分类： politics

Among all modern U.S. presidents, few have delivered public threats of military aggression as stark and contradictory as 80-year-old Republican incumbent Donald Trump when it comes to conflict with Iran. Since escalations between the two nations broke out on February 28, Trump’s stance on a U.S. confrontation with Tehran has shifted dramatically, sometimes reversing course within mere hours of making a bold statement. Time and again, he has prematurely declared victory over Iran’s military capacity, only to adjust his timeline of conflict or issue fresh threats of new strikes days or weeks later.

What makes these reversals even more striking is the whiplash in Trump’s assessments of Iran’s ruling faction. On June 17, he praised Iran’s new leadership as “very smart” and “far less radicalized” than their predecessors, who were killed in joint U.S. and Israeli strikes. Just three weeks later on July 8, a visibly frustrated Trump discarded that positive framing entirely, telling reporters: “I don’t want to deal with them anymore, they’re scum.”

To understand the erratic nature of Trump’s approach to Iran, a timeline of his public statements reveals the pattern of extreme threats followed by quick retreats:

On March 21, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to issue an ultimatum: If Iran did not fully open the Strait of Hormuz to unimpeded global shipping within 48 hours, the United States would target and completely destroy the country’s power infrastructure, starting with its largest facilities. The threat drew immediate international scrutiny, as deliberate attacks on civilian critical infrastructure like power plants are broadly classified as war crimes under international humanitarian law.

Just two days later, on March 23, Trump walked back the deadline, extending it by five days and citing “very good and productive conversations” with Iranian diplomatic representatives. He would soon extend the pause on planned strikes against power plants for another 10 days, pushing the new deadline to April 6 to allow for ongoing diplomatic negotiations to continue.

As the 10-day extension neared its end on Easter Sunday, April 5, Trump issued an obscenity-laced follow-up threat, writing: “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell,” before adding the incongruous closing line: “Praise be to Allah.”

Two days later, on April 7, Trump issued an even more extreme warning, writing in a Truth Social post that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” The comment was widely interpreted by global policymakers and analysts as an explicit threat to eradicate Iran, a nation of more than 90 million people.

But just hours after that alarming statement, Trump announced he would suspend all planned bombing and attacks on Iran for a two-week period. He confirmed he had accepted a truce proposal put forward by international war mediators, after a phone call with Pakistan’s prime minister.

The pattern repeated again on June 11: Early that day, Trump posted that “The United States will be hitting Iran… VERY HARD TONIGHT” and added that “at some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island” — Iran’s key oil export terminal — along with other major oil infrastructure sites.

Once again, the reversal came almost immediately: Five hours after issuing his threat of imminent strikes, Trump announced he had “cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” citing new progress in peace negotiations aimed at securing a permanent end to the conflict.

By late June, an interim peace deal to end the cross-border fighting was finalized. But the truce collapsed within a month, with Iran launching attacks on U.S. military facilities across the Middle East, and U.S. forces responding with strikes on Iranian coastal defenses while expanding target lists to include civilian infrastructure and bridges.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting on July 31, Trump reaffirmed his aggressive stance, telling attendees: “We’ll be hitting them very hard, and you know at some point they’re going to say, ‘We just can’t take it anymore.’”

Again, a reversal came the next day. On August 1, Trump announced: “We have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack.” He added that the core perimeters of a permanent peace deal had already been agreed to by both sides. Iran’s state-run media quickly and forcefully denied the claim, stating that no such request for a delay had been sent by the Islamic republic.

The Albanese administration has issued a clear warning to global social media and technology conglomerates, unveiling a revised regulatory framework designed to compel large digital platforms to compensate Australian news organizations for the use of journalistic content. Set to be announced publicly on Monday, the adjustments to the government’s News Bargaining Incentive code modify the penalty structure that applies to platforms that refuse to enter into mandatory commercial agreements with local media outlets.

