra to maintain constructive relations with Beijing in order to ensure the prosperity of Australia’s export-oriented economy.

Let us note that in 2023, Australia exported various goods (mainly from the mining and agricultural sectors) to China worth an enormous $220 billion. At that time, the volume of accumulated Chinese investment in the Australian economy had reached almost $90 billion.

One would think Washington should appreciate the risks Canberra takes by joining overtly anti-Chinese actions in the South China Sea or in matters related to the increasing importance of controlling the Pacific Ocean’s waters. Yet the inclusion of Australia in the list of countries targeted by the “tariff war” waged by the current U.S. President does not suggest that such assessments are present in the thinking of U.S. leadership.

By contrast, the longstanding demand for Australia to “more clearly” demonstrate its stance on the Taiwan issue was once again voiced by the current architect of U.S. defense strategy, Elbridge Colby — and precisely on the eve of Albanese’s visit. In response, during the visit itself, the Australian government issued a reply along the following lines: guided by national interests, our troops will not be sent abroad based on hypotheses regarding the situation in specific regions.

Just a few years ago, Australia’s “older brothers” nearly forced the country into AUKUS, promising to build it a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. But now, the same Elbridge Colby is pondering the possibility of the U.S. pulling out of the project.

In short, Anthony Albanese, who resumed his post as Prime Minister of Australia following the most recent general elections, had ample reason to choose this visit as his first trip abroad — in order to “clarify the situation” in relations with a political adversary.

Some outcomes of the Australian Prime Minister’s visit to the PRC and the prospects for bilateral relations

The entire week-long visit of Albanese to the PRC can be divided into three components: “business,” “general political,” and “associated.” The first was held mainly in Shanghai with the participation of relevant ministers and business representatives; the second took place in Beijing; and the third, involving representatives of public organizations, was held in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan Province. Regular meetings were held on several bilateral platforms, including those at the level of prime ministers and ministry heads. The high-ranking Australian guest was received by the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.

Following the events, several documents were adopted. Of particular note is the “Joint Statement” outlining the outcomes of the latest meeting between the prime ministers. This document includes ten equally important points, of which we will briefly highlight a few here.

Point 3 reaffirms the relevance of maintaining and further developing the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, as well as the commitment to “wisely overcome” differences. In point 4, the Australian government reiterated its adherence to the “One China” principle — essentially reaffirming the aforementioned response to U.S. demands concerning the Taiwan issue. A message to the same effect is conveyed in point 6, which emphasizes the importance of a “fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment,” along with its chief regulator, the WTO. Point 8 refers to the intention to further develop this environment within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2015.

Finally, let us point out the potentially greatest challenge to the continued constructive relations between Australia and the PRC. This may turn out to be not so much the renewed U.S. focus on the 1951 alliance, but rather the development of the process of forming (still, it should be repeated, quasi-) allied relations between Australia and Japan. Even more so, since the current leadership of the Philippines is showing increasingly clear interest in joining this emerging regional alliance.

However, within the Philippines itself, resistance to anti-Chinese political trends is growing. In particular, in July of this year, a retired general questioned the usefulness of the well-known 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (in favor of the Philippines) regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea. According to this general, the only practical result of that decision is turning the country into a “second Ukraine.”

It seems that the word “Ukraine” is beginning to acquire a symbolic meaning and now plays a role in global politics similar to that of “Baba Yaga” in children’s fairy tales — stories that are better left unread before bedtime.

Australia would also do well to avoid a prospect defined in such terms. Today, Canberra has every reason to do so, and those reasons were only strengthened during the visit of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as discussed here.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific issues

July 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

How Zionists Control Australia’s Media

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | July 20, 2025

On July 15th, The New York Times published an unprecedented “guest essay” by Brown University’s professor of Holocaust and genocide studies, Omer Bartov. In it, he formally accused Israel of perpetrating genocide in Gaza, and “literally trying to wipe out Palestinian existence.” Bartov, a Zionist and Occupation Force veteran, previously emphatically denied this was the case in a November 2023 op-ed for the outlet. More generally, America’s newspaper of record has hitherto whitewashed, distorted, and obscured Tel Aviv’s horrific crimes on an industrial scale.

