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.

Pregnant Men and Other Government Fairy Tales

Just when you think modern Woke ideology has finally reached peak absurdity, along comes another moment that makes you wonder whether common sense has quietly packed its bags and fled the country.

This week Australians were treated to testimony from Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner that sounded less like legal reasoning and more like a rejected Monty Python sketch.

The issue?
Apparently a transgender woman — that is, a biological male — could potentially face discrimination from an employer who worries they may become pregnant.

Yes. Pregnant.

A biological male.

You read that correctly.

Somewhere along the line we have gone from “be kind to people” to “deny basic biological reality or risk being labelled a bigot.”

And that, in a nutshell, is the entire problem with modern Woke ideology. It starts with a simple appeal to compassion, then mutates into a bizarre alternate reality where words mean whatever activists decide they mean this week.

We now live in a world where:

• Men can become women by declaration.

• Biology is “hate speech.”

• Asking obvious questions is “violence.”

• But actual violence is often excused if committed by the “correct” activist group.

• Racism is supposedly evil — unless directed at white people.

• Equality means discriminating against some groups to help others.

• Women’s rights must be protected — except when they conflict with transgender ideology.

• “Trust the science” applies everywhere except biology.

• Feelings outrank facts.

• And apparently men can get pregnant if enough government officials nod solemnly enough.

At this point, Orwell’s 1984 looks less like a warning and more like a training manual.

The truly fascinating thing is how aggressively these ideas must be enforced. After all, if a biological man really can become pregnant, why is so much censorship required to convince people of it?

Reality normally doesn’t need HR departments, speech codes, government commissioners and online censorship squads to keep it alive.

Gravity doesn’t need a diversity officer.

The sun doesn’t need mandatory sensitivity training.

And women did not spend generations fighting for female-only spaces so that politicians and bureaucrats could redefine the word “woman” by administrative decree.

None of this means people should be treated cruelly or unfairly. Most Australians are decent people who believe in treating everyone with dignity.

But dignity should not require society to abandon logic.

Compassion should not require mass participation in obvious nonsense.

And perhaps most importantly, governments should not be turning ideological fantasies into public policy.

Because once you arrive at the point where a man missing out on a job due to “possible pregnancy” becomes a serious legal discussion, you are no longer operating in the realm of equality law.

You are deep inside the Woke Circus — where biology is optional, contradictions are celebrated, and common sense is the only thing officially discriminated against.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 22 of 2026

  

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

• Peace, Tolerance and ... Hamas?
  
• How Ukraine Humiliated Russia
• The Straitjacket of Hormuz
• The ABCs Anti-Israel Obsession
• The Woke War On Biological Reality
  
• More Passports for Terrorists
  
• Pregnant Men and Other Government Fairy Tales
  
• No Uranium, No Oil Exports
  

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

The Woke War on Biological Reality

It began with something most people could support.

For centuries there have been individuals who, despite being born male or female, felt deeply uncomfortable in their own bodies. Gender dysphoria was recognised as a rare but serious condition. Most decent people responded the same way: with compassion.

The original proposition sounded simple enough.

Be kind. Treat people with dignity. Acknowledge their suffering. Allow adults to live the way they choose.

Most Australians could accept that.

But like so many modern Woke movements, what started as a call for tolerance rapidly transformed into something far more radical — and far more dangerous.

In just a few short years Western societies have gone from recognising a tiny minority of people with genuine gender dysphoria to embracing a bizarre ideological movement that now claims there are dozens upon dozens of “genders”, many entirely detached from biology, science, or even common sense.

The public was told this was merely about kindness.

But kindness has morphed into coercion.

Today we are expected not merely to tolerate but actively affirm ideas that would have been regarded as absurd only a decade ago.

Biological males compete in women’s sports, destroying fairness and, in some cases, safety. Female athletes train their entire lives only to lose scholarships, titles, and opportunities to biological males who identify as women.

Women’s prisons have housed biological males — including convicted sex offenders — with predictable and disturbing consequences.

Women’s safe spaces, shelters, change rooms, and even hospital wards have been opened to biological males on the basis of self-identification alone.

Meanwhile children — far below the age at which society allows them to drink alcohol, vote, marry, or consent to countless other life-changing decisions — are encouraged to question their gender identity. In some jurisdictions schools and institutions have actively facilitated “social transition” without parental knowledge or consent.

And for what?

To solve a problem affecting a tiny fraction of the population by destabilising long-established protections and rights for everybody else.

Perhaps the most surreal moment in this entire saga came when a Justice of the United States Supreme Court famously claimed she could not define what a woman is because she was “not a biologist”.

Think about that.

Civilisation somehow managed to understand the difference between male and female for thousands of years. Every culture. Every civilisation. Every continent.

Suddenly, in the 21st century, educated elites pretend not to know.

In Australia we saw similar madness creep into law and public policy. Anti-discrimination frameworks intended to protect women were quietly undermined by allowing people simply to declare their gender identity. The result is obvious: if anyone can become a woman merely by assertion, then many sex-based protections become legally meaningless.

The irony is painful. Feminists spent generations fighting for female-only protections and opportunities — only to see many of them dismantled in the name of “inclusion”.

But reality has begun pushing back.

In the United States, the Trump administration moved to restore biological definitions of sex in government agencies, the military, and sport.

