Talking Peace, Firing Missiles

The Iran war has entered one of those strange, unedifying phases where everyone is told there is a ceasefire, while the region continues to burn.

We are watching a very public dance of threats, retaliation, diplomatic hints, leaked optimism and supposed deals that are always just a few days away. President Trump insists Iran wants a deal. He says negotiations are progressing. He urges restraint. Yet Iran’s behaviour looks rather less like a party seeking peace and more like a regime testing how much violence it can get away with while still enjoying the language of diplomacy.

Despite the ceasefire, there has been plenty of fire. Iran has attacked Gulf neighbours, threatened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, disrupted tankers, and most recently fired ballistic missiles towards Israel. This is not peace. It is war conducted under the cover of ceasefire language.

The most troubling element is Trump’s public pressure on Israel not to respond. That is an extraordinary demand. Israel’s doctrine of immediate and punitive response is not a luxury. It is the foundation of deterrence in a region where weakness is read as invitation. Israel has spent decades fighting Iran’s proxies — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and others — precisely because Tehran prefers to kill through intermediaries. If Iran now attacks Israel directly, why would anyone expect Israel not to respond directly?

By publicly urging Israel to hold back, Trump handed Iran a diplomatic win. Tehran’s strategy has always been to create distance between Israel and its allies. A wedge between Washington and Jerusalem is not a minor achievement for the regime; it is a strategic prize.

So is this blatant stupidity? Perhaps. But perhaps not.

There is another possibility, although it requires a longer bow. Iran has used proxies for decades. It has fought through others while pretending to remain one step removed. Could the United States now be allowing Israel to play a similar role in reverse? Israel hits back. Iran pays a price. Meanwhile Washington continues to pose as the honest broker, maintaining pressure while pretending diplomacy still has room to work.

That may be too clever by half. It may simply be political theatre. It may be Trump trying to manage domestic pressure, oil markets, nervous Gulf states and an American public weary of war. But it is hard to believe he is about to abandon the US relationship with Israel, whatever the noise of the moment.

The danger is that Iran may believe it is winning the ceasefire. By firing, threatening, escalating and then watching Washington restrain Israel, Tehran may think it has found the formula: provoke, absorb limited retaliation, then demand diplomacy. If that is the game, it must be broken.

We should also remember that we are in the middle of the match, not at the final whistle. In war, there is always ebb and flow. Tactical confusion does not necessarily mean strategic defeat. A day’s headlines do not tell us the end of the story. The final play has not yet been made.

My own view remains unchanged. The objective should be regime change. Not another agreement. Not another temporary pause. Not another piece of paper Tehran can reinterpret, evade, or tear up when convenient.

The sanctions must remain. The blockade must remain. The pressure must increase, not soften. Negotiation has become theatre, and Tehran has used that theatre to buy time for decades.

Let Iran come back when it has no better options.

And if the regime escalates — as it has done by attacking neighbours, shipping and Israel — then the response should be simple and incremental: destroy more of the infrastructure that keeps the regime alive. Bit by bit. Strike the military assets. Strike the command systems. Strike the economic arteries.

A few serious hits on Kharg Island would do more than a thousand diplomatic statements. If Iran’s oil export capacity is crippled, the blockade almost becomes self-enforcing. No exports. No cash. No strategic patience. No ability to fund proxies while pretending to negotiate peace.

The West keeps pretending that Iran can be talked into moderation. But the Islamic Republic has shown us what it is. It survives through repression at home, terror abroad, deception in negotiation and escalation whenever it senses hesitation.

The ceasefire is not peace. It is a battlefield with better public relations.

The question now is whether Trump’s restraint of Israel is a mistake, a tactic, or part of a larger game. We cannot know yet. But we can know this: Iran must not be allowed to turn ceasefire violations into leverage, or diplomacy into a shield behind which it continues the war.

The regime should not be rewarded for escalation.

It should be made to regret it.

When Anti-Racism Becomes Racism

For decades, Western societies have worked to eliminate racism from public life. Few would disagree that this has been a noble and necessary goal.

But what happens when the fight against racism loses sight of the principle that all people should be treated equally under the law?

That is the uncomfortable question raised by commentator Konstantin Kisin in his powerful recent video, Henry Nowak: How Anti-Racism Gave You Racism.

The video centres on the tragic death of 18-year-old British student Henry Nowak. After being stabbed multiple times in Southampton, Nowak reportedly told police officers that he had been attacked. Yet according to bodycam footage subsequently released, officers initially accepted the attacker's claim that he had been the victim of a racist assault and handcuffed the badly wounded teenager as he lay dying. The attacker was later convicted of murder. Hampshire Police have since apologised and an official investigation has been launched. 

For Kisin, however, the story is about much more than one terrible mistake.

He argues that the incident exposes a deeper problem within many Western institutions. Following the death of George Floyd in 2020, governments, corporations, universities and police forces embraced extensive anti-racism programs, diversity training and identity-based policies. While intended to combat prejudice, Kisin contends that these initiatives have sometimes encouraged officials to view people primarily through the lens of race rather than as individuals. 

