AUSTRALIA AT THE CROSSROADS

USA Attacks Iran’ Nuclear Facilities - Australia’s Leaders Hum & Haw!

On 24 June 2025[i], Greg Sheridan wrote in The Australian, “It is difficult to think of a time when Australia has been so inconsequential”. Two days earlier the US had launched a surprise attack on Iran’s major nuclear facilities but, as per Sheridan, the government’s response was “One of its characteristic non-statements”. Then, nearly 24 hours later on Monday, through gritted teeth, came the Albanese government statement that Australia supported the US actions in Iran “because it was important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons”.

On 23 June the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Tanya Plibersek gave the government’s first direct confirmation that it supported the US strikes against Iran and when Penny Wong was asked if the government supported those strikes she answered “We support action to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and that is what this is  . . . The answer is yes, okay, I’ve said that upfront”. It was more gritted teeth!

According to an editorial published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 June 25, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s belated abandonment of Australia’s neutral stance on the US joining Israel’s attack on Iran is a continuation of the defensive and slow-footed reaction that has marked his record ever since the Middle East reignited. The article continued, “It is difficult to comprehend why Albanese equivocated and risked being seen as not adroit enough to come down hard on the Iranian regime”.[ii]

On 24 June, The Daily Telegraph ran a headline, “Australia is ‘outside the tent’ with the United States, with experts saying Albanese’s ‘flat-footed’ response to Donald Trump’s bombing raid on Iran is a sign of a crumbling relationship that could be disastrous for Australia’s trade and security. The Prime Minister took more than 24 hours to say, ‘we support’ the strikes on Iran’s nuclear bases”.[iii] 

Australia’s AUKUS Dilemma -  The Voices

A chorus of eminent Australian voices have called on Australia’s Prime Minister to kick the US marines out of Australia and to scrap AUKUS after the Trump administration announced a review into the nuclear submarine deal. The review came after Albanese resisted US demands to lift defence spending to 3.5% of GDP although Australia had already made the first down payment to the United States of a cool $500 million.

Hugh White (arguably Australia’s most experienced and knowledgeable defence expert)  points to the fact that the US construction yards have barely been delivering enough to meet the Pentagon’s own needs and the US will need to ask whether it makes sense to provide submarines to Australia rather than retaining them for its own Navy. It has always been clear that Washington would only sell the submarines to Australia if it is “absolutely certain Australia would commit them to fight if the US goes to war with China”, but the Albanese government has never acknowledged that it is willing to make that commitment. White agrees that Australia needs submarines for its own needs, but does not think they should be nuclear powered and suggests that Australia should abandon AUKUS.

Writing in The Conversation in April 2025, Michelle Grattan discusses the issue with Hugh White. She suggests that much of the blame for AUKUS lies with the Labor Party since its political approach to foreign affairs and defence has long been focused on “minimising differences with the Coalition”. As per Grattan, “We should have started building replacements for the Collins class submarine around 2010/2012 and we are well over a decade late”.

The US was supposed to supply between three and five Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032, with five nuclear powered subs to come into a service only from the early 2040s. At best, Australia will be waiting decades for the last boat to arrive. In the meantime, it will need to rely on its geriatric Collins-class fleet which is already on life support.

Elbridge Colby is the US undersecretary of defence and leads the AUKUS review. He is  skeptical of the project and has said, “My concern is, why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it”. Colby is likely to conclude that America should not sell its subs to Australia unless Canberra offers much clearer and more public guarantees that it will go to war against China if the US does so.[iv]

According to Gareth Evans[v] (Australia’s former Minister for Foreign Affairs) a collapse of AUKUS following the review should be a cause for celebration in Australia. There never has been certainty that the subs would arrive on time or at all since the US has opt out rights. Evans quotes Paul Keating (Australian Prime Minister 1991-96) when he said an American opt-out “will be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself”! The Americans agreed to the deal because it was in their strategic interests, not Australia’s and, as Kurt Campbell (former US deputy Secretary of State) observed, “We have them locked in now for the next 40 years”.

