The climaxes of those who absolutely love expensive and scarce oil

There are people absolutely loving the price of fuel going up and eager for there to be fossil fuel shortages. It’s getting them terribly agitated, in a quasi-sadistic scolding way. “Told them so” said one, “those car fascists are going to pay” said one politician, “if only there were cycleways, the teachers and nurses would use them to get to work” said an earnest unionist. “It’s ironic that the white supremacist genocidal Zionists are helping up” said keffiyeh wearing angry woman.

It started online of course, chatting together getting all excited. “Shortages will show them we were right all along, public transport is better, that’s why we need to tax people more to make it free” said the urban planner. “The people, well I mean they aren’t really human are they, that own Ford Rangers or RAM are going to feel it bad, and they’ll realise how uncool and hate filled such vehicles are” shouted the Greenpeace staffer. “Child murderers!” cried out the neurodiverse kindness campaigners. “They’re not all ACT or Winston supporting straight white men who don’t have degrees though right?” said the elder gentleman who once marched against apartheid”. “No, but 90% of them are” said the suspicious purple haired non-binary student. The university lecturer noted “Look this will expose the far-right white supremacist Zionist Trumpist terror supporters to the mass of good people who support a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance”, before the photographer yawned and said “steady on now, we need to be practical if we are to free people from the car addiction they don’t want.

A failed list candidate said “Great, even though the climate destroying far-right scum are in power, it’s election year and can get The People on our side.  We can finally show people how wonderful it is to share journeys with others on public transport, or enjoy being with nature in a cycleway”. A sick, sniffing one said “and it doesn’t matter about the Nazi Ranger drivers, all we need is for the Greens to give Labour enough of a boost to kick out Peters and Seymour”.

I might jest, but they really are almost tumescent in their excitement. 

This is the chance, the central planners can take more taxes, they can impose new rules, they can spend more of your money and direct the poor “addicted” car users to the more enlightened future of more public transport use, more cycling, more walking and of course freight should go by rail.  Not having convinced enough people that abandoning driving was necessary to save the planet, they think they can convince people that it is for their own good to abandon their transport choices.  

What do they want? You don’t even need to ask it’s all pretty clear:

• Make driving less attractive. Slower speed limits, remove general traffic lanes, remove parking, tax cars more.

• Tax you more (now or later) to subsidise public transport even more with cheaper fares, despite demand being up and the cost of providing services going up as well.

• Tax you more to subsidise rail freight, because businesses that use it already need a helping hand from… you.

• Tax you more to subsidise people who can afford to buy new cars to buy EVs, and for other people to buy e-bikes. 

Lunatic fringe academic Timothy Welch is one of these people . He’s a senior lecturer in urban planning, which of course is something we need much less of.  He gets republished by leftwing media because he plays to its unconscious bias, as he really knows little about the commercial side of the transport sector and is keen to selectively quote data as facts to support his own point of view.  His claims are mostly value judgment nonsense. 

His latest piece of polemic sees him supporting taxing buyers of petrol vehicles to subsidise buyers of EVs (it wasn't long ago he was bemoaning EVs saying "EVs require the same amount of road space and, due to their increased weight, potentially cause more road damage. But EV owners don’t buy petrol, which means they don’t pay excise tax – the same tax that pays for expanding roads". EV's don't cause more road damage, but then after the Government put EVs onto road user charges he bemoans it making EVs "less competitive".  More generally he supports making new vehicles more expensive (through the “Clean Car Standard”) which helps ensure the vehicle fleet stays older for longer, but Welch doesn’t like cars at all.  He loved that fewer utes and SUVs sold under the Clean Car Standard.  He bemoans the car ownership rate of 815 cars per 1000 people “one of the highest in the world”.  This should be celebrated that so many can afford a car and have the freedom it provides (urban planners aren't big on this), but he ignores that NZ is larger than the UK with 8% of the population. He claims that every decade there is an oil shock, which isn't really true, but even when it happens that all dies down (remember people like him warned us of Peak Oil? That was until fracking discovered more).  The 1979 oil shock one provoked Rob Muldoon to advance Think Big, and every single one of those projects turned out to be a net drain on the economy, because in a few years oil prices dropped right back. Welch doesn’t let that stop his excitement for reducing car ownership.  He finishes with this absurdity:

Every bus electrified, every cycleway built, every train funded is a direct reduction in exposure to the next crisis. The question now is whether New Zealanders begin to treat their car dependence not as a lifestyle choice but as a strategic liability.

