The fuel crisis is dominating the headlines. Petrol stations running dry. Diesel prices going through the roof. Chris Bowen counting days of reserve. That’s all real and it’s all urgent. But fuel is only the first domino.

The second one is food. And it has already started to fall.

Why fertiliser matters, and why you should care

Most Australians don’t think about fertiliser. Fair enough. But without it, farmers can’t grow the wheat that goes into your bread, the grain that feeds the cattle that becomes your steak, the crops that fill the dairy aisle.

Australia doesn’t make its own fertiliser. We import most of it. More than half of what Australian farmers use, particularly urea, the most common nitrogen fertiliser, comes from the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. All three are caught up in the disruption from the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

According to the United Nations, around a third of the world’s fertiliser trade moves through the Strait of Hormuz. That shipping lane is now effectively closed. Global urea prices have jumped roughly twenty-five to thirty percent since the conflict began, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute and Carnegie Endowment. More than half of Australia’s urea supply comes from the affected region. Australian farmers are heading into winter crop planting season right now. The timing couldn’t be worse.

Bloomberg has already reported that Australian wheat farmers are scaling back what they plan to plant. The National Farmers Federation is urgently calling on government to find fertiliser from North and South America. This is not a forecast. It is already happening.

What Canberra is saying, and what it isn’t

To be straight with you, the government isn’t completely ignoring food security. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins was at the Global Food Forum last week, 18 March 2026. There’s a National Food Security Strategy in development, called Feeding Australia. Workshops are running.

But here is the problem. The Minister turned up at that Forum, in her own words, to reassure industry that the strategy is “front and centre” and “full steam ahead.” That is not a crisis response. That is a press release.

The Feeding Australia strategy was built for normal times. It is a policy project, consultation rounds, co-design workshops, stakeholder submissions. Good work in a stable world. It is not a plan for what happens when a war cuts off a third of the world’s fertiliser supply right before planting season.

Five days after that Forum, the government commissioned a National Food Supply Chain Assessment. That is a step. It is not a message to the family doing the weekly shop. There is no plain message going out to ordinary Australians about what rising food production costs are likely to mean for grocery prices over the next six to twelve months. No household-level explanation. No rough guide on what to expect. Government is talking to industry. It is not talking to Sharon at the checkout.

The real pattern here

This situation didn’t come out of nowhere, and that is the part that should make people genuinely angry.

Australia has only two oil refineries left. There were eight as recently as 2000. We hold around thirty-two days of diesel reserves when the International Energy Agency requires ninety. We have no domestic urea production at all. The last facility shut in 2022, with a replacement not expected until 2027. We are almost entirely dependent on imports for a product that is essential to growing food.

ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, published a detailed report last year warning that food security doesn’t feature as a priority in Australia’s defence planning documents, even as defence agencies were beginning to prepare for exactly the kind of supply chain disruption now unfolding. CSIRO found that food policy across government is scattered across agriculture, transport, social services, health and environment portfolios, with no single department pulling it together.

Retired Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn is one of Australia’s foremost voices on national resilience. He wrote the foundational 2013 report on Australia’s liquid fuel security for the NRMA. He has been sounding the alarm ever since. Speaking at the Australian Meat Industry Conference and on the AgWatchers podcast earlier this year, he warned that Australia was sleepwalking into a national crisis. He pointed out that food, water and medicine distribution across this country runs entirely on imported fuel, delivered on a just-in-time basis with no meaningful reserve. When the supply breaks down, there is no buffer to fall back on.

He was talking about exactly this scenario. Nobody listened.

What this means for people, specifically

The farmer outside Dubbo who was planning to sow his full winter crop is now doing the sums on whether he can afford the fertiliser. If he cuts his planting, that means less grain. Less grain, over time, means higher prices at the supermarket.

The family in Campbelltown already stretched thin is not going to read a commodities report. They are going to notice when the bread costs more, when the milk goes up, when the basics start eating more of the fortnightly budget.

The small business owner running a café in Mackay is already copping fuel levies from every supplier. Food input costs going up on top of that is a question of whether the margins hold.

None of these people has a lobbyist in Canberra. The agricultural companies and fuel distributors do.

The strongest case against this argument

To be fair, there is a reasonable pushback here, and it deserves a genuine answer.

The Conversation, drawing on academic research, points out that in high-income countries like Australia, food prices are largely driven by processing, packaging and transport costs, not by what farmers pay for fertiliser. Commercial farmers are also often able to absorb input cost spikes without immediately passing them on. We have seen urea price surges before, in the late 2000s and early 2020s, and food prices didn’t collapse.

