We Support It, We’re Not Involved, Don’t Us Ask About The Law

There's a particular kind of political sentence that should set off alarm bells: we support the action, but we are not participating. It's the sentence politicians reach for when they want the benefits of a war without accepting the moral and legal responsibility that comes with it.

Over the past few days, the Albanese Government has adopted exactly that posture towards the US and Israel’s war against Iran. Prime Minister Albanese’s language has been blunt: support for US action framed as necessary to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Then Foreign Minister Penny Wong steps in with the qualifier: Australia is “not participating in these strikes”.

If you're as old as me and feeling a déjà vu from Iraq, you are not imagining it. When governments learn that the public has a long memory for disastrous wars, they don't stop supporting wars. They change the language of their support. They try to keep the alliance sweet while keeping their hands looking clean.

But “not participating” doesn't mean what many people think it means. When Penny Wong was asked directly whether Trump’s action was illegal under international law, she didn't answer yes or no. Instead, she offered a neat two-step: first, Australia isn't participating; second, the United States and Israel can explain the legal basis. Read that again. Australia wraps itself in the idea of a “rules-based order”, but when the rules get awkward, we outsource the legality to the people dropping the bombs.

This isn't a trivial dodge. International law is meant to restrain the use of force. The UN Charter doesn't give countries a permission slip to strike whenever they feel threatened by what another state might do in the future. The legal arguments usually turn on self-defence, imminence, necessity, proportionality, or Security Council authority. A government that genuinely believes in international law should be able to say one of two sentences out loud. Either: this action is lawful, and here is why. Or: this action is unlawful, and we do not support it. Instead, from the Albanese Government we get a third sentence: we support it, and they can explain the law.

Then there's the complicating fact that never gets answered cleanly: Pine Gap. “Not participating” can mean “no Australian aircraft in the air”, while still leaving open other forms of involvement. Modern war is fought with signals intelligence, satellites, and targeting support. Which raises the simple question the Government doesn't want to sit with: did Australia enable this, even if we didn't directly pull the trigger?

If you want to know why people don't trust the “not participating” line, it's because it is designed to preserve ambiguity. It allows Ministers to reassure the public while refusing to answer the more consequential questions. It's support with distance, and distance with silence.

And here's the hypocrisy that makes this feel morally rotten. The Government has leaned heavily on the ethical case against the Iranian regime. We hear about repression and deaths, about the regime killing its own people, about the regime lacking legitimacy. The implied logic runs like this: Iran is brutal at home and dangerous abroad, therefore bombing Iran is justified.

But the same moral syllogism is not applied to Israel. When it comes to Israel and Gaza, Labor’s language becomes careful and procedural: statements, concerns, urging, working with partners, humanitarian access. Diplomacy matters. Civilian lives matter. International humanitarian law matters. That's why the double standard is impossible to avoid.

The truthful explanation Albanese and Wong don't want to give isn't complicated. It's not morality. It's alliance politics. And that's why the legal question matters so much. If Australia won't say whether an allied strike is lawful, then “international law” becomes a marketing term: something invoked against enemies and ignored for friends. Every time we do that, we weaken the very principle we claim protects small and middle powers like us. We make it easier for other states to manufacture their own “exceptions”. We turn law into preference.

If you want to test whether Australians are being warmed up for deeper involvement, watch the language. Support becomes commitment. Commitment becomes “force protection”. “Force protection” becomes deployments. Then, suddenly, Australia is in - even if the groundwork was laid months earlier through carefully calibrated phrases like “we support the United States acting”.

So there are glaring hypocrisies in the Government’s script: We support the bombing. We are not participating. Don’t ask us about the law.

It's not principled foreign policy. It's strategic dependence dressed up as virtue.

If Australia wants to claim it defends a rules-based order, it must stop hiding behind ambiguity and start speaking plainly. Is this lawful, yes or no? If it won't answer that, it's not defending the rules. It's defending power over principle.