24. Kanada başbakanı (2025–görevde)
Canada faces deadline to stop US tariffs on $20bn of exports
Mark Carney spoke to Donald Trump on Tuesday in a final push to avert American trade levies
Another duty to warn letter casts doubt on Carney's rapprochement with India
The RCMP issued another "duty to warn" letter to a Sikh separatist, Inderjeet Singh Gosal, who replaced Hardeep Singh Nijjar as leader of the Khalistani referendum effort in Canada. The newest threat raises more questions about the Carney government's claim that threats from the Indian government in Canada have been neutralized.
Trump and Carney hold urgent talks as steep 50% US tariffs on Canada loom
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has held urgent talks with US President Donald Trump, Ottawa confirmed Tuesday, in an effort to avoid fresh US tariffs on Canadian goods as a midnight deadline fast approaches. Trump signed orders for the steep 50 per cent duties last month, with the White House alleging “discriminatory treatment” by Canada against US alcohol, car and dairy products. The tariffs are set to take effect on Wednesday, covering products such as wine, hockey sticks and cement....
Why Carney’s pipeline gamble is a bad bet for Canadian taxpayers
Why Carney’s pipeline gamble is a bad bet for Canadian taxpayers Expert comment jon.wallace 13 August 2026 Tensions with the US and Alberta are leading Prime Minister Carney to back new oil and gas infrastructure. Smoothing the path to electrification would be a better use of public funds. Since taking office in January 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney has steered Canada’s energy policy away from reducing emissions towards increasing fossil fuel exports. Some would argue that he had little choice. The Canadian economy is under pressure amidst the trade war launched by the administration of President Donald Trump. Carney took office with a mandate to de-risk Canada from the increasingly hostile United States, which buys over 90 per cent of Canada’s crude oil exports, and practically all its natural gas exports. Additionally, the prime minister had to address a significant domestic issue: relations between Ottawa and Alberta, the province responsible for three-quarters of Canadian oil and gas production, had become increasingly toxic. But Carney’s pivot may backfire, for one simple reason. The new markets Canada is relying upon for export growth will not buy imported oil and gas forever. And they may reduce their consumption sooner than anticipated. Pouring taxpayer money into export infrastructure, largely to the benefit of foreign companies, doesn’t de-risk Canada’s economy. It risks swapping dependence on the US for other uncertain foreign markets. Export focus Carney is seeking to diversify the customer base for Canadian oil and gas away from the US by increasing the capacity for seaborne exports from Western Canada. In July, Alberta and Ottawa agreed a new east-to-west oil pipeline, projected to carry 1 million barrels a day (b/d) of crude, following the route of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline. Officials expect operations to begin in 2033 or 2034. The pipeline, along with major liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure already under development in British Columbia, has been fast-tracked through the newly created federal Major Projects Office. Related work The Climate Briefing: Climate change, energy and geopolitics Significant public spending has been dedicated to the task, on the grounds that what is spent will be returned to the public purse many times over in royalties, tax receipts, and economic growth. The new oil pipeline is expected to cost between 35 to 44 billion Canadian dollars (C$), of which most is set to be borne by the public, as was the case with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Meanwhile federal and provincial support for the LNG drive is expected to reach C$4 billion by 2031. And new tax breaks incentivizing oil and gas production have also been introduced. The government calls these projects ‘nation-building’. But foreign companies and investors will be among the primary beneficiaries. LNG Canada is a joint venture of Shell, PETRONAS, PetroChina, Mitsubishi Corporation and the Korean Gas Corporation. Ksi Lisims LNG, a proposed export terminal in British Columbia, is set be built, owned and operated by wholly-owned subsidiaries of Texas-based Western LNG, according to reports and government documents. Indeed, nearly 60 per cent of Canada’s oil and gas production is owned by American private equity. Of course, the export strategy dovetails with a domestic political imperative. The Albertan independence movement saw surging support during the tenure of Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau. Carney will hope that by supporting major new investments that benefit the province’s energy industry, and by weakening climate policies, he can neutralize the threat of secession. Flawed logic There would be a clear economic, political and geopolitical logic to Carney’s strategy – if taxpayers could be assured of robust, long-term demand for Canada’s oil and gas in new markets. But that looks uncertain. Canada is pinning its hopes on Asia: giants like China and India; and fast-growing Southeast Asian nations like Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Indeed, in 2018 the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that electricity generated by gas in Asia would have grown by 547 TWh by 2025. In 2018 the IEA predicted that electricity generated by gas in Asia would have grown by 547 TWh by 2025… in fact, it grew by a mere 17 TWh. But in fact, it grew by a fraction of this, a mere 17 TWh. And the outlook today is not encouraging. Wood Mackenzie estimates that only 15 GW of 53 GW of gas-fired electricity generation capacity planned in Southeast Asia for 2030 will be delivered, due to volatile gas prices, financing shortfalls, and equipment shortages. It is true that the Strait of Hormuz shock has put a premium on reliable oil and gas supplies. But the crisis has also incentivized importing nations, which include most in Asia, to insulate themselves against future shocks, including through renewable energy and electric transport. In 2018, the IEA estimated solar generation in Asia would grow by 465 TWh by 2025. Instead, it grew by 1,333 TWh. The growth in sales of electric