Tag Archives: Iran

Roundup: Carney hits Sydney and Canberra

Posted on by

From Carney’s Australia trip, we saw him first in Syndy at a fireside chat event at the Lowry Institute, where he regaled the attendees with talk about how Trump is different behind closed doors than in public, as well as talking about his interactions with Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi. Interestingly in the part about Xi, there was a lot of talk about how Xi was basically drilling into him that he wasn’t to be ambushed on any topics not discussed beforehand, and that he wasn’t to be lectured to in public. He also regaled them with tales of wine-fuelled central bankers’ meetings, for what it matters.

Carney then headed to Canberra to address Parliament, where his speech was not only about Canada’s ties and similarities to Australia, but also invited them to join his middle power alliance in the “post-rupture” world. He also had a joint press conference with prime minister Albanese, where he said that the possibility exists that Canada could need to deploy troops to defend our allies in the Iran conflict, but this may be another situation where just which allies we’re defending may be the question—could we be talking the US (who is only dubiously an ally), or Türkiye? In either case, Carney’s language is being deliberately vague, because he’s all about that these days.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/2029390627197055057

 

Meanwhile, there is a side drama happening around the technical briefing before the trip, where that senior official said that India was no longer engaging in foreign interference and transnational repression. When confronted with this, Carney got shirty with a reporter and said that the quote was “not for quotation,” erm, even though the transcript came from PCO, and it was “not for attribution,” which means that the official is and has remained nameless in the press. Carney also made comments about his security clearance, which pretty much gave Poilievre vindication for why he’s refused to get his clearance so as to avoid being “silenced,” which is again nonsense—he could talk, but in generalities. Nevertheless, because Carney decided to be flip about the security clearance remark, he’s undermined the whole case for Poilievre getting his clearance as opposition leader, so good job there. (Honest to Zeus, you guys…)

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-04T23:02:03.515Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia attacked rail infrastructure in the south of Ukraine, injuring at least five. It is likely that the conflict in Iran will prevent promised weapons from being shipped to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An increasingly incoherent position on Iran

Posted on by

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

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-03T15:08:04.120Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Continue reading →

Roundup: We are one (murderous) family

Posted on by

From New Delhi, Mark Carney had his big meeting with Narendra Modi, and they announced their plans on a comprehensive trade agreement by the end of the year, along with a number of other trade plans, including a uranium agreement. Carney even said that “We are one family” with Modi, erm, except Modi’s government has very likely murdered Canadians on Canadian soil, which is a pretty strange definition of “family.” But then Carney refused to take media questions, cancelled a planned press conference, citing the need to get into the air to avoid the flight crew’s scheduling regulations, and apparently decided that he couldn’t scrum on the plane either, meaning that all of those media outlets who shelled out thousands of dollars to be there are being given nothing for the time and trouble. This is turning into a habit for Carney, as is the fact that at least one of his meetings was found out by social media and wasn’t on his itinerary.

Pretty much.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-02T15:19:39.900Z

Meanwhile, Anita Anand had to pick up the media slack, but even then, she refused to say whether she believes the attack on Iran violated international law, and only will say that Canada is not militarily involved, though she also says she wants to see a “diplomatic solution.” Other members of the government has also been backtracking on the assertion that India stopped engaging in foreign interference and repression, including secretary of state for combatting crime, Ruby Sahota, which makes it look an awful lot like that senior official was set up to try and deflect questions on the interference ahead of the trip (which backfired spectacularly because we could all tell that it was bullshit).

Meanwhile, while in London, Pierre Poilievre expounded on his idea of a critical mineral stockpile available to allies with tariff-free trade agreements (but again, I fail to see how this will change Trump’s mind). He is also getting all hot and bothered by the impact that the Iran conflict is having on the oil market, but it’s making him say dumb things about Canada trying to step in and displace that Middle Eastern oil and gas. It’s never going to happen, and none of what he’s saying is true, but nobody’s going to challenge him on it (other than Andrew Leach).

