Hassan Rouhani

Friday January 10, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday January 10, 2020

As Iran and US take step back from the brink, Canada grieves

The worst had passed, it seemed, and the United States and Iran no longer appeared poised at the edge of war.

April 13, 2018

“All is well!” President Donald Trump tweeted Tuesday night, days after a U.S. drone strike killed Iran’s most powerful general, and Iran, after a barrage of missiles, had signaled it was stepping back from further escalation.

But 27 seconds before Trump’s tweet, commercial flight trackers had lost contact with a Ukrainian International Airlines jet that had just taken off from Tehran’s main airport. On board were 176 people, including 138 passengers on their way to Canada and at least 63 Canadian citizens and 11 Ukrainians. The plane, which never made a mayday call, slammed moments later into the ground.

Everyone on board died. They were students, newlyweds, doctors and parents. The youngest was a 1-year-old girl, Kurdia Molani, who was flying back home with her parents to the Toronto suburb of Ajax.

January 6, 2016

By late Thursday, Western leaders said that Iran had most likely shot down the jetliner with a surface-to-air missile — probably by accident. The loss of so many lives transformed the U.S.-Iran confrontation, which had seemed to conclude with limited bloodshed.

Instead, what had begun with a drone attack on Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s motorcade at the Baghdad airport had suddenly rippled outward until dozens of Iranian-Canadians, dozens of Iranian students studying in Canada, were dead.

“The community is overwhelmed with mourning and sadness,” said Payman Parseyan, a prominent Iranian-Canadian in western Canada, counting through the names of the friends he had lost. There was Pedram Mousavi and his wife Mojgan Daneshmand, both of them engineering professors, and their two daughters, Daria and Dorina Mousavi. There was Dr. Shekoufeh Choupannejad, an obstetrician-gynecologist, and her two daughters, Saba and Sara Saadat. It seemed impossible.

January 8, 2020

Some in Canada quickly blamed Trump for the disaster.

“This is insane. Sickening. Imagine having a family member on that plane,” said Rob Kent, a 42-year-old Toronto resident. “One man, and only one, is responsible for those deaths. And he will never face consequences for them.”

But Parseyan wasn’t so sure.

“It takes two to tango,” he said. “It’s not hard to see the downing as a result of the escalation between the two countries. However, Iran is responsible for its own military defense equipment. While it has the right to defend itself, as it should to protect its own people, it should also have the responsibility with that right to make sure their defensive systems aren’t targeting civilian aircraft.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has at times had a rocky relationship with Trump, was careful not to say the U.S. strike was responsible for what happened. (Associated Press) 

 

Tuesday June 25, 2019

June 25, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday June 25, 2019

Will Iran get the North Korean treatment from Trump?

The Trump administration ratcheted up tensions with Iran last week, blaming the Islamic Republic for attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and for shooting down an unmanned American drone in what America claims were international waters. (Iran denied responsibility for the tanker attacks and claimed the drone overflew its territorial waters.) The administration was prepared to launch a series of strikes on Thursday, before the president called them off at the last minute.

May 11, 2018

Why the sudden reversal? Trump claims that he found out on the brink of giving the go-ahead that the casualty estimate for the strikes was as high as 150 people, which he — rightly — considered disproportionate to the Iranian offense (which caused no casualties). Others have noted that Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, one of Trump’s favorite talking heads, has been whispering in the president’s ear, warning him away from his hawkish advisors and from starting a shooting war with Iran. Perhaps he deserves the credit for moderating the president’s stance?

Either or both explanation may be correct. But I can’t shake the feeling that we’ve seen this movie before.

January 16, 2018

In his first year in office, Trump promised “fire and fury” against North Korea, a rhetorical escalation that was met by similar threats from Pyongyang against American territory in Asia. Numerous observers were worried that America was on a path to a war. But after raising tensions, Trump dramatically dispelled them by agreeing to face-to-face talks with Kim Jong Un. Since their first summit, Trump has consistently touted his excellent personal relationship with the North Korean dictator and has responded insouciantly to both the failure of their talks to produce much of substance and to North Korea’s subsequent provocations.

