The United States recently launched a major strike against key Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow in an effort to cripple the Iranian nuclear program. In an overnight raid, B-2 Spirit bombers dropped some of the most powerful bunker busters available on the facilities, hoping to cause irreversible damage and prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. The attack came after a week-long back-and-forth between Israel and Iran in the wake of Israeli strikes on several Iranian military installations. American Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed that U.S. inflicted “severe damage,” setting the program back by up to two years. However, others have questioned these claims, citing a lack of conclusive evidence and suggesting the possibility that Iran may have moved key materials to secure locations beforehand.

The attack prompted Iran to retaliate against the U.S. on Monday, June 23rd. Iran launched missiles at Al-Udeid Airbase located in Qatar, the hub of American air operations in the region. no one was injured—likely because Iran had warned Qatar about its plan beforehand. Regardless, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stressed that Iran would not “submit to anyone's violation.” Soon after Iran’s bombardment stopped, Iran and Israel entered a U.S.-mediated ceasefire, putting conflict in the region on hold for now.

Australia, a key American ally, has made its stance clear regarding American airstrikes and the broader conflict as a whole. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently voiced Australian support for the strikes, stressing that “the world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that - that is what this is.” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong corroborated Albanese's stance, stating that “we [Australia] support action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” Albanese followed up by highlighting Iranian violations of its international obligations as further justification for the necessity of the strikes, namely that the nation has enriched uranium to up to 60%, well above the threshold needed for civilian applications. Uranium enrichment refers to the process of increasing the concentration of isotope U-235 in a particular sample of uranium. The material used to generate nuclear power for civilian applications only requires 3-4% of U-235, while the kind used in nuclear weapons is much higher, at around 90%. Iran’s enrichment percentage even greatly exceeds the concentration needed for some special-case research reactors, which only require around 20%, proving its intention to develop a nuclear weapon.

When asked about Australia’s involvement in the attack, Wong claimed that the American operation was “unilateral,” and that Australia was not notified of the attack prior. She did not directly answer whether or not the shared Pine Gap joint defense facility—a crucial satellite surveillance base operated by Australia and the U.S.—was used to plan or carry out the bombings. She also declined to directly commend the compliance of the strikes with international law, instead emphasizing Iranian violations of its own obligations. Currently, the U.S. has also not officially requested for Australian collaboration in any potential future operation.

However, alongside broad support for the American operation, the Australian government also emphasized the need for “dialogue and diplomacy.” Albanese immediately called for a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities between the nations, which is what happened after Iran’s counterattack, at least temporarily. Moreover, Albanese called on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program in favor of negotiating. Iran had vowed to rebuild and continue its nuclear program with implied intent of producing nuclear weapons. Mohammed Eslami, head of Atomic Energy Agency of Iran, stated his agency’s strategy is to “ensure production and services are not disrupted.” Moreover, 221 of 223 lawmakers in the Iranian parliament also voted for a measure that would effectively suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, citing national sovereignty and concerns over the fact that IAEA has not yet officially condemned the attacks. This makes a diplomatic resolution to the issue, as Australia called for, highly unlikely for the time being.

Albanese’s administration’s response was broadly criticized by the opposition to his governing Coalition, as well as international law and foreign policy experts. For instance, the Green Party urged Albanese to make his government a “force for peace, not for war.” Meanwhile, Ben Saul, the chair of international law at the University of Sydney, claimed that the American strikes were an “international crime of aggression,” referring to the Australian response as “pretty weak.” His view was echoed by others, such as Allan Behm of the Australia Institute Think Tank, as well as international law expert Professor Donald Rothwell. Many also cited the fact that the conflict forced Australia to evacuate hundreds of its citizens, including diplomatic staff, as cause for the nation to condemn the attacks as only contributing to regional tensions.

Overall, the measured yet supportive response from Albanese’s government reflects Australia’s firm position as a U.S. ally, as well as its previous involvements in American military operations in the Middle East, including both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. While peace may hold in the short term, the path to the kind of diplomatic resolution Albanese advocates for seems increasingly unlikely amid the broader Middle East tensions.