I am old enough to remember writing letters on clean, new sheets of paper by hand. Pen or pencil, this was the time of typewriters. Submitting essays and manuscripts by typed pages, you would have to wait for a response from the reader – if any. Publishers ruled the roost, and academics marking your paper determined your emotional wellbeing. Did I pass? Is my writing good enough? These questions driven by anxiety preoccupied your mind.

Not anymore. The advent of computerisation and the internet forced us to learn and adapt. New words entered our lexicon – hard drive, RAM, microchips, terabytes, floppy disks, pixels – the digital age had arrived.

‘Hit me up on Insta’ is now a valid sentence. Who would have anticipated such a sentence 35 years ago?

Publishing companies have had to adapt to the new ways of producing books and online content. Many have faced bankruptcy and collapsed in due course. Mediaweek magazine, in April 2025, stated that the AI-driven apocalypse for publishing companies is not coming – it is already here. Job losses and redundancies have swept through the publishing industry.

Long gone are the days of submitting manuscripts to publishers, and anxiously waiting for editors to read and evaluate them – if they did that at all.

Authors now have to consider things like dwell time – the amount of time a reader spends on a webpage. After all, audiences are constantly bombarded with clickbait, prompting us to keep moving. Authors need to consider not just the words they use, but if their writing will increase the dwell time of webpage readers.

Search engine optimisation (SEO) is another variable that authors must think about – is my content appearing high up in web search results? What terms are internet users searching for? How do search engines rank the content they find? If you write the next great detective novel, that’s wonderful. But you also have to consider if your content will rank in the results of the search engine’s algorithm.

No, I am not nostalgic for the typewriter. Technology always changes, and writers must adapt. There is no future in being a technological Luddite.

However, we must be wary about the tsunami of artificial intelligence (AI) that tech company giants, and their supporters in government, are uncritically adopting. It is a cultural and socioeconomic sea change which needs to be addressed, not with blind hostility, but not with the equally blind faith with which Silicon Valley and its proponents have advocated in it.

AI is rapidly taking over school and university education tasks. Students can now use agentic resources to fully automate their essays and course requirements. Silicon Valley tech companies have pushed their way into the public education system.

It is not just a matter of ChatGPT writing essays for students, as problematic as that is. Now AI can complete your physics problems, integrate course material, ‘listen’ to lectures and write notes for you, and identify your errors in practice tests. Newer iterations of AI can be fed a course syllabus, course readings, and generate answers to your questions, all at the push of a button.

It is not just students using AI; increasingly, overworked academics are use AI bots to grade papers, and generate student-specific feedback. It saves time – a task that took 10-15 hours per week to do can now be done in a matter of minutes.

Anthropic, a major AI tech company, is paying students to be AI ‘ambassadors’, in which workshops on AI are hosted. Students enrolled in this programme have free access to the company’s latest and greatest software.

If an AI chatbot does all the educational heavy lifting, where does that leave the knowledge capital of the student? What happens when a medical student uses AI to complete their course, and graduate as a doctor? Did they learn about, for instance, the structure and workings of the human immune system?

It is true that calculators and spreadsheets did not take away our ability to do mathematics. However, AI is not just another calculator. It is collecting our information, producing results based on that input. We are increasingly outsourcing our cognitive functions to the AI stochastic parrot. Can an AI-dependent doctor adequately evaluate the clinical needs of a patient?

We cannot avoid the digital age, but we do not have to gallop towards the future as imagined by the Silicon Valley tech giants either. The large tech corporations, having railed against government intervention and ‘red tape’ all these years, want us to forget that the origins of the companies that formed today’s Silicon Valley giants were seeded by government funding in partnership with the corporate sector. Its technological innovations were viewed as part of a post-World War 2 national project of scientific revival

Today, Silicon Valley still works in partnership with the state. It is no secret that the tech billionaires had a strong input into the programmatic goals of the Trump-MAGA cult currently installed in Washington. Let’s take AI, and education for that matter, out of the hands of the billionaire tech overlords, and restructure it for the common good. I was raised in the era when the main goal of education was to educate the public, not to generate corporate profits.

