Security expert brands Anthony Albanese's handling of US strikes on Iran 'disturbing' following revelation Prime Minister had advanced knowledge of attack
Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge has argued Anthony Albanese's response to United States strikes on Iran was made "even more disturbing" by revelations the Prime Minister had advanced knowledge of the attacks.
Mr Albanese came under intense scrutiny over his and the government's reaction to news the US had bombed three of Iran's key nuclear facilities.
The government initially put out a statement attributed only to a spokesperson which failed to explicitly support the attacks before the Prime Minister later held a press conference to give direct backing.
Critics of Labor and Mr Albanese claimed the response showed the government was out of step with the Trump Administration and had been caught flat-footed by the US.
However, on Sunday Sky News Australia revealed the Prime Minister did have advanced knowledge the US planned to attack Iran's nuclear sites, although not the exact timing on when the strikes would occur.
According to Mr Shoebridge, the revelation is likely to prompt further questions about Mr Albanese's handling of the issue.
"I think it's good that our government knew about this beforehand, but the fact that the government knew before it happened, that the US was going to bomb Iran, makes the Prime Minister's performance even more disturbing," he told Sky News.
"Let's remember, the strikes happened on a Sunday. Almost every other world leader reacted that day. It wasn't until Monday that we got a stilted press conference from the Prime Minister and he still sounded clueless and flat-footed.
"That made sense when we thought the whole thing had come as a surprise to him, but knowing he had pre-warning makes his performance quite bizarre."
Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor last week claimed Mr Albanese had expressed "anti-US alliance' sentiments by failing to quickly back in the strikes and it is possible that criticism will be renewed following the revelation Labor had advanced warning.
The back and forth over the government's response comes as the relationship between Australia and the US continues to experience increasing scrutiny after the re-election of President Donald Trump.
Critics of the government have highlighted past comments from senior Labor figures about the US President to suggest there is a disconnect between the leadership of both countries.
Australia has also come under pressure over its approach to defence spending, with Trump Administration officials pushing for Labor to lift its outlay.
Mr Albanese and Defence Minister Richard Marles have both stuck by existing plans to increase spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP, despite pressure to reach 3.5 per cent from US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.
"We have increased our defence investment,' the Prime Minister said on Friday.
'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
8 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Australians are crying out for a fairer system. Luckily, the road map is right here
Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way. Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way. Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way. Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way.
The Advertiser
8 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Israel acknowledges civilians harmed at Gaza aid sites
The Israeli military has acknowledged that Palestinian civilians were harmed at aid distribution centres in the Gaza Strip, saying that instructions have been issued to forces following "lessons learned". Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on the enclave on May 19, allowing limited United Nations deliveries to resume, the UN says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed while seeking handouts of aid. "Following incidents in which harm to civilians who arrived at distribution facilities was reported, thorough examinations were conducted in the Southern Command and instructions were issued to forces in the field following lessons learned," the Israeli military said in a statement. It said incidents in which Gaza Strip civilians were harmed were under review. A senior UN official said on Sunday that the majority of people killed were trying to reach aid distribution sites of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The GHF began distributing food packages in the Gaza Strip at the end of May, overseeing a new model of deliveries which the United Nations says is neither impartial nor neutral. But many Gazans say they have to walk for hours to reach the sites, meaning they must start travelling well before dawn if they are to stand any chance of receiving food. