Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Paul Scarr, dumped as opposition immigration spokesman by Angus Taylor, has crossed the floor to vote with Labor to censure Pauline Hanson over her comments about Muslims.

The Senate passed the government motion 36 to 17, censuring Hanson “for her inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to vilify Muslim Australians”.

Scarr, a Liberal moderate who worked on the opposition’s immigration policy before he was dropped, was one of two Liberals to cross the floor – the other was Andrew McLachlan, also a moderate.

Hanson has been widely criticised for saying on Sky News “You say, ‘Well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ How can you tell me there are good Muslims?”

Scarr told The Conversation after the vote: “There are people creating division and there comes a time when you have got to make a stand”.

Scarr said he had a close relationship with his “wonderful” Muslim community in his home state of Queensland and with other Muslim communities around the country.

He said he had picked up community feeling about Hanson’s comments at the five Iftar dinners he had attended in the past week. (These are dinners held during Ramadan to break the daily fast.)

“I know the real world consequences of divisive language”, he said. Young girls wearing the hijab would be attacked.

“I also think of the great work being done by so many Muslim leaders and members in the community – supporting fellow Australians in their time of need, seeking to establish interfaith dialogue and looking to give back to the community.

“It is really for them that I had to cross the floor.”

The opposition wanted to amend the motion to “condemn” Hanson rather than censure her but was prevented from moving an amendment under rules for the motion. It then voted against.

The censure was passed with the support of Labor, the Greens, independent senators David Pocock, Tammy Tyrrell, Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe, plus the two dissident Liberals.

Moving the motion the government’s Senate leader Penny wong said: “The words of parliamentarians echo into classrooms, workplaces, communities. They help shape how others see each other and how they see themselves.

“This censure motion is about drawing a line and sending a message to the people of faith in this country, and sending a message to children in this country that your leaders believe that condemning an entire religion is not acceptable.”

Opposition’s Senate leader Michaelia Cash said, “I don’t think that Senator Hanson’s comments were appropriate. Why? Because I personally have Muslim friends. My mum’s best friend is a Muslim. So I have to say, I think that there are good Muslims in Australia.”

But, she said, “the censure is one of the Senate’s most serious institutional sanctions and it should therefore be rare and sober. Not used as a routine tactic to score political points.”

Hanson described the motion as an “absolute stunt” and said her remarks had been misreported without the full context of what she said.

“The people out there will actually judge One Nation and my comments. Let the people judge me. I’m not going to be judged by you at all.”  After speaking Hanson stormed out of the chamber without voting.

– ref. Liberals’ former immigration spokesman Paul Scarr crosses floor to support Hanson Muslim censure – https://theconversation.com/liberals-former-immigration-spokesman-paul-scarr-crosses-floor-to-support-hanson-muslim-censure-277188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The Albanese government has backed the American strike on Iran, while confirming Australia was not given prior warning.

Federal cabinet’s national security committee met early Sunday. Although supporting what has been done, the government is emphasising Australia is not a central player in Middle East issues.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said after the death of Ayatollah Khamenei was confirmed that “his passing will not be mourned.”

In a joint statement, Albanese, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong said: “It has long been recognised that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to global peace and security.

“The international community has been clear that the Iranian regime can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

“We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson told the ABC: “A coordinated attack to address what has been an ongoing build-up of their nuclear programme is something that’s very good for international peace and security. Of course, we hope the situation is contained.”

Shadow foreign minister Ted O’Brien said: “Our position is clear: Israel has the right to defend itself and Iranians have the right to live free of oppression.”

But Greens leader, Larissa Waters, said: “The Greens condemn these illegal, abhorrent and unilateral attacks. Australians do not want to be dragged into another US-Israeli war.

“Australia’s support of Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal attack last night was disgraceful. We cannot bomb our way to peace.”

A sceptical note from within the Coalition came from Nationals senator Matt Canavan. He told The Conversation “not a single regime change war has left the world a better place in my lifetime – not sure why this would be any different”.

Canavan said it was great to see the Ayatollah gone. “But it was great to see Saddam and Gaddafi gone too. Now things are much worse for those countries and the region. Add the Taliban to that list too.”

