It has not been a good week for proponents of a serious conversation about Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East.
As Paul Wells notes in a recent Substack, on Monday, first Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre tainted what should have been a solemn ceremony marking the first anniversary of the October 7th terrorist attack against Israel with crass partisanship.
Even more disappointing to me, however, were Poilievre’s musings on Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran's most recent attack and the government’s shallow response.
Amid a lengthy explanation of his unwavering support for Israel, Poilievre declared:
“Israel must be able to prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons. If necessary, that means proactively striking Iranian nuclear sites and oil installations to defund the terrorist regime.”
The following day, he doubled down:
“I think the idea of allowing a genocidal, theocratic, unstable dictatorship that is desperate to avoid being overthrown by its own people to develop nuclear weapons is about the most dangerous and irresponsible thing that the world could ever allow. If Israel were to stop that genocidal, theocratic, unstable government from acquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a gift by the Jewish state to humanity.”
In response, members of the Liberal Cabinet called Poilievre’s approval of strikes against Iranian nuclear sites evidence of a “disastrous foreign policy that would contravene international law and quash hope for peace in the Middle East.”
Whether condoning an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities runs counter to international law is debatable, and it seems to me that we would all indeed benefit if Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons were permanently curtailed.
But seen through the lens of Canadian foreign policy, those issues are tangential.
Rather, there are two significant, inter-related problems with Poilievre’s statement.
First, it is unserious.
An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would almost certainly lead to an escalation of the Middle East conflict that would implicate the United States.
Presumably, given Poilievre’s staunch support for Israel, it would therefore implicate Canada as well, only it couldn’t because the Canadian Armed Forces have nothing to contribute.
The CAF is stretched thin in Latvia as it is; Canada has promised a greater military presence in the Indo-Pacific; and we owe our American NORAD partners substantial investments in the north.
Poilievre is therefore freelancing on a policy that Canada is incapable of supporting but could endanger American lives.
What’s more, he’s doing so in direct contradiction to President Biden’s opposition to such Israeli action.
From where I sit, assuming Poilievre chose his words deliberately, he must either believe that his views on the Middle East are so insignificant that Washington won’t care what he thinks, or that Canada has something to gain from undermining America’s position.
The former might well be true, but it is no justification for such irresponsible comments. The latter is simply baffling.
In sum, I’m glad that both Trudeau and Poilievre want to stand up for Israel and against antisemitism during this difficult time.
But Canada is an insignificant player in the Middle East, and any influence it might have can only be exerted through cooperation with more powerful allies.
Tough talk with nothing behind it helps no one. Failing to react to it seriously isn’t much better.
***
I continue to be impressed by the University of Ottawa professor Thomas Juneau’s take on all things Middle East. He is thoughtful, clear, and balanced (in both official languages).
***
My new book (with Asa McKercher) Canada First, Not Canada Alone: A History of Canadian Foreign Policy is now available for pre-order. Please check it out.
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.
You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
As Paul Wells notes in a recent Substack, on Monday, first Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre tainted what should have been a solemn ceremony marking the first anniversary of the October 7th terrorist attack against Israel with crass partisanship.
Even more disappointing to me, however, were Poilievre’s musings on Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran's most recent attack and the government’s shallow response.
Amid a lengthy explanation of his unwavering support for Israel, Poilievre declared:
“Israel must be able to prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons. If necessary, that means proactively striking Iranian nuclear sites and oil installations to defund the terrorist regime.”
The following day, he doubled down:
“I think the idea of allowing a genocidal, theocratic, unstable dictatorship that is desperate to avoid being overthrown by its own people to develop nuclear weapons is about the most dangerous and irresponsible thing that the world could ever allow. If Israel were to stop that genocidal, theocratic, unstable government from acquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a gift by the Jewish state to humanity.”
In response, members of the Liberal Cabinet called Poilievre’s approval of strikes against Iranian nuclear sites evidence of a “disastrous foreign policy that would contravene international law and quash hope for peace in the Middle East.”
Whether condoning an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities runs counter to international law is debatable, and it seems to me that we would all indeed benefit if Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons were permanently curtailed.
But seen through the lens of Canadian foreign policy, those issues are tangential.
Rather, there are two significant, inter-related problems with Poilievre’s statement.
First, it is unserious.
An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would almost certainly lead to an escalation of the Middle East conflict that would implicate the United States.
Presumably, given Poilievre’s staunch support for Israel, it would therefore implicate Canada as well, only it couldn’t because the Canadian Armed Forces have nothing to contribute.
The CAF is stretched thin in Latvia as it is; Canada has promised a greater military presence in the Indo-Pacific; and we owe our American NORAD partners substantial investments in the north.
Poilievre is therefore freelancing on a policy that Canada is incapable of supporting but could endanger American lives.
What’s more, he’s doing so in direct contradiction to President Biden’s opposition to such Israeli action.
From where I sit, assuming Poilievre chose his words deliberately, he must either believe that his views on the Middle East are so insignificant that Washington won’t care what he thinks, or that Canada has something to gain from undermining America’s position.
The former might well be true, but it is no justification for such irresponsible comments. The latter is simply baffling.
In sum, I’m glad that both Trudeau and Poilievre want to stand up for Israel and against antisemitism during this difficult time.
But Canada is an insignificant player in the Middle East, and any influence it might have can only be exerted through cooperation with more powerful allies.
Tough talk with nothing behind it helps no one. Failing to react to it seriously isn’t much better.
***
I continue to be impressed by the University of Ottawa professor Thomas Juneau’s take on all things Middle East. He is thoughtful, clear, and balanced (in both official languages).
***
My new book (with Asa McKercher) Canada First, Not Canada Alone: A History of Canadian Foreign Policy is now available for pre-order. Please check it out.
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.
You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
RSS Feed
