Alternative News

Romina Beitseen and Andrew Irving

News about peace, disarmament and nuclear issues.

  1. Apr 18

    US/Israel War on Iran Started on 29th February 2026

    US/ISRAEL WAR ON IRANSTARTED ON 28 February 2026 The world is currently a very dangerous place, dominated by aggression and wars. Recently there has been US military action against Venezuela, Iran and threatening Cuba. Decades of US hostility, including the ongoing economic blockade, have already caused enormous harm to the Cuban people and have been repeatedly condemned by the international community within the UN. Any attack against Cuba would be a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter. This is a total lawlessness. The rules-based order meant the US made the rules and everyone was ordered to follow. But now, there are no rules whatsoever. It’s total lawlessness. It is important to know that The United States has been involved in armed conflict for approximately 230 to 235 years out of its 250-year history (1776–2026), representing over 90% of its existence. So, this brings me to the current war on IRAN. The unlawful war of aggression, launched jointly against Iran by two nuclear states the US and Israeli regimes, on Saturday, February 28, 2026, in breach of international law, is yet another example of military excesses, which undermine world peace and world order, create chaos, violate national sovereignty and devastate the global economy. However, without the active military participation of the US Trump Regime and its defense of Israel at the UN Security Council, such an unprovoked military attack against Iran, which could escalate into a global military conflict, could not have occurred or would not have had the same scope. The US and Israel, two nuclear states, are at war with Iran. This is a criminal attack, planned in advance, at a time when every form of negotiation was underway. This is against the rules of international law and US law.  So why attack IRAN? This is not the first time:The US and Britain orchestrated a secret coup, known as Operation Ajax, in August 1953 to remove Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. He was removed because he nationalised the British-controlled oil industry, causing huge economic  loss to Britain and raising Cold War fears of a communist, Soviet-backed takeover in the US. In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh, became Prime Minister of Iran.His secular government initiated the Nationalisation of the  Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) through an Act of Parliament leading to the formation of the National Iranian Oil Company.   Only two years of parliamentary democracy (1951-53), in 1953 the CIA and MI6 led a coup d'état against the democratically elected secular government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who was first imprisoned and then put under house arrest until his death in 1967.   So, what did the Shah do after the imprisonment of the PM Mossadegh.?After returning to power in 1953 via a US/UK-backed coup, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi consolidated absolute authority, dismantling democratic opposition and transforming Iran into a pro-Western, autocratic state. He created the brutal SAVAK secret police, and initiated the "White Revolution" which caused rapid social change and massive economic inequality. The Shah established SAVAK in 1957 with CIA and Mossad assistance to suppress dissent through surveillance, torture, and imprisonment of political opponents. He shut down the Iranian parliament (Majles) and banned political parties, rendering Iran effectively a one-party state, and was seen by many Iranians as a puppet of foreign powers. Westernisation built up military power, and used oil revenue to fund infrastructure projects while establishing strong ties with the United States and Israel. While technically maintaining the nationalisation of oil, in 1954 he allowed an international consortium to manage production, splitting revenues with them.  Rapid industrialisation and secularisation alienated conservative religious elements and rural populations.  His heavy-handed repression, combined with corruption and economic inequality, created immense public discontent, which Ayatollah Khomeini capitalised on, leading to the 1979 Revolution. The Iranian Revolution began in January 1978 with major demonstrations and protests against the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which escalated throughout the year. The revolution ended in the overthrow of the monarchy on February 11, 1979, following the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the establishment of a new Islamic government.  Ever since the revolution the US has imposed sanctions against Iran and planned a number of colour revolution and unrest in Iran. The first American sanctions were imposed in November 1979. Executive Order 12170, signed by President Carter, froze approximately $8.1 billion in Iranian assets held abroad. That was 46 years ago. Through eight consecutive American administrations — through Republican and Democratic presidencies alike, through periods of Iranian nuclear compliance and non-compliance — the sanctions regime has never fundamentally lifted. It has only expanded. 