An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Canada’s Stephen Harper and Iran

Israel is moving — inexorably — towards a confrontation with Iran. As Tom Walkom points out in today’s Toronto Star, the Israelis do not necessarily believe that Iran will unleash a nuclear attack on their country. The result would surely be mutually asssured destruction. But the bomb is Israel’s trump card. The Israelis are:

terrified that the loss of Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East would weaken its hand in its dealing with other enemies, a weakening that, in the long run, might encourage Jewish citizens to abandon a country that prides itself on being a Jewish state.

However, recent events have also led the Iranians to some rock hard convictions about nuclear weapons:

The 1980 war with Iraq, however, reawakened Iran’s appetite for weapons of deterrence.

By 2001, Iran faced Saddam Hussein’s hostile Iraq on one side and an equally hostile U.S. operating in Afghanistan on the other.

The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq eliminated Saddam. But it also demonstrated that countries without nuclear weapons could be easily picked off — which spooked Iran even more.

In short, both nations see nuclear weapons as the guarantors of their existence. In the past, Canada wisely stayed out of such conflicts, believing that discretion was the better part of valor:

We sat out the brief 1956 Suez war that pitted Britain, France and Israel against Egypt. We avoided involvement in America’s bruising Vietnam War and explicitly rejected Washington’s entreaties to join its 2003 invasion of Iraq.

We went into Afghanistan only after the United States invoked a clause in the NATO treaty that obligated us to do so.

But that was then. Stephen Harper’s foreign policy does not depend on discretion. He believed that Canada should have joined in the invasion of Iraq. And his support for Israel is unconditional.

Walkom puts the choice quite succinctly:

Is it better to let Iran follow in the footsteps of the U.S., France, Britain, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea by acquiring nuclear weapons?

Or is better to unleash another Mideast war?

For Canadians the question is, which choice would Stephen Harper make?

Owen Gray grew up in Montreal, where he received a B. A. from Concordia University. After crossing the border and completing a Master’s degree at the University of North Carolina, he returned to Canada, married, raised a family and taught high school for 32 years. Now retired, he lives — with his wife and youngest son — on the northern shores of Lake Ontario. This post is cross posted from his blog.



3 Responses to “Canada’s Stephen Harper and Iran”

  1. ShannonLeee says:

    I never thought Canadians were such war mongers. Learn something new every day.

  2. Rcoutme says:

    I like to hope that you guys will not have to make the choice. In the case of Afghanistan, the United States was attacked by people who were being protected by that government. According to NATO, an attack on one is an attack on all. Granted that it was originally meant to be a deterrent to a possible Soviet invasion of Europe, but that does not mean that NATO should not honor its promise to a member nation.

    Concerning Iraq, I wish we (US) had not gotten involved in 2003 (right war, wrong time). Concerning Iran, I hope we will not get involved (Republican rhetoric aside).

    I do not trust the Iranians to keep nuclear bombs out of the hands of their terrorist proxies (Hamas, Hezbolah, etc.) Some of those terrorists worship death. They would use a nuke without hesitation.

  3. davidpsummers says:

    As Tom Walkom points out in today’s Toronto Star, the Israelis do not necessarily believe that Iran will unleash a nuclear attack on their country.

    We to assume, apparently to make Israeli concerns over the threat to their survival their own fault, that the issue isn’t that a country that has been belligerent and threatening toward Israel having a nuke but instead that Israel is willing to endure enormous risk to maintain a nuclear monopoly that has little for them except serve as a deterrent to the same destruction they aren’t suppose to fear.

    The difficulties in stopping Iran from getting a nuke are daunting, but these attempts to minimize the dangers from Iran having a nuke are, IMO, nothing more than an ostrich sticking its head in the ground.

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity