War crimes charge over the attack on Iran go too far

Geoffrey Robertson is right that Iran’s regime is brutal (“US-Israel onslaught is a war crime”, March 4). But since 1979, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has funded and armed proxy groups across the Middle East. Hezbollah, created and backed by Tehran, carried out the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 US servicemen and now holds tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel. Hamas, also supported by Iran, carried out the October 7 massacre. Iranian-backed militias have repeatedly attacked US forces in Iraq and Syria. This is not a peaceful country suddenly attacked. It is a regime that has exported violence for decades. The comparison with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine misses the mark. Ukraine was not sponsoring terrorist attacks against Russian civilians or backing militias committed to destroying Russia. Iran has openly supported groups dedicated to eliminating a UN member state. Robertson says there was no immediate threat. Surely countries are not required to wait until missiles are fired. Iran has amassed ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and, according to US envoy Steve Witkoff, Iran’s negotiators reportedly said it had enough enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs. Such a missile build-up would make any nuclear weapons program far harder to stop once advanced. In that context, Robertson’s war crime charge goes too far. John Kempler, Rose Bay

International law has never deterred despots from torture, repression, or unleashing their illegal proxies across the region. International law is a failed outcome that dictators use to their advantage. Jake Basger, Bondi Beach

I’ve lost count of the number of times Geoffrey Robertson has accused the US president and Israel’s prime minister of war crimes. He is naive in the extreme to believe that the United Nations is capable of acting “under Chapter VII of its own charter” to set up “an international court to investigate and indict Iranian government officials who carried out the prison massacres in 1988″. The crimes were 28 years ago. Surely the priority is the reported 30,000 murders committed in Iran the last couple of months. The UN has neither the will nor capability to bring Iranian officials to account. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, recently congratulated Iran for the 47th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Riley Brown, Bondi Beach

If only the world leaders would listen to the comments of Geoffrey Robertson. I don’t presume to speak for my fellow citizens, but I feel overwhelmed and completely powerless about what is happening in the world. Our lives are disrupted with increased prices for fuel, which will affect every aspect of our lives with increased prices into the future. We have zero control over these inevitabilities. Robertson suggests new rules for the UN Security Council, which has in my opinion been a “toothless tiger” for years regarding Russia and China. The world is living with immense fear about the actions of US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. To quote Robertson, this is a war crime with consequences of death for civilians and soldiers and should be dealt with so the world can return to decent democracies. Jill King, Lane Cove

Geoffrey Robertson believes all negative consequences arising from the US/Israeli strike against the admittedly vile regime of Iran in the circumstances amount to the commission of war crimes by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. It follows that anyone aiding and abetting the preposterously named “Epic Fury” operation is an accessory, and equally guilty of the same crime, and liable to prosecution. Therefore, one hopes those in our government responsible for the management of our response to incidents like this are telling us the truth when they reject any suggestion the US requested we assist them, or that we gave the US access to Australian-based assets otherwise available for intelligence gathering or other purposes. Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay

The war on Iran by Trump and Netanyahu is not about liberating the oppressed Iranians. There is little care for them, evidenced by the bombing of a school which killed more than 100. Precision strikes have ensured the leaders are taken out but then it seems it’s pretty much open slather, with bombing raids murdering hundreds and, soon to be, thousands of civilians. The average Iranian has seen their family and friends murdered by one ruthless regime, to now witness more death at the hands of two others. Sue Adams, Dulwich Hill

Sitting on the fence

The Australian government needs to choose whether it supports the International Rule of Law or “might is right” (“Iran’s response is wild, and it has firepower for worse”, March 4). It is pointless to suggest it is up to the US and Israel to provide the legal basis for their attack as they will just lie through their teeth. Our fence-sitting is acquiescence to a radical reshaping of the world with the US in empire building mode in the western hemisphere and working with an expansionist Israel to have complete hegemony in the Middle East. Unless we take a much stronger stance against the war crimes being committed by our allies in the Middle East then we may as well declare that we no longer support any UN frameworks and that acts of murderous aggression are politically palatable. At least then we would be honest about something. Graeme Finn, Campsie

Truth goes missing

Memo to the federal government: Much of what President Trump writes on his Truth Social needs serious fact-checking before you decide to support his latest reasons for going to war (“Labor luminary hits out over Australia backing Iran war”, March 4). We’ve been down this road before when the Howard government was so keen to believe stories of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction – claims built on extremely dodgy intelligence. Most credible commentators agree with Bob Carr about Trump’s latest war and “the lie on which the war is based”. As for upholding international law – how quaintly old-fashioned. In the words of the old song: when will they ever learn? Nick Franklin, Katoomba

Paying for past mistakes

As if the previous government’s campaign against transitioning to renewable energy and promoting electric vehicles wasn’t bad enough, the Morrison government’s inexplicable decision and lack of foresight, to reduce our national fuel stockpile, and house Australia’s strategic fuel reserves in the US, appears equally inept. With an unreliable and erratic US leader calling the shots, that decision now appears even more appalling. And the Minister for Energy who signed this agreement? None other than Angus Taylor. Alan Marel, North Curl Curl

Can people recall that Angus Taylor, when he was Energy Minister, achieved special concessions from the government of America for an Australian oil reserve to be kept in the US in case of emergency? This was meant to be a substitute for his failure to have such storage in Australia. The conflict in the Middle East with interruption to fuel supplies shows his “policy” does not work. How long will it take for our fuel to come from storage in America to relieve the raised fuel prices? Do the Liberals truly hope Taylor can lead them out of the wilderness? Gregory Cook, Beecroft