Sometimes, as evidenced by military history, wars are not won by a major battle or knockout blow. It is not a boxing match, where fighters belt the daylights out of each other until one falls down. Strategic patience can wear down an enemy. There is no single decisive engagement, but the enemy retreats suffering the death of a thousand cuts.

The Duke of Wellington was a military genius, but not for the reasons everyone thinks. Yes, the English forces won the battle of Waterloo, defeating Napoleon’s attempted comeback. That battle was nowhere near on the same scale and magnitude as the battles of the Napoleonic era. Its military significance has no doubt been exaggerated by British Empire loyalists.

Be that as it may, Wellington’s genius was proven in a battle that was not a single spectacular engagement, but rather the result of careful planning – the Lines of Torres Vedras. The Duke of Wellington, and his army’s Portuguese allies, fought the powerful French armies of Marshal Massena to a standstill.

Protecting Lisbon from a French takeover, the English-Portuguese coalition decided on strategic patience. Rather than face a superior French force on open ground, they decided to use the terrain around Lisbon, building a series of interlocking defensive fortifications, digging into the mountainous countryside centred on the town of Torres Vedras.

Taking almost a year (from November 1809 to September 1810), the Lines of Torres Vedras consisted of trenches, outposts, redoubts, escarpments and fortifications deep in the mountainous environment. The English and their Portuguese workers constructed dams, controlled flooded areas – a remarkable feat of strategically patient engineering.

Preparing an impenetrable series of defences around Lisbon took skill and resilience. They could inflict losses on the French army, all the while maintaining their positions.

Then they waited for the French.

The latter, with overextended supply lines, facing a hostile population, overreaching its hand, confronted the Lines of Torres Vedras. The British, backed by Portuguese irregulars, harassed and attacked the weary French. The Iberian peninsula was not going to fall easily, and the Anglo-Portuguese forces successfully held off Marshal Massena’s gigantic army.

Hungry, demoralised, facing constant defeats at the Lines of Torres Vedras, Marshal Massena had to accept the inevitable. He failed to take Lisbon. In March 1811, he took the decision he dreaded.

The mighty French armies retreated. The seemingly unstoppable French forces suffered a terrible defeat.

The Peninsular War dragged on, but Napoleonic France never fully subdued the Spanish and Portuguese of the Iberian Peninsula.

Why am I saying all this?

The United States has faced its Torres Vedras in the shape of Iran.

The latter, using strategic patience and quiet strength, has inflicted a military defeat upon the world’s principal imperialist power.

Since 2001, when former US President George W Bush called Iran part of the axis of evil, the Tehran authorities have been preparing for this war. Redefining their military doctrines, adapting to the new technology of drones, building economic alliances which are independent of the US, upgrading its military capabilities – these were all done quietly with long term patience.

The entire network of US military bases in the Gulf states has been destroyed. US military personnel took refuge in hotels in Saudi Arabia. Tehran constructed elaborate decoys to misdirect US and Israeli air strikes. While the Trump-MAGA cult shouted and raged on social media, the Iranian leadership drew upon their knowledge of Western philosophy and computer science to outsmart and out-strategise their American opponents.

The late Ali Larijani, the former chief of Iran’s national security council, was a graduate in mathematics and computer science. He had a PhD in Western philosophy, and wrote books about the philosophy of logic. He was assassinated by the United States, an action which probably constitutes a war crime.

Drones, in and of themselves, do not win wars. However, they have effectively neutralised a long time symbol of US military might, the aircraft carrier. The latter had its time during World War 2, and was a potent symbol of military strength, projecting mobile air power. That function has been successfully countered with the deployment of drones. Tehran used drone warfare to knock out enemy radar stations, tracking bases, as well as hitting American aircraft carriers.

I think that a leadership familiar with Western philosophy, history and politics is better equivalent to handle military strategy rather than the MAGA money-worshipping cultists who have no military background.