What utter rot. Unless the bus is taking people out of cars, and unless a cycleway takes enough people out of driving cars to offset its cost of construction, it does nothing to reduce exposure.  He advocates fully taxpayer funded public transport, which has been shown in multiple examples (e.g. Tallinn, Estonia) to largely replace walking instead of driving (in Tallinn car use dropped 5%, but walking dropped 40%, and car mode share climbed back up because public transport was overcrowded with people riding it for short trips). 

There’s photographer Patrick Reynolds made a name for himself as an urbanist, and has for some years been an activist for the Green-left’s war on private motoring. This is why he was appointed to be board of NZTA in the first term of the Ardern Government, as the Greens strongly advocated for him.  He’s positively excited about the crisis on the Green Party Greater Auckland blog. He says we should think strategically (i.e. don’t just react to the crisis, but think of the “long term”).  His next step is to “rapidly reduce demand” and to “ensure an equitable path”. He said we are “structurally addicted” to driving. Curiously he floats the idea of lower speed limits for everyone but EV drivers, which is nonsense of course. Of course he doesn’t talk about aviation or shipping because These are blind spots because, by and large, governments don’t tax you to pay for their infrastructure, vehicles or services, because you’re willing to pay for them yourself (directly or indirectly through freight).

Of course it is now rounded off by the Greens. Chloe Swarbrick has, finally, taken time out shouting for the destruction of Israel and touting Hamas propaganda to demand "free" public transport and a new tax.

This wont excite the car hating mob though. Nothing gets them over the top quite as much as penalising car driving. Cars, the epitome of individual freedom, expensive capital assets that exist purely to sit idle for the owner to use when wanted, to go when and where they want to go.  So unlike public transport which is planned (!) and scheduled and directed to be a sharing experience, not so fast, not so direct and not so "selfish".  

And No.  Unlike the control freaks, I really don't care how you get around, or how goods get around, as long as people pay for it themselves.  No modes of transport are "bad" or "good", they just are well suited for different purposes. For as long as this fuel crisis continues, people will respond to the price signals in the ways they want.  Some will drive a bit less, some may buy vehicles that use less or no fuel, some will ride public transport, some will bike and some will walk.  Most people are quite happy buying their own cars, fares, bikes and shoes, and the way it SHOULD work, is the more people buy of one mode, the more that can be provided.

Funny how the planners don't really think that should be the way isn't it?

Whether your agree with it or not, the US has to win in Iran

Morally it was entirely justifiable to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many will disagree honourably because of concern that the international order, represented by sovereign states with recognised borders respecting each others territorial integrity, is fundamental to international peace and security.  They believe that this order protects peace and supports negotiation and diplomacy as the path to dispute resolution.  However, it is a defensible position that the Islamic Republic of Iran (distinct from Iran the nation) is not deserving of that protection or recognition, because it does not afford that to some other sovereign states.

It is a regime that has spent its entire history calling for death to the USA and Israel, and used terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Israel and Yemen to spread its evil poisonous misanthropic ideology of ultra-conservative Islamist theocracy.  Besides calling for "death to Israel" it has actively spread anti-semitism globally, including hosting conferences questioning the Holocaust.  It has the world's highest per capita rate of executions, killing over 972 in 2024 alone, and most recently reportedly slaughtering tens of thousands of protestors across the country.  Its theocracy includes a morality police dedicated to policing what women wear and how people interact in public, and it uses rape as a punishment of dissident women.