vehicles (EVs) has been no less impressive. In China, the largest importer of oil, most new cars sold are already electric. EV sales in Southeast Asia more than doubled in 2025. Solar panels and batteries destroy demand for gas. EVs do the same for oil. Falling demand means falling prices. Carney’s fossil fuel plans therefore expose Canadian taxpayers to risks of value erosion and stranded assets that could cost Canada 30 per cent of the sector’s total value under a fast-paced energy transition scenario. The PM should not expose the Canadian taxpayer to such risk. It is certainly not justified solely by the prospect of Albertan secession, with just 18 per cent of Albertans supporting separation according to one recent poll. Carney should instead channel public investment into a much safer bet: electrification. Competitive advantage According to Natural Resources Canada, Canada has the lowest-cost residential power (2024), the second lowest-cost industrial power (2024) and the second highest share of non-emitting electricity generation (2023) in the G7, thanks to a high share of hydro and nuclear power generation. Affordable electricity makes the country attractive to energy-intensive growth industries like EV manufacturing, critical minerals mining, green hydrogen production and AI data centres. Montreal, for example, has cheap hydro rates (6 cents per kWh) and attracted C$1.7 billion in AI-related foreign direct investment between 2018 and 2024. Canada’s low emission power mix is also a strategic advantage as markets like the EU increasingly price carbon on imported goods. But future gains will be limited if Canada does not properly invest in its fragmented, costly and unreliable electricity grid. Investing in electrification Carney’s government is aware of the problem. A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy launched in May plans to double Canada’s electricity system infrastructure to accommodate rapidly growing demand. The federal government has limited jurisdiction over electricity systems. That means that provincial utilities must lead the way in investing in the new grid, which will require an estimated C$1 trillion by 2050. Under current arrangements, these investments will be recovered as levies added to electricity bills. The risk to meeting the Canadian electrification challenge is therefore that significant upfront investments translate into higher prices for citizens and industry, undermining the case for electrification. The federal balance sheet should be used not to underwrite new pipelines, but to ‘smooth’ these predictable electrification costs. A Powering Canada Forward Fund, as proposed by the Canadian Climate Institute, would hold electricity prices steady for consumers as provincial utilities invest in the grid. As the system expands, and as more electricity is consumed, the public investment could be gradually repaid by a growing customer base. This approach would use public funding smartly to ensure that the costs of tomorrow’s grid are not disproportionately borne by today’s consumers. Federal support should also prioritize connecting provincial grids. Canada trades more electricity with the US than it does between provinces. Improving interprovincial transmission will enable Canada to capture more of the value of its energy system domestically, while still exporting surplus power to the US. Electrification offers a double comparative advantage: cheap, low-carbon power that is independent of Asian and US markets and of benefit to all of Canada – including Alberta. Securing this will require investing in the nation-building infrastructure of the future, not that of the past.
Chatham House: Carney'nin boru hattı kumarı vergi mükellefleri için riskliUNDERSTANDING IRAN’S WAR STRATEGY
“And worse I may be yet. The worst is not So long as we can say, ‘This is the worst.’” — William Shakespeare, *King Lear* PROLOGUE The United States’ on-again, off-again war against Iran continues. While we are witnessing another lull at the time of writing, after a brief escalation following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the structural logic of the conflict remains unchanged. If anything, Ukraine’s sinking of Iran’s merchant ship in the Caspian Sea threatens to imbricate the European and Asian theatres, especially if Kyiv attacks more Iranian ships and Iran retaliates. The war imposed on Iran by the US and its Zionist partner already involves 12 active state actors, a number that makes untangling the entanglement into a nightmare. Notwithstanding, many people in Pakistan have raised a number of questions regarding Iran’s policy and continue to fuss over why Iran can’t just cut a deal with the United States, get sanctions relief and get on with life. This article is an attempt to explain what guides Iran’s politico-strategic approach and how that affects Tehran’s operational strategy and its tactical responses, the three distinct but overlapping levels of war. The critics’ frustration is understandable. Pakistan is contiguous to Iran. Any internal and external shocks in that country affect it. Oil and gas and the entire ecosystem that impacts petrochemical industries and agriculture is Pakistan’s lifeline. Given Pakistan’s fragile economy, energy scarcity and price shocks have a direct and negative impact on the country. Pakistan also has friendly ties with the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia. These states are in Iran’s crosshairs. That adds to Islamabad’s diplomatic and economic woes. It desperately wants an early end to the war, which is what informs its mediation efforts. Problem: the war is much bigger than Pakistan’s interests. With the resumption of hostilities in the Middle East and their escalation, many concerns have understandably been expressed in Pakistan about where the war is headed. Some have questioned Iran’s strategy and its steadfast refusal to come to a compromise with the United States on conditions dictated by the latter. What is Tehran’s endgame, they wonder. Ejaz Haider attempts to unpack the strategic logic that underpins Iran’s decisions… By now, Iran has been subjected to US perfidy four times: US President Donald Trump unilaterally scuppering a multilateral deal — the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — with Iran in 2018; the 2025 attacks, even as Iran was negotiating with the US; the repeat in 2026; and the US violation of