All News

As tensions rise in the Middle East, Iran is reportedly preparing for the possibility of war with Israel following Tehran’s recent missile strike on October 1. The outcome of this conflict now largely hinges on the scale and nature of Israel’s anticipated response, with Iranian leaders awaiting a signal from Israel before taking further action.

Preparing for Escalation

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has instructed Iran’s armed forces to brace for potential hostilities, with a series of contingency plans based on possible Israeli reactions. Iranian officials have outlined multiple strategies:

• High-Level Retaliation: If Israel’s response leads to significant damage on Iranian targets, Tehran is prepared to launch up to 1,000 ballistic missiles.
• Measured Response: In the event of a more restrained Israeli response, Iran may choose to de-escalate rather than initiate a broader conflict, signalling an attempt to keep the situation from spiralling into full-scale war.

This approach sends a calculated message to Israel, effectively cautioning them against a heavy-handed reaction to avoid further escalation.

Avoiding All-Out War

Iranian officials have emphasized their desire to avoid all-out regional war, while also grappling with the optics of appearing vulnerable. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has engaged in a regional tour, reportedly stressing Iran’s intentions to sidestep escalation. However, this diplomacy has met with some scepticism, with online commentators suggesting that Tehran is feeling the pressure.

Despite Iran’s diplomatic outreach, Major General Hossein Salami, head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), issued a stark warning that Israel’s missile defences, even with U.S. support, may not be sufficient to counter future Iranian strikes.

Israel’s Response Plans

In response, Israel has been actively weighing its military options. Initially, Israeli forces considered targeting Iran’s oil infrastructure or even its nuclear facilities. However, these plans encountered resistance from the U.S., which reportedly discouraged aggressive moves in light of potential regional destabilization. Moreover, a recent leak of confidential U.S. documents disrupted some of Israel’s operational plans.

Despite these setbacks, the Israeli military states that its forces are ready and waiting for the green light from political leadership. As both sides stand poised for possible confrontation, the region watches tensely, aware that a miscalculation could lead to a major escalation in the conflict.

The Sigma – Next Generation Howitzer embodies the future of artillery with a fully automated, cutting-edge design that optimizes both manoeuvrability and precision on the battlefield. Proudly made with American grit at our newly established South Carolina facility, this advanced system is engineered to deliver maximum impact with minimal deployment time. By manufacturing domestically, we’re not only reducing global supply chain risks but also bolstering national security and resilience. This commitment to U.S.-based production strengthens our ability to meet urgent demands, improving the operational readiness of the U.S. Army and ensuring our forces have the reliable, state-of-the-art tools they need to succeed in any mission.

ED: This article by Ernie Chamberlain was copied over from our comments page. 

The Australian Army Official History relates that on 17 August 1966 the 1 ATF base at Núi Đất was shelled by VC forces – “the barrage began at 2.43 a.m. and continued for 22 minutes. … “. After the attack, sixty-seven 82 mm mortar bomb craters were counted, and even five [sic] craters for an artillery piece which on inspection turned out to be a 70 mm Japanese howitzer. It was also later discovered that 75 mm recoilless rifles had also been firing (ie 23 RCL rounds).” The Task Force artillery intelligence officer – Captain Jim Townley, related that the 70mm Japanese howitzer “was identified from an unexploded projectile found on the road outside the 1 Field Regiment Adjutant’s tent. The shell had gouged a rubber tree to which his tent was tied. The shell had failed to explode because the fuse had not been screwed completely in.” The 70mm shells fell in the southern section of the unit areas of the 103rd Artillery Battery (RAA) and the 161st Artillery Battery (RNZA).

The 70mm Type 92 howitzer had entered Japanese military service in 1932. Việt Cộng weaponry included a number of these obsolescent 70mm Japanese howitzers – some acquired in Vietnam after WWII and others provided by the Chinese during the Việt Minh war against the French. The Chinese continued to manufacture rounds suitable for the 70mm howitzer. COSVN – the Việt Cộng Headquarters, had produced a 74-page manual for the howitzer (“Hướng Xử Dựng Bộ Binh Pháo 70mm Nhật” .