1979 — First sanctions. $8.1 billion in assets frozen. Trade embargo.1987 — Reagan bans all Iranian goods and services from the US market.1995 — Clinton prohibits all US trade with and investment in Iran. 1996 — Congress penalizes foreign firms investing more than $20M/year in Iranian energy.2006–2010 — Four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions targeting Iran’s nuclear program.2012 — EU bans Iranian oil exports. SWIFT disconnects all Iranian banks. The rial loses 80% of its value in months.2018 — Trump withdraws from the JCPOA — which Iran had been complying with, as IAEA-certified. Standard Chartered fined $1.5B; JP Morgan pays $5.3M for 87 violations. The US and Israel believed they could bomb Iran and that regime change would take place in a week or so. Now not only the US and Israel are shocked by Iran’s’ counter attacks, but the whole West is also in shock. Ever since the revolution, and especially since the Iraq, Afghanistan wars Iran has been preparing for this day. Iran warned the region that if US and Israel attack Iran, they will attack all the bases in the region. IRAN WAS GIVEN DECADES OF WARNINGS IT WAS TO BE ATTACKED BY US/ISRAEL, SO IRAN HAD TIME AND THE INTELLIGENCE TO PREPARE! The US/Israeli war of aggression against Iran was publicized in war plans, which were never secret, either to Iran or to those of us who were paying attention! As always, this criminal war in violation of the UN Charter and international law, a war of choice not necessity, was sold to the public by deliberate lies and false narratives served by a corrupted, elite-owned ‘news’ media. These imperialist plans were to destabilase the Middle East for ‘Greater Israel’; the US Project for a New American Century, and the Pentagon’s list of ‘7 countries in 5 years’ countries marked for overthrow to dominate the resources-rich Middle East. And for some, there was the fanatical religious extremist plan for Armageddon! President Trump is just the convenient stooge currently implementing these long-term diabolical plans (aided by the Epstein Files?!).  The impacts of the war include widespread fuel shortages across the country. This illegal war which, unfortunately the Australian Government publicly supports, has brought into reality the vulnerable position Australians are in. The conflict means an increased number of Australian citizens are now familiar with the geography of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and one would assume the same is true of Americans, who now find themselves at war again with a distant nation. But the history of Iran (Persia as it was formerly known) demonstrates a long, dramatic and powerful position in its relations with its external opponents. Australia needs to break free from the US and build an independent, self-reliant, and sustainable economy.   History shows Iran is not easily defeated Iran’s long history shows a pattern of resistance and resilience against external powers. The present conflict between Iran and its western adversaries has echoes of a very long stretch of time in which Iran’s enemies underestimated its resilience.  Israel and Iran may trade rockets and drones, while Jewish tradition celebrates mythical stories of David and Solomon, but the religious practices and features centred on Jerusalem, together with the edited books of the Tanakh Hebrew Bible, owe their origin to the Persians. A minority of Iranians who mainly live in Europe and the US, rallied and made some noise in support of the Shah’s son the royal pretender Reza Pahlavi, to return to Iran and lead the nation. This was their dream. This will never happen. There may be some changes in the future, but I believe the royalists will never win. The minority who has been given platform by the mainstream media against the government of Iran are like Pauline Hanson who believes she will lead Australia. In my opinion this will not happen. The only reason she may look like she has a chance to win is because of mainstream media for giving her platform. Despite the optimism of the USA and its allies, Iran (Persia) has never been a land easy to defeat, crush or occupy.  The US and the West including Australia may wish to see the rule of the mullahs over the Iranian people gone, but western rockets, western warships and western hubris seem unlikely to reduce Iran to a dependency of the West or dramatically change the balance of power.  Despite claiming that they care about Iranian people, and that they want peace and prosperity for Iran, Western attackers are talking Rubbish. What they want is Iran’s wealth and its oil. The greatest irony came just days before the war. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified before the Senate Banking Committee in February 2026: “What we have done is created a dollar shortage in the country. It came to a swift and grand culmination in December, when one of the largest bank

