Category: Defence

10 March 2026

(Warning- long and discursive post).

It is always important to see events in as broad a context as possible.
Prior to the First World War, Germany was rising due the industrialisation of Bismarck, and the US was rising because of its natural advantages. Britain was declining. Britain and France may have been able to defeat Germany, but the US came in at the last minute and affirmed its place as the world’s leading power.
Germany was humiliated, and continued to be shut out of markets, as was the rising Japan. Both became strong and their expansion led to WW2. The US, again remained aloof until the bombing of Pearl Harbour. The US still let the Russians do most of the fighting against Germany (look at the casualty figures if you doubt this), and came in at the end. D-Day was 6 June 1944, but Stalingrad had fallen on 2 February 1943 and the Russians had been advancing ever since.
Between the wars, the League of Nations had been created, which failed to stop German rearming and aggression. After WW2, a meeting a Bretton Woods intended to turn the whole world into one market, so that countries that did well would rise, and those who did not do so well would fall, all without wars. The US, with almost half world GDP would be in a good position, and set up the UN with a veto for the major powers.
The new world order, helped by technological advances in communications and logistics, and some US pressure for free trade treaties have largely turned the world into a market, where the wealthy nations or corporations could buy whatever they wanted. But the legacies of colonialism remained. Many developing g countries had had their resources taken over by colonial countries that were not about to give up those lucrative assets. Diamonds, gold and oil were three commodities where the major Western powers did not want to give up control. A developing country with a government acting for its people would obviously demand that the benefit of its resources would go to its people. The Colonial model was that the foreign power leaned on the government, but left it in place as long as it let the foreign power have the resources. So there was always a tension in the great powers between the rhetoric of freedom and democracy and the reality of making sure that whatever government exists lets the foreign power have the goodies.
How this conflict has played out in the US is documented in the book, ‘The Devil’s Chessboard- Allen Dulles, the CIA and the rise of America’s Secret Government’ by David Talbot. The CIA seems to have continued to get the US to ruthlessly pursue its interests with little care for the consequences for weaker nations. The book chronicles many democratic movements that tried to get a better deal for their people and were ruthless supressed by CIA-backed authoritarian regimes, often with dire consequences for the democratic figures. One of the only examples of the US actually working for democracy seems to have been John F Kennedy, who declined to give US support to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba after the revolution in 1961, saying that the US supported progressive regimes in the belief that it would deal with them in affair and honest trading way. Kennedy sacked the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles after the invasion, and was assassinated shortly thereafter. Talbot does not think that this was a coincidence.
It seems that the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech of 17 January 1961 has come to pass. Because the armaments industry is private in the US, wars are good for considerable sections of the US economy, and whether the US wins or loses does not matter much as long as the US itself is not significantly inconvenienced. It would seem that the CIA world view is dominant in Washington, and that includes supporting US corporate interests overseas as well as defence. The CIA-dominated policy has continued since Dulles. President Obama may have wished to change this; his slogan was ‘Change is possible’. He initially tried a bipartisan approach and then did not have the numbers in Congress. His epitaph might read, ‘Change was not possible’.
The election of Trump might be seen as a protest vote, even a revolution, against a system that seemed to grind on, as the US declined due to its wage structure making it uncompetitive as a manufacturing base, with corporations keen to manufacture offshore. A lack of money for education, an appalling gerrymander and slanted voting eligibility rules contributed to Trump’s victory, as did skilful use of databases and narrowcasting in social media and the paucity of options in a binary system.
Be all that as it may, the election of a basically ignorant and prejudiced man has resulted in an erratic US foreign policy. Simplistic arrogance and hubris have led to a cavalier disregard for the rules-based order that initially allowed the US to prosper, but the concentration of wealth has moved from national borders to corporations and now individuals. The nation states are still the basis of world order, though increasingly Capital in the form of multinational corporations or even individuals tell them what to do. But the nation states still exist and the US is the largest militarily, though it is declining economically. Climate change will soon mean that Russia and China will be able to trade via the North Pole, so the US wants Greenland, and Trump, with the tact he learned as a shock jock does not mind saying so. (The movie, ‘The Apprentice’ about the rise of Trump has a telling ending about the origin and success of his moral values). It may also be that Con men, lacking any real truths or values are more easily conned themselves.
