Canberra – The Albanese government is walking a tightrope as the United States, under President Donald Trump, escalates military action against Iran in what’s being termed “Operation Epic Fury.” While Australia maintains it is not a direct party to the conflict, its swift expressions of support for US actions are drawing scrutiny, particularly given the historical lessons of past interventions in the Middle East.
The situation is fraught with risk, not just for regional stability but for Australia’s own strategic position. As the global rules-based order appears increasingly fragile, the question becomes whether Australia will align itself with a US policy that many international law experts deem questionable, or chart a more independent course. The potential for “mission creep,” as described by analysts and the lack of a clear exit strategy are raising concerns about a prolonged and destabilizing conflict.
The current escalation follows a pattern of increasingly assertive foreign policy from the Trump administration, as highlighted by Liberal MP Andrew Hastie, who described Trump as an “apex opportunist” aiming to secure global oil supplies. Hastie’s assessment, echoed by others, suggests a shift away from traditional diplomatic norms and towards a “might is right” approach to international relations. This sentiment was similarly reflected in a recent speech by former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he argued that “nostalgia is not a strategy” and the existing international order is no longer reliably functioning, as reported by multiple sources.
Australia’s position is complicated by its long-standing alliance with the United States and its reliance on US security guarantees. Though, the historical precedent of the 2003 Iraq War looms large, a conflict that was based on flawed intelligence and ultimately destabilized the region. As recently as 2023, Defence Minister Richard Marles affirmed his support for the position taken by former Labor leader Simon Crean, who labeled the Iraq War “illegal, unnecessary and unjust.”
Australia’s Balancing Act: Support for the US and International Law
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, alongside Marles and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong, issued a joint statement expressing support for the US actions, stating they aim to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and threatening international peace and security. This statement, while carefully worded, represents a departure from the more cautious approach often advocated by the Labor Party, particularly in light of the Iraq War experience. The government has been careful to state that Australia is not a party to the conflict with Israel, but the level of support offered to the US is raising eyebrows.
The legal justification for the US strikes is being widely debated. Stanford Law’s Allen Weiner, an expert in international law, argued that the attack was “quite clearly illegal” under international law, which prohibits “just in case” attacks without an explicit and imminent threat. Weiner explained that a general concern about Iran’s potential future nuclear capabilities does not meet the legal threshold for military intervention. This legal assessment underscores the precariousness of Australia’s position, as supporting the US actions could be seen as condoning a violation of international law.
Echoes of Iraq: Domestic Political Considerations
The domestic political implications for Albanese are significant. The experience of the Iraq War, and the subsequent backlash against the Howard government, serves as a cautionary tale. Simon Crean’s opposition to the war, while principled, ultimately contributed to his loss of the Labor leadership in a hostile political environment. Albanese is likely acutely aware of this history and the potential for a similar scenario if the current situation escalates and becomes unpopular with the Australian public.
The current conflict also highlights the broader disintegration of the global order, a trend observed by many foreign policy analysts. As one former foreign correspondent noted, the breakdown of societal systems during disasters mirrors the current erosion of trust and established norms in international relations. This creates a particularly challenging environment for middle powers like Australia, which rely on a stable international order to protect their interests.
What Comes Next?
The situation remains highly fluid and unpredictable. The immediate focus will be on monitoring the escalation of the conflict and assessing the potential for further regional instability. Australia will likely continue to navigate a delicate balance between its alliance with the United States and its commitment to international law. The key question is whether the Albanese government can maintain this balance without being drawn into a wider and more protracted conflict. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether “Operation Epic Fury” becomes “Operation Epic Fail,” and what role Australia will play in the unfolding events.
What are your thoughts on Australia’s response to the escalating conflict in Iran? Share your perspectives in the comments below.
