The Farrer byelection may have shocked the political establishment, but the real story is not just that One Nation won its first ever federal lower-house seat – it’s that the Liberal Party’s political base has collapsed. One Nation candidate David Farley secured a decisive victory, while the Liberal Party’s primary vote crashed from 43 per cent at the 2025 federal election to just 12 per cent barely a year later. That scale of decline is almost unheard of in modern Australian politics and points to a much deeper structural crisis inside Australian conservatism.

For years, support for the Liberal and National parties has been eroding across regional and outer-suburban Australia as voters face housing stress, stagnant wages, declining public services and growing distrust in political institutions. The Farrer result exposed how much anger is now directed towards the conservative parties themselves. While byelections are often protest votes, this result reflected something larger: a growing sense that the Liberal Party no longer stands for anything beyond opposition and internal conflict. Leadership changes alone are unlikely to fix that problem.

At the same time, One Nation’s rise has been carefully cultivated over decades. Pauline Hanson has maintained an enormous public profile through sustained exposure across commercial television and right-wing media, helping transform One Nation from a fringe protest movement into a permanent force in Australian politics. Backed by wealthy conservative interests and sections of the media, the party has become a vehicle for pushing culture wars, anti-immigration politics, climate scepticism and neoliberal economics further into the mainstream.

But One Nation’s growth is also creating a dangerous fracture on the political right. Much of its support is coming directly from former Liberal and National voters, particularly in regional areas, and there are now open discussions among some conservative MPs about defecting to the party altogether. The result in Farrer suggests the biggest threat facing the Liberal Party may no longer come from Labor – but from the political forces emerging from inside its own collapsing coalition.

Subscribe now

The 2026 Australian federal Budget has triggered outrage from conservative commentators, who are branding it everything from a “Whitlam budget” to outright “Marxism”. But the reaction says more about the collapse of the bipartisan consensus on neoliberalism than it does about the Budget itself. After four decades of governments protecting property speculation, corporate power and market-driven economics, even modest reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax are now being treated as radical political acts.

We examine Labor’s cautious attempt to rebalance Australia’s housing market, and why the government’s reforms reflect a growing public recognition that housing should be treated as a social necessity rather than a speculative asset. We also look at the political legacy of the 2019 negative gearing scare campaign, the worsening housing affordability crisis, and why Labor appears trapped between responding to public anger over inequality while still protecting the broader neoliberal framework that created it.

There’s a lot of contradictions inside the Budget itself: limited cost-of-living relief, no meaningful increase to JobSeeker, cuts to the NDIS disguised as “slowing growth”, continued underfunding of education, and massive support for defence, mining and corporate interests. While Treasurer Jim Chalmers has taken tentative steps towards reform, Australia’s political economy still overwhelmingly favours wealth, property and corporate power over public need.

Plus, we analyse Angus Taylor’s predictable budget reply, the Liberal Party’s continued obsession with “tax cuts”, and why Pauline Hanson accusing Labor of “communism” may be the clearest sign yet that Australia’s political debate is shifting in ways the conservative establishment no longer fully understands.

Subscribe now

#AustralianPolitics #FederalBudget #Budget2026 #HousingCrisis #NegativeGearing #CapitalGainsTax #Neoliberalism #LaborParty #JimChalmers #CostOfLiving #NDIS #HousingAffordability #AustralianEconomy #NewPoliticsPodcast

In this episode of the New Politics podcast, we examine the interim findings of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion following the devastating Bondi Beach attack that killed 15 people and injured more than 40 others. While the Commission’s initial recommendations on gun control, policing resources and intelligence coordination appear measured and relatively uncontroversial, major questions remain unanswered about the role of Australia’s intelligence and security agencies in the lead-up to the tragedy.

We explore whether ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and NSW Police missed critical warning signs after reports emerged that alleged Bondi attackers had been monitored by ASIO as far back as 2019, with allegations of extremist links, ISIS sympathies and weapons stockpiling. If these reports are credible, how did such a catastrophic failure occur, and why are security agencies insisting there was “no intelligence failure”? We discuss the growing concerns around operational secrecy, national security claims, intelligence sharing failures and whether democratic accountability is being sacrificed in the name of protecting Australia’s security institutions.

