Trump’s wildfire blame game is an ignorant reaction to a friend dealing with tragedy

Canada is throwing everything it has—every plane, every firefighter, every resource—at a fire season that is historically unprecedented.  

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

When United States President Donald Trump declared that Canada was “mismanaging” its forests and therefore responsible for the smoke drifting into the United States, he did more than display a misunderstanding of basic science. He revealed a profound ignorance about the natural world, the scale of Canada’s geography, and the limits of human power in the face of climate‑driven catastrophe. His threat to impose tariffs unless Canada “gets its wildfires under control” is not merely foolish—it is a reckless distortion of reality that undermines one of America’s closest allies.

Let’s be clear. No government on Earth can prevent or control wildfires across a landmass as vast, remote, and ecologically complex as Canada’s northern forests. To suggest otherwise is to advertise a dangerous level of stupidity about how nature works.

A forest the size of a continent

Canada’s boreal forest region is not a national park with paved access roads and ranger stations. It is the largest intact forest ecosystem on the planet, stretching more than 4,800 kilometres (3,000 miles) from Canada’s border with Alaska to the shores of Newfoundland on the North Atlantic. It covers 5.6 million square kilometres (2.3 million square miles)—roughly 80% of the size of the entire lower 48 American states, or 140% of the landmass of the European Union.

This is a wilderness so vast that large portions have never been walked by human beings. There are no highways, no towns, no infrastructure, and no practical way to “manage” the forest in the simplistic way Trump implies. To accuse Canada of “poor management” of an ecosystem this large is absurd. It is like blaming the US government for failing to “manage” the Pacific Ocean.

Wildfires in this region are not caused by bureaucratic negligence. They are caused by the same forces that have shaped the boreal forest for millennia—lightning, drought, heat, wind, and climate change.

Lightning doesn’t ask permission

In just the past several days, the Government of Canada’s Lightning Detection Network has recorded more than 14,000 lightning strikes across northern Ontario and southern Manitoba—each one a potential ignition source when the forest floor is parched. Lightning is responsible for most of the large wildfires in Canada’s boreal region, a reality no government can prevent any more than it can command rainfall or reverse drought conditions driven by climate change.

Canada is experiencing one of the driest, hottest summers in recorded history. The Canadian Wildland Fire Information System reports that fire danger levels across multiple provinces are at “extreme”, driven by record‑low precipitation and high winds. These are climate‑driven conditions, not political ones.

To blame Canada’s government for the smoke drifting into the United States is like blaming firefighters for the direction of the wind.

Canada is throwing everything it has at the fires

Trump’s comments ignore the scale of the response Canada has already mobilized. According to federal and provincial emergency agencies:

• More than 6,000 firefighters are currently deployed nationwide, including crews from every province and territory.
• Over 200 aircraft, including Canada’s world‑renowned water bombers, are engaged in suppression operations across the country
• International assistance has been requested and received from the United States, Australia, New Zealand, France, South Africa, and Mexico.
• The Canadian Armed Forces have been deployed to support evacuations, logistics, and ground operations.
• Thousands of volunteers and emergency workers are risking their lives daily in some of the most dangerous terrain on Earth.

In other words, Canada is not sitting idle nor “mismanaging” anything. Canada is throwing everything it has—every plane, every firefighter, every resource—at a fire season that is historically unprecedented. And yet the fires still rage because nature is bigger than governments.

A forest fire is not a house fire

Perhaps the most useful way to illustrate the absurdity of Trump’s claim is through analogy.

When a house catches fire, firefighters arrive within minutes. They have hydrants, hoses, ladders, and roads. They can surround the structure, attack the flames from multiple angles, and extinguish the fire within hours. The area is small. The access is easy. The resources are concentrated.

Now imagine a fire the size of Delaware, or Connecticut, or Vermont. Imagine that fire burning in terrain with no roads, no hydrants, no communications infrastructure, and no safe access points. Imagine flames over 30 metres high (over 100 feet) moving at 20 kilometres per hour (12 mph) through dense forest, driven by winds that shift unpredictably. Imagine smoke so thick that aircraft cannot fly and temperatures so high that water dropped from planes evaporates before it hits the ground.

That is what Canadian firefighters are facing.

To demand that Canada “put out the fires” is to demand the impossible. It is to demand that human beings overpower the combined forces of drought, heat, lightning, wind, and climate change.  Only a fool would make such a demand.

Canada has always stood with the US

Trump’s comments also betray a disturbing lack of gratitude.

Just last week, a Canadian water bomber pilot died fighting fires in Colorado. Canadians have fought fires in California, provided aid after hurricanes in Louisiana, helped with floods in New York, and following tornadoes in the Midwest. We have never blamed American leaders for the impacts of natural disasters. We have never threatened tariffs or politicized tragedies beyond our control because smoke crossed the border.

We asked how we could help, we donated and we prayed for our friends because that is what neighbours do.

Let’s be honest. Trump’s threats have nothing to do with forest management. They are part of a pattern, where he uses crises—real or manufactured—to bully Canada into concessions on trade, energy, and continental security. Rather than being angry about smoke from forest fires crossing borders, he is exploiting smoke.