Iran has paid an enormous humanitarian and ecological cost for this victory. The US-Israeli bombing exacted a heavy toll in civilian casualties, and toxic air pollution sits atop the residents of Tehran. The Pasteur Institute sustained heavy damage, and Iran public health infrastructure was targeted by the US-Israeli bombing. The World Health Organisation (WHO) expressed its concerns that the cessation of medicine production and damage to medical facilities will result in patient deaths.

The deliberate attack on Iranian schoolchildren, a war crime in and of itself, should have given the supporters of the US-Israeli war pause for thought.

This knowledge alone should make us pause any triumphalist declarations of victory. However, there is no hiding the fact that the US military has suffered a significant defeat.

At the time of writing, there is a ceasefire – only time will tell if this ceasefire will hold. Nevertheless, Tehran has emerged from this conflict in a strengthened position. The Trump-Epstein-MAGA cult failed to carry out regime change in Iran.

There has been regime change; not in Tehran, but on the seas. The maritime regime of the oil industry has been changed irrevocably. Tehran not only stopped the oil traffic for hostile states through the Strait of Hormuz, they are charging a toll for nations to use that maritime route. This selective blocking demonstrates to the world that the petrodollar can be weakened, thus impacting all the nations that rely on fossil fuels.

I am quite certain that more reams of commentary will be forthcoming regarding this conflict in the Middle East. Tehran enters future talks with the US possessing all the cards. Iranian strategic patience and calculation have won out over MAGA muscle-flexing and macho posturing.

Oskar Schindler, the Nazi German businessman made posthumously famous by Steven Spielberg’s hit movie of 1993, was not the only person to rescue Jews during World War 2. Before Schindler achieved international fame via Hollywood, there was the case of Raoul Wallenberg, about whom I wrote earlier. Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat and businessman in Budapest, issued travel documents for European Jews escaping Nazi persecution. Let’s not forget that he was also an intelligence agent.

Schindler and Wallenberg belong to an honorific group known as Righteous Among the Nations. The latter is the title bestowed, by the Israeli government, to a grouping of non-Jews who risked their lives and professional status to contribute to the rescue of European Jews during the Nazi era.

The criteria are set out by Yad Vashem, and the individuals bestowed with this honorific originate from different nations and backgrounds.

One of the names in this group is Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara (1900 – 1986). A Japanese diplomat, he was posted to Kaunas, temporarily the capital city of Lithuania, in 1939. As vice-consul, Sugihara not only fulfilled his consular duties, but reported to his superiors in Tokyo on Soviet and German troop movements. The Baltics, while nominally independent, were closely tied economically and militarily to Germany. The USSR occupied the Baltic states in 1940.

The Jewish community in the Baltics, already subjected to antisemitic attacks and persecution by the Baltic ultranationalist authorities, was looking for ways to flee. Sugihara, reportedly, issued transit visas to desperate Jewish families, even though this job was not within his official remit. He is credited with rescuing between 6000 and 7000 Jews.

But is this number verifiable? Is the Chiune Sugihara story, a narrative of courageous generosity in the face of lethal powers, accurate?

The Japanese government certainly thinks that Sugihara is a superhero. While Sugihara himself was inducted into the Righteous Among the Nations by Tel Aviv in 1985, since the year 2000, Tokyo has deliberately and aggressively cultivated a narrative of Sugihara the selfless, brave hero-diplomat risking life and limb to rescue Jewish refugees.

Sugihara was not just a consular official, he also worked as an intelligence agent for Tokyo. He cooperated with Polish intelligence, sending information about Polish, German, and Russian troop movements back to Tokyo. This part of his Kaunas activities is conveniently omitted from the hagiographic accounts of his life issued by Tokyo.

Tokyo has issued educational materials about him, celebrated his life story and exhorted schoolchildren to emulate his example. Parks and public places have been named after Sugihara. His putative hometown, Yaotsa, has a commemorative monument and museum for him. The town also boasts a Sugihara Remembrance Route. The Washington Post described him as the Japanese Schindler.