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2028513969766560215

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2028517629439414642

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-02T23:08:01.907Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s military continues to make gains reclaiming territory in Zaporizhzhia region, while a naval drone attack his the Russian oil terminal at Sheskharis, suspending operations. President Zelenskyy says that Russia won’t be able to fulfil its short-term goals in the invasion.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/2028512953016733884

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davos speech vs Iran support

Posted on by

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).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eight non-binding agreements signed

Posted on by

Yesterday was prime minister Mark Carney’s big day in Beijing, where he met with premier Li Qiang, as well as the chairman of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress, Zhao Leji. Carney billed this as building a “strategic partnership” with China, and that he hoped this to be an “example to the world of co-operation amidst a time globally of division and disorder.”  There were high-level meetings away from journalists, and in the end, they had a big show about signing six non-binding agreements as well as two declarations to facilitate more trade, because hey, all of those ministers on the trip needed their photo-op moments. One of those agreements included the BC government and had to do with use of Canadian timber and increasing use of wood-frame construction in China, in order to expand the market beyond just pulp for paper. Another was an MOU on oil and gas—but doesn’t actually commit them to buying any more of our product.

This being said, there has been no progress on the tariff issues, though any announcement might be after the meeting with Xi Jinping today. Carney said that he is “heartened” by Xi’s leadership, which…is a bit problematic considering how much more Xi has cracked down on the country and has consolidated his own power within the Party. (Photo gallery here).

Of course, during the big meeting, Carney said that this “partnership” sets them up for the “new world order,” and hoo boy did every extremely online conservative and conspiracy theorist pick up on that one. Clearly, he meant that the shift away from American dominance was reshaping the global economy, but boy the choice of phrase “New World Order” was catnip to the absolute worst people online, and is once again an own-goal by Carney.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks have destroyed a major energy facility in Kharkiv, as the country faces blackouts in the middle of winter. President Zelenskyy insists that Ukraine is interested in peace after Trump and Putin have lied that Ukraine is the holdout. Emmanuel Macron says that France is now providing two thirds of Ukraine’s intelligence, taking over from the Americans.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The MOU and a resignation

Posted on by

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Danielle Smith signed that MOU which will set up the conditions for Alberta to set up a process to build a bitumen pipeline to the coast where the tanker ban would be eviscerated, while also giving them a bunch of exemptions to other emissions reductions regulations, and the promise on Alberta’s part is to reduce emission intensity—meaning as they produce more, emissions are still increasing, just by a smaller amount in theory, though I certainly believe that intensity reductions in the oilsands flatlined a while ago. It also means that this relies even more on Pathways, which is expensive and is going to keep demanding money, and I have no confidence that Carney’s government will resist the calls to subsidise it directly. David Eby went on to refer to this future pipeline as an “energy vampire,” while coastal First Nations continue to insist it’ll never happen. And then Steven Guilbeault resigned from Cabinet, because this goes against everything he has been fighting for his entire life, and his time in office, while other MPs in his caucus are increasingly angry about how they are being treated over this issue.

https://bsky.app/profile/supriya.bsky.social/post/3m6ngogmhqs2x

In the midst of this, Andrew Leach has been reminding us about the real history of Northern Gateway, not the sanitized and revisionist version that the Conservatives have been promoting, and the fact that their constant demands that the government “get out of the way” didn’t seem to apply to the entirety of the Harper government, as the project started under the Martin government, and ultimately failed at the end of Harper’s tenure, when his government couldn’t even be arsed to follow their own process for Indigenous consultation.

In pundit reaction, Jason Markusoff notes that this agreement will do little to mollify the separatists in Danielle Smith’s base when her leadership review comes up. Andrew Coyne sees this as a shift in Canadian politics back toward building things, and capturing the political centre. Stephen Maher wonders just how politically canny Carney really is, considering the traps for himself that this agreement sets.

No it fucking won't. They've been gorging themselves on grievance porn for decades now. Nothing any government does is going to calm them.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T03:30:10.597Z

Danielle Smith Celebrates Her Glorious Pipeline Victoryyoutu.be/GVk54cla9zw

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2025-11-27T21:13:16.340Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin claims that Russian forces have surrounded Pokrovsk, while Ukraine contends that the fighting continues in the city centre, and that they are pushing back hard. He also says it’s no use signing an agreement with “illegitimate” Ukrainian leadership (because he really wants peace, you guys).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1994013852753702989

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with “building things” nostalgia

Posted on by

In all of the announcements that prime minister Mark Carney made this week, particularly around the Major Projects Office and the first tranche of projects that he was championing, there was something he said that bothers me. “We used to build big things in this country and we used to build them quickly,” he said, which is something that we hear a lot, particularly from conservatives. “We built a cross-country railroad in seven years!” But nobody wants to mention how that railroad, or any of those big projects got built, and what changed, because nostalgia is a seductive liar.

