News

Tehran’s doctrine is based on a fatwa Islamic law, which unequivocally prohibits indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction

In light of the direct conflict that broke out between Israel and Iran, rumors that the Islamic Republic could produce nuclear weapons began circulating again. In addition, just a few days ago Reuters and other media outlets quoted a senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) saying that Iran may review its nuclear doctrine following Israeli threats.

The US, EU, and Israel have long feared that Iran may produce nuclear weapons, and have used this threat to justify their actions against the Islamic Republic. However, it is important to understand that Iran’s nuclear doctrine is based on a fatwa (a ruling based on Islamic law) issued by the country’s Supreme Leader. According to this fatwa, the production of nuclear weapons is a sin. However, Iran’s opponents do not believe in the sincerity of this ruling and, they suggest, it can be renounced at any time.

Things are not that simple

On April 17 and 18, the first Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation took place. The motto of this conference was “Nuclear energy for everyone, nuclear weapons for no one.” There, Ali Akbar Velayati, adviser to the Supreme Leader of Iran, read Ayatollah Khamenei’s message in front of officials and members of various international delegations and organizations.

“All of you know that, in the absence of the Imam Mahdi, whose coming is expected by the Shiites, the Shiite legal system is based on the opinion of authoritative and highly competent experts in the field of Islamic law (which Iran’s decisions are based on). These religious scholars issue fatwas which clearly indicate whether any action is permissible or not. One [important] issue is the permissibility of the production and use of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons) …”.

Read more US forced Israel to abandon larger attack on Iran – NYT

Ayatollah Khamenei had carefully analyzed the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by the Americans in Japan as well as the use of chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and stated his position on this issue:

“We believe that, besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological weapons, also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation, which is itself a victim of chemical weapons, feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons, and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as haraam [forbidden] and believe that it is everyone’s duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster.”

In the period from 2010 to 2015, other religious authorities, such as ayatollahs Makarem Shirazi, Jafar Subhani, Noori-Hamedani, and Javadi Amoli, also issued fatwas that prohibited the production and use of weapons of mass destruction.

But can the issued fatwas be changed or canceled? Can Iran’s position in this regard change? From a theological point of view, certainly not. Islamic law states clear reasons for this.

Why Iran can’t produce nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons and the radiation which results from their use threaten the environment, causing the destruction of crops and the death of offspring. Verse 205 of Surah al-Baqarah says: “And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and animals. And Allah does not like corruption.”

The protection of the environment, the preservation of the life of living beings and plants is every Muslim’s obligation under Sharia, Islamic law. The production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, even if they are never used, may endanger the lives of people on the planet as a result of human error. According to Islamic law, this is unacceptable.

Islam believes that a victory must be achieved by reasonable, lawful, and humane means.

As for the rules of warfare, Islam strictly prohibits the killing of civilians, women, children and the elderly, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Read more Iran’s supreme leader thanks armed forces for Israel attack

Here are the main principles of warfare in Islam:

First, there must be a clear division between military personnel and civilians. Secondly, civilians should not be targeted. Then, weapons that are used in the attack must correspond to the desired (military) goal. Appropriate weapons must be used to strike military targets. The fourth principle is the principle of necessity. The production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons contradicts all four principles of warfare.

Many hadiths, which are sayings or traditions of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, also prohibit harming nature and people who cannot defend themselves. For example, Ali ibn Abu Talib (cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad) said that the Prophet prohibited adding toxic substances to water – even to the enemy’s water sources – since this may harm civilians.

Are there loopholes?

Iran advocates agreements which would prohibit the production, proliferation, and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, and generally accedes to such treaties. Iranians can lay claim to remaining faithful to the signed agreements – unlike Americans, who signed a nuclear deal with Tehran under one president then unilaterally withdrew from it when the administration in the White House changed.

Some people say that Iran is a Shiite country, and in Shia Islam there is a concept called taqiyya, which allows one to conceal one’s beliefs, convictions, etc. in the face of danger. Its critics say Iran covers up its aggressive intentions with false humane and religious principles. This idea is fundamentally wrong, since taqiyya concerns only the fact of protecting and preserving one’s religion – for example, if Muslims are in danger of being killed for their religious beliefs.

Taqiyya is prohibited if humanity is in danger of being destroyed, or if it contributes to the spread of iniquity and unrest. Therefore, taqiyya is not applicable to the production of nuclear weapons.

Based on Islamic law, the Supreme Leader of Iran made a definitive decision to ban the production and use of weapons of mass destruction. The US, Israel, and European countries know this very well. At the same time, Iran needs peaceful nuclear energy – and there is nothing dangerous or reprehensible about this.

Tehran’s doctrine is based on a fatwa Islamic law, which unequivocally prohibits indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction

In light of the direct conflict that broke out between Israel and Iran, rumors that the Islamic Republic could produce nuclear weapons began circulating again. In addition, just a few days ago Reuters and other media outlets quoted a senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) saying that Iran may review its nuclear doctrine following Israeli threats.

The US, EU, and Israel have long feared that Iran may produce nuclear weapons, and have used this threat to justify their actions against the Islamic Republic. However, it is important to understand that Iran’s nuclear doctrine is based on a fatwa (a ruling based on Islamic law) issued by the country’s Supreme Leader. According to this fatwa, the production of nuclear weapons is a sin. However, Iran’s opponents do not believe in the sincerity of this ruling and, they suggest, it can be renounced at any time.

Things are not that simple

On April 17 and 18, the first Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation took place. The motto of this conference was “Nuclear energy for everyone, nuclear weapons for no one.” There, Ali Akbar Velayati, adviser to the Supreme Leader of Iran, read Ayatollah Khamenei’s message in front of officials and members of various international delegations and organizations.