There’s also the parallels between the Bondi attacks and the 2014 Lindt Café siege, where gunman Man Haron Monis was previously known to ASIO before carrying a major terror incident. What lessons, if any, did Australia’s intelligence agencies learn from Lindt Café, and are similar mistakes now being repeated? We analyse how ASIO’s political influence, expanding surveillance powers and repeated funding increases intersect with questions of public trust, transparency and civil liberties.

We also discuss whether the Royal Commission’s focus on antisemitism and “social cohesion” risks shifting attention away from deeper questions about institutional accountability, intelligence failures and democratic freedoms. Could the inquiry eventually be used to justify tougher restrictions on protests, free speech and dissent, particularly around pro-Palestine activism and criticism of the Israeli state? And can Australia maintain an open democratic society while balancing security, grief, political dissent and civil liberties?

Subscribe now

In this episode, we explore the latest incident involving Donald Trump, framed as an assassination attempt but unfolding in a political environment where truth itself has been eroded beyond recognition. As conspiracy theories mix in with official narratives, we examine how years of attacks on “fake news,” media manipulation and disinformation have created a climate where large sections of the public no longer trust anything – even events that may be real. This is the logical endpoint of a political strategy built on permanent distrust, where the line between truth and fiction is deliberately blurred, and every crisis becomes a political weapon.

We explore how the Trump playbook turns chaos into opportunity, with crises immediately reframed to blame political opponents, particularly Democrats, while justifying expansive and controversial policies. This latest incident is being used to support a massive $400 million White House ballroom project — framed as harmless infrastructure but raising serious concerns about surveillance, security expansion, and executive power in the United States. While US foreign policies of interventionism and power are not new, the Trump era has stripped away the pretence, making these strategies more explicit and aggressive.

Turning to global implications, we analyse how instability in the United States is reverberating across the world, including tensions within NATO and growing uncertainty around the AUKUS alliance. The recent visit by King Charles III to the White House highlights the seriousness of these fractures, with allies increasingly concerned about US reliability, defence commitments and geopolitical strategy, particularly in relation to Iran and the Indo–Pacific.

Finally, we consider the political consequences of permanent crisis. When every day is defined by chaos, outrage and competing narratives, voter fatigue becomes inevitable. As the United States heads toward crucial midterm elections, we ask whether this constant state of instability will eventually produce a breaking point among the electorate – and why the normalisation of chaos may prove to be the most dangerous development of all.

Share

We take a closer look at the role of mining billionaire Gina Rinehart, whose speech on Anzac Day injected talking points on immigration, taxation, and transgender issues into debate – issues far removed from the historical meaning of the Gallipoli campaign. We explore how wealthy power brokers, media influence and political donations are shaping public narratives, and how figures connected to organisations like the Institute of Public Affairs, the Liberal Party, and One Nation are helping redefine Anzac Day as a vehicle for right-wing ideology.

There’s a historical reality of the original Anzacs – largely working-class Australians, many of them union members – challenging the modern appropriation of their legacy by political actors who claim ownership over national identity and patriotism. We reflect on the overlooked contributions of over 1,300 Indigenous Australians who served in World War I, many of whom were denied basic rights at home, and ask what it means when their service is disrespected through political protest and division at commemorative events.

More broadly, we explore how Anzac Day has, over decades, been elevated into an almost untouchable national ritual – one increasingly resistant to critique, yet vulnerable to political capture by the right.

Photograph: Bunurong elder Mark Brown. Image: Ruby Alexander/The Age.

Subscribe now

Share

A gas export tax could raise around $20 billion per year in revenue – funding desperately needed investment in health, education, the NDIS, housing, and public services – yet remains politically sidelined due to the influence of the gas lobby, energy companies, and entrenched vested interests across the property and finance sectors. The Henry Tax Review was a missed opportunity to transform Australia’s tax system more than a decade ago, with estimates suggesting the federal budget could be tens of billions stronger each year if those reforms had been implemented.