All that  AUKUS has done for Australia is to paint more targets on its back. The irony is that Australia plans to spend vast sums building a capability to defend the country from military threats which are most likely to arise because it has that capability, but having acquired that capability it will be used to support the US without any reciprocal  guarantee of support from the US. Evans’ observation is reminiscent of what Malcolm Fraser said in his book, Dangerous Allies published in 2014: “Our leaders argue that we need to keep our alliance with US strong in order to ensure our defence in the event of an aggressive foe. Yet the most likely reason that Australia would need to confront an aggressive foe is our strong alliance with the United States. We need America for defence from an attacker who is likely to attack us because we use America for defence!”

Australia’s Defence Minister Marles’ statement that “Australia’s geography and continent would be crucial to any United States prosecution of a war against China” will go down as a dark moment in Australia’s history. China has not threatened Australia militarily nor has it threatened the United States. “China’s singular crime is to have built an economy larger than the United States”.[vi] The problem has arisen because in 2011 under Julia Gillard, Australia agreed to host US military assets on Australian soil and, in 2014 Julie Bishop and Tony Abbott granted access to the US of Australian military facilities and permitted the US to conduct its activities on and from Australian soil.

There is more. In Geoff Raby’s book, China’s Grand Strategy and Australia’s Future in the New Global Order, he writes, “If we regard China as an enemy, it most certainly will become one”. In Allan Gyngell’s book, Fear of Abandonment, Gyngell refers to Australia’s engagement in battles, from Gallipoli to Kokoda and Vietnam, but Australia’s involvement made little difference and did not change the outcome of these conflicts in any meaningful way. 60,000 Australians fought in the Vietnam war. 523 died and almost 2,400 were wounded. According to the Australian War Memorial, during the Gallipoli campaign 8,141 Australians died and another 18,000 were wounded. It was a tragic and unnecessary waste of the lives of young men in their prime.

In Sam Roggeveen’s, The Echidna Strategy – Australia’s Search for Power and Peace he suggests the most likely reason for China to attack Australia is by it allowing the US to use Australia as a base to attack China. He adds “And that is exactly what the US and Australian governments are planning”. He talks of a US-China war involving American bombers flying missions out of RAAF  Tindal and US and UK nuclear powered submarines operating from HMAS Stirling and he suggests that if China has the means to attack these facilities, it will almost certainly do so.

Australia certainly needs boats to protect its enormous circumference, but it needs the right boats, in the right quantities, at the right price and it needs them now, not in some uncertain and unforeseeable distant future.

The Prime Minister Finds His Mojo

Anthony Albanese hit back at claims by the Trump Administration that his government was not investing enough in defence, saying he would ensure that Australia had “the capability that we need”, adding that his job was to look after Australia’s national interests.[vii] Earlier The Australian reported that the government was considering increasing spending from the current 2% of GDP and lifting its 2033 target of 2.33% while nevertheless resisting the 3.5% demanded by Trump.

On the day before the recent Federal election The Nightly reported that the Prime Minister had finished his election tilt with confidence and a poke in the eye for his opponent concluded that “It’s clear he has his mojo back and is unafraid to show the fire in his belly”. Albanese’s recent gutsy rhetoric suggests that to be the case.

It may well foreshadow the Australian Government taking serious and meaningful  account of the wise observations of the above experts. If so, Albanese will join the ranks of the great Australian Labor leaders, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating who championed Australia but did not blindly follow the United States of America. That would be a real cause for celebration.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM – HEAR THE OTHER SIDE

[i] PM’s confusion, passivity and weakness has made us irrelevant

[ii] War in the Middle East is dangerous; Albanese eat missed his opportunity

[iii] Down Under and Out

[iv] Hugh White: Why the AUKUS dream was never realistic and is likely to die, The Conversation 16 June 25

[v] Why Australia should welcome collapse of lopsided Aukus deal, South China Morning Post, 17 June 25

[vi] Paul Keating, Australia is a sovereign continent, not for Richard Marles to gift away, The Australian, 19 June 25

[vii] Doing enough: Albanese leaps to his own defence, The Australian, 28 June 2025