Iran’s War and the First Strategic Test of PNG’s UAE Partnership and the Pukpuk Treaty

 By Bernard Yegiora

The escalating war involving Iran has quickly become one of the most consequential geopolitical developments in recent years. What began as a regional confrontation has rapidly evolved into a conflict with global economic and strategic implications. Energy markets are reacting, shipping routes in the Gulf are under pressure, and major powers are recalibrating their military and diplomatic posture. For countries far from the Middle East, the conflict might appear distant. However, for PNG, the situation has unexpectedly intersected with two emerging foreign policy developments: the growing relationship with the UAE and the security partnership with Australia under the Pukpuk Treaty.

The conflict raises an important question for policymakers and analysts in PNG. Did the global intelligence community anticipate such a dramatic escalation, or has Iran fundamentally surprised the strategic establishment? For decades, security analysts warned that any confrontation with Iran would have global consequences because of the country’s strategic geography and its ability to disrupt maritime trade routes. The Strait of Hormuz, which carries a significant portion of the world’s oil supply, has always been recognised as a critical chokepoint in global energy security. What appears to have surprised many policymakers is not the possibility of conflict itself, but the speed with which events have escalated and the scale of Iran’s response.

Iran’s approach reflects a long-standing doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Recognising that it cannot match the military capabilities of major Western powers in a conventional conflict, Iran has focused on strategies that create broader economic and geopolitical disruption. By threatening energy infrastructure, maritime trade routes, and regional partners of the United States and its allies, Iran has demonstrated its ability to reshape the strategic environment far beyond its borders. In that sense, Iran has not simply responded to the war; it has altered the global security landscape.

For PNG, the implications are not theoretical. The country has recently been exploring stronger economic relations with the UAE. Negotiations on cooperation frameworks and economic partnerships, including the proposed Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between PNG and the UAE, have been gaining attention within government and policy circles. The UAE is emerging as an important economic partner for many developing states due to its role as a global investment hub, energy exporter, and financial centre linking Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

However, the war involving Iran introduces new strategic risks for countries engaging with Gulf states. The UAE itself sits within the broader security environment of the Gulf region. If the conflict expands or regional tensions escalate, economic partners of the UAE may find their cooperation frameworks operating within a far more volatile geopolitical environment. For PNG, this means that economic diplomacy with the Gulf cannot be separated from global security dynamics.

At the same time, the conflict intersects with PNG’s defence and security relationship with Australia. Canberra has already signalled support for the UAE by deploying defensive military capabilities to assist with the protection of infrastructure and regional stability. This development inevitably raises questions about the implications of the Pukpuk Treaty between PNG and Australia.

Screenshot from Al Jazeera reporting that Australia plans to deploy missiles and a surveillance aircraft to assist the defence of the UAE during the escalating confrontation with Iran.

The Pukpuk Treaty represents one of the most significant security arrangements between the two countries in recent decades. It deepens defence cooperation, enhances interoperability between the PNG Defence Force and the Australian Defence Force, and establishes mechanisms for consultation in the event of security threats affecting either country. However, the treaty does not constitute an automatic commitment for PNG to participate in every security operation undertaken by Australia. Rather, it emphasises consultation, constitutional processes, and decisions based on each country’s national interest.

The current Iran conflict therefore presents the first real strategic test of how PNG interprets the treaty in practice. If Australia expands its military presence in support of the UAE, should PNG consider deploying the PNGDF to assist in protecting a new economic partner? On the surface, such an idea may appear to demonstrate solidarity with both Australia and the UAE. In reality, the strategic calculation for PNG must be approached with caution.

The PNGDF is a small but vital institution whose primary mandate is to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of PNG. Its resources are limited and its operational priorities remain focused on domestic security support, disaster response, maritime surveillance, and regional stability in the Pacific. Deploying PNGDF personnel to a distant conflict in the Middle East would stretch these capabilities while exposing the country to geopolitical risks far beyond its immediate strategic environment.

Moreover, PNG has traditionally pursued a balanced and pragmatic foreign policy. The country has sought to maintain constructive relationships with a wide range of partners, including Australia, China, the United States, and emerging economic partners in the Middle East and Asia. Direct military involvement in a conflict involving Iran could undermine this balanced diplomatic approach and complicate PNG’s relations with countries across the Islamic world and the broader Global South.

A more prudent policy option would be for PNG to support diplomatic efforts aimed at de-escalation while maintaining consultation with Australia under the Pukpuk Treaty framework. Political support for allies does not necessarily require military deployment. PNG can continue to cooperate with Australia on intelligence sharing, maritime security, and regional defence capacity-building without inserting its defence force into a distant war theatre.

This approach would also reinforce an important principle in PNG’s foreign policy: national interest must remain the guiding framework for international engagement. Strategic partnerships are valuable, but they must be calibrated carefully to ensure that they do not impose obligations that exceed the country’s capabilities or strategic priorities.

The Iran war therefore represents more than a Middle Eastern conflict. It has become a global strategic shock that is forcing governments around the world to reassess alliances, economic partnerships, and defence commitments. For PNG, the crisis offers an important reminder that international politics is increasingly interconnected. Economic diplomacy, security partnerships, and geopolitical rivalries now intersect in ways that can rapidly reshape the strategic environment.

Smoke rises over Dubai’s financial district after debris from an intercepted Iranian drone struck a building near the Dubai International Financial Centre amid escalating regional attacks during the Iran war as reported by The Sun.

As PNG deepens its engagement with partners such as the UAE while strengthening defence cooperation with Australia, policymakers will need to navigate these relationships carefully. The challenge is not simply choosing sides in global conflicts but maintaining a foreign policy that protects PNG’s sovereignty, economic interests, and long-term strategic autonomy.

Iran may not have surprised the world in the sense that analysts long anticipated confrontation. What has surprised many observers is how quickly the conflict has demonstrated the vulnerability of global systems — from energy markets to maritime trade routes and military alliances. In that sense, Iran has already reshaped the global strategic landscape.

For PNG, the lesson is clear. Engagement with the world must be guided by a disciplined understanding of national interest, not by reactive alignment with external conflicts. The Iran war may be unfolding thousands of kilometres away, but its implications are already reaching the shores of the Pacific.