Given its long standing global sponsorship of terrorism (which included the IRA back in the Troubles), its pursuit of uranium enrichment and lack of transparency, it is easy to justify military action to stop it obtaining nuclear weapons. 

Whether or not it was tactically correct for the US and Israel to take on Iran only history will tell.  As much as those against the war will be wanting Trump to lose, to embarrass him, this is a very narrow and suicidal position. The very last thing anyone who supports liberal democracy, rule of law, individual freedom, human rights and civilisation should want is for the Islamic Republic of Iran to defeat the US, Israel and by proxy, the Gulf states as well.

Overthrowing the regime would be a success, weakening it so it fails due to domestic pressure (including from the Kurdish north) would be a partial success, but emboldening it even if its ability to project abroad is significantly weakened, would be seen as a victory for the regime, and a victory for its proxies.

For it would embolden Iran and its proxies to attack not just in the Middle East, but beyond, endangering Americans, Jews (don't even think Iran separates Zionists from Jews). This would make us all less safe, it would embolden Islamists across the world to promote their ideology, and for a few to be willing to use force to terrify us all.  

If the Islamic Republic survives, it will embolden Putin and Xi to give it succour, money, arms and to push on.  Putin already knows Trump wont stop him in Ukraine, Xi already knows the US will do little in the South China Sea, and wonders if he can attack Taiwan with little more than sanctions.

At this stage the biggest risk is that Trump chickens out, and wants a "deal". There is no "deal" with those who want you dead, who want your country dead and another dead.  As much as the international law purists want pontification from the Western world about the legality of the war on Iran (they think it isn't legal), that horse has bolted. 

While it's entirely possible (and probable) the Iranian regime could be replaced by one that is far from ideal (see Iraq, Libya and Syria), it is also likely it could be better.  Better is not wanting to destroy other countries, better is not wanting to fund, train and arm multiple terrorist proxies across the Middle East, and across the world to "globalise the intifada" against the infidels.

Better is not expounding an ideology that is a fundamentalist misanthropic dark-ages view of humanity, as serving a supreme religious leader who sends people to their deaths for the sake of Allah, who restricts music, literature, art, apparel, human relationships and human expression, for the sake of blasphemy.  Humanity, and in particular Europe and the Western world have been spending centuries unshackling themselves from the tyranny of theology.

The end of the Islamic Republic of Iran wont remove this, as there are plenty of others expounding such a view, including some it is attacking, but it will remove the most toxic, virulent and violent example embodied in a outwardly aggressive state.  For it to "win", survive and double down on militarising itself and securing weapons of mass destruction would be dangerous to us all.

Allister Heath in the Daily Telegraph:

Either Donald Trump holds his nerve, crushes the Iranian regime, rides out the oil shock and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, or he and America are finished, exposed as unserious, fickle and incapable of forward planning, a superpower manquée felled by drone-wielding barbarians.

The challenge is Trump’s character, his willingness to accept short-term economic and electoral pain, not America or Israel’s exceptional military capacities. Does the US president, a hawk on Iran for 47 years, have it in him to finish the job, going down in history as the saviour of civilisation from nuclear Islamism, or is he merely the unidimensional man child his critics believe him to be?..

The great danger is that Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. A loss would involve the Iranians shutting the Strait for an extended period, the Americans panicking at elevated oil prices and the US president walking away with a premature declaration of victory. Iran would be bloodied, but unbowed. 

This would be a calamity from which neither Trump nor the West would recover. It would be interpreted by our enemies, chiefly China, North Korea and Islamists, as proof that their stereotype of the average Westerner is correct, that we are coddled, narcissistic consumers who cannot handle even the smallest discomfort.

It would also embolden the West’s defeatist class. Their “analysis” relentlessly asserts that the US cannot possibly win, and dismisses any contrary evidence. Everything to them is a miscalculation; killing Ali Khamenei will backfire, we are told, but not killing him would have been criticised just as harshly.

