John Humphreys

@WhosFibbing It’s passed the house, but hasn’t yet been considered by the senate. There’s still time to push back.

ASIO Amendment Bill No. 2 has officially passed Parliament — 106 Ayes to 8 Noes. This is no longer “temporary anti-terror legislation.” It is now permanent law giving ASIO police-state style powers over every day Australian citizens. What the bill actually does: Removes the sunset clause — these powers are now permanent Allows compulsory questioning of children as young as 14 Lets the Attorney-General personally issue questioning warrants — no court approval required Makes it a criminal offence to tell anyone (including your family) that you’ve been questioned Gives ASIO the power to reject your chosen lawyer and severely restricts what your lawyer can do or say during questioning Strips away your right to silence — you must answer their questions or face jail This is not about catching terrorists anymore. This is about giving an intelligence agency the power to secretly drag any Australian in for interrogation without suspecting you of any crime. 106 politicians just voted to hand ASIO these powers. Only 8 had the courage to vote No. Your right to remain silent? Your right to proper legal defense? Your right to know when the state is targeting you? Gone. Eroded. Normalised. This is how freedoms die — not with a bang, but with a quiet division in Parliament House. Share this widely. Australians need to know what just happened behind closed doors. #ASIOBill #PoliceStateAustralia #FreedomUnderAttack #australiawakeup

@Dackdoid It has passed the lower, but hasn’t yet been considered by the Senate. There’s still time.

@JohnHumphreys99 Too bad it passed and he wasn't one of the noes. x.com/WhosFibbing/st…

Excellent news!! Senators Antic has just announced that he is against the “permanent secret police powers” bill currently before parliament. We need to keep up the public pressure. If you have a moment, contact a politician and ask them to oppose these extraordinary powers.

War propaganda. You assert that Iran must accept conditions that no sovereign country would accept, to ensure there is an excuse for perpetual war. You ignore the inconvenient fact that Iran didn’t enrich to 90% when they had the ability for years. You ignore the inconvenient fact that building a functional bomb requires more than just enriched uranium. You ignore all the predictable negative consequences that come from constantly launching new wars.

Your essay understates or omits key realities that made the JCPOA a bad deal and the military actions against Iran (in both 2025 and 2026) rational decisions. First, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, yet has a long history of non-compliance with its safeguards obligations. The JCPOA was a separate temporary agreement layered on top of the NPT. Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 because it was fundamentally flawed: it granted permanent sanctions relief in exchange for temporary restrictions with sunset clauses, ignored Iran’s ballistic missile programme, and failed to address its regional aggression. Biden attempted to revive the deal but ultimately refused Iran’s excessive demands for full sanctions relief and guarantees against future US withdrawal. The JCPOA’s sunset clauses would have left Iran with permanent sanctions relief for only temporary nuclear limits. The 10-year restrictions on centrifuge numbers and advanced R&D would have expired on 18 October 2025. The 15-year caps on enrichment levels and stockpiles were set to expire on 18 October 2030. Most critically, the agreement imposed zero restrictions on Iran’s ballistic-missile programme — the delivery systems for any future nuclear warhead. Second, the essay seriously understates how close Iran had come to a nuclear weapon with 60% enriched uranium. By mid-2025, Iran held roughly 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. Satellite intelligence confirmed Iran moved much of this stockpile into underground tunnels at Isfahan days before the 2025 strikes (imagery showed trucks with shielded containers). At that enrichment level, over 90% of the separative work required to reach weapons-grade (90%) material was already complete. Breakout time to produce enough 90% uranium for one bomb was reduced to days or about two weeks — far shorter than the 6–12 months cited in the essay for lower-enrichment scenarios. This made the threat far more immediate than a mere “bargaining chip.” Finally, Iran never paused its proxy wars or its “Death to America/Death to Israel” rhetoric. Throughout the JCPOA years and up until 2026, Tehran continued funding, arming, and directing Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias. These groups carried out attacks across the region while Iranian leaders and media maintained constant inflammatory chants. The deal achieved nothing in curbing this behaviour and showed Iran had no genuine peaceful intent. The 2025 strikes were a rational first step that damaged Iran’s nuclear facilities. The February 2026 US-Israeli operation — which included the targeted killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on 28 February 2026 — was a rational escalation after diplomacy had repeatedly failed. Even after the 2025 strikes, satellite imagery into early 2026 showed Iran actively attempting to reopen the sealed tunnels and retrieve the enriched uranium stockpile, underscoring the persistent danger and why military action was justifiable to meaningfully alter the strategic landscape in a way temporary deals could not.

Very happy to hear about deescalation in Iran. This war was originally fought over the US/Israeli demands that Iran gives up uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles & regional allies. It will be very interesting to see how these issues are dealt with in the coming negotiations.