That is worth taking seriously. This is not a simple one-to-one relationship.

But there is a key difference this time. We have a fertiliser shock and a fuel shock hitting simultaneously. Transport costs are already elevated. Processing costs are already elevated. The combined pressure on the food supply chain is greater than any single shock would produce on its own. And while large commercial farmers may be able to ride out a price spike, smaller producers on tighter margins may not. That means less production, not just costlier production.

The reasonable counterargument is about degree and timing. It is not a reason for the government to say nothing to households.

The cost of keeping households in the dark

The government’s instinct to manage public communication carefully during a live crisis is not stupid. Saying “food prices could rise significantly” risks panic buying, which makes things worse.

But there is a difference between measured communication and silence. Right now, it is silence. The conversation is happening between ministers and industry forums, not between government and the people who shop at Woolies and Coles.

This follows the same pattern that left Australia with thirty days of diesel reserves when warnings had been on the table for over a decade. The risk was always there. It was just slow, and slow risks don’t get acted on until they stop being slow.

The second domino is already in motion. The question is whether anyone in Canberra starts being straight with ordinary Australians before it lands, or after.

What to watch

Fertiliser prices through April and May. Australian farmers are making planting decisions right now. If prices stay elevated, reduced plantings will flow through to domestic food supply by the back half of 2026.

The National Food Security Strategy. Co-design workshops run through June. Watch whether the terms of reference are updated to deal with the current crisis, or whether the process simply continues its original pre-war track.

Whether government moves to prioritise diesel for food and farming. If that happens, it signals the food chain dimension has finally entered crisis-level thinking in Canberra.

Grocery prices. The ABS publishes CPI data including food components quarterly. The April and June reads will be the first hard evidence of how fast these supply chain pressures are landing on household budgets.

The National Farmers Federation. Already pushing hard on fertiliser access. If their language moves from “concerned” to “critical,” pay attention.

🇦🇺

Join the conversation: Subscribe to ETLG for independent writing on Australian politics, geopolitics, and policy, with a clear focus on Australia’s future.

Subscribe now

The accountability bit: I write independent, non-partisan commentary grounded in public information, national interest and common sense. My focus is the future of ordinary Australians. If I get a fact wrong, I’ll correct it.

Share

He’s right.

I’m guilty of that. We all are. Shame on us. So, I’m saying it now. With clarity.

Mr. President, thank you. And here’s exactly what for.

Thank you for the free education.

Not the kind you signed up for. The kind where you’re just living your life and suddenly you understand things you never quite understood before. Not because someone explained them, but because you watched them happen in real time, on your phone, before your morning joe.

Oligarchy. Kleptocracy. Impunity. Now being thrown around at dinner tables by people who six months ago couldn’t have told you what they meant.

Thank you for making people give a damn again.

I’ve got mates who had completely checked out. Politics was something that happened to other people. Why follow it? What difference does it make?

You answered that. Not with inspiration. With unavoidability. People who had spent years deciding none of this had anything to do with them suddenly realised it had everything to do with them. In Australia. In Asia. In places that had nothing in common except a screen and a dawning sense of alarm.

Thank you for putting the illusion out of its misery.

The story of America as the world’s moral authority had been limping since at least 2003. But it was still there. Still being leaned on.

You finished it. Properly, publicly, without a backwards glance.

It was exhausting pretending not to notice.

Thank you for the transparency.

Not the ones in the brochure. The real ones. Where laws get made by the powerful and applied to everyone else. Where accountability is optional if you know the right people. Where the institutions everyone told us were rock solid turn out to be held together by the willingness of the people inside them to actually give a damn. Some do. Some really don’t.

You didn’t build any of this. But you lit it up so bright that nobody can pretend they can’t see it anymore.

Thank you for the monetisation masterclass.

Most make their money after their seats. Book deals. Speaking tours. You figured out there was no need to wait.

Watches starting at $499. A limited-edition tourbillon at $100,000 with 122 diamonds — only 147 made. Gold sneakers for $399. “Never Surrender” high-tops. Cologne called “Fight Fight Fight.” A Bible for $60. Guitars. NFT trading cards. A Trump mobile phone plan at $47.45 a month — the 47 and 45 is you, in case you missed it.

Then the $TRUMP meme coin, launched three days before inauguration. Then Melania’s coin. $350 million in trading fees alone. Top coin holders got an exclusive dinner with the president. The regulator and the regulated. The same person.

Your net worth went from $2.3 billion to $6.7 billion in a single year. The family pocketed $3.4 billion since inauguration.