Under the revised rules, major tech firms including Google and Meta will only face a maximum penalty equal to 2.5% of their Australian-derived digital advertising revenue if they fail to strike required deals. While the new rate marks a 0.25 percentage point increase from the originally proposed charge, the scope of taxable revenue has been narrowed from all Australian operational revenue to only digital advertising earnings, resulting in a lower overall penalty burden than the government initially outlined. According to government officials, the adjusted structure is designed to drive the same volume of voluntary commercial deals between platforms and media outlets as the original draft.

In addition to the penalty changes, the updated code raises the minimum number of required deals with local media organizations from four to six for platforms to avoid penalties. Microsoft has also been added to the list of regulated entities, with its professional networking platform LinkedIn now brought into the scheme, in recognition of its growing role in distributing news content to Australian users.

Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino emphasized that the tweaks to the April draft legislation do not shift the core purpose of the policy, which is to shore up the sustainability of Australia’s journalism sector and encourage mutually beneficial commercial agreements between digital platforms and news providers. “Australian journalism is important to a well-functioning democracy and we want it to be sustainable now and into the future,” Mulino said. “We want digital platforms to do deals with a diverse range of media organisations and have shown good faith with both the platforms and media companies during the consultation process.”

The reforms also include a series of adjustments to the News Journalism Payment Scheme ahead of the bill’s introduction to parliament. The definition of eligible journalists has been expanded to cover more essential news roles and freelance contributors, while a dedicated grant program funded by penalty revenues will be established to support small publishers and new media startups. Journalists and media outlets serving regional areas, small-to-medium audiences, and marginalized communities including Indigenous Australians and the LGBTQ+ community will receive a 20% uplift in distributed funds.

Communications Minister Anika Wells noted that the targeted uplift for small and regional outlets recognizes the unique challenges these organizations face, as well as their critical role in serving local communities. “Journalism is the lifeblood of a robust democracy, which is why the Albanese government is backing a strong and sustainable media sector,” Wells said.

The policy builds on a decade-long push by successive Australian governments to force large digital platforms to compensate local media, a fight that first resulted in the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code. From the start, the policy has faced fierce pushback from big tech: Meta, for example, chose to remove all news content from its Facebook platform in Australia from 2024 rather than comply with mandatory payment requirements.

While the revised framework has been adjusted to address some tech industry concerns, it is expected to draw criticism from Australian publishers, who argue that narrowing the scope of revenue subject to penalties will reduce the overall financial pressure on platforms to strike deals. The legislation includes provisions to honor existing agreements reached during earlier bargaining periods, and a full statutory review of the scheme will be conducted three years after it takes effect.

Major Australian news organizations including News Corp Australia, the ABC, Nine Entertainment and Australian Community Media have repeatedly backed the government’s approach. In a joint statement released during the consultation phase in April, the group argued that “if digital platforms fail to pay for the use of the news content from which they profit, then journalism becomes unsustainable.” Under the final framework, platforms that meet the requirement of striking six deals with local media will face zero penalty liability, eliminating any financial burden for compliant firms.

A recent nationwide voting poll has delivered a striking shake-up to Australia’s political landscape, with Pauline Hanson’s right-wing insurgent party One Nation reclaiming the position of the nation’s most popular political party by primary vote share. Conducted by research firm Redbridge exclusively for *The Australian Financial Review*, the survey of 1,001 Australian voters captured shifting voter sentiment weeks after the last major national polling, tracking movement across all major Australian political parties.

Per the poll results, One Nation’s primary vote support climbed two percentage points to hit 32%, outstripping the ruling Labor Party, which saw a one-point drop to land at 29%. The center-right Coalition recorded a four-point surge to reach 22% primary support, while the left-wing Green Party shed an equal four points to settle at 10% of the projected primary vote. This result marks only the second time One Nation has outperformed Labor in primary voting polling since May 2024, with the shift falling within the poll’s stated 3.3% margin of error.

