By Alan H. Kessel, March 9, 2026
Prime Minister Mark Carney is right to support the recent U.S. and Israel strike on Iran.
While the UN Charter prohibits the use of force, international law is not a suicide pact. States do not have to wait for missiles to land before defending themselves. Article 51 of the Charter preserves the inherent right of self-defence, and international law recognizes that this right may be exercised when an armed attack is imminent.
The question is timing. Does a country wait until the first missile strikes, or can it act when the threat is real, operational and unavoidable? International law permits action based on intelligence, demonstrated capability and readiness.
Iran’s nuclear and missile programs make that threat concrete. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has expanded uranium enrichment well beyond the limits of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — a 2015 agreement intended to constrain its nuclear program — and is approaching weapons-grade thresholds. Nuclear latency compresses timelines: once sufficient stockpiles and technical capability exist, breakout to a weapon can occur quickly.
Iran has also developed and tested ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the region. These systems are real, tested and operational. In recent days, Iran escalated further, launching missile and drone strikes across the Gulf, hitting U.S. military facilities and Gulf states including Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the U.A.E. Operational readiness and regional reach are undeniable.
Intent matters as much as capability. Since 1979, Iran’s leadership has repeatedly called for Israel’s elimination and identified the United States as a principal adversary. Tehran also arms, finances and directs proxy militias that attack U.S. and Israeli targets across multiple theatres, as documented by the U.S. Congressional Research Service. Canada has long treated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and has listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity.
Canada has precedent for acting to prevent imminent harm. In 1999, it joined NATO’s bombing campaign to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. That intervention proceeded without Security Council authorization, but was widely justified on humanitarian grounds.
Canada also played a leading role in developing the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. Under then-foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, Canada helped advance the concept through the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, and the principle was later endorsed by the 2005 UN World Summit. R2P reframes sovereignty as responsibility, not immunity.
Canada cannot champion R2P, designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity and then ignore a regime that openly threatens annihilation while steadily building the capability to carry it out.
Carney’s stance reflects consistency with both Canadian tradition and international law. Imminence is measured by the convergence of intent, capability, operational readiness, and demonstrated action, not by waiting for the moment of impact. In an age of precision missiles, nuclear latency, and active regional aggression, waiting to be attacked first is not just impractical; it is dangerously irresponsible.
In remarks last Tuesday, Carney noted Canada supports the action “with regret.” That sentiment is understandable. The use of force should always be approached with caution and sobriety. But expressing regret does not mean retreat — it reflects recognition that even justified action carries serious consequences.
In the days ahead, there will be debate, doubt and pressure to recalibrate. That is natural in a democracy. But history reminds us that the strength of international law lies not only in its prohibition of force, but in its recognition that security and order sometimes require measured action. When hostile intent is declared, military capability assembled, and destabilizing activity underway, prudence does not demand paralysis — it demands judgment.
By maintaining his position, Carney affirms a long-standing Canadian understanding: that the rule of law protects peace not through passivity, but through principled resolve in the face of real and imminent danger.
Alan H. Kessel served in the roles of assistant deputy minister for legal affairs and legal adviser at Global Affairs Canada. He headed the Canadian legal team suing Iran for the downing of Ukrainian Airlines PS752. He is now a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
