Dispatch from the Front Lines: The PM sounds best when he just sticks to the truth

Mark Carney's comms bombs; the war in Iran, and why we can't help but pay attention to the U.S. ambassador.

An Iranian frigate is hit by a U.S. torpedo, as seen from the U.S. submarine.

Hey, all. Lots happening out there, eh? We covered a lot of it in the latest episode of The Line Podcast. Check it out!

Also last week, on On The Line, Matt did a two-guest interview on the situation overseas. First up, Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal, on what the U.S. wants to accomplish, and then Kavah Shahrooz, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, on what might come next in Iran. It was a great episode with two great guests — check it out.

And now, on with the dispatch.

---

The Carney government has a communication problem. Actually, it might have a reality problem. It’s not really clear to us which one it is.

Over the last few weeks, the government has been struggling to articulate coherent positions on two major foreign policy issues. The first was the prime minister’s recent trip to India. Before Carney left for the subcontinent, a senior federal official, speaking on background, told members of the Ottawa press gallery that India had ceased its influence and intimidation operations in Canada. This was quickly seized upon, especially because the comment was not vague. Reporters in Ottawa were told explicitly that if the federal government still worried that India was up to no good, there would be no trip in the first place.

The problem, of course, is that India has not ceased its operations. And CSIS confirmed this in a public statement to the National Post. This set up a period of complete comms incoherence where the prime minister refused to answer questions and poor Anita Anand, the foreign affairs minister, was left doing her best to avoid giving direct answers, too.

The other issue, of course, is the ongoing war with Iran. Mark Carney first said that Canada supported America’s efforts to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and that Israel had the right to defend itself. He later noted that he only said that with regret, because it reflected yet another setback for international security and a rules-based global order. He was later asked if Canada would join the war, and gave a conditional answer, saying that he could not rule it out.

That’s actually a legitimate answer. Iran has already fired on at at least two targets in NATO territory. Canada could get dragged into the war via its Article 5 obligations. We think that’s unlikely, but it’s possible. There are also any number of scenarios where Canada could get pulled into a spiralling crisis in the Middle East whether we wanted to join the fight or not.

But it’s certainly fair to say that it’s hard to look at either of these issues and conclude that Canada really knows what the hell it’s trying to do here. Or at least how to explain what it’s trying to do, in the unlikely scenario that it has actually been able to reach a decision.

Here’s where we come down on this. Mark Carney is a better communicator than Justin Trudeau. He’s also shown himself willing to speak more bluntly than Trudeau ever found comfortable. His much-loved speech in Davos is an example of this. Carney articulated, concisely and effectively, a fairly accurate summary of the state of geopolitics and was given a lot of praise for having done so. He went out on that stage and said the things that many people wanted to say but lacked the courage or willingness to say for themselves.

So that’s great. But then you look at the complete hash his government is making of its statements on India and Iran. What gives?

We actually think it’s pretty simple. The Carney government had no real risk in saying what it did in Davos. Most Canadians feel the same way. Certainly most Liberal voters feel the same way. And we’re willing to bet that most people in Davos felt the same way.

It’s easy to get up in front of a room and say the things that people want to hear. Carney is good at that.

Where he’s going to get himself into trouble, and already is, is when he has to try and come up with a coherent position that splits the Canadian domestic political audience, and especially the Liberal voter base. We all know what he’s doing with his India trip. He’s trying to drum up enough economic activity to partially offset what we’ve lost with the Americans and reduce our dependence on them. To do that, he is willing to turn a blind eye to some of what India and other economic giants like China are doing in our country. This requires, alas, throwing a segment of the Canadian public under the bus. It’s ugly, it’s greasy, and we can’t say that we like it. But we know what it is. It isn’t confusing or mysterious.

Likewise, Carney’s statements on the war in Iran reflect his desire not to offend the White House, but also his awareness that he cannot be seen to strongly endorse either Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu. So he’s left trying to find some way to thread the needle of supporting the war without actually supporting it, while also being forced to acknowledge he may have to join it.

The Line does not make a habit of betting on the intellect and reasoning of the electorate at large, but in this case, we happen to believe that Canadian voters are capable of understanding these nuances and trade-offs. We do not think the public would take Carney to task if he simply acknowledged how difficult these issues are for the country and for him. He is more than good enough at communication to make the honest case plainly. Your Line editors are professional writers, and we could whip up versions that are concise and coherent for both India and Iran. It would not be hard if one’s goal was actually plainly communicating an honest, imperfect position.

