The sidelines: perhaps the safest place to be

The military power of the United States — and of Israel — is brought to bear on Iran, and the Canadian response is well, muted. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Are we joining in the conflict? “We have not been party to the military build-up to this, or the military planning of this. So, it is not envisioned that we would be part of it moving forward,” Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters.

That follows an equally muted joint statement from Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand on Saturday. It was, in terms of a dance review, a deliberately soft-shoe number: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

There’s no doubt that Iran’s government has played an outsized role in everything from international terrorism to helping to support Russia in attacking Ukraine. There’s no doubt that the country’s repressive regime, a regime that stretches back 47 years now, has killed and tortured thousands of its own citizens.

There’s no doubt that many countries would heave a sigh of relief if the government fell in Iran and a healthy secular government replaced it. And there’s no doubt the world, let alone the Middle East, would be a safer place.

On the other hand, having the United States and Israel decide to attack Iran has to be sobering for countries that prefer that there be some agreed-upon guardrails for the launch of deadly international conflicts.

Some have said the reasons aren’t good enough: Spain, for example, has pointedly said it believes the United States is acting outside of international law, and has refused to allow American aircraft to use Spanish bases.

And U.S. President Donald Trump hasn’t exactly helped with clarity on what happened and why. In a Monday morning address, he said that the Americans and Israelis had to act because, after Operation Midnight Hammer was needed to completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, the U.S. had to act with Operation Epic Fury because of Iranian ballistic missile developments — and because of Iran’s nuclear program which, despite being completely destroyed in June, according to Trump, was now threatening the continental United States.

Then, in probably one of the oddest performances ever by a U.S. president, he moved on from discussing military action where American soldiers have already died to commenting on the White House drapes that he had chosen and the “big beautiful ballroom” that would soon be appearing behind them.

Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lauded Israel and said it was “unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls hemming and hawing about the use of force…”

In war, as in tariffed peace, we’re dealing with epic unpredictability.

Perhaps if there was a clear plan, goals and methods, more countries could be persuaded that there are legitimate reasons that this conflict could at least been leaned into. In the current atmosphere, it’s better to keep a safe distance.

The U.S. under Trump is acting virtually unilaterally on the international stage — blowing up boats in international waters, seizing Maduro from Venezuela — in ways that look like their plans were written on a restaurant napkin after the second bottle of wine has been emptied.

We’re in an existential zone where the only reasonable advice can be: don’t feed the bear, don’t get in the cage with the bear and don’t poke it from outside the bars, either.