We should send a frigate to the Gulf. The government’s advice that it hasn’t been asked to send ships to support shipping through the Straits of Hormuz is pure sophistry. Perhaps no formal request has been made but I doubt whether Trump would have been shy in coming forward with a verbal request when he spoke with Albanese recently. The lack of encouragement from Albanese would have meant that no formal request was made which would have had Albo sigh in relief.
We should provide a frigate or equivalent naval and air assets because it is in our national interests to see the Straits opened.
One of the arguments made against sending a frigate is that ‘we weren’t consulted’ when America made war with Iran. This argument is made across the West meaning it isn’t a solely Australian excuse for non-involvement.
That argument is understandable from a human perspective, and if nations can have their noses out of joint fine, but that strikes me as being petulant, to use Andrew Hastie’s adjective.
Are we putting America in the doghouse for acting unilaterally?
When were we last consulted before a war was commenced by an ally?
It’s not well appreciated but most wars are started suddenly – without consultation.
I’m indebted to Geoffrey Blainey and his excellent book The Causes of War for this research. John Frederick Maurice was commissioned by Lord Wolseley to decide ‘whether a country living in peace with all its neighbours has any reason to fear that war may suddenly burst upon it’. His research of the 18th and 19th Century found that most wars start suddenly and without declarations of war as is the case here.
Surprise provides major tactical advantages, something our own army recognises in its land warfare doctrine. For the US and Israel to consult widely with allies would not have been in the interests of tactical surprise and would have been detrimental to mission success and to the safety of military personnel.
We should get over that we weren’t consulted and act objectively and pragmatically. We should deal with the situation that we have, not the situation that we wish we had.
The 2024 National Defence Strategy says that the ADF has five tasks, one of which is to:
‘…protect Australia’s economic connection to our region and the world.’
The case that imported oil is critical to both national defence and economic survival doesn’t need to be remade. We should also contemplate that this blockage of the straits isn’t a temporary affair.
The nature of Iran’s asymmetric capability comprising cheap drones, fast power boats, cruise missiles, and more is going to be difficult to suppress even for forces as powerful and advanced as the US and its allies. The Iranian regime has shown an ability to decentralise direction of its armed forces so that the ‘decapitation’ of political and military command and control elements hasn’t stopped attacks.
The Iranian Shia majority is inspired by the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali (grandson of the prophet) and his followers who were massacred by an overwhelmingly superior Umayyad army, so the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is unlikely to want for volunteers.
Furthermore, the idea that Trump floats of ending the war is fanciful. In the absence of any regime change, any brokered peace seems unlikely particularly as the regime can now see the economic convulsions they can inflict on the ‘great Satan’ and his acolytes.
Iran’s fight with the decadent West will have many admirers in the Islamic world. For the regime, survival is victory and they know that the West folds too easily when pressured. As things stand, the West faces a recession without the free flow of oil from the Gulf. All of our trading partners – South Korea, Japan, China, and the United States are likely to be impacted and so will we. This blockage could go on for months without Western action.
People will say that our contribution of a frigate will not be material to freeing oil through the Straits and it’s true the US fleet with an extra frigate is only marginally more effective. Of course, the same argument applied to our greenhouse gas emissions doesn’t apply. Although our emissions are minuscule in the context of global emissions we should do the right thing according to the government. But in the case of the provision of a frigate, there are additional payoffs for Australia. Australia’s example may lead to other middle powers making a contribution thereby increasing the effect of naval escort operations. Secondly, significant US goodwill could be generated and noting the transactional nature of the Trump Presidency, our participation in a gulf fleet could be bargained for some other national object – tariff concessions for example.
Malcolm Turnbull spoke to ABC News on Trump’s petulant outburst that America’s allies were not prepared to support him in the Gulf in a war ‘that he started without their consent’. The notion that the US should seek Australian consent before going to war is laughable but put that to one side for now. Turnbull argued that we are becoming more dependent on the United States at a time when the US is becoming less dependable ‘we have to do more to defend ourselves’.
Good argument and as always – good sound bites but let’s dive into the practicalities.
We can’t spin up a replacement defence capability such as we enjoy with our alliance with the United States in quick time. The cost of a replacement for the US alliance such as an Echidna Strategy, as proposed by Sam Roggeveen which Malcolm says is ‘essential reading for anyone interested in our nation’s security in an uncertain world where the enduring supremacy of the United States cannot be assumed or assured’ is inconceivable for the Australia polity to cop without a war. If that is the path we should take, we won’t be ready to transition anytime soon. If we think that is the path we should take, given the uncertainties of the Trump Administration, wouldn’t we persevere with our relationship with the US until the end of the Trump term? None of these musing will free oil from the Gulf.
The legality of the war has been another factor inhibiting the West supporting the war. One justification for the war that Trump has advanced is that it is necessary to halt the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. In essence, this is a preemptive war to avoid a nuclear exchange.
Preemptive war is rarely considered a valid basis for war according to international jurists and the government all but said that when asked if the war was legal.
‘The legal basis is for the United States and Israel to explain…’
The government says that it doesn’t know if a legal basis exists without understanding the intelligence that the US and Israel hold. If the US held intelligence that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, that of itself wouldn’t be sufficient justification under international law to justify war, but it’s a convenient deflection for the government. Regardless of the legalities, the government holds that it is in Australia’s interests that Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Iran was identified as having commissioned two acts of terrorism in Australia with Jewish Australians the targets. The attacks were designed to intimidate and create fear and resulted in one non‑fatal injury and an estimated $46 million in property damage.
In summary, we have the prospect of an international recession, a totalitarian theocracy conducting terrorism in Australia, a government declared imperative to support action to deny Iran nuclear weapons, and an opportunity to develop goodwill with the Trump administration. This is sufficient for us to commit more defence assets to free oil through the Strait of Hormuz.