The prime minister’s seat was empty in the House of Commons during the marathon four-hour debate on the Iran war on the evening of March 9. Mark Carney blamed scheduling issues, but it was a notable absence, jumped on by the Conservatives, who claimed he was in hiding.
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 defence minister, David McGuinty, also got his time in the hot seat. He spoke to emphasize the need for de-escalation of the Iran war, without even sketching a starting point or a plan. He also suggested an optimistic outlook for the Iran war, arguing that the weakening of a repressive regime would open the door to a better future. Note weakening, not all-out regime change.
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.”
It may simply have been habit of backing what the US does, as we’re living entirely in its shadow, at its convenience.
The more we make ourselves into a thorn in its side, the more likely the US is to DAMAGE us.
That being the case, then our situation’s “natural”.
The problem is that there NEEDS to be a checklist to go through, before a country sides-with/against any war, & that checklist needs to include:
Trump prohibited negotiated-end, declaring that ONLY total, unconditional surrender of Iran would be acceptable.
THAT is something that NO civilrights country ought have backed.
Same with genociders’ conditions for ending war ( the extermination of some others ).
We moved on politics, not on objective-standards.
Now we’ve got the karma of it, ongoing.
_ /\ _
The first point is correct. So, how many people should, in your estimation, lose their jobs to have zero effect on the war besides making you feel better?