Carney walked it back today:
In the Globe and Mail, Steven Chase writes Carney says Ottawa’s position supporting U.S., Israeli strikes on Iran was taken ‘with regret’:This actually sounds like Carney as opposed to the former statement which felt like government speak, but yeah could also be a bit of a back pedal!
— Patrisha/Pea/Pipi/Pia never Pat (@inkywinks.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 10:28 PM
....Prime Minister Mark Carney said he backed U.S. and Israeli air strikes on Iran “with regret” because, although he considers Tehran the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East, the military attacks are a failure of the rules-based order and appear to be a violation of international law.
Mr. Carney’s first comments since he issued a statement of support for the strikes Saturday amount to an effort to distance himself from the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. He spoke to media in Sydney on Wednesday during a visit to Australia.
“We do, however, take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order,” Mr. Carney said.
The attacks have caused, in the Prime Minister’s words, “a rapidly spreading conflict and growing threats to civilian life” in the region as Iran has retaliated by hitting back at Israel and nearby countries with U.S. military bases.
Mr. Carney said the pre-emptive attacks on Iran “prima facie, appear to be inconsistent with international law” and are more evidence of how the global system of treaties, laws and forms is dysfunctional. Mr. Carney has ruled out Canada’s involvement in the conflict.
He said it’s up to the United States and Israel to justify their pre-emptive strikes under international law and for legal experts to determine whether these actions meet the test. “That formal judgment is for others to make,” he said.
The current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order, he continued, adding that Canada was not consulted on the attacks by the United States or Israel. The comments carried echoes of his January speech to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, where he said the rules-based international order was over and the most powerful pursue their interests.
“Despite decades of UN Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran’s nuclear threat remains, and now the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada,” he said....
And Andrew Coyne notes the slapdash ineptitude of the Trump Administration that marked how this war started - Why even Iraq War Hawks should oppose this war:
...The reason why presidents are expected, if not required, to seek Congress’s approval before going to war – the reason they are encouraged, if not expected, to seek the approval of the Security Council – is not out of some bureaucratic concern that everyone fill out the proper forms.No reaction yet from Trump -- who has bigger problems right now. Then again, he erupted against Spain today when they said they wouldn't permit US aircraft to use their bases. So maybe Carney will be in Trump's crosshairs now too.
It is to force them to lay out their case – to show why war is necessary, why no less drastic intervention will suffice; and to show that they have a serious plan for winning it, including a plan for what comes after. Needless to say, the Trump administration has done none of these. It is not just a war of choice. It is a war of fancy, without the slightest grounding in law, or necessity, or reality.
Anyone with any sense of how the world works knows that war is sometimes necessary. But anyone with any sense of the awfulness of war – of its enormous toll, in lives and money; and of the enormous risks of unforeseen consequences – knows that the case for war must meet a very high bar. Otherwise we are at peril not only of one unnecessary war but, by normalizing such aggression, of others.
It is not for the Iranian regime’s sake that we insist on this – any more than the criminal law exists for the benefit of criminals. We “give the Devil the benefit of the law,” as in the famous phrase, for our own safety’s sake.
Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre is in England pretending to be a prime minister.
You know how in Canada he has often said bizarre stuff -- like about wood, and eating apples? Well, he's doing it again in England too - Robin Hood? Really? But not the "rob the rich and give to the poor" Robin I guess:
View on Threads
View on Threads
4 comments:
Just to be clear, Iran is only "the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East" if by that you mean they oppose Israel.
If you use more neutral definitions of what constitutes stability and what would be a threat to it, then in direct terms the United States has been for decades the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East, with Israel a close second punching well above its weight and Saudi Arabia third. In that time, the US has helped to destabilize Lebanon, been the greatest factor destabilizing Syria, has laid waste to Iraq (resulting in at least a million excess deaths), has destabilized Iran with its sanctions, has propped up vicious dictatorships throughout the region (which will generally lead to instability) as well as covertly backing various terrorists. Oh yeah, and droned lots of people in Yemen and supported Saudi Arabia in its vicious war in Yemen and its attempts to starve Yemen to death. Going back a bit further, they were the ones who arranged the Iran-Iraq war that killed millions of people, back when they were for Saddam Hussein before they were against him.
Odd piece of information I just learned. It explains why Iran has been attacking certain civilian sites in Gulf states such as Bahrain. The thing is, Iran is attacking the US military bases in the region, because they are of course staging areas for attacks on Iran. But those bases are not very defensible. So to avoid troops getting killed, the US has moved many troops out of those bases. But it doesn't want to pull them out of the region. So for lack of a better idea, they've been putting them in hotels. So then Iran hits the hotels with drones.
This has resulted in embarrassing numbers of US casualties. So it's much more convenient to say "Oh, those senseless Iranians are attacking civilian targets" than to say "We had our troops in a soft site and a bunch got killed and injured."
Glad to see that PP's charm has the same effect abroad as it does at home. That Robin Hood quip went over like a lead balloon with his business audience. I hope the meal was at least decent or that would have been a total loss for them.
I like this from the Purple guy:
"the United States has been for decades the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East, with Israel a close second " but I might say 'the United States has been for decades the greatest threat to stability in the world, while Israel spearheads their Middle-East operations.'
As for our newly redeemed leader ... NOT. His equivocating just sounds like deeply, muddled confusion to me. He/we will live to regret his befuddlement.
UK's Starmer appears to be in the same lost daze trying to placate his orange buddy while desperately fearing the now hostile electorate who haven't forgotten Tony Blair.
Spain (and now France) have taken their sign out of the window, Mr. Carney. You kept your sign (in our window!!) and now tepidly reach to take it down ... only to hesitate.
Post a Comment