Its editors previously explicitly ordered reporters to avoid “inflammatory terms” such as “ethnic cleansing”, “occupied territory”, “genocide”, and even “Palestine”. Wholly fabricated stories about Hamas atrocities and mass rape fed to the outlet by Israeli government, military and intelligence sources have been exposed as tissues of lies by the newspaper’s own staff, but not retracted. As such, for Bartov to acknowledge the Zionist entity is committing genocide, and The New York Times to provide him with a platform to say so, is no small thing.

It speaks volumes about the state of the Western media that admission of this inarguable fact by any source can be considered remotely noteworthy. Since the beginning of Israel’s unconscionable assault on Gaza in October 2023, it has been unambiguously evident the ZOF’s indiscriminate rampage is concertedly genocidal in nature. In April too, the UN formally accused Tel Aviv of committing “genocidal acts” in Gaza, consciously and intentionally “calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group.”

Palestinians traverse ZOF-inflicted ruins in northern Gaza

This finding, along with identical conclusions drawn by Western rights groups and legal scholars, mysteriously escaped the attention of major news outlets. The obvious question arises as to how the mainstream media remained silent so long – to the point of active complicity – not merely about the Zionist entity’s 21st century Holocaust in Gaza, but Israel’s historic abuse, persecution and slaughter of the Palestinian people. An answer is provided in veteran Australian journalist John Lyons’ 2017 biography, Balcony Over Jerusalem.

Buried in the book is a comprehensive account of how Australia’s Israeli lobby systematically plunges its poisonous hooks into influential editors and reporters Down Under, ensuring they act as dependable propagandists for Tel Aviv. The details are of enormous wider relevance, for as this journalist has previously documented, foreign media outreach is a dedicated, devastatingly effective means by which occupation, land theft, and ethnic cleansing hardwired into Zionism has been successfully concealed from Western audiences for decades. Identical operations are undoubtedly in force across the globe.

‘Hardline Side’

Lyons’ disclosures about the Zionist lobby’s mephitic influence in Australia are all the more remarkable given the author evidently does not perceive Palestinians to be wholly innocent victims. His book’s blurb perversely frames them and Zionists as equal parties in a “devastating war”, and boasts how he has “confronted Hamas officials about why they fire rockets” into Tel Aviv. There is zero insinuation in its contents Lyons denies or even vaguely questions Israel’s ultimate right to exist in some form or other.

Moreover, Balcony Over Jerusalem is rife with sentimental passages recalling trips to the Zionist entity to interview senior officials old and new, his long-running personal friendships with Australian Jews, and work on a major project investigating Jewish identity. This renders Lyons’ critical insights particularly valuable. The vicious backlash that erupted against the author from the Israel lobby within and without Australia in response to his book, which has raged ever since, is also instructive. Those same elements initially sought to foster a warm bond with the veteran journalist.

Lyons explains how once appointed deputy editor of the Sydney Morning Herald in the early 1990s, his “phone began ringing with requests for meetings” with local Jewish groups. Only later did he learn, “once you have ‘deputy’ in your title or are perceived as being on the rise within your media organisation you become a target for cultivation” by Australia’s “fiercely efficient pro-Israel lobby.” Public affairs apparatchiks at local Zionist organisations pestered him for a “year or so” to accept an all-expenses-paid tour of Israel.

Lyons eventually accepted, and in 1996 made his first visit to Tel Aviv, funded by the Melbourne-based Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He recorded how “it has become almost a rite of passage for deputy editors of any major Australian news outlet to be offered a ‘study trip’ to Israel.” A senior AIJAC official boasted to Lyons the organisation had “sent at least 600 Australian politicians, journalists, political advisers, senior public servants and student leaders on these trips over the last 15 years.”

Lyons’ “assessment” was, “by ‘educating’ rising media executives, the Israeli lobby has in place editors” across Australia “who ‘understand’ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” exclusively from the Zionist entity’s warped perspective, and report on local events accordingly. “I barely know an Australian newspaper executive who has not been on one of these trips,” he noted. Lyons and other senior staffers at major local media outlets were flown to Tel Aviv “for five days of wining, dining and briefings (including a stay in a kibbutz).”

Once inside the Zionist entity, he “quickly realised how narrow a range of opinions we were receiving” on the reality on-the-ground there. The trip’s organisers “set us up for an hour or so… to hear the point of view of the Palestinian Authority, but apart from that we were getting only one side of the story – and a hardline side at that.” It rapidly became clear to Lyons “the whole point of the trip was to defend Israel’s settlements in the Palestinian territories.”

