This article originally appeared in the Toronto Sun.
By Kevin Vuong, April 14, 2026
Canada’s leaders insist we’re not at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. They and their supporters frame our position as cautious, measured and aligned with international law, but foreign policy is not defined solely by declarations. Actions define it.
And by that standard, the Islamic regime has conflicted with Canada for years.
Start with the most visceral example — the destruction of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. In January 2020, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down a civilian airliner, killing all 176 people on board, over half of whom were Canadian citizens and permanent residents — among them, a friend of mine. The regime initially denied responsibility, only to later admit it had “mistakenly” targeted the aircraft. This was a direct, deadly act by a foreign military force that took Canadian lives without consequence.
But PS752 was not an isolated incident; it was part of a pattern.
In 2003, Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was arrested in Tehran, then tortured and killed while in custody. Her body’s never been returned to her family. What does it say about the Islamic regime’s posture toward Canada when it murders one of our citizens and refuses even the dignity of closure?
Fast forward to today and the pattern escalates to direct military hostility. In February and March 2026, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on targets across the Middle East. This included a base in Kuwait housing Canadian Armed Forces personnel. The installation — Camp Canada — was struck. There were no fatalities, but that is beside the point. Iran fired on a location where Canadian soldiers were stationed.
Nor is the threat confined to distant battlefields.
Risk is not dimishing
In B.C., two people have been charged with the murder of Masood Masjoody, a Simon Fraser University professor who was openly critical of the Islamic regime.
I worked with him on efforts to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity — something the federal government ultimately did in June 2024. While the case is before the courts, the broader context can’t be ignored. The Islamic regime has a well-documented record of targeting dissidents abroad. It has both motive and precedent.
Recent incidents suggest the risk is not diminishing. In March, shots were fired at an Iranian-Canadian critic’s gym and, days later, at the U.S. consulate in Toronto. Attribution remains under investigation, but these shootings fit a broader pattern of escalating hostility linked to the Islamic regime and its proxies. They followed an explosion at the American embassy in Oslo and preceded a drone attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Concerns have also grown about individuals with alleged IRGC connections operating within Canada, including warnings about potential sleeper networks.
Other incidents blur the line between foreign conflict and domestic intimidation. A car-ramming attack linked to individuals allegedly connected to the Islamic regime. At protests across Canadian cities, demonstrators have displayed IRGC symbols, waved Islamic regime flags and harassed Jewish Canadians.
These are not isolated expressions of dissent; they reflect the projection of a regime’s ideology and intimidation tactics into Canada’s public square.
Individually, each of these events might be explained away as a tragic mistake, an unresolved investigation or an isolated act of violence. But collectively, they form a pattern harder to dismiss. Canadians have been killed, targeted, intimidated and placed in harm’s way — both abroad and at home — by actors linked to the Islamic regime.
And yet, Canada’s official posture remains non-involvement.
This is the strategic contradiction at the heart of our foreign policy. We define war in narrow, formal terms: Troop deployments, declarations and alliances. The Islamic regime defines it more broadly: Through asymmetric tactics, proxy actions, intimidation and plausible deniability. In that framework, you do not need to declare war to wage it.
You only need to act.
Canada faces a choice. Our leaders can continue to treat these incidents as disconnected, while resisting the implications of their cumulative weight.
Or they can recognize the reality that has been unfolding for years — that conflict is already here, even if it has not been formally named.
Because, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, the message from Tehran has been consistent. This may not be our declared war. But it is, increasingly, our lived one.
Kevin Vuong is a former member of Parliament for Spadina—Fort York. The son of refugees, he continues his public service as a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and as a naval reserve officer.
