Here is a question worth asking plainly: can a country credibly champion the rules-based international order while refusing to say whether the most dramatic use of military force in years actually complies with it? That is the position the Albanese government now finds itself in, and the answer will matter well beyond this week's crisis.
In the predawn hours of 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched what the Pentagon designated Operation Epic Fury, a coordinated assault on Iran targeting nuclear facilities, ballistic missile arrays, aerial defence systems, and military command structures. The Israeli military said over 30 targets belonging to the Iranian regime across Iran, including aerial defence systems, missile launchers, regime targets, and military command centres, were struck by the Israeli Air Force. US President Donald Trump declared the objective was to destroy Iran's missile capabilities, prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, and, pointedly, topple the regime itself. Trump said Khamenei was killed, though Iran did not immediately confirm that. Iranian state media subsequently confirmed the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Iran's retaliatory response was swift and broad. Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Israel and the US of violating the United Nations Charter and pledged a harsh response, as the country waged retaliatory attacks on Israel as well as several Gulf states that host US military assets, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. The consequences reached Australian travellers immediately: Australia issued "do not travel" warnings for Israel, Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as tensions escalated, while urgently trying to verify if any citizens had been caught up in the conflict. Foreign Minister Penny Wong confirmed more than 4,000 Australians had registered for help to leave the Middle East, around 2,900 in Iran and 1,300 in Israel.
Canberra's Position
The Albanese government moved quickly to signal political support for the strikes. Australia "stands with the brave people of Iran", Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong said in a joint statement, as they declared their support for the US actions to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Albanese described the Iranian regime as a destabilising force for decades, pointing specifically to IRGC-linked attacks on Australian soil. He recalled that Iran directed at least two attacks on Australian soil in 2024, targeting Australia's Jewish community in acts intended to create fear, divide society, and challenge sovereignty, prompting Australia to take the unprecedented step of expelling Iran's ambassador.
That context is not trivial. The Iranian regime's conduct domestically and internationally has been genuinely alarming. The government's support for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran reflects a broadly held position across the political mainstream. The harder question is whether political support for an objective can substitute for a legal assessment of the means used to pursue it.
When pressed on precisely that point, Wong declined to engage. Wong said: "I will leave it for the United States and Israel to speak of the legal basis for the attacks." That deflection is where the government's credibility begins to strain.
What International Law Actually Says
Ben Saul, Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney Law School and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism, said the US and Israeli actions breached the fundamental ban on the use of aggressive force under the United Nations Charter and international law. "This is the most basic rule of international order since 1945, which is being rapidly eroded by actions like this," he told SBS News.
Saul's view is shared by other leading voices. Norway's Foreign Minister was direct: "The attack is described by Israel as a pre-emptive strike, but it is not in accordance with international law. A pre-emptive attack would require the existence of an imminent threat," Espen Barth Eide said. At the UN Security Council emergency session, Secretary-General António Guterres said the strikes violated international law, including the UN Charter, while also condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on third countries.
The legal framework here is not especially ambiguous. Use of force against a state is prohibited under the UN Charter, with exceptions for self-defence and Security Council authorisations. Self-defence must be in response to an imminent threat, and there is no indication such a threat existed to either the United States or Israel. Likewise, there were no Security Council authorisations. The strikes also came, as Asia Times reported, while diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran were actively underway on Iran's nuclear programme, with the most intense round of US-Iran talks having concluded in Geneva just two days earlier, with both sides agreeing to continue.
The counter-argument deserves serious consideration: the Iranian regime had engaged in years of proxy aggression, its nuclear programme had repeatedly breached IAEA obligations, and shortly before Israel launched strikes, the UN nuclear watchdog said Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years, having failed to provide full cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, framed the strikes as preventing "an existential threat before it became irreversible." These are not trivial concerns, and the Iranian regime's conduct provides genuine grounds for alarm.
But the test of a rules-based order is whether the rules apply uniformly, including to friends. If pre-emption without imminence and without Security Council authorisation is acceptable when the target is a regime we dislike, then the prohibition on the use of force means very little at all. That is the logic Canberra is now implicitly endorsing by refusing to assess the legality of what happened.
The Cost of Silence
Saul said the Australian government's rhetoric was "deeply disappointing" given that, based on his understanding of governmental processes, it would have already received advice regarding the strikes' degree of accordance with international law. His more pointed warning came in remarks reported by SBS News: "Australia says it supports international law, supports the rules-based international order, is trying to get on the Security Council in an upcoming term, and yet is in the business of trashing the United Nations Charter and international law. Canada and Australia now have backed the United States in this illegal aggression. And I think that's extremely damaging if you have the countries who are supposed to stand up for international law being the ones who are now destroying it."
Saul argued that middle powers have a crucial role in upholding international norms by raising the political cost for superpowers that violate them. By failing to do so, Australia risks normalising the unilateral use of force and further destabilising the global legal framework designed to maintain peace and security. The Greens reached a similar conclusion from a different direction: Senator David Shoebridge argued, as reported by SBS News, that Wong's refusal to assess legality amounted to "a comprehensive failure from our own government."
There is also the question of what precedent this sets closer to home. Australia is a mid-sized power in a region where China's military posture is a recurring anxiety for defence planners. The rules-based order, and specifically the prohibition on the use of force outside UN Charter parameters, is one of the few structural protections available to countries that cannot match a great power's military capacity. Selectively endorsing that order only when it suits an alliance preference is a choice with long-term strategic costs that may not be immediately visible in the chaos of the current crisis.
The fundamental question is not whether the Iranian regime deserved international pressure, or whether a nuclear-armed Iran represents a genuine threat. The answer to both is yes. The question is whether Canberra can sustain a credible commitment to the rules it claims to champion when the most consequential test of those rules involves its most important ally. Giving the US and Israel a pass on that assessment, while seeking a seat on the UN Security Council, is a position that requires more justification than the government has so far been willing to provide. Voters and partners alike deserve a clearer account of where Australia actually stands.