This picture of saintly Sugihara has come under fire from historians, researchers, as well as his surviving son, Nobuki. Nobuki has been doing his utmost to debunk the many myths and legends that have grown surrounding his late father’s role and reputation.

Certainly Sugihara issued travel documents for fleeing Jewish refugees in Lithuania. That took immense courage under pressure.

However, Sugihara’s actions were only one link in a network of sympathetic and brave people who risked their lives and professional status to help Jews fleeing persecution.

Meron Medzini, a professor emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Department of Asian Studies and world expert on the Sugihara story, said that while Sugihara issued thousands of visas, it is basically impossible to verify how many Jews used those visas, so the figure of 6000 or 7000 people rescued is difficult to substantiate.

One consul whose name had been airbrushed from the heroic Sugihara narrative is that of Dutchman Jan Zwartendijk. The latter, the Dutch consul in Kaunas, issued documentation for Jewish refugees, assigning Dutch-controlled Curaçao, off the coast of Venezuela. Soviet authorities issued the requisite permission for the refugees to travel, as long as they eventually left Soviet territory.

Jan Zwartendijk’s role has largely been overshadowed by the Sugihara superhero story. Why has Tokyo heavily promoted the heroic narrative of their compatriot? Imperial Japan’s World War 2 reputation is that of a predatory, ruthless and sadistic power, exploiting and murdering millions. The Japanese military’s conduct of massacres, rapes, and using ‘comfort women’ is well established.

Sugihara’s conduct as a brave, generous person, friend of the Jewish community helps to soften Japan’s wartime image. Similarly to the case of Raoul Wallenberg’s in the 1980s, the superhero narrative is built to cynically exploit the generosity of courageous individuals helping refugees to channel sympathy for geopolitical interests.

Wallenberg’s native Sweden, while officially neutral during World War 2, maintained and extended secretive commercial and economic ties to the Nazi regime. Swedish raw materials and products were exported to Germany, materials that directly fed the Nazi war machine. Having Wallenberg as a hero who rescued Jews helps to obfuscate the murky commercial ties between Stockholm and Berlin.

Certainly, the people who rescued Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution and mass murder should be respected and admired. The stories about non-Jewish Europeans extending a helping hand to fleeing Jews are still being uncovered. Emotionally manipulating their generosity for cynical objectives is an exercise we can do without.

The Australian authorities have spent decades convincing us that there are hordes of potential refugees out there, just waiting for an opportunity to enter our nation like a gigantic tidal wave. Harsh anti-refugee laws have been enacted on the rationale that any weakening on our borders will only encourage millions of would-be asylum seekers battering down our gates.

Australian voters are encouraged to be suspicious of darker-skinned and Middle Eastern people. Are they really genuine refugees, or just opportunistic migrants seeking the prosperity and financial riches of our abundant nation? Voters are encouraged to be routinely suspicious of asylum seekers – questioning their motives for fleeing is a national pastime. Funnily enough, Australians did not question the motivations of Eastern Europeans fleeing the Communist bloc during the Cold War.

Each Eastern European refugee, we were assured, had ideological motivations for leaving. Each refugee from a Communist nation was deemed a pure, freedom-seeking individual unconcerned with financial concerns. Cold War anticommunism helped to shape our concerns for refugees; victims of US-sponsored regime change wars are routinely ignored, their motivations for fleeing either minimised or subject to suspicion.

Election campaigns by both major parties have encouraged this ‘tough-on-refugees’ claim, each party attempting to demonstrate its superior ‘toughness’ and cruelty against refugees to the electorate. The mandatory detention of refugees in camps began in the early 1990s, and has been enforced until this very day. Offshore detention is a particularly egregious form of institutional cruelty – out of sight, out of mind, as far as the Australian electorate is concerned.

Leaving asylum seekers in limbo is a calculated policy of discouragement – compel them to ‘voluntarily’ leave to a third country, or their nation of origin. Canberra has paid huge sums of money to Asia-Pacific nations to take asylum seekers, even before they have attempted the dangerous journey to Australia. Advertising campaigns have targeted asylum seekers, discouraging them from even thinking about coming to Australia. Don’t the asylum seekers realise that Australia is a land of dangerous snakes, spiders and poisonous animals?