“All of you know that, in the absence of the Imam Mahdi, whose coming is expected by the Shiites, the Shiite legal system is based on the opinion of authoritative and highly competent experts in the field of Islamic law (which Iran’s decisions are based on). These religious scholars issue fatwas which clearly indicate whether any action is permissible or not. One [important] issue is the permissibility of the production and use of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons) …”.

Read more US forced Israel to abandon larger attack on Iran – NYT

Ayatollah Khamenei had carefully analyzed the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by the Americans in Japan as well as the use of chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and stated his position on this issue:

“We believe that, besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological weapons, also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation, which is itself a victim of chemical weapons, feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons, and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as haraam [forbidden] and believe that it is everyone’s duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster.”

In the period from 2010 to 2015, other religious authorities, such as ayatollahs Makarem Shirazi, Jafar Subhani, Noori-Hamedani, and Javadi Amoli, also issued fatwas that prohibited the production and use of weapons of mass destruction.

But can the issued fatwas be changed or canceled? Can Iran’s position in this regard change? From a theological point of view, certainly not. Islamic law states clear reasons for this.

Why Iran can’t produce nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons and the radiation which results from their use threaten the environment, causing the destruction of crops and the death of offspring. Verse 205 of Surah al-Baqarah says: “And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and animals. And Allah does not like corruption.”

The protection of the environment, the preservation of the life of living beings and plants is every Muslim’s obligation under Sharia, Islamic law. The production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, even if they are never used, may endanger the lives of people on the planet as a result of human error. According to Islamic law, this is unacceptable.

Islam believes that a victory must be achieved by reasonable, lawful, and humane means.

As for the rules of warfare, Islam strictly prohibits the killing of civilians, women, children and the elderly, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Read more Iran’s supreme leader thanks armed forces for Israel attack

Here are the main principles of warfare in Islam:

First, there must be a clear division between military personnel and civilians. Secondly, civilians should not be targeted. Then, weapons that are used in the attack must correspond to the desired (military) goal. Appropriate weapons must be used to strike military targets. The fourth principle is the principle of necessity. The production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons contradicts all four principles of warfare.

Many hadiths, which are sayings or traditions of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, also prohibit harming nature and people who cannot defend themselves. For example, Ali ibn Abu Talib (cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad) said that the Prophet prohibited adding toxic substances to water – even to the enemy’s water sources – since this may harm civilians.

Are there loopholes?

Iran advocates agreements which would prohibit the production, proliferation, and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, and generally accedes to such treaties. Iranians can lay claim to remaining faithful to the signed agreements – unlike Americans, who signed a nuclear deal with Tehran under one president then unilaterally withdrew from it when the administration in the White House changed.

Some people say that Iran is a Shiite country, and in Shia Islam there is a concept called taqiyya, which allows one to conceal one’s beliefs, convictions, etc. in the face of danger. Its critics say Iran covers up its aggressive intentions with false humane and religious principles. This idea is fundamentally wrong, since taqiyya concerns only the fact of protecting and preserving one’s religion – for example, if Muslims are in danger of being killed for their religious beliefs.

Taqiyya is prohibited if humanity is in danger of being destroyed, or if it contributes to the spread of iniquity and unrest. Therefore, taqiyya is not applicable to the production of nuclear weapons.

Based on Islamic law, the Supreme Leader of Iran made a definitive decision to ban the production and use of weapons of mass destruction. The US, Israel, and European countries know this very well. At the same time, Iran needs peaceful nuclear energy – and there is nothing dangerous or reprehensible about this.

While the country is getting ready to welcome Pope Francis in September, amendments have been proposed to assert the country's Christian identity. For the Catholic Bishops' Conference, this is a 'dangerous' step that 'obscures and even erases our unique Melanesian identity [. . .] rather than acknowledge, celebrate and perfect it through the Gospel'. ...

More than half of respondents said the rules laid down in the Quran take precedence, in their eyes

The majority of Muslim schoolchildren in the German state of Lower Saxony view religious rules as more important than the law, a new study has found. More than a third of respondents also indicated that they condoned acts of violence against those who insult Islam.

Germany has been the destination of choice for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Türkiye for decades. In 2015, then-chancellor Angela Merkel opened the borders to several million refugees and migrants, predominantly from Muslim nations such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the influx has since diminished, people continue to arrive in Germany by the thousands.

According to estimates provided by the country’s interior ministry, there are over five million Muslims currently residing in the country, which translates to nearly 7% of the entire population.

Read more German communities can’t take any more Ukrainians – local government boss

In its report on Sunday, Bild, citing a study by the Lower Saxony Criminology Research Institute, reported that 67.8% of schoolchildren polled said that the “rules of the Quran are more important to me than the laws in Germany”; 45.8% said that Islamic theocratic rule is the best form of state government, with over half contending that it is only their religion that has answers to the “problems of our times.”

According to the study’s findings, 35.3% suggested that insults directed at Islam and its prophet are reason enough for a violent attack. More than a fifth of respondents argued that the “threat to Islam posed by the Western world” justifies a violent response on the part of Muslims.

The researchers surveyed a total of 8,539 people in Lower Saxony, including 300 Muslims. Bild pointed out that the findings thus cannot be extrapolated to the whole of Germany.

Nevertheless, Christoph de Vries from Hamburg, who represents the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the German parliament, told the media outlet that the “study shows how deep the traces are that the political Islam has already left behind in Germany.” The lawmaker attributed the troubling trend to “systematic indoctrination,” adding that “multiculti has long since failed.”

The secretary of education from the neighboring Schleswig-Holstein region, Karin Prien, also from the CDU party, warned that unless “democratic values” are better instilled into students, “social cohesion risks going into a skid.”

