Regime change or chaos? Endgame remains a mystery

The US always has a good day one when it launches a Middle East war – the death of the Ayatollah is significant, as is the ineffective response by Iran. The focus is rightly on the “endgame” – stated as being “regime change” (“Removing the head does not kill regime, the question is how does US handle what comes next”, March 2). I agree there is no prospect the Iranian population has the means to overwhelm the notorious Revolutionary Guard Corps, let alone the million-plus infrastructure of the Iranian military dedicated to protecting their clerical masters. Nor do I believe these US-Israel bombings herald the start of another forever war – the US has not built up troops or called on allies for “boots on the ground”. So the effort is clearly opportunistic – take advantage of an Iran in economic chaos. Surely, the only hope the bombings and decapitation of Iran’s leadership has for success is a rupture in the leadership that could lead to civil war or capitulation? I can see no other path to success in terms of “regime change”. The issue that should have our attention now is whether the weakened Iranian leadership be fractured and a form of moderate change occur. Time is of the essence – the US and Israel are creating a power vacuum in Iran, and it’s opening a one- to two-week window. Is it a genuine chance for change? This is the calculation by Donald Trump we need to worry about and understand. Catherine Cusack, Lennox Head

Two correspondents today (Letters, March 2) questioned the lack of action by the United Nations in dealing with Iran’s deadly regime and its blatant abuse of international laws. What a farcical question, considering the UN Security Council is a toothless tiger, with five major nuclear-armed permanent members (each with their own close buddies) who have the power to veto council decisions, while the other 10 invited nations provide the powerless majority. As for the International Court of Justice (part of the UN and the only one not residing in New York), it appears to be treated like an inconvenient relative at Christmas, rather than as an arbiter and enforcer of international law. Cherry-picking rules that “suit” seems to be the only consensus among nations, not cohesion, and definitely not peace. Helen Lewin, Tumbi Umbi

I am not sure what people mean when they talk about the rules-based order in foreign affairs. The UN seems to be a talking shop, unable to enforce any of its resolutions, and it seems incapable of recognising the evils in so many nations – Sudan and Nigeria come to mind. It seems to depend on the so-called oppressed and oppressors when looking at those resolutions. No one wants a war in the Middle East, but I wonder how else the persecuted people of Iran are to be freed from the cruelty of a horrid and despotic government. I imagine the supply of oil and free transport flow are more important than the impassioned pleas of Iranians and the Persian diaspora to release them from bondage. I would like to see more balanced commentary on this than the usual anti-Trump, anti-Israel barrage. Vivienne Parsons, Thornleigh

Jennifer Parker (“The stakes for Australia in high-risk Iran gamble”, March 2) reveals the real reason why the joint US-Israeli assault on Iran was necessary by questioning: How can we believe that Iran’s nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes when its facilities are buried so deeply underground? As Parker states, Iran obviously wants to bolster these facilities against air attack because it purposely intends to develop a nuclear weapons capability under concealment, which it resolutely denies. But the irony is that the US and Israel are both also nuclear powers. Furthermore, with the world’s last remaining nuclear-arms treaty between the US and Russia expiring only last month, both these great powers are free to develop as many nuclear warheads as they like. Meanwhile, China’s nuclear arsenal is rapidly catching up to the US and Russia, and will reach nuclear parity within the next decade. So, as the West focuses on preventing Iran from ever becoming a nuclear power, how is this any different to all these other nations already possessing the greatest known threat to human civilisation? Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin, Rivett (ACT)

I found it disappointing but not surprising that not a single Herald letter writer (March 2) could put aside their hatred of Trump and Netanyahu for a moment to celebrate with the people of Iran and Iranians across the world, including Australia (“‘Sweet and sour’ moment as Iranian-Australians celebrate”, March 2). A hated and violent dictator who had oppressed their country for almost half a century was dead. The future may be very uncertain, and the motives of Trump and Netanyahu mixed, but this was a moment to show solidarity with brave people desperate for change. Jim Richardson, Croydon

