The recent escalation in the Middle East has prompted a predictable chorus of dismay from Australia’s academic and journalistic establishment. It has even been claimed that the United States’ overdue move against the dissolute terrorist theocracy in Tehran is ‘demented’. More specifically, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has offered a public ‘lament’, suggesting a breach of trust because Donald Trump failed to provide advance notice of the strikes.

This grievance is not merely misplaced; it is profoundly naive. It ignores the fundamental reality of Australia’s strategic history and the necessary mechanics of a great-power alliance.

The Benign Empire

Since its settlement, Australia has existed within the protective orbit of an empire – first the British, and now the imperial American republic. These are the two most benign and powerful empires the world has ever seen. In any imperial relationship, the ‘imperial capital’ (then London, now Washington) takes the major decisions. This is the price, and the privilege, of the enormous protection we enjoy.

The fall of Singapore in 1941 necessitated a pivot that the fall of Manila did not. This was despite the British valiantly fighting on, by land and sea and in the air, from the Channel to the Mediterranean, across the Atlantic and from Africa to the Middle East and across India to Ceylon and Burma. We did not move toward ‘independence’ in the vacuum sense; a new imperial relationship under the Americans was seen as unavoidable. To suggest that the junior partner in such an arrangement must be consulted on every tactical move is to misunderstand the nature of global security.

The ‘Need-to-Know’ Doctrine

The criticism that Trump’s actions lack a ‘disclosed purpose’ or are ‘demented’ stems from a failure to grasp the doctrine of ‘need-to-know’. Information, particularly regarding strikes against a regime that has spent 47 years in a state of aggression against the US, is never handed out as a courtesy.

Commentators who assume that a lack of public disclosure equates to a lack of purpose or planning are simply demonstrating their own provincialism. Even in the United States, where freedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed to a high degree, the media is not a branch of the state. The Commander-in-Chief is under no obligation to inform journalists – or unreliable allies – of his moves. To suggest otherwise is to invite the very leaks that compromise missions.

The Risk of the ‘Hard-Left’

One must ask: Why would Washington tell the Albanese government? Had Mr Trump shared the precise details of the strikes, the risk of a leak, for whatever reason, would have been unacceptable.

Washington is well aware of the murky politics of the hard-left across the West. If a government signals that its foreign and defence policies are dictated by what can be defended at a protest waving foreign flags, it should not be surprised when it is excluded from the inner circle of military planning.

The Hormuz Hypocrisy

The irony of the government’s ‘lament’ is highlighted by its own refusal to assist in the Strait of Hormuz. It was delivered as provocatively as they possibly could, making their refusal public even before they were asked to help.

So, to what extent was President Trump thinking of Anthony Albanese when he recently addressed freeloading allies, telling them to ‘go get your own oil’? This provocation – driven by a desire to appease those in any way sympathetic to radical Islamism – has effectively surrendered Australia’s ‘seat at the table’. You cannot opt out of the responsibilities of the alliance and then demand the privileges of the ‘inner sanctum’.

Conclusion

The war against the theocratic zealots in Tehran is not ‘demented’; it is the overdue reckoning for nearly half a century of aggression, nuclear ambition, and state-sponsored terror.

It is a correction of Jimmy Carter pulling the rug from under our ally, the Shah, and the preposterous actions of the Obama and Biden administrations in handing over billions to the Mullahs, as well as naively aiding them in the development of ‘peaceful’ nuclear programs. It is time some commentators stopped acting like spurned suitors and started recognising the realist requirements of the alliance that ensures our survival.