COMMENTARY: By Andrew Brown

Two men are mainly responsible for the war on Iran. And then there are those — such as Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese — who wilfully acquiesce to their murderous whims.

It’s the men. Not their press releases. Not their carefully managed public personas. Not the language their communications teams have stress tested for maximum palatability.

It’s the men themselves.

Their records. Their legal jeopardy. And the extraordinary, historically unprecedented fact that the two primary architects of a war now costing ordinary Australians their livelihoods are both, in their own ways, running from accountability while simultaneously running the world.

Benjamin Netanyahu
Netanyahu is not merely a controversial leader prosecuting a controversial war. He is a criminal defendant. An accused man.

A person who, under the laws of his own country, not the laws of his enemies, not the laws of international tribunals, he can dismiss as biased, stands charged with fraud, breach of trust, and bribery.

His trial has been grinding through Israel’s courts since 2020. It has not concluded. And critics, serious critics, within Israel’s own legal and political establishment, have made the case, with mounting evidence, that the prolongation of this war serves Netanyahu’s personal legal interests at least as much as it serves Israel’s security ones.

Think about what that means.

A man facing prison. A man whose political survival depends on remaining in power. A man for whom a ceasefire, a negotiated peace, a return to normalcy could mean the resumption of court proceedings that his wartime emergency has conveniently disrupted. A man whose far-right coalition partners have made clear they will collapse the government the moment the guns fall silent.

This man, this specific man, in this specific legal and political predicament, has been handed a blank cheque by Washington. Unlimited weapons. Diplomatic cover.

A US veto at the Security Council every time the international community tries to intervene.

And Anthony Albanese calls the objectives of his war appropriate.

ICC arrest warrant
The International Criminal Court did not call them appropriate. It issued an arrest warrant.

A warrant that sits unrequited and unenforced as Western governments, including Australia’s, conduct business as usual with a man the court has found reasonable grounds to prosecute for war crimes. This is not a technicality. This is not a diplomatic inconvenience. It is the most fundamental possible test of whether the rules-based international order that Australia constantly invokes as a guiding principle means anything whatsoever.

And Australia is failing that test, quietly, daily,

with a smile and a press release about shared values.

This is the casus belli we are never allowed to examine. Not the security rationale. Not the stated military objectives. The actual human being in whose name and for whose benefit this catastrophe is being prosecuted. And what that human being is running from.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 carrying more legal and personal baggage than any president in American history.

A convicted felon. Civil judgments in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And something else, something the mainstream press, particularly in America and Australia, has handled with a caution so extraordinary it constitutes institutional cowardice — the Epstein files.

Jeffrey Epstein was not a lone predator. He was the centre of a network. A procurement and blackmail operation, almost certainly intelligence connected, that ran for decades across the highest levels of American, British, and Israeli power.

The files released in dribs and drabs, fought over in courts, partially suppressed and heavily redacted, point toward a system of leverage that compromised some of the most powerful men on earth.

Trump’s name appears in those files thousands of times. His association with Epstein was long, documented, and by his own prior admission, enthusiastic. In a 2002 interview, he described Epstein as terrific fun, noting approvingly that he liked beautiful women, many of them on the younger side.

That statement was made publicly. It has not been retracted.

It has simply been absorbed into the general noise of a political culture that has lost the capacity for appropriate disgust.

But the Epstein connection is not merely a personal scandal. It is a geopolitical one.

Epstein’s operation did not exist in a vacuum. Ghislaine Maxwell, his co-conspirator, convicted and imprisoned, was the daughter of Robert Maxwell, the media baron confirmed after his death to have been a Mossad asset.

The intelligence dimensions of the Epstein network have been reported by journalists of unimpeachable seriousness across multiple continents. The suggestion that a blackmail operation of this scale, running through the power centres of American political and financial life for decades, had no connection to the intelligence services that specialise precisely in this kind of leverage is not a serious position.

It is wilful blindness.

The Mossad connection
Mossad is Israel’s foreign intelligence service and one of the most operationally aggressive intelligence agencies on the planet. It has assassinated scientists in foreign countries. It has conducted sabotage operations across the Middle East. It has run networks of influence, surveillance, and covert pressure in Western capitals for decades.

