Dennis Horak (2:47)

Yeah, I mean, it's a difficult needle to thread, I think, in some respects. I mean, we agree with so much of what forms the basis of the US complaints and the Israeli complaints in terms of Iran's nuclear program, in terms of Iran's regional activities, its support for terrorism, it's brutal treatment of its own people. We share. We're in very much policy alignment on those issues. And dealing with the Islamic Republic in a decisive way that could perhaps deal with those important issues is something that's hard to oppose from a policy perspective. On the other hand, there are real questions about international law. There are real questions about sort of this whole might makes right kind of situation that seems to be coming more and more prevalent today. And certainly we saw it with the US In Venezuela, and it's trying to sort of balance those two issues. The government also doesn't want to be too offside with the United States, particularly given the policy alignment. I mean, we saw some reaction today earlier with President Trump and his sort of critical comments regarding the British position and Spain, although Spain has another issue regarding NATO.

Unnamed Commentator (4:01)

And now Spain actually said that we can't use their bases, and that's all right.

Jamie Poisson (4:06)

We don't.

Unnamed Commentator (4:07)

We could use their base if we want. We could just fly in and use it. Nobody is going to tell us not to use it, but we don't have to. But they were unfriendly, and so has UK now, the second one is shocking, but this is not the age of Churchill. I will say the UK has been very, very uncooperative with that stupid island.

Dennis Horak (4:31)

It's not about going against our policy positions to placate Trump. It's, we agree with the motivations here, not wanting also to get offside with the US for bilateral relations perspective. But also there's a political dimension here in Canada as well. We have a very large Iranian diaspora, tens of thousands of which came out onto the streets of Toronto, Vancouver, other cities to protest against the regime following the absolute brutality we saw in Iran in January. And so I think there's a political consideration as well. So they're sort of caught between Iraq and a hard place, I think.

Jamie Poisson (5:08)

In summary, I just want to make sure you agree with what I think I heard there, which was essentially, if I could boil it down, Canada supports efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program, but this effort may have been illegal. Am I totally off base, sir?

Dennis Horak (5:25)

He was fudging a little bit because he's not a lawyer. And he was saying, you know, that, that some of the, you know, some lawyers would be, certainly have an objection to this. And, and there would be others who would, who would make another case. And, and again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm, I'm not sort of advancing this as, as this is what the law says. But I could see, and I have seen some arguments made that, that Iran's consistent violation of international law, particularly its hostility and support for attacks against Israel, that would give Israel at least some justification for taking action against the regime, which has taken repeated actions against Israel and Israel is, the American argument might be a little bit less clear cut than that. They have had Americans that have been killed by the regime as well. Going back to the Marine barracks in Lebanon in the 80s, 80s, the emphasis, I think, at least from what I saw in the, in the press conference, he was, I think a lot his comments on international law were pretty, a lot focused on the question of the conduct of the war and that Israel and the United States and Iran for that matter, need to follow the rules of war in how this is being carried out. And I think that was a particular Ephraces emphasis that I heard.

Jamie Poisson (6:43)

In any case, though, I'm not sure you might have missed it because it happened afterwards when he was taking questions for reporters and there was this exchange with a reporter from the Toronto Star.

Prime Minister Mark Carney (6:53)

Carney replies, well, Canada was not asked to participate. You know that we were not informed in advance, we were not asked to participate. Prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law. So we would not have been in a position earlier this week or the weekend, I guess to take a judgment that met our standards if we had been asked to participate.

Dennis Horak (7:21)

We weren't. Yeah, I mean that is really sort of skirting the issue because I mean essentially what he's saying is we would not have participated because we would have considered it a violation of international law. However, now that it's happened, we do support some of the objectives of the mission. It's kind of clumsy. Not sure I would have phrased it exactly the way he did, but it is certainly an issue that is going to keep coming back at him. And it is complicated and certainly we are concerned about unilateral actions of individual powers. And that is a concern. The whole question of the rules based order, but the reality. And he also made a point to reiterate again a line he just gave in Davos that see the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. And the reality is we're in an era where the rules based international order is, is in jeopardy. And that is the reality. And we have all of these other elements that are, that are driving some of our position on this, this issue. So it's very complicated.

Jamie Poisson (8:44)

Before these statements on, on Tuesday, former Canadian diplomat Sabina Nolki said that this is support for a doctrine of preemptive strike to, to support the US and Israel here, which Canada has not traditionally supported. John Allen, who was Canada's ambassador to Israel from 2006 to 2010, said that this essentially gives the US free reign to topple whatever regime it wants to. I mean, we have already seen them go into Venezuela. And do you worry that Canada's kind of tacit support of this strike is essentially a support of Trump's brand of imperialism? I know you were touching on that before, but if you could go into it with a little more detail.

