Anti-Trumpers would have to ‘agree' with US plan to stop Iran's ambitions
Donald Trump is set to host Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday.
'Even anti-Trumpers would have to agree that setting back Iran's regional ambitions to dominate the Middle East and setting back its nuclear program is a real net positive,' Mr Shoebridge said.
'It opens up other opportunities for reproachment between Arab states and Israel – but not while Gaza is still happening.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
44 minutes ago
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Public safety and national security come before a scoop
There are two things that should particularly exercise an editor's mind when deciding on the publication of certain sensitive reports. Public safety and national security. Many arguments can be made for providing readers with as much information as possible — that's the business we're in — but some lines are crossed and risk peril when they involve those two areas. It's a long time since the Australian media had to think about the consequences of operating as a restrained free press when the country is at war and might need to defend itself. And long may that continue. But even our Defence Minister just two weeks ago conceded Australia would be dragged in to support the US if it became involved in any Chinese attack on Taiwan. That's a likelihood some defence experts think could be only several years away. With the world holding its breath that an all-in conflagration won't break out in the Middle East after America's intervention to end the war between Israel and Iran, questions remain about whether President Donald Trump is the peacemaker he claims to be, or an opportunistic belligerent. That has caused divisions in Trump's support base because he promised a nation weary of fighting other people's wars that he would not take them into more foreign campaigns. The so-called 12-day war has also raised other questions about America's politically-riven society. It again exposed elements in the American intelligence community — what the MAGA movement calls the Deep State — and embedded in the Left media who would rather the USA be seen to fail than Trump be seen to have a win. That's not just Trump derangement syndrome. That's deeply unpatriotic. And potentially even worse if it led to harm. The editors at CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times who decided to take on Trump over the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities based on leaked 'Top Secret' intelligence reports they had not seen, but had only been told about, went out on a limb. Reporters require very strong faith in a source — and usually need wider confirmation — to rely on what they are told about vital documents without seeing them. At the time details of this top-secret intelligence was published, America remained on the brink of being dragged into a precipitous war. There were potentially extreme consequences. The possibility of further American involvement resulting from those assessments of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities was a live issue. That is why the intelligence was done. Not for triumphalism, but to investigate the effectiveness of the bombing and the possibility that more might be needed. In other words, whether more Americans would have to risk their lives to finish the job. Iran had a strong interest in how much the Americans knew — or what they thought they knew. But the desire to score points against Trump was greater than the editors' caution to ensure what they might publish did not damage American interests. They decided it was acceptable to use it to contest Trump's assertion of 'obliteration' without worrying that they were effectively supporting Iran's attempts to make it appear that its nuclear program had not suffered a significant setback. One effect of supporting Iran in that cause was to weaken the pressure on it to stop fighting. And to suppress dissent against Iran's theocracy. Another perverse effect of the publication was to encourage people who hate Trump to cheer for America to fail. And Iran — the globe's biggest sponsor of international terrorism — to win? During the recent conflict, I spent a lot of time watching Qatar-based Al-Jazeera because they had a team of reporters in Tehran providing in-depth reports missing on other cable networks. The Al-Jazeera coverage was superior. I continued switching across to Al-Jazeera in the lead-up to Trump's appearance at the NATO meeting in The Hague which also provided an interesting perspective not available from usual news sources. For instance, there was fascinating live coverage of a joint press conference between the Qatari and Lebanese prime ministers a day after Iran had fired 19 missiles at the US air base just outside Doha. The swirling middle eastern politics at play between Qatar's friendship with Iran and its alliance with the US and Lebanon's involvement in hostilities with Israel reflected that old story about the scorpion and the frog. And then I chanced on live coverage of a presser between Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte — the former longstanding Dutch PM — with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence secretary Pete Hegseth sitting on the sidelines. Rutte began with some extraordinary gushing over Trump for his achievement of forcing NATO members to meet to lift their defence spending to five per cent of GDP. He said Trump had now achieved even more than in his first term when he put the blowtorch on the Europeans which, Rutte claimed, resulted in an extra US$1 trillion being spent on their defence needs. That was news. Reporters then asked Trump about the reports of the leaked intelligence. He didn't hold back: 'CNN is scum,' he said. 'MSNBC is scum. The New York Times is scum. 'They're bad people, they're sick. They've tried to make this unbelievable victory into something less. They should not have done that. The pilots hit their targets and the pilots should be credited. They're not after the pilots, they're after me.' Trump then referred a question to Rubio who made a series of important points that need serious reflection by the media. Firstly, he confirmed the intelligence was marked Top Secret without saying that media sources need to justify releasing such information during hostilities. Avoiding giving any detail, which he is sworn to protect, Rubio argued intelligence of that kind always contained a range of scenarios especially when the collected information was not conclusive. Rubio said the leakers had cherry-picked only the most sceptical parts of the assessment, and the subsequent news reports 'mischaracterised' the conclusions. 'I hate commenting on these stories, because often the first story is wrong and the person putting it out there has an agenda,' Rubio said. 