Shadow industry minister Andrew Hastie, an Afghanistan veteran, said: “As a veteran of the so-called forever wars, I’m very suspicious about regime change by force. But Iran has a terrible regime – they’re a proxy, they’re underwritten by Chinese and Russian tech,” he told Sky News.

The Iranians orchestrated two attacks in Australia in 2024, one of them the firebombing of the Adass Synagogue in Melbourne. Iran’s ambassador was later expelled.

Asked whether the weekend attack was legal and whether he was concerned this might erode further the international rules-based order, Albanese said those judgements were for the US and those involved directly.

He said he hoped the actions taken would lead to a “swift  resolution”.

Wong said Australia did not want to see the situation escalate into a wider regional war. “We seek the resumption of dialogue and diplomacy”, she said. “We join our partners in calling on all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law.”

On whether Australia had any prior warning, Wong said: “We weren’t told in advance. You wouldn’t expect us to be.

“We are not at the centre of the issues in the Middle East but we obviously play a role in the international community.”

Quizzed on whether Australia supported regime change, Wong said, “We stand with the people of Iran in fighting against  an oppressive regime. Ultimately, Iran’s future must be determined by the people of Iran.”

Australians in Iran continue to be advised to leave if it is safe to do so, which is difficult given the air space is closed.

The government said its ability to provide consular assistance in Iran was “extremely limited”. The Australian embassy is closed.

As well as being advised not to travel to Iran Australians are also advised not to travel to Israel, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, among other countries in the region.

Australians requiring urgent consular assistance can contact the Consular Emergency Centre 24/7 on 1300 555 135 in Australia or +61 2 6261 3305 from outside Australia.

The local Iranian community in Australia numbers some 50,000, with many anxiously trying to contact family and friends in Iran.

– ref. Bipartisan support for US attack on Iran, but Greens say it is ‘abhorrent’ – https://theconversation.com/bipartisan-support-for-us-attack-on-iran-but-greens-say-it-is-abhorrent-277187

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University

US-Israeli joint strikes on Iran over the weekend have seen war break out in the region once again and the death of Iran’s supreme leader. Iran has retaliated with volleys of ballistic missiles and drones targeted at Israel, but also several of its Persian Gulf neighbours.

Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones across the gulf, at targets in United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar, grounding planes as a result. This is in spite of none of these nations coordinating officially with the US and Israel in their initial operations.

This is a deliberate strategy by the Iranian government, designed to exact early and substantial costs on its neighbours and overall stability in the region.

An unpopular neighbour

In spite of Iran’s relative size and military power in the region, the Iranian government is not well liked by its neighbours. At best, Iran is seen as a rival, at worst an adversary.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have spent more than a decade in a proxy war over Yemen.

Iran also claimed historical ownership over Bahrain as recently as December last year.

The rest of the gulf states, namely the UAE, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, have fostered more pragmatic relations with Iran by keeping regular diplomatic channels open and offering to mediate disputes within the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Despite simmering tensions, Iran has never been in a direct military confrontation with any of these states.

So why send the bombs?

Almost all of the gulf states have one important thing in common: they all have security guarantees from the US and host US military bases.

Iran sees this as one of the most effective ways it can retaliate for a few reasons. Firstly, these bases are firmly in the range of its most plentiful ballistic missiles.

Bases in the gulf also have significant strategic value to the US. The base struck in Bahrain over the weekend was the headquarters of the US Fifth Navy Fleet.

Al Udeid Airbase, just outside of Doha, the capital of Qatar, was also targeted with Iranian ballistic missiles. Al Udeid is home to US Central Command (US-CENTCOM), coordinating military operations across the region. It’s also home to 10,000 US troops – the most in the area.

However, Iran is aware of how sophisticated US early warning systems are and likely doesn’t expect to significantly damage US infrastructure.

What’s the aim then?

Instead, the strategy is to make the region less stable and ensure all its neighbours feel it. It’s effectively vowing that if operations continue, the relative peace and prosperity the gulf has enjoyed will come to an end.

Iran is hoping its neighbours will see this as a war of choice by the US and Israel, with them being dragged into the hostilities. Gulf states will be forced to either double-down on their alliance with the US or work toward deescalation.

It’s not clear if this strategy will pay off. It’s possible this could lead to even more military pressure on Iran if the gulf states become more involved in operations.