Dennis Horak (9:27)

Yeah, I mean, it certainly can be read that way, but I think what the government has done, because they had a very different position when it came to Venezuela, and I think what they're doing is looking at it a case by case, that the threat that Iran posed to international peace and security, to security in the Gulf region, security in the Middle east generally, it was a very different order of magnitude than whatever Venezuela was up to that upset the Americans so badly. I understand that you can't pick and choose. You can't cherry pick which law you're going to support or when you're going to support particular laws. But I think part of what the government is dealing with here is it's dealing with a threat level of a very different kind than what was in Venezuela. And whether we agree with it or not, if the Americans are going to act the way they're going to act, there's not a lot we're going to do about it anyway. So I think that the thing is to try and make the best of a difficult and perhaps bad situation.

Jamie Poisson (10:27)

Could we not have done something more boring, though? You know, just said less? Right. Not like.

Dennis Horak (10:33)

Well, no, yeah, ideally, I mean, they tried to say as little as possible, but.

Jamie Poisson (10:38)

But, you know, he came out with that statement on February 28th. It was a written statement. It was one of the first statements of any G7 ally. And it said, quote, canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security. Was there another path here?

Dennis Horak (11:01)

Well, I mean, I think what it reflects is the two minds that a lot of us are facing with this situation. I don't think anybody is upset, would be upset with the removal of this regime. It is a threat. It would continue to be a threat. So there is that impulse to sort of cheerlead this and say, great, now there's a lot of repercussions that are not so positive that potentially we can get into that later. You know, I understand the legal challenges here, and I understand the potential for precedent, although, frankly, I don't think any of the great powers need precedent in any case. But nonetheless. But on the other hand, I do have the same impulse that I'm really not sad that this regime is feeling the repercussions of their actions for decades.

Jamie Poisson (11:51)

Do you worry, though, that the message sent to the regime from these strikes will be that they didn't try hard enough to get a nuclear weapon like that? That's the lesson. That a much harder line could replace the current iteration and that the lesson will be that they have to go get the bomb.

Dennis Horak (12:14)

Well, that's always been a risk. That realization would have hit them in June of last year. It would have hit them when their entire sort of axis of resistance, their entire network across the region was basically degraded to, to, you know, minimal levels. North Korea's position is not lost on them and, you know, the fact that they have nuclear weapons and, and now that's not the only reason why North Korea is, is relatively safe, but certainly a big part of it. I don't believe they had made a decision on getting nuclear weapons. This has been a debate they've had with it internally within Iran for ages. They wanted the capability to have one. But it's that desire to, that stubbornness about the program which has raised suspicions that this is ultimately where they want to go, this is ultimately what they want to have. And frankly, a nuclear armed Iran, given its attitudes, its behavior up till now, would be a much more dangerous animal than North Korea.

CBC Announcer (13:28)

There's one place for the newest drops in wellness and performance and the biggest sale of the year. It's the drop by gnc, curating the best of what's new, handpicked by the pros who know what works. And right now, get it all. Buy one, get one 50% off during the semi annual LiveWell sale. From crushing workouts to leveling up your nutrition and everything in between, get the best deals on the latest innovations. All the newness is all on sale right now during the live well sale on the drop by gnc.

Kathleen Goldhar (13:58)

You know that feeling when you reach the end of a really good true crime series? You want to know more, more about the people involved, where the case is now and what it's like behind the scenes. I get that. I'm Kathleen Goldhar and on my podcast Crime Story, I speak with the leading storytellers of true crime to dig deeper into the cases we all just can't stop thinking about. Find Crime Story wherever you get your podcasts.

Jamie Poisson (14:26)

I wonder if we could parse that threat level now. So, I mean, we have seen in the last couple of years Iran's proxies greatly degraded. We have seen multiple attacks on the country and the response from Iran. You know, many people have viewed it as kind of like a paper tiger. And then on the nuclear front, the UN's nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossri said this week inspectors have not found evidence of a coordinated Iranian program to build nuclear weapons. Before the strikes, the Foreign Minister of Oman said that they had made progress in negotiations that Iran was willing to give up stockpiling, which is, I understand it, I'm no expert in this, but it would make it practically impossible to make a nuclear weapon. And so was Iran really such an imminent threat here?