Thank you for showing us the presidency isn’t just an office. In the right hands, it’s a shopping cart.

Thank you for redefining diplomacy.

In February 2026, the US and Iran held nuclear talks in Muscat. Oman’s foreign minister said a breakthrough had been reached. Peace was “within reach.” Talks were expected to resume on March 2.

On February 28, the US and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury. The second time you'd done this in less than a year.

The table was never real.

Then came the pause after you threatened with a 48-hour deadline. You announced a five-day halt because of “very good and productive conversations.” Iran said those conversations never happened. At this point, we'd normally be inclined not to believe an autocratic lying country. I'm talking about Iran here.

Iran called it fake news to manipulate oil markets. And here’s the thing, it worked. Markets moved. Mission accomplished, whatever the truth was.

Then you floated joint control of the Strait of Hormuz with “whoever the ayatollah is.”

A lie told confidently doesn’t need to be true. It just needs to be loud from a presidential seat.

Thank you for showing allies their place.

Six GCC countries didn’t ask for this war. They begged for it not to happen. Then found out anyway.

Hotels on fire in Dubai. Kuwait’s airport in chaos. Saudi Arabia’s biggest refinery knocked out. A businessman in Dubai posted — then quickly deleted — that everyone in the Gulf knew exactly who pulled the whole region into this without asking the people he calls his allies.

Meanwhile South Korea’s THAAD was redeployed to the Middle East without agreement. The South Korea president said he was against it. Said he couldn’t stop it. Japan’s 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit shipped out too. Tokyo found out when the rest of us did.

A Kuwaiti academic said it plainly. They left Afghanistan. They left Iraq. And they’ll leave the Gulf too.

Thank you for the bill nobody ordered.

Nobody in Australia voted for this. Nobody in Europe, the Gulf, Asia, Africa, or South America. We didn’t get a say, a pitch, or a heads up.

We just got the bill.

The war sent oil to nearly $120 a barrel. Qatar had to shut down LNG production under Iranian drone attacks. European and Asian gas prices doubled overnight. The IEA chief speaking in Canberra said this is worse than the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks combined.

Groceries up, building materials up, super funds down... what else am I missing?

Thank you for the hegemony farewell.

For eighty years the arrangement made sense. America leads, everyone follows, the system holds together. Marco Rubio said it out loud. A unipolar world was an anomaly. Said it plainly. Like it wasn’t describing the entire reality the rest of us grew up inside.

The world isn’t waiting for Washington to come back to itself. It’s already making other arrangements.

Thank you for the mirror.

In Australia, what this past year forced ordinary Aussies to sit with is how much of our thinking — our security, our strategic assumptions — we just handed to Washington and stopped questioning. AUKUS. Five Eyes. The unspoken belief that America would be, at minimum, rational.

We treated the alliance like furniture. Just there. Solid.

That furniture has been moved. I just wish it hadn’t taken all of this to make us notice. But we are not abandoning. We are questioning.

And thank you, most sincerely of all, for the confidence boost.

If someone with your specific relationship to truth, morality, to facts, to preparation, to the basic idea that decisions have consequences, can hold the most powerful office on earth and be taken seriously for this long… then the rest of us have been catastrophically underestimating ourselves.

The bar is on the ground. It has been relocated. Every halfway decent, switched-on person trying to do something useful with their time on this planet can clear it without breaking stride.

Your gift to the world was messy and chaotic and came without any self-awareness at all. But it made the whole thing so obvious — the hypocrisy, the double standards, the gap between what gets said and what actually happens — that even a kid can see it now. No expertise needed. No reading list. Just eyes, common sense, morality, and a bit of time.

So thank you, Mr. President.

You can stop now though.

🇦🇺

Join the conversation: Subscribe to ETLG for independent writing on Australian politics, geopolitics, and policy, with a clear focus on Australia’s future.

Subscribe now

The accountability bit: I write independent, non-partisan commentary grounded in public information, national interest and common sense. My focus is the future of ordinary Australians. If I get a fact wrong, I’ll correct it.

Share

Editor’s note: The following reflects an analytical reading of historical patterns, incentive structures and publicly observable financial behaviour. It does not allege criminal conduct by any specific individual or entity.

If you say the oil and gas producers outside the conflict zone, arms manufacturers, and commodity traders, you are not wrong. But that’s the obvious. There’s a darker cohort that profits out of others’ misery.

Wars always come with an official explanation. Security. Stability. Defence. Strategic necessity. The wording changes, but the structure stays familiar. The public gets a story about principle. The people closest to power get something much more useful. Time, access and position.

That is the part most people are discouraged from looking at too closely. We are trained to watch the speeches, the flags and the front pages. But war is not just a military event. It is also a financial feast. It moves markets, redirects capital, reshapes industries and rewards the people best placed to see it coming before everybody else does.

History is brutally clear on this. The people closest to the decisions that lead to conflict are rarely the ones who suffer its real cost. They are not the ones burying family, fleeing homes or living under rubble. More often, they are the ones with the best chance of benefiting from the shockwaves that follow. Not always through something crude or obviously criminal. Often through systems that are legal, polished and almost impossible to pin down.

That is why the right question is not whether war creates hidden winners. Of course it does. It always has. The real question is who had proximity to the decision-makers, what they knew before the public knew it, and where their money was sitting when the temperature started rising.

In modern politics, information does not need to be passed in some dramatic way to have value. It can move through a quiet phone call, a shift in institutional tone, a dinner conversation, a warning dressed up as general caution. Sometimes it crosses a legal line. Often it does not. Often it sits in that comfortable grey area where nothing can be neatly proved, but the shape of what is happening is obvious enough.

That is the proximity premium. The closer you are to the centre of power, the greater your ability to position yourself before public markets and ordinary citizens catch up. When governments are deciding whether to strike, sanction, escalate or rebuild, that proximity can be worth a fortune.

Then there is the role of aligned foreign interests. States with long-standing strategic reasons for wanting an enemy weakened do not need to engage in cartoonish corruption to shape outcomes. Influence in the modern world is built slowly and respectably. It moves through sovereign wealth investments, political networks, commercial ties, think tanks, consulting roles and post-government opportunities. These structures are built in peacetime, but their value often matures in wartime.

You may not be able to point to one smoking gun. You may not be able to prove a direct exchange. But when policy repeatedly moves in ways that suit powerful external interests already embedded in the financial ecosystem around decision-makers, the public is not foolish for asking questions. The public would be foolish not to.

Then there is the permanent hawk class, the people and institutions whose relevance rises with every new threat. Every major state has an enduring security culture that predates elected leaders and survives long after they leave. It includes agencies, strategic advisers, think tanks, defence commentators and the wider ecosystem that feeds off permanent instability.

Their incentive structure is not built for peace. If they push for escalation, they are treated as serious. If they are wrong, they rarely pay much of a price. If events move in their direction, their status rises. More access. More influence. More opportunity. The system does not punish threat inflation very well. In many cases, it rewards it.

This does not require a conspiracy. It is simply institutional gravity. A permanent security architecture has strong built-in reasons to favour more tension, more readiness and more spending. Peace is harder to monetise. De-escalation creates fewer careers.

There is also a whole industry built around uncertainty itself. Private intelligence firms, sanctions lawyers, geopolitical risk advisers and specialist consultancies all thrive when the world becomes unstable and opaque. Their clients include governments, multinationals, investors and insurers, all desperate for an edge in the fog. What these firms sell is confidence under pressure.

The longer a conflict drags on without a clear outcome, the more valuable that service becomes. A short resolution closes the market. A murky, prolonged crisis keeps the retainers live, the briefings flowing and the fear billable.

This is the pattern we should remember. Wars often continue until the political, financial or institutional cost of continuing outweighs the benefits for the people with the power to stop them. Not for civilians. Not for soldiers. Not for families carrying the grief. For the small, protected and deeply connected class who experience war not first as horror, but as movement in assets, wealth, leverage and influence.

That does not mean every person near power is corrupt. It does mean the public has every right to distrust clean narratives delivered over dirty incentives.

If you want to understand why conflicts so often outlives its original justification, and why they keep happening, do not just watch the podium.

Follow the money.

🇦🇺

Join the conversation: Subscribe to ETLG for independent writing on Australian politics, geopolitics, and policy, with a clear focus on Australia’s future.

Subscribe now

The accountability bit: I write independent, non-partisan commentary grounded in public information, national interest and common sense. My focus is the future of ordinary Australians. If I get a fact wrong, I’ll correct it.

Share

Donald Trump did Australia a favour this week.

He stopped pretending.

After allies refused to join his military push against Iran, Trump made sure Australia was named among the countries he thought had let America down. Then came the swagger. America does not need anyone. Not NATO. Not Japan. Not South Korea. Not Australia.

Fine.

Let Australians hear that clearly, because it tells us more than another round of diplomatic spin ever will.

This was not just a bad mood or a loose comment thrown into the noise. It was the attitude underneath. When America wants support, it calls that alliance. When a country like Australia says no, the language hardens and respect becomes conditional.

