The decision by the United States to initiate a review of the AUKUS agreement might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself. Saving us from the most poorly conceived defence procurement program ever adopted by an Australian Government.

The Albanese Government had the chance to undertake a review in its own terms when first elected to office in May 2022, but denied itself the opportunity for fear of being seen as dodgy on the alliance.

Now President Trump’s Pentagon, as it is entitled to do, is subjecting the deal to the kind of scrutiny that should have been applied to AUKUS in the first instance.

The review makes clear that America keeps its national interests uppermost. But the concomitant question is: why has Australia failed to do the same?

If the Americans scratch AUKUS, they will achieve what they have been after all along: no risk to the pilfering of their nuclear propulsion technology, no Los Angeles class submarines for Australia, but success in turning the Australian landmass into a US nuclear-armed fort pointed against China.

This was always the aim of the Biden administration’s deputy secretary of state, Kurt Campbell, and Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan.

AUKUS will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused president, Joe Biden – put together on an English beach, a world away from where Australia’s strategic interests primarily lie.

The usual American apologists are already out in the press today insisting that the Australian prime minister leave his meeting with Trump on the weekend with a guarantee that AUKUS survives. It is an impossible ask.

In any case, the calling of the Pentagon review should be the catalyst for the government to get on with the job of forging a relevant, distinctly Australian path for the country’s national security, rather than being dragged along on the coat-tails of a fading Atlantic empire.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.