Dennis Horak (15:18)

I think the key word there is imminent. Their capacity for mischief was, has been severely degraded certainly since last June and what the so called 12 Day War. And their nuclear program was very much under, under control under the, the jcpoa, the nuclear agreement and Obama had negotiated. But the risk with Iran is always, you don't know what you don't know. And yes there had been inspections and yes there had been, there had been, you know, a general sense that they haven't been pursuing a bomb. I don't disagree with that at all. They wanted to maintain the capability, that's true. So no, I agree. I don't think there was an imminent threat. Now in terms of what Iran agreed to or what they weren't going to agree to, I do take the Omanis that there were, they're very honest negotiators. But with Iran, with negotiations, and I know this from personal experience, until it's actually signed, what they say they agree to is often very different from what they're willing to sign. This is a tactic that has been perfected by the Iranians. I've experienced it myself. It's so I'm somewhat skeptical that that's ultimately where they would have gone. Part of the issue with them it's, and it's understandable to a degree the right to enrichment is something that they hold very strongly to. They've seen from experience for the entire life of the Islamic Republic that you can't rely on the ability to import things that blockades, blockages of goods or anything into Iran are susceptible to the pressures from the international community, mostly driven by Iran's own behavior, but nonetheless. So they want to have this independent ability to produce what believe they need for their civilian program or ultimately a weapons program should they make that decision. So this, the idea of retaining enrichment capacity and ability is something that they're really going to stay hard to. The Americans and Israel and others don't believe that if enrichment is allowed in Iran, then it could be fully safeguarded that there wouldn't be diversion and that there wouldn't be the development of nuclear weapons.

Jamie Poisson (17:37)

Right. What do you believe?

Dennis Horak (17:40)

It's hard to say. I do agree with the point you made earlier, that, that the experience they've, they've suffered over the last, particularly last six to eight months has reinforced probably in the minds of some within the regime or whoever did, who was, who were in the regime, that the only real safeguard for them is a nuclear deterrent. If they could figure out a way to do that clandestinely. So there may have been increased pressure to do that based on what had happened before that, that all of their grand plans for their forward defense and their influence and taking on Israel all collapsed. And the sense being that the only safeguard they would have would be a nuclear weapon. I mean, the irony in a lot of this, I mean, the message really they probably should have taken from the events of the last two and a half years since October 7th is that, you know, maybe all of that, maybe they're on the wrong track to begin with. Maybe 47 years of hostility towards Israel, meddling in regional affairs, hostility towards the United States and the repercussions, the sanctions repercussions and the impact that has had on the economy and on the lives of Iranian, of the average Iranian. Maybe that's not all worth it. This open, active, very active, and it's not just rhetorical, but active hostility towards Israel. It's got them where they are now, both internally in terms of their economy and now sitting there facing a war and facing threats that wouldn't be there otherwise. But I'm not sure ideologically they could, they can find that path. Maybe the next government will, I don't know.

Jamie Poisson (19:35)

I would be remiss as I have you here. You have during a couple times in this discussion, talked about your own experience. Carney today pointed to a pretty bad relationship between Canada and Iran.

Prime Minister Mark Carney (19:47)

Over the decades, the regime and its proxies have murdered hundreds, including Canadian civilians, and caused untold suffering for millions of people in the Middle east and beyond. Despite more than two decades of negotiations and diplomatic efforts, Iran has not dismantled its nuclear program nor hold halted its enrichment activities. Canada has long supported the imperative of neutralizing this grave global threat.

Jamie Poisson (20:14)

And I wonder if you could just remind people what he and what you are talking about here.

Dennis Horak (20:20)

Yeah, it's been bad from the very beginning, from the opening days of the revolution, to be honest. We, as many listeners will remember. Canada gave safe haven to six American diplomats during the hostage crisis and we helped them escape Iran.

Prime Minister Mark Carney (20:40)

The Canadian Ambassador Kenneth Taylor offered them

Dennis Horak (20:43)

the hospitality of the embassy despite the obvious risks. Taylor, proud of his embassy's security, was under no illusion, though he knew that if the militants at the U. S. Embassy had learned about his hospitality, they

Prime Minister Mark Carney (20:56)

might have stormed his embassy.