For years, Canberra has wrapped the US alliance in polished phrases like shared values, deep trust and strategic partnership. Those words are meant to reassure the public and avoid a harder question: when Australia makes a sovereign decision that does not suit Washington, are we treated like an equal, or like a subordinate who stepped out of line?

Trump answered that question in public.

The old fiction is that respect runs both ways. That allies consult, weigh risk, and act according to their own national interest. But the moment one side refuses, the partner becomes unhelpful, the ally becomes weak, and an independent judgement starts being treated like disloyalty.

An alliance that only feels solid when one side obeys is not an alliance in any meaningful sense. It is a hierarchy with better marketing.

And the deeper issue here is not just Trump. It is the world now taking shape around us.

The old strategic script is fraying. Under Trump, political culture in Washington is more volatile, more transactional, less trustworthy, and less interested in the old language of mutual restraint than many Australian leaders still seem willing to admit. That changes the calculation for us, whether we are ready for it or not.

This is where sovereignty stops being a slogan and starts becoming a test.

Australia cannot keep approaching foreign affairs like a loyal deputy waiting for the next briefing from head office. We cannot keep confusing access with influence, or habit with strategy. Closeness to power is not the same thing as control over our own fate.

A serious country knows the difference between partnership and dependency. It knows the difference between cooperation and obedience. And it knows that national dignity must mean something when the pressure is on, not just when the speeches are easy.

Trump’s words should be taken in that spirit. Not as a reason for cheap outrage, and not as an excuse for anti-American posturing. The real lesson is harder than that.

Australia needs a foreign policy that begins with Australian interests, not American moods. A political culture less ceremonial, less dependent, and less frightened of standing apart when the situation demands it. An alliance is one relationship. It is not a substitute for strategic thinking.

That is the shift now required.

Because if a partner can publicly speak about Australia like an underling the moment we refuse a demand, then the problem is not simply one man’s manners. The problem is that too many people in this country are still using language that no longer matches reality.

The rupture has started.

Others can see it. Canadian PM Mark Carney has already said the old relationship between allies is changing in fundamental ways. That should not be brushed off. Middle powers like Australia will pay the price if we keep answering a changed world with stale assumptions.

Australia is not a client state. We are not an auxiliary force waiting to be waved into somebody else’s conflict. And we are not here to be summoned, scolded, and brushed aside depending on the political mood in Washington.

We are a sovereign country.

That should mean something.

The old order is cracking, this is the moment to stop speaking in borrowed lines and start thinking with a clearer head. Not to burn bridges for effect. Not to swagger for the cameras. But to grow up strategically, speak plainly, and carry ourselves like a country that understands its own worth.

Trump wanted to remind Australia where he thinks we stand.

He may have done something more useful.

He may have reminded us that it is time to stand on our own feet.

🇦🇺

Join the conversation: Subscribe to ETLG for independent writing on Australian politics, geopolitics, and policy, with a clear focus on Australia’s future.

Subscribe now

The accountability bit: I write independent, non-partisan commentary grounded in public information, national interest and common sense. My focus is the future of ordinary Australians. If I get a fact wrong, I’ll correct it.

Share

A war in the Gulf should not be able to reach into an Australian bowser, a supermarket checkout and a regional freight route this quickly.

But it can.

That is the part worth sitting with. Because for all the talk in this country about security, strength and sovereignty, Australia is still much thinner where it counts than it likes to admit.

Picture where this story lands first. Not in a briefing room. Not on a map. Not in the sort of television segment where serious people say, “geopolitical tensions” and move on. It lands at the servo. It lands in the freight invoice. It lands in the weekly shop. It lands in the quiet little calculations households are already too familiar with. The Strait of Hormuz carries about 20 per cent of global oil and LNG trade, and it has been badly disrupted. Brent has climbed back above US$102 a barrel. Governments are already dipping into reserves and scrambling to keep supply moving.

Now here’s the awkward bit.

Australia still likes talking like an energy power. We dig things up. We export them by the shipload. We like the feel of that story because it sounds big and strong and self-sufficient. But the part of the energy story that keeps the country moving is a lot less flattering. Australia imports about 900,000 barrels a day of fuel products and remains heavily dependent on imported refined fuel, especially diesel. Even after recent stock-building, the country is still sitting on only about 36 days of petrol, 34 days of diesel and 32 days of jet fuel. For a country this large, this spread out and this dependent on long supply lines, that is not much breathing room.

That is not a fortress. It is a country hoping the plumbing holds.

