The Australia-US alliance is facing a decisive test, and not just over the Middle East
Would Australia go to war to support the United States in conflict with China over Taiwan – or elsewhere? The government avoids discussing the question, let alone answering it, by dismissing it as hypothetical. But it will not go away, for two reasons.
First, the possibility of us going to war over Taiwan looms over the whole debate about our military preparedness and defence spending, and gives it urgency. That is because choosing to fight China alongside the US is a scenario in which Australia would find itself drawn into a major conflict. Surely we should be talking about that choice now, in advance, rather than wait till a crisis breaks?
But the other reason the question won't go away is that Washington wants it answered, and soon. Today, of course, all eyes are on the Middle East as Donald Trump ponders whether to join Israel's apparently open-ended war with Iran.
Until recently that would almost certainly mean Australia too was faced with a choice as to whether to follow the US into yet another Middle East war. But things are different now. The defence minister, Richard Marles, has dismissed any Australian involvement, saying on Tuesday: 'We are not a part of this conflict.' That is because, despite Iran and Gaza, China's epochal challenge to the US makes the Taiwan question, not the Middle East, the decisive test of our US alliance.
Trump's isolationism means the risk of a US-China war over Taiwan is lower now than it was under Joe Biden. But it remains the US military's key concern, as the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, made clear in Singapore. Australia's commitment in such a conflict has become a touchstone of our seriousness as an ally at a time when ever-closer enmeshment with Washington under Aukus has become the core of the Albanese government's foreign and defence policies. It goes to the heart of whether Aukus really is in US interests, and thus whether Aukus will survive. It will be a central question in the Pentagon's review of the pact.
That is because under Aukus the US is supposed to be passing some of its vital and scarce Virginia-class submarines to Australia. It makes no sense to do that unless it is sure that we would send them to join the US fleet in a war.
The same is true of the buildup of US combat forces, including long-range bombers, at Australian bases. That too makes no sense unless we guarantee in advance that those forces can be used in a war against China. So for the Pentagon the question of Australia's stance in a US-China war is not remotely hypothetical.
All this no doubt explains why Marles edged closer to engaging on the issue on Monday at a defence conference in Canberra. He did not say, as one breathless headline had it, 'US-China war: we would be involved.' But he did drop two plain hints to Washington.
He said: 'Australia's geography today is more relevant to great power contest than it has been … arguably at any point in our history.' This conveyed to Washington that the government understands how central Australia has become to the US military contest with China, and how much US planning for war with China now assumes Australian support.
A few moments later he said: 'The defence of Australia is intimately connected with the peace and stability of the Pacific, the peace and stability of south-east Asia, of north-east Asia, of the north-east Indian Ocean.' He went on: 'The geography of our national security, it lies much less along the coastline of the continent, as it does further afield.' This conveys that the government's military posture is focused on fighting alongside the US far from our shores in places like the Taiwan Strait, rather than defending the continent itself.
Others speaking at the conference went further, with one former senior official saying: 'We would be involved.' This seems to reflect the broader consensus of the Canberra bureaucracy.
But do Anthony Albanese and his senior minsters agree? Do Marles' comments reflect anything more than a desire to placate Washington without really answering a question they would prefer to leave in the too-hard basket, hoping it will go away?
If so, they are making a big mistake. It is time for Australia to have a serious conversation about our involvement. Two questions should be uppermost.
First, what would be our aims in taking part in a conflict? The obvious ones are to help defend Taiwan's democracy, to help preserve the US position as the leading power in Asia and stop China taking its place, and to 'pay our dues' as a US ally.
Second, how likely are we to achieve these aims? The short answer is very unlikely. With or without Australia's support, the US has no serious chance of winning a war with China over Taiwan. That means Taiwan would not be saved, the US position in Asia would be not preserved, and Australia's value as an ally would disappear. Like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have followed Washington into a war that achieved neither its objectives nor ours but this time at unimaginably greater cost.
That being so, we should give Washington a plain answer to its Taiwan question. The answer should be no.
