Canada Backed the Iran War. Now It's Struggling to Explain Why | The Walrus

"The foreign minister, Anita Anand, got the first chance at the empty hot seat instead to try to defend the government's inconsistencies in its approach to the American and Israeli attack on Iran. Anand did her best with a weak hand, suggesting the core principle at stake for the Liberals was to ensure that Iran never acquired nuclear weapons and stopped acting as a terrorist agent of disruption in the region and the world."

"The Canadian position on the Iran war is now incoherent. If the original, allegedly "realpolitik," decision to go all in with the United States and Israel was based on winning favour with the Donald Trump administration, or at least avoiding disfavour, any such win, doubtful in the first place, has now been lost, and we are back in a position where we can join the list of those countries who Secretary of War (truly) Pete Hegseth will say are "clutching their pearls.""

"But is that door truly being opened? The immediate prospects seem very remote, not least as signalled by the ascendancy of Ali Khamenei's equally hard-line son, Mojtaba, to the leadership of Iran and the regime's defiant rejection of an American demand for "unconditional" surrender."

During a four-hour House of Commons debate on the Iran war, the Prime Minister's absence drew criticism from Conservatives. Foreign Minister Anita Anand defended the government's approach by emphasizing Iran's nuclear weapons threat and regional disruption. Defence Minister David McGuinty advocated for de-escalation without presenting concrete plans, expressing optimism about regime weakening. However, prospects for meaningful change appear remote given Iran's hard-line leadership succession and defiant stance. The Canadian government's decision to align with the United States and Israel appears strategically questionable, potentially alienating the country without achieving diplomatic gains.

Read at The Walrus