Australian diplomats in Middle East safe, accounted for
Australian embassy staff in Tehran and Tel Aviv are safe and accounted for amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, Richard Marles says.
Australians in the region should seek shelter in place, monitor the Smartraveller website and, if necessary, contact consular authorities, the deputy prime minister said.
"We are able to report that our embassy staff in both Tehran and Tel Aviv are all accounted for and are safe," he told reporters in Geelong on Saturday.
"There are a small number of Australian Defence Force personnel within the region. They, too, have all been accounted for and are safe but we will continue to monitor their ongoing safety."
Iran and Israel are targeting each other with missiles and air strikes after the latter launched its biggest-ever air offensive against its longtime foe in a bid to prevent it developing a nuclear weapon.
Australia was deeply concerned about the unfolding hostilities and specifically about the risks of escalation, Mr Marles said.
"We well understand the threat that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program represents.
"That program is a threat to international peace and security but because of this, we are calling on all parties to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy."
The government was expressly calling on Iran to exercise restraint so as not to risk broader conflict, he said.
Israel hit dozens of sites on Friday as tensions soared after a United Nations agency found Iran was not complying with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said from Fiji on Friday he was conscious of the threat posed if Iran became a nuclear state.
"We want to see these issues resolved through dialogue and the United States have been playing an important role there," he said.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said on Saturday the targeting of population centres by Iran was "deeply troubling".
"The Iranian regime's ability to acquire nuclear weapons poses a serious and direct threat to world peace and stability, especially as it continues to engage in terrorism by supporting its proxies: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen," she said in a statement.
"Whilst we continue to urge caution, Israel has a right to defend itself.
"Israel is exercising its sovereign right to defend its people and ensure the security of future generations. The world can never accept a nuclear-armed Iran."
US President Donald Trump on Thursday warned there was a "chance of massive conflict" involving Iran as Washington began pulling diplomats out of the Middle East.
Senior lecturer in international relations at Flinders University Jessica Genauer said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Iran was likely driven by domestic concerns.
"Netanyahu faces political dissatisfaction with his handling of the Hamas-Israel war," she said.
"Recent suggestions that Trump is turning away from a close friendship with Netanyahu is further eroding Netanyahu's popularity.
"By attacking Iran, Netanyahu hopes to reinforce the fear of an external threat to Israel - and support for his government as competent and tough on security."
Australian embassy staff in Tehran and Tel Aviv are safe and accounted for amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, Richard Marles says.
Australians in the region should seek shelter in place, monitor the Smartraveller website and, if necessary, contact consular authorities, the deputy prime minister said.
"We are able to report that our embassy staff in both Tehran and Tel Aviv are all accounted for and are safe," he told reporters in Geelong on Saturday.
"There are a small number of Australian Defence Force personnel within the region. They, too, have all been accounted for and are safe but we will continue to monitor their ongoing safety."
Iran and Israel are targeting each other with missiles and air strikes after the latter launched its biggest-ever air offensive against its longtime foe in a bid to prevent it developing a nuclear weapon.
Australia was deeply concerned about the unfolding hostilities and specifically about the risks of escalation, Mr Marles said.
"We well understand the threat that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program represents.
"That program is a threat to international peace and security but because of this, we are calling on all parties to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy."
The government was expressly calling on Iran to exercise restraint so as not to risk broader conflict, he said.
Israel hit dozens of sites on Friday as tensions soared after a United Nations agency found Iran was not complying with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said from Fiji on Friday he was conscious of the threat posed if Iran became a nuclear state.
"We want to see these issues resolved through dialogue and the United States have been playing an important role there," he said.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said on Saturday the targeting of population centres by Iran was "deeply troubling".
"The Iranian regime's ability to acquire nuclear weapons poses a serious and direct threat to world peace and stability, especially as it continues to engage in terrorism by supporting its proxies: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen," she said in a statement.
"Whilst we continue to urge caution, Israel has a right to defend itself.
"Israel is exercising its sovereign right to defend its people and ensure the security of future generations. The world can never accept a nuclear-armed Iran."
US President Donald Trump on Thursday warned there was a "chance of massive conflict" involving Iran as Washington began pulling diplomats out of the Middle East.
Senior lecturer in international relations at Flinders University Jessica Genauer said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Iran was likely driven by domestic concerns.
"Netanyahu faces political dissatisfaction with his handling of the Hamas-Israel war," she said.
"Recent suggestions that Trump is turning away from a close friendship with Netanyahu is further eroding Netanyahu's popularity.
"By attacking Iran, Netanyahu hopes to reinforce the fear of an external threat to Israel - and support for his government as competent and tough on security."
Australian embassy staff in Tehran and Tel Aviv are safe and accounted for amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, Richard Marles says.
Australians in the region should seek shelter in place, monitor the Smartraveller website and, if necessary, contact consular authorities, the deputy prime minister said.
"We are able to report that our embassy staff in both Tehran and Tel Aviv are all accounted for and are safe," he told reporters in Geelong on Saturday.
"There are a small number of Australian Defence Force personnel within the region. They, too, have all been accounted for and are safe but we will continue to monitor their ongoing safety."
