How close are we to the violent outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Iran? And what would the beginning of a hot war between Washington and Tehran mean for Canada?
Former CIA director Leon Panetta, not known for making outlandish statements, is deeply worried about recent developments in the Middle East. He believes that the Trump administration is the closest the U.S. has been to war with Iran in 40 years (or since the Iranian revolution of 1979).
To no one’s surprise, U.S. President Donald Trump has only escalated matters by unleashing a Twitter firestorm against Iran. It wasn’t enough to snuff out Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani, arguably the No. 2 leader in the Iranian hierarchy, with a lethal drone strike from a U.S. Reaper. Now, the president is tweeting about “targeting 52 Iranian sites … some of a very high level & importance to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself.”
He then went on to stir the pot menacingly: “WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
Meanwhile, the Iranian leadership is not backing down, and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is threatening “harsh retaliation” against the U.S.
Hossein Dehghan, a top military adviser to the Iranian supreme leader, has also been blunt: “The response for sure will be military and against military sites.”
Dehghan was quick to say that Tehran is not seeking outright war with the U.S. “It was America that started the war. Therefore, they should accept appropriate reactions to their actions,” he said pointedly.
He followed that up by noting ominously: “The only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted. Afterward, they should not seek a new cycle.”
Of course, one of the critical questions here is what will the U.S. and Trump do in response to Iran’s military retaliation. That, more than anything else, will be a key factor in whether a protracted U.S.-Iran war could ensue.
Significantly, one of the central reasons why neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations attempted to assassinate Gen. Soleimani was because they feared the fallout and Iran’s anticipated retaliation for such a brazen act. They knew that Tehran would have to respond forcefully and that it had a multitude of ways in which it could inflict punishment on America and Americans — or have its proxies in many parts of the world do so.
Democratic Representative from Michigan Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Mideast expert, understood the situation well during the Bush and Obama years. She remarked recently that “what always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question: Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into a protracted conflict?” As far as she was concerned, “the two administrations I worked for both determined that the ultimate ends didn’t justify the means.”
So where does all this leave the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau? And what options does it have at its disposal? Not very good ones, I’m afraid.
In a minority government situation, the Trudeau Liberals need to be mindful of not acting without the support of opposition parties and the consent of Parliament. The potential domestic politics of this is, to state the obvious, are unquestionably treacherous for the federal Liberals.
The government needs to be careful about not being perceived as Trump’s lackey if it opts to back any additional U.S military actions. And if the Liberals, heaven forbid, do get bogged down in a military conflict with Iran, it could ultimately topple their government.
Canada does have some 800-plus soldiers already in Iraq as part of a Canadian-led NATO (and U.S.) training mission. But NATO has now decided, in light of the precarious geostrategic situation on the ground, to suspend its commitment. Will Ottawa follow suit or leave its forces in the theatre?
Add to this the fact that the USMCA trade pact between the “three amigos,” which Canada desperately wants to put to bed, has not been ratified yet. Could Trump use the deal to pressure Canada into supporting any future U.S. military initiatives in the region? On the other hand, can we afford to rebuke The Donald?
Far be it for me to advise the Canadian government on what to do here. But I can’t see any upside to Canada getting into a shooting war with the Iranians. It would be like Afghanistan on steroids.
Moreover, the political optics of the Trudeau Liberals standing shoulder to shoulder with Donald Trump against Iran would be absolutely deadly. There’s just no way that this government could survive such an act of subservience. Ottawa, therefore, would be wise to keep its distance.
Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.