At the same time, the increasingly strained relations between the gulf states and Israel over the last two years would likely make several of them reluctant to get more involved.

It’s also impossible for Iran to keep this strategy up indefinitely. Even though it has the region’s most extensive and varied arsenal of missiles, at some point it will run out of ordnance. Other countries may choose to just wait it out.

Iran has made this kind of action a signature of its long-held “forward defence” strategy – attacking targets far away from its borders to show the depth of its reach. Using its drone and missile arsenal is simply one way to tell the region, and the world, the regime will not go quietly.

Dragging the whole region into chaos

Alongside this, Iran has a damaged, but still far-reaching network of independent proxies across the region. Groups in Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon are likely to stay loyal to the Islamic Republic and employ long-term insurgent strategies in its name.

The Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah has already fired projectiles into Israel. This has restarted hostilities across the Lebanese border, opening up another front for Israel.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil travels, is another part of the region Iran can weaponise. Already, two oil tankers have been attacked in the strait and the price of Brent Crude has risen 13%.

Read more: Trump and Netanyahu want regime change, but Iran’s regime was built for survival. A long war is now likely

Put another way, the extent of these attacks are a signal. These are not the same as the calculated deescalatory strikes Iran conducted in 2024 and 2025.

This war is existential for the Islamic Republic. Its strikes across the gulf are designed as a reminder that it will do all it can to drag the entire region into chaos, uncertainty and instability to save itself.

At a minimum, Iran wishes to create political consequences for all involved. The question is whether the regime will survive long enough for these consequences to have an effect.

– ref. Why did Iran bomb Dubai? A Middle East expert explains the regional alliances at play – https://theconversation.com/why-did-iran-bomb-dubai-a-middle-east-expert-explains-the-regional-alliances-at-play-277218

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley O’Neill, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University

Have you ever heard someone claim they have a “fast metabolism”? This typically means they can eat whatever they want without gaining weight.

Meanwhile, others blame their inability to lose weight on having a “slow metabolism”.

But can you actually have a fast or slow metabolism? Let’s see what the science says.

Remind me, what’s metabolism?

Metabolism refers to all the chemical processes which allow your body to function. This includes everything from breathing to circulating blood and repairing cells.

When we talk about metabolism in the context of weight, we’re usually referring to metabolic rate. This is a measure of how quickly your body converts food and stored energy into usable fuel.

To understand how your metabolism works, it’s helpful to know these four terms:

• basal metabolic rate, which is the amount of energy your body uses to keep itself running when at rest. It usually accounts for about 60% to 75% of your daily energy use. It is largely determined by body size, but factors such as age, sex, race, and height may also contribute

• diet-induced thermogenesis, which is the amount of energy you use while digesting and processing food. It usually accounts for between 10% and 15% of your daily energy use

• non-exercise activity thermogenesis, which is the amount of energy you use for everyday movements such as fidgeting, standing and walking. It generally accounts for between 20 and 30% of the energy you use each day

• exercise activity thermogenesis, which is the amount of energy you use while doing structured physical activity, such as going for a run or lifting weights at the gym. It usually represents 10 to 50% of your daily energy use, but this varies depending on how active you are.

So, can I have a ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ metabolism?

The answer is: it’s complicated.

If you have a condition called hypermetabolism, you could technically say you have a fast metabolism. Hypermetabolism occurs where your resting energy expenditure, or the amount of energy you use while your body is at rest, is at least 10% higher than average. Hypermetabolism is mainly associated with medical conditions such as hyperthyroidism, diabetes and certain genetic disorders.

In contrast, there are two conditions which may slow your metabolism. These are hypothyroidism (where your thyroid gland releases fewer hormones than normal) and polycystic ovary syndrome (which affects how the ovaries work). Both conditions can cause you to gain weight because they reduce how much energy your body uses while at rest. In this way, they could be said to give you a slow metabolism.

However, these three conditions tend to arise when your metabolism isn’t working as it should. So if you are generally healthy, your metabolic rate should stay within a normal range without significant highs and lows.

What actually does affect your metabolism?

There are many different factors. These include:

Genetics

We can observe the effect of genetics on metabolism in studies examining weight loss in identical twins. One study looked at pairs of identical female twins who were put on a calorie-restricted diet. It found these twins lost a similar amount of weight. In comparison, the researchers recorded significant variation in how much weight non-twins lost under the same conditions.

