**
Prime Minister Mark Carney has expressed his cautious endorsement of recent U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran, labelling them a regrettable necessity in the face of Iran’s perceived threats to Middle Eastern stability. Speaking to the media during his visit to Sydney, Carney stressed that while he views Tehran as a significant danger, the nature of these strikes raises serious questions about adherence to international law.
Cautious Endorsement Amid Regret
In comments made on Wednesday, Carney articulated a complex position regarding the strikes, which have escalated tensions in the region. He stated he backs the military actions “with regret,” highlighting that they represent a failure of the international order. His remarks follow a statement of support issued over the weekend, which now appears to serve as a distancing maneuver from the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“The current conflict is yet another example of the breakdown of the international order,” Carney remarked. He added that the pre-emptive nature of these strikes “prima facie, appear to be inconsistent with international law,” illustrating his concerns about the global framework designed to maintain peace and security.
Escalation and Civilian Impact
The Prime Minister pointed out that these military actions have led to a rapidly spreading conflict with increased risks to civilian lives. In retaliation, Iran has launched attacks targeting both Israel and U.S. military installations in the region. Carney noted that Canada was not consulted prior to these operations, further demonstrating the fractured nature of international collaboration in addressing threats.
“Despite numerous UN Security Council resolutions and extensive diplomatic efforts, the Iranian nuclear threat persists. The actions taken by the U.S. and Israel occurred without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada,” he explained, echoing sentiments from his earlier address at the World Economic Forum, where he declared the traditional rules-based order effectively over.
The Iranian Threat and Canada’s Stance
Carney’s remarks underscore a longstanding Canadian position on Iran, which has hardened over the past decade. Under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, diplomatic ties with Tehran were severed, a stance that has largely persisted under Justin Trudeau’s administration. In 2024, Canada officially designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist entity.
In his press conference, Carney made it clear that while Canada supports the objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it does not offer unconditional backing to U.S. and Israeli actions. He emphasised the importance of protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure, urging all parties involved to exercise restraint and seek de-escalation.
Diverging Opinions Within Canada
The Prime Minister’s position has sparked debate within the Liberal Party, with several members, including former cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy, expressing concerns over the legality of the strikes. Axworthy has drawn comparisons to Canada’s refusal to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which lacked UN authorization. Liberal MP Will Greaves echoed these sentiments, condemning the endorsement of unilateral military force and the associated civilian casualties.
In response to criticism from within his own party, Defence Minister David McGuinty acknowledged the diversity of opinions within the Liberal ranks, stating, “The Liberal Party is a big tent. There’s room for all kinds of competing views.” He maintained that the government’s current stance reflects a transparent dialogue about Canada’s role on the world stage.
Why it Matters
Carney’s comments highlight the delicate balance Canada seeks to maintain in its foreign policy, particularly regarding contentious geopolitical issues like Iran. While the Prime Minister’s support for the strikes reflects a recognition of the immediate threat posed by Iran, his reservations about international law and the need for civilian protection underscore a broader commitment to a rules-based international system. As tensions escalate in the Middle East, Canada’s position will be closely scrutinised, not only for its immediate implications but also for its long-term impact on the country’s diplomatic relations and global standing.