What changed, of course, is that we realized we can’t just devastate the environment, and that we can’t just keep displacing Indigenous peoples on their own lands, or that we can’t treat imported labour like slaves, or with working conditions that ensured that a great many of them died along the way. (Yes, I know there are problems with temporary foreign workers and modern-day slavery, but that is a separate discussion). And what is particularly concerning is that while Carney is not acknowledging what changed is that he gave himself a giant Henry VIII clause in his major projects legislation that lets him ignore environmental legislation, or whatever he finds inconvenient, in order to get these big things built fast. Does nobody see a problem here? Really?

Meanwhile, Poilievre mocks the “speeds not seen in generations” talks, and the unspoken part of his “government get out of the way” line is that it ultimately means environmental degradation, ignoring Indigenous rights, labour rights, you name it, because those are the things that are inconvenient. So, in a way, Carney and Poilievre are ultimately aligning on these particular things, and we shouldn’t be shrugging this off. Things changed for a reason. Going back to the 19thcentury is not a sustainable way forward, no matter how dire the economic situation we find ourselves in.

Ukraine Dispatch

Three people were killed in an incursion in the Sumy region, but that incursion has been pushed back. Ukrainian drones hit Russia’s key oil terminal in Primorsk. NATO announced plans to further shore up defences on their eastern flank after the incursion into Polish airspace. And Prince Harry made a surprise visit to Kyiv in support of wounded soldiers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Spending vs inflation

Posted on by

 

Last week, the CD Howe Institute put out a report on the recent bout of inflation, and tried to pin it either on government spending or the Bank of Canada, and in the process ignored a whole lot of things that happened during the pandemic that were material to those price increases. Or the fact that early in the pandemic, we had deflation, and that the Bank of Canada needed to act fast to ensure that it did not continue lest it turn into a spiral that would lead to a depression, because that’s what deflation does.

Naturally, however, the moment Pierre Poilievre saw that they were pinning blame on government spending, he had to jump on that because it’s his entire central thesis for inflation, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I report on economic data on a regular basis, and that includes the Consumer Price Index (or inflation) data every month, and the Bank of Canada’s Monetary Policy Report every quarter. I can tell you what prices increased and where, because that’s in the data every month. None of the causes had anything to do with government spending.

I also have to take some exception to the notion that government supports like CERB were driving demand. CERB was not extra spending money. It was survival money for low-income people who were out of work because of the pandemic. It staved off a wave of bankruptcies and even more demand on provincial social services or food banks (and the lack of provincial social services is the main driver behind increased food bank use, per their own reports). The “excess demand” was coming from higher-income households who had plenty of money to spend when they couldn’t go out to restaurants or go on vacations. They were not the recipients of government support, and trying to conflate the two is disingenuous, and frankly smacks of a great deal of ideological bias.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-07-19T21:10:16.169Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There has been another barrage of drones and missiles that have killed at least one person in Kyiv overnight. Here is another look at how the people in Kyiv are coping with the increased attacks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s not five percent

Posted on by

Now that the big NATO summit is over, can we please stop saying that the commitment is to five percent defence spending? Because it’s not. It’s 3.5 percent within a decade, but the whole other 1.5 percent is stuffing a whole lot of things to pad the numbers, whether it’s ports, or airports, or critical mineral mines. It’s creative accounting designed to make Trump think everyone is doing more (because he doesn’t understand NATO and tries to treat it like a protection racket), from a summit that was pretty much an exercise in placating him at all costs. (Takeaways more broadly, and for Canada specifically).

I’m much more concerned about Carney’s vague talk that this spending means trade-offs and possible cuts in other areas, but won’t give any examples of what that could look like. I’m especially concerned because of the way he’s talked about things like using AI, which is entirely in the vein of his having bought into the hype, and what that will inevitably mean are job cuts/losses, and a very, very costly mistake by government when it turns out that AI can’t do what they were sold on it doing for them, and it will compound all of those problems. I’m also not convinced about all of those future revenues that he thinks critical minerals are going to bring in, which sounds a little too much like counting chickens before they’ve hatched, and so on.