Eating habits

What and how often we eat shapes how much energy we consume each day. This is why dietary choices can affect your metabolic rate. However, there are some misconceptions to clear up. These include the idea that eating small, frequent meals boosts your metabolism. Shortening your feeding window may help you lose weight. But on the whole, timing matters less than how much food you actually eat. If you do lose weight, your body may respond by burning fewer calories. This process, known as adaptive thermogenesis, can make losing more weight difficult.

Exercise

Let’s compare two people of a similar weight: one who works at a desk and one who has an active job. Even if neither does structured exercise, the latter may use up to 1,000 calories more per day than her sedentary colleague.

And that’s before you add formal exercise, such as going for a run, into the mix. On a biological level, muscle tissue burns more energy compared to fat tissue. This means doing resistance training, which is designed to build muscle, may increase your metabolic rate.

Sleep

Current research suggests sleep deprivation does not reduce metabolic rate. However, it may cause your body to produce more hunger-inducing hormones such as ghrelin, which tells your brain to eat. But we need more research in this space.

But these ‘metabolism myths’ are still around today?

Yes. Here are three reasons why.

1. They’re easy to understand

If you struggle with losing or maintaining a healthy weight, it’s easier to say you have a slow metabolism than to unpack the many interacting factors that influence weight.

2. They’re embedded in diet culture

Many products claim to boost metabolism without providing any scientific evidence. Some weight loss drugs may increase your metabolic rate, but only for a few hours at most.

3. They’re difficult to disprove

It’s difficult to accurately measure how your body uses energy. This is because you generally consume and use a different number of calories each day. Current methods of measuring energy use can be expensive and time-consuming to run.

The bottom line

Many different factors influence your metabolic rate. So to understand how our bodies work, we need to debunk the idea that people are born with either a “fast” or “slow” metabolism. Our bodies are much more nuanced, and fascinating, than that.

– ref. Can you actually have a ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ metabolism? – https://theconversation.com/can-you-actually-have-a-slow-or-fast-metabolism-275556

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bianca Baggiarini, Lecturer, International Relations, Deakin University

In the leadup to the weekend’s US and Israeli attacks on Iran, the US Department of Defense was locked in tense negotiations with artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic over exactly how the Pentagon could use the firm’s technology.

Anthropic wanted guarantees its Claude systems would not be used for purposes such as domestic surveillance in the US and operating autonomous weapons without human control.

In response, US president Donald Trump on Friday directed all US federal agencies to cease using Anthropic’s technology, saying he would “never allow a radical left, woke company to dictate how our great military fights and wins wars!”

Hours later, rival AI lab OpenAI (maker of ChatGPT) announced it had struck its own deal with the Department of Defense. The key difference appears to be that OpenAI permits “all lawful uses” of its tools, without specifying ethical lines OpenAI won’t cross.

What does this mean for military AI? Is it the end for the idea of “ethical AI” in warfare?

AI companies and regulation

Last week’s events come at what was already a worrying time for AI ethics. The Trump administration last year banned states from regulating AI, claiming that it threatens innovation.

Meanwhile, many AI companies have aligned themselves with the administration, with executives including OpenAI boss Sam Altman making million-dollar donations to Trump’s inauguration fund. (Altman noted at the time that he has also donated to Democratic politicians.)

Anthropic has been less effusive, working on national security while warning that AI can sometimes undermine democracy and that current systems are not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons.

An emerging international consensus

Much of the concern around military applications of AI has focused on lethal autonomous weapons systems. These are devices and software which can choose targets and attack them without human intervention.

Just a few years ago, an international consensus about the risks of these weapons seemed to be emerging among governments and technology companies.

In February 2020 the US Department of Defense announced principles for the use of AI across the entire organisation: it needed to be responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable and governable.

Likewise, in 2021 NATO formulated similar principles, as did the United Kingdom in 2022.

The US plays a unique leading role among its international allies in shaping global norms around military conduct. These principles signalled to countries such as Russia, China, Brazil and India how the US and its allies believed military use of AI should be governed.

Military AI and private enterprise

Military AI has relied extensively on partnerships with private industry, as the most advanced technology has been developed by private companies.