Iran and Israel are targeting each other with missiles and air strikes after the latter launched its biggest-ever air offensive against its longtime foe in a bid to prevent it developing a nuclear weapon.
Australia was deeply concerned about the unfolding hostilities and specifically about the risks of escalation, Mr Marles said.
"We well understand the threat that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program represents.
"That program is a threat to international peace and security but because of this, we are calling on all parties to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy."
The government was expressly calling on Iran to exercise restraint so as not to risk broader conflict, he said.
Israel hit dozens of sites on Friday as tensions soared after a United Nations agency found Iran was not complying with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said from Fiji on Friday he was conscious of the threat posed if Iran became a nuclear state.
"We want to see these issues resolved through dialogue and the United States have been playing an important role there," he said.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said on Saturday the targeting of population centres by Iran was "deeply troubling".
"The Iranian regime's ability to acquire nuclear weapons poses a serious and direct threat to world peace and stability, especially as it continues to engage in terrorism by supporting its proxies: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen," she said in a statement.
"Whilst we continue to urge caution, Israel has a right to defend itself.
"Israel is exercising its sovereign right to defend its people and ensure the security of future generations. The world can never accept a nuclear-armed Iran."
US President Donald Trump on Thursday warned there was a "chance of massive conflict" involving Iran as Washington began pulling diplomats out of the Middle East.
Senior lecturer in international relations at Flinders University Jessica Genauer said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Iran was likely driven by domestic concerns.
"Netanyahu faces political dissatisfaction with his handling of the Hamas-Israel war," she said.
"Recent suggestions that Trump is turning away from a close friendship with Netanyahu is further eroding Netanyahu's popularity.
"By attacking Iran, Netanyahu hopes to reinforce the fear of an external threat to Israel - and support for his government as competent and tough on security."
Australian embassy staff in Tehran and Tel Aviv are safe and accounted for amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, Richard Marles says.
Australians in the region should seek shelter in place, monitor the Smartraveller website and, if necessary, contact consular authorities, the deputy prime minister said.
"We are able to report that our embassy staff in both Tehran and Tel Aviv are all accounted for and are safe," he told reporters in Geelong on Saturday.
"There are a small number of Australian Defence Force personnel within the region. They, too, have all been accounted for and are safe but we will continue to monitor their ongoing safety."
Iran and Israel are targeting each other with missiles and air strikes after the latter launched its biggest-ever air offensive against its longtime foe in a bid to prevent it developing a nuclear weapon.
Australia was deeply concerned about the unfolding hostilities and specifically about the risks of escalation, Mr Marles said.
"We well understand the threat that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program represents.
"That program is a threat to international peace and security but because of this, we are calling on all parties to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy."
The government was expressly calling on Iran to exercise restraint so as not to risk broader conflict, he said.
Israel hit dozens of sites on Friday as tensions soared after a United Nations agency found Iran was not complying with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said from Fiji on Friday he was conscious of the threat posed if Iran became a nuclear state.
"We want to see these issues resolved through dialogue and the United States have been playing an important role there," he said.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said on Saturday the targeting of population centres by Iran was "deeply troubling".
"The Iranian regime's ability to acquire nuclear weapons poses a serious and direct threat to world peace and stability, especially as it continues to engage in terrorism by supporting its proxies: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen," she said in a statement.
"Whilst we continue to urge caution, Israel has a right to defend itself.
"Israel is exercising its sovereign right to defend its people and ensure the security of future generations. The world can never accept a nuclear-armed Iran."
US President Donald Trump on Thursday warned there was a "chance of massive conflict" involving Iran as Washington began pulling diplomats out of the Middle East.
Senior lecturer in international relations at Flinders University Jessica Genauer said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Iran was likely driven by domestic concerns.
"Netanyahu faces political dissatisfaction with his handling of the Hamas-Israel war," she said.
"Recent suggestions that Trump is turning away from a close friendship with Netanyahu is further eroding Netanyahu's popularity.
"By attacking Iran, Netanyahu hopes to reinforce the fear of an external threat to Israel - and support for his government as competent and tough on security."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
29 minutes ago
- The Age
Iran's four possible responses to Israeli attack
Israel's attack on Iran opens the next phase of the Great Middle Eastern War that began on October 7, 2023. Over the past 20 months, that war has played out on fronts across the region and has drawn in actors from around the globe. There is much we don't yet know about what has happened, let alone what will happen. But it is clear that Iran has suffered significant damage to its leadership, its military and industrial capabilities, and perhaps its nuclear program. The endgame of this conflict and the future of the region will be profoundly shaped by how a wounded Iran responds. There are four basic possibilities. Their consequences range from a bigger, bloodier Middle Eastern mess to a potentially surprising diplomatic denouement: a far stronger nuclear deal than United States President Donald Trump could have secured just a few days ago. First, Iran could go nasty but narrow, striking back against Israel but avoiding US bases or other regional targets. Drone, missile or terrorist attacks against Israel (some of which are already underway) would offer a measure of vengeance. But this strategy would seek to avoid triggering a larger, riskier conflict with Washington. The problem is that America is already involved in this conflict: Trump has pledged to help Israel defend itself. A narrow response could thus look pathetic if Tehran's remaining weapons can't penetrate Israel's multi-layered (and multi-nation) air and missile defence. And even if Iran draws blood, Israel will just keep coming, as these opening strikes were the beginning of a larger military campaign. If Iran needs to make a bigger statement, it could go big and broad. In addition to hitting Israel, it could strike US personnel, facilities and partners from Iraq to the Persian Gulf. It could also activate its proxies – the Houthis, Iraqi Shia militias, and what remains of Hezbollah – in a bid to set the region on fire. That strategy has appeal as a way of restoring deterrence against dangerous enemies. It would remind the world that even a weakened Iran can cause real pain. But it would also cross the red line Trump has drawn against attacks on US targets. So Iran could find itself fighting a bigger war against Israel and the US, fraught with existential dangers for an already battered regime. The third possibility – nuclear breakout – could be just as dangerous. Depending on how much nuclear infrastructure is left – particularly the buried, hardened uranium enrichment facility at Fordow – Tehran could withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty and make a desperate push for the bomb.
