The year is 2003. America is engaged in a new Gulf War, eschewing approval from the United Nations to wander into a regional conflict whose ramifications will define the region for a generation at least. In search of allies, America reaches out to friends across the globe for aid in its new expedition for freedom and democracy, including Canada.
The year is 2026, and very little has changed in the decades since. As America finds itself drawn into a war without any real allies besides Israel and the United Kingdom, the latter in a supportive role, America has begun to look for alternatives to help them in their war of ill-defined intents and purposes. Though Canada was one of the pre-eminent American allies to go out of their way to oppose the 2003 Iraq War, there nevertheless exists a hope within some American foreign policy circles that Canada will someday reverse course on this conflict.
This hope likely stems from the sheer difference in circumstances surrounding Iraq and Iran: in the case of Iraq, the United States made a point of legitimizing its intervention through an international coalition with Poland, the U.K., and others. Despite those efforts, however, the Iraq War was still seen as a massive break from tradition with little historical precedent.
Where the ongoing Iran War contrasts with Iraq, stems from this aforementioned dynamic being completely inverted: now, America has eschewed deference to international law, and has spent the last two decades stoking a debate within America and beyond as to whether an Iraq-style occupation of Iran would be necessary. Resistance towards a new war waged without congressional approval is receiving less attention than the Iraq War did, despite the Iraq War receiving overwhelming support from Congress — because successive extralegal American military expeditions in Syria, Gaza, Venezuela, and beyond have all desensitized the liberal international order, as Carney pointed out earlier this year at Davos.
In fact, Carney’s immediate response to the Iran War was one which reinforced his Davos message: the so-called liberal international order of rules and regulations was never quite real to begin with. The vital followup to this claim of “so what?” is one which has led to Carney taking a potentially unexpected road. By stating that the international liberal order is a lie, one might expect that Carney’s proposed solution is to create a real liberal international order, though perhaps to expect as much would be to miss Carney’s point: the liberal international order cannot exist because the world simply does not work that way — first world countries have been able to embrace such a society because they were powerful enough to do so.
Case in point, Carney’s initial response to news of the attacks was to endorse Trump’s actions, and state 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.” Throughout the full statement issued, there is not a word which can be construed as criticism towards the United States. Further, Carney stated while on a diplomatic visit to Australia that direct Canadian involvement in the war cannot be ruled out.
Despite that approach, Carney’s statement seems to be the only actual measure of support issued to America thus far, and he is certainly in the minority on the issue otherwise. According to recent polling on the topic, over 60% of Canadians disapprove of American military actions in Iran, and Carney also seems to be in the minority on the issue in his own party. The federal cabinet has already been questioned on the matter, as have a number of local Liberal members of parliament, and the general consensus has been wishy-washy at best.
Defence minister David McGuinty clarified that the government’s position was one of deescalation, though a weakened Iranian government would open the door to a new government. In practical terms, this means that Canada was not willing to engage in a regime change war á la Iraq, but was optimistic that this series of clashes would eventually open the door to regime change — a sufficiently vague objective as to permit any action or no action at all.
The response from other political parties in Canada has been decidedly mixed on the war: the Conservatives have been all too happy to take up the fight against the government’s ill-defined stance on the war, as their response has been much more coherent. The party flatly supports regime change in Iran, stating that “Conservatives support the United States, Israel, and our allies across the Gulf to defend their sovereignty and dismantle the clerical military dictatorship of Iran.” The NDP and Greens, meanwhile, have both condemned the war and lamented the end of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal.,
Now, however, the war seems slated for further escalation across the region as both sides continue to neglect negotiations, and it seems that America is beginning to pivot towards reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Carney’s reaction to this continued war seems to be one of tentative distance: an affirmation that America raging this war renders it in the right, even if his government offers vague denunciations of America’s methodology. Yet, for the first time in months, the polling numbers simply aren’t backing Carney up.
.png){kind=small}