Well, imagine the turnaround over the last few months, when the Australian government went out of its way to provide fast tracked asylum applications for the members of the Iranian women’s football team. The Iranian soccer team, here to play in the AFC Asian Cup, were immediately offered asylum, jumping the much-touted ‘queue’ that boat arrivals supposedly bypass according to conservative commentators and radio shock jocks.

The Iranian women, we were assured, face certain imprisonment and death should they return to Iran. The fact that Iranians might be fleeing their nation due to the US-Israeli bombardment of Iran, willingly supported by Canberra, never enters the discussion.

The Australian immigration authorities, the Home Affairs Department, all went into a propaganda overdrive to put out the welcome mat for the Iranian football/soccer players. After a number of them accepted asylum, they then rejected those offers. Most of the women’s team have returned to Iran. To the best of my knowledge, only two have remained in Australia, and have signed contracts to play for soccer teams here – I wish them all the success and happiness in the world.

The Australian authorities, in line with other Anglophone nations, have exploited asylum seekers for propaganda purposes in the past. They have helped to manufacture an asylum seeking hysteria, such as the 1950s Petrov Affair. I will not go into all the details of that episode here, but suffice it to say that asylum seekers from official ‘enemy’ nations, are used by Canberra to whip up a hothouse, ‘we love freedom’ media-hysteria.

Manufacturing politically expedient ‘defections’, with the assistance of the police and intelligence agencies, serves to incite pro-war sentiment in the domestic population. Iran, officially designated an enemy nation, is bearing the brunt of US-Israeli military operations. In line with the military requirements of this attack, an ideological campaign of fabricated hysteria is needed to keep the Australian population in a state of high anxiety.

Aided and abetted in this campaign of orchestrated defections is the pro-war Iranian diaspora community. Staging protests and actions in front of the hotel where the Iranian women footballers were held, they cynically wrap themselves in a mantle of humanitarian concern. This purported concern has never been extended to the Palestinians, Syrians, Armenians, or other nations’ refugees – it seems that fleeing ‘mad mullahs’ is the sole criterion of concern applied by the Iranian Shah loyalist community.

While the Iranian football players were having their applications for asylum expedited – presuming they did independently apply for asylum without any pressure from the Australian authorities – there are at least 1036 refugees locked away in onshore detention camps. They have experienced long term detention, and their applications sit unprocessed by the relevant authorities.

Now I am not trying to pit one group of refugees against another. No, I am not suggesting that the Iranian women footballers are undeserving of asylum. I am saying that the fabricated crisis of their alleged asylum request reeks of governmental hypocrisy on the part of Canberra. Please stop deploying the tired old cliche that ‘Muslim women are oppressed by mad mullahs’, when trying to justify the monumental hypocrisy of Australian government leaders and officials.

Did organic molecules, originating in extraterrestrial sources, contribute to the origin of life on Earth? Was life on our planet seeded from outer space? While the theory of panspermia – that the origin life on Earth came from outer space – is rejected, scientists are exploring how life’s building blocks can be found in meteorites, objects from the early solar system.

No, life did not exclusively originate in space, but meteorite impacts did contribute to the chemical compounds that led to the formation of nucleobases, the molecules responsible for DNA and RNA.

Why am I writing about this topic?

In 2020, I wrote an article regarding the Japanese Space Agency’s (JAXA) mission to collect samples from the asteroid Ryugu. The latter is an asteroid relatively close to Earth – given the distance involved in astronomical missions. Asteroid particles were collected from Ryugu by the Hayabusa2 spacecraft. Scientists have been examining these samples for evidence of an organic compounds.

Ryugu is a remnant from the early stages of the solar system’s formation. Roughly 900 metres across, it is older than the Earth, and provides a snapshot of the materials which were predominant in the early phases of the solar system. It was found to contain all five nucleobases necessary for the making of DNA and RNA molecules, the basic building blocks of life.

