Most Canadians believe that Trump cannot be trusted on the trade file. That same fear will heat up as the war escalates. No one seems to know what the end game is. If regime change involves simply swapping out the murderous Ayatollah for his son, Canadian appetite for this war effort will quickly fade.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 9, 2026.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is facing his greatest challenge yet.

He must thread the needle of support for an American-Israeli attack on Iran that ignored international law.

While Spain has made it very clear that it will have nothing to do with the attacks on Iran, Canada was one of the first countries to come out in support of the unilateral American-Israeli action.

Canada’s outright support was not shared by some allies, including French President Emmanuel Macron.

Macron said France “cannot approve” of the strikes because they were carried out “outside the world order.”

Macron also added that the death of Ayatollah Ali Khomeini would not be mourned because “history never weeps for the executioners of their own people.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told his Parliament that the United Kingdom “does not believe in regime change from the sky.” He also added that “President Trump does not agree with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes.”

For his part, American President Donald Trump responded to Starmer saying the prime minister “is no Winston Churchill.”

His response to Spain’s refusal to allow Americans to use the country’s military bases was swift. After Deputy Prime Minister María Jesús Montero said Spaniards “will not be vassals” to another country, Trump threatened to impose complete sanctions on all trade.

Spain appears to be the only European country refusing to let Americans use its military bases. Britain initially refused, but reversed itself when Iranian attacks spread to areas that Starmer said involved British self-defence.

Britain, Germany, and France issued a joint statement claiming that the Iranian attacks all over the Middle East were a disproportionate response, and, therefore, they would work with the United States and other allies in their own defence in the relevant areas.

So the Europeans have now aligned their perspective with that of Canada, but in the meantime, it appears as though the American people are divided on the nature and conclusion of the attacks on Iran.

Congress is upset that the military actions were undertaken without any congressional input, and some polls show the majority of Americans do not support the attacks.

In a Reuters/Ipsos poll, it was reported last week that only one in four Americans approve of the action. Some 27 per cent said they favoured the attacks, while 43 per cent were opposed. A further 29 per cent were unsure, even though 90 per cent of the respondents had learned of the attacks.

Approval ratings seem to be politically aligned, with 78 per cent of Democrats opposing the attacks, and 11 per cent approving while 76 per cent of Republicans approve with 10 per cent disapproving.

In Canada, Carney’s initial statement of support for Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to cause some consternation amongst colleagues whose own comments on the subject appeared more nuanced.

But his later clarification appeared to line him up well with other international players.

Carney told an Australian audience that the government’s approval of the attacks was not a blank cheque. He also said it reinforced his view that a new world order means traditional multilateral decision-making is not necessarily an option in this political climate.

Repeating some of the messaging delivered in Davos, Switzerland, Carney once again repeated that “we are actively taking on the world as it is, not passively waiting for the world we wish it to be. But we also take this position with some regret because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order.”

Speaking at the Lowy Institute, Carney also stated that “geostrategically, hegemons are increasingly acting without constraint or respect for international norms while others bear the consequences.”

Carney first refused to weigh in the legality of the American-Israeli intervention, claiming that was a judgment for others to make. He subsequently clarified his comments, saying the attack appears to be a prima facie case of breaking international law.

While threading that needle, Carney managed to avoid the ire of Trump, who had harsh words and actions for all countries who did not support the attacks.

Most Canadians believe that Trump cannot be trusted on the trade file, as he changes his position almost daily. That same fear will heat up as the war escalates and other parts of the Arab Gulf are under siege. No one seems to know what the end game is. If regime change involves simply swapping out the murderous Ayatollah for his son, Canadian appetite for this war effort will quickly fade.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 26, 2025.

OTTAWA—Long live the King. Maybe.

When it comes to Canada, there are few more controversial issues than whether we should continue with the monarchy.

French-Canadians and the Irish, in particular, are not happy to have a head of state which reminds them of past travails.

In the case of Quebecers, the defeat by the English on the Plains of Abraham is seen as the beginning of the end of a sovereign French nation.

As for the Irish, those who come from the south have already split from the United Kingdom and see no reason to pledge fealty to the same monarchy that they rejected in their own country.

Battle-scarred opponents of the monarchy are more vocal than those who support the institution. When Queen Elizabeth II was nearing the end of her life, Canadian pundits were suggesting that she would be our last monarch.

King Charles III would never make it to the throne because most people respected his mother and did not have the same feeling toward him.

Then the King took over in 2022, and has spent the last several months showing people exactly why he is the right person for the times.

Divorced—an unheard-of marital state in the last century, but pretty common with commoners in this century. So he is a little bit like all of us.

He also has a sense of humour and is totally prepared to laugh at himself, something that was not in the character of the Queen.

The King is prepared to participate in the quirky and the bizarre.

Just last month, he was filmed playing a carrot—yes, a carrot—with the London Vegetable Orchestra. One cannot imagine the Queen putting her lips around the top of a taproot to make music.

But King Charles was always the quirky one. He was interested in organic food long before it became popular with the general public.

When he visited Canada in 1996, he got what was described as a “rock star welcome” in my hometown of Hamilton, Ont. We spent the visit together, and I was able to personally observe the depth and breadth of his interests. He visited an Indigenous school in Manitoba, and was given the honorific title of “Leading Star.”

Long before the public was engaged, the King soaked up knowledge about Indigenous challenges and spent much time reflecting on how to improve things.

During this week’s visit, a group of Indigenous leaders has asked to meet with him to discuss the issue of a separation threat by some citizens in Alberta.

Just as Prime Minister Mark Carney wants the King to stay out of American politics, so do the Indigenous leaders want the King to wade into Alberta politics.

Indigenous leaders have told Premier Danielle Smith that they oppose the province’s decision to simplify the rules for a separation referendum.

Smith is of the view that Indigenous leaders’ votes will be counted in any referendum, but the chiefs believe their territory’s integrity cannot be impacted by any provincial referendum.

As their treaties have been with the Crown, the King is obviously in a position to support their claims.

But he also has to be cautious when getting involved in domestic politics.

Reading the Speech from the Throne is an exception because the sovereign will only be repeating a message already approved by the prime minister and his office.

And taking a position in favour of one commonwealth country may cause problems in another.

Take King Charles’ second invitation to United States president Donald Trump to visit the United Kingdom.

Carney was very unhappy with the invitation and, in a surprising move, he made it known publicly. In an interview with British Sky News, about the invitation, Carney said Canadians were not impressed by that gesture “given the circumstance. It was a time when we were being quite clear, some of us were being quite clear, about the issues around sovereignty.”

The King’s invitation was delivered by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was in the midst of negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S.

In supporting British political objectives, the monarch was forced to bypass Canadian interests.

Such is the challenge of a king. In the same vein, the Canadian prime minister has to be cautious about King Charles’ trip to Canada. It could provide fodder for Quebec separatists who see the crown as a symbol of everything they do not want in a country.

Carney wants to send an international message of strength. But that message could be double-edged.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.