Australia’s foreign policy language becomes noticeably sharper when directed at Israel and noticeably softer when the subject turns to Iran.

When Israel strikes militants in Gaza, Foreign Minister Penny Wong is swift to condemn. But when the conversation shifts to the regime that funds, arms, and coordinates many of those same militants, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Canberra’s tone suddenly becomes cautious, diplomatic, and restrained.

That imbalance would be curious in any conflict. In this one, it is strategically backwards.

Because the war Israel is fighting is not simply against a local militant group in Gaza. It is a confrontation with a regional network built in Tehran and sustained through proxy organisations designed to surround Israel and attack it indirectly.

Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen and other militias across the region are not isolated actors. They are part of a long-developed Iranian strategy: arm non-state groups, encourage attacks on Israel, and avoid direct accountability while doing so.

Yet when Israel responded militarily to the October 7 attacks, the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, Wong’s public commentary focused overwhelmingly on condemning Israel’s conduct rather than confronting the strategic structure behind the war.

That distinction matters. Israel is responding to attacks, but the real driver of the conflict, the “head of the snake” sits in Tehran. Focusing criticism almost exclusively on Israel risks condemning the tail while ignoring the head.

In discussing civilian casualties, another factor is frequently overlooked in political commentary: the unprecedented measures Israel has taken to warn civilians before strikes. Israeli forces have repeatedly issued evacuation warnings through SMS messages, phone calls, leaflets, and “roof-knock” alerts before attacks on militant infrastructure. This is stark contrast to attacks on Israel which target civilians.

These warnings often come at a real tactical cost. By alerting civilians in advance, Israel can also alert militants, giving them time to flee or reposition and potentially increasing the danger to Israeli soldiers operating on the ground.

The complexity is compounded by the way Hamas embeds its fighters and infrastructure within civilian areas. Weapons depots, command centres, and tunnel entrances have repeatedly been discovered in or beneath hospitals, schools, and residential neighborhoods.

An early incident in the war illustrates the problem. In October 2023, a deadly explosion struck the courtyard of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. Initial claims from Hamas-linked sources alleged that an Israeli airstrike had killed roughly 500 civilians. Wong was among those who rapidly condemned Israel.

Subsequent intelligence assessments from multiple governments concluded the explosion was caused by a misfired rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, with the death toll far lower than originally claimed. Yet Wong never publicly retracted her remarks and neither did Australia’s taxpayer-funded national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Despite the density of Gaza’s urban environment and the systematic use of human shields by Hamas, several military analysts have noted that the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties reported in the conflict appears comparatively low by the standards of modern urban warfare. For added context John Spencer (chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point) frequently cites civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios from different wars to contextualize urban warfare. The modern war average is 9 civilians to 1 combatant according to the United Nations, the Afghanistan war is 4 to 1, the Iraq war is 3 to 1. Gaza is 1 to 1 which completely debunks the genocide narrative.

None of this removes the human tragedy of war. Civilian deaths are always devastating. But acknowledging the operational reality of fighting an entrenched militant group inside one of the most densely populated territories on earth is essential to understanding the conflict.

And Iran’s hostility toward Israel, and toward Jews more broadly has not been confined to the Middle East.

For decades, Iranian intelligence services and their proxies have been linked to attacks or plots targeting Jewish and Israeli institutions across the globe. The most infamous example remains the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994, when a truck bomb destroyed a Jewish community centre and killed 85 people. Iranian-linked plots have continued into the modern era, from the 2012 Bangkok bombing attempt to coordinated surveillance and alleged sabotage targeting Jewish communities in Europe and beyond.

This pattern is part of a broader Iranian strategy: using proxy militias like Hamas and Hezbollah to project influence while avoiding direct accountability, developing a nuclear program capable of producing a bomb, and maintaining an extensive arsenal of ballistic missiles. Iran’s missile force is capable of striking Israel and other regional targets, and if these capabilities were to fall into the hands of China or other strategic competitors, the consequences for the Asia-Pacific region would be devastating.

Yet in Canberra, the public language rarely reflects this strategic reality. Wong is quick to condemn Israel’s defensive strikes against Iranian-backed militias but soft-pedals when the discussion turns to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, missile program, and regional proxy strategy, the very infrastructure driving much of the conflict. Moral clarity and strategic honesty appear to vanish whenever the head of the snake is named.

Wong’s constant condemnation of Israel has also sent a clear political message that many interpreted as appeasement, emboldening Tehran’s proxies and amplifying the pro-Palestinian campaign in Australia. That shift has coincided with rising antisemitism, including verbal abuse, vandalism, threats and attacks against Jewish Australians. The Australian Jewish Association has repeatedly warned that this environment cannot be ignored. CEO Robert Gregory emphasised that attacks on Jewish Australians must be treated with the same urgency as other forms of hatred and violence, highlighting the growing sense of insecurity within the community.

Israel’s counter-terrorism role also intersects directly with Australia’s national security. In 2017, intelligence shared by Israel helped Australian authorities thwart a sophisticated plot to bomb an Etihad Airways flight departing Sydney, potentially saving hundreds of lives.

And, with the United States already deeply involved in the conflict, Australia’s selective criticism of Israel just undermines its most important ally. Perhaps President Trump already watered down Prime Minister Albanese during his visit to the United States recently. If only the walls could talk. I digress.

The question is difficult to ignore given some of Wong’s choices. When she visited Israel after the October 7 attacks, she did not visit the massacre sites or meet the brother of the only Australian citizen killed that day, Galit Carbone. Similarly, after the December 2025 Bondi Hanukkah terrorist attack, Wong was largely absent from the public response, a conspicuous silence in moments of national trauma.

Ultimately, the war Israel is fighting did not emerge in isolation from Gaza. It is part of a regional strategy built over decades by Tehran, arming proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, developing nuclear capability, and deploying ballistic missiles all while maintaining plausible deniability.

If Australia is willing to publicly condemn the actions of a democratic ally responding to terrorism, it should be equally prepared to confront the regime that funds, arms, and encourages many of the groups responsible. Perhaps Wong should be more concerned with the potential threat of Iranian sleeper cells for one in Australia.

Hamas is not the origin of the problem, it is merely one of Iran’s instruments. Israel, in defending itself, represents the tail of the snake. Yet Canberra’s rhetoric condemns the tail while looking away from the head.

Yet Australia’s foreign minister condemns the tail of the snake while ignoring the head. She criticises Israel’s battlefield decisions but soft‑pedals on the regime that arms the militants, plots attacks abroad, and threatens global security.

If Canberra wants to speak credibly about peace and stability in the Middle East, it must stop treating Israel as the sole moral variable. Until it does, Australia risks appearing less principled than selective, pointing fingers at a democracy while keeping its gaze politely averted from the regime that built the war in the first place. Bob Hawke understood this; unfortunately, Anthony Albanese chooses to put his ideology ahead of keeping us safe.

The tail cannot be condemned without naming the head.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)