Such compounds were abundant in the early solar system. They form a crucial step in the transition from the nonliving world to life.

We all learned in high school biology about the building blocks of DNA – adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine. These molecules, combined with phosphates and sugars, form the nucleotides that combine into now famous double-helix structure of DNA.

These nitrogen-containing organic molecules form the now famous letters of genetic information in DNA.

Uracil is necessary for the development of RNA. Without these nucleobases; adenine and guanine – known as purines – and cytosine, thymine and uracil – known as pyrimidines – life as we know it would be impossible.

This is the not first time that scientists have examined meteoritic and asteroid material for signs of organic compounds. The 1864 Orgueil meteorite, which slammed into southwestern France, contained various nucleobases of life. Meteorite explorations were still in their infancy at the time, but curiosity regarding the origins of life was taking on a scientific turn with the rise of geology.

The Murchison meteorite in Western Australia, which impacted in 1969, was also found to contain nucleobases. Bennu, a near-Earth asteroid has been studied by telescope for decades, but in 2018, a NASA spacecraft collected particles from it. Scientists have found the presence of nucleobases as well.

There were differences found in the relative abundances of the nucleobases when comparing the different meteoritic samples.

Ryugu contained roughly equal amounts of the purine nucleobases (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidine nucleobases (cytosine, thymine, and uracil). The Murchison meteorite mostly contained purines, while the Bennu and Orgueil samples mostly contained pyrimidines.

Bennu and Ryugu asteroids are a type of carbonaceous asteroids, the most common type in the solar system.

The question of abiogenesis, the origin of life, is separate from the subject area of evolutionary biology. Exploring the prebiotic chemistry of the early Earth and solar system is a complex subject, and scientists are working on the chemical pathways which led from inorganic matter to organic life.

The findings from the Ryugu asteroid do not conclusively prove that life was seeded from outer space, as science fiction fans would have us believe. However, the tantalising evidence that nucleobases formed in the early solar system opens up an exciting avenue of enquiry.

The distinction between the biological and geological realms is becoming blurry. Early in the 20th century, Soviet geologist and biochemist Vladimir Vernadsky (1863 – 1945) first suggested that life can be considered a geological force that shapes the Earth’s ecosystems.

He helped to popularise the concept of a biosphere, which consists of considering all living matter on Earth as an interconnected system – what we would today call the ecosystem. He looked for the origins of the animate world in inanimate matter.

Alexandr Oparin (1894 – 1980), a Soviet biologist and biochemist developed the theory of the chemical evolution of organic molecules from prebiotic sources. (I wrote about him in this article). He pioneered experiments which reproduced the prebiotic conditions of Earth, providing a chemical pathway for the emergence of organic compounds.

The Ryugu findings do not decisively prove that Vernadsky and Oparin were correct. It does bolster their findings that organic molecules can arise from non-animate worlds, such as that which prevailed in the early solar system. By piecing together the various lines of evidence, the mystery of life’s origins is beginning to be answered.

The US-Israeli attack against Iran, Operation Epic Mistake….sorry, I mean fury….has had numerous consequences across the globe. It is true that some aftershocks were unintended or unforeseen. However, there is one consequence that was entirely predictable, because Tehran warned the international community it would take a specific action.

What am I talking about? The closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Twenty percent of the world’s oil supply passes through this crucial maritime artery. Now it is closed. Tehran kept its word.

The closing of the Strait of Hormuz, choking off the international oil supply, has echoes of the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. In that year, the Egyptian government nationalised the operation of the Suez Canal, a vitally important maritime trade route. Led by London, Paris and Tel Aviv launched a tripartite aggression against that nation, intending to topple the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser, and reverse the Suez nationalisation.

The aggression backfired spectacularly. The US under Eisenhower, who was keen to avoid Egypt slipping into the Soviet orbit, organised a peace agreement. Foreign forces were withdrawn, and the Suez Canal reopened for business. The limits of British imperial power were exposed, and that episode marked the beginning of the end of the British empire.