The simplest reason for the attack on Iran would seem to be that Israel conned him into it. Israel has either subdued countries around it, like Jordan and Egypt or attacked and supressed them, helped by their economic troubles. Israel made deals with the major Middle Eastern economic powers, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, which is why Hamas, seeing the problem of Palestine being ignored, arranged the 7 October 2023 attack. The US and circumstance have neutralised Syria and Iraq, so the only real threat to Israel has been Iran.
Iran is a tragic illustration of CIA-controlled US foreign policy leading to bad outcomes. In 1908 oil was discovered leading to the formation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1925 Reza Khan deposed the nominal monarch and became Shah Pahlavi in 1925. He was nationalist, anti-communist, authoritarian and secularist to the point of being anti-Islam, trying to ban the burqa, which upset the Muslim elements in the country.
In 1941 during the WW2 occupation of Iran by the British and Russians, the Shah’s son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi took over from his father. In 1951 there was a Democratic revolution and the government of Mohammad Mossadeq nationalised the oil industry. But Mossadeq had his problems with opposition from the Clerics, Communists, as well as the Shah and his army supporters. A CIA assisted coup overthrew the democratic government and re-installed the Shah, the deal being that 50% of the National Iranian Oil Company was controlled by foreign companies, BP, Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Gulf, Standard Oil of California and Companie francais des petroles. The CIA supported the Shah and trained his ruthless secret police. As the Shah’s support waned, we wanted to negotiate a better deal for Iran, so he lost US support and was toppled in 1979. But because all democratic movements had been ruthlessly suppressed, the only organised political force were the most fanatical mosques, which the secret police had not been able to penetrate, and the Ayatollah who had been a figurehead, safely in Paris. In 1980 the US persuaded Saddam Hussein to launch the Iran-Iraq war, on the basis that the Clerics’ purge of the army would leave Iran unable to respond. The war went on for 8 years and killed huge numbers, but resulted in a stalemate. The religious regime has survived ever since, trying to get nuclear weapons which would make it ‘safer’, at least from US or Israeli attack.
The US policy has been to support regimes or movements that support it. They supported and trained the Taliban in Pakistan to get rid of the Russians in Afghanistan, then found that the Taliban did not want them either. They allegedly conned Saddam Hussein into thinking that he could have Kuwait as a reward for the Iran-Iraq war, then invaded Iraq in 1991. Hussain was ruthless to those who were politically active, but he was Sunni on a country which was only about 25% Sunni and many of these were Kurds. He was toppled in the second (2003) invasion because of alleged ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ that the UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Bix said were not there. Free elections would have had a Shia majority, who looked to Shia Iran, and the US had no strategy to create stability. They have supported the gaggle of hereditary autocratic regimes in the Gulf States, which are non-democratic, fundamentalism, repressive of women and supported by secret police, but economically supportive of the US. Fundamentalist religious sects like Wahhabism, almost a throwback to medieval times, are tolerated for the same reason. (Sunni and Shia strands of Islam have had antipathy for years because of a fight over who should succeed Muhammad in 634AD, each side believing that the other is illegitimate).
To return to the current war situation, it seems that Israel has been trying to get US backing for an attack on Iran for years, Iran has also anticipated this and has many drones, that are much cheaper and more numerous than the clever weapons that shoot them down. They have targeted US bases, so while they are accused of attacking many countries, they are mainly attacking the US bases, with some key oil facilities thrown in. They have been very successful in targeting US radar facilities, so the US is no longer sure of what they are doing. The Israelis have no qualms, now carpet bombing.
Australia is now a bit-player, with Foreign Minister Penny Wong taking a call from the recently visiting Israeli President Herzog, and now rushing our airborne early warning aircraft to UAE, needed of course because Iran has successfully bombed all the radar bases.
Trump, who started all this is claiming victory, but if oil stays bottled up, petrol prices will rise, and inflation will increase. His Board of Peace looks like a very bad joke.
Prof Clinton Fernandez thinks that shutting off China’s oil is part of a grand strategy, but this is doubtful. It is true however, that China gets most of its oil from Venezuela and Iran so will be most unhappy. Should they choose to take Taiwan, the US would be preoccupied in the Middle East and has also set the precedent that Great Powers can do what they like.
The British commentator, George Galloway says on Instagram that the US is about to drop a nuclear bomb on the Fordow mountain in Iran because there is a nuclear facility under it. He then predicts that Russia will intervene.
The Australian Peace Movement is strangely silent. How bad does it have to get?
Pine Gap and the new US nuclear submarine base in Western Australia are safe for the moment, but Iran may do terror attacks here.
Here is the Oil explanation from Clinton Fernandez in the SMH of 3/3/26.

Trump’s attacks are not about Iran. He’s after a much bigger fish

Prof Clinton Fernandes, Academic and former intelligence officer
3 March 2026 SMH

Behind the turbulence that characterises US President Donald Trump’s actions in Iran lies a shrewd geopolitical strategy. In the short term, he wants to demonstrate leverage over China when he meets President Xi Jinping at a pivotal summit next month. In the long term, he wants a politically submissive Middle East.
China, the world’s largest refiner of oil, purchases about 14 per cent of its seaborne crude from Iran. The true figure is probably higher, disguised as shipments from Oman, the UAE and Malaysia to get around US sanctions. Independent low-margin Chinese refiners in Shandong province, known as teapots, also import high-sulphur fuel oil from Iran. Taken as a whole, China’s enormous plastics sector relies on Iran for almost a quarter of its liquefied petroleum gas. Control over what Iran can export and to whom allows the US to retaliate if China restricts rare earth mineral supplies to the United States.

Trump’s abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in January was driven in part by a similar logic; Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and its Merey grade is also high in sulphur, well suited for China’s teapot refineries. Trump wants indirect but politically critical leverage over China through control over Iran and Venezuela.
The key word here is “control”. Control of oil rather than access to oil is the foundation of the United States’ Middle East policy. “Access to oil” implies that the United States simply wishes to buy oil like any other country; that it wants oil at a reasonable price. But the US already has access to oil. Its East Coast oil refiners (PBF Energy, Phillips 66 and Monroe Energy) have no trouble buying oil from West African suppliers. Thanks to its domestic shale revolution, the US is already self-sufficient. It is a major contributor to the global oil supply network.
Control is a very different beast. Control of oil means, among other things, controlling the terms on which its industrial rivals in Europe and Asia can access their oil. After World War II, the reconstruction of Japan required abundant supplies of energy. The United States obtained what it called “veto power” over Japan by controlling its access to these supplies. A price increase can harm the dollar reserves of heavily oil-dependent economies, ensuring they act in accordance with US objectives. Sometimes, a US-induced price rise can help its diplomacy. In 1986, the US requested Saudi Arabia to cut production to drive crude oil prices higher – to improve US relations with none other than Iran, which needed higher prices.
Control also means ensuring that oil-rich Gulf states pour some of their revenues into US Treasury securities, banks and corporations. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has bought $US150 billion ($211 billion) in US Treasury holdings. Kuwait, another family dictatorship, has bought $US66 billion.
These oil-rich states buy US Treasury bonds, make deposits in US banks and otherwise ensure that some of the dollars they earn from oil sales will flow back to US corporations. They also buy advanced US weapons systems. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are among the largest buyers of advanced US weapons systems.
Qatar, a monarchy with the third-largest proven reserves of natural gas in the world, hosts the forward headquarters of US Central Command at Al-Udeid Air Base, which it built at a cost of over $US1 billion. It will spend many more billions to expand it from an expeditionary to a permanent base for more than 15,000 personnel and their aircraft. Its sovereign wealth fund has committed over $US45 billion in investments in US corporations. Qatar Airways is a major buyer of US commercial aircraft.
An Iran with a government more amenable to US influence can be expected to do something similar. This is why Trump says that the war against Iran could take weeks. He isn’t merely interested in ending its uranium enrichment. After all, Iran obtained its original nuclear reactor as well the highly enriched uranium fuel to run it from the US, under former president Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program in 1957, when the two countries were friendly.
In the long term, a politically submissive Middle East would likely see a network of states with authoritarian regimes that comply with US objectives. These include rolling back Iran’s membership of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, undermining China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and weakening the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. If the US can’t change the Islamic Republic itself, then keeping it weak, divided and preoccupied with its internal affairs is good enough.
Control, not access, is what Trump is after. It is the same strategy Britain had 100 years ago, when Walter Hume Long, the first lord of the admiralty, said that “if we secure the supplies of oil now available in the world, we can do what we like”.

Professor Clinton Fernandes is in the Future Operations Research Group at UNSW. His latest book is Turbulence: Australian Foreign Policy in the Trump Era.