This essay is not an objection to Mark Carney joining with other G7 leaders in support of the Iran “deal”. Given where we find ourselves, there was no option.
What we must object to is Carney’s unique, and politically unnecessary, post-hoc support and justification of the war itself — on foreign soil, to an American TV audience — declaring that the war was “worth it”. Even in the context of the unsavoury circus in Évian-les-Bains, no other G7 leader felt compelled to genuflect in such an abject manner. And just to ensure that his spin registered, Carney doubled down on the affirmation of the worthiness of the war while attending a World Cup celebration in Vancouver. To me it is inexplicable, especially given my original assumptions about Mr. Carney, and willingness to give him some leeway in his dealings with President Donald Trump and his administration.
No serious independent international analyst has made such an assessment. To the contrary, there is a consensus across the political spectrum that the attack should never have been launched. The war has been a catastrophe to no good end, an evil and criminal aggression, stupidly launched, stupidly waged, and now stupidly stumbling towards a dénouement no one can predict, and which the “international community” has even less capacity, or credibility, to manage. All of this has unfolded at great human cost, again. It should not now be justified by our national leadership as “worth it” (shades of Madeleine Albright on Iraq: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”)
Now either Carney understands all this, and that the war was not worth it — to the contrary, was unnecessary and to no good end — in which case he is guilty of a cynical deceit and we cannot trust his words or intentions; or he does not understand, in which case, we cannot trust his judgement nor his moral compass. That he offers—as his measure of the worth of the war—putative gains on the nuclear front vaguely alluded to in the MOU, reduces his assertion to grim comedy.
First, the claims against Iran on the nuclear front have repeatedly been assessed to be poorly-founded, and certainly of no more merit in justifying an onslaught than the claims made about Iraq in 2003 to justify that war. And for folks who prefer to believe that Iran does pose a genuine nuclear threat: if there has been any movement in this regard as result of this tentative agreement, it is backward, worse than before the war began. Iran has emerged immeasurably strengthened, its grip on power consolidated, and more insulated from international pressure and accountability than its entrenched tyrannical leadership could have dreamed of six months ago. And presiding over this entire scenario is a (nuclear) power — the United States — under an autocratic leadership more erratic and unpredictable than the fanatical theocrats in Tehran.
The stance taken by Mr. Carney on Canada’s behalf — so deliberate, so clearly intentional — should be a concern for all Canadians. I can think of no single statement by any Prime Minister that has troubled me as much. I fear that this episode reveals more about where Mr. Carney actually stands than his Davos performance and his ongoing international and domestic charm offensive — a campaign that has garnered him a lot of goodwill and political space in the conduct of foreign affairs and in domestic policy. In this context, the fact that there is so little reaction in the public sphere to his statement on the war, let alone reflection on its significance, is very troubling.