Albanese doesn’t want a bar of Middle East conflict, but that comes at a cost

Anthony Albanese’s government appears more distant than ever from the Trump administration following the United States’ decision to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

On the face of it, nothing much has changed. Albanese, joined by Penny Wong, announced Australia’s support for US strikes on Monday morning because “the world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that”.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was peppered with questions on Trump’s strike.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Make no mistake, there are small but subtle shifts under way in the US-Australia relationship now that Donald Trump is back in the White House. The fact he has not met Albanese face to face surely has not helped.

Whatever you think about Trump – and a solid majority of Australians don’t like him one bit – the US remains our major military and strategic partner. It is (probably) still selling us submarines under the AUKUS deal, which the government views as crucial to Australia’s self-defence.

So it mattered when Albanese curtly pointed out to journalists three times on Monday that the US decision to bomb Iran was unilateral, all but confirming Australia had not been briefed ahead of time by the US. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer got a heads-up.

Last week, when Albanese was asked if Australia could send a ship to the Middle East in support of the US, he gave a categorical “no”. That answer made clear the prime minister’s view of Australia’s potential entanglement in the fight: he doesn’t see a need for it in this age of “progressive patriotism”.

It was strange, then, that Albanese appeared almost annoyed in his press conference that he had been left out of the loop on the US decision to strike even as he confirmed that “we aren’t a central player in this conflict – that’s just a fact.”

When he was asked for a third time why the federal government had waited 24 hours before expressing unequivocal support for the US bombing, he bit back. “We issued a statement,” he deadpanned.

The Sunday statement came from a government spokesperson, not from the prime minister or the foreign minister, nor from either of their offices, which in itself was a deliberate decision to downplay its significance.

“We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security,” the statement read. “We note the US president’s statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

There’s nothing wrong with that statement, but it is not in any way the same as Albanese’s declaration of support for the US on Monday.

The kicker? He also confirmed he has still not spoken to Trump since the cancelled G7 meeting in Canada last week.

Ahead of Albanese’s formal support of the US action, Wong had declared it on ABC’s News Breakfast program (before the National Security Council had met) and also appeared on radio 5AA, Sunrise, Today and ABC radio’s AM program, just in case you missed her.

It’s worth considering how a former prime minister ,such as John Howard, Tony Abbott or Scott Morrison, might have handled the situation from the time Israel’s bombing began.

There is a decent chance that all three men would have volunteered to send an Australian naval vessel or an air-to-air refuelling plane to the region before being asked. Not that the United States actually needs the assistance – it’s just what Australia has always done.

Like Britain’s Starmer on this occasion, Howard would have probably received a phone call because Australia would have had forces in the region, rather than waiting more than 24 hours to respond to one of the most serious hot-war escalations in the Middle East in decades.

Howard or Abbott would have been out early, already briefed and proclaiming that Australia stands shoulder to shoulder with the US.

Credit: Matt Golding

Again, this is not to criticise the current government’s response. For every Australian who wants us to be in lockstep with the United States on every decision, without hesitation, there is another who loathes our close alliance with the United States and longs for a more independent Australian foreign policy.

Like a Rorschach test, some Australians will be pleased the government didn’t immediately back the actions of the US government; others will be alarmed and see evidence of a somewhat frayed alliance.

Whatever your view, Labor’s approach to the latest round of conflict in the Middle East has marked a different emphasis and intent in Australia’s strategy.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.