In the early hours of Saturday morning, the Americans and Israelis stuck Iran under dubious pretences—later confirming that nuclear talks were merely a ruse, and that Trump and Netanyahu had been planning this for weeks—and managed to effectively decapitate the country’s leadership, including killing Ayatollah Khomeini. Within hours, prime minister Mark Carney sent out a statement from his trip in Mumbai, where he effectively supported the actions, but also did not promise any Canadian support, military or otherwise. Nevertheless, everyone went on a big round of hand-wringing about how this statement jived with his big Davos speech.

My statement on Iran-related hostilities in the Middle East:

— Mark Carney (@mark-carney.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T12:31:32.929Z

It's not small-dick energy.It's smallest dick energy.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T19:10:15.695Z

Of course, the thing about the Davos speech is that it was a bit of a Rorschach test, depending on one’s priors. Sure, Carney talked about sovereignty and territorial integrity, but he also made it clear that the existing system of international law was a mirage, so he was kind of saying that it didn’t matter? In either case, I don’t think we should expect anything other than “pragmatism” without much in the way of principle, because that is the tone Carney has been setting for a while now, which could eventually work to our detriment.

People keep saying that this goes against the Davis speech. It does not. Carney said the rules based international order was always hypocritical, is now dead, and we live in a time of rupture. I disagree with support but this is not against what he said. The sign is gone. GONE GONE.

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:54:02.726Z

In Davos, Carney argued that only countries w/ strong economies could afford “principled” foreign policies. Carney’s pro-US, pro-illegal war statement is that idea in action.The thing is, this view is both self-serving and wrong. Wrong because there is always a cost to standing up for principles.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.709Z

But if you always subordinate principles (i.e., non-economic interests like international law) to economic growth, you’ll never stand for anything. ESPECIALLY Canada, since the best we can hope for is only sending HALF of our exports to the US. They will ALWAYS have leverage over us.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.711Z

In reaction, Bob Rae wonders what happens after the military operation ends, which has long been the question for those who want to attack Iran. Anne Applebaum lays out the fact that Trump has no plans for what to do next with Iran, and has already dismantled programmes which might have helped, which is a huge danger of creating something worse. Justin Ling wonders why Carney chose the route he did of cheering on such a dangerous gambit.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-28T22:10:01.821Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Zelenskyy’s chief of staff says that Russia has accepted the proposal for post-war security guarantees (which…means not much).

Good reads:

• From Mumbai, Mark Carney has been praising India as a “natural partner” and ignoring the whole foreign interference question, and hopes for a deal by year-end.
• Here is a deeper dive into some of the issues Canada faces with the Modi government, as Carney meets with Modi today.
• Tim Hodgson says we’re poised to become one of the largest exporters of LNG in the world. (Has he talked to those permitted projects that never got off the ground?)
• The government is raising the cost of passports to reflect “operational costs.”
• The head of CSIS says that India is still one of the biggest purveyors of foreign interference and repression (which puts a nail in the coffin of that senior official).
• Conservative MPs from BC are calling for an independent inquiry into the Tumbler Ridge shooting, particularly around mental health support and firearms access.
• Kevin Carmichael ponders the notion that Canada’s business culture itself is too timid and complacent to seize the moment (and I suspect he’s right).
• Dan Gardner points out how Putinism is now how America operates.
• Ken Boessenkool offers a digest version of the factors at play in Alberta, and how Danielle Smith is trying to manoeuvre them to ensure her own survival.
• Susan Delacourt previews Poilievre’s podcast interview with Peter Mansbridge about his changed media strategy and his desire to avoid an election for now.
• My weekend column points out that Poilievre’s big foreign policy speech last week was little more than reheated leftovers, with the same policy hammer in hand.

Odds and ends:

The next pundit who declares that Poilievre has "pivoted" and is being "prime ministerial" needs to be pilloried.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-01T00:07:35.977Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.