The establishment of a peace framework and ceasefire between the United States and Iran following recent hostilities would be a welcome sign in Australia. Canberra feared war, both because of the domestic impacts of high fuel prices and its deep concern about the unintended consequences that might have been created by the fighting.
To better understand the future implications, I spoke to Jane Hardyformer Australian Ambassador to Spain and former Assistant Secretary for Arms Control and Counter-Proliferation in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. She is currently a non-resident principal investigator at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
For the Australian government and, more importantly, the US government, the flow of oil remains a primary consideration. Hardy said that “there is enormous political pressure to make sure that oil flows and that the price of oil remains at a reasonable level.”
Yet, after such a disruption, that’s easier said than done. Hardy pointed out that “there is are there many ships apparently waiting to enter the strait [of Hormuz]. So it’s going to take some time to really settle into a routine. She added that “it will likely take six months to achieve a proper release of oil flows out of the strait, and much longer for liquefied natural gas due to Iran’s damage to Qatar’s LNG facilities.”
To most of the world – including Canberra – the war seemed pointless, like another American adventure in the Middle East with no essential motivation or clear objective. At the same time, the constant change in the reasoning behind the war and the “ill-advised comments” of US President Donald Trump have undermined Washington’s credibility. As Hardy pointed out, this has a “profound effect” on sensitive issues such as fuel supplies, and implicates the fate of national economies, global shipping and the banking sector.
Yet it is perhaps in the broader implications for Indo-Pacific security that Australia sees the impacts of the war in Iran as most consequential. Negotiations currently underway in Switzerland will focus mainly on Iran’s nuclear program, including limits on uranium enrichment and the return of UN nuclear inspectors, as Washington strives to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
Beijing will closely monitor these negotiations because China has an important stake in the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Hardy informed me that the global strategic balance will be shifted over the next decade, “because China will probably reach well over a thousand nuclear warheads. And that puts it in the same category as the two previous leaders, Russia and the United States.”
Hardy further explained that “furthermore, [China] has a nuclear triad. This means a nuclear weapons delivery system, which involves land, sea and air. »
The implications of China’s nuclear expansion raise the risk that its neighbors Japan and South Korea will feel the need to develop their own nuclear capabilities. Therefore, regarding negotiations with Iran, Hardy said that “how proliferation is controlled and what is allowed for a non-nuclear-armed country is something that China is deeply concerned about.”
This has significant implications for Australia’s interests in Northeast Asia, given that three of its four largest trading partners are in the region. Any instability there poses a threat to the “way of life” that Australia has recently adopted. National Defense Strategy is considered essential to the security of the country.
Yet how traditional security is understood in the modern environment was also revealed during the Iran War. As Hardy pointed out, Iran “doesn’t need the bomb. It has the Strait of Hormuz.”
The country was able to inflict high economic and political costs, just as great as the physical destruction. Regarding how Ukraine has been able to resist Russian aggression primarily through the use of drones, Hardy said that “the whole strategic balance is changing because of these other methods of warfare with relatively cheap means.”
This has implications for Australia, but as Hardy explains, “geography remains hugely important in all of this.” Any potential threat to Australia would “come from far away”, meaning the maritime theater will continue to be central to how Australia designs its own defence.
The main lesson of the Iran war is that conflicts are now rarely limited to specific locations. The nature of globalized trade routes means that essential products are at serious risk of disruption, which can result in heavy economic and political costs. Emerging technologies can also profoundly shape outcomes in unexpected ways. Australia’s geography may offer some protection from conflict, but its maritime dependence creates other vulnerabilities.