clauses 1 and 5 of the MoU, which resulted in the latest round of fighting and escalation. Flagging this is important because the current line of questioning runs the risk of shifting the burden of war termination and making a deal from the aggressor (US) to the victim (Iran). That framing is problematic by all metrics and renders the methodology flawed a priori. An Iranian missile system is displayed in Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran, on July 30, 2026. — WANA via Reuters/File WHY IS IRAN NOT MAKING A DEAL? A counter question could be, is Iran playing solitaire? Expecting Tehran to make a deal without any reference to actions by the US, which imposed this war on Iran, is to either falsify all known facts or insinuate that Iran must accept the terms set by the aggressor — ie seek a deal without reference to why the US-Zionist duo started this war, what were/are their objectives, and what it means for Iran if they were to achieve those objectives. And for Iran to make such a deal for what? To avoid pain? Get rich? In an ideal world, avoiding pain is the best course of action. There is nothing bad about getting rich, either. Iran definitely wants to avoid pain and get rich if it means exploiting its full potential as a state and society with a very high literacy rate and impressive STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) achievements. But there’s a context here, of perpetual threat, and it requires that Iran, after having taken and absorbed much pain, must ensure that no external power can attack it in the future, whenever it so desires. Not ensuring that would mean squandering its current thin advantage, taking pain without any gains. That’s stupidity, not strategy. The central lesson of Iran’s history with the US, and more specifically with Trump, is simple: never make concessions on the basis of future promises. The operating principle, after being stung by Trump consistently, is zero trust and verifiable implementation. Those who say that Iran shouldn’t play hardball would do well to listen to what Oman’s foreign minister, Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi, told CBS News on February 27 about the concessions Iran had made. He stated that a nuclear deal with Iran was “within our reach”, ensuring that Iran would not accumulate nuclear material (zero stockpiling) and accept full verification. He said that Iran had gone beyond the 2015 JCPOA and stressed that there was no alternative to diplomacy. The interview took place in Washington, DC, shortly after Albusaidi had met with US Vice President J.D. Vance to conduct high-stakes diplomatic negotiations. By the early morning hours of February 28, the US-Zionist decapitation and degradation strikes had begun. So, yes, critics must forgive Iran if it is not entirely convinced of US-Zionist intentions and understands that talks have been a treacherous shield in preparation for war. Iran has no option but to take the hard path, a path not of its choosing but thrust on it by circumstances. While the US and the Zionist entity overlap quite a lot on Iran, it’s important to make a distinction: US wants Iran to surrender and be a subject state; Zionists want Iran destroyed as it stands today. The choice for Iran is not even about getting rich and losing sovereignty. It is about losing itself as a state. It has no choice but to stand up for its sovereignty and force the imperial power’s hand by raising the cost-exchange ratio for it. WON’T A COMPROMISE BE BETTER FOR IRAN’S ECONOMY? On that point about getting rich… Conflicts do not just happen one day. They have a structural-historical dynamic. They are also dictated by the interests of state parties, whether one is defending against an aggressor or has chosen to be the aggressor. The sense of history also defines how states and societies perceive themselves and their place in the world. This is not mere theoretical assumption. Take China. As a superpower today, its grand strategy merges historical pride with past trauma to drive its modern global ambitions. For millennia, China viewed itself as the Middle Kingdom, Zhngguó, centre of the world. The term reflected China’s ancient worldview, cultural pride, and geopolitical strategy. This status was shattered by the ‘Century of Humiliation’ (1839–1949), an era of Western and Japanese colonial exploitation, unequal treaties, and deep national subjugation. That century, as Sinologists agree, deeply informs China’s modern approaches. Iran too is a civilisational state. Much like China, its civilisational trajectory was violently disrupted and it was subjugated by foreign intervention — the humiliation and concessions of the 19th century; the CIA-MI6 coup of 1953; and the Iraq aggression of 1980 that lasted for eight years, with Baghdad being supported by Arab-Gulf states, the US and its European allies. Just as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses historical trauma to validate its rule, the Islamic Republic of Iran utilises this legacy as a core pillar of state ideology. The 1979 Islamic Revolution is officially framed as the moment Iran broke free from a century of colonial humiliation. There are multiple internal negatives of this policy in both states but that is outside the scope of this article. Realism, in both its classical and structural incarnations, offers empirical evidence that when security is scarce, a state cannot afford to care about perceived absolute gains in the future for two existential reasons: the peril of future intentions and the vulnerability of interdependence. With respect to the first, no state can ever truly know another state’s future intentions, a lesson Canada and European allies of the US are learning, forcing Canadian PM Mark Carney to talk about “the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality.” With respect to the second, chasing absolute gains usually requires deep economic or strategic cooperation. In a secure world, this liberal-internationalist approach — cooperation will make me wealthier and more secure than I was yesterday — is easier to answer and can also be hugely profitable. In a scarce-security environment, however, interdependence can create strategic vulnerabilities. If you rely on another state for your energy, technology or supply chains to achieve future gains, you have handed them a weapon. Realism demands strategic autonomy and self-reliance over