This, we’re sorry to report, is not what they’re trying to do. And it shows. Carney and his government clearly cannot rag the puck with the sheer raw cynicism that was routine under the former prime minister. Carney either has some shame, or simply isn’t as good at that grubby part of political life yet.

So what we would propose to him and his government is a policy of actually just telling the truth to Canadians. We suspect what they’ll actually try to do is get better at spinning Trudeau-style nonsense, but it’s okay for us to hold out hope sometimes. So please, prime minister: just tell us the truth like the grown-ups we are, even when — and maybe especially when — it won’t focus-group that well. Politics by message discipline and polling analysis is what brought this country to the state it’s in today. We need better. Now would be a great time to start.

---

Speaking of the war, since it kicked off about a week ago we have been monitoring developments. It is unfolding on the tactical level largely as we would’ve expected. The Americans and the Israelis are very good at this and are executing the battle plan with their usual tactical acumen. If we had to pick two countries in the world we would not like to be bombed by, the U.S. and Israel are at the top of our list. The Iranians are finding that out now to their sorrow.

But we still don’t see a coherent plan for what comes after the bombing. And the Iranians are getting their licks in, too. They have not yet gone full out against the oil infrastructure, but we do not rule out that they might eventually try. That would be a lot for us all to deal with, especially with prices already rising fast.

But more to the point, without some kind of ground element in this war, we’re not really sure what the endgame is going to be. Or even could be.

Here’s the danger, as we see it. Iran has known for decades that some kind of Israeli or U.S. attack, or both, was possible. And this is a regime that is prepared to do anything to survive, including gunning down tens of thousands of its own citizens just a few months ago. We have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the regime has long had contingency plans for exactly this kind of scenario. And just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan, we suspect that a great many members of the Iranian regime have changed into civilian clothes, thrown their weapons into the trunks of their civilian cars, and are simply blending into the civilian population once again.

And once the Israelis and the Americans have had enough, the fanatics who have underpinned this regime for two generations will change back into their uniforms, grab their guns, meet at prearranged locations, and resume their brutal campaign of terror over the country.

We understand that the American and Israeli air campaign is designed to make this hard. That’s why Revolutionary Guard command facilities and police stations and barracks are being destroyed from the air. This is going to make a difference. Life is not going to be comfortable for the ayatollahs’ thugs — whomever the ayatollah ends up being on any given day — for the next little while.

But they don’t care about comfort. They’ll go to ground and come back when Israel and America inevitably get bored and move on.

Only a ground invasion or a massive armed uprising by the Iranian people can change this reality, and we see no chance of a major ground operation and little ability for the Iranian people to rise up. We don’t doubt their courage. They just don’t have the weapons. No particular effort has been invested in supporting an Iranian resistance army. It’s not like the West doesn’t know how to do this, or lacks rifles and bullets. But there’s no real evidence of much work on this front having been undertaken. There’s been some speculation that Kurdish forces might provide the backbone of a ground force for the Western coalition, but no evidence that that is actually happening at this time. And, not for nothing, we have to expect/hope that the Kurds know better by now not to set themselves up for eventual (and, let’s be honest, inevitable) betrayal.

So, what’s left of the regime has simply gone to ground and is waiting.

And this raises the question: waiting for what?

Both America and Israel would give different answers for this. We suspect that the Israelis are more pragmatic. Although they would love to see normalized relations with a newly liberal-democratic Iran, they’ll settle for an Iran whose military and terror-exporting capabilities have been set back for a generation. We don’t think the Israelis have any real expectation of a lasting peace in the Middle East. In their new post-October 7 worldview, security is something to be purchased one generation at a time. And in the meantime, in a truly incredible geopolitical development, most of the Arab countries, many of which won’t formally recognize Israel, are now in a de facto alliance with it.

Gaza is pacified, Hezbollah largely neutered, and the Arabs are helping kill Iranians (or at least shoot down their missiles and drones.) Netanyahu could not have asked for more, and probably won’t have any qualms quitting the war once he’s satisfied there’s no more gains to be had.

