Over the period from 2020 to 2023, Australia’s total defence expenditure exceeded Israel’s by more than $50bn, which, even in this day and age, is real money. Yet no one seriously believes the Australian Defence Force could have achieved a fraction of what Israel has achieved since war broke out on October 7, 2023.
Many factors are at work. But a difference in mindset is surely among them. Our government seems to think peace is the natural condition of mankind, and that “restraint” and “de-escalation” are sufficient to secure it. It therefore downplays existential threats and treats defence spending as a regrettable cost of doing business, whose efficacy is a second order concern.
Israelis too hanker for peace, every bit as much as we do. But confronted with adversaries intent on their destruction, they know national survival hinges on credible deterrence – which requires the demonstrated capability to strike hard and fast.
And they also know that had they heeded the incessant calls for restraint, ceasefires and de-escalation, Hamas would still have undisputed control of Gaza, Hezbollah would still run Lebanon, Syria would still be ruled by a murderous tyrant and Iran would still be poised to unleash a formidable array of offensive military capabilities.
To say that is not to claim that Israel has definitively vanquished its enemies. Although dramatically weakened, Hamas and Hezbollah remain viable entities and the Iranian theocracy’s grip on power appears undiminished.
As for the latest ceasefire, Iran and its proxies have repeatedly proved they adhere to the principle the Prophet Mohammed established when he approved the Treaty of Hudaibiyya: that the sole legitimate purpose of a truce (“hudna”) with the infidels is so as to rearm and fight again.
To make things worse, the ceasefire lacks any enforcement mechanism, above and beyond Donald Trump’s exhortations, which are unlikely to frighten the mullahs. A regime that sends over 20,000 children, armed only with the promise of paradise, to a certain death as human minesweepers – as Iran’s theocracy did in its war with Iraq – will scarcely be cowed by words alone.
As a result, Israel will have little choice but to assure compliance by retaliating forcefully against violations, as it has had to do with Hezbollah. And should it turn out that Iran’s nuclear capacity has not been eradicated, it may well need to resume the conflict.
To declare a “Pax Trumpiana” would therefore be premature. But it would be equally wrong to understate the gains Israel has already secured.
It is a rough, but statistically verifiable, rule of thumb that even states that have only lost a third of their war-waging capabilities take a decade to fully recover – and it seems likely the damage to Iran and its proxies exceeds that threshold. When the war began, their military facilities, including thousands of heavily armed missiles, posed an immediate threat; now the missiles and launch pads are largely smouldering piles of rubble, as are at least two of Iran’s three major nuclear facilities.
One might hope our government would acknowledge that achievement, whose benefits extend far beyond the Middle East. But unlike Germany’s Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who praised Israel for doing the West’s “dirty work”, there is not a single instance in which it has.
That may be because it simply cannot bring itself to see any merit in Benjamin Netanyahu, just as it struggles to say anything favourable about Donald Trump.
It is, however, a mark of intellectual maturity to recognise that the good work of the world is not always done by those who are good; and that all too often, those who come cloaked in the mantle of goodness are dangerous bumblers, as the presidency of Barack Obama so conclusively showed. It was not because of his tender soul that Hamlet helped Denmark achieve a better form of government; it was because he had the good fortune of having the ferociously aggressive and ambitious Fortinbras as his neighbour.
But what is involved here is not merely giving credit where credit is due. By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s achievements, the government is closing its eyes to the war’s lesson: that the world is an extremely dangerous place, in which aggression by totalitarian regimes needs to be met not with an open hand but by a mailed fist. And in denying that fact, it doesn’t just mislead itself: it misleads Australians about the realities we have to confront.
As Hobbes, with his brutal realism, put it, despite the “uselesse cant” (a word derived from the French for the whining of beggars) about “Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice”, there are circumstances in which only the “calamity of a warre” – “the greatest evil that can happen in this life” – can “instruct” states intent on “Molesting other Nations” about the value of peace.
That is not to counsel recklessness or glorify military adventures. On the contrary, like Thucydides, of whom he was one of the first and best translators, Hobbes reserved the greatest praise for those who combine the capacity for bold action with the “mindful prudence” that carefully identifies and manages risks.
The Israel Defence Force has repeatedly displayed that virtue – described by Thucydides as the “measured daring” that keeps “hubris in check and defeatism at bay” – in its audacious attack on Iran, and it may have to call on it again. If the job has to be finished, it is surely best to strike soon, while Iran’s air defences remain in tatters.
It is no doubt true that Trump wants the ceasefire to endure; but for all of his outbursts, both he and JD Vance have said that it is precisely Israel’s willingness to shoulder the burden of conflict and, where necessary, take the initiative, that makes it an ideal ally – as compared to the free riders who have been infantilised by their long-term dependence on the American security blanket.
Sheltered from the responsibility of paying for their own defence, those free riders (or better, cheap riders) have been content to pursue the good life while demanding, as Pete Hegseth aptly commented, that the US bear greater costs and risks to protect their security than they are willing to bear for themselves.
Americans have chaffed at that since the 1960s, when Richard Nixon, who considered the Europeans “damn poor partners”, declared “our position, in a nutshell is this: it is essential for the Europeans to improve their capabilities”. The difference now is that Trump will not allow the situation to continue. With America caught between a fiscal crisis and staggering demands on its capabilities, his successors won’t either, regardless of their partisan affiliation.
We cannot escape that change’s consequences. Yes, defence expenditure is an issue. The fundamental question, however, is whether the government genuinely understands the need to bolster the bulwarks that keep Australia safe. Until it does, the billions we spend on defence will be mere dross. They may fool us. They can’t, and won’t, fool anyone else.
More Coverage
Chalmers says he’s ready to tackle reform – we’ll see
The Coalition is willing to work with the government in good faith on sensible economic reform. For now, I will give the Treasurer the benefit of the doubt that he is genuine about building consensus.
The pressure on defence spending will not abate
The debate should not be about Donald Trump or NATO, but the growing challenges in this region.