While One Nation leads in primary voting, two-party preferred preference modeling reveals conflicting outcomes across different head-to-head matchups. In a direct contest between One Nation and Labor, the incumbent government still holds a lead, though that advantage shrank three points to leave Labor with a narrow six-point lead (53% to 47%). When matched against the Coalition, however, Labor lost its lead: the opposition rose six points to claim a four-point advantage, sitting at 52% to Labor’s 48%.

On the question of preferred prime minister, incumbent Anthony Albanese retained his top position despite sliding approval ratings. Albanese polled at 32% for preferred prime minister, ahead of Pauline Hanson on 24% and new Liberal leader Angus Taylor on 15%. This standing comes despite overall negative sentiment toward the prime minister’s performance: Albanese’s net approval rating fell one point to negative 19. Hanson’s net approval held steady at minus 10, while Taylor’s approval improved three points to reach negative six.

The poll also broke down voter support by the key issues driving electoral choice. Voters ranked cost of living, healthcare, and housing affordability as their top three concerns, with Labor holding small leads on all three. Issues of immigration and crime and safety, ranked fourth and fifth in voter priority, saw One Nation capture the lead in voter support on these policy areas.

Just days after being sworn in as Victoria’s new state premier following Jacinta Allan’s sudden resignation, Ben Carroll has moved quickly to upend his predecessor’s policy approach, announcing plans to launch a royal commission into widespread corruption claims plaguing the state’s flagship Big Build infrastructure program — and confirming he would voluntarily appear to give evidence if summoned.

Carroll, who took office last Tuesday after a party leadership shakeup that forced Allan out of the top job, laid out his timeline for the inquiry in a press briefing on Sunday, saying the probe must get underway before Victoria’s state election scheduled for November. “This is something that needs to be done now,” Carroll told reporters.

The new premier confirmed that calling a royal commission into the construction sector will be his first official act in office — a sharp break from Allan, who rejected calls for a full public inquiry during the final months of her short tenure. The Big Build initiative, one of the state’s largest ever infrastructure pushes, includes major new public works such as upgraded roads, new urban tunnels and expanded train stations, but it has been roiled in recent months by persistent allegations of organized criminal infiltration linked to the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU).

Carroll said he has already directed the incoming head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to begin drafting the inquiry’s terms of reference, which are set to be publicly unveiled next week. When asked if he would be willing to testify before the commission, he made his position clear: “I would be happy to give evidence if called to do so. Everyone should be questioned that the royal commissioner believes had a role. That will be a matter for the commissioner and the terms of reference – they will be wide and they will be exhaustive.”

Carroll’s announcement came hours after Victorian Opposition Leader Jess Wilson published her party’s proposed terms of reference for the inquiry, which includes a demand to call 25 high-profile witnesses, including two former premiers: Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allan. In comments Sunday, Wilson claimed the corruption scandal surrounding Big Build is the worst in Victoria’s history, having already cost state taxpayers an estimated $15 billion. “Yesterday we wrote to the new premier Ben Carroll outlining our non-negotiable terms of reference for a real royal commission into the largest corruption scandal in Victoria’s history,” she said.

When asked about the Opposition’s proposal, Carroll admitted he had not yet reviewed the document, joking that media outlets received copies before his office did. “I think the media got a copy of it before I did and I’ve asked my office to track down a copy,” he said. “I am not going to run a commentary on the royal commission … I’ll have more to say next week.”

Beyond the corruption inquiry, Carroll is moving rapidly to consolidate his control of the state government, with a new front bench cabinet expected to be announced imminently. The state Labor caucus is set to meet Monday to finalize ministerial appointments before Carroll assigns portfolios. Already, two senior ministers aligned with Allan’s Socialist Left faction have resigned from cabinet and announced they will retire from politics at the November 28 election, with political speculation mounting that additional departures will follow. Health Minister Harriet Shing and Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio confirmed their exit from cabinet just two days after the leadership change that ended Allan’s premiership.

Carroll has also moved quickly to shake up the state’s top public service ranks: he has dismissed Jeremi Moule, the long-serving Department of Premier and Cabinet secretary who held the role under both Andrews and Allan, and replaced him with Treasury secretary Chris Barrett.

