June 21, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
Fifteen world leaders—representing member states of the G7, along with several other countries and international organizations—gathered in beautiful Kananaskis, Alberta this week. I don’t doubt that they accomplished some important things at their summit and other meetings on the sidelines. Still, the G7 Summit ends amid worsening challenges of our disordered world and less clarity about what might come next.
It wasn’t long ago that “leader of the free world” was a default reference to the president of the United States. For various reasons, that isn’t the case today. US President Trump's campaign was about putting America first, not getting involved in “other people’s wars,” and making the rest of the world pay “its fair share” for defence rather than relying on the United States to lead militarily. When the president started indicating support for Israeli action against Iran, the MAGA movement splintered. Commentator Tucker Carlson was one of several high-profile supporters to criticize President Trump for considering direct attacks on Iran. Mr. Trump himself seems uncertain, telling reporters on Wednesday, “I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I want to do.” His most recent statements suggest he is buying a bit of time, indicating that he might take up to two weeks to decide what he will do next.
Pundits are concluding that whatever Mr. Trump’s decision in the immediate instance, Pax Americana is over, and the maintenance of the international order will be very different from the post-World War II and post-Cold War norms. The Economist on Wednesday opined that the Israel-Iran conflict was “a new spectator sport with scary consequences,” with many countries not keen on supporting either side.
Without suggesting that we need to be busybodies sticking our nose into every conflict around the world, I find it difficult to reconcile passive indifference to global affairs with my Christian convictions. I recall my political science classes categorizing foreign policy into four streams of motivation: self-protection, self-interest, humanitarian concern, and exporting ideology. It would be naïve not to recognize that even when involvement is primarily out of humanitarian concern, there is almost always at least an element of self-interest. Even so, humanitarian concern still warrants engagement. Think of it in a neighbourhood context. I don’t stick my nose into my neighbours' business, but when I see abuse taking place, I call the authorities. (I might even intervene personally if it happens right in front of me.) Zooming back out to the international context, Canada has a self-interest in the maintenance of international stability, even in a perennially troublesome region like the Middle East. More importantly, the potentially scary international justice and humanitarian implications of an Iranian nuclear weapon are reason enough not to treat this skirmish as a spectator sport.
It's not as if bombs and missiles flying through Middle Eastern skies is anything unfamiliar. Still, when the president of the United States posts on social media that the residents of Tehran, a city of almost 10 million people, “should immediately evacuate,” it’s a strong indication that we might soon see things that are unfamiliar, even for the Middle East.
Iran has been in the news for most of my lifetime. The Iranian revolution that started in 1978 overthrew a government that was generally Western-friendly (though it was growing increasingly authoritarian). In its place, Ayatollah Khomeini became supreme leader of a new Islamic theocratic regime. I won’t recount all of Iran’s history, but it fought a war with neighbouring Iraq and was the scene of the American hostage crisis, which many of us are old enough to remember, though others recall it through the Hollywood version. Regardless, since its revolution, Iran has become an international pariah, routinely violating the human rights of its own people, sponsoring several terrorist groups aimed at Israel’s destruction, and seeking to build nuclear weapons—something that has led to significant economic sanctions from many Western countries, including Canada.
In 2015, Iran agreed to strict limits on its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of many sanctions. However, concern has been building that Iran has not stuck to only peaceful nuclear development. In April, US President Trump issued an ultimatum to Iran’s supreme leader either to sign a new agreement within 60 days or face consequences. Last week, the United Nations nuclear watchdog concluded that Iran was not in compliance with its commitments, which prompted Israel to attack. The United States appeared ready to join in this week.
Iran’s leadership has held throughout that Israel is “barbaric” and that there is “no cure but that the Jewish state be annihilated.” Tehran’s city centre square includes a doomsday clock counting down to September 9, 2040, which is the date of Israel’s prophesied destruction. In addition to building nuclear capacity, Iran is widely understood to be fighting proxy wars against Israel and the United States, through Hamas, Hizballah, the Houthis in Yemen, and others who form a so-called “Axis of Resistance” with coordinated strategy and support.
Most agree that it would be dangerous for the world order should Iran obtain nuclear weapons. The only weapon capable of totally incapacitating Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow fuel enrichment camp is a 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb, which only the American military has. In the meantime, US President Trump’s goals and intentions are unclear. He could be using the threat of bombing as leverage to get a deal with Iran. Or he could be preparing for actual bombing, given his comment that he’s “looking for more than a ceasefire” and “a real end” to the Middle East conflict. I have no insight as to what he might be thinking.
Russia’s take on this situation matters too, of course. Iran and Russia signed a strategic partnership in January. While it is unclear what Russia might do, given that it has its military hands full in Ukraine, we cannot assume it will simply watch from the sidelines. To complicate matters further, many of US President Trump’s supporters are more sympathetic to Russia than Ukraine and Trump himself showed up at the G7, suggesting that Russia and China should be added to the group, regardless of their authoritarianism and the security threats they pose. The G7 was formed during the Cold War initially to coordinate economic policy, but later expanded to security and human rights concerns. (Russia was invited into the group in 1997 based on expectations it would become a more open and democratic society, but it was kicked out following its initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. As US President Trump was lamenting Russia’s exclusion, the Russian military was carrying out a record-setting drone assault on Ukraine.)
