Key questions for Canada as conflict between U.S. and Iran threatens to explode,
OTTAWA— First the assassination, then the retaliation. And now — now what?
After Iran struck back at U.S. forces on Wednesday, firing missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq, much of the world is waiting to see if tensions inflamed by the drone-killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani will die down or intensify.
In the meantime, many significant questions linger for Canada as the long-standing feud between Iran and the United States appears to have come — and may still be — perilously close to exploding into war.
Trump wants NATO to get “much more involved.” What does that mean? Speaking at the White House on Wednesday in the wake of the Iranian missile attack, U.S. President Donald Trump called on NATO countries to get “much more involved” in the Middle East. He didn’t expand on that.
That leaves Canada, as one of the alliance’s 29 memberstates, facing a significant question that won’t find an answer until the Americans provide more clarity about what Trump was talking about, said Jon Lindsay, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.
Thomas Juneau, an international relations expert at the University of Ottawa, said the request could mean a range of things — from increased political pressure to curb Iranian influence in the Middle East to a beefed-up military role in the region. NATO is already on the ground in Iraq, where specialists led by Canadian Maj.-Gen. Jennie Carignan were training and advising the Iraqi military until the mission was paused amid tensions this week.
But Juneau said some countries have fears of getting “caught in the crossfire” between the U.S. and Iran, fears that appear to be coming true to an extent after the U.S. assassination enlivened the spectre of direct conflict between the countries.
At a press conference in Ottawa Wednesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada wants to continue its involvement in the missions in Iraq and expected discussions about “the next steps to take” in the region. He added that he spoke with Trump Wednesday and the president did not make any specific request of Canada to boost its military contributions.
What do rising tensions mean for Canada’s presence in the region? Canadians are involved in two military missions in Iraq right now, both of which have been put on hold after the drone strike that killed Soleimani. As of this week, there were about 500 Canadian personnel in the country — some involved in training Iraqi military under Carignan, and others involved in a long-standing mission to counter the Islamic State in the region.
Earlier this week, Gen. Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, said there were roughly 500 Canadian personnel in Iraq but that “some” of them were being moved to Kuwait in anticipation of Iran’s retaliation this week.
Can Canada actually do anything to calm things down? In the wake of Wednesday’s attack in Iraq, Trudeau said Canada continues to “press in all of our conversations, including with (the U.S.) president, for a de-escalation of tensions in the region.”
But beyond calls for cooler heads to prevail, Canada doesn’t have the heft to play a significant role in calming down the situation, according to both Juneau and Lindsay. The situation, which involves jostling between regional players and a world superpower, is simply out of our league.
“I don’t mean that as criticism of the current Liberal government,” Juneau said. “There is not a serious diplomatic role right now for Canada to help de-escalate tension — because we’re not a big enough country.”
How likely is it that we get sucked into a new war? Not very, according to Lindsay. He said countries have historically not “bumbled their way” into conflicts they don’t want to engage in, and that neither Iran nor the U.S. would benefit from a direct war.
Such a conflict is too risky for Iran’s theological autocracy, as war could bring the threat of defeat and regime change, he said. At the same time, Trump has consistently disparaged the U.S.’s years-long military efforts in the Middle East as wasteful and unnecessary, even if one can argue his decision to pull out of a deal to limit Iranian nuclear enrichment and assassinate Soleimani have ratcheted up tensions in the region.
What’s more, Iran’s retaliatory strikes seemed calibrated to appear strong without provoking further aggression from the U.S, he said. Trump refrained from calling for a military response Wednesday and said “it is a very good thing for the world” that “Iran appears to be standing down.”
“Each side was doing the minimum they had to do, but were really trying to back away from the brink,” Lindsay said.
Even so, the broader foundation of the conflict between Iran and the U.S. remains in place, including disputes over nuclear enrichment and influence in the Middle East, even if the intensification of recent days is set to diminish, Juneau said. “Nothing has fundamentally changed beyond the current crisis de-escalating.”