Australia's Defence Force is preparing military options that could eventually take the country into direct combat in the Middle East, according to a confidential source with knowledge of Army planning. The contradiction between this preparation and the government's public assurances about the conflict with Iran raises questions about the gap between contingency planning and actual policy intent.
The Army's 1st Division has begun planning for deployment to the Middle East, a preliminary step that suggests Army leaders want to give the Albanese Government options to participate in the war against Iran, even though it has ruled out combat operations.A senior, confidential source said work was underway to prepare the Brisbane-based division for operations in the region, although it is unclear if the Army is working on combat options, a supporting role or contributing to some kind of peacekeeping force.
This contingency planning is routine for defence forces.According to Neil James, the executive director of the Australia Defence Association, "That's the job of the defence force, to plan for contingencies. I would be absolutely astounded if there wasn't some contingency planning going on." Yet the timing and scope raise legitimate questions about what the government is actually preparing for.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has sought to reassure the public."We've made clear we would not participate in any ground troop deployment into Iran," she said. However, Australia's involvement has already expanded.Three Australians were on the US submarine that sunk the Iranian frigate Dena last week near Sri Lanka under personnel-sharing arrangements with the US Navy.Two military planes were deployed, a Royal Australian Air Force C-17A Globemaster heavy transport aircraft and KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport, as part of the government's response to the outbreak of conflict.
The government is now considering its next step.Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia has been asked for assistance by countries attacked by Iran, which number 15, although declined to discuss what help might be offered.She said "This is not Iraq, and we are not the Howard government. We are not asking Australians to accept men and women being deployed into a ground war."
The risk calculus differs sharply depending on the type of support.With the Iranian Navy and Air Force badly damaged, the danger to Australian pilots and sailors would be reduced. But the ground picture is starkly different.Iran has approximately one million full-time and reserve soldiers, making ground combat highly risky. Military analysts consider air force and navy involvement far more plausible than Army deployment, which remains the branch least likely to enter the conflict.
What distinguishes preparation from policy is transparency. The government faces a credibility test: if contingency planning for ground combat exists, the public and parliament deserve to know. If it does not, Wong should say so clearly. The current ambiguity satisfies neither those who want Australia to shoulder its alliance commitments nor those concerned about mission creep.
The broader question is whether the government's stated position will hold under pressure. History suggests it may not.Australia's former ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, predicted on Monday the air war would soon shift to the ground, a far-more dangerous task for the US given Iran's mountainous geography and armed forces of approximately one million personnel. If that transition occurs, the government will face renewed pressure to contribute ground forces, which preparation already underway might make easier to justify.