future prosperity. This too is on full display through small-yard, high-fence strategies to kneecap adversaries by denying them access to tech, re-shoring, friend-shoring and domestic redundancies! Moreover, for Iran, Lockean cooperation has never been on offer; the demand is to surrender. The 2015 JCPOA, if it were allowed to continue, might have changed the dynamic, but Trump put paid to it. There’s another variable too when it comes to Iran: the Zionist serpent. While the US and the Zionist entity overlap quite a lot on Iran, it’s important to make a distinction: US wants Iran to surrender and be a subject state; Zionists want Iran destroyed as it stands today. There’s enough evidence of this emerging from Western sources and statements for me to belabour the point. The choice for Iran is not even about getting rich and losing sovereignty. It is about losing itself as a state. It has no choice but to stand up for its sovereignty and force the imperial power’s hand by raising the cost-exchange ratio for it. Before I put this point to rest, an example is in order: Gulf states are very rich; they attract a lot of global capital. And yet, not one is really sovereign; all are dependencies bowing to the very imperial power that’s waging war on Iran. At least two of them sleep happily in the Zionist bed despite the murderous, genocidal policies of the Zionists. A bulk carrier and an oil tanker sit anchored in Muscat, Oman, as the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed off: Iran understands that talks have been a treacherous shield in preparation for war by the US-Israel duo, which is why Iran is leveraging its control over the Strait of Hormuz | Reuters WHY DID IRAN ATTACK SHIPS AFTER SIGNING THE MOU? Many analysts in Pakistan blame Iran for this round of fighting. They argue that Iran should have looked at sanctions relief rather than insisting on controlling the Strait. Others have spoken about the illegality of collecting fees. Still others blame hardline elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who presumably wanted to upstage the moderates and were not happy with the MoU. A few point to the four working groups and the High-Level Committee set up by the MoU and argue that Iran should have taken up the issue there. The issue of fees is controversial. But so far, Iran has not charged any fees, as per the MoU. The working groups had not begun functioning because Iran was involved in the state funeral of Syed Ali Khamanei. The US found the opportunity to push ships through the southern route. Missing the point leads to a flawed causal chain. The analyses adopt a geopolitical frame that views the US navy as a default, passive guarantor of global commons. That’s just not true and blinds them to how that action will act as a catalyst in regional escalation in this case. By starting the timeline only at the moment Iran fired at the ships, they exclude the compounding variable (the US naval escort deployment). With this boundary setting, they choose to analyse the “action” (the attack) while systematically omitting the “antecedent” (the escort policy). A proper methodology would require mapping all structural inputs that led to Iran’s action. The US escorting of ships is not a neutral act. It signals a provocative, forward military posture in Iran’s backyard. A robust analysis requires a dialectical approach to recognise the security dilemma, where US projection of power and Iran’s encirclement anxieties constantly feed into each other. The real question to ask is this: why does Iran want to control the Strait and why does the US want to deny Iran that control? The MoU’s clause five is clear in its wording (by the way, talk about the MoU being loosely-worded is just that, post-facto talk): “Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.” There are three points here, two in bold letters and the third in italics. 1. Iran will make arrangements, with no charge for 60 days from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. 2. Iran will conduct dialogue with Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait. 3. Any such arrangement will be in line with applicable International Law and the sovereign rights of coastal states. The first clearly states that Iran will make arrangements (not the US); the first 60 days will be free. This links up with the second point: “to define the future administration and maritime services” in consultation with Oman. Implication: beyond 60 days, Iran and Oman will figure out the administration and maritime services. Corollary: after 60 days, there may be a fee and the routes will be coordinated with Oman and Iran. (Oman is already in consultation with Iran and has forwarded its proposal to Iran. What will become of it remains to be seen.) The after-thought that the clause does not refer to any particular route and, therefore, the US navy can escort ships through the southern route is shystering. The US was/is clearly attempting to dilute Iran’s control, in violation of what MoU’s relevant clause states. When an express power or duty is given, the law implies the concurrent assignment of the necessary powers to execute it. The post-facto interpretation by the US contravenes the principle of good faith. WHY HASN’T IRAN ATTACKED THE ZIONIST ENTITY? Iran has not attacked the Zionists in this round because the Zionists have stayed away, embroiled as Benjamin Netanyahu is in the upcoming October polls and on the northern front against Hezbollah. Iran does not have unlimited resources. Any sensible planning requires that it husband its war-fighting capability. Hezbollah is keeping the Zionist entity busy at this stage. Internally, Netanyahu is being challenged effectively. As for targeting the Gulf states and Jordan, it’s somewhat amazing that this point is raised, given how deeply these states are interlocked with US interests. But there’s another reason too, as noted by some former US military officers, including Lt Gen Mark Hertling. Hertling identified Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base as the largest concentration of advanced US airpower in the Middle East, housing F-35s, F-15Es, A-10s, and critical air defence networks like THAAD. He explained that the base is vital for projecting power against Iran while enabling “strategic plausible deniability” for Jordan. That hasn’t worked, as is clear from Iran’s strikes targeting early warning and