Sovereignty Sacrificed: Australia Becomes US Outpost

Billions lost, sovereignty sold, and Australians made targets in America’s endless pursuit of primacy.

Australians are famously sports mad. September marks the start of footy finals, racing and cricket merging into an events calendar unmatched anywhere else. Yet contrast that passion with the average Australian’s political awareness, the gulf is stark - it has consequences.

Australia has entered dangerous waters. The AUKUS pact, Australia’s deepening embrace of US military strategy, and Canberra’s willingness to echo Washington and Tel Aviv are eroding national sovereignty and steering the country toward wars it neither chooses nor can win.

What is presented to the public as prudent defence planning is, in reality, a surrender of independence. The danger is not only fiscal — though the projected A$368 bn bill for nuclear submarines is unprecedented — but existential. By tying its fate to America’s war machine, Australia has painted a target on itself, while being told these arrangements make it “safe.”

The submarine deal at the heart of AUKUS has been marketed as a leap forward in deterrence. Yet the submarines Australia is due to receive in the 2030s and 2040s rely on US industrial capacity that is already strained. Even America’s own admirals have admitted production shortfalls could derail the plan.

What it means is Australia has signed away hundreds of billions on vessels it doesn’t control, from technology to timelines. The promise of “sovereign capability” is hollow when delivery, maintenance and operational doctrine are hostage to Washington’s priorities. It’s the equivalent of outsourcing the nation’s defence policy to a foreign capital.

AUKUS isn’t just about submarines. From Pine Gap, which enables US global missile targeting, to RAAF Tindal being expanded for US long-range bombers, Australia’s now an operational hub for American power projection. Each step makes the country less a partner and more a platform.

Pine Gap is among the highest-priority targets for China in the event of a US–China conflict. Hosting American nuclear-capable bombers on Australian soil only underlines that risk. Rather than insulating the public from war, the alliance positions Australia as a front-line target in conflicts it did not choose.

Successive Australian governments, Labor and Coalition alike, have repeated Washington’s line that China represents an “existential threat” to Australia. Yet the Defence Strategic Review itself concedes a land invasion of Australia is “remote.” There is no evidence China intends to invade or directly attack this country.

The narrative of a “dangerous strategic environment” has been amplified by organisations like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). While often presented as an independent think tank, ASPI’s own annual reports reveal extensive funding from foreign governments and arms manufacturers. In 2021–22, ASPI received more than $4m from the US State Department and Pentagon, alongside significant sponsorship from major defence contractors including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and BAE Systems — the same corporations profiting directly from weapons sales tied to escalating tensions with China.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating argues this funding structure creates a systemic incentive to exaggerate threats and advocate policies that serve Washington and the military-industrial complex rather than Australia’s national interest. In Keating’s own words, ASPI has become “a mouthpiece for foreign interests.”

Equally, the contradiction is glaring - China is both Australia’s largest trading partner and supposedly its greatest existential menace. The “threat” looks less like objective reality and more a manufactured narrative designed to tie Australia closer to US strategic goals and justify record levels of defence spending.

In 2003, the Howard government joined the US invasion of Iraq on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons existed. The UK’s Chilcot inquiry later detailed the failures of intelligence, planning and political judgment. Australia has never held such an inquiry into its own decision-making.

The result is a political culture primed to repeat the same mistakes — following an ally into conflict on the back of a lie, with no clear articulation of the national interest.

The latest flashpoint is Iran. In August, the Albanese government took the extraordinary step of expelling Iran’s ambassador, claiming Australian intelligence agencies had evidence the IRGC directed two arson attacks on synagogues in Sydney and Melbourne.

The claims made global headlines — but the legal reality is more complicated. In Sydney, police charged two men over the attempted firebombing of a synagogue, though prosecutors have not alleged direct IRGC involvement in open court. In Melbourne, a 17-year-old was charged with arson in connection with a synagogue fire, but no terrorism charges have been laid and the case remains before the courts.

Despite this, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong announced the IRGC orchestrated both attacks, language that goes beyond what has yet been proven in any court. Iran has flatly denied the allegations. Canberra has declined to release the intelligence underpinning its decision, citing national security sensitivities.

Within hours, the US applauded Canberra’s move, and senior Israeli officials publicly praised Australia for standing firm against Tehran — making the government look less like an independent actor and more like an adjunct to Washington and Tel Aviv’s campaign against Iran.

The stakes of attribution are enormous. If the government’s claims are airtight, they should withstand public scrutiny. If they’re based primarily on classified intelligence never to be tested in court, then Canberra risks weaponising unverified information for foreign policy theatre. Either way, the appearance of foreign powers taking credit for an Australian law enforcement matter undermines public confidence that decisions are being made strictly in Australia’s national interest.

Iran is neither a strategic adversary nor a major economic partner of Australia. Conflict with Tehran serves no benefit to Australians — framing Iran as an external menace neatly aligns with US and Israeli strategic objectives.

Keating has called AUKUS the worst strategic decision by a Labor government in a century. Gareth Evans and Hugh White, both seasoned strategists, have warned AUKUS undermines sovereignty and may collapse under its own contradictions. Both, see the peril of tying Australia’s future to Washington’s “forever wars.”

Nothing America does in the Asia-Pacific serves Australia’s interests directly. US strategy is about sustaining global primacy, not securing Australian lives or prosperity. Canberra, however, behaves as if loyalty to Washington is itself a national interest. It is not. Loyalty is not strategy.

Weak leadership is preparing to mortgage Australia’s future, exposing ordinary Australians to danger in the service of foreign powers. Every billion spent on submarines may never arrive is a billion not spent on health, education, housing or genuine national resilience. Every base we expand for America’s bombers makes us a larger target for others’ missiles.

The lesson of Iraq, Afghanistan and now AUKUS is stark: unquestioning loyalty leads only to wasted lives, wasted treasure and diminished security. Australians must rally against this trajectory to reject the politics of fear and insist on leadership that serves Australians — not Washington, Tel Aviv, or the architects of “forever wars.”