Hugh White is emeritus professor of strategic studies at ANU. His Quarterly Essay Hard New World: Our Post-American Future was published this month
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's top spy confirms worst fears about Iran after public rebuke from president as US prepares military strike
Tulsi Gabbard finally responded to claims that she said Iran did not have nuclear capabilities after Donald Trump called her 'wrong' on the issue. Trump's Director of National Intelligence had testified in March that the U.S. intelligence community 'continues to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' She posted to X Friday that 'The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division. America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Gabbard included video of her testimony from March that while the intelligence community suggests that, the Iranians appear clearly to have 'enriched uranium stockpiles at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' She also noted that Iran 'contains a wide range of threats' to the United States and Israel. Gabbard said that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had 'not authorized a nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump said earlier Friday that Gabbard was wrong when she said that Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon. 'Well, then my intelligence community is wrong,' he said Friday at Joint Base Andrews, to a question about what evidence he had that Iran was building a nuclear bomb. But Trump said Friday as he was departing for his Bedminster, New Jersey golf club 'it looked like I'm right about the material that they've gathered already.' 'It is a tremendous amount of material and I think within a matter of weeks or certainly within a matter of months they will be able to have a nuclear weapon and we can't let that happen,' Trump said. After landing in New Jersey for an evening fundraiser for his super political action committee, Trump was asked about Gabbard's comments to Congress in March that U.S. spy agencies believed that Iran wasn't working on nuclear warheads. The president responded, 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?' Informed that it had been Gabbard, Trump said, 'She's wrong.' Still, disavowing Gabbard´s previous assessment came a day after the White House said Trump would decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military would get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. It said seeking additional time was 'based on the fact that there´s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' But on Friday, Trump himself seemed to cast doubts on the possibility of talks leading to a pause in fighting between Israel and Iran. He said that, while he might support a ceasefire, Israel's strikes on Iran could be 'very hard to stop.' Asked about Iran suggesting that, if the U.S. was serious about furthering negotiations, it could call on Israel to stop its strikes, Trump responded, 'I think it´s very hard to make that request right now.' 'If somebody is winning, it´s a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing,' Trump said. 'But we´re ready, willing and able, and we´ve been speaking to Iran, and we´ll see what happens.' The president later added, 'It´s very hard to stop when you look at it.' 'Israel´s doing well in terms of war. And, I think, you would say that Iran is doing less well. It´s a little bit hard to get somebody to stop,' Trump said. Earlier Friday, reported that Gabbard has been the target of a smear campaign from 'deep state' intelligence officials seeking to undermine her influence through strategic leaks as President Trump ponders whether to join Israel's war against Iran, those close to her tell the Daily Mail. Gabbard is in the room, helping the president and his team determine an informed path forward, these officials stressed, pushing back against multiple reports indicating that she's been sidelined. In fact, the president is calling on her, the sources claim. Multiple intelligence officials spoke with the Daily Mail about Trump's spy chief's schedule and work since Israel launched an attack on Iran last week, shedding light on a normally clandestine affair. 'All the National Security Council meetings she's in on, and then, I mean, there's lots of impromptu ones where he's calling her into the office,' one senior intelligence official shared. 'She's in there at all the key junctures,' the source added. 'She's been in every meeting,' a White House official told the Daily Mail, adding the DNI 'has not been sidelined whatsoever.' Reports have suggested that Trump has been advised by a smaller cohort, including VP J.D. Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine. They say Gabbard and Pentagon Sec. Pete Hegseth are on the outside looking in. But these Gabbard allies told the Daily Mail the DNI has attended practically every crucial meeting at the White House and Situation Room since the conflict began. Vice President Vance also threw his weight behind Gabbard with a glowing social media post: 'She's an essential member of our national security team, and we're grateful for her tireless work to keep America safe from foreign threats.' The White House official added that Hegseth has also been an integral member of ongoing military discussions regarding the Middle East. Trump campaigned on decrying 'endless wars' and has vowed to be an international peacemaker. That's led some, even among conservatives, to point to Trump´s past criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq beginning in 2003 as being at odds with his more aggressive stance toward Iran now. Trump suggested the two situations were very different, though. 'There were no weapons of mass destruction. I never thought there were. And that was somewhat pre-nuclear. You know, it was, it was a nuclear age, but nothing like it is today,' Trump said of his past criticism of the administration of President George W. Bush. He added of Iran´s current nuclear program, 'It looked like I´m right about the material that they´ve gathered already. It´s a tremendous amount of material.' Trump also cast doubts on Iran's developing nuclear capabilities for civilian pursuits, like power generation. 'You´re sitting on one of the largest oil piles anywhere in the world,' he said. 'It´s a little bit hard to see why you´d need that.'