‘Like Dresden’

In search of a “broader perspective”, Lyons asked his hosts to visit Hebron, Israel’s illegally occupied portion of the West Bank. The trip was spurred by his understanding that “in Hebron you can see the raw conflict,” as “it’s the only Palestinian city where there is an Israeli settlement in the middle of the Palestinian population; normally, the settlements are separated.” At that time, “several hundred settlers” lived “in the middle of 200,000 Palestinians.”

These settlers were and remain protected by the ZOF, and “the same rules of engagement for the army apply” as in other areas illegally annexed and occupied by Tel Aviv. Immediately upon arrival in Hebron, “the cruelty” of Zionist occupation was “there for all to see.” Lyons saw “how the conflict between the settlers and Palestinians played out at the most basic level.” It is a stomach-churning, life-threatening daily reality hidden from the outside world.

Hebron’s streets are typically empty, as “Palestinians are not able to drive on some roads or walk on others.” Years later, he took his editor on a trip there – they remarked, “it’s like Dresden after the bombing.” Arriving late at night, the pair encountered a “heavy Israeli Army presence” and a “certain eeriness” in the silent, deserted city. His stunned editor asked a ZOF soldier at a “closed checkpoint” into Jerusalem, “where are the Palestinians?” The militant smirkingly replied, “they’re all tucked up in bed!”

A street in Hebron where Palestinians are forbidden to tread

In Hebron, Lyons saw how Palestinians placed “wire over their market stalls to stop them being hit when Jewish settlers living above them throw bricks, chairs, dirty nappies and rotting chickens onto them.” He also witnessed Israeli soldiers “decide, without notice, to lock the Palestinians into the old part of the city at night, behind big security gates that look like cages.” The situation has only worsened subsequently, with illegal settlements – and concomitant ZOF repression – expanding exponentially. Lyons’ appraisal of the West Bank under Zionist rule is stark:

“If the whole world could see the occupation up close, it would demand that it end tomorrow. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians would not pass muster in the West if the full details were known. The only reason Israel is getting away with this is because it has one of the most formidable public-relations machines ever seen, and enormous support from its diaspora communities… Military occupations look ugly because they are ugly. Israel’s reputation will bleed as long as its control over another people continues.”

Such perspectives are vanishingly rare among the countless Australian opinion-formers who have been treated to Zionist lobby-financed tours of Israel. As Lyons records, “wave after wave of journalists, editors, academics, student leaders and trade union officials” have been whisked to Tel Aviv “to hear the same spin from the same small group of people used to defend Israel’s policies in the West Bank” over the years. Few have followed Lyons’ example in actually visiting the area, to see the horror with their own eyes.

Nonetheless, Lyons’ outlook wasn’t fully fatalistic. He noted that while the Zionist entity’s Hasbara tactics “worked for the first few decades of the occupation, now virtually every incident between an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian is filmed by a mobile phone,” exposing the ZOF’s routine savagery to overseas audiences. Fast forward to today, and the Gaza genocide has been televised globally in real-time not merely by fearless Palestinian journalists, who have often paid for their courage with their lives, but Israeli militants who sickly film their own hideous crimes.

The impact of these horrendous images on global public perceptions of the Zionist entity has been catastrophic, and irreversible. Polls consistently show across the West, even in the few countries that harboured some sympathy for Tel Aviv following October 7th, the overwhelming majority of citizens hold deeply unfavourable views of Israel. Support for the entity and its genocidal actions is becoming increasingly indefensible, as the monstrous truth becomes writ ever-larger. It can only be considered an unspeakable tragedy so many innocent Palestinians had to die for us to reach this point.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Between China & USA: Australia chooses trade over geopolitics

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 17, 2025

While the Trump administration doubles down on its ‘America First’ approach to reshaping global power dynamics, key allies like Australia are quietly charting their own course—rebalancing relations with China in ways that may diverge from Washington’s long-term strategy in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albances was supposed to meet Donald Trump on the sidelines of G7 summit in Canada. The meeting did not take place, as Trump left the summit in the middle of Iran-Israel war. While such diplomatic snubs would normally raise eyebrows, Canberra seemed unperturbed. Instead, Albanese’s subsequent high-profile visit to Beijing sent a clear message: for Australia, economic pragmatism continues to trump imperatives of ideological or geopolitical alignment. With trade relations with China showing signs of recovery after years of friction, the visit underscored Australia’s effort to navigate a delicate path between its largest trading partner and its key strategic ally.