We explore the broader political failure to tackle structural reform, including the ongoing hesitation around negative gearing changes, and question whether the Albanese government has the political courage to act while it holds a strong electoral position. With the federal Budget approaching, we’ll soon find out if Australia is once again about to miss its window for reform, or whether decisive leadership can finally deliver a fairer tax system that ensures Australians benefit from their own resources.

Subscribe now

Share

We look at how legislation in Queensland and New South Wales is blurring the line between legitimate political expression and so-called hate speech, and why these laws are increasingly being used to silence pro-Palestine activism, with even Jewish and Indigenous Australians caught up in the net.

We explore the contradictions at the heart of this crackdown, including the use of the same phrase by Israeli leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu, and what this reveals about selective enforcement, political pressure, and the influence of pro-Israel lobbying in Australian politics. We also take a closer look at the role of key political figures including David Crisafulli and Chris Minns, the impact of Israel study tours on Australian MPs, and why multiple pieces of legislation that were pushed through despite warnings of unconstitutionality, are now being struck down by the courts – exposing serious concerns about governance, legal competence, and the willingness of governments to test constitutional limits to appease powerful interests.

Beyond protest laws, we connect these developments to broader structural issues in Australian politics, including the surge in defence spending, the $368 billion AUKUS deal, and the simultaneous scaling back of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with up to 160,000 people potentially affected by cuts announced by Health Minister Mark Butler.

We analyse the contrast between the ease with which billions are allocated to military expansion and the resistance to funding essential social services like healthcare, housing, education and disability support, highlighting a growing imbalance in national priorities. We also examine Australia’s deepening alignment with United States foreign policy, the increasing militarisation of the economy, and the implications of contracts with companies such as Palantir, whose AI surveillance and defence technologies have been linked to controversial operations in Gaza and beyond. As Australia becomes more embedded in US-led defence and intelligence systems, including AUKUS and Pine Gap, we ask what this means for sovereignty, independence, and the country’s ability to act in its own national interest.

Share

Subscribe now

We outline how populism is not so much an ideology but a political strategy used across the spectrum – from Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn to Hugo Chávez – and examine the key differences between right-wing populism’s focus on nationalism, immigration and identity politics, and left-wing populism’s emphasis on economic inequality, workers’ rights, public housing, higher wages and corporate accountability. As political discourse in Australia continues to normalise conservative populist voices in mainstream media, we ask why progressive and socialist perspectives are marginalised, despite widespread public support for policies like stronger healthcare, better education, fair taxation and housing affordability.

With the Greens restructuring the Green Institute and appointing Max Chandler-Mather, we explore whether the party is preparing to embrace a more assertive, pro-worker, anti-corporate message ahead of the next federal election, and whether issues like negative gearing, capital gains tax reform, and the housing crisis could become defining battlegrounds. We also examine media bias, the role of think tanks in shaping political narratives, and the missed opportunities for the Greens to capitalise on voter frustration, asking whether this is the moment they shift towards a more disciplined, unapologetic populist strategy that resonates with younger voters locked out of housing and economic security.

Subscribe now

Share

We also explore how Australia already has a de facto values-based immigration system, and why proposals to monitor migrants’ social media raise serious concerns about civil liberties, surveillance, political bias and freedom of expression. There’s also contradictions in Liberal Party messaging on “Australian values” like fairness, equality and the rule of law, and questions who gets to define these values in a multicultural democracy. This is a political strategy of targeting Muslim communities, pro-Palestinian voices and migrants from non-European backgrounds, including the dog-whistle politics around English language requirements and cultural integration.

With analysis of recent election results, including the South Australian election where the Liberal Party fell behind Labor and One Nation, we assess whether attempts to outflank Pauline Hanson and One Nation on immigration will only legitimise fringe politics and further splinter the conservative vote.