Dennis Horak (20:59)

And that set the relationship on a particularly precarious footing right from the very beginning. And just as a small anecdote to that, I was at one point director for the division in Foreign affairs that was responsible for the Gulf region, including Iran. And we were having, as we often did, some particular problems with Iran. And so I went to Tehran. This is before I went there, before I was posted to Iran. I went there with our assistant deputy minister to try and resolve this issue. And it was. It was an issue regarding embassy staffing and visas and all that. So not sort of a grand political issue, but it was a sort of the usual sort of harassment we got from the Iranians anyway. So we turned up with the assistant deputy minister. We met with the foreign minister on a sort of just a very, sort of introductory meeting. And the very first words out of his mouth were, 40 years ago, you guys made a big mistake helping those American spies. That reflected a mindset that they brought to the relationship. And there were moments where we had an okay relationship with them under. When President Hathami was in Iran, but for the most part, it's been hostile. We were viewed as a puppet of the US And a puppet of Israel and told that to my face on more than one occasion. So it's been a. It was a challenging relationship from the very beginning, and it really didn't improve a whole lot over the years.

Jamie Poisson (22:29)

Okay, I just want to come back as we end this conversation to how our position here might be kind of remembered and just I think as people watch the communications around this coming from the United States, I don't think it would be out of line for me to say that. It seems like a mess. We've already seen the mount many different reasons for why they struck Iran. You know, starting with it being about dismantling their nuclear program and regime change. On Monday, there was a talk of a need to destroy ballistic missiles. The Navy eradicating its support for proxy groups. Marco Rubio was making the case that essentially Israel forced their hand, that they struck because they knew Israel was going to strike and they were trying to prevent an attack on America. After Israel strike, we knew that there

Dennis Horak (23:24)

was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher, those killed.

Jamie Poisson (23:38)

As this continues to evolve and as we see more outrage directed at how the US Is doing this, what they're doing here, do you think that there is a real potential for Carney and Canada's position to age quite badly?

Dennis Horak (23:56)

A couple things. I don't see a lot of outrage. I see some criticism, but I don't see a lot of outrage. And I've long since stopped expecting coherent policy statements coming out of Washington under this administration. I think in some ways, on policy side, they fly by the seat of their pants and certainly on the communications side, they do. And it was interesting because Rubio's comments about following Israel were actually contradicted today by President Trump.

Jamie Poisson (24:25)

Israel forced your hand to launch these strikes against Iran.

Kathleen Goldhar (24:28)

Did.

Jamie Poisson (24:29)

Then God will pull the United States into this war.

Unnamed Commentator (24:31)

I might have forced their hand.

Dennis Horak (24:33)

You see, again, it's part and parcel of a, of a communications strategy that is, is consistent with, with this administration. Now, in terms of Canada's position, how it's going to age, I'm going to give the cynical point of view that if it goes well, if somehow, and I think it's a big challenge to get there, but let's just say this results in, in a swift, peaceful and positive regime change and ultimately leading to a new, more democratic focus to ran. I think Canada's position will not be heavily criticized going forward. If, however, as we saw with Iraq, things go terribly badly and the place descends into chaos, then I think our position will be something that studied for a while in terms of, and questioned about whether this was a mistake or not. So I think a lot of it's going to depend on events and I think those outcomes are unknown at this point.

Jamie Poisson (25:40)

Of course, the Canadian government is saying that we are not getting involved militarily in this war. But if this does continue to spiral. The British, for example, put planes in the sky as part of the a regional defense strategy. Again, they're saying it's just defensive, but they do have people in sort of harm's way here. France is deploying fighter jets to protect its bases in the uae. Do you see a scenario in which we get more involved here?

Dennis Horak (26:06)

No, not really. I mean, we don't really have the ass. We don't, we don't have assets to. We have people to protect, that's for sure. We got tens of thousands of Canadians that are living there, both in Iran and around the Gulf and in Lebanon, of course. So, I mean, that's the primary focus. And there may involve the Canadian military in helping evacuation at some point, if some way can be figured out to do that. And I don't know how you do that in the middle of a war zone, but that's an area we could get involved in. There are probably. There are likely, as usual, there are likely Canadian forces personnel that are seconded to various American military units. I think that's likely. So there may be some individual involvement, but we really don't have the assets to bring to bear. We don't have assets to protect like others in the region, like the British do or the French do. It's already a wider war, but it's not a wider war that's involving, you know, four countries on one side and five on the other. It's basically everybody against Iran. So I don't think we're going to have to worry about, for example, the Russians piping in or the Chinese or any of that sort of thing. That could spiral into a much broader war, out of region war. So I really don't see that there's much scope for. For Canada being involved militarily, and I'm not sure what we would bring to the table in any case.

Jamie Poisson (27:18)

Okay. Mr. Herck, thank you so much for this. Really appreciate it.

Dennis Horak (27:22)

You're welcome.

Jamie Poisson (27:32)

All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.

CBC Announcer (27:47)

For more cbc podcasts, go to cbc ca podcasts.