This calibrated diplomacy comes at a time of renewed uncertainty surrounding the AUKUS pact—a trilateral security agreement between Australia, the US, and the UK aimed at equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines to bolster its naval presence in the Indo-Pacific to check Chinese advances. The deal, worth tens of billions of dollars, is currently under review by the Trump administration in Washington. This review includes calls for Australia by the Trump administration to increase its defense spending and overall contributions to the pact, further highlighting Canberra’s growing dependence on the whims of US domestic politics.

This visit comes against the backdrop of the fact that AUKUS, while it offers an unprecedented opportunity to Australia to acquire modern systems, also exposes a deeper vulnerability: Australia’s limited ability to shape the strategic direction of its own neighborhood, caught as it is between economic ties with China and defense commitments to an America that may no longer see alliances as sacrosanct. In this shifting landscape, Australia’s challenge is not just about balancing Beijing and Washington. It’s about asserting agency in an Indo-Pacific increasingly shaped by volatility, mistrust, and great-power rivalry. This assertion has once led it to redefine its ties with China.

Australia’s recalibration is not taking place in a vacuum. There is considerable domestic political support for this policy. Despite how Washington portrays China as a ‘threat’, within Australia, only a minority considers China to be a threat. A majority of the Australians see ties with China as a complex configuration that nonetheless should—and can be—managed because it is ultimately beneficial. Even within China, this publicly backed support for better ties with China and Canberra’s efforts to mutually balance ties between the US and China is clearly well received and understood. China’s state newspaper Global Times says Albanese’s visit “carries special significance” and shows “Australia’s desire to seek more reliable partners in an uncertain world order… with China being the obvious choice”. There is little denying this. China is Australia’s largest trading partner, and Albanese’ visit is about furthering these ties. As reports indicate, Albanese is accompanied by a business delegation to the cities of Shanghai, Beijing and Chengdu for his six-day trip. His official itinerary included meetings with groups involved in business, tourism and sports.

From AUKUS to new forms of bilateral and multilateral trade

In this context, therefore, many observers view the Australian Prime Minister’s recent visit to China as a strategic step toward reinvigorating economic ties and potentially paving the way for China’s entry into the 11-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Australia, which currently chairs the CPTPP, plays a central role in shaping the pact’s direction. The CPTPP evolved from the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after the United States withdrew in 2017 under President Trump. China formally applied for CPTPP membership in 2021 and continues to lobby for inclusion.

Beijing is increasingly framing its engagement with Canberra within the broader context of a new multilateralism represented by the CPTPP—one that spans beyond the Indo-Pacific to include countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. Underscoring its commitment to deepening trade ties in all possible ways, the Chinese ambassador to Australia has published op-eds in major Australian newspapers emphasizing Beijing’s willingness to deepen bilateral economic partnership, even highlighting emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence as potential areas of collaboration.

The core message from Chinese officials has been consistent: China does not view Australia as an adversary, and there is ample room for peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit. With no direct territorial disputes or major political conflicts between the two nations, this message has found a receptive audience in parts of the Australian political landscape. Labor senator Raff Ciccone, who chairs the Australian Parliament’s security committee in Australia, recently stated that economic engagement with China can play a stabilizing role. “When there’s trade, when there’s dialogue, when there’s economic interests at play,” he said, “countries are less likely to engage in the worst-case scenario, which is war.” In other words, Australia, too, does not necessarily view China as a foe. Albanese’ visit may thus not only reset diplomatic relations but also signal Australia’s openness to a broader regional vision where economic pragmatism and strategic dialogue can go hand-in-hand.

This will not go unnoticed in the White House as well. However, what matters is how the Trump administration responds or can possibly respond. Either it could threaten to withdraw from AUKUS and focus more on developing its own resources or it could double down on its commitment to shoring up Australian naval capability. However, as long as Washington continues to lack a viable programme to reverse China’s economic dominance in Australia specifically and the Indo-Pacific generally, countries like Australia will continue to maneuver in ways that best serve their interests. It is increasingly clear in Australia that their trade interests are best served by having stable ties with China. There is a growing appreciation of the fact that Australia’s ties with China and the US must not be mutually exclusive. This, for China, is a major victory.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Does the AUKUS have a future?