Ultimately, voters are increasingly rejecting fear-driven politics and culture war distractions, demanding instead real solutions to complex economic and social challenges. As global examples show, from the declining appeal of Trump-style politics to electoral shifts in Europe, the strategy of copying fringe movements may not only fail but accelerate political decline. For the Liberal Party, the message is clear: solve problems, don’t create them – or risk becoming irrelevant in a rapidly changing political landscape.

Share

Subscribe now

We also explore the role of whistleblower David McBride, whose imprisonment raises serious questions about transparency, accountability and whether exposing wrongdoing is being punished more harshly than the alleged crimes themselves.

Share

Subscribe now

In this episode, we explore the economics of war, the role of the military-industrial complex, and how defence contractors, energy companies and institutional investors profit from instability across the West Asia. As tensions build in Lebanon, Iran and global oil markets, we examine how share prices for major defence companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon surged during the conflict, before strategic sell-offs locked in massive gains – revealing how war is a highly lucrative business model.

These political narratives around security and defence often obscure the financial incentives driving prolonged conflict, and following the money – from military expos in Australia to lobbying networks in Washington – paints a very different picture of modern warfare. With the nefarious Donald Trump looming, there are many questions around corruption, insider trading and the exploitation of global instability for political and financial gain.

Back home, Australia’s energy security crisis exposes decades of policy failure, with the country holding some of the lowest fuel reserves in the OECD despite being one of the world’s most resource-rich nations. We break down Anthony Albanese’s scramble to secure oil supplies from Singapore, the strategic implications of deteriorating diplomatic relations with Iran, and the long-term consequences of relying on volatile global energy markets. As oil prices surge and supply chains tighten, the conversation shifts to the urgent need for a renewable energy transition, the rise of electric vehicles, and whether Australia can finally become the “renewable energy superpower” as promised by the Labor government.

From peak oil projections and gas export deals to the political inertia that continues to delay meaningful reform, this episode connects the dots between war, markets, energy policy and political power. At a time when global conflict is increasingly intertwined with economic gain, we ask whether this is simply business as usual – or a system that rewards chaos at the expense of stability.

Share

Subscribe now

In this episode of the New Politics podcast, we look at why this rare critique from within the Liberal Party matters, how it reflects growing public discontent with free-market orthodoxy, and why the response from Angus Taylor to shut down the debate reveals just how entrenched neoliberal economic policy remains across both major parties, including the Labor government.

As Australia grapples with unaffordable housing, declining manufacturing, and structural inequality, we explore whether this moment signals the beginning of the end for neoliberalism, or just another false dawn in political reform. We also examine Hastie’s comments on Australia’s alliance with the United States and criticism of Donald Trump, and why challenging US foreign policy has become a politically safe but strategically significant move.

From the legacy of John Curtin and Australia’s historical realignment towards the United States, to the emerging influence of China and economic blocs like BRICS, this episode connects the dots between global power shifts and domestic economic stagnation. With China poised to reshape the global economic order, and neoliberal capitalism increasingly intertwined with a socialist superpower, we ask whether the future of Australia’s economy lies beyond the current system.

If even conservative voices are now questioning neoliberalism, why is Labor silent, and what does that mean for the future of economic reform, political leadership, and Australia’s place in a rapidly changing world?

Share

Subscribe now

We examine how Albanese’s early and unequivocal support for US military action has left him politically exposed at home, particularly as fuel costs surge and voters begin connecting Australia’s involvement in overseas conflicts with rising cost-of-living pressures. While leaders like Canada’s Mark Carney have leveraged criticism of the United States to manage domestic political fallout, Albanese’s approach has left him unable to deflect blame, forcing a costly $2.6 billion fuel excise cut and a tone-deaf national address that suggests a government under pressure.

There are deeper concerns about Australia’s sovereignty and its long-standing alliance with the United States, reviving John Howard’s “deputy sheriff” mentality and questioning whether Australia risks sacrificing independent decision-making in areas such as defence, environment and health policy. As Australia edges closer to US-style political thinking – on foreign policy, military posture and public discourse – we ask whether this is a temporary shift or a long-term transformation of national identity.

We also explore the growing constraints on free speech and political dissent, particularly around discussions of Israel, Palestine, and broader Middle East policy, including controversial laws, public art censorship, and the proposed adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism across the public service. Could this lead to self-censorship within government and undermine frank and fearless policy advice?

Finally, we take a critical look at the role of the media, including the National Press Club’s platforming of the Israeli ambassador while previously cancelling dissenting voices, and what this says about media accountability, propaganda, and journalistic scrutiny in Australia. As global instability intensifies and domestic political pressures mount, we ask a fundamental question: is Australia charting its own course, or drifting toward becoming “Little America” in both policy and identity?

Subscribe now

Share

At the centre of this is the possible return of the Australian Democrats, a once-powerful force in Australian federal politics that held the balance of power in the Senate before disappearing entirely by 2007. Now, nearly two decades later, the party is attempting a comeback, positioning itself as a pragmatic, centrist alternative focused on accountability, evidence-based policy, and long-term thinking in an era increasingly defined by political short-termism and populist rhetoric.

In a wide-ranging interview, David Lewis speaks with Australian Democrats President Leonie Green about the party’s strategy to re-enter Parliament, starting with the Victorian election and a longer-term 12-year plan to rebuild representation in the Senate – and looking at the structural barriers facing minor parties in Australia.

Green outlines the Democrats’ core mission to “keep the bastards honest” – a philosophy rooted in the party’s founding by Don Chipp in 1977 – while adapting that vision to today’s political landscape.

We also examine the broader political ecosystem, including the rise of protest voting, the role of independents, and the growing support for populist movements like One Nation, looking at how voter frustration with the major parties is reshaping electoral behaviour, and whether there is space for a “sensible centre” party to regain relevance. Comparisons with the Australian Greens highlight key philosophical differences, particularly around pragmatism versus ideological rigidity, and the role of conscience votes in parliamentary decision-making.

As new political movements attempt to gain traction, we consider what it actually takes to build a sustainable minor party in Australia, from grassroots membership to electoral thresholds and media visibility.

With Australian politics entering a period of volatility, will the return of the Australian Democrats signal a broader shift in how Australians engage with democracy?

Share

Subscribe now

While mainstream media narratives framed the election as a political earthquake driven by a surge in right-wing populism, the reality suggests a very different story – One Nation may have secured around 22 per cent of the primary vote, but it translated into just one seat in the lower house. So what does this say about Australia’s preferential voting system, proportional representation and how democracy actually works in practice?

We explore how preferential voting in Australia operates at the electorate level, why minor parties like One Nation and the Australian Greens often struggle to convert votes into seats, and whether the system is delivering fair and representative outcomes.

Is this a failure of democracy, or simply a misunderstanding of how the electoral system works? Should Australia consider electoral reform to better reflect shifting voting patterns and the rise of minor parties and independents?

We also examine the role of the mainstream media in amplifying One Nation’s influence, shaping political narratives, and contributing to the perception of a “surge” that didn’t materially translate into seats. Is the One Nation vote a genuine ideological shift to the far right, or just a redistribution of votes within the conservative bloc – driven by disillusionment with the Liberal Party, cost-of-living pressures, anti-immigration sentiment, and anti-establishment anger?

We also model what the South Australian election – and the 2025 federal election – could have looked like under a proportional system. The results are fascinating: a more representative parliament, a stronger presence for minor parties, and a scenario where Labor would need to govern in coalition. Would this lead to more effective policymaking on issues like climate change, housing affordability, and Australia’s foreign policy, including potential military involvement alongside the United States? Or would it create instability and gridlock?

We then consider the implications for the Labor Party. While Labor currently enjoys a dominant position federally and across the states, history shows how quickly political fortunes can change. Could the same forces that have fractured the Liberal Party – economic anxiety, political disillusionment, and shifting voter identities – eventually impact the progressive centre-left? Australia is entering a new era of political fragmentation, where traditional party structures give way to more fluid alliances and populist movements. And what happens next is anyone’s guess.