And this is the bit too much mainstream coverage glides past. This is not mainly a crude oil story. It is a refined fuel story. In Australia, that means diesel. Reuters reports refined fuels have been hit harder than crude, with Singapore gasoil up 57 per cent and jet fuel up 114 per cent since late February. Diesel does the hard work in this country. It moves freight, powers farm machinery, supports mining, keeps goods rolling across long distances and helps decide what everything else ends up costing. When diesel gets squeezed, the pain does not stay in the Gulf. It turns up in grocery prices, delivery costs, domestic travel and business overheads.

That is the real chain.

A shipping lane gets hit. Refined fuel tightens. Diesel gets squeezed. Freight costs rise. Farm costs rise. Delivery costs rise. Then households wear it at the bowser and the checkout and get told, once again, that global events are very complicated.

Some are.

This part is not.

A country this dependent on imported fuel products was always going to wear the hit. The only real surprise is how often Australia still talks as if distance is a strategy. It isn’t. Distance does not protect you when the basic machinery of daily life still runs through vulnerable global chokepoints. It just gives you a comforting story right up until the bill arrives.

Regional Australia will wear that bill first and hardest. That is how these shocks usually work. Longer distances, diesel-heavy operations, fewer alternatives and tighter margins mean country towns, farms, freight operators and regional industries feel the squeeze before the inner-city panel class has finished explaining why nobody should overreact.

Canberra clearly knows this. The government has already released petrol and diesel from emergency reserves and temporarily eased fuel standards for 60 days to push more supply into the market. The extra supply, channelled through Ampol, is expected to add another 100 million litres a month and was aimed at farmers, fishers and regional communities. Stop there and think about what that means. Governments do not start dipping into reserves and loosening standards because the system is humming. They do it because the strain is already showing.

That is not resilience. That is a patch-up.

And once you see it that way, the bigger problem comes into focus. Australia does not just have a defence question. It has a dependence problem. Because if one badly disrupted shipping lane can rattle fuel supply, freight costs, inflation nerves and household budgets within days, then a fair bit of the language around sovereignty starts sounding like theatre. A country that can be shoved off balance this easily is not nearly as secure as it keeps saying it is.

Then there is the alliance part, and that story is not especially flattering either. Donald Trump has been pressing allies to help reopen Hormuz. Australia has said it has no plans to send ships. Europe has shown little appetite to widen its own naval mission into the strait. That tells you the room has already read the situation. Plenty of US partners can see the danger of being asked to clean up a crisis they did not choose, were not properly consulted on and do not control.

But here is the sting. Even when Australia stays out of the room, it still wears the cost. Someone else lights the match. We still pay for the smoke. That is not much of a success story. It is dependence with better branding.

So, what should happen now? Australia needs to stop pretending national security lives only inside the Defence portfolio. It is also a fuel issue, a freight issue, a supply-chain issue and a resilience issue. Governments need to treat stockholdings, refining capacity, distribution and regional contingency planning as core national infrastructure, not boring admin left untouched until the next shock blows in. And the public should start judging security claims less by how polished the announcement sounds and more by a simpler test: when the world turns nasty, can the country still function?

That is the question underneath all of this.

Not whether the rhetoric sounds strong. Not whether the alliance language is tidy. Not whether the right people stood in front of the right flags.

Can the country still work?

Because that is what ordinary Australians live inside. Not strategy documents. Not summit communiqués. The country as it functions day to day. The freight routes. The fuel supply. The weekly shop. The quiet expectation that the basics will keep working.

This crisis is exposing how thin that expectation really is.

A serious country should not be discovering its weak spots halfway through somebody else’s war. Yet here we are, still mistaking military theatre for preparedness, still talking like distance will save us, still acting as if security is something you can perform at a podium while the machinery underneath the country is left too exposed.

National security is not just about what a nation can strike. It is about what it can still sustain.

Right now, this crisis is dragging an uncomfortable truth into daylight. Australia’s biggest weakness is not only what might happen in the air or at sea.

It is how quickly life on the ground starts wobbling when somebody else breaks the system.

🇦🇺

Join the conversation: Subscribe to ETLG for independent writing on Australian politics, geopolitics, and policy, with a clear focus on Australia’s future.

Subscribe now

The accountability bit: I write independent, non-partisan commentary grounded in public information, national interest and common sense. My focus is the future of ordinary Australians. If I get a fact wrong, I’ll correct it.

Share

On Saturday, Donald Trump went onto Truth Social and called on Britain, France, Japan, South Korea and China to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz. His justification was revealing: this should have always been a team effort. The problem with that line is timing. Teamwork is what you build before a war with global consequences, not after the world’s most important oil chokepoint is already in crisis.