There is nothing wrong with caution, but some of these people sound as if they want Iran to win. These same experts rightly loathe Putin, correctly seeing him as a fascist monster, who is willing to kidnap children and ethnically cleanse civilians. They rightly support Ukraine, emphasise its victories and urge it not to give up when Russia strikes a blow.

Yet they are not as passionately opposed to the Iranian regime, even though it is just as fascistic as Putin’s. They loathe Trump and Israel. They were willing to suffer high energy prices to help defeat Putin, but cannot tolerate dearer petrol to take out the Iranian regime. Their double standards and hypocrisy are vile.

This is a civilisational struggle, a battle between good and evil. The West must win, or all bets are off...

Luxon or not

It's hardly news to most people, other than some members of the National Party caucus, that Christopher Luxon is not doing well as Prime Minister in convincing even a plurality of voters that he is the right person for the job.  He defeated Chris Hipkins in 2023, and now more people think Hipkins would be a better Prime Minister than him, although I suspect a significant plurality think neither of them are any good (and a smaller number dream of minor party leaders, especially Winston Peters).

Luxon was clearly a competent CEO, and his best characteristic is that he is a good delegator. He has largely left most portfolios to their Ministers, and it shows. The Ministers that are most highly rated are those that have shown results, or at the very least, show competence in dealing with difficult issues.  Regardless of what I think of any of them personally or even some of their policies, it is fairly clear that Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Mark Mitchell (of the National Ministers, as there is competence in NZ First and ACT as well), have all shown themselves to be able to "get things done".  

I would be one of the first to criticise Stanford in many ways, in particular I think she is just another wet who is almost wholly submissive to the teaching unions, but she has shown both a willingness to effect change and a passion for what she does. Her efforts for curriculum reform, pushing structured literacy and passion for lifting standards is clear.  She projects confidence and communicates clearly and competently, even if I think the government is incredibly weak in opening up the education sector to more choice, this isn't about libertarians, it's about the general public believing in competence and leadership.

Chris Bishop on infrastructure has also demonstrated a commitment to results. You can criticise the replacement of the RMA on multiple grounds (as Nick Clark from the NZ Initiative competently did), but you can't criticise his passionate commitment to a long-term fix of the housing crisis, and his efforts to hold Kainga Ora to account, and take interim steps making it easier to build some homes and infrastructure.  Furthermore, I've never encountered a Transport Minister in New Zealand or anywhere in the world who both believes in road pricing and sees it as a tool to improve conditions for drivers, and to make better investments in road improvements. Whether it is housing, transport or social infrastructure, he doesn't just talk in carefully curated soundbites, he speaks off the cuff and shows a passion for change and results. It helps that he has twice won the usually safe Labour seat of Hutt South (Luxon, Stanford, Brown and Mitchell all have safe seats), which takes considerable effort and shows a cut-through to much more than the party base.

Simeon Brown, despite childish and cheap jibes directed at him on social media, has demonstrated calm, capable competence in delivery. In health, traditionally an albatross around the neck of politicians almost anywhere, he quickly got across the issue of Dunedin Hospital, and made a decision about its future. This matched developing a five-year health infrastructure plan and setting five key health targets. As Transport Minister his great achievements were in turning around the spending plans of NZTA to meet those of the government, and to reverse the widespread speed limit reductions.  He has a financial and economic competence as a "dry" member of Cabinet, which reflects his education and previous career in banking.

Finally Mark Mitchell has been the face of National's commitment to law and order, cracking down on criminal gangs and delivering a demonstrated reduction in violent crime, following increases in Police numbers and corrections staff. Although this was undoubtedly supported by policies from both ACT and NZ First, Mitchell is convincing as a Minister against crime.

