Canada's Hypocrisy and Appeasement of U.S. Crimes
Against Peace and Humanity

Carney Government's Duplicitous Positions on U.S./Zionist Aggression Against Iran

– Steve Rutchinski –

Montreal, March 21, 2026

Since the U.S. and Israel launched their criminal aggression against Iran, they have committed heinous crimes against a sovereign member of the United Nations on false pretexts which claim, all evidence to the contrary, that it is making nuclear weapons and requires "regime change." These lies outdo even the "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" lie used by the Bush administration when it invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003 to effect regime change in that country, where every kind of war crime, violations of the laws of war, and crimes against peace and humanity were also committed.

Despite the atrocious nature of the aggression and the justifications for it, the Government of Canada has refused to condemn it. Instead, it is peddling duplicitous positions which it is having trouble maintaining due to widespread opposition to its refusal to take a principled stand by people from all walks of life across the country.

On the evening of March 9, Carney's Liberal government was virtually forced to raise the issue of Canada's position on the U.S./Israeli war of aggression against Iran in the House of Commons. There is broad opposition to this war from all quarters and contempt for the duplicitous positions of Prime Minister Mark Carney who, like it or not, is tying Canada to the U.S. war machine.

Foreign policy is a ministerial prerogative power, and the government condescendingly agreed to convoke a "take-note" debate. The House of Commons X feed announced that MPs unanimously passed a motion to "hold a take-note debate on the military escalation between the United States and Iran" after regular parliamentary business wrapped up that day.

The announcement followed opposition calls for a debate in the parliament. The NDP had previously issued a statement calling for Canada to condemn the U.S. war as a violation of international law and categorically rule out any Canadian participation, a stand markedly modified somewhat during the debate itself.

Carney was also under pressure as some members of the Liberal caucus publicly expressed their opposition to the prime minister's support for the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28. Will Greaves, Member of Parliament for Victoria, stated that Canada "cannot endorse the unilateral and illegal use of military force," a statement "liked" by five other Liberal caucus members.

The Conservatives, who enthusiastically support war against Iran to bring about "regime change," also called for a debate for Carney to say where he stands and to discuss how the war is affecting global energy supplies.

Even though at issue was Carney's duplicitous position on the U.S. aggression against Iran and he is the one running around the world saying he represents Canada, he himself was absent from the debate. He cited a prior commitment -- later identified as an Iftar, the evening break of the fast during Ramadan.

In the days before the debate, Carney "adjusted" his stand from total support for the U.S./Israeli unprovoked aggression and destruction against Iran, to doing so with "regret." Posing as an ignorant man who doesn't understand the complexities of international law, Carney has put on a shameful performance of trying to muddy the waters about whether U.S./Israeli aggression violates international law. After musing that a straightforward question, whether Canada would join forces with the U.S. in this aggression, was "hypothetical," then saying that Canada would stand by its allies, he went on to say -- perhaps thinking he had finally settled the matter -- that in any case, Canada had not been consulted and would thus not participate in the war.

Mark Carney and Foreign Minister Anita Anand, her master Carney's voice, subsequently continued to take the tack of repeating the need to avoid civilian casualties. It is what the youth now refer to as "the broken record strategy." Carney and Anand attempted to shift the focus onto what the government is doing to assist Canadian citizens who want to leave the Middle East and claiming that Canada will do its best to get combatants, presumably the U.S. and Israel, to "de-escalate." All of it goes hand in hand with the talk of the war propagandists who declare that Iran targets civilians, while the U.S. and the Israelis do not.

The fundamental matters of concern to the working class and peoples of Canada and Quebec regarding matters of war and peace are purposely eclipsed by the unprincipled renderings which come out of the mouths of the cartel parties with seats in the House of Commons. The "take-note" debate itself went on for four hours and it was embarrassing as well as nauseating to listen to.

Besides the strident anti-Iran stance of the Conservatives and a weak-as-potato-without-salt presentation by the Bloc Québécois representative, was Elizabeth May's wimpy position. Correctly pointing out that Canada's position on the war is a non-partisan question and trying to make an argument that it concerns international law and sovereignty, she then asked if there wasn't a more peaceful way to achieve regime change. Given all the crimes which have been committed by imposing illegal sanctions on Iran for years, the massive Islamophobia promoted in Canada since 9/11 and previous targeted assassinations in Iran and against Iranian officials in other countries, as well as the criminal war of genocide the U.S. and Zionists have been conducting in Gaza, and much more, such a question is unforgivable.

Representing the NDP, Don Davies was the last speaker. After giving a principled position opposing this illegal war, he unfortunately caved in to the anti-regime narrative.

After everything was said and done, the "take-note" debate amounted to giving tacit approval to continued devastating strikes on Iran and the illegal and unjust war itself, to U.S./Israeli crimes against the peace, and to violations of international law and the UN Charter, and to the U.S. and Israeli use of extreme violence which could at any time give rise to even more extreme violence on an even grander scale aimed at eradicating Iran altogether. Justifying all of this under the hoax that regime change is a high ideal will not rescue Canada in the eyes of Canadians and Quebeckers or world public opinion.