The United States faces a similarly crucial defeat in the Strait of Hormuz.

Even prior to the official closure of this vitally important waterway, oil companies were already reducing the flow of maritime traffic through the Strait due to fears of military strikes. There is nothing wrong with protecting human life and the lives of the workers on the oil tankers. However, this reduction in oil traffic endangers the supply of oil and liquefied natural gas to numerous nations around the world.

Qatar produces one fifth of the world’s supply of liquefied natural gas, and with its production shut down due to Iranian missile strikes, gas prices have increased exponentially.

In fact, Tehran has repeatedly struck US bases in the Persian Gulf nations. These petro-monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, are hereditary royalist regimes; hardly the paragons of democracy that Washington claims to defend.

These nations, collectively organised as the Gulf Cooperation Council, have invested billions of dollars in the petroleum production sector. Shutting down refineries impacts oil deliveries down the line. Dubai, in the UAE, has the world’s busiest international airport – well, it did, until it was forced to shut down due to Iranian drone strikes.

The Egypt-Israel border crossing at Rafah has been closed for months, helping facilitate the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. Cuba has been struggling to overcome the detrimental effects of the US blockade. None of these devastating actions has moved my fellow citizens in the Anglophone nations to protest.

Okay, okay, there have been regular protests only a tiny minority has demonstrated against Tel Aviv’s genocidal violence. But the vast majority of the Anglophone population remains unmoved. Perhaps inflation and skyrocketing fuel prices will help them understand how global wars affect all of us, even here in faraway Australia.

You know that asparagus you enjoy eating, the food that makes you feel good because it is ecologically friendly? You are reducing your carbon footprint by avoiding red meat consumption, right? That asparagus is imported – flown to Australia in airplanes that rely on fossil fuel. Those jets, and the ships that bring supplies to Australia, have a massive carbon footprint. Guess how much that beloved asparagus will cost when the oil supply runs dry?

David S. D’Amato, researcher and writer for Counterpunch magazine, makes an astute observation which we need to address here. His article is entitled ‘Why we only hear diaspora voice who want war’. He makes the case that whenever there is a regime change war overseas, such as the current but failed attempt to enforce regime change in Iran – the Anglophone nations only hear those from the targeted countries who advocate warfare.

The lifelong failure Reza Pahlavi, Masih Alenijad, and others, feature regularly as expert commentators on our television screens. They are unanimous in their allegedly expert opinions that a US attack will bring freedom and democracy to Iran.

Thankfully, there are those in the Iranian diaspora who are finally rejecting these self-appointed community spokespersons. Reza Pahlavi’s former supporters are turning against him, citing among other things, his failure to condemn the US murder of Iranian schoolchildren. If he cannot even bring himself to support innocent school students, then what kind of conscience, if any, does he have?

For decades, those on the ecosocialist Left have been warning about the economic and ecological dangers of reliance on fossil fuels. It is not surprising to witness a flurry of commentary from the corporate controlled media about how the global community is currently being held hostage by its exclusive and overwhelming reliance on oil to power the capitalist economy.

It is a shame that it took a crisis such as the Strait of Hormuz closure to bring this issue to worldwide attention. I suspect that such commentary, while commendable, is motivated by an anti-Iranian angle. The ecosocialist Left has highlighted the dangers of reliance on fossil fuels because the world population is being held hostage – by the minority billionaire class.

Transitioning to renewable energy sources is no longer being dismissed as the pipe-dream of loony leftie ecosocialist nutters, but being considered as a matter of urgency. In 2022, even the usually conservative staid, blue-ribbon Australia Institute heavily criticised Australia’s reliance on imported fuel as a source of economic vulnerability.

I hope that we now take the time and dedicate ourselves to diversifying our energy sources, and reduce the operation of the profits-first fossil fuel corporations.

Sometimes, an old Hollywood scene acquires an uncanny resemblance to real life – art does imitate life, occasionally.

This article was first published on my Substack webpage. It is republished here for consistency.

