A potential ‘internal breakdown' in Iran may have undermined ceasefire with Israel
Liberal Senator Dave Sharma attributes the collapse of the Iran-Israel ceasefire in part to an 'internal breakdown' within Iran.
'We've had mixed signals from Iran … they haven't explicitly agreed to a ceasefire,' Mr Sharma told Sky News host Sharri Markson.
'There's a possibility that there's been a breakdown internally in Iran here too, where the leadership wanted to observe a ceasefire but elements of the IRGC did not.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
20 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Court D-Day arrives for Lattouf
Journalist Antoinette Lattouf will today learn her fate after she sued the ABC over their decision to take her from the air in the wake of a series of pro-Palestine social media posts. Ms Lattouf sued the ABC in the Federal Court after she was sent home for the final two days of a five-day stint on ABC Radio's Sydney Mornings program in the lead up to Christmas in 2023. Ms Lattouf was called up as a fill-in host for five shifts starting on Monday, December 18, but was told not to come in for the final two shows. She had claimed she was unlawfully dismissed after sharing a post on social media by Human Rights Watch reading: 'HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war. 'The Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza' She says that she was sacked after sharing the post about the Israel-Gaza war and as a result of a flurry of emails from pro-Israel supporters. Justice Darryl Rangiah is due to hand down his findings in the Federal Court on Wednesday morning. The ABC argued that Ms Lattouf's employment was not terminated and that when she was told that she was not required to appear on air on Thursday, December 21 and Friday, December 22, it was not motivated by her political opinions. Antoinette Lattouf sued the ABC for unlawful termination. NewsWire/Flavio Brancaleone. Credit: News Corp Australia Ms Lattouf's legal team argued that she was rendered 'pretty much unemployable' as a result of the saga having been accused of misconduct by the ABC. She argues that she suffered 'significant pain, hurt, humiliation and distress as a result of the egregious treatment meted out to her by the ABC' and that her 'reputation was sullied'. Ms Lattouf was asking the court for $100,000 to $150,000 for non-economic loss. In the Federal Court her legal team alleged former ABC chair Ita Buttrose, then-managing director David Anderson and head of content Chris Oliver-Taylor made the decision to axe her after receiving a host of complaints about her pro-Palestinian politics. During the blockbuster trial, the court heard that Ms Buttrose fired off an email to managing editor David Anderson on Tuesday, December 19. 'Has Antoinette been replaced. I am over getting emails about her,' Ms Buttrose said in the email. Former ABC chair Ita Buttrose. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia During her evidence, Ms Buttrose denied that this was proof that she wanted Ms Lattouf fired. 'If I wanted somebody removed, I'd be franker than that,' Ms Buttrose told the court at the time. The court heard that Mr Anderson replied: 'Antoinette will finish up on Friday. It's a managed exit given the situation. I can explain more tomorrow.' Ms Buttrose followed it up with another email at 9.59pm: 'I have a whole clutch more of complaints. Why can't she come down with flu? Or Covid. Or a stomach upset? We owe her nothing, we are copping criticism because she wasn't honest when she was appointed. 'Managed exit. Really. 'I don't like emailing you late but I am wrapping present. We should be in damage control not managed exits David.' Ex-ABC managing director David Anderson. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia Much of the case centred on what Ms Lattouf was told in a telephone conversation with her boss, then ABC Radio Sydney content director Elizabeth Green, on the afternoon of Monday December 18 – the day of the first of her five shifts. Ms Green told the court that she told Ms Lattouf: 'Obviously as an ABC presenter, you need to be impartial, that includes on social media. I wouldn't give anyone any ammunition for complaints, so would be best if you don't post anything related to the Israel/Palestine situation on social media while you're with us.' While Ms Lattouf told the court that she was told by Ms Green: 'It's probably best that you keep a low profile on Twitter and maybe don't tweet anything.' The court heard that following the discovery of some of Ms Lattouf's social media posts, Mr Oliver-Taylor texted Mr Anderson on Wednesday, December 20 saying that Ms Lattouf had: 'breached our editorial policies while in our employment. 'She also failed to follow a direction from her producer not to post anything while working with the ABC. As a result of this, I have no option but to stand her down.' Ms Lattout was paid for all five shifts. 'On Wednesday, 20 December 2023, Ms Lattouf was advised that she would not be required to present on Thursday, 21 December 2023 and Friday, 22 December 2023, being the last two shifts of the engagement,' the ABC's lawyers said in its submissions to the court. 'That is, the ABC altered the work that Ms Lattouf was required to undertake on the last two shifts by not requiring her to undertake any work – as it was contractually expressly entitled to do.' The ABC has asked the court to dismiss Ms Lattouf's lawsuit.