More than half of respondents said the rules laid down in the Quran take precedence, in their eyes

The majority of Muslim schoolchildren in the German state of Lower Saxony view religious rules as more important than the law, a new study has found. More than a third of respondents also indicated that they condoned acts of violence against those who insult Islam.

Germany has been the destination of choice for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Türkiye for decades. In 2015, then-chancellor Angela Merkel opened the borders to several million refugees and migrants, predominantly from Muslim nations such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the influx has since diminished, people continue to arrive in Germany by the thousands.

According to estimates provided by the country’s interior ministry, there are over five million Muslims currently residing in the country, which translates to nearly 7% of the entire population.

Read more German communities can’t take any more Ukrainians – local government boss

In its report on Sunday, Bild, citing a study by the Lower Saxony Criminology Research Institute, reported that 67.8% of schoolchildren polled said that the “rules of the Quran are more important to me than the laws in Germany”; 45.8% said that Islamic theocratic rule is the best form of state government, with over half contending that it is only their religion that has answers to the “problems of our times.”

According to the study’s findings, 35.3% suggested that insults directed at Islam and its prophet are reason enough for a violent attack. More than a fifth of respondents argued that the “threat to Islam posed by the Western world” justifies a violent response on the part of Muslims.

The researchers surveyed a total of 8,539 people in Lower Saxony, including 300 Muslims. Bild pointed out that the findings thus cannot be extrapolated to the whole of Germany.

Nevertheless, Christoph de Vries from Hamburg, who represents the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the German parliament, told the media outlet that the “study shows how deep the traces are that the political Islam has already left behind in Germany.” The lawmaker attributed the troubling trend to “systematic indoctrination,” adding that “multiculti has long since failed.”

The secretary of education from the neighboring Schleswig-Holstein region, Karin Prien, also from the CDU party, warned that unless “democratic values” are better instilled into students, “social cohesion risks going into a skid.”

More than half of respondents said the rules laid down in the Quran take precedence, in their eyes

The majority of Muslim schoolchildren in the German state of Lower Saxony view religious rules as more important than the law, a new study has found. More than a third of respondents also indicated that they condoned acts of violence against those who insult Islam.

Germany has been the destination of choice for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Türkiye for decades. In 2015, then-chancellor Angela Merkel opened the borders to several million refugees and migrants, predominantly from Muslim nations such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the influx has since diminished, people continue to arrive in Germany by the thousands.

According to estimates provided by the country’s interior ministry, there are over five million Muslims currently residing in the country, which translates to nearly 7% of the entire population.

Read more German communities can’t take any more Ukrainians – local government boss

In its report on Sunday, Bild, citing a study by the Lower Saxony Criminology Research Institute, reported that 67.8% of schoolchildren polled said that the “rules of the Quran are more important to me than the laws in Germany”; 45.8% said that Islamic theocratic rule is the best form of state government, with over half contending that it is only their religion that has answers to the “problems of our times.”

According to the study’s findings, 35.3% suggested that insults directed at Islam and its prophet are reason enough for a violent attack. More than a fifth of respondents argued that the “threat to Islam posed by the Western world” justifies a violent response on the part of Muslims.

The researchers surveyed a total of 8,539 people in Lower Saxony, including 300 Muslims. Bild pointed out that the findings thus cannot be extrapolated to the whole of Germany.

Nevertheless, Christoph de Vries from Hamburg, who represents the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the German parliament, told the media outlet that the “study shows how deep the traces are that the political Islam has already left behind in Germany.” The lawmaker attributed the troubling trend to “systematic indoctrination,” adding that “multiculti has long since failed.”

The secretary of education from the neighboring Schleswig-Holstein region, Karin Prien, also from the CDU party, warned that unless “democratic values” are better instilled into students, “social cohesion risks going into a skid.”

More than half of respondents said the rules laid down in the Quran take precedence, in their eyes

The majority of Muslim schoolchildren in the German state of Lower Saxony view religious rules as more important than the law, a new study has found. More than a third of respondents also indicated that they condoned acts of violence against those who insult Islam.

Germany has been the destination of choice for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Türkiye for decades. In 2015, then-chancellor Angela Merkel opened the borders to several million refugees and migrants, predominantly from Muslim nations such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the influx has since diminished, people continue to arrive in Germany by the thousands.

According to estimates provided by the country’s interior ministry, there are over five million Muslims currently residing in the country, which translates to nearly 7% of the entire population.

Read more German communities can’t take any more Ukrainians – local government boss

In its report on Sunday, Bild, citing a study by the Lower Saxony Criminology Research Institute, reported that 67.8% of schoolchildren polled said that the “rules of the Quran are more important to me than the laws in Germany”; 45.8% said that Islamic theocratic rule is the best form of state government, with over half contending that it is only their religion that has answers to the “problems of our times.”

According to the study’s findings, 35.3% suggested that insults directed at Islam and its prophet are reason enough for a violent attack. More than a fifth of respondents argued that the “threat to Islam posed by the Western world” justifies a violent response on the part of Muslims.

The researchers surveyed a total of 8,539 people in Lower Saxony, including 300 Muslims. Bild pointed out that the findings thus cannot be extrapolated to the whole of Germany.

Nevertheless, Christoph de Vries from Hamburg, who represents the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the German parliament, told the media outlet that the “study shows how deep the traces are that the political Islam has already left behind in Germany.” The lawmaker attributed the troubling trend to “systematic indoctrination,” adding that “multiculti has long since failed.”

The secretary of education from the neighboring Schleswig-Holstein region, Karin Prien, also from the CDU party, warned that unless “democratic values” are better instilled into students, “social cohesion risks going into a skid.”

Fake images are misinformation, Anthony Albanese claims

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has once again lashed out at social media, insisting the platforms should be accountable for the content that its users post.