Project Maven, which set out in 2017 to increase the use of machine learning and data integration in US military intelligence, relied heavily on commercial tech companies.

The US Defense Innovation Board noted in 2019 that in AI the key data, knowledge and personnel are all in the private sector.

This is still the case today. However, the norms around how AI should be used are shifting rapidly, both in government and in much of the industry.

Trump and Silicon Valley

When Trump was re-elected in 2024, many in Silicon Valley welcomed the prospect of less regulation. Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, author of The Techno-Optimist Manifesto, claimed Trump’s victory “felt like a boot off the throat”.

Joe Lonsdale, cofounder of AI-powered data analytics company Palantir, has been another vocal Trump backer. OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman personally gave US$25 million to a Trump-supporting organisation last year.

We are a long way from the days of 2019 and 2020.

AI ethics assumes democratic norms

The question of whether an AI-enabled system is ethical or not is often seen as a question about the technology itself, rather than how it is used.

In this view, with the right design you can make an inherently ethical AI system. This often includes “algorithmic transparency” – being clear and honest about the rules the system uses to make decisions. The idea here is that ethics can be “baked in” to these rules.

The idea of ethical military AI also assumes it is operating under democratic principles. The idea behind algorithmic transparency is that “the people” should know how these systems work, because “the people” ultimately hold power in a democracy.

However, in an autocratic regime it doesn’t matter how transparent the algorithms are. There is no sense that civilians have a stake, and deserve to know what their government is doing, that its activities are in accordance with the law.

Free and public discussion is often seen as a key feature of liberal democracies. While eventual consensus may be valued, constructive disagreement and even conflict can be signs of a healthy democracy.

Decisions and consequences

In this light, Anthropic’s desire to have genuine discussions with the government about ethical red lines is an example of democratic practice in action. The company signalled both a desire for reasoned communication and the value of constructive disagreement.

In return, the Trump administration on Friday labelled Anthropic a “supply chain risk”, a rare designation previously only given to foreign companies, with secretary of defense Pete Hegseth writing that

effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.

Anthropic plans to challenge the declaration in court, as it may have profound economic and reputational consequences for the company.

Meanwhile, OpenAI has largely conceded that it will have no ethical limits, only legal ones. As a result, it is open for business with the US government – but faces reputational consequences of its own as consumer backlash mounts.

AI in a world without democratic norms

What does it all mean for ethical AI in the military? One hard-to-avoid conclusion is that if we want military AI to be used in an ethical way – following transparent rules and laws – we need strong democratic norms, which are in peril as the rules-based international order crumbles.

So far, little has changed in practice. Mere hours after Trump’s denunciation of Anthropic, the US launched strikes on Iran – reportedly planned with the aid of the company’s software.

– ref. The Pentagon strongarmed AI firms before Iran strikes – in dark news for the future of ‘ethical AI’ – https://theconversation.com/the-pentagon-strongarmed-ai-firms-before-iran-strikes-in-dark-news-for-the-future-of-ethical-ai-277198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology

As Israel and the United States strike Iran, global oil markets are on edge.

Oil prices have begun rising even before any disruption to supply. Oil traders are factoring in the possibility the Strait of Hormuz might close.

Roughly 20% of the world’s traded oil passes through this narrow waterway between Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirate to the south. One oil tanker has been bombed and traffic has all but halted. In global energy markets, the mere threat of interruption can push prices higher.

Oil isn’t like most commodities. Control of the energy-dense fuel shapes geopolitics. Three-quarters of the world’s population live in countries dependent on oil imports for cars, trucks and other uses. Controlling the flow of oil and, increasingly, gas, has long been used as leverage, from the oil shocks of the 1970s to Russia cutting European gas supplies in 2022.

Any serious disruption to tanker traffic in the Gulf would send shockwaves through global oil markets and threaten economic stability. Long queues have already been reported in Australia as motorists vie to fill up before possible price spikes.

As international tensions increase, nations from Cuba to Ukraine to Ethiopia are accelerating plans to reduce their oil dependence and boost energy security.

Half a century of oil leverage

The power of oil became obvious during the 1973 oil embargo, when major Middle East oil producers slashed supply in a bid to reshape US foreign policy. Prices quadrupled, economies stalled and energy security became a central political issue almost overnight. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries have since coordinated supply to drive up prices.

