From Sydney, Australia, prime minister Mark Carney finally held a press conference, nearly six days into the tour. There, he was forced to somewhat walk back his position on what is happening in Iran, and while he may think he’s trying to nuance the situation, he instead sounds increasingly incoherent. He says that he supports the attack “with regret,” but that support isn’t a blank cheque, and there was a failure of international law. But remember, his Davos speech was about how international law was built on hypocrisy, and we’re dealing with the world as it is, but now we’re calling on rapid de-escalation and a ceasefire, and for diplomacy and international law to prevail, the same international law that you said is pretty much over? Huh? He also had to somewhat walk back the assertions that India is no longer engaging in foreign interference and repression…but he also wouldn’t say that they are, because again, incoherence, with a side of an amoral focus on dollar signs.
This Carney statement is puzzling. If, as he says, we must accept "the world as it is" – including the purported failure of previous diplomatic efforts and of the international order – then why call for a diplomatic solution, de-escalation, and respect for international law?
— Roland Paris (@rolandparis.bsky.social) 2026-03-03T22:58:19.535Z
Meanwhile, the situation in Iran remains hard to gauge, because there is no plan, and frankly, where people call for negotiations, it’s unclear with whom they are supposed to negotiate with, and when Trump calls on Iranian the military to surrender its weapons, there is nobody for them to surrender them to. There is an interesting piece on Radio Atlantic where Iranian writer Arash Azizi and Anne Applebaum discuss the fact that there isn’t a coherent opposition within Iran who can reasonably be expected to turn power over to. And then Trump is also suggesting that he may leave someone from the existing regime in charge, which then changes nothing and possibly makes things worse if it’s a hardliner determined to consolidate power and punish civilians for disloyalty, of whatever.
Meanwhile, from his London sojourn, Pierre Poilievre is trying to bring back CANZUK as a concept, which I always quite qwhite telling when conservatives sing its praises. But his ideas for CANZUK are also making a bunch of promises he can’t keep, because things like credentials recognition are provincial jurisdiction and good luck with that, while promising East Coast LNG is something that is never, ever going to happen. He also gave a Margaret Thatcher lecture where he praised capitalism, and called environmentalism a grift, and so on, because he’s very smart like that.
To file under promises Poilievre can't keep:-Credentials recognition is provincial jurisdiction. It's hard enough getting recognition across provincial borders and he wants to extend it to CANZUK?-East Coast LNG is never, ever going to happen because there is no market case.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-03T16:10:49.461Z
From the extraordinary intellect that brought you “the Nazis were lefties because it says socialist in the party name,” I bring you…
— Chris Turner (@theturner.bsky.social) 2026-03-04T01:20:40.650Z
Ukraine Dispatch