Australian government calls for de-escalation of war in Iran as Coalition endorses US strikes
The Australian government has offered no endorsement of the United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, instead issuing a statement reiterating calls for de-escalation as the opposition put forward its support for the military action.
Donald Trump announced the United States had dropped "a full payload of bombs" on the Fordow nuclear site on Sunday, along with strikes on two other locations, declaring Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities "completely and totally obliterated".
In response, a government spokesperson said: "We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.
"We note the US president's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy."
A short time after the government released its statement, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and acting Shadow Foreign Minister Andrew Hastie said the Coalition supported Mr Trump's "proactive action" to bomb the facilities, more than a week after Israel launched an attack on Iran.
"The world can never accept a nuclear-armed Iranian regime, and today the United States military has taken proactive action to ensure that we never need to," they said in a statement.
"While Australians will never seek conflict in the world, we can never forget that the Iranian regime is a militantly theocratic autocracy … It is the Iranian people who are the victims of this brutal regime and we stand in solidarity with them."
Current and former Liberal politicians were also quick to offer their strong support for the strikes, calling on the government to do the same.
Former prime minister Scott Morrison said Mr Trump was left with no other option given the risks of Iran's nuclear program, while Liberal Senator Dave Sharma told Sky News it was "essential that Australia supports what the United States has done".
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to respond to the developments personally.
Earlier on Sunday, before Mr Trump announced the strikes, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said the government's position was de-escalation while noting it recognised Israel's right to defend itself and the risk of Iran's nuclear program.
"We are worried about the prospect for escalation here, and we have been urging de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy, and we continue to do that," he told Sky News.
In an address to the nation late on Saturday night, local time, Mr Trump described the action as a "spectacular military success", while a spokesperson for Iran's nuclear organisation told state media the Fordow site experienced limited damage.
The extent of the damage is yet to be independently assessed.
Mr Trump later posted to Truth Social — a social media platform — that any Iranian retaliation on the United States would be "met with a force far greater than what was witnessed tonight".
Early on Sunday, Mr Hastie, who is also a veteran, warned that any escalation of the war was "dangerous and risky" and could bring unintended consequences.
Speaking to ABC's Insiders minutes before Mr Trump announced the attack, he said: "We could see regime change, a collapse of the Iranian regime, large-scale migration and refugees across the world, but particularly Europe. We don't know who would fill the power vacuum."
"If there is one lesson I take out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it's be careful what you wish for."
He also said there needed to be greater transparency over how the United States uses Australian military bases, calling on the government to be clear about what the military alliance involves.
Mr Marles this week did not say whether American forces could make use of Australian military bases in the north in an action against Iran, stating "we have a system of full knowledge and concurrence" of operations from Australia.
"We need greater transparency, to talk about operationalising the alliance, building guard rails for combat operations and defining our sovereignty," Mr Hastie said.
"This will make things clearer for us, so we can better preserve our national interests."
Greens leader Larissa Waters said in a statement that the government "must not allow the use of Australian US military bases like Pine Gap in this conflict".
"Australia must always work for peace and de-escalation. Australia is not powerless, and we cannot be involved in another brutal war in the Middle East," she said.
"Only when countries like Australia push back and hold to principles and international law and back them up with material actions, will there be a chance for peace."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Self-interested despots and unfettered crimes
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. MIDDLE EAST There is much to dislike about Iran's leaders, but they are hardly alone. Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin are three leaders who come to mind, each with little regard for the inconveniences of traditional statesmanship or democracy. All three have nuclear weapons, and little inclination to exercise self-control in the use of unbridled warfare. One has to ponder what gives this trio of warmongers the right to exist and to pursue their own nuclear ambitions while denying those choices to others. Given their respective track records, there is a massive hypocrisy in any one of the three making claims to the moral high ground. Donald Trump has often claimed he has the power to end wars and yet he admires and supports those who start them. Seldom, in the modern history of mankind, have we seen such a collection of amoral, self-interested despots inflicting such unfettered crimes against humanity. Bob Thomas, Blackburn South Can't leaders see war begets war? After 14 months of weekly protests touting their agenda ″from the mountains to the sea, Palestine would be free″, the pro-Palestine protesters exposed themselves as unreasonable, given their lack of helpful suggestions as to how Israelis could also live in peace without constant fear from neighbouring countries. To some extent, I can understand why the current acting chief of the Israeli Defence Force in an interview on ABC TV 7.30 last Thursday complained about being surrounded by bad neighbours. However, it was hardly a good neighbourly act by Israel to start occupying, then developing the West Bank with apartments, was it? All the while, leaving Palestinians in daily misery. Talk about how not to win friends and influence people, not least the oppressed Palestinian women and children who are clearly used as pawns by Hamas. All the while, the UN has once again shown how useless it is as any kind of international peace-making body. All the while, Israel, too, perhaps encouraged by the current president of the United States, has shown more interest in once and for all destruction of its enemies than the return of the hostages. In some respects, who could blame them, given it was Hamas who escalated the conflict by their action on October 7, 2023? But for there to be peace, we have to ask why so many on both sides of this conflict still think the answer is yet more war. Can they not see war begets war? Do they not remember how good life can be to live in peace? Or perhaps