The PM’s remarks come in the wake of a spat with tech billionaire Elon Musk over the reluctance on the part of the Tesla and Space X tycoon to remove footage of the stabbing of a cleric from X (formerly Twitter).

“Social media platforms have a responsibility to make sure that misinformation isn’t got out there,” Albanese told reporters on Wednesday. “I noticed today, for example, on the way up here, they’ve removed various sites that were up containing fake images of myself superimposed on other people,” the PM stated.

“Social media has a responsibility to do the right thing here,” Albanese reiterated.

On Wednesday, the country’s Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Birmingham called on social media companies to use their “immense technological power” to remove violent content from their platforms.

The Australian government has been pushing a so-called misinformation bill, released as a draft last year. The new law would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to require online platforms to address content considered “false, misleading or deceptive, and where the provision of that content on the service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”

The bill was later withdrawn by the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, who promised “refinements,” including additional protections for freedom of speech, greater transparency, and “improved workability.”

However, following the recent Sydney stabbings, Rowland indicated the bill would resurface. The government is yet to outline changes to the initial bill it will introduce to parliament.

Read more Musk takes on Australia over stabbing video

The news has been met with opposition. “The PM has caused more division by shamelessly tying a violent video to his agenda to outlaw some types of speech. The basic principle is, if you don’t trust politicians, don’t give them the power to tell you what you can say,” National Party Senator Matt Canavan told Guardian Australia.

He also claimed that the Albanese government was “struggling” due to the Prime Minister’s belief that the “biggest issue” in the country is misinformation.

Musk mocked Albanese’s social media crackdown hours after his platform was again ordered to remove the content, which features last week’s non-fatal knife attack on an Assyrian bishop in a suburb of Sydney, and to remove it for users worldwide.

Musk said the Australian court’s ruling to take down the footage meant that any country could control “the entire internet.” He also used a meme depicting a Wizard of Oz-style path to “freedom” leading to an X logo.

Albanese, in turn, labeled Musk an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law, but also above common decency.”

Fake images are misinformation, Anthony Albanese claims

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has once again lashed out at social media, insisting the platforms should be accountable for the content that its users post.

The PM’s remarks come in the wake of a spat with tech billionaire Elon Musk over the reluctance on the part of the Tesla and Space X tycoon to remove footage of the stabbing of a cleric from X (formerly Twitter).

“Social media platforms have a responsibility to make sure that misinformation isn’t got out there,” Albanese told reporters on Wednesday. “I noticed today, for example, on the way up here, they’ve removed various sites that were up containing fake images of myself superimposed on other people,” the PM stated.

“Social media has a responsibility to do the right thing here,” Albanese reiterated.

On Wednesday, the country’s Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Birmingham called on social media companies to use their “immense technological power” to remove violent content from their platforms.

The Australian government has been pushing a so-called misinformation bill, released as a draft last year. The new law would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to require online platforms to address content considered “false, misleading or deceptive, and where the provision of that content on the service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”

The bill was later withdrawn by the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, who promised “refinements,” including additional protections for freedom of speech, greater transparency, and “improved workability.”

However, following the recent Sydney stabbings, Rowland indicated the bill would resurface. The government is yet to outline changes to the initial bill it will introduce to parliament.

Read more Musk takes on Australia over stabbing video

The news has been met with opposition. “The PM has caused more division by shamelessly tying a violent video to his agenda to outlaw some types of speech. The basic principle is, if you don’t trust politicians, don’t give them the power to tell you what you can say,” National Party Senator Matt Canavan told Guardian Australia.

He also claimed that the Albanese government was “struggling” due to the Prime Minister’s belief that the “biggest issue” in the country is misinformation.

Musk mocked Albanese’s social media crackdown hours after his platform was again ordered to remove the content, which features last week’s non-fatal knife attack on an Assyrian bishop in a suburb of Sydney, and to remove it for users worldwide.

Musk said the Australian court’s ruling to take down the footage meant that any country could control “the entire internet.” He also used a meme depicting a Wizard of Oz-style path to “freedom” leading to an X logo.

Albanese, in turn, labeled Musk an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law, but also above common decency.”

Fake images are misinformation, Anthony Albanese claims

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has once again lashed out at social media, insisting the platforms should be accountable for the content that its users post.

The PM’s remarks come in the wake of a spat with tech billionaire Elon Musk over the reluctance on the part of the Tesla and Space X tycoon to remove footage of the stabbing of a cleric from X (formerly Twitter).

“Social media platforms have a responsibility to make sure that misinformation isn’t got out there,” Albanese told reporters on Wednesday. “I noticed today, for example, on the way up here, they’ve removed various sites that were up containing fake images of myself superimposed on other people,” the PM stated.

“Social media has a responsibility to do the right thing here,” Albanese reiterated.

On Wednesday, the country’s Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Birmingham called on social media companies to use their “immense technological power” to remove violent content from their platforms.

The Australian government has been pushing a so-called misinformation bill, released as a draft last year. The new law would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to require online platforms to address content considered “false, misleading or deceptive, and where the provision of that content on the service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”

The bill was later withdrawn by the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, who promised “refinements,” including additional protections for freedom of speech, greater transparency, and “improved workability.”

However, following the recent Sydney stabbings, Rowland indicated the bill would resurface. The government is yet to outline changes to the initial bill it will introduce to parliament.

Read more Musk takes on Australia over stabbing video

The news has been met with opposition. “The PM has caused more division by shamelessly tying a violent video to his agenda to outlaw some types of speech. The basic principle is, if you don’t trust politicians, don’t give them the power to tell you what you can say,” National Party Senator Matt Canavan told Guardian Australia.

He also claimed that the Albanese government was “struggling” due to the Prime Minister’s belief that the “biggest issue” in the country is misinformation.