All of this contrasts with Luxon.  He is unconvincing, he seems unable to show a serious passionate spirit that chimes with much of the population.  As much as delegating is good, people want a Prime Minister to be across it all. Not necessarily like Helen Clark was (as she was a control freak Prime Minister, micromanaging most policies and not trusting most Ministers on major issues), but at least as well as John Key and Bill English could.  PMs need to be able to ad-lib, to respond spontaneously without briefing notes, based on a philosophical and policy grounding about the direction of government and principles. Some might say it is a bit too much to ask a Prime Minister, especially a National Party one to base thinking and what he says on principles, but principles and passion are where authenticity comes from, and authenticity helps win elections.

People want political leaders to believe in something and to express it, showing their passionate commitment to not just results that people want, but the basis for getting there. Luxon hasn't got it, he didn't have it before the last election, but the public were so fed up with the failed performance of the Ardern/Hipkins years, post-Covid, that they were willing to give him a go. That willingness has been eroded considerably.  There is a chance he can pull together enough support at the election to defeat Chris Hipkins, in part because Winston Peters has clearly positioned himself on the conservative right, and David Seymour continues to have a decent base of support for those who think the National Party is too wet, but that chance is far from a safe bet.  

Much more importantly, New Zealanders deserve a Prime Minister who they have confidence in, who can take a clear, principled stand on issues, without fluffing his lines.  I'm not fussed really if Luxon wants to support the US and Israel over Iran, or oppose it because he thinks it may be against international law, or claim that NZ is watching, not involved and does not want to take a stance out of respect of our allies.  Just believe in something. 

So he needs to go. Stanford or Bishop look like the leading contenders to replace him. Mitchell hasn't the breadth and depth for the role, and Brown is too young and too conservative to attract the non-politically engaged middle voters National needs.  However, Brown would be an excellent Finance Minister.

Stanford is Auckland based, and socially liberal, with the undoubted advantage of being a woman, with a clear, pleasant voice. She would need a deputy who is more conservative and able to moderate concerns she is too wet and centrist. Some may think she could look a little like a National Jacinda, but that is under rating Stanford. It seems unlikely she would characterise herself by emotions and over-ambitious targets.  To address concerns about being wet, Brown would be an ideal deputy to Stanford, although two Auckland leaders is not ideal, it is not as problematic as two Wellington ones.

Bishop, notwithstanding the alleged failed plot late last year, is equally as compelling. Being Wellington based is no asset, but the Hutt is a bit different, and he is much more of an "everyman" able to reach across to a broader group of voters.  He would need a deputy who is not Wellington based, and although he isn't a "wet" at all, he is socially liberal, so a more conservative deputy who is either Auckland or regionally/rural based would be ideal. Brown again would deliver this, although the push for a woman would suggest Stanford could be a choice, two social liberals might grate against part of the caucus.

I've not mentioned Willis although some would suggest she is the automatic choice, as the current Deputy. There is a clear couple of reasons for that. Firstly, she has anchored herself as a Luxon loyalist, it's difficult to see his weaknesses as not reflecting on her. Secondly, and far more importantly, she has not delivered on substance, particularly on the cost of living, but also notably in turning around the economy. Rather she has pushed relatively insignificant policy measures and issues with little real result.  You can predict exactly what the Opposition is going to say, because so much of what she has pushed has delivered little.

I doubt more than 10% of voters could name Family Boost as one of her signature policies, because it's achieved little despite her efforts to publicise the handout.  The Opposition has portrayed her as a harsh austerity Finance Minister, which if it were true, would have demonstrated results, with a path to surplus being sooner (and commensurate impacts on inflation and interest rates). She would have upset public sector unions, recipients of government largesse and leftwing academics, but at least would have some respect from the public for taking difficult decisions that were unpopular with some, for the sake of better long term outcomes.  She didn't need to be Ruth Richardson to just take spending down to the levels (as a proportion of GDP) when Labour got elected in 2017. In reality she has stemmed the growth in government spending, but wears the banner of "cuts" and hasn't been able to repudiate it.  What's much worse than her weakness on spending is the populist hobby horses she has chased to no avail.  The utterly fake dressing down of the head of Fonterra for the high price of butter, when no one credible thought anything could be done about it (bear in mind she used to work for Fonterra as a lobbyist), was cringeworthy. Furthermore, she cried wolf so much about supermarkets so when it was clear that the main solution - RMA reform - was actually out of her hands, and given the price of groceries in New Zealand (when GST is taken into account) is not disproportionate to Australia, she couldn't communicate reality and back down after fuelling hype that delivered nothing.  Finally, while she has claimed credit over lowered interest rates, that all about to reverse, thanks to a lowering dollar and now the war in the Middle East.  She couldn't even get the Reserve Bank's profligacy under control.  The public want action on the cost of living, but few believe she can do anything.

