Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
University of Okara
AUKUS, a landmark security agreement valued at approximately £176 billion (US$239 billion; A$368 billion), entails the transfer of nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to Australia a significant development given that, aside from the United Kingdom, no other nation has previously been granted access to the United States’ nuclear propulsion technology. The arrangement is widely interpreted as a strategic countermeasure to the growing assertiveness of the People’s Republic of China in the Indo-Pacific region. Initially, the United States is expected to provide Australia with three second-hand Virginia-class submarines, with an option for two additional vessels, followed by the collaborative design and construction of a new class of nuclear-powered submarines incorporating technologies from all three-partner nations.
Despite the far-reaching implications of this agreement, the current U.S. administration has signaled its intent to re-evaluate the pact, in terms of both its strategic utility and the degree to which it adheres to American defense priorities. According to a senior U.S. defense official, the review is being conducted to ensure that “this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President’s America First agenda,” emphasizing operational readiness, the optimization of military resources, and equitable contributions from allies. This review is being spearheaded by Elbridge Colby, a prominent defense strategist who has previously expressed skepticism regarding the advisability of transferring such advanced capabilities to allies at a time when U.S. military assets are already under considerable strain.
The review emerges amidst growing pressure from the U.S. for its allies to increase their defense expenditures. The Biden administration has urged partner nations to allocate no less than 3% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense. While the United Kingdom has committed to reaching 2.5% of GDP by 2028 and aims to hit 3% in the subsequent parliamentary term, Australia’s defense budgetary commitments remain below Washington’s expectations. Despite Canberra’s assurances of increased spending, it has yet to pledge alignment with the 3.5% target advocated by U.S. defense officials.
Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles has sought to downplay concerns arising from the review, expressing confidence that the agreement will proceed as planned. In remarks to local media, Marles reaffirmed the strategic necessity of a long-range submarine capability for Australia, particularly given the country’s geographic positioning within the Indo-Pacific theater. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the existing blueprint, noting the political and strategic complexities that emerged following the cancellation of a prior submarine agreement with France in favor of AUKUS.
From the Australian perspective, the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines represents a transformative enhancement of its military capabilities. These platforms will allow the Australian Defense Force to project power over significantly greater distances and durations than is currently possible with its diesel-powered fleet. Furthermore, the pact enhances Australia’s capacity for strategic deterrence and grants access to elite defense technologies components often described in U.S. defense circles as the “crown jewels” of national security assets.
The review also draws attention to broader strategic concerns, particularly regarding the alignment of operational doctrines among the trilateral partners. Dr. Jennifer Kavanagh, a defense analyst at the American think tank Defense Priorities, has highlighted two core issues underpinning the U.S. reassessment: first, the existing constraints on America’s own submarine production capabilities, and second, the uncertainty surrounding how Australia would deploy these assets in the event of a regional conflict, notably one involving Taiwan. As such, the review may consider revising the partnership’s focus from direct submarine transfers toward broader technological cooperation in long-range strike capabilities.
Both Australia and the United Kingdom have characterized the review as a routine and expected development under a new U.S. administration. Official statements from both governments have emphasized continuity and mutual commitment to the strategic partnership. A UK defense spokesperson reaffirmed that AUKUS constitutes one of the most strategically consequential partnerships in recent decades, underscoring its significance for maintaining peace and stability in both the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions.
Notably, any substantive shift in the AUKUS framework such as a delay or diminution in the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology would have considerable geopolitical ramifications. A U.S. withdrawal or significant recalibration of the agreement would likely be met with approbation from Beijing, which has consistently condemned AUKUS as a destabilizing force and a potential catalyst for a regional arms race. For China, the pact symbolizes the consolidation of a military bloc aimed explicitly at containing its rise.
From a broader geopolitical perspective, the review could lead to sustained or enhanced cooperation and help reinforce deeper technological and strategic collaboration among the countries. Conversely, any retreat from the pact could undermine perceptions of U.S. reliability among its allies and embolden adversarial actors in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific security environment.