In summary, the world is in tremendous flux. G7 leaders did speak with a common voice on the Israel-Iran conflict, affirming Israel’s right to defend itself and blaming Iran as “the principal source of regional instability and terror,” and being clear that “Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.” That common public front did not prevent sniping between US President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron regarding Iran, with Trump blaming a “publicity-seeking” Macron who “always gets it wrong.”
There is no coherent voice of principled leadership capable of leading the free world right now. Those with capacity are not acting coherently or with principle, and those who seem to be making more principled statements lack capacity. NATO leaders are heading to the Netherlands for their annual summit this week and the expectations are that it “will struggle to hold together.” NATO members have started to make good on their 2014 commitment to spend at least 2 percent of national GDP on defence. In 2014, three out of thirty-two members met the threshold. By 2024, twenty-two members met the obligation. By the end of this fiscal year, all members, including Canada, say they’ll meet the target. However, this year’s NATO summit is expected to result in an even higher GDP target, although there is little reason to believe that increased military budgets will automatically make the world safer.
Foreign affairs is a tricky business at the best of times. As the Psalmist reminds us, “put not your trust in princes.” In these disordered times, I take comfort in my belief in a God who is above history, even as the immediate future is unknown and the long-term outlook remains obscured.
WHAT I’M READING
Bullets, Not Bureaucrats
“I’ll believe it when I see it. I bet a lot of that funding will go to the bloated headquarters, which means they’re going to blow it on bureaucracy, not lethality.” That’s a rather blunt reaction from former Canadian infantry officer David Morrow to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s promise to raise defence spending to 2 percent of Canada’s GDP this year, in line with Canada’s 2014 commitment. There’s a lot that Morrow has to say about defence and Canadians’ attitude toward it in this article by Anna Farrow.
Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable
Why can’t we all just be friends? Well, Statistics Canada looked into that very question by exploring how we feel about people with whom we disagree on politics, gender identity, and racism. The results are fascinating, so I’d encourage you to have a look at the coverage in Canadian Affairs. One especially notable finding is that religious people tend to view others less negatively, regardless of disagreement. That’s interesting, especially considering that Cardus itself has found that religiously committed Canadians tend to be warmer toward others—even those from a different religion—than non-religious Canadians are.
Judging the Judges
Speaking of disagreement, discussion continues following last week’s kerfuffle over politicians’ criticism of judges. Law professor Stéphane Sérafin and legal doctoral student Kerry Sun took to the pages of the National Post to argue that criticism of judges is not only legitimate, it’s necessary. “A constitutional democracy that prizes our courts as forums of reason cannot have it both ways,” they write. “It cannot profess public confidence in the judiciary, while insisting that judicial decisions be shielded from public criticism.”
Migrating the Immigration Debate
Canada has long relied on a higher rate of immigration than most other countries, with a relative consensus across the political spectrum supporting that policy. The doubling of the immigration rate in the last several years has seen that consensus fray. Pollster and communications professor André Turcotte did a “deep dive” on the erosion of Canadians’ trust in immigration, taking into account the international context. His article outlines significant variation across the country, though there is clear evidence of increasing concern about the economic and cultural implications of immigration policy. That issue poses some tricky challenges for the Carney government.
Marrying Choice and Excellence
The American school choice landscape is shifting, according to Rick Hess, an American think-tank expert, who interviewed Dr. Ashley Berner, a respected author, researcher, and Cardus senior fellow. In addition to providing an important update on significant legal and policy developments, Berner emphasizes another vital point: in striving for better policy, decision-makers also need to ensure that excellence in education continues to be an objective for the benefit of all students.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Conflict in the Middle East will, of course, affect the global supply of oil and gas. But what I hadn’t realized is how much American dependence on Middle Eastern oil had diminished in the past decade and how much China’s had increased. The United States increasingly depends on Canada and Mexico for oil imports, although US energy exports still exceed imports.
TAKE IT TO-GO
I was amused by a Globe and Mail article on “How to keep world leaders safe from grizzlies.” I’ve stayed at the hotel that hosted the G7 more than half a dozen times over the years and have on multiple occasions encountered bears from a distance during my wanderings. I also grant that grizzly and black bear attacks have resulted in 44 fatalities in Alberta since 1990, which means bears can be dangerous and are no joking matter. However, as the article points out, the G7 disrupted the wildlife more than the wildlife disrupted any world leaders.
Given that the summit is over, I don’t think I need to press paws on this entry even though it bearly passes the acceptability bar. Wildlife humour is always a fur-nomenon in which not only the defence of human safety is a consideration, but also one in which the detail needs to be carefully and accurately accounted for lest the attempted humour goes down to defeat by its critics. Security experts wouldn’t tell the Globe how much or how high the fence surrounded the buildings where the leaders met. But you can rest assured that if any critters managed to break that barrier, defeat would have gone over defence before detail.
On that note, I’ll get out of here before anyone thinks of a grizzly punishment that such a groaner deserves. In fact, I will even hibernate for a week, given that Insights is scheduled to skip next week in light of Canada Day. I look forward to being back in your inbox on Saturday, July 5, unless you will be wandering the Canadian wilderness outside of internet reach, in which case I will say, “Enjoy, and don’t forget your bear spray.”