{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiannumco3voidn4s6fac5an2hzbuxfboiligk3lfsrt672h36fnh4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3mg6nzpl7jma2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigtu4teufpt4gc6hsz425nzdehlfqv3l7m4rfuiq3lijdvoolqabu"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1975915
  },
  "description": "10 News Stories They Chose Not to Tell You",
  "path": "/your-daily-ten-10-2026-037/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T21:00:26.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "Read More",
    "Subscribe now"
  ],
  "textContent": "**This is edition 2026/037 of the _Ten@10_ newsletter.**\n\nHi all,\n\nThis is the Ten@10, where I collate and summarise ten news items you generally won't see in the mainstream media.\n\nEnjoy!\n\n* * *\n\n## 1. Luxon's Homer Simpson moment on Iran\n\nBryce Edwards\n\n  * 🌏 Christopher Luxon was expected to clearly explain New Zealand’s stance on the US-led strikes on Iran but instead fumbled interviews, contradicted himself, and left the country uncertain about the Government’s position.\n  * 🎙️ In appearances on RNZ, Newstalk ZB, and at a post-Cabinet press conference, Luxon misspoke repeatedly, walked back claims that NZ supported “any action” against Iran, and struggled to clarify whether NZ backed the strikes.\n  * 🌿 Commentators likened the Government’s approach to Homer Simpson disappearing into a hedge — an attempt to avoid taking a visible stance rather than a careful diplomatic balancing act.\n  * 🇦🇺 Luxon claimed NZ’s position matched Australia’s, but while Australia explicitly supported the strikes, NZ merely “acknowledged” them — exposing confusion or deliberate ambiguity.\n  * ⚖️ The Government was quick to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine illegal, yet now claims legality questions over Iran require intelligence briefings — a contradiction critics say is untenable.\n  * 🇺🇸 The underlying strategy appears to be avoiding criticism of Donald Trump and Washington, signalling a quiet tilt toward the US while publicly denying any such shift.\n  * 🧭 Within the coalition, NZ First figures like Winston Peters lean instinctively pro-US, while ACT’s David Seymour stresses caution, leaving National attempting to straddle internal divisions.\n  * 📜 Critics argue that failing to assess the legality of the strikes undermines the rules-based international order that small states like NZ depend on for protection.\n  * 🌍 Analysts warn that drifting closer to a volatile Trump administration could damage NZ’s global standing, especially if it appears to tacitly endorse actions seen as destabilising.\n  * 💰 Economic fears loom large: rising oil prices, disrupted Gulf trade routes, stalled exports, and inflation risks threaten the Government’s economic recovery narrative ahead of an election.\n  * 🛢️ With shipping through the Strait of Hormuz disrupted and energy prices climbing, ministers may fear that openly criticising the US could worsen economic fallout.\n  * 📰 The Otago Daily Times editorial labelled the strikes “wanton recklessness,” contrasting sharply with the Prime Minister’s caution and silence.\n  * ❓ Harder questions remain unanswered: would NZ contribute militarily if asked? Would it condemn escalation or carpet bombing? Or will it continue its strategy of minimal comment?\n  * 🏛️ Ultimately, critics argue NZ’s “non-position” is itself a position — one that risks helping erode the international rules-based system that has long safeguarded small nations like New Zealand.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n### This post is for subscribers only\n\nBecome a member to get access to all content\n\nSubscribe now",
  "title": "Your Daily Ten@10 - 2026/037",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-03T21:00:26.122Z"
}