Vague support for Trump’s actions in Iran may well be Carney’s take on The Art of the Deal

The tightrope that Prime Minister Mark Carney has been trying to walk over the maelstrom conjured by U.S. President Donald Trump has just become a bit more narrow, and a whole lot less steady.

Over the weekend, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched missile strikes against Iran. The attacks not only destroyed key military infrastructure, but also effectively assassinated several senior leaders in the Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Although Canada is not actively involved and received no advance warning, the attacks have made Canada’s place in the world much more perilous. The tone and substance of our response will be watched closely by Trump, who can be expected to bully with extreme prejudice if he does not like what he hears.

When Trump is criticized, there is almost no aspect of America’s relationship to the country providing the critical comments that he won’t trash or manipulate.

So, facing the need to get Trump to relent on tariffs and negotiate a new continental trade deal, how did Canada respond to the military attacks on Iran? By trying to support and not support the actions at the same time.

Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand issued a statement saying that Canada “supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

However, at the same time, neither would say the attacks were a legal act of war.

There is little doubt that Iran poses some degree of threat to the U.S., Europe and Israel. Iran has not only supported al-Qaida, it has funded many of Israel’s enemies, including militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It is also true the Iranian regime violates the human rights of its citizens as a matter of official government policy.

But in a world rife with acts of illegal, unfettered aggression, did Iran warrant being elevated to the No. 1 threat to international peace and security? Trump’s arguments are thin by any measurement.

He has declared that Iran posed “imminent threats” to the U.S. and its allies, particularly through alleged and continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. However, he could provide no solid evidence that following military strikes last June, the regime was reviving efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, international agencies responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear capabilities have flatly disputed Trump’s claims.

But that’s not all. Trump also cited the quarter-century-old attack on the U.S.S. Cole, an American warship destroyed in 2000 by an al-Qaida attack in Yemen that claimed the lives of 17 American sailors.

U.S. courts have found Iran culpable in the attacks by providing support to al-Qaida, and have ordered the regime to pay compensation to the victims of the attack. Iran has flatly refused to accept any responsibility or pay anything.

Finally, Trump made it clear the U.S. wants a regime change in Iran, inviting dissidents to rise up and form a new government. This is a traditional American foreign policy fantasy that almost never works out.

Does the combination of brutal authoritarian regime, largely unproven concerns Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the need for a regime change add up to justification for a war that will destabilize the world for weeks, if not months to come? No, it does not.

Carney’s quick endorsement of the attacks seems to have more to do with his need — on the heels of his spunky speech at the World Economic Forum — to avoid further punishment at the hands of an easily provoked Trump. That may be the practical thing to do, but it’s hardly the high-ideal response.

Former Winnipeg MP and foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy lashed out at Carney for not condemning an attack that, in all likelihood, violates international law.

“What we’re simply endorsing is Trump’s sort of new obsession with becoming an imperial power… That’s the worst kind of situation for Canada.”

“What we’re simply endorsing is Trump’s sort of new obsession with becoming an imperial power,” Axworthy said. “That’s the worst kind of situation for Canada.”

Indeed, true to Axworthy’s analysis, Canada is trapped, supporting an act of aggression that it may, at some point, be forced to admit is an illegal and cynical diversion from Trump’s growing domestic challenges.

In the weeks preceding the attack on Iran, Trump was watching helplessly as his personal approval ratings reached historically low levels, and his grip on the Republican party was falling apart in the months before fall’s mid-term elections where, many believe, the president will suffer severe losses.

The attacks also come at the end of a week where new allegations arose that White House officials had deliberately withheld three memos detailing allegations Trump had sexually abused an underage girl provided to him by convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. The allegations are unproven, but the failure to include the memos has stoked another political firestorm.

If Canada avoids direct involvement in Iran, and secures a new continental trade agreement back home, it’s possible that many Canadians will accept the prime minister’s cautiously practical but morally disingenuous strategy.

But we won’t have a chance to ask Carney the question that many of those same Canadians would love to ask him: how do you really feel?

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.