While Vietnamese accounts relate the shelling of Núi Đất by 82mm mortars and 75mm RCLs on 17 August 1966 – by the VC D445 Battalion and/or by elements of the 275 VC Main Force Regiment, they do not mention the 70mm howitzer – which would have been allocated to the force from a higher echelon. The five 70mm shells were fired by an attached element – most likely from the Z-39 Artillery Battalion of Group 89 which had been noted earlier in the Xuyên Mộc area to the east of the Task Force in March 1966. At 1430hrs on 17 August – several hours after the shelling, HQ 1 ATF received an agent report from the Vietnamese Sector Headquarters in Bà Rịa Town that a “possible VC battalion having two guns with wheels” was located five kilometres east of Núi Đất and moving to the south-east.”

The 70mm howitzer’s firing location was deduced by the artillery headquarters staff at 1 ATF – but not confirmed, as being 2.4 km east of the impact area which was on the southern edge of the Task Force area. The effective range of the Type 92 70mm Japanese Howitzer was 2,785 metres. The 70mm howitzer was later phased out of the Việt Cộng artillery inventory in preference to the far lighter – and more effective, 82mm mortar.

A complimentary 13-page Research Note 6A on the shelling – with photographs and map, is available by email from [email protected]

Museum Assistant Manager, Jason, gives us a tour of our Aussie OTO-Melara Mod 56 105mm Pack Howitzer

The U.S. Navy has strategically sent a submarine to the South China Sea, a region already fraught with tension due to territorial disputes, especially with China. This video breaks down the significance of this move, its implications for global military balance, and how it heightens the already sensitive relationship between the U.S. and China. Watch as we delve into what this manoeuvre means for international relations and why it matters for the future of global security.

HMAS Sydney conducts officer of the watch manoeuvres during Exercise Pacific Dragon 2024. Photo: Leading Seaman Daniel Goodman

HMAS Sydney returned home on October 24 after a busy four-month deployment in the Indo-Pacific region. The Hobart-class guided missile destroyer was greeted by families, friends, and the Royal Australian Navy Band at Fleet Base East.

During the deployment, Sydney achieved several milestones, including the first-of-class missile firings of the naval strike missile and the Standard Missile 6. The ship also took part in major international exercises such as Exercise RIMPAC, Exercise Pacific Dragon, Indo-Pacific Endeavour, and Operation Argos, which supports international efforts to enforce United Nations sanctions against North Korea.

In addition to these exercises, Sydney worked alongside regional partners such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, the Philippines, and the United States to enhance cooperation and interoperability. The crew conducted numerous replenishments at sea, including collaborations with Canadian, Japanese, and New Zealand vessels, as well as a historic first with the German Navy’s FGS Frankfurt Am Main.

Acting Commander of the Australian Fleet, Commodore Ray Leggatt, highlighted the significance of Sydney‘s deployment, emphasizing Australia’s dedication to maintaining a strong presence in the Indo-Pacific.

“Sydney has achieved a great deal during this deployment, working with our regional partners to help keep the region peaceful, stable, and prosperous,” said Commodore Leggatt.

Commander Grant Coleman, the ship’s commanding officer, praised his crew for their performance and the impact they made during the mission.

“I’m incredibly proud of Sydney’s crew. Their hard work throughout this deployment has enhanced the combat capability of our surface fleet and contributed to regional security, representing Australia across the Indo-Pacific,” Commander Coleman said.

During the deployment, Sydney covered 29,833 nautical miles and was away from home for 136 days.

Review and the 1987 Defence of Australia white paper. Despite various updates and tweaks over the years, the core assumptions and frameworks continue to dominate Australia’s defence posture. It’s now urgent that we break from this status quo.

Liz Buchanan, Senior Fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), recently echoed this sentiment in a piece titled Australia’s defence is lost in a fog of strategic failure and a lack of imagination. Buchanan’s analysis highlights the shortcomings of our current defence strategy, particularly its Australia’s strategic and defence policies have remained largely unchanged since the 1986 Dibb inability to evolve in response to contemporary threats. In her words, “Our government has boxed itself into a corner. We must spend more on defence, but the suppression of informed public debate and cost-of-living realities make this an unlikely option for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.”