Make Glebe Island blunder-free

The devil will be not only “in the detail” but in “guiding” its delivery (“Glebe affordable housing backlash”, March 4). Previous government-led planning blunders, such as Barangaroo, feature foremost here as hopefully lessons learnt. An international design competition sounds commendable but its critical caveat is maintaining the winning design to final built form. Dumbing down to commercial demands would represent another opportunity lost. The artist’s impression, showing 30 storey-plus high-rise towers, suggests a repeat of a Wentworth Point-style development. Towers that dwarf the existing industrial silos, not to mention the neighbouring terrace scaled suburbs. This site demands a more imaginative response. Preserving human scale between the buildings must surely guide the development of this suburb. Cleveland Rose, Dee Why

I agree with all the commentary about Glebe Island. If it proceeds, this project must include at least 30 per cent of public housing. An even greater travesty is the relocation to Port Kembla of the delivery of bulk raw materials used in the construction of these huge new developments close to the CBD. Delivery by ship is the cheapest form of transportation. At present, Glebe Island Port receives cement and gypsum, with the Port Authority having plans to receive bulk sand and aggregate, which are now shelved. Yes, we need more homes but not expensive foreshore apartments. Priority must be given to reducing the cost of homes elsewhere eg Parramatta Road. Elizabeth Elenius, Pyrmont

Thinking there will be affordable housing in the proposed Glebe Island development is a matter of perspective; if you are a multi-millionaire, it’s affordable. For me, this uses the same logic that YIMBYs are using in thinking bulldozing heritage houses in Haberfield will create affordable housing. They’re dreaming. Peter Miniutti, Ashbury

First the Fish Market, next Victoria Barracks, now Glebe Island. Surely all three projects are led by property developers. Where will history lie? Where is the proposal for affordable housing to rent or buy? Overseas, some public and private new projects require mandatory levels, eg 7 to 20 per cent in parts of New York State. Richard Mason, Mona Vale

We used to sadly acknowledge the gentrification of Inner West harbourside suburbs like Glebe and Balmain as housing costs drove out anyone interesting, creative or young. Now we’re building them that way. Colin Stokes, Camperdown

Egos getting in Libs’ way

Pru Goward and Nick Minchin noted a lack of accountability by senior Liberal decision makers for the last federal election loss (“Senior Libs’ blame game over election”, March 4), however, they all blamed the other decision makers. The Liberal Party is led by individual egos, rather than those with policies and accountability. The fact the Liberal Party federal executive rejected the first draft and decided to suppress the report is a perfect example of why this party is in such dire straits. Mark Nugent, Lugarno

It’s not surprising that Peter Dutton didn’t want the post-mortem results of the worst electoral defeat in more than 80 years released. Most of the blame lies squarely at the feet of this arrogant man. He alienated a large swathe of the electorate, not just female voters. During his time as leader of the opposition, he turned a deaf ear to the concerns of voters. He lived in denial and apparently remains in denial. If Angus Taylor continues down the same path, as seems likely, the Libs might as well turn out the lights and call it quits. Graham Lum, North Rocks

I note the Liberal Party election review gives Peter Dutton “credit” for nobbling the Voice to Parliament campaign. Hardly a badge of honour. Craig Forbes, Lewisham

No end to train pain

We like the train from Yass Junction to Sydney but it’s a lottery (“I took high-speed trains in four countries. We are an embarrassment”, smh.com.au, March 4). Sometimes you hit the giddy heights of overtaking cars and trucks on the Hume Freeway but all too often it’s back to crawling along while track work slows progress to a crawl. I have experienced high-speed rail travel in Russia, Italy and Japan, but I strongly doubt any such luxury will reach our sunlit shores any time soon. I simply believe there is no political or economic will to do the work needed to achieve the task. Arriving in Sydney seven hours after leaving Yass because track work and other issues have slowed the trip so much that you are then delayed to allow peak hour services to run shows the lack of overall commitment to actually providing a decent service to travellers. Phil Armour, Yass

Opportunity is knocking, and the government should grab it with both hands by immediately setting up a joint parliamentary inquiry into “Going EV – ASAP”. Carlo Ursida, Kensington (Vic)

Electric road to nowhere

I can think of a few downsides to road-based electric transport that your correspondent (Letters, 4 March) favours. It will probably increase urban road congestion because, as an EV driver myself, I know that EVs make you want to drive more rather than take public transport. It won’t help road trauma, which has increased in the last few years despite the billions being poured into road building. It won’t reduce the damage done to roads by HPVs (“higher productivity vehicles”), known to most as B-doubles. And it probably won’t alleviate the shortage of truck and bus drivers, nor the mental and physical health issues suffered by long-distance logistics drivers. A transition to electric rail will. Chris O’Rourke, Bathurst

Shut the door on property rorts

Your correspondent (Letters, March 4) is incorrect in saying what would happen if negative gearing was taken away. Negative gearing is not defined as part of the Tax Act. Instead the proposal would be to restrict a taxpayer from claiming the loss from negative gearing, as a deduction. Big difference. An investor would now need to weigh up carrying the losses and hope for a huge capital gain on sale; gains that are so lightly taxed. These rorts cannot keep going. Michael Blissenden, Dural

• 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.