She might think she is entitled to be the next Prime Minister, but it's not clear what she has to offer. Most recently, her speech in Parliament about Iran demonstrated a patronising tone that focused not on the events in the Middle East, but what it means for New Zealanders. In foreign affairs, the public wants someone to talk convincingly about what is happening in defence and humanitarian terms, balancing the death and destruction of war, with the optimism of potentially ending a brutal tyranny, and concern about the end-game and what it means for the people involved.  New Zealanders know they are far away, and they are not just concerned about inflation and trade, they do not just think of foreign relations as transactional, but as a matter of what is right and its global impacts.

So no, Willis is not the answer.  She should not be the next Prime Minister and if Luxon is replaced, she should go too and be replaced, with a Finance Minister who understands what it takes to raise productivity and make New Zealand more attractive for starting and sustaining businesses. It isn't tax breaks for movies. 

Of course nothing might happen. Maybe some National MPs want to retire early (!), maybe some think Luxon is misunderstood and the media is to blame, or the polls are missing those who are undecided and will be drawn to him for stability on voting day.  They are all wrong. Luxon has been a disaster. 

Labour has twice had one-term governments, and twice had two-term governments. National has never had a one-term government, or even a two-term government, but it nearly had a one-term government in 1993.  It was saved not just by the voting system, but because voters rejected Mike Moore's second attempt to be Prime Minister as Bolger, just, convinced voters that tough decisions were made for later gain, which proved to be true.

There is a risk in rolling Luxon (and Willis) that it makes the government look like a mistake from the start, that it draws into question the whole period since the last election.  However that risk is smaller than just fumbling along and hoping Labour will look less credible, and people will be frightened by the Greens and Te Pati Maori. 

With a passionate principled Prime Minister, and a competent, economically literate and sharp minded Finance Minister, a blend of time and courage can convince voters than the National Party has listened and wants to give the public confidence in a new Prime Minister and refreshed impetus to focus on what matters the most to them.  It needs to purge the mediocrity, the man who forever says "you know" (when you know he is trying to convince himself as much as you) and give New Zealanders passionate, competent and principled leadership.  The time for change is now. 

Mourning the Ayatollah

I understand those who think initiating military action against Iran is wrong because it risks lives and money with uncertain results. I also understand those who think intervention either to maintain international peace and security, or to relieve a humanitarian catastrophe (such as an oppressive murderous regime), should have multilateral endorsement.  

However, if you are in a secular liberal democracy, and you mourn the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, then you're contemptible. 

Of course you should be free to do it.  As much as you are free to memorialise the death of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao etc.

Don't expect not to be ridiculed or despised for it though.

ABC (Australia) reports:

Ali Alsamail and Julie Karaki, directors at the Shia Muslim Council of Australia, a peak body, said Khamenei's death was a "religious and communal loss".

"Reducing his death to celebration alone erases the reality that millions are grieving," they said.

"At a time when the Muslim community is already carrying profound anguish over the humanitarian catastrophe and documented human rights violations in Gaza and elsewhere in the region, this moment compounds an already heavy burden."

Oh please. 

If your beliefs, regardless of whether they are religious or secular, embrace anguish over someone who presided over a state that ran an oppressive theocracy, which would imprison, torture and execute opponents, including abusing women who didn't follow a misogynistic stone-age view of their rights, then you should bear the burden of others celebrating his death, and disdain from those who are concerned that you endorse such a political and philosophical perspective being applied more universally.

