Donald Trump is right to criticise Australia and allies over Iran support, says former UK Defence Secretary

Donald Trump’s criticisms of Australia, Europe and NATO allies for not helping directly attack Iran are right, says the former UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.

Mr Trump has been furious with what he says is the lack of support for his war in Iran from NATO allies, as well as Australia, South Korea and Japan.

Iran and the United States agreed to a two-week ceasefire, subject to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping route, and the US ending its bombing campaign.

The UK is attempting to lead a coalition of more than 40 countries to contribute to securing the Strait, but only after a ceasefire, something Mr Trump has openly mocked.

Michael Fallon served as UK Defence Secretary during Mr Trump’s first term as President and said that the US President’s criticism was justified.

”The United States is perfectly entitled to ask its allies to do more, to offer more. And we hesitated — we hesitated to allow use of the bases even to defend, originally, even to defend our own bases and interests, that was sluggish,” he said, speaking to the Latika Takes podcast in London.

“(But) It’s not just us. It’s not so long ago, five or six years ago, that Australia had a frigate in the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“It’s not so long since we all rallied before, and we need to rally again. Two years ago, our aircraft were bombing, were dealing with Iranian missiles, if you remember, in the attack against Israel.

“We’ve been involved before. Now we’d all have liked this conflict handled differently, but that doesn’t mean that when the call comes, you’ve got to be ready to respond.”

Australia deployed the Royal Australian Navy frigate HMAS Toowoomba to the Middle East in 2020 as part of the global consortium of navies under the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) that was formed after Iran attacked oil tankers.

Toowoomba has been deployed this year to the Indo-Pacific, Australia’s priority region, including to the South China Sea, to sail with the US and Philippine navies to uphold freedom of navigation against Chinese aggression.

“The Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb, these are international waterways on which the world economy depends. If it was right for a country like Australia to come and help five or six years ago, why is it not right now?” he said.

“Now it doesn’t have to be a ship. Aircraft can be sent, patrol aircraft, refuelling aircraft, or other assets can be deployed, and other logistical help.

“When we were dealing with Iraq with the Daesh in Iraq and Syria, countries that couldn’t send strike aircraft did an awful lot to help with the logistics.

Former Navy Commander Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Professor at the University of Western Australia’s Defence and Security Institute, was Director of Plans for the IMSC in 2020.

She told The Nightly that Australia’s Navy was in poor shape to be able to contribute to any post-ceasefire Coalition that might be replicated.

“Australia is not well placed to surge a warship right now without impacting preparedness because of our limited ships,” she said.

“But it is reasonable to expect we would contribute to reassuring shipping in the Middle East in support of an Ally. It has a direct impact on our economy. That may not be a ship, but could include staff, mine clearance capabilities or a maritime patrol aircraft.

“While the United States is right to expect more from its allies, the public way those demands have been made risks undermining trust in relationships that will need repairing well beyond this conflict. Alliances rely on capability, but they also rely on trust.”

The UK has convened a coalition of more than 40 countries and organisations to secure the Strait of Hormuz after a ceasefire but a first meeting of foreign ministers last week did not involve any military commitments.

Mr Trump has threatened to withdraw from NATO over Europe’s non-involvement. Some countries, including the UK, Italy and Spain, have denied the US access to joint bases to launch bombing raids.

Sir Michael said NATO had missed an opportunity to demonstrate to the United States why the conflict in the Middle East was connected to the war in Ukraine.

“These conflicts, the one on our own continent and the one now in the Middle East, are increasingly one conflict — they’re connected,” he said.

“We’re facing common enemies, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and to some extent China, who wish us in the West harm.

“And that’s why in Ukraine, for example, helping Russia you have Iranian drones, you have North Korean troops, you have Chinese weaponry.

“So we’ve got to work harder in the Alliance in persuading the United States this is all one conflict and that we are ready to help.

“There have been plenty of gaps, and there’s plenty more that NATO could be doing to reassure America that this is a mutual alliance.”

But he conceded that President Trump should have consulted Allies and set out clearer goals for his mission in Iran.

“I think certainly it would’ve been easier if Trump had been clearer about the nature of the mission from the very start because there are obviously aims that the whole alliance will sympathise with the need for Iran to scrap its nuclear programme and stop harassing its neighbours,” he said.

“These are things the alliance could support. But I think we would’ve expected more consultation and a better-defined mission.”

Mike Pezzullo, former Home Affairs Secretary and author of the 2009 Defence White Paper, said that the US should have put together a Coalition and has suffered as a result of not doing so.

“Even if the United States and Israel were from the outset the only participants in strike operations against Iran, two other complementary operations should have been mounted in a synchronised manner from the outset — a Gulf air, drone and missile defence shield; and a sea control operation in the Straits of Hormuz,” he said.

“US coalition of 15-20 nations should have been rallied for these crucial complementary operations. While risky, conducting both operations in tandem with the offensive strike operation would have yielded better results than those that have been achieved.”