The result is a form of institutional bias that would have been immediately recognised as racism had the races involved been reversed.

Kisin's central point is simple but provocative: racism cannot be defeated by creating new racial preferences or new racial assumptions. If accusations of racism are automatically given greater weight than evidence, if people are judged differently because of their ethnic background, or if equal treatment under the law is replaced by identity politics, then society has not eliminated racism. It has merely changed its direction.

Whether readers agree with Kisin's conclusions or not, the Henry Nowak case raises questions that deserve serious discussion.

Should police officers ever consider race when deciding whom to believe?

Can anti-racism policies inadvertently create new forms of discrimination?

Have Western institutions become so fearful of accusations of racism that they sometimes abandon the principle of equal treatment?

These are not easy questions, but they are questions that free societies must be willing to ask.

The ideal championed by Martin Luther King Jr. was that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. Many would argue that remains the gold standard for a fair and just society.

We have drifted away from that principle. The pendulum has swung too far, and the pursuit of equality is being undermined by an ideology that increasingly treats people differently based on their racial identity.

Watch the video below and decide for yourself whether he is right.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 24 of 2026

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Pregnant Men and Other Government Fairy Tales

• The mRNA Story Is Not Finished Yet
  
• Australia's Taxpayer Funded Propaganda
  
• Stop Negotiating. Let Iran Come Begging
  

• Towards Heaven or Hell - an old post worth a second view
  
• When Anti-Racism Becomes Racism
  
• Talking Peace, Firing Missiles
  

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Stop Negotiating. Let Iran Come Begging.

For anyone still paying attention to the endless cycle of "deal on, deal off, deal on, deal off" negotiations with Iran, patience is wearing thin.

Western journalists are frustrated. Commentators are frustrated. Politicians are frustrated. Ordinary citizens who have followed this saga for years are frustrated.

Yet many experts on Iran point out that what we are witnessing is entirely consistent with the regime's negotiating style. Delay. Obfuscate. Stall. Buy time. Extract concessions. Then buy more time.

The Islamic regime has spent decades perfecting the art.

The current negotiations appear to be following the same script.

The regime's objective is not necessarily to secure a deal. Its objective is survival.

From Tehran's perspective, if it can avoid total military defeat, preserve the regime, and continue ruling Iran, it can claim victory regardless of the condition of the country it leaves behind.

That is why the current situation is so interesting.

For perhaps the first time in more than forty years, the regime finds itself genuinely vulnerable.

Its economy is battered.

Sanctions continue to bite.

Oil exports remain constrained.

Internal political tensions appear to be growing.

There are recurring reports of mysterious explosions and incidents whose causes remain unexplained.

Public dissatisfaction remains high.

The pressure on ordinary Iranians continues to increase.

None of these developments, by themselves, guarantee regime change. But together they create something the regime fears deeply: instability.

The longer this pressure continues, the greater the possibility that internal opposition gains momentum.

Meanwhile, the United States faces its own pressures.

President Trump is clearly being pulled in multiple directions.

Many Americans have little interest in another Middle Eastern conflict. Polling consistently shows that voters remain focused on issues much closer to home, particularly the cost of living, inflation, and economic security.

The mid-term elections are approaching.

The United States is also preparing to host the World Cup, a major international event that will dominate headlines and attention for weeks.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia is hosting the annual Hajj pilgrimage, bringing millions of Muslims together in one of the most significant religious events on Earth.

None of these factors make military escalation attractive.

It is therefore understandable that President Trump appears reluctant to resume large-scale military action unless absolutely necessary.

Yet there is another pressure that deserves equal attention.

The Iranian people.

For years Western leaders have spoken of supporting the Iranian people against their oppressors.

Western politicians have encouraged protests.

They have praised the courage of Iranian dissidents.

They have condemned the brutality of the regime.

If the West now walks away and allows the regime to recover, what message does that send to those brave men and women who risked everything in the hope of freedom?

Recent commentators at the Gatestone Institute have argued that abandoning pressure on Tehran at this moment would squander a historic opportunity. They contend that the regime is weaker than it has been in decades and that renewed negotiations merely provide breathing room for a government whose primary goal is survival. They also argue that military pressure remains a necessary option if the regime attempts to rebuild capabilities that threaten regional security.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of that argument or not, the central point is difficult to dismiss.

The job is only half done.

Iran today is not the confident, expansionist power it once was.

The regime is under pressure.

Its proxies have been weakened.

Its economy remains fragile.

Its population is restless.

Why relieve that pressure now?

The better strategy may be remarkably simple.

Stop negotiating.

Stop the endless cycle of deadlines, extensions, meetings, proposals, counter-proposals and diplomatic theatre.

Maintain the sanctions.

Maintain the economic restrictions.

Maintain the blockade on the resources that sustain the regime.

Continue to isolate the leadership.

Continue to support the Iranian people.

And wait.

Every day that passes imposes costs on Tehran.

Every day that passes increases pressure on the ruling elite.