Trump’s attacks on Iran add to the growing list of countries the US has bombed since he resumed the presidency. Earlier attacks were on Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Venezuela and on fishing boats in the Caribbean. This from a president who demands the Nobel Peace Prize. To quote George Orwell, it seems war is peace. Genevieve Kang, Glebe

Many people are justifying Trump’s violent overthrow of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and Ali Khamenei in Iran because these men were murderers and tyrants. So when can we expect the American megalomaniac to take similar action against Vladimir Putin in Russia, Kim Jong-un in North Korea and other despots around the world? Rob Phillips, North Epping

One wonders whether it’s really prudent of Trump to encourage other countries to eliminate toxic leaders? Renata Ratzer, Seaford (SA)

The US president posted on X today that Iranian ships would soon be “floating at the bottom of the sea”. The Roman Empire had Caesar. The British Empire had Churchill. And America has a sinking floater. Harold Scruby, Neutral Bay

Questionable support

What possessed our national government to offer such unflinching support for this attack on Iran by the US and Israel? Why couldn’t Anthony Albanese simply and passionately call for peace and urge both sides to step back from the brink? Trump’s blatant lies to justify the strikes – potential missile strike on America, imminence of nuclear weapons, breakdown in peace talks – should have rung alarm bells. We can only hope that the “joint” facility at Pine Gap wasn’t used to assist these strikes. Terence Golding, Bolwarra

Now that the US and Israel have begun their unprovoked attack on Iran, Australians need clarification from our government: Do we, or do we not, still support the fragile system of international law? It’s because of the humiliating rapidity of our government and other Western nations to offer unconditional support to the US’s illegal bombing of Iran that we deserve to know our position. After all, Foreign Minister Penny Wong often upheld our commitment to the rule of law in the past, yet now has completely reneged. It’s time for ambiguity to cease and for the government to let us know exactly where it stands. Caroline Graham, Cromer

I am very concerned about the lack of nuance in the prime minister’s statement about the death of Iran’s dictator. He is right to say the world does not need to mourn the death of Khamenei. But how can he fail to condemn Trump for waging war without any authority from Congress, with the result that all the US servicemen were acting illegally in following Trump’s personal orders? This is an appalling risk for both America and the world. We have only the rule of law to shelter under: where are we now if there is no law? Susan Jones, Hamilton

Taylor misses the point on aspiration

Angus Taylor shows just how removed he is from the reality of younger Australians when he says that cutting the capital gains tax concession is an “assault on aspiration” (“Labor calls it a win for aspiring home owners. Angus Taylor calls it an ‘assault on aspiration’” , smh.com.au, March 2). His constituency may aspire to a second, third or 10th investment property, generously subsidised by taxpayers. Most young people just aspire to have a home to call their own. I’m with them. Tony Judge, Woolgoolga

It should be obvious that the crazy idea of the government supporting investors to buy up the ever dwindling supply of housing stock and charging massive rent, otherwise known as negative gearing, and not adequately taxing the windfall they make when they sell is part of our housing crisis. Housing should not be an investment vehicle. People who are looking to buy a home should not be competing with and losing out to investors. Imagine how much better for the economy if the dead money now invested in property were invested in helping grow productive businesses. And the other upside: all those auctions where the home owner, not the government-supported investor, is given the keys. Elisabeth Goodsall, Wahroonga

No, Angus Taylor, any proposed changes to the generous capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing is not an “attack on aspiration”, it’s an attempt to address an outdated Howard policy that has in part killed the aspiration of an entire generation of Australians. Given the government already spends more on tax concessions for property investors than on public housing, homelessness services and rent assistance combined, it is time for change. Perhaps it’s time to call the established practice of these concessions what they really are: handouts. Craig Jory, Albury