Herald Sun
24 minutes ago
- Herald Sun
Federal Court D-Day arrives for Antoinette Lattouf over ABC sacking
Journalist Antoinette Lattouf will today learn her fate after she sued the ABC over their decision to take her from the air in the wake of a series of pro-Palestine social media posts. Ms Lattouf sued the ABC in the Federal Court after she was sent home for the final two days of a five-day stint on ABC Radio's Sydney Mornings program in the lead up to Christmas in 2023. Ms Lattouf was called up as a fill-in host for five shifts starting on Monday, December 18, but was told not to come in for the final two shows. She had claimed she was unlawfully dismissed after sharing a post on social media by Human Rights Watch reading: 'HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war. 'The Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza' She says that she was sacked after sharing the post about the Israel-Gaza war and as a result of a flurry of emails from pro-Israel supporters. Justice Darryl Rangiah is due to hand down his findings in the Federal Court on Wednesday morning. The ABC argued that Ms Lattouf's employment was not terminated and that when she was told that she was not required to appear on air on Thursday, December 21 and Friday, December 22, it was not motivated by her political opinions. Ms Lattouf's legal team argued that she was rendered 'pretty much unemployable' as a result of the saga having been accused of misconduct by the ABC. She argues that she suffered 'significant pain, hurt, humiliation and distress as a result of the egregious treatment meted out to her by the ABC' and that her 'reputation was sullied'. Ms Lattouf was asking the court for $100,000 to $150,000 for non-economic loss. In the Federal Court her legal team alleged former ABC chair Ita Buttrose, then-managing director David Anderson and head of content Chris Oliver-Taylor made the decision to axe her after receiving a host of complaints about her pro-Palestinian politics. During the blockbuster trial, the court heard that Ms Buttrose fired off an email to managing editor David Anderson on Tuesday, December 19. 'Has Antoinette been replaced. I am over getting emails about her,' Ms Buttrose said in the email. During her evidence, Ms Buttrose denied that this was proof that she wanted Ms Lattouf fired. 'If I wanted somebody removed, I'd be franker than that,' Ms Buttrose told the court at the time. The court heard that Mr Anderson replied: 'Antoinette will finish up on Friday. It's a managed exit given the situation. I can explain more tomorrow.' Ms Buttrose followed it up with another email at 9.59pm: 'I have a whole clutch more of complaints. Why can't she come down with flu? Or Covid. Or a stomach upset? We owe her nothing, we are copping criticism because she wasn't honest when she was appointed. 'Managed exit. Really. 'I don't like emailing you late but I am wrapping present. We should be in damage control not managed exits David.' Much of the case centred on what Ms Lattouf was told in a telephone conversation with her boss, then ABC Radio Sydney content director Elizabeth Green, on the afternoon of Monday December 18 – the day of the first of her five shifts. Ms Green told the court that she told Ms Lattouf: 'Obviously as an ABC presenter, you need to be impartial, that includes on social media. I wouldn't give anyone any ammunition for complaints, so would be best if you don't post anything related to the Israel/Palestine situation on social media while you're with us.' While Ms Lattouf told the court that she was told by Ms Green: 'It's probably best that you keep a low profile on Twitter and maybe don't tweet anything.' The court heard that following the discovery of some of Ms Lattouf's social media posts, Mr Oliver-Taylor texted Mr Anderson on Wednesday, December 20 saying that Ms Lattouf had: 'breached our editorial policies while in our employment. 'She also failed to follow a direction from her producer not to post anything while working with the ABC. As a result of this, I have no option but to stand her down.' Ms Lattout was paid for all five shifts. 'On Wednesday, 20 December 2023, Ms Lattouf was advised that she would not be required to present on Thursday, 21 December 2023 and Friday, 22 December 2023, being the last two shifts of the engagement,' the ABC's lawyers said in its submissions to the court. 'That is, the ABC altered the work that Ms Lattouf was required to undertake on the last two shifts by not requiring her to undertake any work – as it was contractually expressly entitled to do.' The ABC has asked the court to dismiss Ms Lattouf's lawsuit. Originally published as Court D-Day arrives for Antoinette Lattouf over ABC sacking