they've never had the chance. Bernadette George, Mildura Obama's nuclear deal stacked in Iran's favour Your correspondent asks why Iran should deal with Israel or the US after Trump dumped the Obama nuclear deal (Letters, 22/6). That deal was stacked in favour of Iran and would have allowed Iran to recommence uranium enrichment this year and remove all restrictions by 2030. Even so, Iran was in serious breach of the agreement when Trump dumped it. It had not come clean about all elements of its nuclear program as required, and wasn't allowing even the limited inspections required by the deal. Now it has been racing towards nuclear weapons and rapidly escalating ballistic missile production, while continuing to use its terror proxies to cause violence across the Middle East. That's why Israel and the US, rightly, attacked. They have made it clear their aim is not regime-change, but to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and will negotiate to achieve that. However, Iran has shown it is not interested. Shane Shmuel, Elsternwick THE FORUM Votes for the 44 towers ″There are no votes in public housing″: This was a mantra heard in corridors and meeting rooms of Victoria's Office of Housing throughout my almost 20 years' service throughout the '80s and '90s. Despite the trope, both state and federal governments supported its expansion under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. Governments understood the transformative power of quality, affordable, secure and well-located housing for low-income families. Just ask the prime minister. In Melbourne, the 44 high-rise towers were and are a crucial part of the public housing palette. They are the welcoming homes of new arrivals to this country, they are the communities that support and nurture generations of low-income families and children. Even Jeff Kennett was convinced they should stay in public ownership despite his policy in 1992 to hand them over to private developers and sell off the remaining public housing stock to existing tenants. Now, at a time when a chasm of inequality has opened in our community, the towers and their communities are under threat from another government which sees no votes in retaining them. To dispose of the towers and their communities when other cheaper, better, less disruptive options for upgrade and renovation have been present ad nauseam to government, is a sacrilege. There are votes in both retaining the 44 towers and public housing more broadly in public hands because when they are gone, the homeless camps, the poverty, and desperate crime on our streets will be a reminder of the failure of governments to do so. Craig Horne, Fitzroy North Chalmers' boosterism Before the May election, Treasurer Jim Chalmers was patting himself on the back about the surpluses Labor had achieved and how responsible Labor had been. He said income tax cuts were a good idea and mocked the Coalition for opposing them. A few months later, he says there is a need for budget repair and that he is canvassing options for tax reform. Some commentators dismissed Chalmers' boosterism before the election: They argued Labor had squandered a revenue bonanza from higher commodity prices and bracket creep. It looks like they were correct. Alun Breward, Malvern East Responsible move In criticising the Labor government for its economic management and policies, columnist Parnell Palme McGuinness (″ Watch Libs blow golden opportunity ″, 22/6) demonstrates how difficult she and other conservative commentators make it for any changes to be made by government. She accuses Labor of ″trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on superannuation″. As she would know, those affected by the changes are a very small minority of very rich taxpayers who have taken advantage of concessional tax rates for superannuation. If the income tax or capital gains or other tax arrangements had a greater benefit, that's where their money would be. It's totally responsible, indeed obligatory, for governments of any colour to review major policies to see that the policy objective for a secure retirement is met. It was never the aim of superannuation to be a major tax minimisation vehicle. Megan Stoyles, Aireys Inlet
7NEWS
2 hours ago
- 7NEWS
B-2 bombers and ‘bunker buster' bombs used in US strikes on Iran
The United States has used its most elite stealth bombers and largest non-nuclear bombs in a massive coordinated strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump confirmed the US had 'completed our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran', including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan on Saturday (Sunday AEST). Two sources familiar with the operation told CNN the United States used the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), also known as a 'bunker buster,' in its strikes. At least six B-2 Spirit bombers were deployed to attack Iran's deeply buried Fordow nuclear site, dropping the 1.3-ton MOP bomb, a US official told CNN. The official said a dozen MOP bombs were dropped on Fordow alone. The GBU-57A/B is a 30,000-pound (13,600kg) bomb is packed with 6000 pounds of explosives, designed specifically for 'reaching and destroying our adversaries' weapons of mass destruction located in well-protected facilities,' according to a US Air Force fact sheet. The bomb explodes twice — once on impact, and again up to 60 metres underground. The B-2 Spirit is the only aircraft capable of carrying the MOP. Is the US Air Force's most advanced stealth bomber, Separately, Navy submarines launched 30 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) at nuclear sites in Natanz and Isfahan, the US official said. A B-2 bomber also dropped two MOPs on Natanz, the official told CNN. The specifics of the strike were first reported by The New York Times. The B-2 is known for its flying wing design, radar-evading features and long-range capability. It can carry a 40,000-pound payload and costs around $2 billion per aircraft. Only 20 exist, all based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan are the backbone of the Iranian nuclear program, according to Western intelligence. Isfahan is a research base. It's believed Iran was working towards the final step of putting weapons grade nuclear material into a war head for a nuclear weapon. Natanz and Fordow are reportedly uranium enrichment facilities where centrifgues processed the radioavtice material. The Fordow site is buried more than 90 metres underground inside a mountain. Saturday's mission is believed to be the first operational use of the MOP bomb.
AU Financial Review
2 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
Iran vows retaliation after Trump ‘obliterates' nuclear ambitions
Canberra | Washington | Iran has vowed to hit back hard against Donald Trump's air raids on the regime's nuclear program and launched a fresh wave of missiles against Israeli cities, as the US president promised more attacks if American interests in the Middle East were targeted. In the most consequential decision of his presidency, Trump defied the advice of allies, including Australia who had advocated for diplomacy, leaving the Middle East at risk of spiralling into further conflict, destabilising global markets and piling pressure on oil prices.