Today, the mechanisms of control look different but the power created by oil dependence remains.

Even before US military action, sanctions on major producers such as Iran and Venezuela have cut supply and reshaped trade flows.

Current tensions near chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz introduce risk premiums into prices.

Oil markets are forward-looking, meaning prices reflect not only current supply and demand but expectations of what might happen next.

The strikes on Iran have seen prices of Brent crude – the global benchmark – trading around US$76 (A$107) per barrel, up from roughly US$68 (A$96) a few weeks earlier. Because prices are global, political instability anywhere can have economic consequences everywhere.

Who’s reducing dependence on oil?

In 2015, India blocked Nepal’s oil imports, triggering chaos. In response, authorities encouraged the very rapid growth of electric vehicles. Oil imports have begun to fall.

More recently, the Russia–Ukraine war and US strikes on Venezuela and Iran have brought new focus on reducing oil imports and bolstering domestic energy security.

In oil-dependent Cuba, US pressure has slashed the supply of oil. Blackouts are common and cars stay put. In response, authorities and businesses are importing 34 times as many Chinese solar panels as they did a year ago. Imports are 34 times higher than a year ago.

It’s not ideology driving this shift – it’s necessity. Electric vehicle imports, too, are soaring. “Cuba may experience the fastest energy transition in the world,” a Cuban economist told The Economist.

Why renewables change the equation

Unlike oil, solar panels and wind turbines can avoid being shipped through maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz. Renewables are not traded in the same globally centralised way. Power is generated locally and increasingly across many smaller sites.

Russia has long targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and power plants during the war. In response, Ukraine is ramping up renewables as fast as possible, as decentralised power generation is much harder to destroy. As a Ukrainian energy expert told Yale360, a single missile “could take out” a coal power station, while a wind farm would require 40 missiles.

Decentralised power is more resilient, meaning damage to one farm won’t collapse the grid.

Resilience through electric transport

Electrification of transport is a key plank of these new approaches to energy security.

Electric vehicles powered by locally-produced electricity reduce exposure to global oil markets. This thinking is visible in Ethiopia’s decision to ban new internal combustion cars.

China imports most of its oil – much of it from Iran. Beijing has been accelerating its rapid shift to electric vehicles. Last year, EVs made up 50% of new cars in China and 12% of the total fleet. China is increasingly using oil to make plastics, not for transport. Last year’s uptick in imports was due to stockpiling of huge volumes amid global uncertainty.

Australia’s exposure

Australia imports the vast majority of its refined fuels. We would have about a month’s worth of petrol before we ran out.

If wars drive up oil prices, pain at the petrol pump will flow through to freight costs, food prices and inflation.

While the EV shift is accelerating, Australia is slow by global standards. Even as electricity rapidly goes green, transport remains overwhelmingly dependent on foreign oil. That leaves Australia exposed.

Energy policy is security policy

Renewables do not eliminate geopolitical risk. Power grids face cyber threats. Critical mineral supply chains introduce new dependencies – and much of today’s solar panel, battery and EV manufacturing is concentrated in China.

But there is a clear structural difference. Decentralised systems are harder to manipulate through supply chokepoints. Solar panels, once installed, generate energy locally. The vulnerability shifts from ongoing fuel imports to upfront manufacturing dependence.

Oil has shaped global politics for decades because it’s transportable, globally traded and only a few countries have large reserves.

Reducing oil dependence is often framed as climate policy. But it is also vital to energy security and national security. Cutting oil use boosts resilience to shocks and reduces the leverage of other nations.

The Iran crisis may not lead to sustained price spikes. Supply may adjust. Markets may stabilise. But leaders will be rethinking the wisdom of exposure to globally traded oil in a volatile world.

– ref. The strikes on Iran show why quitting oil is more important than ever – https://theconversation.com/the-strikes-on-iran-show-why-quitting-oil-is-more-important-than-ever-277192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Schiffling, Deputy Director of the HUMLOG (Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research) Institute, Hanken School of Economics

The reported sinking of several Iranian warships by US missiles in the Gulf of Oman serves as a reminder of the maritime aspect of the conflict which began February 28 with a barrage of Israeli and American missiles targeting Iran. Two other vessels, believed to be tankers, have also been reported as having been hit by missiles, of an as yet undetermined source, in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, underlining the importance of this vital shipping lane – which is likely to play an key part in all sides’ calculations.