Every day that passes reminds ordinary Iranians who is responsible for their misery.

The regime desperately wants relief.

Why provide it?

Let the negotiations lapse.

Let the regime feel the full weight of its choices.

Let Iran come begging for an agreement.

Then, and only then, negotiate from a position of overwhelming strength.

History rarely presents opportunities like this.

The West should not throw one away simply because it has become impatient.

Patience, after all, is a weapon too.

Australia's Taxpayer Funded Propaganda

One of the most revealing articles I've read in recent months appeared in The Australian by veteran journalist Greg Sheridan. The article is behind a paywall, and if you have any interest in where your tax dollars are going, I strongly encourage you to subscribe and read the full piece. Sheridan lays out a compelling argument that Australia is witnessing the steady growth of a taxpayer-funded progressive ideology that now reaches into almost every aspect of public life.

Whether you agree with all of his conclusions or not, the questions he raises deserve serious discussion.

From Government to Ideology

At the heart of Sheridan's argument is a simple proposition: governments should administer the country, not use taxpayer funds to persuade citizens to adopt a particular political worldview.

Yet increasingly, billions of dollars are being spent not merely on implementing policy, but on promoting and entrenching a specific set of progressive beliefs.

He argues that Australia is moving towards a model where government agencies, publicly funded institutions, educational bodies, regulatory authorities, and advocacy organisations all reinforce the same ideological perspective. The result is not merely policy disagreement but a narrowing of acceptable public debate.

Climate Policy or Climate Evangelism?

One of examples is climate policy.

Australians can reasonably disagree on the speed, cost, and method of transitioning to lower-emission energy sources. Yet many government-funded bodies present highly contested policy choices as settled facts.

Agencies tasked with implementing climate policy often simultaneously act as advocates for that policy. Alternative approaches—such as expanded gas generation, extended coal generation, or nuclear power—are frequently excluded from consideration before any public debate has even begun.

The issue is not whether climate change is real. The issue is whether taxpayers should be funding one side of a legitimate political debate.

The Expanding Bureaucracy of Belief

There is a growing network of publicly funded bodies that increasingly take positions on contentious social and cultural issues.

These include:

• The Climate Change Authority

• The Australian Human Rights Commission

• The Australian Law Reform Commission

• Government-funded environmental advocacy organisations

• Publicly funded educational institutions

• Curriculum development bodies

Many of these organisations no longer operate as politically neutral institutions but instead actively promote progressive interpretations of social issues.

Again, reasonable people can disagree with that assessment. But it is difficult to deny that these organisations almost invariably speak with one ideological voice.

The Curious Case of "Independent" Authorities

Another example is the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The Commission frequently comments on issues involving race, gender identity, discrimination, and historical grievances. Yet critics argue that it rarely defends competing values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or equal treatment regardless of race.

The result is that taxpayers end up funding advocacy for one side of cultural debates while those holding alternative views must fund their own opposition.

That hardly seems like political neutrality.

Education and Universities

Perhaps nowhere is this trend more visible than in education.

Progressive assumptions increasingly permeate school curricula and university culture. Certain viewpoints are encouraged, while others are treated as beyond the pale.

Universities were once places where ideas competed vigorously. Today many Australians have the impression that some ideas are welcomed while others are quietly excluded.

When institutions funded by all taxpayers become ideologically uniform, genuine intellectual diversity inevitably suffers.

The Union-State Connection

Another concern raised is the continuing flow of public money and influence toward trade unions.

Unions play a legitimate role in representing workers. However, when organisations that are overtly political receive substantial financial advantages from government, questions naturally arise about whether taxpayers are indirectly funding partisan activity.

Those questions deserve answers.

The Bigger Picture

The most important point Sheridan makes is not about any individual agency, program, or policy.

It is about the cumulative effect.

Each initiative may appear modest in isolation. But when government departments, schools, universities, regulators, commissions, unions, environmental groups, and publicly funded advocacy organisations all push in the same ideological direction, the result is a powerful political ecosystem funded by taxpayers.

Citizens who disagree are left in the curious position of financing arguments against their own views.

That should concern Australians of every political persuasion.

Today's progressive orthodoxy may be tomorrow's conservative orthodoxy. The principle remains the same.

Government should govern.

It should not use public money to engineer political conformity.

Freedom Requires Debate

Australia has always benefited from robust public debate. Our democracy is strongest when ideas compete openly and citizens are free to reach their own conclusions.

The danger arises when governments stop trusting voters to think for themselves.

Whether one agrees with Greg Sheridan's conclusions or not, his article raises a question that every taxpayer should ask:

How much of our money is being spent solving problems—and how much is being spent teaching us what to think?

For those interested in the full argument, I recommend reading Greg Sheridan's original article in The Australian. It is a thought-provoking examination of a trend that deserves far more public scrutiny than it currently receives.

Labor spends our billions on left-wing autocracy https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/how-a-relentless-progressive-orthodoxy-is-politicising-life-and-crushing-debate-in-australia/news-story/89c286ea180263d811df6e08c2d05dfa