@Terje4Liberty Earlier in this thread: x.com/JohnHumphreys9…

@JohnHumphreys99 Share it and I may.

@TomSwitzerMedia @genetunny You can also follow along on YouTube, if that's your sort of thing: youtube.com/watch?v=hoRKqJ…

Come join @TomSwitzerMedia, @genetunny, and me as we talk about the economic & political news of the week. Topics include the latest police state laws, Iran war drama, Matt Canavan's economic agenda, and more. x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

War, peace & secret police, with Tom Switzer || #40 x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@Terje4Liberty You should read my article.

So that is nothing to do with civilian nuclear energy. They enriched to 60% so they could either make a nuclear weapon or threaten to make a nuclear weapon. And the way that they did it puts them in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Which they are a signatory to. They are currently the only nation in the world in violation of that treaty. And they are in wilful violation. As a negotiating tactic one might ask “how is that working out for them?”

ATA Substack: austaxpayers.substack.com ATA on YouTube: youtube.com/austaxpayers Website: taxpayers.org.au Join ATA: taxpayers.org.au/membership

The government plans to make our "temporary" secret police powers permanent. Bad idea. Here's what you can do to help: 1. raise awareness, like & share, tell your friends 2. contact One Nation Senators 3. contact key LNP pollies 4. join the ATA (link in comments)

There is also no military purpose to enrich to 60%. If you put Iran's actions in context, it is painfully obvious that it was part of their negotiation tactic. They've had the ability to easily & quickly enrich to 90% for the last few years, but "accidentally forgot". Context: johnhumphreys.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-…

@JohnHumphreys99 They enriched uranium to 60%. That was an action they took. How is it logical to then conclude they were enriching uranium simply to have a civilian nuclear energy program. There is no civilian nuclear energy that requires that level of enrichment.

"Iran insists on..." "Israel & Trump insist they..." You keep asserting your conclusion, and then working backwards. If we judge solely on the actions of the countries, the most logical conclusion is that Iran wanted civilian nuclear energy and a latent nuclear deterrent.

I don’t know why you characterise one side as “proposing” and the other as “insisting”. Or why you seem at pains to paint Iran as the side that is dealing in good faith. But regardless I don’t think Iran should be trusted to do uranium enrichment. Certainly not in underground bunkers without IAEA oversight and NPT compliance. Their agenda is very clearly about developing nuclear weapons. And if the Americans want to disrupt that agenda then bravo.

@corruptagenda ASIO Amendment Bill (#2) aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_…

@JohnHumphreys99 Has this been tabled in parliament yet as I can’t find it or mention of it in the Hansard

The latest step towards a police state. These sort of laws used to be unthinkable in a free country. Now they get passed with bipartisan support, no media outcry, and little public awareness or pushback. And this won't be the end. New police powers are added every year.

@Terje4Liberty I think you understood my point. If Iran insists on enriching for civilian energy use, while Israel & Trump insist they cannot enrich at all, then the conflict is unresolved.

@JohnHumphreys99 0% would be an odd proposal given natural uranium is above that. x.com/terje4liberty/…

@georgieAM These laws already exist. They were introduced by Howard in 2003 as temporary measures, and have been renewed several times since then. The latest laws are an attempt to make them permanent, which is terrible enough, and should be opposed.

🚨 Australia is about to pass laws that massively expand government power You could be detained and interrogated Without being charged with a crime Refuse to answer Face prison You may not even be allowed to tell anyone This isn’t small This is a shift How much power is too much?

Iran insists on their right to enrich uranium for civilian energy use. Israel & Trump insist they shouldn't have that right. Without one or both sides making compromises, it's hard to see how a lasting peace deal can be reached. I hope they can find a compromise.

@Terje4Liberty They've made lots of proposals over the last seven years, mostly offering to return to the JCPOA level of enrichment. You may find 4% acceptable, but Israel and Trump have insisted on 0%, which is the primary cause of this war.

They proposed down blending to 20%. Not 4%. However if they agree to 4% that should be acceptable. As long as it is verified. I don’t think 20% would be acceptable. But having the capacity to enrich is still problematic given that they did previously enrich to 60%. If the centrifuges were above ground and subject to inspection I would see no issue with them having that capability.

@Terje4Liberty Iran has repeatedly offered to give up the 60% enriched uranium, if the US accepts their right to enrich up to 4% for civilian use.

Irans capacity to enrich uranium is probably destroyed. For now. However the 60% enriched uranium is still there. And I doubt that is acceptable to the Americans unless the Iranian regime is substantially changed in its world view. If this is not resolved any peace is probably temporary.