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 3, 2025

The Trump administration’s review of the AUKUS pact exposes deep uncertainties in U.S. commitment and capabilities, offering Australia a strategic opportunity to reconsider its role in the trilateral alliance.

Conceived during the Biden era to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region, the trilateral treaty involving Australia, the UK, and the US appears to have been hit by the Trump administration’s distaste for multilateral defence pacts. Underneath, however, also lie serious problems affecting American ability to live up to the pact’s demands, presenting Australia a rare opportunity to walk away from the pact.

The AUKUS in Disarray

When the Trump administration launched early in June a “review” of the multibillion-dollar AUKUS pact, it sent a shockwave across the Pacific, causing Canberra to tremble. The review announcement, according to the US Department of Defence, is meant to ensure that the pact is properly aligned with the President’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda. In effect, part of it means asking both Australia and the UK to raise their shares of the cost of the programme, which was originally supposed to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia before the allies make a new fleet by sharing cutting-edge research and technology. Both the UK and Australia have thus far not confirmed their readiness to meet America’s demands. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told his Australian counterpart in early June that the country should increase defence spending to 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product, echoing demands that the Trump administration has been making of allies in Europe. But Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said this week that “I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence. Simple as that”. There is, thus, a very clear disagreement affecting the pact.

In reality, this dissonance is not difficult to understand, given that the pact was signed by leaders in all three countries no longer in power. This is particularly the case in the US, where the Trump administration has a credible history of withdrawing from agreed pacts. The first Trump administration, for instance, withdrew from the Iran-nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015–a decision that directly paved the way for the Iran-Israel war and the US recent bombing of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. In addition, President Trump also withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) immediately after assuming office in 2016. Will the AUKUS be put into the dustbin of history similarly?

Many in the US share this fear. A letter addressed to defence secretary Pete Hegseth, signed by five Republican and Democrat lawmakers, urged the Pentagon to back the Pact. Their fears are only compounded by the fact that the review is headed by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of the AUKUS. In a speech last year, he publicly questioned why the US would give away “this crown jewel asset when we most need it.” In Australia, however, the review means not only a potential end of the pact itself but also an assessment about the extent to which Canberra can rely on Washington to build its defences. If Trump scraps the AUKUS, or even if he significantly alters its provisions, Washington’s standing in the Indo-Pacific region will be majorly diminished.

Facing Practical Problems

For the US, however, what matters more than its standing in the Indo-Pacific region is its capacity to project power in an uncompromising manner. At the heart of the review—which once again is aimed at making the pact properly align with Trump’s America First agenda—are practical problems facing America’s ship building industry. Can America build enough (Virginia-class) submarines for its own use by 2030, i.e., when it is supposed to transfer (some of its) its existing submarines to Australia?

For the pact to work—which is supposed to transfer 18 submarines to Australia by 2040–the US needs to be able to produce at least two submarines every year until 2028 and 2.33 per year thereafter. However, reports show that the US shipbuilding industry is in serious disarray, facing workforce shortages and budget constraints, making it problematic to meet sales to Australia and address a production backlog. These challenges have limited production to about 1.2 submarines per year since 2022. Because the US is unable to meet the pact’s demands and because meeting these demands could put Washington’s own strategic needs in jeopardy, the Trump administration might find the pact violating its America First agenda. In that case, the AUKUS might hit the bottom of the Pacific sooner than expected.

Is this bad news for Australia?

If the US withdraws from the AUKUS, does it necessarily mean bad news for Australia? While AUKUS might give Australia access to (used) submarines, the downside of this pact is that it also massively increases Canberra’s dependence on the Anglo-American axis. On the contrary, if the US withdraws from the pact, it gives Canberra strategic flexibility to manage its ties with the US and the EU and China in ways that best serve its national interests. In fact, the second scenario works best for Australia in all possible ways.

The purpose of the AUKUS is not simply to enhance Australia’s capability, but also to establish it as a proactive player in the Indo-Pacific region. However, there is little denying that China and Australia don’t have any direct disputes between themselves, making it highly unlikely that China will ever want to attack Australian territory. On the other hand, Australia can do well to manage its ties with China—which is also its largest trading partner—by further deepening its trade ties with Beijing.

The Trump administration’s decision to review—and possibly scrap or downgrade—the AUKUS could be a blessing in disguise for Canberra. A realistic counter review by Canberra should allow it to pursue alternative approaches.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »