Australia has taken one of the most severe diplomatic steps in its modern history by expelling Iran’s ambassador and three other diplomats. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described it as a defence of sovereignty, claiming that “foreign aggression” had struck the country. The government says the decision rests on ASIO intelligence that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard orchestrated arson attacks against a Melbourne synagogue and a Sydney kosher café through proxy networks.
Australians have been told to accept this at face value. The problem is that intelligence agencies rarely deserve blind faith. The CIA and MI6 drove the case for the Iraq war on claims of weapons of mass destruction that never existed. In the United States, intelligence agencies have faced accusations of politicisation around Russia. ASIO itself has been criticised in the past for overstating threats during the Cold War and in the early years of the war on terror. Healthy scepticism is not conspiracy; it is the responsibility of citizens when governments invoke national security without showing evidence.
The government’s stance becomes even more complex when viewed in the wider diplomatic picture. Albanese has not been an automatic backer of Israel. Only this month he announced that Australia would join countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Canada in recognising Palestine as a state at the United Nations General Assembly in September. It was a bold signal of independence and one that Israel opposed strongly. Around the same time, the government confirmed that an Australian army officer had lost his security clearance after ASIO found he demonstrated loyalty to Israel above Australia. Earlier in the year, Albanese also blocked a visa for Simcha Rothman, a far-right member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, citing his extreme and divisive views.
These moves appeared to show a government trying to strike a careful balance: recognising Palestinian aspirations, pushing back against Israeli extremism, and upholding loyalty within the Australian Defence Force. Against this backdrop, the sudden decision to expel Iran’s envoy looks even more jarring. It raises the question of whether Canberra is responding strictly to domestic security threats or also repositioning itself in the Middle East at a time of heightened global tension.
The regional context is unavoidable. Israel is in confrontation with Hezbollah, Gaza remains under fire, Iran is increasingly isolated under sanctions, and Washington’s foreign policy is tightly aligned with Israeli security. Into this moment comes ASIO’s conclusion that Iran was behind violent attacks in Australia. Was this purely an Australian finding or was it supported, perhaps even driven, by intelligence from allies such as the United States or Israel? The government has not clarified. What is clear is that the political benefit is obvious: Albanese gets to project strength on national security while shifting attention away from the divisive politics of recognising Palestine.
The way the story emerged adds to the suspicion. It was not announced first at a press conference. Instead, The Australian, a News Corp paper long known for its pro-Israel editorial stance, broke the story. Strategic leaks to favoured outlets are a tried political tactic. By the time Albanese and ASIO spoke publicly, the narrative had already been set: Iran the aggressor, Australia the defender. That is not transparency. It is message management.
Expelling an ambassador is one of the gravest steps in diplomacy. It eliminates back channels, raises the risk of retaliation, and sets the tone for future confrontations. It is a move used sparingly in modern history. Britain did it with Russia after the Skripal poisoning, the United States has done it in moments of crisis with Cuba and the Soviet Union, and now Australia has done it with Iran. These are not symbolic gestures but permanent markers of hostility.
