Trump’s ultimatum to Tehran puts Canada on alert

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Talks between Iran and the U.S. ended Thursday amid President Donald Trump’s 10-15 day “deal or bad things” ultimatum. In his State of the Union speech this week, Trump vowed never to let “the world’s number one sponsor of terror” get nukes — after promising protesters in Iran that “help is on the way.”

Canada faces risks from any strikes — terrorism, oil shocks, diaspora backlash and NORAD strain — but the fallout will depend on their scope. Ottawa opposes kinetic action but has imposed new sanctions on Iranian officials and said it will not have diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic without regime change.

Trump vs. Tehran

Trump is demanding pledges from Tehran never to develop nuclear weapons and to give up enrichment capacity, but Iran insists on enriching uranium for civilian purposes and wants sanctions relief.

“The lesson from North Korea is you don’t get attacked if you have nuclear weapons,” said Stephen Nagy, senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and politics professor at the International Christian University.

With negotiations at a standstill, defence and regional experts believe U.S. strikes could start as soon as this weekend, given the concentration of U.S. air and naval assets in the region.

Greg Brew, senior analyst at Eurasia Group, expects a major strike. 

“Given the amount of pressure the U.S. is trying to put on Iran, the president has put himself in a position where he has to go big or go home,” he said.

“The goal will be to weaken Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and elements of its nuclear program to reduce the strategic threat to the United States and to Israel,” he added. He doubts Washington will aim for regime change.

Nagy also expects “overwhelming force” to push Tehran toward U.S. demands, noting a similar approach from Trump in Venezuela, Nigeria, and Syria.

Scott Clancy, retired RCAF Major-General and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said there aren’t enough U.S. assets in the region for anything more than a limited incursion. 

“Iran is not Venezuela,” he said, noting its more capable, layered air defences.

While a narrow strike may be politically tempting, said Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, it’s also “strategically dangerous.”

A limited strike, he said, will try but fail to shake the regime’s confidence — “the worst of all worlds.”

“You’re going to really anger the regime; they’re going to recoil, and it’s still unlikely to accomplish any of your goals.”

The aftershocks for Canada

Experts don’t expect a long enough intervention to achieve real change, but any operation’s length and severity could affect Canada.

There are safety concerns for personnel, as Canada has forces operating around the region in multilateral efforts. It also has an embassy in Beirut, where Hezbollah — Iran’s proxy — could launch retaliatory attacks against Western forces.

“Anytime the U.S. and Iran go toe-to-toe, everything becomes a powder keg,” said Clancy, warning that Canadian military forces could become targets. 

Panikoff agreed that retaliatory measures and terrorist attacks could result, citing cyber attacks as most likely. But he warned Iran could revert to 1990s-style terrorism, leveraging networks in South Asia or Latin America to target Jewish, Israeli, or U.S. targets.

“I think all of that’s on the table,” he said.

Even if Canada maintains its “diplomacy only” line, said Nagy, Ottawa would quietly welcome regime change in Iran, like it did in Venezuela. This way, Ottawa could condemn military action while still benefiting from reopening ties to Iran, eventually.

“If an attack leads to a more representative government in Iran, that’s good for Canada,” said Nagy. “It could open real economic opportunities — lifting sanctions, letting Canadian companies finally engage with an enormous Iranian middle class.”

But Ottawa’s response could spark a backlash from Canada’s Iranian diaspora, so Ottawa’s tone matters, warned Panikoff. 

“For Canada, the question is going to be more about what the reaction is and how Prime Minister Carney reacts.” 

Defending strikes increases the chance of Canadians becoming targets, while downplaying them risks straining relations with Washington and showing Canada’s Iranian population he’s not on their side, he explained.

Iranian conflicts always raise concerns about the price of oil as well, and Trump certainly doesn’t want higher gas prices heading into the summer travel season, but Brew said the markets have already priced in a U.S. strike. 

“Oil prices right now are hovering around 70 dollars a barrel — that’s a risk premium the market has added over the last two weeks as it prices in the possibility of a U.S. strike.”

Still, a months-long intervention could lead to higher energy price shocks, which would have a deleterious effect on Canada’s economy.

“If Iranian retaliation pushes oil back over a $100 a barrel, it’s bad — really bad — for Canada. We’re already suffering serious inflation,” said Nagy.

Finally, as America’s defence, there could be considerations for burden-sharing.

For now, there’s minimal risk to NORAD from U.S. strikes on Iran, because the U.S. carrier movements haven’t affected the defence posture in North America. A longer conflict, Panikoff said, could lead to U.S. requests for Canada to cover gaps in NORAD or Five Eyes, mainly with intelligence-sharing. 

But Clancy pointed to potential unconventional, low-end threats such as drone swarms or “Scud in a tub” missiles launched from vessels off coastlines as possible threats.

These, he said, could evade radar systems designed for spotting high-altitude bombers and ICBMs, not low-end proxy attacks. 

So while NORAD doesn’t need to worry about direct military threats from Iran — Tehran doesn’t yet have missiles that can reach North America — it may need to be on high alert for unconventional attacks.

And if the U.S. strikes, Panikoff hopes the Trump administration has those longer-term threats — potential for longer-range missiles and nuclear weapons — in mind, and in his sights.

“The right way to go about this is to further diminish ballistic missile threats… and to go after the nuclear sites … Those things are both long-term strategic threats.”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.