Share

Subscribe now

But this crisis runs deeper than foreign policy. Public trust in Australian politics is eroding at an alarming rate, with both major parties contributing to the decline. The failures of the Liberal Party in government, combined with what many see as a cautious and reactive Labor government, have created a political vacuum where leadership feels absent and reform seems unlikely. The institutions that are meant to uphold integrity, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission, are increasingly viewed as ineffective, reinforcing a broader perception that accountability in Australian politics is slipping away.

This environment has intensified public cynicism, as audiences question whether they are being fully informed or simply managed through selective storytelling. The result is a feedback loop of mistrust, where weak leadership, poor transparency, and failures in the mainstream media all feed into each other, accelerating the breakdown of confidence in democratic institutions.

Adding to this is the controversy surrounding the Royal Commission into antisemitism, where significant portions of evidence are being held in secrecy under national security provisions. With intelligence agencies like ASIO asking the public to “trust” closed-door processes, concerns are mounting about transparency, politicisation, and whether the outcomes have already been shaped behind the scenes.

We ask the critical question: how did trust in government, media and public institutions fall so far, and more importantly, is it still possible to rebuild it?

Share

Subscribe now

We also examine the broader strategic failure behind the current crisis, comparing the chaotic execution of military action against Iran with the unpredictability of Donald Trump’s “America First” tariff policies. From trade wars to real wars, the lack of clear strategy and long-term planning is creating instability across global markets, with allies like Australia left to manage the fallout.

There’s a lot of unintended consequences from this conflict, including its impact on global technology supply chains and the race for AI dominance. With Taiwan’s semiconductor production under strain and energy disruptions affecting manufacturing, the war is creating ripple effects that could slow AI development and reshape global economic power. At the same time, countries including India, Pakistan and France are pursuing independent deals with Iran to secure oil supplies, signalling a shift away from US-led global coordination.

Domestically, we look at what this means for Australia’s economic future, from the risk of recession to the urgent need for structural reform. Energy policy, gas reservation, renewable transition, and tax reform including capital gains tax and negative gearing are all back on the agenda, but none offer immediate relief. We ask whether decades of policy delay have left Australia dangerously exposed, and what lessons can be learned from past oil shocks like the 1973 crisis.

There’s also the deeper contradictions at the heart of the global system, where 21st-century economic interdependence clashes with the 19th-century style of geopolitical conflict. As globalisation fractures under pressure, should countries move towards greater energy independence and economic resilience? And what does innovation look like in a world where some Australians are already bypassing petrol entirely through electric vehicles, solar power and battery storage?

We connect all the dots between war, energy, and the economy, and explain why Australia is now on the front line of a crisis it didn’t create.

Share

Subscribe now

The National Party has elected Matt Canavan as its new leader following the resignation of David Littleproud. Canavan has built a reputation as a fierce defender of the mining industry and fossil fuels, but his leadership raises questions about the party’s direction and whether the Nationals can reconnect with their traditional base in regional Australia. Historically, the party was founded to represent farmers and rural workers, often advocating forms of agrarian socialism and economic protection for regional communities. Today, the Nationals have drifted toward representing large agribusiness and mining interests, potentially leaving rural voters open to political alternatives.

That challenge is coming directly from One Nation, which has built support through anti-immigration rhetoric and anti-Islam messaging aimed at conservative voters in regional and outer-suburban Australia. Canavan has indicated he wants to compete directly with One Nation for those voters, and has even pushed back against some of the party’s most extreme rhetoric, including Hanson’s claim that “there are no good Muslims”. Whether that approach strengthens the Nationals or intensifies tensions on the right remains to be seen.

At the same time, billionaire businessman Clive Palmer has signalled that he could run again for politics, but if he returns, it could further fragment the conservative vote, potentially weakening the Nationals and One Nation while creating unpredictable outcomes across marginal seats. In a crowded field of right-wing parties including the Liberal Party, National Party, One Nation, United Australia Party and the Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party, the traditional Coalition vote base may continue to splinter even further.