That is the contradiction at the heart of this moment. Washington wanted the image of unilateral decisiveness at the front end. Now it wants the safety of multilateral burden-sharing at the back end. First, make the decision alone. Then let the consequences spread. Then ask everyone else to help carry the risk. A hegemon builds coalitions before war, not after the shipping lane is on fire.

And this is not some symbolic ask. The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly a fifth of global oil and gas flows. With the conflict now roiling energy markets, oil has jumped from around US$65 to well above US$100 a barrel, and the International Energy Agency has moved to release emergency reserves to steady supply. That is not the sign of a tidy regional operation under control. It is the sign of a shock already spreading well beyond the battlefield.

Which is why the international response has been so telling. There has been no stampede to line up behind Trump’s request. Britain is considering options. France is cautious. Others are weighing their positions. AP reported that none of the countries publicly named by Trump offered a firm commitment to do what he asked. That hesitation is not weakness. It is rational state behaviour.

Trump’s reported warning that NATO faces a “very bad” future if allies do not help reopen Hormuz makes the underlying logic hard to miss. Washington is not simply asking others to share the burden. It is signalling that support may now be expected on demand, even after the original decision was made without them.

Any country sending naval assets into Hormuz now is not joining a clean maritime security exercise. It is stepping into an active conflict with no clear end state, no obvious timeline, and no credible guarantee that a supposedly limited mission stays limited. Tehran has already made clear that allied military participation changes the equation. Serious governments do not sign up to that lightly, especially when they were not properly consulted before the escalation began.

This is where the argument gets bigger than Trump’s latest post. The real issue is reliability.

Alliances do not run on power alone. They run on consultation, predictability and a basic expectation that risks will be discussed before they are distributed. What this episode suggests is something harder: America still expects support but feels less obligation to secure meaningful consent before the bill arrives. That is not burden-sharing. It is cost-shifting.

You can see the pattern elsewhere. Gulf partners hosted bases and infrastructure, then found themselves exposed to Iranian retaliation as the war escalated. In East Asia, Reuters reported that some US Patriot systems and parts of a THAAD battery have been redeployed from South Korea to the Middle East, while US destroyers based in Japan have been sent towards the Arabian Sea. That may make tactical sense in Washington. To allies, it sends a different message. American commitments are flexible when America decides they are.

That is not how a reliable hegemon behaves.

Reliable powers do not privatise the swagger and then socialise the risk. They do not ask allies to absorb exposure they were never seriously asked to shape. They do not discover the virtues of teamwork only after markets panic, shipping is threatened and energy prices start climbing.

For Australia, that matters well beyond the Gulf.

Australians are likely to feel this crisis first through the cost of living, not through foreign policy jargon. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has warned Middle East tensions could push inflation higher. Reporting in Australia has already tied the conflict to rising petrol prices, fuel-supply scrutiny and broader household pressure. Higher oil prices do not stay in the Gulf. They move through freight, groceries, business costs and family budgets.

That is why this should also sharpen the burden on Australian parliamentarians. This crisis forces a set of questions Canberra usually prefers to leave blurry. How much strategic voice does Australia really have before an escalation begins? What exactly are we expected to support once conflict is underway? How often are we consulted in substance rather than informed in sequence? And how do elected leaders explain to Australians that we may be expected to absorb economic pain, legal ambiguity and strategic exposure from a war we did not help decide? Those are no longer fringe questions. They are now central to responsible alliance management.

The unease is already there. Guardian Australia reported that Labor MPs have been privately alarmed by the Albanese government’s early support for the US-Israel strikes, particularly given the absence of clear public argument around international law. ABC reporting has also captured ministers sidestepping direct answers on legality. That discomfort should not be dismissed as disloyalty. It is what political seriousness looks like when the consequences of alliance politics begin landing at home.

None of this means Australia should walk away from the US alliance. It does mean we should stop talking about it as though it were a magic object that automatically guarantees judgement, restraint or consultation. An alliance is meant to provide not just protection, but voice. If it delivers exposure without influence, serious countries should be honest about that. Australians can see what is unfolding. They can feel it at the bowser, in prices, and in the wider cost of living. And they will judge every parliamentarian and every political party not just by what they say, but by what they do, and by whether Australia had any real voice before the consequences arrived.

Trump’s post on Saturday was not a show of strength. It was an admission of limits.

Washington decided alone, exported the consequences, and is now asking others to help contain the fallout. That is not alliance leadership. That is the bill being passed around after the table was never asked to order.

