iscover
In many ways, the decisive step taken by US President Donald Trump to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities has put many critics to bed, and in others, it has raised other questions. As with all things, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it leaves important lessons for Australia.
In the early hours of Sunday morning, the United States Armed Forces once again showed the world why it bears the unofficial moniker of the “most powerful military force in human history” – simultaneously striking at the heart of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
The Herculean effort that combined elements of the US Air Force, including the celebrated B-2 Spirit stealth strategic bomber and a lethal, stealthy nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine lurking in the waters of the Persian Gulf or the western Indian Ocean, demonstrated with extreme effect just how lethal the US remains despite concerns about the enduring power of the US.
By far, one of the most consequential decisions made by a US president in the last two decades and arguably since the end of the Cold War, the strikes ordered by controversial President Donald Trump has well and truly set the stage for a reimagining of the next decade and beyond.
Where many across the Western alliance network branded US President Trump and his transactional approach an outright threat to international relationships, alliances and the broader post-Second World War economic, political and strategic order.
By electing to strike at the behest of the Israeli Prime Minister’s call to arms, the President quietened naysayers and concerns about America’s commitment to its allies, but it has also raised concerns about the potential for the outbreak of wider conflict in the Middle East and the ensuing impact it would have on the broader global balance of power, economy and political structures.
Either way, it is inescapable that the US strikes have had a seismic impact on the current geopolitical, economic and strategic order for friend and foe alike.
But what exactly can we learn from Operation Midnight Hammer?
1. America has unimaginable global reach, but it is guided by a strategy and requires a ‘balanced’ force to deliver it
We bore witness to the truly global reach of the US Armed Forces and the effort it required to deliver the kinetic effects, but what many have failed to identify is the balanced nature of the US force structure, one where it is guided by an overarching strategy that influences and shapes the funding envelope across the US military.
This, in turn, is then delivered by a “balanced force” where tactical and strategic-level capabilities across the air, land, sea, space and cyber domains interconnect and operate seamlessly to act in the furtherance of “America’s national interests across the globe”.
Indeed, the demonstration of joint US firepower – combining the US Air Force and US Navy’s strategic effectors in the B-2 Spirits and a nuclear-powered submarine (widely suspected to be a converted Ohio Class ballistic missile submarine) – supported by a host of other capabilities, including aerial refuelling tankers, fighter escorts, intelligence, surveillance reconnaissance aircraft and space-based infrastructure and, of course, the US-industrial base (as frayed as it is).
All of this is of course further enhanced by the conventional mass and flexibility of the US Armed Forces that underpin the broader deterrence capability and strategy of the US security umbrella.
So what does this mean for Australia? Well, it means that if we are to fully deliver the lofty ambition of unilaterally deterring “any adversary” as so eloquently articulated in the 2023 Defence Strategic Review on pages 32 and 37, we need to seriously think about the sort of budget and the sort of force we actually require to deliver this objective.
This also means avoiding the perennial trap of Australian strategic policymaking, the allure of “silver bullet” capabilities – that is platforms that capture the imagination and are frequently held up as the sole solution to all of our tactical and strategic challenges – so this means abandoning the folly of the “focused force” and embracing the concept of a “focused, balanced force”.
Undoubtedly, this also means Australia will need to lift its defence spending and it will also require a dramatic shift in the way Australia conducts business and the way the Commonwealth spends its money, in order to squeeze every penny and ensure that the warfighters get the most out of every dollar spent.
2. Trump isn’t a true ‘isolationist’, he will help allies who help themselves
Much of the criticism that has been consistently levelled at Trump going back to his first administration is the belief that he represents a disruptive, destructive president who will ultimately be responsible for the collapse of the US-led post-Second World War economic, political and strategic alliance network.
Front and centre of this narrative, particularly since the beginning of the second Trump administration, is the expectations that America’s allies rapidly increase their defence spending, with the once firm 2 per cent of gross domestic product now being a case of 3.5 per cent (at least) with some allies, particularly those in Europe (think Poland) rapidly accelerating their own defence spending.
The US strikes on Iran demonstrate that contrary to the bed-wetting narrative about America abandoning its long-standing allies, Trump’s America will indeed act when their allies demonstrably help themselves, as Israel has done (whether you agree with their actions or not) and they can make the case for requiring US assistance.
So for Australia to be certain of continued US support, we’re going to have to step up our game and do so in a major way.
And now, for the uncomfortable ones.
3. Don’t be fooled, American power is still finite
It is important to recognise that despite the awesome power demonstrated by the US over the weekend, there is still a very real, finite limit to America’s power.
The constant emphasis on the Middle East, particularly the growing requirement for critical consumables (in this case air defence and strike missiles) are placing increased pressure on both America’s other global commands, particularly Indo-Pacific Command and allies, including Australia, who depend on the US defence industrial base for critical supplies of wartime consumables.
This, in particular, reinforces the reality that America’s power, particularly its industrial power – the very defining factor that helped the allies secure victory during the Second World War – is finite and is running on fumes as it faces a number of self-imposed bottle necks in critical supply chains, limiting the overall global deterrence capabilities of the US Armed Forces.
Despite this, the overwhelming success of the strikes risks luring both the Australian public and its policy-making community into believing the age-old myth of “don’t worry, America will be there to save us” should circumstances go sideways in our part of the world.
This is particularly important when we consider that every major conflict that the US has engaged in since the end of the Korean War has been largely against second or third-tier nations, with militaries, economic and industrial structures to match, meaning that it is easy for the US to look invincible.
4. Iran isn’t China and we can’t fall for that trap
Bringing me to my final point.
In the People’s Republic of China, America, and indeed the Western world, faces a competitor unlike anything it has faced before. It combines immense economic and industrial potential, global integration across the economic, political and increasingly strategic landscape.
This reality fundamentally rewrites the balance of power and not necessarily in our favour. We also have to be careful to avoid falling into a hubristic trap of our own assured victory and capability to win any kinetic conflict.
Final thoughts
Australians must face some hard truths if we’re to safeguard our future.
First, the Indo-Pacific is fast becoming the world’s most contested region. As China, India, Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam flex new economic, political and military muscle – and as Japan and South Korea reassert themselves, competition on our doorstep is not only heating up, it is becoming our new normal. We need to recalibrate our “whole-of-nation” strategy accordingly.
Second, without a sustained surge in investment, reform and long-range planning, we risk not only slipping behind but being swept away by the inertia of our region. If we don’t act now, future generations could find Australia dwarfed by richer, more powerful neighbours, with less economic clout and weaker security.
We’ve long favoured quick wins and reactive policies. Since Federation, governments have chased immediate gains instead of playing the long game. But as the Indo-Pacific shifts beneath our feet, short-term thinking won’t cut it. We must look ahead, seize new opportunities and blunt rising threats.
The real question isn’t whether these challenges are coming – it’s when we’ll roll out a detailed, strategic response. When will Canberra set out a clear vision that rallies industry and the public behind our changing role? When will we see a plan that keeps Australia resilient amid intensifying great-power rivalry?
With China pressing its influence, Australia faces a choice: hang back as a bit player or step up and help shape the Indo-Pacific’s future. The decisions we make now will decide whether we thrive in this new era or get swept along by it.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