Musk mocked Albanese’s social media crackdown hours after his platform was again ordered to remove the content, which features last week’s non-fatal knife attack on an Assyrian bishop in a suburb of Sydney, and to remove it for users worldwide.

Musk said the Australian court’s ruling to take down the footage meant that any country could control “the entire internet.” He also used a meme depicting a Wizard of Oz-style path to “freedom” leading to an X logo.

Albanese, in turn, labeled Musk an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law, but also above common decency.”

The package includes $61 billion for Ukraine, with funds destined for purchase of weapons and military equipment

US President Joe Biden signed a long-stalled $95-billion foreign aid package on Wednesday, after the Senate voted resoundingly to approve the funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

The package, including $61 billion for Ukraine, passed in a 79-18 vote on Tuesday evening, after both Republican and Democratic lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to end a filibuster and advance the measure.

Biden praised congressional leaders and lawmakers for what he called an effort “to answer history’s call at this critical inflection point,” saying he would immediately begin the process of sending much-needed weaponry to Ukraine as early as this week.

”Congress has passed my legislation to strengthen our national security and send a message to the world about the power of American leadership: we stand resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression,” Biden stated.

READ MORE: More weapons for Kiev won’t change battlefield dynamics – Kremlin

The president told his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelensky in a phone call on Monday that weapons shipments would begin rapidly after the bill reaches the Oval Office for his signature. While the White House offered few details on the call, the Ukrainian leader claimed that Kiev would be receiving longer-range ATACMS missiles.

The multibillion-dollar US aid package was requested by the White House months ago, but was only passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday, after Speaker Mike Johnson finally agreed to a vote.

Read more WATCH captured Western armor arrive in Moscow

The House also voted on Saturday to approve separate bills providing $26 billion in aid to Israel and $8 billion for Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific region allies. In addition, the emergency spending package includes $9 billion in humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza and other war zones.

Biden said the US would start sending weapons and military equipment to Ukraine “in the next few hours.”

“We are going to begin sending equipment to Ukraine for air defense munitions, for artillery, for rocket systems and armored vehicles,” he stated, noting that the package's path to his desk was a difficult one, and “should have gotten there sooner.”

The Pentagon has said weapons worth $1 billion are ready for immediate delivery to Ukraine. According to unnamed US officials, cited by the Associated Press, some of the arms will arrive on the frontline within days, but other items could take longer.

The Kremlin has repeatedly warned that Washington’s lethal aid will not change the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor. According to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, the US government has effectively been funneling billions of dollars into its own military industrial complex through the aid scheme.

The package includes $61 billion for Ukraine, with funds destined for purchase of weapons and military equipment

US President Joe Biden signed a long-stalled $95-billion foreign aid package on Wednesday, after the Senate voted resoundingly to approve the funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

The package, including $61 billion for Ukraine, passed in a 79-18 vote on Tuesday evening, after both Republican and Democratic lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to end a filibuster and advance the measure.

Biden praised congressional leaders and lawmakers for what he called an effort “to answer history’s call at this critical inflection point,” saying he would immediately begin the process of sending much-needed weaponry to Ukraine as early as this week.

”Congress has passed my legislation to strengthen our national security and send a message to the world about the power of American leadership: we stand resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression,” Biden stated.

READ MORE: More weapons for Kiev won’t change battlefield dynamics – Kremlin

The president told his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelensky in a phone call on Monday that weapons shipments would begin rapidly after the bill reaches the Oval Office for his signature. While the White House offered few details on the call, the Ukrainian leader claimed that Kiev would be receiving longer-range ATACMS missiles.

The multibillion-dollar US aid package was requested by the White House months ago, but was only passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday, after Speaker Mike Johnson finally agreed to a vote.

Read more WATCH captured Western armor arrive in Moscow

The House also voted on Saturday to approve separate bills providing $26 billion in aid to Israel and $8 billion for Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific region allies. In addition, the emergency spending package includes $9 billion in humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza and other war zones.

Biden said the US would start sending weapons and military equipment to Ukraine “in the next few hours.”

“We are going to begin sending equipment to Ukraine for air defense munitions, for artillery, for rocket systems and armored vehicles,” he stated, noting that the package's path to his desk was a difficult one, and “should have gotten there sooner.”

The Pentagon has said weapons worth $1 billion are ready for immediate delivery to Ukraine. According to unnamed US officials, cited by the Associated Press, some of the arms will arrive on the frontline within days, but other items could take longer.

The Kremlin has repeatedly warned that Washington’s lethal aid will not change the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor. According to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, the US government has effectively been funneling billions of dollars into its own military industrial complex through the aid scheme.

The package includes $61 billion for Ukraine, with funds destined for purchase of weapons and military equipment

US President Joe Biden signed a long-stalled $95-billion foreign aid package on Wednesday, after the Senate voted resoundingly to approve the funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

The package, including $61 billion for Ukraine, passed in a 79-18 vote on Tuesday evening, after both Republican and Democratic lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to end a filibuster and advance the measure.

Biden praised congressional leaders and lawmakers for what he called an effort “to answer history’s call at this critical inflection point,” saying he would immediately begin the process of sending much-needed weaponry to Ukraine as early as this week.

”Congress has passed my legislation to strengthen our national security and send a message to the world about the power of American leadership: we stand resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression,” Biden stated.

READ MORE: More weapons for Kiev won’t change battlefield dynamics – Kremlin

The president told his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelensky in a phone call on Monday that weapons shipments would begin rapidly after the bill reaches the Oval Office for his signature. While the White House offered few details on the call, the Ukrainian leader claimed that Kiev would be receiving longer-range ATACMS missiles.

The multibillion-dollar US aid package was requested by the White House months ago, but was only passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday, after Speaker Mike Johnson finally agreed to a vote.