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday that a US-backed aid operation in Gaza is "inherently unsafe," adding: "It is killing people." Israel and the United States want the UN to work through the GHF but the world body has refused, questioning its neutrality and accusing the distribution model of militarising aid and forcing displacement. "Any operation that channels desperate civilians into militarised zones is inherently unsafe. It is killing people," Guterres told reporters. Responding to Guterres on Friday, Israel's foreign ministry said its military never targets civilians and accused the UN of "doing everything it can" to oppose the GHF aid operation. "In doing so, the UN is aligning itself with Hamas, which is also trying to sabotage the GHF's humanitarian operations," it posted on X. A GHF spokesperson said on Friday there had been no deaths at or near any of the GHF aid distribution sites. Israel and the United States have accused Hamas of stealing aid from the UN-led operations, which the Palestinian militants deny. The war erupted after Hamas-led militants in the Gaza Strip took 251 hostages and killed 1200 people, most of them civilians, in an October 7, 2023 attack, Israel's single deadliest day. Israel's military campaign has since killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to health authorities in the Gaza Strip, and flattened much of the coastal enclave. The Israeli military has acknowledged that Palestinian civilians were harmed at aid distribution centres in the Gaza Strip, saying that instructions have been issued to forces following "lessons learned". Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on the enclave on May 19, allowing limited United Nations deliveries to resume, the UN says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed while seeking handouts of aid. "Following incidents in which harm to civilians who arrived at distribution facilities was reported, thorough examinations were conducted in the Southern Command and instructions were issued to forces in the field following lessons learned," the Israeli military said in a statement. It said incidents in which Gaza Strip civilians were harmed were under review. A senior UN official said on Sunday that the majority of people killed were trying to reach aid distribution sites of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The GHF began distributing food packages in the Gaza Strip at the end of May, overseeing a new model of deliveries which the United Nations says is neither impartial nor neutral. But many Gazans say they have to walk for hours to reach the sites, meaning they must start travelling well before dawn if they are to stand any chance of receiving food. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday that a US-backed aid operation in Gaza is "inherently unsafe," adding: "It is killing people." Israel and the United States want the UN to work through the GHF but the world body has refused, questioning its neutrality and accusing the distribution model of militarising aid and forcing displacement. "Any operation that channels desperate civilians into militarised zones is inherently unsafe. It is killing people," Guterres told reporters. Responding to Guterres on Friday, Israel's foreign ministry said its military never targets civilians and accused the UN of "doing everything it can" to oppose the GHF aid operation. "In doing so, the UN is aligning itself with Hamas, which is also trying to sabotage the GHF's humanitarian operations," it posted on X. A GHF spokesperson said on Friday there had been no deaths at or near any of the GHF aid distribution sites. Israel and the United States have accused Hamas of stealing aid from the UN-led operations, which the Palestinian militants deny. The war erupted after Hamas-led militants in the Gaza Strip took 251 hostages and killed 1200 people, most of them civilians, in an October 7, 2023 attack, Israel's single deadliest day. Israel's military campaign has since killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to health authorities in the Gaza Strip, and flattened much of the coastal enclave. The Israeli military has acknowledged that Palestinian civilians were harmed at aid distribution centres in the Gaza Strip, saying that instructions have been issued to forces following "lessons learned". Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on the enclave on May 19, allowing limited United Nations deliveries to resume, the UN says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed while seeking handouts of aid. "Following incidents in which harm to civilians who arrived at distribution facilities was reported, thorough examinations were conducted in the Southern Command and instructions were issued to forces in the field following lessons learned," the Israeli military said in a statement. It said incidents in which Gaza Strip civilians were harmed were under review. A senior UN official said on Sunday that the majority of people killed were trying to reach aid distribution sites of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The GHF began distributing food packages in the Gaza Strip at the end of May, overseeing a new model of deliveries which the United Nations says is neither impartial nor neutral. But many Gazans say they have to walk for hours to reach the sites, meaning they must start travelling well before dawn if they are to stand any chance of receiving food. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday that a US-backed aid operation in Gaza is "inherently unsafe," adding: "It is killing people." Israel and the United States want the UN to work through the GHF but the world body has refused, questioning its neutrality and accusing the distribution model of militarising aid and forcing displacement. "Any operation that channels desperate civilians into militarised zones is inherently unsafe. It is killing people," Guterres told reporters. Responding to Guterres on Friday, Israel's foreign ministry said its military never targets civilians and accused the UN of "doing everything it can" to oppose the GHF aid operation. "In doing so, the UN is aligning itself with Hamas, which is also trying to sabotage the GHF's humanitarian operations," it posted on X. A GHF spokesperson said on Friday there had been no deaths at or near any of the GHF aid distribution sites. Israel and the United States have accused Hamas of stealing aid from the UN-led operations, which the Palestinian militants deny. The war erupted after Hamas-led militants in the Gaza Strip took 251 hostages and killed 1200 people, most of them civilians, in an October 7, 2023 attack, Israel's single deadliest day. Israel's military campaign has since killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to health authorities in the Gaza Strip, and flattened much of the coastal enclave. The Israeli military has acknowledged that Palestinian civilians were harmed at aid distribution centres in the Gaza Strip, saying that instructions have been issued to forces following "lessons learned". Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on the enclave on May 19, allowing limited United Nations deliveries to resume, the UN says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed while seeking handouts of aid. "Following incidents in which harm to civilians who arrived at distribution facilities was reported, thorough examinations were conducted in the Southern Command and instructions were issued to forces in the field following lessons learned," the Israeli military said in a statement. It said incidents in which Gaza Strip civilians were harmed were under review. A senior UN official said on Sunday that the majority of people killed were trying to reach aid distribution sites of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The GHF began distributing food packages in the Gaza Strip at the end of May, overseeing a new model of deliveries which the United Nations says is neither impartial nor neutral. But many Gazans say they have to walk for hours to reach the sites, meaning they must start travelling well before dawn if they are to stand any chance of receiving food. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday that a US-backed aid operation in Gaza is "inherently unsafe," adding: "It is killing people." Israel and the United States want the UN to work through the GHF but the world body has refused, questioning its neutrality and accusing the distribution model of militarising aid and forcing displacement. "Any operation that channels desperate civilians into militarised zones is inherently unsafe. It is killing people," Guterres told reporters. Responding to Guterres on Friday, Israel's foreign ministry said its military never targets civilians and accused the UN of "doing everything it can" to oppose the GHF aid operation. "In doing so, the UN is aligning itself with Hamas, which is also trying to sabotage the GHF's humanitarian operations," it posted on X. A GHF spokesperson said on Friday there had been no deaths at or near any of the GHF aid distribution sites. Israel and the United States have accused Hamas of stealing aid from the UN-led operations, which the Palestinian militants deny. The war erupted after Hamas-led militants in the Gaza Strip took 251 hostages and killed 1200 people, most of them civilians, in an October 7, 2023 attack, Israel's single deadliest day. Israel's military campaign has since killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to health authorities in the Gaza Strip, and flattened much of the coastal enclave.
ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
Could Donald Trump's power struggle with Federal Reserve create next financial crisis?
Physics often has a funny habit of accurately describing human behaviour. Take Newton's third law that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's a maxim that could apply to all manner of geopolitical events and upheavals right now from the wars tearing apart the Middle East to Vladimir Putin's disastrous military adventure in Ukraine. And then there is America. After just five months in power, US President Donald Trump predictably has driven a wrecking ball through the foundations of American society with his attacks on the legal system, various arms of government, academia and the media. In recent weeks, he's re-opened an old front from his first term, the independence of the US Federal Reserve and, particularly, its chair Jerome Powell — who, incidentally, Trump appointed. It's a battle that could have profound impacts on the US economy and, by extension, the rest of the world. For Trump, this is unfinished business, you might say, after belittling and demonising Powell during his first term for not slavishly following his orders. Now, he's at it again. This time, however, he has met an intractable force. Unlike Congress, the Republican party and some in the courts, the Fed boss is standing his ground and refusing, point blank, to bend to Trump's will to immediately slash interest rates. Late last year, when asked whether he would resign if Trump demanded it, Powell gave an uncharacteristically blunt answer. "No." When pressed as to whether he was worried the new president would remove him, he uttered a simple retort, twice: Unsurprisingly, Powell