If this ceasefire doesn't hold, let's hit the streets again
Zeny Giles, New Lambton
James Massola's attempt at nuance and ambiguity ('PM dodges war talk, but the visuals are awkward', June 24) is exposed when he compares and contrasts Anthony Albanese's position for not going gung-ho with America by sending a ship to the Middle East with what John Howard did do and what Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison would have done. We know how Iraq turned out. That war not only cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but it also resulted in the strengthening of Iran in the Middle East and surely must rank as one of the most egregious acts of stupidity in the history of US foreign policy. Now Trump has chosen to do it all over again.
Frank Carroll, Moorooka (Qld)
Thank goodness Albo and Penny are in charge and not Howard, Abbott or Morrison.
Charmain Brinks, Newcastle
The government's response to Trump flaunting his bunker-busting boy's toys in Iran was as careful and balanced as it should have been ('PM missed his chance to make point on Iran', June 24). It's the Coalition that deserves calling out for its unfailing and reflexive war-mongering, always demanding we ride along as junior belligerents as we did in Vietnam and Iraq, and cheering on Netanyahu war crimes in Gaza.
Jeffrey Mellefont, Coogee
Trump's ego is the real present danger
Geoffrey Robertson's reasoned view that Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is – under international law – no different from Russia's attack on Ukraine or the George W. Bush/Tony Blair/John Howard invasion of Iraq ('Trump's rap sheet is long, but this may top them all', June 24) – if anything suggests that Trump's big ego is more dangerous than Iran's nuclear threat.
Steve Ngeow, Chatswood
Although Geoffrey Robertson, KC, is correct and a breach of international law has been perpetrated by the USA, he overlooks the danger to Israel of Iran having nuclear weapons, capable of wiping out Israel in one blast. Surely, the bombing of the nuclear enrichment plants in Iran is the lesser of two evils?
Pasquale Vartuli, Wahroonga
We may debate whether the bombing was an act of aggression or an act of war, as does Geoffrey Robertson. We may go along with any setback to the Iranian nuclear program, as do others. But the optics of this happening right now are so clearly in tandem with Netanyahu's ambitions. Trump's contempt for the once much-vaunted rules-based order, and ours by proxy, is blatant. But it leaves Australia with little moral authority and nothing with which to back it up anyway. China must be delighted.
Ian Bowie, Bowral
It is an extraordinary time. The Australian government comes out in support of an action deemed by legal experts as illegal – an action that President Trump ordered after ignoring the information from his own intelligence experts. The repercussions of this decision remain to be seen but will certainly have a significant impact on all our lives.
Louise Dolan, Birchgrove
Clues in history
Donald Trump would never be mistaken for a renaissance man, but shouldn't he at least show awareness of Iran's recent history, and the coup d'etat backed by the US and UK in 1953? That coup removed Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was nationalising the oil industry in which Britain held substantial interests. The pro-Western Shah was empowered, overseeing a notoriously corrupt, autocratic and repressive regime, with secret police, the Savak, who were infamous for their brutality. Anger at this regime, and its imposition by the West, has been described as sowing the seeds for the Iranian revolution of 1979. The CIA has admitted the coup of 1953 was detrimental. If it hadn't occurred, Iran may well have had a very different trajectory to the present. How, then, might the Iranian people feel about Trump's post that: 'if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' ('Iran warns Trump', June 24). Especially if 'regime change' were to install the son of the deposed Shah as Iran's leader.
Barbara Chapman, South Yarra (Vic)
There is much talk of regime change, but would it be for our betterment? JD Vance at least has a brain and is Yale-educated, but his hard-right, isolationist and misogynistic views could make him even more dangerous than the moronic show-pony who can change his mind several times a day. Oh, regime change in Iran? Sorry.
Bernard Moylan, Bronte
I'm all for regime change in Iran, but can we get a two-for-one offer and include the US?
Corrado Tavella, Rosslyn Park (SA)
If Iran really had developed to an advanced stage its alleged nuclear weapons program, there is no way the US would have bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. The US would never risk the likelihood of a retaliatory strike, particularly from a nuclear-capable nation. In what could only be described as a self-defeating argument, both Israel and the US have tried to manufacture a story about Iran planning an imminent nuclear attack against Israel (hence the US bombing run against Iran). However, if this were more than merely plausible, America's bunker-buster bombs would still be in their hangars.
Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay
Poised to profit?
As many news outlets have reported, it appears that Donald Trump, his family and members of his administration have greatly profited from his policies and actions since retaking office. Now the USA has bombed sites in Iran upon the orders of the president. It seems likely that this will result in oil rising in price, especially as one of the few retaliatory measures the Iranians can take is to choke off traffic through the Strait of Hormuz ('Tehran threatens to choke off strait crucial to world oil supply', June 24). What seems unlikely is that this would not have occurred to the Americans. 'Drill, baby, drill' was Trump's pre-election mantra. The question is, given that Trump and his administration would have known that attacking Iran in this manner would very likely result in increased oil prices, did any of them – Trump, his family, or members of his administration – position themselves to profit from this oil price rise?