It's one thing to be concerned and upset about Gaza. I get that.

To be mourning and moreover to be demanding there be respect for that mourning is utterly anti-human.

Indeed the ABC continues:

Deakin University chair in global Islamic politics Greg Barton emphasised it was only five out of some 80 Shia mosques and centres in Australia that held commemorative events.

And he suggested the Iranian embassy could be pressuring Iranian religious groups in Australia to do the vigils.

"The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps runs not just a police state in Iran but to the best of their abilities, operates out of embassies and consulates to surveil the diaspora population," Professor Barton said.

Strength be to Iranians. They deserve freedom from the tyranny and oppression of a dark ages regime that treats them all as subservient subjects to a death cult version of Shia Islam. 

If you're sad at the Ayatollah's death. Sure, you are free to be, and you are free to mourn, but don't expect any public displays of sadness to not be subject to judgment or criticism.

In particular, consider if you want anyone who is an acolyte of the Ayatollah to be working for you, serving you, working in a hospital, teaching children or, in particular, working in defence or law enforcement.  Replace the word Ayatollah with "the Fuehrer" and all that goes with that, and you may be clearer on this.

Regime change in Iran should be celebrated.... if it happens

Unless you're an Islamist, a tankie or a Jew hater, all of whom loathe individual freedom, secular liberal democracy and capitalism, you'll be elated at the sight of thousands of Iranians worldwide cheering on the attacks by the US and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Of course international relations lecturers, the UN and international law advocates will all claim that the attacks are "illegal", which may be true. They cite the inviolability of state sovereignty - the concept that all states are entitled to have inviolable borders and to be free from aggression. 

The point of this is that people should be free from war, but the single biggest philosophical question in the context of the attack on Iran, is how legitimate is that principle when it protects a regime that wages war on its own people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a tyranny, a misogynistic theocratic autocracy that does not hesitate to imprison, torture and execute dissidents. From its oppressive ultra-conservative treatment of women, to its global sponsorship of terror and promotion of its bigoted intolerant brand of theocratic totalitarianism, it is wilful blindness for anyone to claim that this regime was in any way peaceful, or had any remote sense of moral authority.

The celebration of Iranians in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere for the killing of the Supreme Leader is a message of the illegitimacy of a regime that does not tolerate challenge, does not allow for peaceful transitions of power, and suppresses freedom of speech and the media egregiously.

The Iranian Islamist regime has funded, trained and armed terror groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Israel, and has provided arms for Russia's aggressive revanchist war against Ukraine. 

There are fair and reasonable questions to be asked about the attacks on Iran:

• Will the Islamic Regime actually be overthrown? Or could it remain in power through sheer brutal force against Iranians who seek to overthrow it?
• What sort of government will replace it, and could it be worse (more radical)?
• How will its proxies, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas respond, spreading conflict further?

After all the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime saw the power gap replaced by an Iranian backed regime following the disaster of ISIS. The regime of Muammar Gaddafi was followed by civil war and bifurcation of the country. The US couldn't sustain the overthrow of the Taliban.  So there is good reason to be sceptical about the US being willing to do what is necessary. 

However, it is not a reason to cite the belief that the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to protection under "state sovereignty" because it doesn't respect the sovereignty of multiple sovereign states, nor does it respect the autonomy of its people. 

Those granting the Iranian regime moral equivalency to Israel, the United States, to any liberal democracy, are either completely banal, or morally bankrupt.  

When the Iranian revolution happened in 1979, there was much domestic opposition in Iran to the regime of the Shah, which was itself autocratic and intolerant.  Some liberals and many Marxist activists backed the Islamic Revolution, and were promptly arrested and had their political movements suppressed.

Anyone who supports individual freedom and peace will want the end of this regime, let's just hope it happens, and Iranians, the Middle East and the world will be freer and more peaceful after this action against one of modern history's most brutal, terror promoting and fascist regimes.