Helmsman battling blindness, deafness and loss of touch

First, it is an excellent time for the Australian government to begin creating some distance between itself and the United States. From the point of view of the Labor Party, it is an even better time for it to be creating that distance, which is becoming a political noose around its neck, particularly the neck of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. It may prove impossible to wrench the teeth of the Minister for Defence Richard Marles from the Trump teat, but if the effect of Albanese's reading the tea leaves was also to create some distance from Marles that would be a bonus.

The views, the character and the reputation of Marles do not matter much in this equation. Marles has not made much of an impression, either in the world, in Australia, or even among Labor followers, other than among the class of Labor folk on the public political payroll.

What drags Labor down among its followers is the uncritical adoration of the US from Albanese, and, to a lesser extent, Penny Wong. It is rather more an albatross because they once pretended to be of the political left, before becoming effective members of the National Right controlled (even over Albanese) by Marles. Now both have abandoned virtually all principles over which they fought with Labor's right, and are, on significant issues, to the right of some leading Liberals.

But Albanese needs room to manoeuvre. It is more than retrieving some reputation among old political colleagues, members of the Greens, most of whom were once in Labor's engine room of ideas, or even the teals. It is a matter of reassuring the general population.

Many of these may not be anti-American or opposed to the AUKUS alliance. But they expect some dignity and debate, not mere deference, from their national leaders, and some detailed discussion and explanation rather than invitations to be taken on trust.

Albanese showed no detachment when he, alone of the leaders of the Western alliance, gave wholehearted endorsement of the Israeli and American war on Iran. At the time of doing so, he projected no Australian interest, let alone any reason why Australia, with its position on the globe, might see things differently than Trump.

He gave no indication that he expected an energy war, or lasting increases in oil prices. Trump had advanced a smorgasbord of reasons, if none for his abrupt decision. He dipped in and out of them, occasionally spitting out the needs, and saying and then denying they had caused him to act.

Albanese, unprompted, picked one of Trump's offerings -- perhaps the most spurious reason of all. Australia does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, he said. The actions of Israel and the US would obliterate the Iranian program to build a nuclear weapon. This was one of the reasons given last year for an earlier attack, but the cause was still pure. Or not.

It quickly became clear that Trump's claim that an Iranian attack was imminent was sheer invention. And that Trump's own intelligence apparatus had assessed that Iran's nuclear capacity had been much degraded by the previous attack, and that Iran had not resumed any efforts to build a weapon or to develop its uranium to weapons grade. This is intelligence that would have been, or should have been shared with Australia intelligence services, and shared by them with its political masters.

The assessment was in any event like that made by our own spooks. Albanese may have been anxious to be out front and in complete lockstep with Trump (or perhaps with Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu). But the reason they advanced from the smorgasbord of possible reasons ought to have been the last on the list, assuming they read their national security briefings.

Asked whether the attack was in accordance with international law, Albanese and Wong declared that this was a matter for the US and Israel. This statement is both a badge of shame and an emblem of their unfitness for continuing office. If only there was some alternative.

We can probably assume that the real reason for joining the war (which we have done) was the usual Australian desire to be seen as a loyal - perhaps the most loyal and most supine - ally that the US had ever had, regardless of the merits of the war in question. It didn't seem to get the brownie points intended.

First, most of the rest of the world, including America's NATO partners, were aghast at the attack, and made immediate efforts to make that clear. Various nations, including Spain, Britain and France denied America facilities in their country and directly criticised Trump. Some used phrases showing that they agreed with the assessment by some of Trump's (Republican and MAGA) critics that Trump had been conned into joining the attack by Israel.

Moreover, the attack was just as unpopular in the US, particularly among Trump's own base. Leading military and intelligence figures were very critical and forecast disaster. Australia was not getting any praise, let alone from the usual suspects, for being the loyalist poodle. Instead, it was looking silly and exposed.

A decade ago, Israeli strategists came to think that they could never hope to "win" a war against the Palestinians. The most they could hope for, some thought, was to be able to manage the inevitable conflicts, periodically making significant attacks designed to destroy or degrade any military equipment being accumulated, and prevent them from growing stronger.

There would be periods of calm, in which Israelis could go about their business, followed by short, focused violence designed to "reset" Palestinian disadvantage. The tactic, which was openly discussed, was called by the Israelis "cutting the grass" or "mowing the lawn".

Many observers think Israel went to war on Iran to mow the Iranian lawn. It may suit Israel's interest, as it sees it, but the regular destabilisation, attacks on infrastructure and war on institutions of government hardly suits anyone else. Certainly not the neighbours. Nor nations depending on energy and resources from the area if Iran can survive the initial assault. The economic impact on Australia of the oil shock now in progress is as nothing compared with the damage done in Asia, and Africa. And the impacts on the economies of western Europe and China could easily cause an international recession.