Peter Arthur, Artarmon
It is strange that Jennifer Parker ('Canberra must heed strait threat', June 24), in her article about the effects that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz might have on oil supply to the world, particularly China and Australia, does not mention the opening of a railway between Tehran and China. The transit time between Iran and China is 15 days, about half the time taken by ships, and it will be able to carry all manner of goods. China would no doubt regard any disruption to the line by a nation state as an act of war, and as a nuclear armed state with about 3000 combat aircraft, would quickly wreak vengeance on the aggressor. Iran has more options than some have posited, and hubristic actions could have nasty consequences.
Joe Goozeff, Leura
Un-Trumpable!
Amazing! Donald Trump has brokered an end to the Israel-Iran war ('Middle East ceasefire', smh.com.au, June 24). He must be a near certainty for the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I would predict that if someone else wins, it will be because votes for Trump were stolen and awarded to the other candidate.
Don Firth, Wooli
Taxpayer stumps up for climate inaction
The 10-fold increase in disaster relief is not the result of 'natural' disaster; it is a result of human-induced climate change ('Disaster relief spending shoots up', June 24). The headlining relief expense of the NSW budget is putting a price on climate change that even the most diehard denialist can't ignore. We are now seeing the long-predicted atmospheric changes and the real economic consequences of fossil fuel consumption. The costs to the public purse are obvious as taxpayers bear the brunt of inaction. The private costs to citizens and business are growing at a similar rate through direct damages costs and astounding insurance premiums. The knuckle-dragging go-slow by the Liberal National parties and the conservative elements of the Labor Party needs to be exposed. The slow momentum on climate action is leading us down a path our society cannot afford and is anything but natural.
Peter Hull, Katoomba
Perhaps Premier Chris Minns and Treasurer Daniel Mookhey could check with their mates in the insurance industry if they are unsure about rebuilding on floodplains, along rivers or allowing quaint timber cottages acting as tinderboxes when nestled in bush. Just as building codes and standards changed in Darwin and Cairns after cyclones, we face global warming and its attendant fires, floods, droughts and mudslides, so building codes and politicians must catch up.
Jenny Forster, Manly
Bezos blowout
The law of matrimonial longevity states that 'the amount [in American dollars] expended on frivolous self-indulgence and ego-flattering nuptial ceremonies is inversely proportional to the longevity of the marriage so celebrated, but is also positively proportional to the acrimony and expense of the inevitable divorce'. Less formally, the law states 'the more expensive the wedding celebrations, the shorter the marriage'. It is supported by a trove of empirical data gathered over five decades, and the resulting PhDs have been published in several academic sociology journals of repute ('Wedding crashers ready to spoil Bezos' lavish nuptials in Venice', June 24).
Philip Bell, Bronte
Music in the moment
There is one surefire way to avoid AI-generated music, and that is to buy songs only by artists you can go and see live ('AI goes pop online, and it's unsettling in so many ways', June 24). It will still be a while before AI robots can reproduce the rattle of strings on a thrashed guitar, a drumstick thrown into the crowd or croaky lead singer belting out an anthem for the third time in a row and loving it.
Colin Stokes, Camperdown
Make $3m limit
There's a simple solution to Jim Chalmers' superannuation problem (Letters, June 24): limit super balances to $3 million. On June 30, each year, any amount exceeding that limit must be withdrawn. Invest it how you like, but pay full tax on the return. This solves a number of issues, including the use of super for tax minimisation and, of course, it gets around the thorny issue of taxing unrealised gains. The effect on revenue would be immediate and meaningful, and the fairness of super – and its original intention as a retirement funding mechanism – would be restored.
Angus McLeod, Cremorne
No, Noel Thompson (Letters, June 24). Tax reform does not need consensus. It requires courage to undo the tax scams inflicted on the country by economic rationalists over too many years.
Paul Fergus, Croydon
A number of contributors to the letters page have been having a good old whinge about being rightfully taxed on large superannuation balances. Most Australians (according to the polling) are very happy for this new tax to happen. A lot of Australians would like Jim Chalmers to go harder. I'm thinking that some people must live in the 'wealthy superannuation bubble' because they appear to be properly ignorant of the real-world concerns of the majority. My advice to them is to maintain your health and keep your family close – and do some charity work. That provides some purpose and clarity as to what's really important. It's not losing an undeserved tax break.
Wendy Atkins, Cooks Hill
Running, not flying
To Avalon emu Dave Watts (Letters, June 24): Ms Carde is right, but there is an upside. Females will fight each other to mate with you. Swings and roundabouts.
Jennifer Briggs, Kilaben Bay
Ashes engendered
It's not a bright idea to store ashes in post office boxes at Bondi Road Post Office ('Memorial plan may dig cemetery out of cash hole', June 24). The boxes are designed for male [sic] only use.
Col Shephard, Yamba
Wartime uplift
With all the devastating news about war and destruction, it was good to read about a successful program at Western Sydney University that supports students who have come to Australia from war-torn countries ('Refugees thriving under uni program', June 24). They help each other, and the friendships they make give them confidence as they enter Australian society and make such a valuable contribution in various fields of endeavour.