Read more WATCH captured Western armor arrive in Moscow

The House also voted on Saturday to approve separate bills providing $26 billion in aid to Israel and $8 billion for Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific region allies. In addition, the emergency spending package includes $9 billion in humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza and other war zones.

Biden said the US would start sending weapons and military equipment to Ukraine “in the next few hours.”

“We are going to begin sending equipment to Ukraine for air defense munitions, for artillery, for rocket systems and armored vehicles,” he stated, noting that the package's path to his desk was a difficult one, and “should have gotten there sooner.”

The Pentagon has said weapons worth $1 billion are ready for immediate delivery to Ukraine. According to unnamed US officials, cited by the Associated Press, some of the arms will arrive on the frontline within days, but other items could take longer.

The Kremlin has repeatedly warned that Washington’s lethal aid will not change the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor. According to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, the US government has effectively been funneling billions of dollars into its own military industrial complex through the aid scheme.

Several people have been injured after the Household Cavalry lost control of their animals in the center of the city

Several military horses have been caught after going on a rampage in London; onlookers say the animals threw their riders and went galloping through the streets. At least four people have been hospitalized in the wake of the incident. Social media users have been sharing images of the blood-covered thoroughbreds crashing into cars and buses.

The incident occurred on Wednesday morning at 8:40am local time in the center of the British capital. Five horses belonging to the Household Cavalry were apparently spooked by noise coming from a construction site during their daily morning exercise on Horse Guards Parade, in Whitehall.

According to the Daily Mail, a total of five people were injured during the nearly two-hour-long rampage that spanned almost ten kilometers through central London. Of the four people who have been hospitalized, three are believed to be soldiers. None of the people who were hurt are reported to have sustained any life-threatening injuries.

Moment escaped Household Cavalry horses rampage through London pic.twitter.com/P5p4whYlXl

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) April 24, 2024

One eyewitness recalled seeing one of the riders “screaming in pain” after he fell off his steed as it struck a car near the Clermont Hotel on Buckingham Palace Road. 

“I saw a soldier falling down into the street after the horse ran into a car,” the witness told The Telegraph. “The man hit the floor hard, he was screaming in pain. You could see blood all over the parked car.”

Photos and videos shared online also show one of the horses ramming into a double-decker bus and smashing its windshield; another was seen crashing into a black taxicab. The frightened animals continued to run through the streets covered in blood after apparently being cut by the broken glass.

“They were running down the street at a very high speed. It was very scary,” another witness said, noting that “It’s rare to see horses stampeding down the street like that.”

pic.twitter.com/p0Aek1ikze

— Animal Welfare Watch (@AnimalWelfarewt) April 24, 2024

In some of the pictures, some members of the public could be seen trying to help calm down one of the shaken horses, whose legs could be seen covered in blood.

READ MORE: Botswana threatens to ‘deport’ 20,000 elephants to Germany

By 10:30am, Metropolitan Police reported that all of the horses had been caught and accounted for. After being transported to veterinary care via army horse boxes, all of the animals are reported to now be back at the army camp.

“A number of military working horses became loose during routine exercise this morning. All of the horses have now been recovered and returned to camp,” an army spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the horses and personnel who were injured in the incident were “receiving the appropriate medical attention.”

The Israeli prime minister has been an “obstacle” to the two-state solution with Palestine for years, Nancy Pelosi has said

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace in Gaza and “should resign” from his position, former US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said.   

She made the remarks on Monday in an interview with Irish public broadcaster Raidio Teilifis Eireann (RTE) during her visit to the country.   

Pelosi criticized the Israeli leader’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack which saw Palestinian militants kill over 1,100 people on Israeli territory and take around 250 hostages.   

The former House speaker cited the recent resignation of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence chief Major General Aharon Haliva over the failure to prevent the attack, before pointing the finger at Netanyahu.  

“We recognize Israel’s right to protect itself. We reject the policy and the practice of Netanyahu – terrible. What could be worse than what he has done in response?” Pelosi told the outlet.  

“He should resign. He’s ultimately responsible,” she added.  

When asked if Netanyahu is a “block” to peace, Pelosi replied that “he has been for years,” adding that she doesn’t know whether the Israeli leader is “afraid of peace, incapable of peace, or just doesn’t want peace.”   

Read more Israel’s top military spy quits over Hamas intelligence failure

She went on to argue that Netanyahu been an “obstacle to the two-state solution, I emphasize the word, ‘solution.’”   

Health authorities in Gaza have estimated that more than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed amid Israel’s siege of the enclave, which has included extensive bombardment as well as a ground incursion.  

Earlier this month, Pelosi joined more than 30 US Congress members who signed a letter urging President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken to halt weapons transfers to Israel.  

The change of tune in Washington, Israel’s key ally, followed the killing of six aid workers from the World Central Kitchen humanitarian organization. The IDF targeted the group’s convoy in what it claimed to be a tragic mistake, despite the food supply mission being closely coordinated with the military.  

Meanwhile, the Senate approved on Tuesday a long-stalled $95 billion emergency spending bill which includes $26 billion in aid to Israel and $61 billion for Ukraine. Biden is expected to sign the bill into law shortly.

The Israeli prime minister has been an “obstacle” to the two-state solution with Palestine for years, Nancy Pelosi has said

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace in Gaza and “should resign” from his position, former US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said.   

She made the remarks on Monday in an interview with Irish public broadcaster Raidio Teilifis Eireann (RTE) during her visit to the country.   

Pelosi criticized the Israeli leader’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack which saw Palestinian militants kill over 1,100 people on Israeli territory and take around 250 hostages.   

The former House speaker cited the recent resignation of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence chief Major General Aharon Haliva over the failure to prevent the attack, before pointing the finger at Netanyahu.  