In a sudden shift that has eased immediate fears of a major regional escalation, former President Donald Trump revealed Saturday that the United States and Israel have agreed to hold off on planned new strikes against Iran, on the condition that a diplomatic deal to end five months of open conflict is reached quickly.

The announcement comes amid widespread international anxiety that fighting would reignite on a large scale, after Trump previously threatened to hit Iran “very hard” and U.S. officials were reportedly weighing targeted attacks on key Iranian energy infrastructure. Just days prior, U.S. embassies across the Middle East issued urgent alerts to American citizens, warning of “unforeseen escalation” and urging them to prepare for immediate evacuation. Multiple U.S. outlets including CBS News had reported that joint U.S.-Israel strikes were scheduled as early as this weekend, with oil refineries and power plants identified as potential targets.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump confirmed that U.S. military forces remained “locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” but explained that the decision to pause strikes came in response to direct requests from Tehran and multiple other regional governments.

“Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL,” Trump wrote. He outlined two non-negotiable terms for any final agreement: the “Immediate, Complete and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,” and a permanent end to what the U.S. describes as Iran’s nuclear threat. “The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, and get it DONE,” he added.

The current conflict, which opened on February 28 when U.S. and Israeli forces launched the first wave of strikes against Iran, has dragged on for more than five months with no clear path to resolution. A previous ceasefire agreement, which included identical provisions to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, collapsed after only a short period. In the weeks since hostilities resumed, Iran has tightened its grip on the waterway, requiring all passing vessels to obtain official permission and pay transit fees to access the route, which carries roughly a fifth of the world’s daily oil supplies. Data from maritime trade analytics firm Kpler released Friday confirmed that traffic through the strait has dropped “sharply” amid the ongoing tensions. The collapse of the first ceasefire and resumption of attacks has already pushed global oil prices back upward, reversing the dip recorded during the brief ceasefire period.

Regional pressure played a central role in Trump’s last-minute decision to call off strikes. According to reporting from Axios, which cited anonymous U.S. officials, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman held a phone call with Trump Saturday specifically to voice opposition to the planned strikes, urging the U.S. president to prioritize de-escalation. The White House has not yet issued any official comment confirming or denying the contents of that call.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio struck a cautiously optimistic tone in comments earlier this week to Fox News, arguing that months of U.S. military action had “wiped out” much of Iran’s defensive capabilities, leaving Tehran more open to negotiation. “Tehran was now willing and in some cases seem eager to do a deal on denuclearization, to do a deal on the straits,” Rubio said, though he warned that Iran retained the capacity to “still do damage” to regional and international interests.

Recent weeks have seen a series of unsettling attacks linked to the broader regional tensions that have raised alarms globally. On Wednesday, an unmanned drone hit a U.S.-owned gas tanker anchored in an Egyptian port, sparking a large fire; Egyptian authorities have launched an investigation but have not yet attributed responsibility for the strike. Separately, a British maritime agency reported Saturday that an “unknown projectile” struck another commercial tanker off the coast of Oman. In a separate development Saturday, Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen denied reports that they planned to impose transit fees on vessels passing through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a key alternative route for Saudi oil exports that connects the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

The decision to pause strikes comes just three months ahead of U.S. midterm elections, where control of Congress is at stake and the conflict is expected to be a core campaign issue for both major parties, posing a potential political challenge to Trump’s Republican Party.

A violent, graphic satirical segment targeting Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart, aired on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) *Race Around The World* series three weeks ago, has erupted into a major public and legal controversy, drawing sharp condemnation from senior members of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government. The four-minute segment closed with an incendiary voiceover that explicitly described a graphic act of violence against Rinehart, framing it as an action for a coming political revolution. The violent language has triggered widespread public outrage, official rebuke from cabinet ministers, and formal legal action from Rinehart’s company, Hancock Prospecting.