'That story is a false story, and it's one that really shouldn't be re-reported because it doesn't accurately reflect what's happening.' Good point. The farther the media reporting got from the original news reports, the more the 'intelligence' was taken as having been passed on truthfully. Those regurgitating the CNN-MSNBC reporting did not know the leakers — so could not question their credibility — were unaware of their motives or which parts had been leaked and which concealed. But the 're-reporting' contained no caveats on credibility, even though everyone knows the febrile animosity of CNN and MSNBC for Trump and his administration. Hegseth described the assessment as 'a top secret report; it was preliminary; it was low confidence.' That is completely lost in the re-reporting. CNN's original report makes it clear the network had not seen the intelligence assessment, claiming it had been 'described by seven people briefed on it.' The report suggests a patchwork of snippets. But even their sources clearly didn't see the actual document. Briefed? They may have just heard about it. The Times quoted 'officials familiar with the findings.' 'The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran's nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available,' CNN said, clearly acknowledging, but not being constrained by, its preliminary and inconclusive nature. 'But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.' And that was the only point they wanted to make. What the leakers wanted to achieve. Pure political point-scoring. 'This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN before publication, 'and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program.' Maybe they did. Maybe not. The truth is still out there. But what is more certain is that the pertinent question about the effectiveness of one of America's most critical armaments — deployed for the first time — should be determined in a less dangerous environment. And not as part of a blatant political vendetta. It wasn't always like this. When the mainstream news media was not so partisan, more considered, less willing to trade national security for clicks. Evaluating the possible impact of a controversial news report is part of an editor's job. But it escalates from brand protection and reputational damage control to something much more important when the report involves national security, particularly during a conflict with the potential to expand.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as stand-off drags on
The UN nuclear watchdog says it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a stand-off over their return to the country's nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens. Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority. Iran's parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran. "An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict," the IAEA said on X on Friday. Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors' safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media. Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "(Grossi) reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible," the IAEA said. The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg enriched to up to 60 per cent purity, a short step from weapons grade. That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb. As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries' declarations. But the bombing of Iran's facilities has now muddied the waters. "We cannot afford that .... the inspection regime is interrupted," Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week. The UN nuclear watchdog says it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a stand-off over their return to the country's nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens. Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority. Iran's parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran. "An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict," the IAEA said on X on Friday. Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors' safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media. Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "(Grossi) reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible," the IAEA said. The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg enriched to up to 60 per cent purity, a short step from weapons grade. That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb. As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries' declarations. But the bombing of Iran's facilities has now muddied the waters. "We cannot afford that .... the inspection regime is interrupted," Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week. The UN nuclear watchdog says it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a stand-off over their return to the country's nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens. Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority. Iran's parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran. "An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict," the IAEA said on X on Friday. Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors' safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media. Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "(Grossi) reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible," the IAEA said. The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg enriched to up to 60 per cent purity, a short step from weapons grade. That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb. As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries' declarations. But the bombing of Iran's facilities has now muddied the waters. "We cannot afford that .... the inspection regime is interrupted," Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week. The UN nuclear watchdog says it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a stand-off over their return to the country's nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens. Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority. Iran's parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran. "An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict," the IAEA said on X on Friday. Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors' safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media. Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "(Grossi) reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible," the IAEA said. The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg enriched to up to 60 per cent purity, a short step from weapons grade. That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb. As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries' declarations. But the bombing of Iran's facilities has now muddied the waters. "We cannot afford that .... the inspection regime is interrupted," Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
'Cruel' Trump move to shake Aussies' trust in US
Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect."