This is not conspiracy. This is its known, partially acknowledged, historically documented record.

What the Epstein network, the Mossad connection, the Maxwell lineage, and the drip feed of suppressed files collectively describe, if you follow the thread honestly and without flinching, is a Western political order in which deference to Israeli policy is not entirely or even primarily explained by shared democratic values and strategic alignment.

Some of it is explained by fear.

Some of it is explained by leverage.

Some of it is explained by the quiet, unspoken, never to be uttered in polite company reality that powerful men in Washington, London, and Canberra have made themselves vulnerable. To networks of kompromat, to relationships they cannot fully disclose, to the specific kind of coercive power that intelligence operations specialising in the exploitation of human weakness have deployed for as long as intelligence operations have existed.

This is why the charge of antisemitism is deployed so rapidly against anyone who raises these questions.

Not because the questions are antisemitic.

They manifestly are not, being questions about the conduct of specific governments, specific intelligence agencies, and specific individuals, not about Jewish people as a whole.

But because the charge works. It silences. It ends careers. It redirects the conversation. And the people with the most to lose from honest answers have every incentive to ensure the conversation never reaches those answers.

The International Criminal Court has issued its warrant. The Epstein files are dripping into the public domain. The Maxwell Mossad connection is confirmed historical record.

The leverage that may explain a generation of Western politicians who cannot bring themselves to say a single word of meaningful criticism of Israeli state conduct is no longer the province of conspiracy forums. It is the subject of serious investigative journalism on three continents.

And Australia’s answer, apparently, is to look away.

Anthony Albanese will not be the one to look squarely at any of this. He has already told us where he stands. On national television, he endorsed the war. He called it constructive. He offered the American justification back to an Australian audience as though it were Australia’s own sovereign conclusion.

It was not. It was obedience dressed as policy. And the men who benefit most from that obedience, a defendant in Tel Aviv and a felon in Washington, are laughing all the way to the next airstrike while ordinary Australians pay the bill, while journalists are prosecuted.

• Tomorrow: How the Murdoch press is running cover for a war and pointing your anger at the wrong man entirely.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Qasim Rashid

This week Donald Trump threatened more war crimes on the people of Iran.

We are now in the most dangerous phase of this crisis, and pretending otherwise is reckless.

As a human rights lawyer, I do not view war as an abstraction, a chessboard, or a television spectacle. I view it in terms of law, civilian life, state accountability, and foreseeable human devastation.

If we are honest about the present moment, there are only four plausible scenarios from here. Three are catastrophic.

The fourth is the only one consistent with constitutional government, international law, and basic human survival. It is also the one Donald Trump appears least willing to accept — but one our Congress must rally to ensure happens.

As of today the United States’ and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has killed more than 1300 Iranians, mostly civilians. Up to one third of them are children — including the near 175 children killed by a US military Tomahawk missile.

Iran’s response has targeted military bases, resulting in reportedly 8 US soldiers killed and 13 Israelis. Now, Trump is promising “Death, Fire, and Fury” and “twenty times” the damage if Iran does not unconditionally surrender.

In other words, we are running out of time to end this illegal war and prevent global and irreparable catastrophe. Right now we have four possible paths ahead of us. It is critical we rally and demand Congress act to enact Option Number Four.

Option One
The first scenario is that Trump eventually admits defeat and withdraws from Iran. In purely human terms, that would be preferable to escalation, but it would still come after an illegal war already launched without constitutional authority and under a pretext that has not been substantiated.

The geopolitical consequences would be significant.

A failed American war would further erode US credibility and likely accelerate a broader shift in influence toward China and Russia. Iran, having survived direct US-Israeli assault, would emerge emboldened.

Oil may no longer be pegged to the US dollar as the global currency, devastating the US economy. None of this is favourable, though this is the bed Trump has made so far. But also, compared with what comes next, it is survivable.

Option Two
The second scenario is a ground invasion. Trump has not ruled that out. He has not ruled out a draft either. The Pentagon is already reportedly preparing to seek roughly $50 billion in supplemental funding for Middle East operations, a strong indication that the administration is contemplating a longer and more expensive war footing.

