**
In a recent statement during his visit to Sydney, Australian Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed his regret over the U.S. and Israeli air strikes on Iran, highlighting concerns about the implications for international law and the broader rules-based order. While he views Iran as a significant threat to stability in the Middle East, Carney emphasised that military action must be scrutinised under legal frameworks, shifting the onus onto Washington and Tel Aviv to justify their pre-emptive actions.
A Complex Stance on Military Action
Carney’s remarks were his first since he issued a statement of support for the air strikes on Saturday. He articulated a nuanced position, describing the military operations as indicative of a failing international system. “We do, however, take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order,” he stated. His comments reflect a desire to distance himself from the unilateral actions of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, suggesting that such military interventions without broader consultation undermine international diplomacy.
The Prime Minister pointed out that the strikes have exacerbated tensions in the region, resulting in a “rapidly spreading conflict and growing threats to civilian life.” Iran has retaliated by targeting Israel and U.S. military installations in neighbouring countries, escalating an already volatile situation.
International Law Under Scrutiny
Carney did not shy away from addressing the legal implications of the air strikes, stating that they “prima facie, appear to be inconsistent with international law.” He underscored the dysfunctionality of the global system of treaties and legal frameworks, calling attention to the fact that Canada was not consulted prior to the strikes. This lack of engagement echoes his earlier remarks at the World Economic Forum, where he declared the prevailing international order to be in decline.
Despite his support for the strikes, Carney was clear that Canada’s role in the conflict would be limited, emphasising that it is up to the U.S. and Israel to provide a legal justification for their actions. “That formal judgment is for others to make,” he reiterated, leaving open the question of whether these strikes can be deemed legitimate under international law.
A Historical Context of Canada-Iran Relations
Canada’s position on Iran has evolved considerably over the past decade. In 2012, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper severed diplomatic ties with Tehran, a move that has not been reversed by his successors. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been vocal in his criticism of Iran, particularly following the tragic downing of a commercial flight that killed many Canadians. More recently, in 2024, Canada designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist entity.
While Carney acknowledges the threat posed by Iran, he insists that support for military action does not equate to a “blank cheque” for the U.S. and Israel. He called for all parties involved to take measures to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure, urging a de-escalation of hostilities.
Divided Opinions Within Canadian Politics
The Canadian government’s support for the strikes has not gone without criticism. Former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy has publicly denounced Ottawa’s stance, arguing that the attacks lacked United Nations authorisation. He drew parallels to Canada’s refusal to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was also deemed illegitimate under international law.
Liberal MP Will Greaves echoed these concerns, asserting that Canada cannot endorse unilateral military actions that result in civilian casualties or the unlawful targeting of foreign leaders. When pressed on the dissenting opinions within the party, Defence Minister David McGuinty acknowledged the diverse perspectives within the Liberal Party, stating, “There’s room for all kinds of competing views.”
Why it Matters
Prime Minister Carney’s careful navigation of this complex geopolitical landscape highlights the challenges facing Canada as it seeks to maintain a principled stance in international relations while grappling with the realities of military action. His call for adherence to international law amidst rising tensions underscores the importance of multilateral dialogue and the need for a cohesive response to threats in the Middle East. As global actors increasingly resort to unilateral military action, the implications for international diplomacy and the rules-based order become ever more pressing, posing critical questions about the future of global governance.