READ MORE FROM JACK WATERFORD:

As it happens, Australia may have got the worst of all possible results. Albanese's eagerness to applaud Israeli and American action earned him, and Australia, the contempt of our neighbourhood, the NATO countries, Britain, and Canada. That, of course, includes the countries flirting with ideas about how middle powers could stand up to international superpowers and bullies, such as the US and China.

This is not to say that the critics are in support of Iran. Indeed, many countries consider Iran a threat to world peace. They are also no doubt frustrated by the failures of bodies such as the UN to deter their malignant actions, including the oppression of their population, nuclear ambitions and funding of terrorism. That does not mean that unilateral actions by self-appointed policemen are better. In fact, they almost invariably make things worse, as the lamentable history of US military adventures in the past 80 years shows.

It did take a while, including the diplomatic triumph of the fast-disappearing Iranian soccer players, but even Albanese soon twigged that he was standing alone clapping US action. One by one other nations declined to send their navies to force a passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump got very irritated, then pretended that he did not need or want them anyway.

Albanese himself saw the trap of offering Australian ships (he scarcely had any to spare anyway) and made it clear that Australia would decline an invitation, were one extended. Trump immediately placed Australia into the set of fair-weather friends, forgetting our initial enthusiasm. Perhaps there will be some petty revenge, just when it is most inconvenient for us. Petty for the US that is, but quite significant for us.

Albanese can reinvent himself because the opposition is in such chaos and looks set to be for a long time. Voters are imagining new political balances. The changes may not be only on the centre right of politics. Voters are disillusioned with party politics and looking for alternatives. Not only on the right but also those who group around Labor.

As things stand, more than half of all Australian voters prefer Labor to the Coalition, and, almost certainly, will prefer Labor to any grouping including the Coalition and Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. The latter may prosper for a while and come to dominate the old coalition, forcing One Nation to adopt policies and take some responsibility for their actions.

But Labor should not forget that it is winning big majorities now only because groups such as the Greens, and even liberal moderates, prefer them to the other side. Labor is unlikely by itself ever again to get 50 per cent of the first preference vote. In government Labor has been taking the Greens, the teals and independents for granted. Their rising support is a symptom of lost faith in Labor itself.

Labor forgets too that many of its votes in the last election are better characterised as votes against Peter Dutton rather than votes for Albanese. Albanese, simply, was not as repellent. Indeed, for all his experience and abilities he can hardly give a good speech or rally his troops.

The Greens were initially focused on environmental causes. But they have adopted other causes particularly as Labor, in its efforts to reach for the centre ground, and ground past that, has abandoned causes that once defined it. The teals, for example, attach great significance to integrity and transparency in government.

Labor's "achievements" on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, its repudiation of FOI and its active pursuit of secrecy and the criminalisation of public service comment may as well serve as a deliberate and conscious spit in the face. And from Albanese personally. Albanese promised more honest government, and a greater focus on the public interest.

In fact, under Albanese's personal leadership, good Labor government is constantly subverted by jobs for the boys and girls, putting party interest ahead of public interest and a failure to reform the public service and government processes. One hesitates to say it is as bad as in the Morrison days, but it is so little better that good government could not be a reason for preferring Labor.

Labor's embrace of the national security state has made it highly illiberal and authoritarian about civil liberties, and about using legislation as a blunderbuss against behaviour of which it, or one of its police or security officials, disapproves. In some fields, as with the Australian ISIS brides, Albanese was mean-minded, bigoted, and incapable of seeing where a statesman should stand.

Labor assumes that Greens will be virtually automatic in supporting its legislation - again on the theory that bad as they are, they are preferable to the Coalition, or worse, Pauline Hanson. But Albanese misses no opportunity to attack the Greens, to attack their motives and their practicality, and to limit the possibility of their declaring any sort of "win", even with good ideas.

His monolithic focus on Labor credit is more than disrespect for the individuals or ideologies involved: it disrespects those who voted for them. Among these are groups whose (two-party preferred) preference for Labor should be being treasured and celebrated: young people, women, the better educated, and migrants. None of Labor's charisma is being beamed in their direction. If they are forefront in Albanese's mind, it is far from obvious, in major part because he does not try to engage or connect.

Albanese's style distresses traditional Labor supporters as much as it does people now accustomed to voting for the Greens and progressive independents. Some think wearily that whatever happens, Labor will probably do a better job than the other side. For the moment, they might be right.

But a moment may come over Australia's un-Australian defence policies, its sheer awfulness on refugee issues, its mark-time on indigenous affairs and its limited visions for health and education where some will say enough! That Labor is not worth fighting for. Or crossing the road for. That's what the diehards should fear while preparing their winter quarters.