After a "warm and constructive" chat with America's president-elect on Thursday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared Donald Trump a "businessman, a deal-maker and he will, I have no doubt, view the world in a very practical and pragmatic way".
That Mr Turnbull felt it necessary to add a personal assurance regarding Mr Trump's bona fides was telling, but not unexpected. Throughout his campaign, Mr Trump's rhetoric ranged from the indiscreet or merely concerning to the alarming, particularly on foreign policy.
He hinted that the United States' allies "owe us tremendously; were taking care of all those people and what I want them to do is pay up", and that perhaps some of those allies (like Japan) should defend themselves against perceived threat by developing nuclear weapons.
Though Mr Trump rowed back from some of these hastily conceived and lightly sketched positions as the campaign wore on, he was explicit about tearing up the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, repudiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (of which Australia is a signatory), and introducing tariffs on Mexican and Chinese imports, moves that would likely trigger a global trade war.
Unsurprisingly, there has been considerable analysis (and speculation) since last Wednesday about which of Mr Trump's putative foreign policy initiatives he intends to pursue and which he will let go through to the catcher. That Mr Trump has no track record whatever in public office makes predictions of his future foreign policy behaviour difficult if not impossible.
Given how his promise "to move manufacturing back to the US" struck such a chord with voters, it's probable NAFTA will be dismantled or at least renegotiated more to Mr Trump's liking. His push to stop the TPP being ratified may run into Congressional opposition as the Republicans' commitment to it is long-standing. Much will depend on how far Mr Trump is prepared to push his mandate.
More problematic still is Mr Trump's vow to break down China's "great wall of protectionism" by applying a 45 per cent tax on Chinese imports. While this, too, resonated with voters, China would almost certainly respond by applying similar tariffs on US-made goods. The trade between the two countries in manufactures and US government securities is so enormous, however, that many commentators believe separating "Chimerica" would spell disaster for the global economy.
While an economic showdown between the US and China may be averted by wise counsel, a military confrontation with China may be unavoidable if Mr Trump's vow to strengthen the armed forces (and so restore America's global leadership) is realised. That could have profound consequences for Australia as it seeks to maintain its economic ties with China and its strategic and defence ties with the US.
It's no wonder Mr Turnbull hopes Mr Trump can and will segue from the "poetry" of campaigning to the prose and pragmatism of governing. Otherwise, Australia's defence and foreign policy-planners may face some uncomfortable choices.