Albanese all at sea as global crises crush a business-as-usual leader.

Anthony Albanese’s managerialist style is entirely unsuited to a period of global crisis. His response to the Iran war, both domestically and in foreign policy terms, shows that.

BERNARD KEANE

MAR 31, 2026

4 MIN READ

Somewhere in an alternative universe, Anthony Albanese was elected in 2022, the last stages of the pandemic finished and the world went back to relative normality. Albanese’s style of incremental, unambitious, business-as-usual leadership proved sufficient for the times, if never exactly inspirational, and might have even delivered his goal of occupying power for long enough to cement in place a few modest reforms and convince people to trust in effective government again.

But since November 2024, there’s been no normal. There’s been Trump, determined to throw the world, and his own country, into chaos in the name of retribution, vanity, autocracy and a nihilism born of deep resentment toward the rest of society. Albanese’s doubtless carefully considered strategy was, no matter what he might have thought personally about Trump, to keep his head down and avoid incurring the wrath of the Mad King. And this approach has been endorsed by America’s friends in the political and security establishment here, who collectively labour under the delusion that Trump is an aberration and normal service in terms of an American-led global order will be resumed in 2029 — assuming Trump allows any elections to ever be held again.

Albanese’s approach appeared to work well enough with Trump’s tariffs and, if you think there’s any benefit in it, the preservation of AUKUS. But the Iran debacle has left Albanese badly exposed. His managerialist, steady-as-she-goes approach to leadership isn’t working, in the same way that approach didn’t work in the aftermath of the Bondi atrocity in December.

First came the ill-judged rush to be the first country to endorse the Trump-Netanyahu attack, even as Iranians were sifting through the incinerated remains of little girls killed by a US strike on a school. Then the stolid refusal to acknowledge that the war was illegal under international law, even as others like Mark Carney stated the obvious.

Then the penny began dropping: Iran now had no reason not to block the Strait of Hormuz and generally wreak havoc on its neighbours, with ensuing results for the global economy and energy markets. And given no-one had been warned that there might be a major threat to energy supplies coming, no-one had stockpiled resources — except China, which has oodles of stores because its ruling regime, despite being an autocracy, somehow has a clearer view of its strategic interests than mere democracies like us. Being a close ally of the US — shared values, friends, all that rubbish — availed us naught; we were caught out with our low fuel reserves and lack of refining capacity.

And of course there’s only a limited national stockpile of fuel despite repeated warnings about what might happen in a crisis. Stockpiling is the politician-unfriendly, announcement-free solution to systemic supply chain risk. Stockpiling resources that are potentially at risk, whether from a pandemic or a Mad King’s war, protects us, but doesn’t produce any media releases for ministers. They much prefer announcing handouts for onshoring expensive manufacturing projects in the name of “sovereign capacity”; there’s no fun in announcing how many days’ worth of fuel/medicines/PPE you have on hand.

And because this government, in particular, never met a “reform” challenge it didn’t simply throw money at rather than take a tough decision, Albanese yesterday caved and cut the fuel excise to make petrol cheaper. In the middle of a looming supply crunch, the government is stoking demand by cutting prices; at a time when its massive spending — 27% of GDP — is fueling inflation, Albanese is giving another handout to further push up demand. It’s almost as if Labor is trying to goad the Reserve Bank into multiple successive interest rate hikes. And are any of those mooted savings in the budget still on the cards, or is it going to be all too difficult for a government eyeing voter discontent over the cost of living?

Albanese’s obsession with avoiding any criticism of Trump led him into some bizarre casuistry last night on 7.30. Limiting his “criticism” of the war to calling for a timeframe or clearer objectives, Albanese got stuck on whether Trump had achieved “regime change” as the president, desperate for a way out of his own mess, insisted he had. “There certainly has been a change in personnel,” Albanese offered. “It is a fact that the personnel have changed.” He then repeated his endorsement of the war — “we were very clear that the response of the United States was justified” and that “I think the president is in a position whereby he can claim that he has achieved the objectives that he set out to.”

Rarely has there been a more humiliating moment for an Australian prime minister in recent times than Albanese sitting there in a major interview and defending the delusional rantings of an American leader. Asked if the world was better off given the economic chaos unfolding, Albanese could only limply offer something about “certainly a weakening of the Iranian regime”.

Albanese isn’t the man to lead Australia in an environment of global crisis. Sooner or later he’s going to run out of taxpayers’ money and another leader’s lies, and voters will judge him for an inability to understand that the world has changed, but he’s refused to change with it.

About the author

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s politics editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics. Got a tip? Contact him securely on Signal at @Bernard_Keane.66.