Anthony Albanese’s government looks more distant than ever from the Trump administration following the United States’ decision to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

On the face of it, nothing much has changed. Albanese, joined by Penny Wong, announced Australia’s support for US strikes on Monday morning because “the world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that”.

But make no mistake, there are small but subtle shifts under way in the US-Australia relationship now that Donald Trump is back in the White House. The fact he has not met Albanese face to face surely has not helped.

Whatever you think about Trump – and a solid majority of Australians don’t like him one bit – the US remains our major military and strategic partner. It is (probably) still selling us submarines under the AUKUS deal that the government views as crucial to Australia’s self-defence.

So it matters when Albanese spoke curtly on Monday to point out three times that the US decision to bomb Iran was unilateral, all but confirming that Australia was not briefed ahead of time by the US. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, by contrast, got a heads-up.

Last week, when Albanese was asked if Australia could send a ship to the Middle East in support of the US, he gave a categorical “no”. That answer made clear the prime minister’s view of Australia’s potential entanglement in the fight: he doesn’t see a need for it in this age of “progressive patriotism”.

Loading

It was strange, thenthat Albanese appeared almost annoyed in his press conference that he had been left out of the loop on the US decision to strike even as he confirmed that “we aren’t a central player in this conflict – that’s just a fact.”

When the prime minister was asked for a third time why the federal government had waited 24 hours before expressing unequivocal support for the US bombing, he bit back, arguing “we issued a statement” on Sunday within hours of the strikes.

That Sunday statement came a government spokesperson, not from the prime minister nor the foreign minister, nor either of their offices, which in itself is a deliberate decision to downplay its significance.

“We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security,” the statement read. “We note the US President’s statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

There’s nothing wrong with that statement, but it is not in any way the same as Albanese’s declaration of support for the US on Monday.

The kicker? Albanese also confirmed he has still not spoken to Trump since the cancelled G7 meeting in Canada last week.

Ahead of Albanese’s formal support of the US action, Wong had announced it on ABC’s News Breakfast program (before the National Security Council had met) and also appeared on radio 5AA, Sunrise, Today and ABC radio’s AM program, just in case you missed her.

It’s worth considering the counter-factual of how a former prime minister such as John Howard, Tony Abbott or Scott Morrison might have handled the time since Israel’s bombing began.

Loading

There is a decent chance that all three of those men would have volunteered to send an Australian naval vessel or an air-to-air refuelling plane to the region before being asked – not that the United States actually needs the assistance, of course – because that’s just what Australia has done.

Like the UK’s Sir Keir Starmer on this occasion, Howard would have probably received a phone call because Australia would probably have had forces in the region, rather than waiting more than 24 hours to respond to one of the most serious hot-war escalations in the Middle East in decades.

A leader such as a Howard or an Abbott would have been out early, already briefed and proclaiming Australia stands shoulder to shoulder with the US.

Again, this is not to criticise the current government’s response. For every Australian who wants us to be in lock-step with the United States on every decision, without hesitation, there is another who loathes our close alliance with the United States and longs for a more independent Australian foreign policy.

Like a Rorschach test, some Australians will be pleased the government didn’t immediately back the actions of the US government; others will be alarmed and see evidence of a somewhat frayed alliance.

Whatever your view, Labor’s approach to the latest round of conflict in the Middle East has marked a different emphasis and intent in Australia’s strategy.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.