In the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court ruled that transgender women are legally male for certain sex-based protections and definitions.

Across Europe, countries that once aggressively promoted youth gender transitions are now retreating. Medical authorities are increasingly restricting puberty blockers and irreversible surgeries for minors after evidence reviews found alarmingly weak scientific foundations for many of these interventions.

Why?

Because the promised outcomes have not materialised.

One of the saddest realities in this debate is that even after gender reassignment surgery, rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide remain tragically high for many sufferers of severe gender dysphoria.

That should force an honest conversation.

If the underlying psychological distress often remains, then perhaps radical medical intervention is not the miracle cure activists promised.

And when irreversible surgeries and hormone treatments are performed on confused young people — many of whom may simply have been going through temporary adolescent distress — the consequences can be devastating.

We are now seeing increasing numbers of “detransitioners”: young adults who deeply regret the irreversible decisions made when they were teenagers.

These stories were dismissed for years.

Now they are impossible to ignore.

None of this means we should be cruel to people suffering genuine gender dysphoria. Compassion remains essential.

But compassion cannot require society to abandon biological reality.

Nor should the rights, privacy, and safety of the overwhelming majority be sacrificed to validate the feelings of a very small minority.

A stable society cannot function if objective truth becomes subordinate to personal identity claims.

There are two biological sexes: male and female. That reality underpins sport, medicine, reproduction, and countless social structures developed over millennia.

Acknowledging that truth is not hatred.

It is sanity.

And after years of ideological excess, the West may finally be beginning to rediscover it.

The ABC’s Anti-Israel Obsession

Australia’s national broadcaster is supposed to belong to all Australians.

The charter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is clear. It is meant to provide accurate, impartial and balanced reporting. Australians fund it through their taxes precisely because it is supposed to rise above ideology, activism and political tribalism.

But on the issue of Israel and the Middle East, a growing number of Australians no longer believe the ABC is even trying.

The detailed ABC Misinformation Report submitted to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion paints a deeply disturbing picture of a public broadcaster that has abandoned neutrality and instead amplified narratives that consistently demonise Israel while minimising, excusing or contextualising the barbarity of Hamas. (The Jerusalem Post)

The report alleges repeated failures in editorial balance, selective sourcing, emotionally loaded language, and the uncritical repetition of claims originating from Hamas-controlled sources. It argues that this coverage has not merely distorted public understanding of the conflict, but has actively contributed to the toxic rise of antisemitism now spreading across Australia. (The Jerusalem Post)

That accusation should terrify anyone who still values social cohesion in this country.

This is not a debate about whether Israel should be immune from criticism. Democracies should always be open to scrutiny. Israel itself has one of the most vigorous internal media and political debates on earth.

The issue is whether Australia’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster has applied the same standards consistently and honestly.

The evidence increasingly suggests it has not.

The ABC has been accused of framing Israel almost exclusively through the lens of oppression, occupation and military power, while often reducing Hamas terrorism to “militancy”, “resistance” or “conflict”. The moral asymmetry is impossible to ignore.

After the atrocities of October 7, the civilised world should have had absolute clarity about what Hamas represents. The murder, torture, rape and kidnapping of civilians was not “context”. It was evil.

Yet large sections of the media class appeared more interested in explaining Hamas than condemning it.

That matters because media narratives shape public attitudes.

When audiences are relentlessly fed a simplified morality play in which Israel is portrayed as uniquely malevolent, it is hardly surprising that hostility toward Jews rises as well. The line between anti-Israel obsession and antisemitism is often crossed, especially when Jews in Australia are blamed, harassed or targeted for events occurring thousands of kilometres away.

Australia has now seen exactly where this poisonous atmosphere can lead.

The horrific terrorist attack at Bondi only months ago shocked the nation and forced Australians to confront a frightening reality: antisemitism is no longer a fringe phenomenon. It is becoming normalised. (New York Post)

The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was established in direct response to that growing crisis. Evidence presented to the inquiry has included testimony from Jewish Australians who are now afraid to openly display their identity in public. (ABC News)

Against that backdrop, scrutiny of the ABC is not only legitimate — it is essential.

A public broadcaster has enormous power. With that power comes responsibility.

If a privately owned activist outlet wants to campaign on ideological grounds, readers at least know what they are buying. But the ABC is different. It carries the authority and legitimacy of a national institution funded by every Australian taxpayer regardless of political belief.

That makes editorial bias far more dangerous.

Recent controversies only deepen the concern. The ABC and SBS have resisted adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism used by the Royal Commission, claiming concerns about editorial independence. (The Guardian) Critics argue this reluctance reflects a deeper institutional unwillingness to confront how anti-Israel rhetoric can slide into outright antisemitism.

Meanwhile, growing calls are emerging for the Royal Commission to directly investigate alleged bias within the ABC and SBS themselves. (The Australian)

Frankly, it is hard to argue against that.

Australians deserve journalism, not activism disguised as journalism.

They deserve reporting that distinguishes between democratic self-defence and terrorism.

They deserve context that includes the realities of Hamas extremism, Iranian influence, hostage-taking and the deliberate use of civilians as human shields.

Most of all, Jewish Australians deserve to know that the institutions funded by their own taxes are not helping to inflame the hatred now directed at their communities.

The ABC does not have to support Israel.

But it absolutely does have to report fairly.

Right now, too many Australians no longer believe it does.