Josephine Piper, Miranda
Meanwhile, in Gaza, the daily killing of civilians doing nothing more sinister than desperately seeking food to feed themselves and families continues. Where is the worldwide condemnation?
Con Vaitsas, Ashbury
Go and sit on a bench under a tree in a park somewhere, close your eyes, listen to the birds and imagine if all the money the bully boys are spending on armaments was instead invested in schools, universities, hospitals, medical science, conservation of flora and fauna, renewable energy, reafforestation. What a wonderful world it would be.
Kent Mayo, Uralla
First wattle flowers on my morning walk.
Keith Russell, Mayfield West
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
33 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
World leaders critical of Israel are ‘encouraging' Hamas
Former British colonel Richard Kemp discusses how the latest criticism of world leaders towards Israel is encouraging Hamas. 'The problem with Mr Albanese and Mr Starmer over here and the other leaders who are lashing out at Israel now, is that it is encouraging Hamas,' Mr Kemp told Sky News Australia. 'Hamas and the Israelis have been involved in peace talks in recent days, Hamas essentially pulled out of those peace talks … this is partly due to encouragement they have been given from international leaders.'
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
EU and US announce tariff deal to avoid spiralling trade war
The United States struck a framework trade deal with the European Union on Monday AEST, imposing a 15 per cent import tariff on most EU goods, but averting a spiralling battle between two allies which account for almost a third of global trade. The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with US President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. "I think this is the biggest deal ever made," Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15 per cent tariff applied "across the board". "We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability," she said. The deal, which also includes US$600 billion ($914.9 billion) of EU investments in the United States and US$750 billion ($1.1 trillion) of EU purchases of US energy over Trump's second term, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. Even so, the baseline 15 per cent tariff will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared with the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30 per cent rate. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying in a statement that a trade conflict had been averted that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. But Bernd Lange, the German Social Democrat who chair's the trade committee of the European Parliament, said he was "quite critical" because the tariffs were imbalanced and the pledged $600 billion of investment would likely come at the expense of EU industry. The euro rose around 0.2 per cent per cent against the dollar, sterling and yen within an hour of the deal. The deal mirrors key parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. Shipping containers and cargo ships seen in the port of Barcelona one of the biggest sea ports of Europe. Source: AAP / Davide Bonaldo / SOPA Images "We are agreeing that the tariff ... for automobiles and everything else will be a straight-across tariff of 15 per cent," Trump said. That rate will not, however, apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50 per cent tariff will remain in place, although von der Leyen said it would be cut and replaced with a quota system. Von der Leyen said the rate also applied to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, and there would be no tariffs from either side on aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor equipment, some agricultural products, natural resources and critical raw materials. "We will keep working to add more products to this list," she said, adding that the situation on spirits was still to be established. Eric Winograd, chief economist at AllianceBernstein in New York, noted the similarity with Japan's US deal. "We will need to see how long the sides stick to the deal. From a market perspective, it is reassuring in the sense that having a deal is better than not having a deal," he said. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old US trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of "90 deals in 90 days." He has periodically railed against the European Union, saying it was "formed to screw the United States" on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said the EU wanted "to make a deal very badly" and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been "very unfair to the United States". His main bugbear is the US merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to US Census Bureau data. The EU points to the US surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the "hundreds of billions of dollars" that tariffs were bringing in. On 12 July, Trump threatened to apply a 30 per cent tariff on imports from the EU starting on 1 August, after weeks of negotiations with the major US trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros of US goods in the event there was no deal, and Trump had pressed ahead with 30 per cent tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target US services in the event of a no-deal.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
US and EU reach trade deal with 15 per cent US tariff on most EU exports amid Trump Scotland visit
The United States and the European Union have reached a framework deal, with the US imposing a 15 per cent import tariff on most EU goods amid efforts to avoid a costly trade war. The announcement comes during US President Donald Trump's visit to Scotland, where European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met with Trump at his golf club on Sunday, local time. "I think this is the biggest deal ever made," Trump told reports following the meeting between the pair, while Ms von der Leyen said the tariff applied "across the board". "We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability," she said. The deal also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the US and $750 billion of EU purchases of US energy over Trump's second term. The baseline 15 per cent tariff, which will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared with the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, is better outcome than the threatened 30 per cent rate. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has welcomed the del, claiming in statement that a trade conflict had been averted that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. The European Commission President's trip to Scotland comes after previous discussions between US officials and European Union trade chief Maros Sefcovic failed to produce an agreement. Mr Sefcovic had flown to Washington DC after President Trump threatened to impose new 30 per cent tariffs on the EU unless the 27-member bloc could reach a trade agreement with the US by August 1. Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity prior to Sunday's meeting, a Trump administration official was "cautiously optimistic" about the showdown talks, but warned it would be unwise to pre-empt an outcome. "It's not over till it's over," the official said. While the impact of escalating tariffs on China were felt by many US businesses and consumers, a trade war with the EU would likely be much more severe. The US and EU are each other's largest trading partners by far and account for a third of global trade. With Reuters