Full details have yet to emerge of the incidents. But there are already signs that the strait will become a major focus of concern because of the huge implications should the conflict disrupt maritime traffic through this the narrow outlet of the Persian Gulf. Ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz carry around one-fifth of global oil supplies. That’s about 20 million barrels per day. This makes the strait the most critical energy chokepoint.

There are a small number of strategic passageways, or chokepoints on which global trade depends and which are vulnerable to disruption. Any disruption reverberates instantly through global markets and supply chains. With conflict raging in Iran and attacks across the Middle East, traders, governments and businesses will be watching oil prices closely as the markets open.

After Israel and the US launched attacks on Iran on February 28, prompting retaliatory strikes across the region from Iran, Tehran broadcast to vessels in the region claiming that the Strait of Hormuz was closed.

Although the shipping lanes are only about two miles wide, actually physically closing them would be difficult to achieve. The most decisive action Tehran could take would be to mine the shipping lanes. With the large US naval presence in the area, this would be very difficult for Iran to achieve.

But a formal blockade is not necessary to stop traffic. When perceived threat levels rise, ships stay away. Big shipping companies such as Hapag Lloyd and CMA CGA have already suspended transit through the strait and advised their ships to proceed to shelter.

Vessel tracking already shows reduced movements in the Strait of Hormuz. Ships are waiting to enter or exit the Persian Gulf or diverting away from the region. An advisory from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) Centre has warned of the “increased risk of miscalculation or misidentification, particularly in proximity to military units”.

Several ports have suspended operations after debris from an intercepted missile sparked a fire at Dubai’s Jebel Ali Port. While other ports continue to operate, the risk and uncertainty are disrupting shipping in the region.

Supply chain disruption

Hormuz is dominated by oil tankers and liquid natural gas carriers, so disruption directly hits global energy supplies. In addition, a lesser-known dependency is that one-third of the world’s fertiliser trade passes through the strait. Both energy and agricultural supply chains have already been destabilised by the Ukraine war. Further price rises could have far-reaching consequences.

The main destinations for oil and gas flowing through Hormuz are China, India, Japan, and South Korea. India, which imports about half of its crude oil through the strait, has activated contingency plans to safeguard energy supplies.

But apart from amassing strategic national stockpiles to weather immediate disruptions, there may be limited alternatives for countries dependent on getting their energy supplies through the strait. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have some pipelines for both oil and gas that can bypass the Hormuz. There is an estimated spare capacity of 2.6 million barrels per day for these pipelines. But that’s a fraction of what is normally shipped through the strait.

Oil and gas are traded globally. So even countries whose energy needs are not met by imports from the Persian Gulf will be affected by price increases. Oil prices are expected to increase to up to US$100 (£74) per barrel when markets open on Monday. Opec has agreed to modestly boost oil output in a bid to stabilise markets. But the group of oil producing countries has limited options as key members are affected by the fallout of the attacks on Iran.

Energy price increases will hit consumers directly when filling up their cars or heating their homes. They also affect companies across a wide range of industries. This has the potential to cause further supply chain disruptions.

Supply chains rely on predictability. The persistent geopolitical uncertainty has complicated operations worldwide. Limited alternatives make the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz all the more impactful. The longer the disruption persists, the more significant and structural the economic damage will become.

Potential for escalation

There is still a potential for a catastrophic escalation in the Strait of Hormuz. The sinking of a tanker would have dramatic consequences for the environment and would likely halt navigation for an extended period of time.

But prolonged instability may also prove destructive for the global economy. Previously, Iran closing the strait was seen as unlikely considering the global backlash and economic harm to Iran itself. But with regime change now the stated goal of the US-Israeli attacks, the cost of holding the world economy hostage might seem justified to the rulers in Tehran.

– ref. Strait of Hormuz: if the Iran conflict shuts world’s most important oil chokepoint, global economic chaos could follow – https://theconversation.com/strait-of-hormuz-if-the-iran-conflict-shuts-worlds-most-important-oil-chokepoint-global-economic-chaos-could-follow-277199

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

As the US and Israel began their joint assault on Iran, reports emerged from Iran that a strike hit the Shajarah Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in the southern city of Minab.