“We recognize Israel’s right to protect itself. We reject the policy and the practice of Netanyahu – terrible. What could be worse than what he has done in response?” Pelosi told the outlet.  

“He should resign. He’s ultimately responsible,” she added.  

When asked if Netanyahu is a “block” to peace, Pelosi replied that “he has been for years,” adding that she doesn’t know whether the Israeli leader is “afraid of peace, incapable of peace, or just doesn’t want peace.”   

Read more Israel’s top military spy quits over Hamas intelligence failure

She went on to argue that Netanyahu been an “obstacle to the two-state solution, I emphasize the word, ‘solution.’”   

Health authorities in Gaza have estimated that more than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed amid Israel’s siege of the enclave, which has included extensive bombardment as well as a ground incursion.  

Earlier this month, Pelosi joined more than 30 US Congress members who signed a letter urging President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken to halt weapons transfers to Israel.  

The change of tune in Washington, Israel’s key ally, followed the killing of six aid workers from the World Central Kitchen humanitarian organization. The IDF targeted the group’s convoy in what it claimed to be a tragic mistake, despite the food supply mission being closely coordinated with the military.  

Meanwhile, the Senate approved on Tuesday a long-stalled $95 billion emergency spending bill which includes $26 billion in aid to Israel and $61 billion for Ukraine. Biden is expected to sign the bill into law shortly.

The former president is at risk of being slapped with a short sentence for contempt of court

The US Secret Service, which is tasked with protecting acting and former US presidents, is considering how to proceed if Donald Trump ends up behind bars, sources have told the New York Times.

On Tuesday, Judge Juan Merchan withheld a decision on whether to hold Trump in contempt of court over alleged gag order violations at his trial. The hearings relate to felony charges of falsifying business records to hide the reimbursement of a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

It is not immediately clear when Merchan will announce a ruling. The NYT stressed in an article on Tuesday that the judge is likely to issue a warning or impose a fine before taking the “extreme step” of jailing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for a month at a holding cell in the courthouse.

Prosecutors, who claim that Trump attacked witnesses and other people associated with his case at least ten times on social media this month in violation of a gag order, are currently asking for a fine for the 77-year-old.

Read more Trump arrest would cause nationwide ‘civil unrest’ – CNN analyst

However, officials from the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies held a meeting last week, focused on how to move and protect Trump if the judge eventually orders him to be put in the court’s holding cell, two people familiar with the matter told the paper.

The issue of how to safely incarcerate the former president if the jury finds him guilty and he is sent to an actual prison “has yet to be addressed directly,” according to dozens of officials of various levels, who talked to the NYT. The paper stressed that if that happens, it will become a “daunting challenge” and a “logistical nightmare” for all agencies involved.

Trump, who is the first ever acting or former US president to go on trial, could face up to 136 years in prison as a result of four criminal cases against him.

According to the officials, if the former head of state is actually imprisoned, he would have to be held separately from other inmates, with all his food and other personal items undergoing screenings. In order to achieve this, a detail of agents would have to work 24/7, rotating in and out of the facility, they said. Firearms are strictly prohibited in US prisons, but those agents “would nonetheless be armed,” according to the sources.

READ MORE: Man dies after setting himself on fire outside Trump trial (GRAPHIC VIDEOS)

A spokesman for the Secret Service confirmed to the NYT that the agency guards former presidents, but declined to discuss any specific “protective operations.”

The former president is at risk of being slapped with a short sentence for contempt of court

The US Secret Service, which is tasked with protecting acting and former US presidents, is considering how to proceed if Donald Trump ends up behind bars, sources have told the New York Times.

On Tuesday, Judge Juan Merchan withheld a decision on whether to hold Trump in contempt of court over alleged gag order violations at his trial. The hearings relate to felony charges of falsifying business records to hide the reimbursement of a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

It is not immediately clear when Merchan will announce a ruling. The NYT stressed in an article on Tuesday that the judge is likely to issue a warning or impose a fine before taking the “extreme step” of jailing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for a month at a holding cell in the courthouse.

Prosecutors, who claim that Trump attacked witnesses and other people associated with his case at least ten times on social media this month in violation of a gag order, are currently asking for a fine for the 77-year-old.

Read more Trump arrest would cause nationwide ‘civil unrest’ – CNN analyst

However, officials from the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies held a meeting last week, focused on how to move and protect Trump if the judge eventually orders him to be put in the court’s holding cell, two people familiar with the matter told the paper.

The issue of how to safely incarcerate the former president if the jury finds him guilty and he is sent to an actual prison “has yet to be addressed directly,” according to dozens of officials of various levels, who talked to the NYT. The paper stressed that if that happens, it will become a “daunting challenge” and a “logistical nightmare” for all agencies involved.

Trump, who is the first ever acting or former US president to go on trial, could face up to 136 years in prison as a result of four criminal cases against him.

According to the officials, if the former head of state is actually imprisoned, he would have to be held separately from other inmates, with all his food and other personal items undergoing screenings. In order to achieve this, a detail of agents would have to work 24/7, rotating in and out of the facility, they said. Firearms are strictly prohibited in US prisons, but those agents “would nonetheless be armed,” according to the sources.

READ MORE: Man dies after setting himself on fire outside Trump trial (GRAPHIC VIDEOS)

A spokesman for the Secret Service confirmed to the NYT that the agency guards former presidents, but declined to discuss any specific “protective operations.”

The threat of a major war in the Middle East has passed because Tehran has decided to bide its time

Iran has again threatened Israel with a harsh response to aggression by the Jewish state. Tehran's army and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will ensure those who cross red lines regret it, Deputy Chief of the Army for Coordination, Habibollah Sayyari has warned.

