How Canada's double standards on Iran put the world at risk

How Canada's double standards on Iran put the world at risk Jeremy Wildeman on Mon, 03/30/2026 - 19:40 Carney's lofty talk at Davos came crashing down to reality just a few weeks later, as Ottawa failed to take a stand against US-Israeli war Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney attends the FIS Cross-Country World Cup in Holmenkollen, Oslo on 14 March, 2026 (AFP) On Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney generated considerable international praise for his 20 January speech at Davos. He called for intermediate powers such as Canada to work together to build a new world order based on values like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. His speech was given against the backdrop of a rupture in the rules-based order that Canada has long supported. This was caused by the United States appearing to abandon the order it helped build, by threatening to annex territory from western allies, including Canada itself. Carney warned about the need for middle powers to work together for mutual protection in a global system where there are seemingly no constraints on the actions of great powers. He suggested they should build something bigger, better, stronger and more just together. Why, then, did his government immediately support the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran just a month later? Regardless of Iran’s poor human rights record - one rivalled by the US and Israel - the war violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which bans the use of force against any state. It also violates US constitutional law, which requires congressional authorisation for war. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); War facilitates the gravest abuses, including the destruction of life-enabling and life-saving infrastructure, the decimation of economies, and the killing of civilians. The war on Iran began with the US bombing of an Iranian school, killing more than 170 people, mostly children. The country’s health system has been systematically targeted ever since. As in the US, the war is unpopular in Canada. This, and a backlash after Davos, caused the government to moderate its initial support. On 3 March, Carney acknowledged that the US and Israel acted without UN support or consulting allies. His criticism, however, was less about the war, and more about process and procedure. He further emphasised Iran’s role in the conflict, even though it is the victim under international law. Stark contrast Statements made on X (formerly Twitter) by the minister of foreign affairs, Anita Anand, about Iran, Ukraine and Lebanon over the past month suggest that Canada places more blame on Iran for the war than it does on the actual aggressors. In addressing the source of the conflict, Anand’s statements have systematically erased the original act of US-Israeli aggression, focusing instead on Iran’s response, including its strikes on Gulf states and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s actions are denounced as reprehensible, while US and Israeli attacks are “offensive operations”. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); International law is invoked against Iran, but not against the aggressors. While Canada condemns Iranian attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and the killing of their nationals, it does not do the same for US-Israeli attacks on Iranian infrastructure or civilians. They selectively apply universalist principles to their own benefit, creating an apartheid-like international system: one with a different set of rules for the exploited Global South This contrasts starkly with the language Anand used on 13 March to address the war in Ukraine. Russia is clearly named as the aggressor, its actions are condemned, and Canada points to the sanctions it has levied against Russian entities in response. In the Iran war, Canada does none of these things. The contrast deepened when Anand on 24 March denounced Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure as “clear violations of international law” and insisted “those responsible must be held accountable”. No such language has been applied to the US or Israel over their many such violations against Iran. The pattern continued on 26 March, as the Canadian government announced a new round of sanctions on Iran, but no actions against the aggressors who started this war. The next day, Anand reposted a picture of G7 foreign ministers with their Ukrainian counterpart in solidarity. Throughout her statements and videos, Anand invokes Carney’s Davos framework, presenting Canada as a middle power acting with “clear eyes and steady purpose” in a dangerous world. Such language allows the government to frame its contradictory positions as realism rather than rank hypocrisy. The selective invocation of international law against Iran, while ignoring foundational violations by the US and Israel, reveals this principled pragmatism to be a veneer for strategic alignment. Despite Carney’s Davos rhetoric, Canada appears to be doubling down on the rules-based order, a system that privileges a small group of western and allied states at the expense of the rest of the world. They selectively apply universalist principles to their own benefit, creating an apartheid-like international system: one with a different set of rules for the exploited Global South. Undermining international law Analysed through this lens, Canada’s position becomes coherent. Whether through active support or complicity by way of silence, omission and selective emphasis, Canada’s approach to Iran mirrors its responses to US and Israeli violations of international law in Venezuela, Cuba, Gaza and Lebanon. When Carney spoke about middle powers working together, it is increasingly clear he meant the western powers that dominate the rules-based order: a core of European colonial powers (plus Japan) that have pillaged, oppressed and committed mass atrocities across the Global South. These affluent but ageing societies still depend on massive inputs of cheap labour and natural resources from their former colonies, and have relied on the US as their enforcer to exploit them. It is thus natural for Canadian policymakers to focus on appeasing the US, while key constituencies reinforce this predisposition on Iran. Does Mark Carney know where he stands on the US-Israeli war on Iran? Read More » US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s 14 February speech at the Munich Security Conference - where he offered a share of the spoils of a renewed global colonialism to other western powers - might have Canada hoping that by supporting the war on Iran, it can bring Washington back to lead the rules-based order. The new world order that the Carney government seems to envisage is smaller and less just. It is also fraught with danger, because nothing damages the global system more than the selective application of international law - and everyone is endangered by a system defined by unbounded aggression. The Iran war has already caused significant economic damage to the international and Canadian economies, and countless Canadians are affected domestically by ties to the region, in a war with a nuclear dimension. Meanwhile, Canada itself faces the risk of territorial loss, whether by energy-rich Alberta separating or through outright annexation. Canada’s best protection is a strong system of international law that makes the costs of such actions prohibitive. Such a system requires strong leadership by intermediate powers, like that being offered by Spain, which has emerged as a genuine defender of international law, applying the same principles to Ukraine, Gaza and Iran alike. The Carney government has instead chosen to undermine it. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Canada Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0