**
Prime Minister Mark Carney, currently in Sydney, Australia, has expressed his complex stance on the recent air strikes carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran. While he acknowledges Tehran as a significant threat to stability in the Middle East, he articulates his support for these military actions “with regret,” highlighting a perceived failure of the international order and raising questions about their legality under international law.
A Delicate Balance of Support and Condemnation
During a press conference on Wednesday, Carney framed his support for the strikes as an unfortunate necessity, arguing that the actions reflect deeper issues within the international rules-based system. He stated, “We take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order.” His comments come in the wake of escalating violence in the region, where retaliatory actions from Iran have posed increasing threats to civilian safety, particularly as Iranian forces target Israeli and US military installations.
Carney’s remarks signal a determined effort to distance himself from the unilateral actions of both President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He noted that the pre-emptive strikes “prima facie, appear to be inconsistent with international law,” suggesting that the justification for such military action rests squarely on the shoulders of the United States and Israel. “That formal judgment is for others to make,” he remarked, implying a need for legal scrutiny of these military operations.
Canada’s Position on the Global Stage
Despite his assertions of support, Carney was clear that Canada would not participate in the ongoing conflict, reinforcing the nation’s long-standing position on Iran. The Prime Minister underscored that Canada was not consulted prior to the strikes, thereby raising concerns about the broader implications of unilateral military actions that bypass international consultation. “Despite decades of UN Security Council resolutions… the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada,” he lamented.
Carney’s speech echoed his earlier comments at the World Economic Forum, where he declared the current state of the international order as dysfunctional, dominated by powerful nations pursuing their self-interests without regard for the rules that govern international relations.
Criticism from Within
The Canadian government’s stance has not gone unchallenged. Former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy has publicly questioned Ottawa’s backing of the strikes, highlighting that they lack UN authorization. He drew a stark comparison to Canada’s position during the 2003 Iraq invasion, which was similarly deemed unlawful by many observers. Liberal MP Will Greaves has also voiced his dissent, arguing that Canada cannot endorse what he describes as “the unilateral and illegal use of military force” while demanding respect for its own sovereignty and rights.
In response to the internal criticism, Defence Minister David McGuinty defended the government’s position, asserting that Canada’s military personnel in the region are not in harm’s way and that the military operations were decisions made entirely by the U.S. and Israel. McGuinty remarked, “The Liberal Party is a big tent. There’s room for all kinds of competing views,” reflecting the diverse opinions within the party regarding foreign policy.
The Iranian Threat and Canada’s Future Engagement
Carney’s comments on Iran were unequivocal. He described the Islamic Republic as “the biggest exporter of terror in the world,” citing its historical violations of international law and its pursuit of nuclear capabilities. “I would take up all the remaining time in this press conference − times 10 − if I went through the serial violations of international law by the Islamic Republic of Iran over decades,” he stated passionately.
The Prime Minister’s remarks come amid a backdrop of increasing tension and uncertainty in the Middle East, with Canada having taken a hardened stance against Iran over the last fifteen years. The decision to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist entity in 2024 underscores this shift. Carney’s assertion that Canada’s support of the strikes is not a “blank cheque” serves as a reminder of the delicate balance the government aims to maintain: supporting allies while advocating for the protection of civilians.
Why it Matters
Carney’s nuanced position on the US-Israel strikes against Iran reveals a deeper concern about the implications of unilateral military actions on the global stage and the efficacy of the international rules-based order. As tensions rise and the potential for further conflict looms, Canada’s stance will be crucial in shaping diplomatic relations in the region. Balancing the need for collective security against individual state actions poses a significant challenge, and how Canada navigates this terrain will resonate far beyond its borders, impacting international relations and global stability for years to come.