Israel, meanwhile, has refrained from speaking out against Tehran, instead focusing its political rhetoric on Hamas. In particular, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to increase military and political pressure on the Palestinian group in the near future, in order to motivate it to release hostages, the Times of Israel reports.

The good news is that there will be no Iran-Israel war. At least not at this stage.

Tehran has chosen not to react vociferously to the Israeli air force’s retaliatory strike, dismissing all reports of the destruction of the radar protecting the Natanz nuclear centre as 'Zionist intrigue'. The bottom line is that we have two air raids attributed to Israel and one very large Iranian strike. In the latter case, everything was official and the Islamic Republic can therefore claim an entry in the Guinness Book of Records with an article on the largest number of UAVs and ballistic missiles involved in a single offensive operation.

Incidentally, we do not know what the real effect of the large-scale attack was. Iran, like Israel, is carefully hides damage data. However, the political consequences of such events are far more important. And, as usual in the Middle East, a dozen seemingly unrelated problems have become intertwined. After the Iranian strike, for example, Western countries began to advise Israel not to react, though rumour has it that the Jewish State was negotiating for the right to launch a military operation in Rafah, the last Hamas stronghold in Gaza.

Then in the end, it lost patience and responded.

Read more Is all-out war in the Middle East now inevitable?

The Iranians had options. The Ayatollahs could have said that Israel had again crossed all the red lines. This would have led to further escalation, but might have protected Hamas. But Iran, for its own reasons, ignored the Palestinians and reported through the press that nothing serious had happened.

The reason for this peacefulness is probably that they envisaged a working alliance between Israel, Jordan and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. This is precisely the nightmare that the Iranians have done their utmost to prevent. They even restored diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in 2023. But apparently confrontation with the Shiites is more important to moderate Sunnis than dislike of the Jews.

According to military analysts, if the Israeli Air Force did attack Iranian air defences, it means that they probably flew over Jordan or the Arabian Peninsula, and it is unlikely that this was done without the consent of the Hashemite Kingdom or the Saudis. As a result, the military alliance is not only defensive, which means that virtually all of Iran’s proxies in the region, including Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, are at risk.

For now, however, this is all a hypothetical picture. A three-way alliance requires the normalisation of Israel's relations with Riyadh and, as part of the deal, the signing of a defence agreement with the US, as well as American-Israeli goodwill for the establishment of nuclear capability in Saudi Arabia. 

And all this has to happen before the end of June. Otherwise, Washington will not be able to get the relevant decisions through Congress because of the upcoming election. Obviously, the Iranians believe that further escalation will only accelerate the process described above. That is why they prefer to pretend that they are fighting for peace. The very peace for which no stone should be left unturned on this planet. But that will come later.

This article was first published by Kommersant, translated and edited by the RT team

The threat of a major war in the Middle East has passed because Tehran has decided to bide its time

Iran has again threatened Israel with a harsh response to aggression by the Jewish state. Tehran's army and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will ensure those who cross red lines regret it, Deputy Chief of the Army for Coordination, Habibollah Sayyari has warned.

Israel, meanwhile, has refrained from speaking out against Tehran, instead focusing its political rhetoric on Hamas. In particular, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to increase military and political pressure on the Palestinian group in the near future, in order to motivate it to release hostages, the Times of Israel reports.

The good news is that there will be no Iran-Israel war. At least not at this stage.

Tehran has chosen not to react vociferously to the Israeli air force’s retaliatory strike, dismissing all reports of the destruction of the radar protecting the Natanz nuclear centre as 'Zionist intrigue'. The bottom line is that we have two air raids attributed to Israel and one very large Iranian strike. In the latter case, everything was official and the Islamic Republic can therefore claim an entry in the Guinness Book of Records with an article on the largest number of UAVs and ballistic missiles involved in a single offensive operation.

Incidentally, we do not know what the real effect of the large-scale attack was. Iran, like Israel, is carefully hides damage data. However, the political consequences of such events are far more important. And, as usual in the Middle East, a dozen seemingly unrelated problems have become intertwined. After the Iranian strike, for example, Western countries began to advise Israel not to react, though rumour has it that the Jewish State was negotiating for the right to launch a military operation in Rafah, the last Hamas stronghold in Gaza.

Then in the end, it lost patience and responded.

Read more Is all-out war in the Middle East now inevitable?

The Iranians had options. The Ayatollahs could have said that Israel had again crossed all the red lines. This would have led to further escalation, but might have protected Hamas. But Iran, for its own reasons, ignored the Palestinians and reported through the press that nothing serious had happened.

The reason for this peacefulness is probably that they envisaged a working alliance between Israel, Jordan and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. This is precisely the nightmare that the Iranians have done their utmost to prevent. They even restored diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in 2023. But apparently confrontation with the Shiites is more important to moderate Sunnis than dislike of the Jews.

According to military analysts, if the Israeli Air Force did attack Iranian air defences, it means that they probably flew over Jordan or the Arabian Peninsula, and it is unlikely that this was done without the consent of the Hashemite Kingdom or the Saudis. As a result, the military alliance is not only defensive, which means that virtually all of Iran’s proxies in the region, including Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, are at risk.

For now, however, this is all a hypothetical picture. A three-way alliance requires the normalisation of Israel's relations with Riyadh and, as part of the deal, the signing of a defence agreement with the US, as well as American-Israeli goodwill for the establishment of nuclear capability in Saudi Arabia. 

And all this has to happen before the end of June. Otherwise, Washington will not be able to get the relevant decisions through Congress because of the upcoming election. Obviously, the Iranians believe that further escalation will only accelerate the process described above. That is why they prefer to pretend that they are fighting for peace. The very peace for which no stone should be left unturned on this planet. But that will come later.

This article was first published by Kommersant, translated and edited by the RT team