The Prime Minister was impelled to attend Question Period himself on March 10, the day after the take-note debate in Parliament, and answer questions he could no longer foist on his Foreign Minister and her unpersuasive performance. Leader of the Bloc Québécois Yves-François Blanchet remarked on Carney's presence and asked for clarification on the government's position on the war:

"Mr. Speaker, bring out the good china; we have visitors in Parliament. Judging by the Prime Minister's inclination to travel the world like Marco Polo, he is his own foreign affairs minister. Unfortunately, this foreign affairs minister is not known for her clarity, and by not accepting his own invitation yesterday, he missed a tremendous opportunity to explain his policies in Parliament. When will he explain his strategic vision for the Middle East?"

According to Carney, "Canada's policy is clear: Canada supports the need to prevent Iran's nuclear program and the export of terrorism. Canada is not taking part in offensive operations by the United States and Israel, and it never will."

Apparently buying into Carney's Davos speech about middle powers needing to work together in the face of U.S. hegemony, Blanchet asked, "In military terms, Canada is clearly the smallest of the major players. Among the mid-level players, it is clearly the most isolated and no one seems to have understood its position so far. Has the Prime Minister spoken with our allies in Europe? What have they agreed on in terms of a common position?"

As if the U.S. is just another member and not the main instigator of the war on Iran, Carney said that he has been discussing the matter with France, Japan and the U.S., who along with Canada make up four of the seven members of the Genocide 7 (G7).

Blanchet followed up with a question to Carney about whether he had "any short-term measures to help people who are suffering and who will continue to suffer as a direct result of this war." He ghoulishly clarified that he was talking about those feeling the effects of the war on "purchasing power, inflation, pensioners and home ownership" in Canada and Quebec, not the Iranian people. To this, Carney again said he is "having conversations with other members of the G7 and with leaders of Middle Eastern countries, such as Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon. "We also need to use the G7's oil reserves," he said.

Just two days later, Carney was on his next junket, to Norway and Britain, a fellow "middle power" and G7 member respectively. While in Norway, Carney met with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (Germany is another G7 member). There is no indication Merz and Carney discussed the U.S./Israeli war on Iran. In later talks, according to a press release from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Støre and Carney were said to have "condemned the Iranian regime's missile and drone attacks on civilians across the Middle East and expressed deep concern over regional escalation. They agreed that diplomatic engagement is essential to avoid a wider conflict that would devastate civilian populations and worsen the global economic and energy situation." It raises the question of what is meant by "diplomatic engagement" when productive negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on the latter's civilian nuclear program were cut short by the unprovoked bombing of Iran by the U.S. and Israel.

In the UK on March 16, the PMO informs that Carney and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer "discussed the situation in the Middle East. They condemned the Iranian regime's missile and drone attacks, including on civilian and energy infrastructure, and expressed deep concern over the toll on civilians, the risk of further regional escalation, and the broader global economic consequences of the conflict, including rising energy prices." There was no mention of "diplomatic engagement." Exactly what the Carney government's position is on this important issue seems to depend on who the Prime Minister is talking to, which is certainly not Canadians or Quebeckers.

The Prime Minister's remarks show again that the Canadian government supports the criminal U.S./Israeli war and that it has no intention of holding the U.S. or Israel to account. Instead it continues to spread the disinformation that it is Iran and not the U.S. and Israel who are the aggressors and terrorists.

On March 19, Canada and the other members of the Genocide 7 issued a joint statement regarding Iran's exercising control over the Strait of Hormuz to defend itself and bring an end to the war imposed by the U.S. and Israel. It spared no disinformation to portray Iran as an aggressor and did not mention once that war was being waged on it by the U.S. and Israel.[1]

Without condemning the U.S./Israeli aggression and crimes against peace, civilians and all the values humanity holds dear, any claims to be seeking "de-escalation and peace" are a hoax and a farce. Along with Carney's repeated defence of his own war preparations as a requirement to defend Canadian sovereignty, it does not take a genius to correlate that Canada, like other countries with conciliatory approaches, will not only be ill-prepared to cope with the results but will also be dragged in without the approval of the peoples of this country. Clearly, those who sow the wind with their unprincipled conciliatory stands will reap the whirlwind.

Carney Government's Duplicitous Positions on U.S./Zionist Aggression Against Iran

Montreal, March 21, 2026

Note

1. For coverage of the Genocide 7 statement see "Despicable Statement by 'Coalition of the Willing,' Hilary LeBlanc, TML Supplement, April 5, 2026.

See also the entire April 5 TML Supplement that provides coverage of Iran's unrelenting response to U.S./Israeli aggressors, its diplomatic work at the UN as well as actions taken by Resistance forces in Lebanon and Yemen. To read that issue, click here.