Sydney Morning Herald
29 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Iran's four possible responses to Israeli attack
Israel's attack on Iran opens the next phase of the Great Middle Eastern War that began on October 7, 2023. Over the past 20 months, that war has played out on fronts across the region and has drawn in actors from around the globe. There is much we don't yet know about what has happened, let alone what will happen. But it is clear that Iran has suffered significant damage to its leadership, its military and industrial capabilities, and perhaps its nuclear program. The endgame of this conflict and the future of the region will be profoundly shaped by how a wounded Iran responds. There are four basic possibilities. Their consequences range from a bigger, bloodier Middle Eastern mess to a potentially surprising diplomatic denouement: a far stronger nuclear deal than United States President Donald Trump could have secured just a few days ago. First, Iran could go nasty but narrow, striking back against Israel but avoiding US bases or other regional targets. Drone, missile or terrorist attacks against Israel (some of which are already underway) would offer a measure of vengeance. But this strategy would seek to avoid triggering a larger, riskier conflict with Washington. The problem is that America is already involved in this conflict: Trump has pledged to help Israel defend itself. A narrow response could thus look pathetic if Tehran's remaining weapons can't penetrate Israel's multi-layered (and multi-nation) air and missile defence. And even if Iran draws blood, Israel will just keep coming, as these opening strikes were the beginning of a larger military campaign. If Iran needs to make a bigger statement, it could go big and broad. In addition to hitting Israel, it could strike US personnel, facilities and partners from Iraq to the Persian Gulf. It could also activate its proxies – the Houthis, Iraqi Shia militias, and what remains of Hezbollah – in a bid to set the region on fire. That strategy has appeal as a way of restoring deterrence against dangerous enemies. It would remind the world that even a weakened Iran can cause real pain. But it would also cross the red line Trump has drawn against attacks on US targets. So Iran could find itself fighting a bigger war against Israel and the US, fraught with existential dangers for an already battered regime. The third possibility – nuclear breakout – could be just as dangerous. Depending on how much nuclear infrastructure is left – particularly the buried, hardened uranium enrichment facility at Fordow – Tehran could withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty and make a desperate push for the bomb.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
I'm a working mum. Here's why I oppose Labor's universal childcare
Like every other parent I know right now, one of the biggest expenses in my budget is childcare. Of course, I greatly value it because it allows my partner and I to work, and offers amazing benefits for my child. But seeing how much we fork out on this service every week makes my stomach drop. Since 2006, the cost of childcare has risen across Australia by 48 per cent for couples and 76 per cent for single parents. In Victoria alone, the current average fee for childcare is $145 a day before subsidies. So it's hardly surprising that for years now, people have been desperately calling for more to be done. And when you combine those numbers with the facts that I'm both a working mum myself and passionate about making women's return to work easier, you might think I'd be all for the government's plan to introduce universal childcare. But you know what? I'm actually not. There are a few reasons for this, and the first one is simple: the government's plan ignores expert advice, something I'm a big fan of. When the Productivity Commission looked into the government's proposed model - which would see childcare fees cost no more than between $10 and $20 a day for all Australian families - they found it would cost taxpayers an extra $8.3 billion each year, taking the annual total cost of childcare to $21 billion. They also found it would increase demand, potentially reduce the quality of care, cost taxpayers much more than the commission's suggested model, and would not be equitable. Their report to the government spelt this out plainly, stating: 'A disproportionate share of the increased government support would go to the families whose incomes are in the top 25 per cent of income distribution.' In other words, those who need the least help stand to gain the most. Surely the goal should be to have a policy that is universally beneficial, not just universal in name. So what was the alternative proposal? The commission suggested maintaining the existing system but changing the eligibility criteria, so that families earning less than $80,000 with one child and families earning up to $140,000 with multiple children in childcare can receive three free days of care each week for 48 weeks per year. They also recommended removing the subsidy for families with a combined income of $580,000 or more. This model would cost an additional $4.7 billion annually – $3.6 billion less than the government's plan.