radars. Jordan has been critical in shielding the Zionist entity from incoming Iranian missiles and drones. This is why Iran targeted and destroyed a $300 million AN/TPY-2 Forward Based X-band Transportable Radar operated by the US Army at the base, rendering the THAAD battery effectively blind. Iran has done this to US electronic warfare and radar systems elsewhere too. This makes the space for it to target the Zionists more effectively when it needs to do so. IS IRAN OVERPLAYING ITS HAND? This is an interesting question and subtly contains in it other questions! It is also grounded in some nuance. Military theorist Carl von Clausewitz spoke of the “culminating point of victory”, the point that denotes the critical threshold where military gains peak and begin to reverse into a disadvantage if pushed further. History offers many examples of this overreach. But this point is not on a metered scale; the buzzer doesn’t go off for the commander when gains reach that point. It is a judgement call. A commander has to work through and analyse multiple variables to figure out where and when to stop. I believe that while Iran must remain cognisant of this, the situation needs to be contextualised. The war has led to pain on both sides and a stalemate. Neither side has been defeated or has won in the classical sense. And while Iran has so far denied the US its strategic objective of bending Tehran to its will and fracturing it, the contest is on and Iran simply cannot let its guard down until the US realises that gambling for resurrection is resulting in increasingly diminishing returns. I have already discussed the structural logic of Hormuz above so I don’t need to repeat it. The essential point is that, in this contest, Iran is defending and reacting. Its victory lies in denial strategies. But yes, it has to be careful about figuring out the balance. The Strait is central to its strategy, sure. But what kind of balance can be struck, and as early as possible, is a vital question. Iran also has to signal to the Gulf states that its attacks have a context and, outside of that context, it seeks cooperation with them, not just because of geographic contiguity but also historical, cultural and trade ties. The most notable example is the backchannel between the UAE and Iran. It’s going to be a frosty peace; the UAE will use this as part of a suite of strategies. But pragmatism could work for both sides. This is also applicable to other Gulf states. American President Donald Trump signs the US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) at the Palace of Versailles in France on June 17, 2026: Trump reneged on the MoU by violating its clauses regarding Lebanon and Strait of Hormuz | White House WON’T IRAN BRINGING ANSAR ALLAH INTO THE FIGHT BRING KSA AND UAE TOGETHER? This question takes it for granted that Yemen’s Ansar Allah (Houthis is the wrong shorthand for the movement’s name) operates purely at the behest of Iran. As multiple analyses suggest, Ansar Allah, while a strong ally of Iran, primarily operates within the Yemeni context. Recent analytical and investigative reports present a nuanced picture that goes beyond the narrative of Ansar Allah being an Iranian puppet. The current escalation was sparked on July 13, when Yemen’s Aden-based Internationally Recognised Government (IRG) bombed the runway at Sanaa International Airport, preventing an Iranian plane from landing. The plane carried an Ansar Allah delegation that had traveled to Iran for Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral. The strike shattered a fragile, unwritten four-year truce between the Saudi-led coalition and Ansar Allah. Regional reports underscore that Ansar Allah operates primarily on its own local calculations rather than acting purely on Iranian command. In fact, it is far more independent than the IRG, which is an extension of Riyadh. The group’s decision to transition from targeting global shipping to a direct, localised “siege-for-siege” blockade on Saudi Arabia is driven by local dynamics, including economic stress. The group is facing domestic strain over a longstanding financial stalemate with the Aden government. Framing their actions as a defence of Yemeni sovereignty against external blockades, Ansar Allah uses the escalation to rally mass public support domestically. Their military spokesperson, Yahya Saree, explicitly framed the missile strikes on Saudi oil hubs such as Yanbu as local retaliation for airspace violations. While Ansar Allah has its own domestic drivers, there’s no gainsaying that the crisis serves Iran’s broader geopolitical goals. The blockade on Saudi shipping allows Tehran to project power and threaten global energy corridors without engaging in a direct state-on-state conventional war. Within the Yemeni context, neither the IRG nor Ansar Allah is looking for a return to full-scale war. In the broader context, Iran’s offer to mediate between Ansar Allah and Riyadh is a signal that Tehran does not want it to escalate. The essential point is that, given the complexity of the actors involved and their varied interests, all sides are attempting to create a balance between the pressures of the immediate and the long-term reconfiguration of the Gulf and the Middle East. As for bringing Riyadh and Abu Dhabi together, they will come together on certain issues while remaining apart on others because of structural reasons. EPILOGUE There are three sets of actors in this war: the United States and the Zionist entity (the latter operates with and also independent of the US); the Gulf states, Jordan and Egypt; and Iran and its regional allies (the ‘Axis of Resistance’). There are also differences within the Gulf set but we will not press that point here. Each set has its objectives. The US has been the primary force in the Greater Middle East since World War II; the Zionists act as its outpost. Jordan and Egypt are US dependencies and have peace treaties with the Zionist entity. The Gulf set, excluding Saudi Arabia, comprises tiny states with oil wealth in varying degrees. These states, most notably the UAE, have tried to compensate for their geographic and demographic weaknesses by allying with the US and modernising their militaries within a capital/tech-intensive model. They are also, with varying degrees of success, trying to diversify their economies, investing abroad and attracting investments at home. The model requires peace and security. Iran is under sanctions since 1979. Its attempts to break out of isolation have repeatedly failed. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf states, the US and its European partners fully backed Iraq. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was birthed for the very purpose of containing Iran. Iran’s allies, non-state actors, are labelled “terrorist”. Its state ally, Syria, is now controlled by a former ‘Islamic State’/Al Qaeda leader, newly-minted and koshered by the West because he serves a purpose. Iran wants to secure itself. The US/Israel want to destroy it. The Gulf states want the US to defang Iran. These objectives create their respective incentive structures. They also impact Iran’s tactical, operational and political-strategic approaches. This is a very sketchy overview, of course. But the point is that analyses have to bring in multiple factors to figure out the dynamics at play. The situation is far too complex for linear causalities. In the end, however, the world remains anarchic. The US is waning but it still remains the strongest power. It never allowed itself to be subjected by laws and norms but Trump has expressed his disdain for norms and laws openly, even bragged about it. In the wolf world, one is reminded of King Lear’s eldest daughter Goneril’s cynical question in Shakespeare’s play, after her villainy is exposed: “Say, if I do, the laws are mine, not thine. Who can arraign me for’t?” The writer is a journalist interested in security and foreign policies. X: @ejazhaider Published in Dawn, EOS, August 2nd, 2026 Header image: A man walks past a mural depicting late Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran on July 24, 2026.— AFP/File
Hürmüz krizi derinleşiyor: Görüşmeler çıkmazda, deniz trafiği dibe vurdu'I do not view this as a conspiracy': Faced with a teleprompter glitch, Canada's Carney appears to mock Trump
When his teleprompter malfunctioned on Wednesday in the middle of a news conference on housing policy, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney smiled and took a swift jab at US President Donald Trump, saying, “I do not view this as a conspiracy.” Carney’s remark was an apparent reference to Trump’s demands for an investigation after he encountered a halted escalator and a non-functioning teleprompter last year at the United Nations General Assembly, where he delivered a speech. “I would like to inform you that the teleprompter has ceased to function. Unlike a certain world leader, I do not view this as a conspiracy,” Carney said to laughs at the news conference in Toronto. Carney’s office and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Relations between Canada and the US have been fraught since Trump returned to the White House last year, slapping broad tariffs on the northern neighbour and calling for it to become the 51st US state. Carney, who has said he would fight Trump’s trade policies, has worked to lessen Canada’s diplomatic and economic dependency on the US. He also drew international attention for declaring the end of a rules-based global order and criticising great powers for using “economic integration as weapons”.
Kanada Başbakanı Carney'den Trump'a ince alay: 'Komplo olduğunu düşünmüyorum''I do not view this as a conspiracy': Faced with a teleprompter glitch, Canada's Carney appears to mocks Trump
When his teleprompter malfunctioned on Wednesday in the middle of a news conference on housing policy, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney smiled and took a swift jab at US President Donald Trump, saying, “I do not view this as a conspiracy.” Carney’s remark was an apparent reference to Trump’s demands for an investigation after he encountered a halted escalator and a non-functioning teleprompter last year at the United Nations General Assembly, where he delivered a speech. “I would like to inform you that the teleprompter has ceased to function. Unlike a certain world leader, I do not view this as a conspiracy,” Carney said to laughs at the news conference in Toronto. Carney’s office and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Relations between Canada and the US have been fraught since Trump returned to the White House last year, slapping broad tariffs on the northern neighbour and calling for it to become the 51st US state. Carney, who has said he would fight Trump’s trade policies, has worked to lessen Canada’s diplomatic and economic dependency on the US. He also drew international attention for declaring the end of a rules-based global order and criticising great powers for using “economic integration as weapons”.
Kanada Başbakanı Carney'den Trump'a ince alay: 'Komplo olduğunu düşünmüyorum'Kanada Başbakanı Carney, ülkesinin UCM'ye desteğinin "net" olduğunu açıkladı
Kanada Başbakanı Mark Carney, ABD'nin müttefiklerini Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinden (UCM) çekilmeye teşvik etmesine rağmen ülkesinin bu kuruluşa desteğinin "net" olduğunu bildirdi.
Trump has singled out us Canadians for special treatment in his tariff war – there is no choice but to get nasty | Matt Gurney
The White House fails to understand that Mark Carney and Canada’s regional leaders can’t cave in to the US president: it’s too toxic to voters • Matt Gurney is a journalist based in Toronto Though many hate to admit it, Canadians have long wished for more attention from the US. Well, we’re getting it now. And it turns out that President Trump and some of his top supporters in the Maga movement don’t much like us. The first big hint was when he started talking about annexing us, saying we couldn’t survive without American support. But the most recent example of Trump’s dislike for Canada can be seen in his latest tariff policies. Canada was largely spared the impact of his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April 2025 by its pre-existing free trade deal with the US (and Mexico), but earlier this month, as expected, the US declined to extend that deal for another 16-year term. It’s now subject to annual renegotiations. Then, last week, the White House announced tariffs as high as 50% on a selection of Canadian products including, for the first time, items previously protected by the trade agreement. The US called it retaliation for Canadian trade practices. Matt Gurney is a journalist based in Toronto, and co-editor of The Line, an online magazine Continue reading...