  2. 05/18/2024

    Neutrality as an alternative Austrlaian foreign policy

    Transcript:Neutrality would keep us out of a U.S.-China warANDREW 1: Good morning listeners. My name’s Andrew and with me is Bevan Ramsden. We’re from IPAN, the Independent and Peaceful Australian Network. In this edition of Alternative News we examine neutrality as an alternative Australian foreign policy in the light of recent surveys which show that a clear majority of Australians are in favour of Australia remaining neutral in the event of war between the U.S. and China. We have discussed neutrality in a previous program but are re-visiting the subject in the light of Bevan Ramsden’s recent participation in an International Conference on Neutrality. This Congress had the theme of ‘Neutrality – a Strategy for Global Stabilisation’. Bevan, give us the background to this conference.BEVAN 1: The Congress was held in Bogota, the capital of Colombia. It is situated in the Andes on a plateau 2,500 metres above sea level. Bogota is home to 12 million people in a country with a population of 50 million. The primary organisers of the Congress were World Beyond War and the International Peace Bureau. The two- day Congress involved 50 speakers from 25 countries on 5 continents. Some of the presentations from distant countries were made over the internet but most were in person.The Congress was held in a venue within the Republic of Colombia’s Congress Building, which houses the Colombian Parliament. We were addressed by four Senators at the opening breakfast meeting within the Congress Building. I was present as the IPAN representative and was the only representative from Australia.ANDREW 2: I understand that the Vice President of Colombia took part in the conference.BEVAN 2: Yes, on the second day we met with the Colombian Vice President, Francia Marquez, who spoke to us about her position on neutrality and we all shook hands with her at the end of her speech. Whilst she endorsed the Congress’ aim of formulating a strategy for ensuring peace world-wide, she raised some criticism of neutrality as such, as did several others at the Congress. The particular criticism deserves our attention because IPAN has endorsed the principle of “non-nuclear armed neutrality” in our vision for an alternative defence for an independent Australia.The concern is that neutrality could be taken to mean “isolationism”; “washing ones hands of world problems”; “turning ones back on injustices in the world” etc. Vice President Marquez said we cannot turn our backs on the suffering of the people in Gaza, for example.ANDREW 3: You say this discussion has implications for IPAN and its policies. Can you explain why this is so?BEVAN 3: It has implications for IPAN because we have proposed an alternative defence policy for Australia based on the concept of non-nuclear armed neutrality. Listening to the Vice President and other speakers at the Congress, it became clear to me that we need to carefully elaborate and explain exactly what we mean by neutrality. We certainly would not favour an isolationist approach.To be of any value to the Australian people, a policy of neutrality would have to involve positive engagement with the countries in our region and beyond and the taking of a stand on the side of peace and justice. For example, in relation to Gaza, a neutral Australia would not become involved militarily but would use all available diplomatic and economic measures to oppose Israeli Zionist genocide, and bring about a permanent ceasefire and secure a safe and peaceful future for the Palestinian and Israeli people. ANDREW 4: Some listeners may not have heard about this alternative defence policy which IPAN has formulated. Can you provide some details?BEVAN 4:  IPAN’s alternative defence policy is based on non-nuclear armed neutrality and emphasizes diplomacy as the first option in the resolution of conflict between states. The ADF would be reconfigured for, and confined to, defence of Australian territory and its surrounding waters out to the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. There would be no involvement in foreign wars of aggression and overseas deployment of the ADF would be restricted to joining United Nations peace keeping forces in appropriate circumstances.ANDREW 5: My understanding is that a policy of territorial defence would be far less expensive than Australia’s current focus on preparing for overseas wars, against China for example, in lock-step with the United States and its other allies. Defence analysts now say that recent technological advances such as those involving drones and remote sensing have made territorial self-defence based on area denial a much cheaper option than expeditionary, aggressive wars in distant locations.BEVAN 5: The costs are indeed mild-boggling. Australia’s military expenditure is planned to reach 2.4 percent of GDP by 2034 and the AUKUS expenditure of 368 billion dollars on nuclear propelled hunter-killer submarines is only a part of this. Defence Minister Marles has