Are we about to see a repeat performance, this time with Iran center stage? 

October 12, 2018

It’s not impossible. During his presidential campaign, Trump expressed limited concern about Iran as a threat, arguing against his predecessor’s nuclear deal primarily on the grounds that it was too favorable to Iranian interests. (He later withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in his first year in office.) Now, in the wake of calling off the strike, Trump has repeatedly called for patience in dealing with Iran and expressed a willingness to enter into direct, face-to-face talks with the Iranian president without preconditions, something he has expressed an openness to in the past. He has also reiterated that his concern is about Iran’s nuclear capability, implicitly sidelining concerns about human rights that have rarely exercised this presidency but also Iran’s regional ambitions and support for terrorism. (The Week) 

 

Wednesday July 15, 2015

Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator - Wednesday July 15, 2015 Iran after a nuclear deal: Where will Canada stand? Iran and the P5+1 Ð China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, or the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany Ð finally reached a deal on Tuesday resolving the long-standing dispute over IranÕs nuclear ambitions. This raises questions for Canada, which has displayed a particularly aggressive stance toward Iran in recent years. The Harper governmentÕs hostility toward Tehran has been based on the premise, frequently expressed by the Prime Minister and senior ministers, that Iran poses the greatest threat to international peace and security. The government has nuanced this assessment recently, labelling Iran a ÒsignificantÓ threat to international security, presumably reflecting growing concern about the Islamic State and Russia. Nevertheless, it remains that Canada has differentiated itself from its allies under the Conservatives, adopting a harder line against Iran. Concretely, this has meant that to protest against IranÕs nuclear program, human rights record, and confrontational regional policies, Canada has implemented all UN sanctions against Iran and has vocally adopted additional unilateral measures. In multilateral settings, Canadian diplomats repeatedly and assertively lambaste Iran. Ottawa also severed diplomatic relations in 2012. As nuclear talks progressed over the past two years, Canada remained deeply skeptical of Iranian intentions and insisted that only tangible actions would prove IranÕs commitment to restraining its nuclear program. Canada also systematically emphasized that human rights had not improved under President Hassan Rouhani and that IranÕs support for terrorism across the Middle East continues unabated. This aggressive policy towards Iran has been based on a flawed premise, has had a marginal impact, and has resulted in few measurable benefits. (Contin

Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 15, 2015

Iran after a nuclear deal: Where will Canada stand?

Iran and the P5+1 – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, or the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany – finally reached a deal on Tuesday resolving the long-standing dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This raises questions for Canada, which has displayed a particularly aggressive stance toward Iran in recent years.

The Harper government’s hostility toward Tehran has been based on the premise, frequently expressed by the Prime Minister and senior ministers, that Iran poses the greatest threat to international peace and security. The government has nuanced this assessment recently, labelling Iran a “significant” threat to international security, presumably reflecting growing concern about the Islamic State and Russia. Nevertheless, it remains that Canada has differentiated itself from its allies under the Conservatives, adopting a harder line against Iran.

Concretely, this has meant that to protest against Iran’s nuclear program, human rights record, and confrontational regional policies, Canada has implemented all UN sanctions against Iran and has vocally adopted additional unilateral measures. In multilateral settings, Canadian diplomats repeatedly and assertively lambaste Iran. Ottawa also severed diplomatic relations in 2012.

As nuclear talks progressed over the past two years, Canada remained deeply skeptical of Iranian intentions and insisted that only tangible actions would prove Iran’s commitment to restraining its nuclear program. Canada also systematically emphasized that human rights had not improved under President Hassan Rouhani and that Iran’s support for terrorism across the Middle East continues unabated.

This aggressive policy towards Iran has been based on a flawed premise, has had a marginal impact, and has resulted in few measurable benefits. (Continued: Globe & Mail)