It’s not too surprising that President Trump should go to war with Israel against Iran (“Trump joins war on Iran”, June 23). His ego has been bruised by the TACO nickname, his low approval ratings and the lacklustre military parade, and he has been angered by the protests. He will claim more powers as a wartime president and, sadly, his sagging poll numbers will probably get a lift. Victoria Harrington, Thirroul
A nuclear-armed nation’s leader illegally attacks another nation’s nuclear facilities in case they might get nuclear weapons, in breach of international law and without recourse to his government. I guess we can kiss goodbye to the rules-based order. Does this get us out of AUKUS? Simon Chance, Richmond Hill
It’s time for Australia to break defence ties with the US. America has been the greatest threat to world peace certainly since the Vietnam War, and that danger is strongly exacerbated by Donald Trump’s bombing in the Middle East. Creating wars does not lead to peace, just untold misery and devastation for many innocent victims. Time to break ties, hold the US accountable and not be complicit in its war crimes. Anne Shay, Ballina
No good ever comes of warCredit: AP
What happens when not all the invitees turn up for your birthday party? You first sulk, but redeem your image by making yourself the centre of attention the next day in the school playground. You might achieve this by throwing some big firecrackers into neighbouring properties. Then again, if you have the toys of the privileged, you might convey them in a B-2. Donald Hawes, Peel
The US president announced his war crimes on social media. We have learned nothing from the illegal invasion of Iraq based on a tissue of lies because no one suffered the consequences of their actions, and now we have a repeat with lies about the imminent production of nuclear weapons. This time Australia must not get involved in US and Israeli aggression in the Middle East. Graeme Finn, Campsie
Trump’s repeated diplomatic and trade failures and the popular use of TACO to name him (implying weakness) seems to have so riled him that he has now gone to the most extraordinary lengths to show the world how strong he really is. For Trump, strength only ever involves complete defeat of another by punishment, damage and humiliation, never strength through powerful deeds involving goodness, co-ordination or superb diplomacy. So much of the attack by Trump on Iran seems fuelled by personal as well as political considerations. Toni Lorentzen, Fennell Bay
Given that Trump’s July 14 military parade was a bit of a flop, with squeaky tanks, hand-held drones, ambling troops and the ever-present crowd size problem, little more than a week later I guess he had to up the ante. To a man nursing a slightly bruised ego, Iran presented the opportunity for Trump to show the world that the US military really does know how to bomb stuff. Sadly, the consequences of Trump’s impulse will be unforeseen consequences that will do more than just assuage one man’s gargantuan ego. Marie Del Monte, Ashfield
Once Israel and Iran have depleted their missile stocks, perhaps the Herald can inform readers about who will sell them the replacements required to facilitate ongoing destruction? I imagine the suppliers’ shareholders will greet this uptick in sales as positive news. I fail to share their optimism. Neil Browne, Gymea
TWIT: Trump’s War Invites Terror. Les Shearman, Darlington
Widespread fall-out
The humanitarian disaster caused by the bombing of Iran may have long-term consequences for innocent generations to come (“Radiation dangers from the three nuclear sites struck by the US”, June 23). By bombarding nuclear facilities “the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere may contaminate the waters of the Gulf and trigger the evacuation of people hundreds of kilometres from the site”. Trump tore up the previous non-proliferation treaties that Iran had signed, and now he demands negotiations with Iran while bombing it. The bombastic attitude of Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump appears to show they have no consideration for long-term harm to both the environment or human life. I fear for the future as it appears that this devastation will be the legacy of both these men. Christina Foo, Wahroonga
Netanyahu’s trap
In Michael Koziol’s question, I choose the latter (“Masterstroke or mistake? Trump defies his base”, June 23). Trump has blundered into a trap set by Netanyahu; a black hole his presidential predecessors dodged. Bibi has for years exaggerated Iran’s nuclear threat. He claimed to know more than inspectors and intelligence services. More than the International Atomic Energy Agency. But his guesstimations have never been proved. In lumbers Trump, and the world is once again at war based on ignorance. Mark Paskal, Austinmer
Benjamin Netanyahu, is he the mastermind?Credit: AFR
Rodger Shanahan says Iran has little choice but to keep its focus on attacking Israel. Were it to target US military bases or commercial shipping, the repercussions for Tehran — and tragically, for the already subjugated Iranian people — could be catastrophic. He says “the regime’s ultimate aim is survival”. While that may be true, a close second must surely be the oft-repeated ambition to wipe Israel off the map. This aim, coupled with Iran’s long-standing role in sponsoring terrorism through regional proxies, is why the religious hardliners in Tehran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Our foreign minister should now join the US, Germany, Britain and other allies in standing with Israel, and in hoping for long-overdue regime change in Iran. John Kempler, Rose Bay
Even more sickening than Donald Trump’s deception about when or if he would bomb Iran is the triumphalism in his boasting about the “success” of this military madness. The situation is reminiscent of George W Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” and “mission accomplished” lies, and we know the consequences of that situation. The orange lunatic in the White House continues to drag our world to the brink of catastrophe. Rob Phillips, North Epping
Scary, really, how quickly Donald Trump went from TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) to WACO (Wants Armageddon Coming On). Barry Ffrench, Cronulla
Iran is usually cast as the villain, especially by the US. One needs to look further back in history to find how, in the 1950s, a democratic government in Iran was brought down by British and US governments greedy to control the region’s oil resources. They eventually installed the shah, who complied with their wishes. Colin Simpson, Menai
Is this deja vu all over again? Remember the outcome of the 1953 coup d’état in Iran, led by the US. Natalie Mabbitt, Randwick