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
US warplanes transit through UK as Trump considers striking Iran
Flight tracking data shows extensive movement of US military aircraft towards the Middle East in recent days, including via the UK. Fifty-two US military planes were spotted flying over the eastern Mediterranean towards the Middle East between Monday and Thursday. That includes at least 25 that passed through Chania airport, on the Greek island of Crete - an eight-fold increase in the rate of arrivals compared to the first half of June. The movement of military equipment comes as the US considers whether to assist Israel in its conflict with Iran. Of the 52 planes spotted over the eastern Mediterranean, 32 are used for transporting troops or cargo, 18 are used for mid-air refuelling and two are reconnaissance planes. Forbes McKenzie, founder of McKenzie Intelligence, says that this indicates "the build-up of warfighting capability, which was not [in the region] before". Sky's data does not include fighter jets, which typically fly without publicly revealing their location. An air traffic control recording from Wednesday suggests that F-22 Raptors are among the planes being sent across the Atlantic, while 12 F-35 fighter jets were photographed travelling from the UK to the Middle East on Wednesday. Many US military planes are passing through UK A growing number of US Air Force planes have been passing through the UK in recent days. Analysis of flight tracking data at three key air bases in the UK shows 63 US military flights landing between 16 and 19 June - more than double the rate of arrivals earlier in June. On Thursday, Sky News filmed three US military C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft and a C-130 Hercules military cargo plane arriving at Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Flight tracking data shows that one of the planes arrived from an air base in Jordan, having earlier travelled there from Germany. What does Israel need from US? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on 15 March that his country's aim is to remove "two existential threats - the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat". Israel says that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear bomb, though Iran says its nuclear facilities are only for civilian energy purposes. A US intelligence assessment in March concluded that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. President Trump dismissed the assessment on Tuesday, saying: "I think they were very close to having one." Forbes McKenzie says the Americans have a "very similar inventory of weapons systems" to the Israelis, "but of course, they also have the much-talked-about GBU-57". The GBU-57 is a 30,000lb bomb - the largest non-nuclear bomb in existence. Mr McKenzie explains that it is "specifically designed to destroy targets which are very deep underground". Experts say it is the only weapon with any chance of destroying Iran's main enrichment site, which is located underneath a mountain at Fordow. Air-to-air refuelling could allow Israel to carry larger bombs Among the dozens of US aircraft that Sky News tracked over the eastern Mediterranean in recent days, more than a third (18 planes) were designed for air-to-air refuelling. "These are crucial because Israel is the best part of a thousand miles away from Iran," says Sky News military analyst Sean Bell. "Most military fighter jets would struggle to do those 2,000-mile round trips and have enough combat fuel." The ability to refuel mid-flight would also allow Israeli planes to carry heavier munitions, including bunker-buster bombs necessary to destroy the tunnels and silos where Iran stores many of its missiles. Satellite imagery captured on 15 June shows the aftermath of Israeli strikes on a missile facility near the western city of Kermanshah, which destroyed at least 12 buildings at the site. At least four tunnel entrances were also damaged in the strikes, two of which can be seen in the image below. Writing for Jane's Defence Weekly, military analyst Jeremy Binnie says it looked like the tunnels were "targeted using guided munitions coming in at angles, not destroyed from above using penetrator bombs, raising the possibility that the damage can be cleared, enabling any [missile launchers] trapped inside to deploy". "This might reflect the limited payloads that Israeli aircraft can carry to Iran," he adds. Penetrator bombs, also known as bunker-busters, are much heavier than other types of munitions and as a result require more fuel to transport. Israel does not have the latest generation of refuelling aircraft, Mr Binnie says, meaning it is likely to struggle to deploy a significant number of penetrator bombs. Israel has struck most of Iran's western missile bases Even without direct US assistance, the Israeli air force has managed to inflict significant damage on Iran's missile launch capacity. Sky News has confirmed Israeli strikes on at least five of Iran's six known missile bases in the west of the country. On Monday, the IDF said that its strategy of targeting western launch sites had forced Iran to rely on its bases in the centre of the country, such as Isfahan - around 1,500km (930 miles) from Israel. Among Iran's most advanced weapons are three types of solid-fuelled rockets fitted with highly manoeuvrable warheads: Fattah-1, Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassam. The use of solid fuel makes these missiles easy to transport and fast to launch, while their manoeuvrable warheads make them better at evading Israeli air defences. However, none of them are capable of striking Israel from such a distance. Iran is known to possess five types of missile capable of travelling more than 1,500km, but only one of these uses solid fuel - the Sijjil-1. On 18 June, Iran claimed to have used this missile against Israel for the first time. Iran's missiles have caused significant damage Iran's missile attacks have killed at least 24 people in Israel and wounded hundreds, according to the Israeli foreign ministry. The number of air raid alerts in Israel has topped 1,000 every day since the start of hostilities, reaching a peak of 3,024 on 15 June. Iran has managed to strike some government buildings, including one in the city of Haifa on Friday. And on 13 June, in Iran's most notable targeting success so far, an Iranian missile impacted on or near the headquarters of Israel's defence ministry in Tel Aviv. Most of the Iranian strikes verified by Sky News, however, have hit civilian targets. These include residential buildings, a school and a university. On Thursday, one missile hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, southern Israel's main hospital. More than 70 people were injured, according to Israel's health ministry. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran had struck a nearby technology park containing an IDF cyber defence training centre, and that the "blast wave caused superficial damage to a small section" of the hospital. However, the technology park is in fact 1.2km away from where the missile struck. Photos of the hospital show evidence of a direct hit, with a large section of one building's roof completely destroyed. Iran successfully struck the technology park on Friday, though its missile fell in an open area, causing damage to a nearby residential building but no casualties. Israel has killed much of Iran's military leadership It's not clear exactly how many people Israel's strikes in Iran have killed, or how many are civilians. Estimates by human rights groups of the total number of fatalities exceed 600. What is clear is that among the military personnel killed are many key figures in the Iranian armed forces, including the military's chief of staff, deputy head of intelligence and deputy head of operations. Key figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guard have also been killed, including the militia's commander-in-chief, its aerospace force commander and its air defences commander. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that US assistance was not necessary for Israel to win the war. "We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities," he said. "We have the capability to do that." 3:49 Forbes McKenzie says that while Israel has secured significant victories in the war so far, "they only have so much fuel, they only have so many munitions". "The Americans have an ability to keep up the pace of operations that the Israelis have started, and they're able to do it for an indefinite period of time." Additional reporting by data journalist Joely Santa Cruz and OSINT producers Freya Gibson, Lina-Sirine Zitout and Sam Doak.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Iran, Israel launch new attacks after Tehran rules out nuclear talks
JERUSALEM/WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) - Iran and Israel exchanged fresh attacks early on Saturday, a day after Tehran said it would not negotiate over its nuclear programme while under threat and Europe tried to keep peace talks alive. Shortly after 2:30 a.m. in Israel (2330 GMT on Friday), the Israeli military warned of an incoming missile barrage from Iran, triggering air raid sirens across parts of central Israel, including Tel Aviv, as well as in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Interceptions were visible in the sky over Tel Aviv, with explosions echoing across the metropolitan area as Israel's air defence systems responded. At the same time, Israel launched a new wave of attacks against missile storage and launch infrastructure sites in Iran, the Israeli military said. Sirens also sounded in southern Israel, said Magen David Adom, Israel's national emergency service. An Israeli military official said Iran had fired five ballistic missiles and that there were no immediate indications of any missile impacts. There were no initial reports of casualties. The emergency service released images showing a fire on the roof of a multi-storey residential building in central Israel. Local media reported that the fire was caused by debris from an intercepted missile. Israel began attacking Iran last Friday, saying its longtime enemy was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes, retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons. It neither confirms nor denies this. Its air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based human rights organisation that tracks Iran. The dead include the military's top echelon and nuclear scientists. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed in Iranian missile attacks, according to authorities. Reuters could not independently verify casualty figures for either side. Iran has repeatedly targeted Tel Aviv, a metropolitan area of around 4 million people and the country's business and economic hub, where some critical military assets are also located. Israel said it had struck dozens of military targets on Friday, including missile production sites, a research body it said was involved in nuclear weapons development in Tehran and military facilities in western and central Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said there was no room for negotiations with the U.S. "until Israeli aggression stops". But he arrived in Geneva on Friday for talks with European foreign ministers at which Europe hopes to establish a path back to diplomacy. U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday reiterated that he would take as long as two weeks to decide whether the United States should enter the conflict on Israel's side, enough time "to see whether or not people come to their senses", he said. Trump said he was unlikely to press Israel to scale back its airstrikes to allow negotiations to continue. "I think it's very hard to make that request right now. If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens," he said. The Geneva talks produced little signs of progress, and Trump said he doubted negotiators would be able to secure a ceasefire. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one," Trump said. Hundreds of U.S. citizens have fled Iran since the air war began, according to a U.S. State Department cable seen by Reuters. Israel's envoy to the United Nations, Danny Danon, told the Security Council on Friday his country would not stop its attacks "until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled". Iran's U.N. envoy Amir Saeid Iravani called for Security Council action and said Tehran was alarmed by reports that the U.S. might join the war. Russia and China demanded immediate de-escalation. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran was ready to discuss limitations on uranium enrichment but that it would reject any proposal that barred it from enriching uranium completely, "especially now under Israel's strikes".