Back in 1989, the Hollywood action blockbuster Black Rain hit the theatres. Michael Douglas plays a zealous, brash homicide detective who tracks down members of the Yakuza. The film is a typical Hollywood over-the-top action flick; Douglas goes to Japan and fights not only the Yakuza, but the bureaucratically inert Japanese police force. 

Why am I talking about this film? There is one, crucial telling scene which is relevant for purposes here. Navigating his way through the Japanese underworld, Nick Conklin (Douglas’ character) confronts Sugai-san, the oyabun (crime chief) who is a primary target of Conklin’s investigation. When challenged, Sugai offers a justification for his criminal activities.

He said “I was 10 when the B-29 came. My family lived underground for three days. When we came up the city was gone. Then the heat brought rain. Black rain. You made the rain black, and shoved your values down our throat. We forgot who we were. You created Sato and thousands like him. I’m paying you back.”

Sato is one of Sugai’s lieutenants, a westernised gangster who wanted to take over Sugai’s business empire. 

Let’s focus here on the point about black rain; the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a kind of international chemical warfare, making the rain toxic and unfit for human or nonhuman animal consumption. This repercussion on its own constitutes a crime against humanity. No, the 1989 movie is not a historically accurate epic, nor is it meant to be taken seriously. However, let’s keep in mind the point about black rain.

Turning the rain toxic is not just something that belongs in movie fantasy land. The US military has turned the rain black – in Tehran.

In the ongoing US-Israeli attack on Iran, the US deliberately struck the Shahran oil refinery. Residents of Tehran woke up to an apocalyptic scenario, with heavy black clouds of pollutants hanging in the air. An act of intentional chemical warfare, the humanitarian and ecological consequences of this devastation will be felt for years to come, and not just within Iran’s borders.

By striking an oil refinery, hazardous chemicals and pollutants were released into the atmosphere – the United States military turned the rain black and acidic. The Iranian authorities advised Tehran’s residents to remain indoors. The sunshine was blocked out, and the government had begun the arduous task of cleaning up the damage. 

The pro-war Iranian diaspora, long agitating for a US-Israeli attack on their home country, need to ask themselves if this is the result they were seeking. Perhaps the playboy charlatan Shah-in-exile Reza Pahlavi, the man who keeps applying for a job that does not exist, and his imperial supporters, could now live in Tehran, celebrating as black rain falls on their heads.

One of the Gulf nations that hosts US military bases is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Iran has repeatedly struck American military facilities in the Gulf region, the UAE included. Washington, Tel Aviv and their Gulf allies have been shocked by the scale, efficiency and persistence of the Iranian response. 

I am not one to celebrate missile strikes, simply because I do not know for certain that I would react courageously in a wartime situation. I do not advocate for war, basically because I am not a hypocrite; I like to think I would be brave in a military operation, but I have to be honest and say I do not know how I would react with bombs exploding and missiles falling. As a civilian, I do not advocate that anyone be put in that terrible position.

There is one group of civilians who will, if not cheering be at least grateful, for Iranian missile strikes on the UAE – civilians in Sudan. For the past several years, a paramilitary force, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), supplied by armaments from the UAE and Israel, have waged a genocidal campaign in the Sudanese civil war. Famine conditions, mass displacement and atrocities including sexual torture, have been inflicted on Sudanese civilians caught up in the fighting since April 2023.

With Iranian missile strikes against the UAE (and Israel), the armaments supply line has been disrupted. The RSF, starved of guns and ammunition, is being steadily defeated by the Sudanese army. The latter has carried out strikes against RSF supply depots and soldiers, already facing a depleting stock of resources with which to fight. A reduction in genocidal violence by the RSF is welcome news for Sudan.

The same criteria which were applied when evaluating the RSF as a genocidal group should also be applied to the actions of the US and Israeli military forces. The political leaders of Washington and Tel Aviv have made deliberate decisions to inflict mass casualties and ecological destruction on the Iranian nation. It is high time to hold them to account for their crimes against humanity.