Much of Australia’s current strategic thinking is still shaped by the assumptions of the 1980s. The Dibb Review argued that Australia would have a 10-year warning period in the event of a serious attack, allowing the nation time to mobilize and prepare. This was reinforced by the belief that our access to advanced intelligence systems would provide ample time to detect and respond to threats. However, this long-standing assumption is increasingly outdated. The modern strategic environment is far more dynamic, with threats emerging faster and from more diverse sources.

Deterrence was another key concept from the Dibb Review, advocating that Australia’s defence planning should focus on preventing aggression by demonstrating the capability to respond with force. Yet, Buchanan points out that this model no longer works in today’s multipolar world. Australia’s reliance on deterrence through denial – the idea that showing strength will discourage attacks – is insufficient given the rising threats in our region.

In recent years, Australia has relied heavily on its alliance with the United States. While partnerships are essential, Buchanan warns that this dependence limits Australia’s ability to craft an independent defence policy suited to the evolving Indo-Pacific landscape. She argues that Australia’s defence and foreign policy is still “entrenched in short-term domestic political considerations, devoid of strategic imagination.” This narrow approach leaves Australia vulnerable, particularly as emerging global powers challenge the status quo.

Buchanan also highlights a growing disconnect between Australia’s perception of its role in the international system and the realities of its strategic environment. Australia, she argues, has a “middle-power ego on a small-power budget.” While we aspire to influence global and regional affairs, our defence investments do not match the scale of our ambitions. This creates a dangerous gap between what we want to achieve and what we are capable of defending.

The solution? Buchanan calls for a strategic overhaul, driven by strong leadership and a national conversation about defence. “Government needs to come to the party and rapidly enhance its appetite for risk,” she asserts. Only by acknowledging the harsh realities of the Indo-Pacific can Australia build a defence strategy that is both sustainable and responsive to future challenges.

In short, Australia can no longer afford to rest on the policies of the past. The world has changed, and so must we.

Regardless of one’s stance—whether they are pro-Israel or pro-Hamas—there is no disputing the tragic reality: civilians in Gaza are being killed. This fact remains irrefutable, yet the contentious issue lies in understanding Israel’s actions. Are they deliberately targeting civilians, or are these casualties an unintended consequence of Hamas embedding itself within civilian populations?

Hamas has long been accused of using civilian areas as cover, hiding militants and weapons in schools, hospitals, and residential buildings. This tactic, while effective in shielding their assets, also tragically puts innocent people at risk. It makes it difficult for Israeli forces to neutralize threats without causing harm to civilians. Israel maintains that its strikes aim to neutralize military targets but are often hindered by Hamas’ strategy of blending in with civilians. This raises ethical and moral dilemmas—how can any nation defend itself while trying to minimize civilian casualties when its adversary uses civilians as human shields?

On the other side of the narrative, a controversial phenomenon has emerged known as “Gazawood” or “Pallywood.” These terms refer to staged or exaggerated scenes of destruction and suffering, often circulated in pro-Palestinian media. The intent is to garner sympathy for the Palestinian cause by presenting Israel as indiscriminately bombing civilians. In some cases, actors, including children, are portrayed as victims in these videos. Such manipulations blur the lines between genuine tragedies and fabrications, feeding into polarized narratives on social media.

When watching these clips, it’s important to critically assess their authenticity. Why are some supposedly dire situations being filmed with high-end equipment and sound effects that seem out of place in a war zone? This doesn’t negate the fact that real suffering occurs in Gaza, but it does call for discernment in differentiating between propaganda and reality.

In sum, while there is no denying the devastation in Gaza and the loss of civilian life, there are complexities to consider. Hamas’ use of civilians as shields and the dissemination of misleading footage complicate the public’s understanding of the conflict. It’s crucial to recognize these layers while remaining empathetic to the immense human toll that conflicts like this inevitably bring.

Sky News Political Contributor Chris Uhlmann slams the AEMO which announced it was unable to promise lower electricity prices despite Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s “explicit guarantee” the government could. Australian Energy Market Operator head Daniel Westerman has said he cannot guarantee the current government policies will deliver lower power prices.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdGLldw-wVE