NATO nereye gidiyor?
ABD merkezli yayın organı Foreign Policy'ye göre NATO içindeki iki hakim görüş, ittifakın geleceğine şekil vermeye çalışıyor. NATO Genel Sekreteri Mark Rutte ile Kanada Başbakanı Mark Carney'nin başlarını çektiği iki farklı fikrin, Kuzey Atlantik siyasetinin ne tarafa gideceğini belirleyeceği yazıldı.
Israel pitches high-tech trade, safer AI to Canada amid diplomatic tensions
Prime Minister Mark Carney has never had a formal call or meeting with his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant.
Thousands of lightning strikes trigger fresh wildfires in western Canada
At least 90 active blazes in British Columbia in what PM says is one of the country’s most intense seasons on record How dangerous are wildfires and how can we stop them from getting worse? Fresh wildfires have broken out in western Canada and forests continued to burn in Ontario as the country battled what the prime minister, Mark Carney, called one of the most intense wildfire seasons on record. Nearly 34,000 lightning strikes over the past week led to a series of fires and evacuation orders in southern British Columbia. There were 25 evacuation orders and 90 active wildfires in the province as of Friday morning, and authorities said warming and drying conditions could cause them to grow. Continue reading...
PM call with Prime Minister Carney of of Canada: 22 July 2026
The Prime Minister spoke to the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, this evening.
Canada ready to ‘intensify’ trade talks as Trump orders new tariffs – US politics live
PM Mark Carney says Canada has made proposals to resolve dispute as tariffs are due to be imposed on wide range of goods Sign up for US Breaking News email Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog. Canadian prime minister Mark Carney has said that Ottawa is ready to deepen trade talks with the United States, after US president Donald Trump ordered fresh tariffs targeting Canada. Canadians across the political spectrum united in anger at Trump. “If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar,” Ontario premier Doug Ford said. Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, called the tariffs a “direct violation” of the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement Trump negotiated. Canada’s Conservatives called the tariffs “another unacceptable and unjustified attack on Canadian workers and our businesses,” adding: “Canadians are not a punching bag.” The leader of Canada’s New Democrats called them “the latest economic grenade thrown over the border by an out of control President who has lost touch with reality.” Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who helped file the successful challenge to Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs, points out, the president’s new 50% tariffs on Canadian imports “are based on Section 338 of the notorious 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which severely exacerbated the Great Depression.” Nancy Mace, a Republican congresswoman from South Carolina, announced on Monday that she is not entering the race to replace the late senator Lindsey Graham in the snap Republican primary next month. Continue reading...
Canada eyes new avenues for trade, economic cooperation with Pakistan as FM Anand visits Islamabad
Canada’s Foreign Minister Anita Anand on Monday expressed her country’s interest in exploring new avenues for trade and bilateral cooperation with Pakistan as she met with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Islamabad. Anand is on a one-day official visit to Pakistan, during which she held separate meetings with PM Shehbaz as well as Deputy PM and FM Ishaq Dar. According to a statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) following their meeting, Anand expressed the “keen desire of her government to explore new opportunities for trade and cooperation, especially in the field of agriculture, mining, energy as well as in the auto and auto parts industry”. The Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA) would be “instrumental” in enhancing Canadian investors’ confidence to invest in Pakistan, the PMO quoted her as saying. The PMO statement, which described the meeting as “warm and cordial”, further quoted Anand as saying that her visit was on the instructions of PM Mark Carney to “expand Canada’s relations with Pakistan”. PM Shehbaz noted that the two countries “enjoyed friendly ties that needed to be further expanded, particularly in the areas of trade, investment, agriculture, including agri-foods and vaccine manufacturing, renewable energy, as well as the automobile and auto parts industry”. The premier conveyed his greetings and best wishes for PM Carney and said he looked forward to meeting him soon, the PMO stated. “He fondly recalled the telephone conversation with his Canadian counterpart in April, and thanked Canada for supporting Pakistan’s regional peace efforts,” it added. “Both sides agreed that the Pakistani Canadian community was acting as a vital bridge between the two nations,” the PMO statement read. They also agreed to exchange delegations in the fields of trade and minerals cooperation, to explore mutually beneficial opportunities, with a view to further enhance bilateral trade and investment prospects. After the meeting, PM Shehbaz witnessed the signing of a Protocol on Phyto-sanitary regulations governing the import of Canola from Canada to Pakistan. The protocol was signed by Dar and Anand. ‘Economic cooperation remains a key priority’ Dar hailed FM Anand’s visit as an “important milestone” in bilateral ties, stressing that economic cooperation remained a “key priority” in the two countries’ relationship. “Her visit is an important milestone in Pakistan-Canada relations and reflects our shared commitment to further strengthening our bilateral ties,” Dar said while addressing a joint press briefing with Anand. “Pakistan and Canada enjoy long-standing and multifaceted relations underpinned by historical linkages, people-to-people contacts and a vibrant Pakistani diaspora in Canada,” he highlighted. The deputy premier noted that economic cooperation remained a “key priority” in the bilateral