Israel-Iran war: Anthony Albanese backs ‘unilateral' US strikes on Iran but calls for ‘de-escalation'
Anthony Albanese has backed the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — a day after they took place — but it appears Australia did not know about the military plans in advance nor had any involvement.
The Prime Minister repeatedly said the strikes were 'a unilateral action by the United States' during a short press conference on the matter in Canberra on Monday.
'We are up front, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously, but we've made it very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States,' he said when asked whether the Government had seen intelligence showing Iran was imminently at the point of developing a nuclear weapon or whether the Pine Gap signals facility was used to aid the attack.
He reiterated calls for de-escalation and for Iran to return to the negotiating table.
'We are deeply concerned about any escalation in the region, and we want to see diplomacy, dialogue and de-escalation,' he said.
'Iran didn't come to the table, just as it has repeatedly failed to comply with its international obligations. We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilise the region.'
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has revealed the US gave the UK a heads-up about the strikes shortly before they took place.
Mr Albanese said that was because the UK has been involved for many years in negotiations with Iran.
He would not directly answer multiple questions about whether Australia had similarly been given advance notice.
'We aren't a central player in this conflict. That's just a fact,' he said.
He also revealed that he is still yet to speak to Donald Trump since the US President cancelled a meeting when he left the G7 early to deal with the Middle East conflict.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
25 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
War in the Middle East is dangerous; Albanese missed his opportunity
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's belated abandonment of Australia's neutral stance on the US joining Israel's attack on Iran is a continuation of the defensive and slow-footed reaction that has marked his record over the 18 months since the Middle East reignited. With US President Donald Trump posturing for days on taking military action against Tehran, Albanese had adequate preparation time. Yet, when the attacks came, the prime minister stayed silent on support. Instead, his office issued a statement by an anonymous government spokesperson calling for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy. Such lame silence opened the door for the opposition's canny acting foreign affairs spokesperson, Andrew Hastie, to seize the initiative and back the US strikes and scramble the government onto Monday morning television programs, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek eventually confirming that the government did indeed support Trump's strikes. Albanese then emerged on Monday to declare that, while the attacks were unilateral action by the US, 'Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that'. He should have said it loud and clear on Sunday. That is not to say the prime minister was letting down our ally by not automatically endorsing American action. The US has been so erratic of late that we do not owe it that, not least because so many unanswered questions flow from the weekend. The legality of the US action is wide open to interpretation and Trump's declaration that Iran's nuclear program had been 'completely and totally obliterated' sits awkwardly beside assertions a day later by senior US officials they did not know the fate of Tehran's stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium. Further, the UN's nuclear watchdog confirmed all three Iranian facilities had been badly damaged, but said it was not yet in a position to assess the impact underground and Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels at the three sites. Trump's withdrawal in 2018 from the Iran nuclear deal reached by seven countries after two years of gruelling negotiation may have helped push Tehran down its current obstinate path. But in the 10 days of war with Israel this month, Iran has received little but verbal support from allies and is perhaps now the most isolated it has been since the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis.
Sydney Morning Herald
28 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
US acted alone, Albanese declares while abandoning neutral stance on attack
The US acted alone to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, Anthony Albanese has declared, as he refused to say whether Australia received advance notice but departed from the government's neutral position to back US President Donald Trump's strikes. The shift was confirmed by Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Monday, a day after an unnamed government spokesperson released a statement that called for peace and remained neutral on the strike. Wong and Albanese declined to say how close Iran was to making a nuclear bomb or whether the joint US-Australia intelligence base at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory was used to garner intelligence for it at a press conference at which they were peppered with questions. 'The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that – that is what this is,' Albanese 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. 'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously, but we have made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States,' Albanese repeatedly answered when asked whether Australia had been briefed on the US' decision to strike Iran. Loading British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed he was briefed just before the strike. Albanese said: 'The UK has been one of the countries that's been at the negotiating table with Iran for many years on its nuclear weapons program'. The government's shift from neutrality to full support emphasises Australia's close alliance with the US, echoing its stance before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When Trump confirmed the strikes on the weekend, the Australian government gave a statement that reiterated Iran's missile and ballistic missile programs were dangerous, but was neutral on the US decision to attack them.
The Age
29 minutes ago
- The Age
White House emphasised strikes were not about regime change. Then Trump logged on to social media
The US was not seeking regime change, they said explicitly. This would not become another Iraq War. But they also indicated the campaign was not singularly about nuclear weapons. Iran had to stop funding terrorism, Vance said. It could not threaten its neighbours. It had to reintegrate into the global community. And just hours later, Trump muddied the waters substantially with a typically stream-of-consciousness social media post. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote. It was a flippant contribution and, in many ways, stating the obvious. What American president in the past 46 years – since the fall of the puppet Shah in the Iranian Islamic Revolution – would not have welcomed regime change in Tehran? Trump is not about to conduct a military campaign with such an objective in mind. But it could flow from the combined effects of the US and Israel's strikes, Iran's depleted leadership and its severely weakened regional proxies, runaway inflation and a restless populace. As Eric Edelman, a former US undersecretary for defence policy under George W. Bush, wrote in Foreign Affairs two days ago, Iran's ageing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been 'comprehensively humbled'. Iranians were unlikely to be unsympathetic, he said, and in past demonstrations had blamed the regime rather than outsiders for their predicament. 'Another major protest movement will undoubtedly arise,' he predicted. Israel, seeing this as its best opportunity to topple the regime, will be looking for support. And Trump, who has already boasted of working in lock-step with Benjamin Netanyahu, would not be able to resist claiming credit should things move in that direction, and may even be tempted to help. But such ongoing involvement, whether militarily or though sanctions or covert operations, carries risks for Americans. There are already reports the Iranians threatened to unleash terrorist 'sleeper cells' in the US in retaliation for the weekend strikes. The US has vast assets and tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East. And the State Department has issued a worldwide alert for Americans outside the US to exercise caution. Loading A conflict escalation that endangers Americans would be bad for Trump. He is operating with enormous goodwill from his base after pulling off 'the greatest political comeback in history'. But it is not limitless, as the backlash of the past few days has shown. Trump's instincts here are complicated. He is emboldened by success, including Israel's. He is desperate for the Nobel Peace Prize, and recently posted a rant about how he is unlikely to ever get one, no matter what he does. He is willing to bully allies who challenge him, and says he alone gets to define what 'America First' means. Brett McGurk, a former national security adviser to multiple presidents, and the Middle East co-ordinator under Joe Biden, said Trump should cast aside any ambitions of regime change. 'We can all hope that this regime, which has so much American blood on its hands, ultimately ends up in the dustbin of history – but that's up to the Iranian people,' he told CNN. 'Let's not mission creep. Stay focused.' Loading