no trouble finding billions of dollars for hypersonic missile development and for equipping our frigates with Tomahawk cruise missiles designed for use against land-based targets while the country is crying out for affordable housing, improved health care, urgent attention to addressing the climate emergency and many other matters impacting the lives of the Australian people.ANDREW 6: I understand that IPAN’s alternative defence policy based on neutrality has found support in the Australian community and thus arguably deserves serious discussion. Two national opinion polls, conducted in 2023 by the Lowy Institute and Essential Research, have found that a majority of Australians are in favour of keeping out of a U.S. war against China and adopting a neutral position. In particular, the Lowy poll showed that 73 percent of Australian women favour this position. So what exactly is neutrality and how would it work?BEVAN 6: Broadly speaking there are two approaches, Isolationist neutrality and actively engaged neutrality.Switzerland’s policy is an example of isolationist neutrality. Switzerland joined the United Nations as recently as 2002, having participated in U.N. peace-keeping forces from 1990. But its neutrality is coming under question. Though not a member of NATO, Switzerland has a longstanding partnership with it. Bilateral cooperation began when Switzerland joined the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme in 1996 and became a member of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) in 1997.This involves bilateral military cooperation and sharing of information and experiences. In 2024 Switzerland announced that it wants to achieve “closer, institutionalised cooperation” with NATO.ANDREW 7: Not everyone would look favourably on an isolationist approach. How does active neutrality work and who practices it?BEVAN 7: Austria, Mongolia and Costa Rica are examples of active engaged neutrality, with Costa Rica being a special case as one of only two countries to have abolished its military forces.Austria practises non-aligned engaged neutrality. Austria has its own self-defence force but does not host foreign military forces or bases but and does not participate in foreign wars or military alliances. Its parliament adopted the neutrality law which has become part of its constitution. It hosts international meetings. It has banned nuclear weapons and played a part in Central Europe becoming nuclear free. A nation which adopts a policy of neutrality can avoid entanglement in great power wars and have the credibility to act as a buffer state, promote peace keeping, host meetings between belligerents and act as a mediator.ANDREW 8: The Austrian approach could be applicable to Australia because it shows how we could play a constructive role in our region and beyond in the promotion of peaceful conflict resolution. What is preventing Australia adopting a foreign policy based on neutrality, in line with the expressed wishes of the majority of Australians?BEVAN 8: The basic problem is that Australia’s political leadership has been totally captured by the U.S. and slavishly follows U.S. foreign policy through the ANZUS Alliance and more recently the AUKUS war pact between the U.K., the U.S. and Australia. Internally, this subservience to the U.S. is expressed through the wholesale sellout of sovereignty resulting from the Force Posture Agreement signed by the U.S. and Australian governments in 2014. The F.P.A guarantees the United States a military posture in Australia. It gives the United States military unimpeded access to our airports, seaports, military bases and other areas. This includes porting of their nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in WA and basing of their nuclear-capable B52 bombers at RAAF Tindal in the NT. It facilitates the stationing in Darwin of 2,500 or more U.S. marines each year and the staging of military exercises with the ADF in preparation for war against China. The U.S. military also has a regional command centre in Darwin as well as storage depots for fuel, munitions and spare parts at Darwin, RAAF Tindal and the Bandiana Army base in Victoria, for its exclusive use.ANDREW 9: Then there’s the Pine Gap spy station near Alice Springs, which feeds the U.S. military strategic information from its satellite surveillance of the earth’s surface and its capture and analysis of radio communications including that from mobile phones. Professor Richard Tanter, an expert on the expanded role of Pine Gap, recently stated that the strategic information which Pine Gap supplies to the U.S. is passed on to the Israeli military for use in its war of genocide against the people of Gaza.BEVAN 9: Clearly neutrality is not an option until our continent is cleared of foreign military installations. This is the message to the Australian people. Only a massive, broad-based united people’s campaign to break free from the death-grip of the U.S. military alliance can create the conditio

About

News about peace, disarmament and nuclear issues.