Senior government figures have publicly denounced the skit as inappropriate for broadcast, even for a public media outlet funded by Australian taxpayers. Health Minister Mark Butler, one of the most senior ministers in the Albanese cabinet, publicly described the material as “rubbish” and “pretty revolting” in comments to media on Sunday. Though Butler acknowledged he had not viewed the full segment personally, he said he had reviewed widespread public reporting of the violent closing passage, which he said had no place on any Australian television network—whether public, commercial, or subscription.

“Regardless of who it’s about, this sort of violent content should never be broadcast to the public,” Butler said, noting that while ABC’s decision to refer the segment to its independent internal Ombudsman for investigation was appropriate, the existence of such content on public airwaves remained unacceptable. Communications Minister Anika Wells had previously condemned the segment as “unacceptable” earlier in the week, joining Butler in criticising ABC for allowing the content to air.

The segment’s creator, Kate McGuinness, a contestant on the *Race Around The World* series, issued a public apology via the ABC last Thursday. McGuinness emphasised that she never intended to incite real violence against Rinehart, framing the graphic language as over-the-top satirical commentary that was never meant to be interpreted literally. “Unfortunately, jokes do not land with everyone. Its purpose was never to be taken literally. I apologise to anyone I’ve offended,” she said in her apology statement.

ABC’s initial response drew further anger from Rinehart and her company: the public broadcaster initially defended the segment, claiming it met editorial standards and was editorially justifiable for its satirical context. It refused to remove the content from its digital platforms or issue a public apology for more than a week after Hancock Prospecting first made formal requests to the ABC board for these actions. Last week, after growing public pressure, ABC reversed its initial stance and agreed to refer the full matter to its internal Ombudsman for an independent review.

That shift was not enough to avoid legal action. Last Friday, Hancock Prospecting issued formal legal letters to ABC leadership, including ABC Chair Kim Williams AM, Deputy Chair Lisa Caffery, and Managing Director Hugh Marks, outlining a series of alleged criminal and civil law breaches stemming from the original broadcast and the broadcaster’s decision to keep the material online. A company statement noted that a full week after Hancock Prospecting first submitted formal demands to the ABC board, senior leadership had failed to issue a substantive public or private response, nor had they taken steps to remove the harmful content from ABC platforms despite widespread public condemnation. The statement also highlighted the serious safety risks that continued publication of the violent threats poses to Rinehart personally.

Internal tensions within Australia’s Liberal Party over a potential electoral or governing alliance with Pauline Hanson’s right-wing One Nation have burst into the open, with the party’s deputy leader forcefully rejecting any future partnership, contradicting ambiguous comments from several senior colleagues.

Appearing on ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Liberal deputy leader Senator Jane Hume pushed back firmly against speculation of a coalition between the center-right Coalition and One Nation, repeating her rejection multiple times amid growing questions about post-election arrangement scenarios. “No, no, we will not be governing in coalition with One Nation,” the visibly frustrated senator stated. “We are not forming a coalition with One Nation. I think we couldn’t be any clearer than that.”

Hume emphasized that the Liberal Party already holds a long-standing governing partnership with the National Party, an alliance that has anchored conservative federal governments in Australia for nearly a century. “That coalition has been a foundation of very successful governments for 80 years now, and it will continue to be so,” she added, cementing the party’s official position.

Hume’s blunt rejection comes in direct response to ambiguous comments from other senior Liberal figures earlier in the week that left open the possibility of a future arrangement with One Nation. Liberal frontbencher Senator Andrew Bragg first brushed off questions about preference deals or a potential three-way coalition as premature ahead of the next federal election, which is scheduled to be held no earlier than 2025. When pressed further on whether he would leave the door open to a formal arrangement, Bragg told the Nine Network’s Today show: “Well, we would definitely work out whoever would be interested in being in a coalition with us, if that’s what the numbers were. Of course, we’re not crazy.”

