NICOLA SMITH: Australia deserves more than deafening silence in wake of Donald Trump’s bombing of Iran

The seismic events reshaping the Middle East have unleashed many unknowns for an anxious Australian public, and Anthony Albanese on Monday was short on answers to reassure them.

The Prime Minister waited 24 hours to give his public verdict on the United States’ game-changing decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities on Sunday and his press conference, lasting under 10 minutes, offered little insight into the potential impact of these rapidly shifting power dynamics on Australia and the Indo-Pacific region.

Mr Albanese reiterated the carefully-worded strengthening of Australia’s response, spoken first by Foreign Minister Penny Wong in a morning media blitz, that the Government backed the specific US strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.

“The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that. This is what this is,” he said.

“The US’ action was directed at specific sites central to Iran’s nuclear program. We don’t want escalation and a full-scale war.”

The statement added some meat to the bones of Sunday’s message, through an unnamed spokesperson, calling for “de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy”.

But Australians were left guessing about the Government’s position on whether Washington’s actions fell within the scope of international law.

Mr Albanese also swerved direct questions about whether Pine Gap, a shared surveillance and intelligence facility had been engaged in signals support, or if Australia, like the UK, had been given advance notice of the operation with the same repeated answer: “this was unilateral action”.

While it’s obvious the Prime Minister cannot reveal classified information on national television, more clarity on reasonable questions at a time of rising global uncertainty and public unease would have been expected before he dashed out of the room.

Australia’s logistical backing for US strikes in the Middle East has a recent precedent.

The Department of Defence confirmed to the ABC last November that the country offered support “through access and overflight for US aircraft in northern Australia” during attacks on underground bunkers used by Yemen’s Houthi rebels threatening Red Sea trade routes.

Defence at the time declined to confirm reports that air-to-air refuelling aircraft were part of the mission, which was believed to involve B-2 bombers like those used to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

Security experts like Dr Alex Bristow say there would be greater implications if Australia was to become directly involved in operations targeting Iran, which has threatened to retaliate against countries providing military support to Israel.

The Government would also be mindful of how an Australian role in any conflict would be viewed by near neighbours, including Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia, he argued.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong on the Today Show said no request for Australia to get involved in the conflict had been made and refused to speculate about the future.

When asked if America’s use of powerful bombs to destroy the rogue state’s nuclear program was in accordance with international law, the Government has put the onus back on Iran.

“I think it’s important to remember that the facilities that were struck only exist for the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program. That is what we’re talking about,” said Senator Wong in response to the question on ABC News Breakfast.

“And the world has long agreed that Iran is not in compliance with its international obligations when it comes to nuclear material. And the world has long agreed that it is not in the interest of collective peace and security for Iran to gain access to any nuclear weapon.”

But the support for the US operation does raise problematic questions for western democracies who repeatedly call out Russia, China and North Korea for breaches of the “international rules-based order,” laying them open to accusations of inconsistency.

Donald Rothwell, an international law professor at the Australian National University, said that according to material in the public domain, there was no clear basis to legitimate Washington’s latest military action.

At the heart of the issue was whether there was UN authorised military action consistent with the UN charter — which there was not — and, secondly, the complicated, multi-layered question of whether the US had been exercising a right of self-defence.

The starting point of the debate was whether the US had been subject of an armed attack by Iran — which again, it had not — before heading into the more nuanced and controversial issues of “anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence,” he told The Nightly.

The major difficulty here was that “there’s no compelling evidence that Iran possessed nuclear weapons or was on the brink of producing nuclear weapons,” he said.

“The fact that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes a threat to international peace and security, it doesn’t therefore follow that you can use military force to demilitarise Iran,” said Professor Rothwell.

If the US was to ask Australia to assist in its military operations, which would not fall under the ANZUS requirement to assist in the event of an attack on the US homeland, the request would fall back on how it would be characterised under international law.

“International law would say, at face value, the United States is engaging in an act of aggression, which is entirely inconsistent with the UN Charter. And, therefore, Australia should not in any way seek to assist the United States militarily, or with any other form of assistance,” he said.

Jennifer Parker, an expert associate at the ANU’s national security college, predicted the only situation where the US would ask for Australian support would be in the event of the crisis escalating into the maritime domain.

However, she added that significant pressure on Navy resources meant it would unlikely be in the position to offer more than staff.

Ms Parker argued the wider and more immediate implications of the Iran crisis for the Indo-Pacific would be seen in fuel security and the potential harassment of commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

But in terms of a longer-term impact, she pointed to the message the United States’ actions would send to China, which has growing territorial and military ambitions, and the reinforcing of deterrence strategies after Washington’s lacklustre approach to Ukraine.

“I think that the US would have had a view in taking this action about re-establishing deterrence against China and Russia, by demonstrating that the US is willing to take action once all reasonable steps are gone through,” she said.