The school was reportedly packed with young pupils at the time. Iranian authorities say more than 150 people were killed, including children, and 60 more injured (these figures are yet to be independently verified).

Videos verified by international media show rescue workers digging through collapsed concrete, school bags being pulled from the debris, and scorch marks along the remaining walls.

Warning: this gallery contains graphic images.

The New York Times says it has verified videos that show the school next to a naval base belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC, and a strike hitting that base.

Iranian representatives at the United Nations have characterised the strike as a deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and labelled it a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Neither the United States nor Israel have publicly confirmed hitting the school. The US military’s Central Command (Centcom) said:

We are aware of reports concerning civilian harm resulting from ongoing military operations. We take these reports seriously and are looking into them. The protection of civilians is of utmost importance, and we will continue to take all precautions available to minimize the risk of unintended harm.

At present, we do not have enough verified facts to reach a firm legal conclusion about what happened.

But given the questions about the legality of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran – and deeper questions about whether we’re witnessing the “death of international law” more broadly – incidents like this illustrate the continuing importance of the law, especially in times of conflict.

Which targets are protected under the law?

In armed conflict, international humanitarian law applies. International humanitarian law is built on foundational principles that must inform all decisions by armed forces concerning what they target:

• distinction

• proportionality

• military necessity

And precautions must be taken to avoid incidental harm to civilians.

So what do these terms mean?

The principle of distinction requires parties to an armed conflict to always distinguish between civilian objects and military objects.

Attacks may only be directed against combatants and military objects. Civilians and civilian objects, such as schools, hospitals and public transport, are protected and may not be directly targeted.

If there is any doubt about whether a target is military or civilian in nature, it must be presumed to be civilian.

Schools are not merely buildings. They are protective spaces, and their destruction can cause immediate loss of life and long-term societal damage.

Children under 18 also enjoy special protection under international humanitarian law. They, too, may not be directly targeted.

This protection is not absolute, however. Any civilian object (including schools) can lose their protected status if they become military objectives. A school used as a military base, artillery position or command post could meet that definition.

So far, we have no evidence the school in Minab was being used for military purposes or that it was intentionally targeted.

Proportionality and precautions in attacks

What, then, if the school was not intentionally targeted, but was incidental collateral damage from an attack directed at the IRGC barracks nearby?

International humanitarian law recognises civilian objects may be affected by attacks on military objectives.

Incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects is only lawful if it satisfies the test of proportionality and military necessity under the law. All feasible precautions must also have been taken to minimise harm to civilians.

So, if a school near a military target is hit, the legality of that strike turns on whether the expected harm to children and the school was excessive compared to the military advantage gained by striking the target.

Also important: did the military commanders take all feasible precautions to assess the effect of the attack on nearby civilians or civilian infrastructure? This includes the specific weapons that are used and the timing of the attack.

Why international law matters

In recent years, we have witnessed a number of countries and their leaders openly flouting international law and the rules-based order. Yet, it would be a profound mistake to conclude that international law has ceased to matter. Even grave breaches do not negate the system itself.

As renowned American international law scholar Louis Henkin famously wrote in 1979:

Almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time.

Henkin’s point was not naïve optimism. Daily compliance of international law remains the norm in diplomacy, trade, aviation, maritime navigation, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute settlement.

Violations do occur – sometimes brazenly – but they are exceptions to an overwhelmingly compliant pattern of behaviour.

The fact that some states breach foundational rules such as the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter does not render international law illusory.

Rather, it underscores the importance of naming breaches for what they are and defending the legal order that most states, most of the time, continue to respect.

If the strike on the Minab school is ultimately shown to have violated the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity, it would not prove Henkin wrong; it would prove his point.

International law matters precisely because departures from it can be identified, judged and condemned.

The rubble of a girls’ school is not evidence that the law is meaningless; it is a stark reminder of why the law exists, and why insisting on compliance remains essential.

– ref. Does international law still matter? The strike on the girls’ school in Iran shows why we need it – https://theconversation.com/does-international-law-still-matter-the-strike-on-the-girls-school-in-iran-shows-why-we-need-it-277196