relationship with Canada. He said the two sides discussed ways to further expand trade and investment ties, including greater facilitation of business-to-business (B2B) linkages and enhanced engagement in areas of mutual interest. Dar said Pakistan welcomed Canadian investment in “priority sectors, including education, energy, mining and critical minerals, agriculture infrastructure and information technology”. “Our discussions today provided an opportunity to review the entire spectrum of bilateral relations and exchanges on regional and global issues of mutual interest,” Dar elaborated. He added that both sides reaffirmed their commitment to sustained engagement and agreed to build upon the momentum generated by Anand’s visit “through enhanced institutional cooperation, regular bilateral consultations and greater interaction between relevant ministries and stakeholders”. Dar further said that he and Anand discussed the “important role of investment facilitation in providing a facilitative framework for investors and invited Canadian companies to explore emerging technologies in Pakistan”. Their discussions also covered cooperation in the areas of education, labour mobility, science and tech, climate change, and people-to-people exchanges. “We expressed our shared interests in further strengthening these areas of cooperation,” the DPM said. He further said that the National Agri-Trade and Food Safety Authority (Nafsa) — established last year to modernise Pakistan’s agricultural trade infrastructure — and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would explore opportunities for technical cooperation and capacity building in the future. Dar said they also discussed the importance of advancing FIPPA, adding that both sides welcomed continued engagement towards an “early and mutually beneficial conclusion” of the agreement. In her remarks, Anand appreciated the “warm welcome” accorded to her in Islamabad and pointed out that it has been approximately 20 years since a Canadian foreign minister visited Pakistan. “Today is an important day for the continued increased bilateral relationship between our two countries,” she said. “Our two countries have shared 80 years of diplomatic relations and there is continued work to do, of course, to deepen our ties in the area of economic relationships, trade and investment,” the Canadian FM noted. Dar raises issues of IWT, ‘weaponisation of water’ Addressing the joint briefing, Dar said he and Anand also exchanged views on regional and international developments, including the situation in Afghanistan and counterterrorism cooperation. Dar said he raised the issue of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, noting it remained “one of the long-outstanding unresolved international disputes” and had been on the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) agenda since 1948. FM Dar highlighted that India has “added a new dynamic into an already volatile security situation” by announcing in April 2025 to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. “We seek the support of our friendly countries, including Canada, towards India’s immediate restoration of the IWT, ending the weaponisation of water and upholding international law and treaty obligations as per international law and practices,” Dar said. Concluding his remarks, Dar said Pakistan “appreciates Canada’s constructive engagement and looks forward to further deepening our bilateral relationship based on mutual respect, shared interest and common desire to promote peace, stability and prosperity”. ‘Islamabad attaches great importance to ties with Ottawa’ Pakistan and Canada also held delegation-level talks, where the two sides reviewed “recent developments in Pakistan–Canada bilateral relations and exchanged views on regional and international developments”, the FO said. “They reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthening the mutually beneficial partnership, agreed to expand cooperation in priority sectors, and decided to hold annual meetings to review progress on the agreed joint statement,” FO stated. Addressing the talks, Dar said, “We need to meet more frequently in our capitals. We have the possibility and the capability of raising our bilateral relations, in terms of trade, defence and investment; there is a huge scope.” Noting that there was a huge Pakistani diaspora in Canada, he said, “Pakistan attaches great importance to the long-standing relationship we have enjoyed with your country.” He hoped that Monday’s discussions would translate “renewed momentum” into “concrete outcomes”. For her part, Anand said that she gave thanks for a warm welcome. “This is the first visit of a Canadian foreign minister to Pakistan in almost 20 years. This is the 80th year or so of diplomatic relations between our countries. We have more work to do together to ensure that across sectors … there is a strong bilateral relationship,” she said. FM Anand welcomed in Islamabad Dar had welcomed the visiting dignitary to the FO in the morning. Visuals shared by state-run PTV on the social media platform X showed Dar and Anand posing for pictures and shaking hands. In a statement issued on Sunday, the FO said the visit is Anand’s first trip to Pakistan since assuming office. The FO said the visiting dignitary and Dar will hold bilateral talks “covering the entire spectrum of Pakistan-Canada relations”. “The discussions will focus on strengthening cooperation in trade and investment, education, and people-to-people exchanges. The two ministers will also exchange views on regional and global developments of mutual interest,” the FO said. It added that Anand will also call on the leadership of Pakistan. According to Global Affairs Canada, Anand is also expected to meet with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The FO stated that both Pakistan and Canada “maintain cordial bilateral relations anchored in close people-to-people ties enriched by the vibrant Pakistani diaspora in Canada”. “This visit underscores the shared commitment of both countries to expand mutual cooperation,” it highlighted.
Kanada Dışişleri Bakanı Anand'dan İslamabad'a Ticaret ve İşbirliği Vurgulu Ziyaret