ABC News
24 minutes ago
- ABC News
What Iran's two different flags say about its divided opposition
As people take to the streets amid the crisis in Iran, more than one version of the country's flag can be seen being waved. Both the official flag and another flag, the Lion and Sun, are politically charged, with deep ties to Iran's history and the ongoing struggles of its people. The official flag is associated with the current regime in power, while the lion and sun design is the pre-revolutionary flag and is used by some opposition groups. At first glance, it might seem like a simple case of divided loyalties — two sides, two flags — but the reality is more nuanced. The official flag represents the Islamic Republic of Iran, established after the 1979 revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which overthrew the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (also known as "the Shah"). Dr Dara Conduit, a political science lecturer at the University of Melbourne, explains that "the flag of Iran is really, really political, and so… if you were to raise the current flag of Iran, you would possibly be associated with the regime, or it may be interpreted that you're a supporter of the Iranian regime". Not necessarily. Martin Kear, a lecturer in government and international relations at the University of Sydney, points out that in some contexts, the flag may be waved by individuals protesting Israel and the United States bombing Iran rather than an overt support for the regime. Context is key. For example, Dr Conduit and Professor Kear agree that in the below image taken in Lebanon, the flag likely signals support for the regime. This is because it appears alongside flags that support terrorist organisation Hezbollah, which receives backing from the Iranian regime. Though these protests are happening at the same time and use the same symbols, they can express different political messages. Before the 1979 revolution, Iran's flag featured the lion and sun emblem, which symbolised the Pahlavi monarchy. Though banned by the Islamic Republic, the flag is still displayed by some Iranians both inside the country and in the diaspora. According to Professor Kear, displaying the lion and sun flag inside Iran is often "an act of resistance and defiance of the regime", and is not necessarily a call to restore the monarchy. Dr Conduit cautions, however, that the lion and sun flag does not represent all opposition groups, as it is sometimes associated with controversial political agendas. The lion and sun flag is closely tied to opposition factions linked to Reza Pahlavi (the Shah's son) and Maryam Rajavi, both polarising figures in Iranian politics. "[Pahlavi and Rajavi] are extremely controversial figures, and certainly do not represent a democratic future for Iran," said Dr Conduit. As a result, flying this flag can signal a specific political stance, which not everyone opposing the regime would support. The Iranian opposition is very divided and that can be seen through the politics of its flag. "The politics of the flag in Iran is symptomatic of the broader politics of the opposition movement, in that there is no one flag that the opposition is united behind," said Dr Conduit. Previously, protesters have rallied behind slogans like "Women, Life, Freedom" or images of Mahsa Amini, the young woman whose death sparked the 2022 protests. But no single banner has emerged as a symbol for the entire opposition. While opposition to the Iranian regime is widespread, it's not always straightforward. Many critics of the regime also oppose foreign intervention from the United States and Israel. "There's a lot of nuance at the moment in the opposition community … you can be anti-regime, and you can want the fall of the regime, but it doesn't mean that you want Israel to decapitate the regime, and possibly lead to a civil war," Dr Conduit says. While the Iranian regime has many domestic critics, the idea of foreign intervention complicates the situation for some.