🇦🇺

Join the conversation: Subscribe to ETLG for independent writing on Australian politics, geopolitics, and policy, with a clear focus on Australia’s future.

Subscribe now

The accountability bit: I write independent, non-partisan commentary grounded in public information, national interest and common sense. My focus is the future of ordinary Australians. If I get a fact wrong, I’ll correct it.

Share

Editor’s note: This piece was first published on LinkedIn titled “The Sovereign Silence” and has been lightly adapted for Substack.

For years, Canberra has spoken about the rules-based international order as though it were the moral spine of our foreign policy. It has been our shield against the logic of raw power. We have told the region that no country is above the law, that sovereignty matters, and that international norms are not optional when they become inconvenient.

That all sounds noble enough, until the test arrives.

The current conflict involving the US, Israel and Iran has exposed the gap between Australia’s language and Australia’s behaviour. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese publicly backed the US strikes, saying Australia supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and from continuing to threaten international peace and security. When pressed on legality, he effectively left that judgement to Washington and the other parties involved.

The Coalition has done much the same. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor described Iran as “an absolutely despotic regime” and argued Australia should stand by its allies and work closely with them to hold that regime to account.

Then came a different note from Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney said the war appeared, on its face, to be inconsistent with international law. He was in the country when he said that.

That contrast matters.

Not because Iran deserves sympathy. It does not. The regime is authoritarian, brutal and deeply hostile to the values liberal democracies claim to defend. But international law was never built only for easy cases. It exists precisely for moments like this, when the target is ugly, the politics are messy, and powerful states are tempted to swap legal principle for strategic convenience.

That is what makes Australia’s response so revealing.

We are not the United States. We are not Israel. We are not a power that can casually treat legal order as optional and assume the consequences will be manageable. Australia is a middle power. We rely on stable rules, functioning institutions, and a regional environment where sovereignty is respected. For us, consistency is not some abstract moral hobby. It is a hard national interest.

And yet, when the pressure landed, Canberra reached first for alliance language and left the legal language sitting on the shelf.

That should worry us.

Because once we start acting as though international law only matters when our opponents break it, we undercut our own position everywhere else. We cannot lecture smaller countries in our region about sovereignty and restraint while going soft and vague the moment our allies are the ones stretching the rules. That is not strategic realism. It is selective principle dressed up as pragmatism.

And selective principle has a cost.

It weakens our credibility abroad. It makes our appeals to law sound transactional rather than sincere. It tells the region that Australia’s commitment to norms depends less on the act itself and more on who happens to be doing it. For a country that wants to be seen as serious, sovereign and reliable, that is not a small problem. It is the problem.

There is also a domestic cost. Australians are being asked, once again, to accept that hard questions about war, legality and alliance behaviour are somehow too awkward to ask out loud. We are told to focus on the danger of the Iranian regime, as though that alone settles the matter. It does not. A threat can be real, and the legal questions can still matter. In fact, that is when they matter most.

The deeper issue here is whether Australia still believes in the principles it so often invokes.

If we do, then those principles must apply consistently, including when the United States is involved. If we do not, then we should stop pretending our foreign policy is anchored in law and admit that, when push comes to shove, alliance politics trumps everything else.

At least that would be honest.

Diplomacy is not weakness. Legal consistency is not anti-Western. And asking whether allies should be held to the same standards as adversaries is not disloyalty. It is what independent countries are supposed to do.

This is the point too often missed in Canberra. Sovereignty is not just a phrase you deploy when talking about China, Russia or interference in the Pacific. It is also about whether Australia has enough confidence in its own principles to speak plainly when friends cross lines we would condemn in others.

If we cannot do that, then the rules-based order is not really a principle at all. It is branding. A slogan. A piece of diplomatic set design rolled out for speeches, then quietly packed away the moment it becomes inconvenient.

The Bottom Line

Australia cannot keep claiming the moral authority of international law while dodging its application when allies are involved. Albanese supported the strikes. Taylor backed the allied response. Carney, whatever his broader positioning, at least said the legal question out loud.

That is the real issue.

If Australia wants to be taken seriously as a sovereign power, much like Canada, it needs to show that principle is more than performance. Otherwise, we are not defending the international order. We are just borrowing its language when it suits us.

🇦🇺

Join the conversation: Subscribe to ETLG for independent writing on Australian politics, geopolitics, and policy, with a clear focus on Australia’s future.

Subscribe now

The accountability bit: I write independent, non-partisan commentary grounded in public information, national interest and common sense. My focus is the future of ordinary Australians. If I get a fact wrong, I’ll correct it.

Share