Bill C-5 in the Senate

Bill C-5 began deliberations in the Senate yesterday, and passed second reading on a pro forma voice vote, and will have study in committee of the whole today. There was a minor bit of disruption as Senator Patrick Brazeau collapsed from an unspecified “medical event” as he was asking questions to Senator Housakos following his speech as opposition leader, but we’re going to see a lot of hand-wringing about whether the Senate will actually amend the bill. There is pressure from the AFN national chief to slow the bill down, but there will be pressure from both the Government Leader and the Conservatives to pass it as quickly as possible, without amendments, and we’ll hear the usual doom arguments about how it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to recall the House of Commons if they did amend it—never mind that the world would not end if the bill didn’t pass until September.

Meanwhile, we see columnists like Tanya Talaga once again calling on the Governor General to deny royal assent to the bill, and I just can’t. This is actual journalistic malpractice. She can’t deny royal assent. It goes against every tenet of Responsible Government, and if she did, it would be a constitutional crisis of absolutely epic proportions. If it passes and you disagree with it, challenge it in the courts. That’s how the system works. But that column should not have been published, and the editors should have either told her to take out the references to the GG going outside of her authority, or the column should have been spiked. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy had a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit (in a more “calibrated” wardrobe), and Trump said he would “consider” more Patriot missiles, but that means absolutely nothing.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1937826703255994570

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith attacks immigrants as part of “Alberta Next” panel

Posted on by

Danielle Smith is at it again. Under the rubric of going on the offensive against Ottawa, she is going to chair a series of town hall meetings dubbed the “Alberta Next Panel” to get feedback on how the province should stand up to the federal government. And if you’ve heard this before, it was about five years ago that Jason Kenney did a similar thing dubbed the “Fair Deal” panel, but he didn’t chair it himself because he had enough self-awareness to know that would be nothing more than an absolute shit show, but Smith wants to be a woman of the people. Kenney’s panel was mostly a flop, but Smith is trying to resurrect some of those unpopular ideas, along with some absolute bullshit about working with other provinces to change the constitution. She has a couple of credible people on the panel, and a couple less-credible people, but the fact that she is chairing ensures that this will be nothing short of a fiasco.

And already, the signs are bad. Really, really bad. Like one of the topics is to “just ask questions” about denying social services to immigrants who don’t have status yet, which is supposed to somehow be pushing back if the federal government is somehow forcing “the number or kind of newcomers moving to our province,” blaming them for high housing costs, high unemployment and importing “divisions and disputes,” which is an outrageous provocation. Remember that it wasn’t that long ago that the Alberta government was falling all over itself to attract displaced Ukrainians, while denouncing any plans to “redistribute” asylum-seekers that had crossed into Quebec to other provinces in order to share the burden. And why might that be? Because Ukrainians are mostly white?

https://bsky.app/profile/senatorpaulasimons.bsky.social/post/3lsfguwp55k2t

https://bsky.app/profile/senatorpaulasimons.bsky.social/post/3lsfhatsvsc2t

This is straight-up MAGA bait, because Danielle Smith has to keep that base of her party placated at all times or they will eat her face like they did Jason Kenney. In a sense, this is Kenney’s fault, because he invited these fringe and far-right assholes into the party while he chased out the centrist normies, because he wanted a “pure” conservative party who would keep the NDP out of power forever, and well, they didn’t appreciate his appeal to common sense during the pandemic, and his fighting back against them now is tinged with bitter irony because the only reason they now hold as much power and influence in the province that they do is because he put them there, rather than allowing them to fester on the sidelines. And so, Smith is going to keep this pander to them, as ugly and fascistic as it is, because they made a deal with their devils as a shortcut to getting back into power and staying there in perpetuity. And Smith is going to keep feeding the separatists in the province through this kind of inflammatory rhetoric, because she thinks they suit her purposes in trying to threaten the rest of the country as leverage for her selfish demands. It’s a grotesque situation, and she is determined to gerrymander the next election to keep it going.

I wonder what happens when you invite the worst possible fringe elements into your party because you’re mad someone else got a turn.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-23T17:09:32.466Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian ballistic missile struck Dnipro around mid-day Tuesday, killing seventeen and injuring more than 200 others; other attacks made for a total of twenty-six civilian deaths over the course of the day.

Continue reading →