Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knew US would strike Iran but not when, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was aware the US was planning strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but did not know the exact timing, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal.
The US strikes hit key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan last weekend, before President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
Mr Albanese then waited more than 24 hours to issue an explicit statement of support for the strikes, after initially calling for 'dialogue' and 'de-escalation'.
It was not until after a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet that Mr Albanese fronted the media and confirmed Australia backed the US action.
Critics have seized on the delay as evidence of hesitancy and weakness in Canberra's alliance with Washington.
Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor said the government was exhibiting 'anti-US alliance' sentiments, due to lacklustre support for the strikes.
'This was the right thing for the United States to do, Israel was entirely entitled to take action against Iran,' Mr Taylor told Sky News on Thursday.
'It was well within the rights of Israel to do what it did … the United States has played a very deft hand in the approach it's taken on this."
Former prime ministers Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott also weighed in, arguing that Mr Albanese should have immediately and publicly endorsed the strike.
'If you're in the United States and you take an action like this… you'd want to know your allies were with you 100 per cent,' Mr Morrison said.
Mr Albanese has defended the government's handling of the situation, noting that Australia is 'not a central player' in the Iran-Israel conflict.
'We run an orderly, stable government,' he told reporters, repeatedly declining to comment on intelligence matters.
'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously. But we've made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.'
At the same time, the broader Australia–US relationship has come under renewed scrutiny, amid calls for the Albanese government to lift defence spending.
The United States and NATO allies committed last week to increasing defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035.
While Defence Minister Richard Marles attended the NATO summit, Mr Albanese stayed in Australia, declining to attend after rumours he may go in order to meet President Trump.
Australia has committed to defence spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP - well below NATO's new target and the 3.5 per cent requested directly by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.
'Well, we have increased our defence investment,' Mr Albanese said on Friday.
'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in.'
Government sources have privately expressed scepticism about the NATO targets, suggesting some countries inflate their defence figures by including roads and other infrastructure costs.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


West Australian
40 minutes ago
- West Australian
‘We are not going to stand for this': Trump lashes out at Israel prosecutors over Netanyahu's corruption trial
US President Donald Trump has lashed out at prosecutors in Israel over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial, saying Washington, having given billions of dollars worth of aid to Israel, was not going to 'stand for this'. Mr Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 in Israel on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust - all of which he denies. The trial began in 2020 and involves three criminal cases. 'It is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu,' Trump said in a Truth Social post, adding that the judicial process was going to interfere with Mr Netanyahu's ability to conduct talks with Palestinian militants Hamas, and with Iran. Mr Trump's second post over the course of a few days defending Mr Netanyahu and calling for the cancellation of the trial went a step further to tie Israel's legal action to US aid. 'The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar (sic) a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel. We are not going to stand for this,' Trump said. 'We are not going to stand for this. We just had a Great Victory with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu at the helm — And this greatly tarnishes our Victory. LET BIBI GO, HE'S GOT A BIG JOB TO DO!' Mr Netanyahu 'right now' was in the process of negotiating a deal with Hamas, Trump said, without giving further details. On Friday US time, the Republican president told reporters he believes a ceasefire is close. Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms. Interest in resolving the Gaza conflict has heightened in the wake of the US and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. A ceasefire to the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict went into effect early this week.


Perth Now
41 minutes ago
- Perth Now
‘LET BIBI GO': Trump makes threats over Netanyahu trial
US President Donald Trump has lashed out at prosecutors in Israel over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial, saying Washington, having given billions of dollars worth of aid to Israel, was not going to 'stand for this'. Mr Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 in Israel on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust - all of which he denies. The trial began in 2020 and involves three criminal cases. 'It is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu,' Trump said in a Truth Social post, adding that the judicial process was going to interfere with Mr Netanyahu's ability to conduct talks with Palestinian militants Hamas, and with Iran. Mr Trump's second post over the course of a few days defending Mr Netanyahu and calling for the cancellation of the trial went a step further to tie Israel's legal action to US aid. 'The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar (sic) a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel. We are not going to stand for this,' Trump said. 'We are not going to stand for this. We just had a Great Victory with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu at the helm — And this greatly tarnishes our Victory. LET BIBI GO, HE'S GOT A BIG JOB TO DO!' If you'd like to view this content, please adjust your . To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide. Mr Netanyahu 'right now' was in the process of negotiating a deal with Hamas, Trump said, without giving further details. On Friday US time, the Republican president told reporters he believes a ceasefire is close. Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms. Interest in resolving the Gaza conflict has heightened in the wake of the US and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. A ceasefire to the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict went into effect early this week.

Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
How does the Lattouf judgment affect employees' freedom of speech?
Those hoping the Federal Court's findings in the Antoinette Lattouf case will go some way to answering a question surrounding the rights of workers to express their political opinion ‒ and the rights of employers to prevent them ‒ will probably be disappointed. Lattouf's case was mounted on the basis that her employment contract was unlawfully terminated, in breach of section 772 of the Fair Work Act, due to her expression of her political opinion, or, alternatively, her race and political opinion. A secondary but related issue was that the ABC breached the staff enterprise agreement. The ABC relied on the defence that it had terminated Lattouf's employment for reasons that did not include her political opinion, race or national extraction but because of her failure to follow a direction from her producer not to post anything about the Israel-Gaza war and because she had contravened the ABC's 'Personal use of social media - Guidelines'. The court found in Lattouf's favour, noting that Lattouf had not been given a direction, but simply general guidance. It also found that the ABC was ultimately unable to identify any breaches of the social media guidelines or editorial guidelines or policies. The decision is helpful in highlighting that employers are in general able to issue directions to employees about publicly expressing their views. The judgment refers to the established right of employers to issue 'lawful and reasonable' directions. It also suggests that these directions must be made clearly and, ideally, rely on established and accessible policies. Loading Doing so enables employers to point to a specific employee breach if they wish to take disciplinary action. If they can't, then they leave themselves open, as did the ABC, to accusations of discrimination under provisions such as section 772. The decision is helpful, but not groundbreaking, leaving one big question unanswered: the one we are still asking after a series of messy disputes ‒ think Folau, Khawaja, Gillham to name some recent examples. That is, how far can employers go in attempting to control employees' 'freedom of speech'? In the Lattouf case, the Federal Court was not required to make any finding on this. It was required only to consider whether a direction was issued or a policy in place, not when the making of such directions or policies itself impinges on an individual's freedom of political expression. In thinking about this question, we must consider the delicate balance between employers' rights to protect their reputation and their obligation to maintain a safe workplace and employees' rights to self-expression. Where is the line that can't be crossed? And what are the institutional protections that might come into play in deciding where to draw that line?