A gift for students

Bravo Minister Car for implementing a specialist gifted education program, of the sort so successful in Catholic schools, into public schools (“Gifted program open to all students”, March 2). Education in all NSW schools is better when the public sector is flourishing. Many would observe that for too long the laser-like focus on public selective schools has weakened public comprehensive schools. Time to implement strategies to make all public schools destinations of choice, good for locals and good for all. Even a cursory look at the evidence reveals the so-called “prestigious selective options” more often than not fail: the potential evident at year 7 not achieved in year 12. Gifted students don’t need fluff and fuzzy reputation, they deserve qualified gifted education teachers where and when they need them, and local schools are the best place for this. Mick Egan, executive officer, Catholic Secondary Principals Australia

An interesting editorial on education in today’s Herald (“Inspiring pupils to excel is the way forward”, March 2), including the statement “as private and independent schools continue to chip away at the edges of overall government schools’ enrolments”. While the reasons for this are multifaceted, the Herald should acknowledge its contribution to the same via its independent schools supplement published only a couple of weeks ago. The disparities in funding between government and so-called independent schools (which receive significant taxpayer largesse) means that government schools cannot compete in such promotional activity. No $60 million student centres built in the style of Scottish baronial castles for our local high schools, and no colour supplements; just the provision of a quality, broad-based education for all. Graham Fazio, Cootamundra

Liberals hide their scars

Sean Kelly hits the nail on the head again ( “One notion that imperils Liberals”, March 2) – in our country, where the average person is a woman in her 30s, this party whose average member is a white man in his 70s once again changes the jockey when the electorate has for years been saying that it is the horse that is the problem. And isn’t it beautiful how they have buried the review into the 2025 election defeat – “we don’t want to know”! Pity, really – democracy requires an opposition that is relevant and actually presents an alternative government. And that is not the Liberal Party. Michael McMullan, Avoca Beach

The Liberal Party is refraining from revealing a fully blown exposé of a report by a pair of notable old-timers about why it performed so miserably in the last federal election. “The nutty ol’ Libs” is the cry – “wouldn’t you think they’d happily highlight their many gaffes?” Well, no. I can only imagine the boundless glee to be had by Herald contributors, and worthy columnists, at an evening to launch “Lessons for the Libs” held at a prestigious bookshop, complete with speakers from the ABC and with hors d’oeuvres and sherry included. Rosemary O’Brien, Ashfield

Canada’s Carney sets the example

Good to see an article on Canada in a Trump world (“O Canada: this middle power roars as our exemplar”, March 2). George Brandis does, however, gloss over the continuing subservience of our two main parties to the USA at a time when this Canadian cousin of ours is making determined steps to stand more on its own feet. Of particular note is the move to buy more defence goods from Europe and their decision to buy 12 diesel-electric submarines. One does wonder how the Five Eyes intelligence system will survive in all of this. While Chalmers gave an endorsement to Canadian PM Mark Carney and his speech, our PM was noticeably less effusive; perhaps too much fealty and not enough reality? But a Liberal advocating more foreign aid! Doubt the current rag tag bunch would take up that challenge. Tony Sullivan, Islington

Correspondents to the rescue

CBD reports that Jacinda Ardern is keen to live in North Curl Curl (“Sorry, Melbourne, but Jacinda has her sights on Curl Curl”, March 2), presumably because she has read the letters in the Herald of regular correspondent Alan Marel and has concluded that it is likely to be a place of stimulating conversation. Peter Nash, Fairlight

Excellent suggestion from that Bill Young chappie (Letters, March 2) regarding a solution to our high-speed rail. I feel sure that Gina alone could be persuaded to foot the bill if it were named Rinehart Rail and came with her rejected portrait reproduced on the side of every carriage. Let’s face it, her image would receive far greater coverage than sitting on a wall in the National Gallery. Ingrid Haydon, Long Jetty

Twenty-six letters from male correspondents in today’s Herald (Letters, March 2). Four from female correspondents. Are they chosen by AI? Like the Coalition, should the Herald establish a quota system? Come on, sisters, start writing and be more difficult. Lynne Poleson, Kingsford

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.