What happens if North Korea “lends” a few nuclear weapons to Iran for use? Tony Saunders, Hunters Hill
Coalition of the wilful
The Coalition has agreed with the US bombing of Iran (“Trump joins the war with Iran with the plan that was ’never to be used‴ , June 23), an attack which seems to have no legal or ethical basis. That seems to be in line with their support for the war on Iraq, and, before that, Vietnam. Steve Bright, North Avoca
Tax reform needs consensus
The debate for the next three years has been set by the treasurer (“Chalmers sets Labor a new standard”, June 23). Tax reform is important, and necessary for achieving other things. But consensus is all about what those other things are. The treasurer also said that he didn’t like using the term “wake-up call”, but the book Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, had been a wake-up call. Why? Because “abundance” is all about growing the pie and not just redistributing the pie. “Abundance” sees urban failure as a result of regulatory treacle, rather than lack of money. But “abundance” also sees that all progress depends on technology, and regulatory treacle also applies to innovation, both in pure science and in the speed of implementation. Finally, “abundance” understands that areas remain where the failure is the opposite – for example, lack of regulation to properly protect our remaining environment, especially, but not only, because of climate change. That’s the reason for lack of consensus, and is the area that markets can’t, and won’t, fix. Concentrating on tax reform needs consensus on what to use the money for, and the things that “free markets” will never bring about. Noel Thompson, Riverview
Treasurer Jim Chalmers, is he the man with the right plan?Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
The proposed changes to the threshold and the rate of tax are matters subject to rational debate. The lack of indexation can be fixed in due course. What is unconscionable is the proposition to tax unrealised capital gains. A superannuation fund will be faced with this tax on “paper profits” each year, and then when the underlying asset is eventually sold and results in an “actual profit” it will be taxed again using the usual CGT rules. How is that fair? The claim that the changes affect only relatively few people shows sheer laziness in devising a system that is defensible.
John Burman, Port Macquarie
People are up in arms over the suggestion that unrealised (that is, not converted to equivalent cash at the time) capital gains should be taxed. The gains are not income, just value on paper, writes one, arguing it would not be fair to tax wealth gains that may not persist. Let’s be honest: there would be nothing unfair about the tax, provided later capital losses on the asset were later deductible. Let’s recognise, too, that land-based assets generally increase in value at or above the rate of inflation. Not taxing unrealised wealth gains means that others in society (notably including the less-well-to-do) are required to subsidise the asset owner by allowing the owner to retain the full growing value of the asset and to earn further gain on that tax-unpaid value. That is distinctly unfair and unjustifiable. Ross Drynan, Lindfield
As part of his proposed changes to the taxing of superannuation, Jim Chalmers would have predicted the uproar he would create from the more wealthy in the community by his proposing to tax unrealised capital gains. It is likely he will forgo that aspect of it to get the main thrust of the legislation through. If successful, I hope he will then move on to rectifying the housing taxation anomalies in negative gearing and capital gains. Peter Nash, Fairlight
Many correspondents are bellyaching about a proposed tax on super funds that hold assets, including real property, that have increased in value. The opposition to the proposed super fund tax changes have been led by a vocal chorus that never says that they just don’t want to pay more tax. Oh no, God forbid; that would look so selfish. Instead, the criticism is directed to the mechanism, i.e. taxing an unrealised gain. But since its current incarnation in 1956, the mechanism for calculating land tax in NSW has operated in the same way; it hits the increase in the value of land. So why is it that since 1956 we have not seen the spectacle of land tax payers thrashing around in the dust, rending their garments and howling to the heavens? The answer appears to be that there are a lot more taxpayers with interests in super funds, and despite its humble origins, the super business has long ago morphed into the investment business and no one wants to have a haircut. The search for the Golden Boomerang, Lasseter’s Reef and the Perpetual Motion Machine are as nothing compared with the search for tax reform without adversely affecting someone’s wallet, but they all share one thing in common: they are all wishful fantasies. If Jim Chalmers is fair dinkum, quite a few who are currently doing quite well will have to take a bite of the you-know-what. Joe Weller, Mittagong
Ways out west
When I saw the headline (“Next generation goes west”, June 23) I thought Sydneysiders were moving west of Penrith. I was wrong and now know the moves are to western Sydney. There is opportunity west of Mountains to work and buy affordable real estate. However, more decentralisation of government departments and business to move out of Sydney would provide more jobs, and opportunities to buy real estate. The good coffee shops are already here. Robyn Lewis, Raglan
Grinding halt
Perhaps the project managers should have made the call before they deployed the tunnelling machines (″Planning failure stymies Metro dig″, June 23)? Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook
Boring backwards to a u-turn, perhaps?
Perhaps Sydney Metro could employ a few rabbits to show the geotechnical boffins a trick or two on how to dig a hole? Bradley Wynne, Croydon
Oops. As soon as possible, make a U-turn. Greg Baker, Fitzroy Falls
Emus don’t go backwards
Dear Mr Watts, just so you know, there is more to being an emu than having beady eyes and long legs (Letters, June 23). For starters, you must be able to run at speeds up to 50km/h. You also need to be able to swallow large pebbles to aid your digestion. Further, since you are male, after mating it’s your duty to protect and incubate up to 15 eggs for 56 days without food or water while your mate goes on the hunt for another partner. After those eggs hatch, it’s your responsibility to take care of your chicks for the next 18 months or so. So think carefully, Mr Watts, for once you are an emu, there is no going backwards. Mary Carde, Parrearra (Qld)
- 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.