has been met with a barrage of schoolyard insults from the Commander in Chief — "dumb", "stupid", "numbskull" and "a disaster", to name a few. That's just in public. With just under a year of Powell's term to go, the president seems hell bent on announcing his replacement within months, possibly sooner, to stymie his power. The reaction could be severe and ultimately may destabilise America's economy. Powell threw down the gauntlet to Trump last week in a hearing before Congress. When questioned as to why the Fed had decided to keep interest rates on hold, the Fed chair calmly sheeted the blame back on the president and his tariff policies. "We do expect tariff inflation to show up more," Powell said. That's an eminently responsible course of action. Cutting rates ahead of a potential inflation spike could spell disaster for the US and the rest of the world. And then there's the potential impact on global growth. Even the vastly reduced proposed impost on China — now set at 40 per cent — is expected to have widespread and damaging consequences. In the meantime, the president is racing to have his "One Big Beautiful Bill" pushed through the House by July 19. Beyond that date, the whole thing lapses, and the process will need to start all over again. There are two reasons Trump wants interest rates cut to almost 1 per cent immediately. The first is that it will lift his approval ratings. But the second is the ballooning US government debt. The annual interest bill on its $US36 trillion debt is now bigger than America's defence spend. Cutting rates would dramatically reduce the interest bill and make it appear as though the new administration is successfully managing the economy. Given Trump's signature Big Beautiful Bill — with its tax cuts for the rich and increased spending — will dramatically blow out that debt over the next 30 years, he's desperate to create that illusion. Right now, US debt is around 120 per cent of GDP, the kind of levels that caused a full-blown debt crisis with Greece and the European Union just over a decade ago. With Trump's bill, it could grow to between 170 per cent and 190 per cent of GDP by 2054. Stock markets finished the financial year on a high. Our market delivered returns just shy of 10 per cent, while Wall Street hit records over the weekend. They've cast aside the chaos caused by Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, which are about to get second airing, and a war in Iran. But bond markets remain uneasy, pushing US market interest rates higher, as global investors continue to shift money out of America. The US dollar is now at a three-year low. Uppermost among the concerns is the independence of the US Federal Reserve and whether it can maintain its role as a responsible agency for monetary policy. The president, half in jest, pondered aloud a fortnight ago whether he may be able to appoint himself to replace Powell. Back in April, he canvassed sacking him, but dismissed the idea as bond markets went into revolt over his tariff plans. Trump now seems convinced that Powell's replacement could be named early and possibly even sit as a "shadow chair" on the Fed board. Some commentators are concerned that such a move would make Powell a lame-duck chair. But the greater risk surely would be that the Federal Reserve would be a lame-duck central bank. For whoever Trump appoints — regardless of their ability or standing — may well be tainted by the perception that they are nothing more than a presidential puppet with a primary focus on securing another election win rather than managing the economy. Such a move could spark a repeat of April's bond market panic. Back then, investors dumped US government bonds, which pushed US market interest rates sharply higher. Cutting official US rates could have the opposite reaction, pushing market rates higher as confidence ebbs and perceived US risks rise. That, in turn, could put serious added strains on America's ability to service its debt. But the showdown between Powell and Trump goes deeper than debt servicing ability. It goes to the heart of credibility at the world's most powerful financial institution. That's dangerous territory to be playing in. This time next week, Michele Bullock and the rate-setting gurus at the Reserve Bank of Australia will settle in for yet another nail-biting decision on where domestic interest rates are headed. Financial markets have all but signed off on another 0.25 percentage point rate cut to 3.6 per cent. Economists, who were divided last week, are mostly coming to the same conclusion. The most recent GDP figures were weak, and inflation is cooling at a faster clip than expected. While the RBA in the past has been extremely cautious with rate cuts and could easily wait until August — after the June quarter inflation data drops — the weak domestic data and the rising wave of offshore uncertainty is probably enough to tip the balance. The fallout from a US bond market conniption in reaction to a loss of confidence in the Fed could be severe. There'd be the inevitable financial markets jolt. But that would feed through to the broader financial system, the complex structure that oils the wheels of business and feeds through to the fragile emotions that determine much of our worldly wellbeing. Trust, confidence and optimism can quickly evaporate and turn to fear. Actions and reactions.