But we really don’t know what America is doing. Like we said above, the U.S. military is clearly capable of waging thee kinds of wars, and winning them, but to what end? The faith we have in the professional leadership of the U.S. armed forces is almost total; the same is true for our lack of faith in the U.S. political leadership. We see no sign of any desired endgame from Washington’s perspective, and what has been said is contradictory as much as clarifying. We could easily see a moment when a few more U.S. casualties and a few cents more at the gas pump led Trump to suddenly announce, without telling anyone in advance, that America has won the war and he’s ending the fight. (Indeed, as this dispatch was being prepared, the Central Command announced the U.S.’s seventh fatality of this war.)

Iran isn’t Venezuela. There is no prospect of a fast, clean and obvious win here. We’d like to believe that the White House knew that before commencing this fight. But we don’t.

---

Speaking of the Americans, we at The Line love ourselves a messy media drama —we’re low-minded people by our own admission. And so imagine our delight last week to read that the most popular U.S. ambassador to Canada of all time, Pete Hoekstra, had sent a letter demanding an apology for a Cathal Kelley column that skewered the USA gold-medal-winning hockey team.

First, let’s talk about the offending column, published by the Globe and Mail, which Hoekstra said left him “disappointed and outraged.” The column, which criticized the team for allowing itself to become crass political props in Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, noted that the event was a “zoo” and the team, “monkeys.”

It also went on to criticize the players’ boorish behaviour, and to speculate on the less than sophisticated political calculation that almost certainly did not go into their decision to attend the SOTU.

From the Globe column:

“Some people were appalled. ‘Twenty-something professional hockey players? Drawn to power? Unaware of the troubles of their fellow citizens?’

To which I would say, are you serious? What do you think these people talk about when they’re alone? Book clubbing The Wretched of the Earth?

They talk about sea-doos, watches and stick tape. A lot of them went to college, but none of them actually went to college. They went to hockey. I’d be shocked if more than a handful of them had ever read a book that wasn’t Harry Potter.”

The insinuation that hockey jocks are perhaps not intellectual heavyweights apparently shocked the ambassador, but those who pay heed to this subject will be well familiar with this trope. In fact, to be blunt, we read a lot of Kelly’s critiques as being directed against the norms of hockey culture more generally, and not aimed with military precision at the USA team itself. But that’s just our read.

Anyway, the ambassador shot off a letter of offence to the Globe, and the newspaper responded with an article that really does take the cake for peak Canadian passive aggression.

Our favourite lines from the Globe’s response:

“Some of the assertions, such as hockey culture’s pack mentality and players’ lack of interest in literature, are common fare for Mr. Kelly.”

Which we interpret to mean: “Yes, Mr. Kelly is a bit of a weenie, but he’s our weenie, and by complaining, you’re making yourselves look like a bigger weenie.”

In a statement, Mr. Walmsley said of Mr. Kelly’s column, “Strong opinion is a hallmark of independent journalism and sometimes along the way that leads to reader disappointment and offence.”

Translation: Get fucked.

“The Globe sent Mr. Hoekstra’s office a series of questions on Tuesday, including what consequences he envisioned if The Globe does not publish an apology, and when the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa had last requested an apology from a Canadian media outlet.”

Which we read as: “We are literally owned by the Thompsons. What do you think is going to happen, here?”

We at The Line understand that Hoekstra has been sent to Canada to make a point. Most of that point seems to have been “gratuitously offend the woke ChiCom Canadians to keep the Trump administration happy” and to be honest, at first we were a little gobsmacked. But after a while, our view shifted, and we have to admit the ambassador is growing on us. Complaining about the Globe’s sports section may be one of his most deft diplomatic moves to date, and we’re now totally locked into this recurring cast member’s villain arc.

Maybe it’s best for everyone if we all just say what we really think without the usual bullshit of restraint. If the ambassador can take a shot at our substandard health care, rampant cultural and literal suicidality, crap butter, and Quebec’s pure laine nationalism, honestly, bully to him. Extra points if he gets condemned by the National Assembly before his first year in office is out. We’re here for the content, and this man is giving. If he manages to hit a few of our favourite political pinatas while keeping the Trump administration convinced that the Canadians are Getting The Message, we call it a win-win for everybody.

---

Thanks, everyone. Talk to you soon.

---

The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!

---

The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter.Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com