A quick reminder that politicians lie when they say we cannot afford to fund universal healthcare, free public college, free school lunches, or affordable housing.

Anyone speaking casually about invading Iran is either ignorant of the facts or indifferent to the lives that would be destroyed. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq was already catastrophic. As I’ve cited before, a Brown University study documents an estimated 4.6 million civilians killed by Western wars since 2001.

And Iran is not Iraq. Iran is about 1.63 million sq km — which is triple the size of Iraq. I has a population that recent estimates place in the low 90 million range — which is double that of Iraq. It’s largest city, Tehran, has a population of 9.6 million — larger than New York City. It is geographically vast, heavily populated, politically complex, and militarily formidable.

A US ground invasion would not be a quick operation. It would be a regional inferno. Potentially millions could die. The global economy would likely be pushed into a prolonged recession. And because major powers would not passively watch such a war unfold, the risk of a broader world war would rise dramatically. Thus, option three.

Option Three
The third scenario is the use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the United States. That is the scenario many people still resist discussing openly because it sounds too horrible to contemplate. But refusing to contemplate it does not make it less real.

This is not hyperbole. Research published in Nature Food and highlighted by Rutgers found that a large-scale nuclear war could kill more than 5 billion people through famine and system-wide collapse, even apart from the immediate blast deaths. In ordinary language, that means the deaths of four to six billion human beings within a relatively short period are well within the range of expert projections in a full nuclear exchange.

It would be worse than any Hollywood film can imagine because movies still assume that civilisation survives in recognisable form. Nuclear war does not promise survival. It promises planetary ruin. Thus, we must push for Option Four.

That leaves the fourth scenario, which is the only morally serious option:

Option Four
Trump resigns or is impeached, the war is halted, and actual peace negotiations begin. With Trump removed from power, there is at least a possibility of returning to diplomacy, de-escalation, and meaningful non-proliferation efforts. History gives us a model. In the mid-1980s, the United States and Soviet Union moved from existential nuclear hostility toward negotiations that helped reduce the risk of annihilation.

That kind of diplomacy is still possible, but only if the men driving this escalation are stopped. The obstacle, of course, is political cowardice. This would require the Republican Party to develop a spine and fulfill its constitutional duty. It would require Corporate Democrats to grow a spine and demand an end to this war. Instead, Hakeem Jeffries refuses to rule out funding this illegal attack on Iran with another $50 billion.

At present, it seems unlikely that Republicans and Corporate Democrats will grow a spine or a conscience. But unlikelihood is not an excuse for silence when the alternative is mass death.

Here’s the bottom line. This is not red versus blue. This is not left versus right. This is working people versus billionaires, civilians versus war planners, constitutional government versus authoritarian impulse. This is why the culture wars must stop. Because as bad as things are, they can get much worse.

Trump has not ruled out the worst options. He has not ruled out sending American troops into a catastrophic ground war. He has not ruled out escalating further. He has already shown that he will ignore constitutional limits, and too many members of Congress still behave as though strongly worded statements are an adequate response to an unlawful war.

There is also a deeper pattern here that should disturb every serious observer. In 2013, Trump claimed Obama would bomb Iran to distract from his failures. In 2023, J.D. Vance warned against repeating in Iran the same mistake made in Iraq.

Now they are doing exactly what they accused others of doing. That is not irony. It is the operating logic of fascist politics: accuse the other side of the crime you are preparing to commit yourself.

The legal and moral stakes are immense. Congress must act now to stop this war, cut off funding for unauthorised escalation, and reassert that the Constitution is not optional. Military service members must also remember that “I was just following orders” did not excuse unlawful conduct at Nuremberg, and it will not excuse it now.

To those cheering this war from a distance, understand what you are cheering for: possible nuclear confrontation, higher prices for families already struggling, and the deaths of ordinary soldiers while the sons of powerful men remain far from the battlefield.

We need option four, and we need it immediately. Trump must be removed from the machinery of war before his recklessness becomes irreversible. If we fail to stop this now, history will not say we were uninformed. It will say we were warned and did too little.

Qasim Rashid is a Pakistani-born American author, activist, and human rights lawyer. He is a member of the Democratic Party. His Substack page is Let’s Address This with Qasim Rashid.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz