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

The mRNA Story Is Not Finished Yet

When the COVID pandemic struck, governments around the world were forced to make decisions at breakneck speed. Faced with a rapidly spreading virus, they turned to a new technology—mRNA vaccines—and assured the public that the science was settled.

We were told the vaccines were safe and effective. We were told the mRNA remained largely at the injection site and was quickly broken down by the body. We were told concerns about long-term effects were unfounded.

Yet, as often happens in science, reality has proven more complicated.

A recent article in TrialSite News revisits evidence suggesting that regulators were aware much earlier than publicly acknowledged that the lipid nanoparticles used to deliver mRNA did not simply remain in the arm. Biodistribution studies indicated that vaccine components could travel throughout the body and accumulate in various tissues. The article further argues that evidence of persistence was available long before many public assurances suggested the technology was rapidly cleared.

If true, this raises an obvious question: why were the public repeatedly given such simple and categorical assurances?

Science is rarely black and white. New technologies inevitably contain uncertainties. Yet during the pandemic, uncertainty was often replaced by certainty. Those who questioned official narratives were frequently dismissed as cranks, conspiracy theorists, or anti-vaxxers.

Today, even mainstream medical authorities acknowledge that some adverse effects occurred. Every medical intervention carries risks. The issue is not whether side effects existed, but whether regulators, pharmaceutical companies, and public health authorities fully understood the biological behaviour of these vaccines when they assured the public that the material stayed localised and disappeared quickly.

The very design of mRNA vaccines introduces a degree of uncertainty that traditional vaccines do not. The vaccine does not contain the target antigen itself. Instead, it instructs the body's cells to manufacture the spike protein. This means the amount of spike protein ultimately produced may vary between individuals depending on factors such as distribution, uptake, and biological response.

The result is that the effective "dose" may not be as straightforward as the amount injected into the arm. If vaccine components travel to multiple tissues and continue producing spike protein for longer than initially believed, it is reasonable to ask whether this contributed to some of the adverse events reported over the past five years.

Nor is this merely a matter of historical interest. While the pandemic has largely receded into the rear-view mirror, mRNA technology continues to be actively promoted for a growing range of applications beyond COVID-19. That makes these questions more important, not less.

Before any medical technology is expanded and embraced on a wider scale, the burden should be on its proponents to demonstrate that potential risks have been thoroughly investigated and understood. If there remains uncertainty about how widely vaccine components travel within the body, how long they persist, or how much spike protein individual recipients may ultimately produce, then those uncertainties should be rigorously examined and transparently addressed.

The medical profession has long been guided by the principle of "first, do no harm." That principle demands caution, openness, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable evidence rather than dismiss it. Public confidence in any future use of mRNA technology will depend not on assurances, but on convincing evidence that these concerns have been fully and honestly resolved.

These are questions deserving of investigation rather than censorship.

Unfortunately, the pandemic exposed a disturbing tendency among governments, regulators, media organisations, and even parts of the scientific establishment to suppress debate. Instead of welcoming scrutiny, many institutions attempted to enforce consensus.

Science does not advance through consensus. It advances through questioning assumptions and testing hypotheses against evidence.

Perhaps the greatest lesson from the COVID era is not about vaccines at all. It is about humility.

Public officials should have been willing to say, "This is what we know today, but we may learn more tomorrow."

Instead, many chose certainty.

Now, as additional studies emerge and previously overlooked data receives renewed attention, the public is left wondering whether they were given the whole story.

Trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild.

Whether the emerging evidence ultimately confirms or refutes these concerns, a thorough and transparent examination is essential. The public deserves honest answers. The scientists who raised legitimate questions deserve a fair hearing. And the regulators who made decisions under extraordinary circumstances deserve scrutiny, not immunity from it.

The pandemic may be behind us, but the search for the truth should not be.

Because science is not a destination.

It is a process.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 23 of 2026

  

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

• The Woke War On Biological Reality
• More Passports for Terrorists
  
• Pregnant Men and Other Government Fairy Tales
  
• No Uranium, No Oil Exports
  
• Albo's song

• Must see Prager's latest video "Suicidal Empathy" presented by Gad Saad
• The mRNA Story Is Not Finished Yet
  
• Australia's Taxpayer Funded Propaganda
  
• Stop Negotiating. Let Iran Come Begging
  

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

No Uranium, No Oil Exports

As negotiations between the United States and Iran continue, we are once again hearing familiar promises. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful. Western diplomats speak of progress. Commentators talk about a "historic opportunity" for peace.

Forgive me if I don't break out the champagne.

The latest article from the Gatestone Institute, "Why Any Deal with Iran Is a Mistake," raises serious concerns about the wisdom of trusting the Iranian regime. The authors point to Iran's continued sponsorship of terrorist proxies across the Middle East, its hostility towards Israel, and its long history of deception regarding its nuclear ambitions.

But perhaps the biggest question is the simplest:

Why should anyone trust Iran this time?

This is not a regime with a spotless record of honouring agreements. Quite the opposite. Over decades, Iran has repeatedly concealed nuclear activities, obstructed inspections, ignored international obligations, and used negotiations to buy time. Every new agreement seems to be accompanied by promises that this time things will be different.

Yet somehow they never are.

If a person repeatedly breaks contracts, lies about their intentions, and ignores previous commitments, sensible people stop trusting them. Why should nation states behave differently?

The supporters of a new deal argue that diplomacy is preferable to conflict. In principle, they are right. Nobody wants another war in the Middle East.

But diplomacy only works when both parties negotiate in good faith.

The Iranian regime has demonstrated time and again that its strategic objective is survival of the regime and expansion of its influence throughout the region. It funds and arms proxies from Lebanon to Yemen. It routinely threatens Israel with destruction. It continues to enrich uranium at levels far beyond what would be required for a purely civilian nuclear program.

Against that backdrop, simply signing another piece of paper is not a solution.

The strongest card the United States currently holds is not a military one.

It is economic.

The sanctions regime and the effective blockade of Iran's oil exports have created a powerful chokehold on the regime's finances. Oil exports are the lifeblood of Iran's economy. Every barrel prevented from reaching international markets limits the regime's ability to fund its military ambitions and its network of regional proxies.

Why would Washington surrender that leverage before receiving what it wants?

The answer should be obvious.

It shouldn't.

Any sanctions relief should come only after Iran has physically surrendered its enriched uranium stockpiles and the international community has verified their removal. Not promises. Not signatures. Not future commitments.

The uranium itself.

Until then, every concession made by the West weakens its negotiating position while strengthening Iran's.

The objective should be simple: ensure that Iran loses its nuclear threat for a very long time.

If that means maintaining economic pressure until every kilogram of weapons-grade or near-weapons-grade uranium is removed from Iranian control, so be it.

Such an outcome would create an interesting political problem for Tehran.

The regime could still declare victory to its domestic audience. It could boast about standing up to America. It could stage rallies and issue triumphant press releases.

But beneath the propaganda would lie an uncomfortable reality.

Its nuclear leverage would be gone.

Israel and the United States would know it.

Iran would know it.

And the world would be safer because of it.

History teaches us that trust is earned through actions, not promises. Iran's rulers have spent decades exhausting the world's supply of goodwill. Before any new agreement is signed, Western leaders should remember that simple fact.

The question is not whether Iran can make promises.

The question is whether anyone should still believe them.