These developments highlight a major political realignment in Australia, and these kinds of realignments are rarely confined to one side of politics. While the Labor government under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has so far avoided major political damage from the fracturing on the right, future electoral dynamics could become far more complicated. The Australian Greens, currently polling around 14 per cent nationally, could capitalise on any weakening of Labor’s support, particularly if economic pressures, housing affordability, or unpopular foreign policy decisions begin to erode the government’s popularity.

If the Greens were able to lift their support by just four or five percentage points at Labor’s expense, Australia could find itself with multiple parties clustered within a narrow band of support between roughly 20 and 24 per cent. Such a scenario would dramatically complicate preference flows, coalition negotiations and the overall structure of parliamentary politics.

This all points to a sense that Australia’s two-party system is quickly breaking down. The fragmentation of the conservative vote, the potential rise of new populist movements, and the possibility of shifting alliances across the political spectrum suggest that Australian politics may be entering a far more unpredictable era. The next federal election will provide the first indication of whether these trends represent temporary turbulence or the beginning of a long-term transformation in Australia’s political system.

Share

Subscribe now

As tensions rise following US attacks on Iran, the geopolitical consequences are becoming impossible to ignore. The operation was supposed to send a clear signal that the United States and its allies – including Israel – still control the strategic balance of power in the Middle East and Western Asia. Instead, the strikes show deeper weaknesses in American global influence. Nearly 80 years after the post-World War II order established US dominance in the region, the international landscape is shifting quickly. China, Russia, Iran and emerging blocs such as BRICS are challenging the traditional Western-led order, raising questions about whether Washington can still shape global outcomes the way it once did.

After two weeks of strikes and escalating tensions, what exactly is the objective? Is this a calculated show of strength, or a chaotic attempt to reassert control over a region that is slipping from Washington’s grip? The United States still possesses the most powerful military force in the world, but history – from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq – shows that overwhelming military capability does not automatically mean political or strategic success.

Another deeply unsettling element influencing American decision-making is the growing role of religious ideology in US politics and foreign policy. The rise of Christian Zionism and evangelical influence within sections of the US political establishment has created a powerful ideological current shaping debates around Israel, Iran, and the wider Middle East. When theology begins to merge with military strategy, the implications for global stability become deeply concerning.

Meanwhile, Australia’s position in this unfolding conflict raises profound questions about national sovereignty and strategic independence. The Albanese government has already deepened Australia’s defence integration with the United States through AUKUS, and now Australian military personnel and hardware are being deployed to the region as tensions escalate.

In practical terms, the current deployment might seem modest – around 80 Australian Defence Force personnel and surveillance aircraft operating from the UAE – but history suggests these commitments can quickly expand. Small deployments often become long wars, leaving Australians decades later asking the same question: what was it all for?

As global power structures shift and new alliances emerge, the central question facing Australia is becoming harder to avoid: does the country have any real strategic independence, or is it permanently locked into the politics of the United States? With tensions in the Middle East escalating, the consequences of that question may soon become impossible to ignore.

Share

Subscribe now

This attack was authorised by the United Nations, and it’s clear the United States and Israel have violated international law. Yet governments like Australia have avoided clearly stating whether the action was legal or illegal, while simultaneously condemning Iran’s retaliation. We examine the response from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, and what Australia’s position says about its commitment to the rules-based international order.

We also discuss the broader strategic motivations behind the conflict, including the long shadow of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the political dynamics surrounding Donald Trump’s “peace through war” rhetoric, and the idea – frequently raised in Washington and Tel Aviv – of “regime change” in Iran. But with a population of around 90 million people, difficult terrain and a deeply rooted nationalist identity, Iran is widely regarded by military analysts as one of the most difficult countries in the world to invade.

We also look at Australia’s role in the crisis, including defence trade links with the United States and Israel, intelligence cooperation, and growing criticism within the Labor Party itself. As the conflict threatens to destabilise the region, we ask whether Australia is simply following Washington’s lead – or whether it should be willing to challenge its allies when international law and global stability are at stake.

Share

Subscribe now