In the wake of escalating military tensions surrounding Iran, Australian officials, including Foreign Minister Penny Wong, have faced scrutiny regarding the legality of the recent joint strikes by the United States and Israel. Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles have evaded the majority of direct questions on the subject. Instead, they stress that it is the Iranian people who must decide their own future.
During a press conference, Wong stated, “Ultimately, it is the people of a country that have to determine — and should determine — their destinies.” This declaration is consistent with her general philosophy that intervention should not determine another country’s form of government. The comments come amid criticism from opposition parties regarding the government’s ambiguous position on the legality of the strikes that reportedly killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Government’s Position on Legality
The Albanese government has refused to provide an unequivocal position on the legality of any US-Israeli attacks on Iran under international law. Their position is still a question mark. Wong declined to comment on the legality, calling inquiries a “political stunt” led by the Coalition and the Greens.
Now, legal experts and progressive lawmakers are sounding the alarm on the dangerous precedent that military strikes without a public legal justification could set. Ben Saul, a professor of law, spoke to the need for accountability first. He said that “As the United States retreats from its commitment to international law, it is up to middle powers such as Australia to defend these principles and stand up to clear acts of aggression.” It’s this legal ambiguity that has kept the issue alive as a point of contention in Australia’s often polarized political scene.
When pressed on Australia’s intelligence role in these operations, Wong would not be drawn. She held the line and wouldn’t speak to it at all. This silence has only fueled speculation about Australia’s involvement in newly forged global military strategies for great power conflict.
Official Responses and Political Reactions
Federal minister for defence, Richard Marles, elaborated on the government’s plan towards the conflict. He rejected outright that any operational support is being offered via US installations on Australian land. He made clear that no military assistance has been requested from Australia. He added that they are in regular and ongoing planning to support the Australians caught up in that conflict.
Marles underscored the need to stand with the Iranian people during this challenging time. He noted, as we all have, our unconditional support for the Iranian people. He commended them for their bravery in pushing back against their government. He spoke to the difficulties and unintended consequences that often accompany regime change, warning against externally imposed shiny solutions.
Members of the opposition lauded the strikes even more fervently. Defence & National Security Angus Taylor then Defence Minister, welcomed the military actions as called for a regime change in Iran. At the same time, over to the left, Michaelia Cash played a blinder. She praised Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu for their leadership in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Public Sentiment and Security Concerns
Public reaction to the strikes have been divisive with many Australians voicing their shock and worry for their safety. James Paterson stressed that more than 60,000 Australians are in danger due to the current war. His main request was that they be helped to go home. He continued, “If on the part of commercial carriers evacuation of Australians is proven not to be possible, we will stand up military assets. Historically we’ve been able to get them into the region for evacuations with success.”
Against this backdrop, worries are increasingly growing about the potential consequences for global peace and security. Members and commentators such as Andrew Hastie elevated doubt about regime change by force, drawing on his experience as a veteran. “Having personally experienced the folly of those forever wars, I’m very suspicious about regime change by force,” he continued.
“Not a single regime change war has left the world a better place in my lifetime — not sure why this would be any different.”
