Carney refuses to rule out joining military action against Iran “when it makes sense”
Carney is once again sending mixed signals, refusing to rule out joining the U.S.-Israel military action against the Islamist regime in Iran.
Author: Clayton DeMaine
Prime Minister Mark Carney is once again sending mixed signals, refusing to rule out joining the U.S.-Israel military action against the Islamist regime in Iran despite having called the strikes “inconsistent with international law” less than 24 hours earlier.
During joint statements with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra, Australia, Carney said Canada would stand by its allies if called upon.
“One can never categorically rule out participation. We will stand by our allies when it makes sense,” Carney said on Wednesday. “There’s a distinction between the offensive actions that were taken and are being taken by the United States and Israel…without consultation with Canada, with other allies, and we’re not party to those actions but we will always defend Canadians we will always stand by and defend our allies, when called upon.”
Just hours before, while in Sydney, Australia, Carney announced he regretted his government’s initial support for the U.S.-Canada strikes that killed top Iranian regime leadership, including “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Carney said the attacks were likely “inconsistent with international law.” He urged a ceasefire, a diplomatic resolution to the conflict and for all parties to work towards de-escalating the war.
A reporter in Canberra questioned why Carney had not called for de-escalation in his initial statements, which were in full support of Israel defending itself and the U.S. preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms. Carney replied there was a lot he did not know when he first made the statement, despite acknowledging “some predictability that the conflict would widen beyond the initial strike.”
“It was the very beginning. We made a statement. Australia made a statement within hours of the beginning of the hostilities, and the objectives of the hostilities as we understood it could not have been achieved in that period,” Carney said.
The reporter questioned Carney on how he could attempt to “have it both ways” by calling for de-escalation moments after showing full support for a strike he said would likely widen beyond the initial attack.
Carney stood by his initial statements of support, denying that he should have called for de-escalation at the start of the conflict.
“In terms of war, there are likelihoods, there are possibilities. You have to plan for the worst, but there are no certainties in conflict. so now that the conflict has moved on, now that the conflict is involving wider, a much wider group,” Carney said, referencing neighbouring Arab nations being involved following Iranian strikes on civilian areas in their respective countries.
Carney said the principal belligerents aren’t the only nations responsible to “move to de-escalation.”
“We should recognize that the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council are showing tremendous restraint at the moment. They are solely acting in a defensive manner,” Carney said. “That’s true from a range of others. It’s true from a number of our allies as well.”