When grilled on Bragg’s comments and whether the Coalition would accept One Nation support to form a minority government, Hume dismissed the scenario as an unrealistic hypothetical, noting the next federal election remains at least 18 months away. She acknowledged that minority governments in Australian history have relied on crossbench support from a range of minor parties, but stressed that the Liberal-National Coalition’s explicit goal is to win a majority outright. “Our intention is to win outright, and we do that by making sure that we present a credible plan and a credible team to deliver that plan,” she said. Pushed again to confirm the party’s stance, Hume doubled down: “I’ve said that we have no plans, no intention … to have a coalition with One Nation. That is our commitment. We are already in coalition. We plan to govern as a coalition, as a Liberal-National coalition.”

Hume’s official rejection was not the only sign of division within Liberal ranks earlier on Sunday. Fellow frontbencher Dan Tehan also adopted a softer, ambiguous stance, saying parliamentarians would need to wait to see the final composition of the next parliament before ruling out any potential One Nation support. When asked to directly reject a potential arrangement, Tehan replied: “well, who knows what the Australian people will present when it comes to a parliament,” pointing to the Australian Greens’ past support for Labor minority governments as a parallel.

This public split follows a shifting position from federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor. As One Nation’s polling surged earlier this year amid slumping support for the Coalition, Taylor initially left the door open to a deal with Hanson’s party. More recently, however, as One Nation’s polling has plateaued and even declined in some surveys, Taylor has shifted to a more confrontational stance, ramping up public criticism of the populist party.

For her part, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has taken an equally flexible position: she has not actively pursued a formal alliance with other conservative parties, but has not ruled out entering an arrangement if the opportunity arises post-election.

Australia’s Albanese government is moving forward with its planned phase-out of temporary fuel tax cuts, with the remaining excise relief set to expire at midnight on August 2, a senior cabinet minister has confirmed. Health Minister Mark Butler, speaking to media outlet News24, warned that motorists should prepare for gradual fuel price increases over the coming days, rather than an immediate, sharp jump at petrol bowsers.

The emergency excise cut was first introduced three months ago, when escalating conflict in the Middle East sent global oil prices soaring, placing intense cost-of-living pressure on Australian households. The original 32 cent per litre discount was halved in June, and is set to be fully removed when the clock strikes midnight on Monday. Butler noted that when the first half of the cut was rolled back last month, prices rose incrementally over multiple days, and consumers should expect the same pattern this time around.

“The government has been transparent about what this change will mean for pump prices,” Butler said. “Once the excise returns to its normal level, deflationary trends will balance out as the market returns to standard conditions.” When asked whether the government had considered extending the popular relief measure to ease ongoing household cost pressures, Butler confirmed that officials had monitored market conditions closely in recent weeks, but ultimately decided to stick to the original timeline for returning the tax to pre-relief levels. “Relief for households has been a priority, but it is also important to manage a smooth transition back to normal fiscal and market settings,” he explained. “We have to return to business as usual at some point, and we are moving forward with the plan we set out previously.”

Butler also acknowledged that fuel prices have already climbed in recent weeks, driven by renewed geopolitical instability between the United States, Iran and Israel following a surprise offensive launched February 28. He emphasized that these recent gains are not tied to the government’s excise policy, but are a direct consequence of global market volatility sparked by Middle Eastern conflict. “All Australian consumers are paying the price for this war, which cannot end soon enough,” he added.

The end of the temporary cut will also impact the heavy vehicle road user charge, which will revert to its standard 32.4 cents per litre for liquid fuels like diesel from Monday, up from the reduced 16.2 cent rate that has applied during the relief period. As of July 26, the national average retail price for petrol stood at 182.3 cents per litre, a figure that industry analysts expect will climb steadily as the tax change works its way through the supply chain to retail consumers.

Opposition energy spokesperson Dan Tehan echoed the government’s call for a peaceful end to the Middle East conflict, noting that the months-long period of relief has given the domestic fuel supply chain time to adjust to shifting market conditions. Tehan called on the Albanese government to shift its policy focus to cutting overall government spending and reducing broader cost-of-living pressures for Australian households. “If the government prioritizes bringing down general costs across the economy, that will leave Australian households better positioned to absorb the fuel price increase that will come when the excise relief expires,” Tehan said.