He is using a natural disaster as a political weapon, as leverage to extract economic concessions from a country that has stood by the United States for generations. It is gangster politics—extortion dressed up as environmental concern, and it is beneath the office he holds.

Only weather can change the situation

Every fire expert in Canada and the United States agrees that the only force capable of shifting the tide is weather. Significant rainfall, cooler temperatures, and reduced winds are the only variables that can slow or extinguish fires of this scale.

Government’s cannot manufacture rain, legislate humidity, or order lightning to stop. The fires will end when nature decides they will end.

Blaming Canada for the uncontrollable forces of nature is not leadership. It is ignorance and it is dangerous. It undermines the very alliance that has kept North America stable and prosperous.

The facts are clear. The science is clear. The scale is clear.

The only question is whether the President of the United States is willing to see it.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Canadians want a politics of decency and humanity, and NDP leader Avi Lewis could deliver it

Canadians are rejecting the politics of fear and capitulation and instead choosing a politics of empathy, solidarity, and material improvement. 

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack

Avi Lewis’s election as leader of the federal New Democratic Party earlier this year was not merely an internal party upset or a moment of ideological turbulence. It was a national signal—clear, forceful, and overdue that Canadians are rejecting the traditional political binary that has dominated federal politics for years—a choice between the Conservative Party and Pierre Poilievre’s rage‑based theatrics, or the Liberal Party led by Mark Carney, a polished but pliant technocrat. Lewis’s victory shows that Canadians are hungry for something different, for a politics rooted in humanity, solidarity, and economic dignity.

For decades, Canadians have been told that their political choices begin and end with the two parties that have governed the country since Confederation—parties now led by a career politician who thrives on division and a former central banker who campaigned on “elbows up” toughness but has governed with “hands up” submission. Neither Poilievre or Carney offers what Canadians actually need. One cannot deliver because he sits in Opposition, and the other has failed because none of the initiatives he announced as prime minister have materialized—whether on affordable housing, affordable groceries, affordable internet and phone services, a government willing to confront corporate greed, or a leader with a moral compass in the face of genocide who stands up to foreign pressure rather than bows before it.

Lewis’s rise demonstrates that Canadians are sick of fear‑based politics and want to embrace a politics of decency—one that understands the daily struggles of ordinary people and refuses to treat corporate interests or foreign governments as the true constituency of Canadian democracy.

The failure of the old politics

Poilievre’s politics revolve around resentment, division, and perpetual outrage. He has mastered the art of weaponizing anger while offering little in the way of substantive solutions. Carney, by contrast, presents himself as a steady hand, a global thinker, a technocrat who has the international experience to manage crises with calm expertise. But his record since becoming prime minister reveals a troubling pattern. Despite his speeches promoting “elbows up”, when confronted by pressure from Donald Trump’s administration, Carney has given concessions without getting anything from the United States in return.

Many Canadians voted for Carney out of fear—fear of Poilievre becoming prime minister, and fear of Trump’s threats to annex Canada or impose crippling tariffs. But fear is not a governing philosophy, and Canadians are now realizing that Carney’s leadership has delivered submission more than economic stability, and that his tools to deliver that economic stability are very limited.

Trump’s escalating war with Iran (something over which Carney has no control) has already destabilized global markets, driven up energy prices, rattled supply chains, and pushed major economies toward recession. Canadians have felt the effects of this in gas prices and at the grocery store.  His erratic tariff threats, sanctions, and military adventurism have created an environment where no country can count on predictable trade flows or stable investment conditions.

Carney promised during the federal election that he would shield Canadians from global volatility, insisting that his experience as a central banker in both Canada and the United Kingdom equipped him to steady the economy in turbulent times. But the reality has been starkly different. Despite his international stature and frequent overseas trips to seek investment and sign trade deals, Carney has no meaningful ability to counteract the economic shockwaves generated by Trump’s decisions. His government cannot blunt the impact of Trump’s escalating confrontation with Iran, which has already driven up global energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and pushed major economies toward the brink of recession. Nor can Carney insulate Canadians from the broader instability created by Trump’s unpredictable sanctions, tariff threats, and military brinkmanship. In practice, Carney’s government has little leverage and no effective strategy beyond waiting for the chaos instigated by Washington to pass. The economic turbulence unleashed by the US president since returning to office is far larger than Carney’s ability to deliver on his promises, and Canadians are now living with the consequences.

Carney’s pattern of capitulation

Carney’s “elbows up” pledge has collapsed under the weight of repeated concessions to Washington. Four major examples illustrate this pattern clearly.

Digital Services Tax retreat: Carney promised to ensure multinational tech giants pay their fair share—a 3% levy on the Canadian revenues of US tech giants. But when Trump threatened retaliatory tariffs, Carney rescinded implementation of the Digital Services Tax in June 2025, effectively surrendering to US pressure rather than defending Canadian sovereignty. Critics across the political spectrum described the move as a capitulation wrapped in the political spin of affordability for Canadian consumers.

Gordie Howe Bridge concession: Trump’s administration attempted to use the Gordie Howe International Bridge as leverage, threatening delays and regulatory obstacles unless Canada made concessions on unrelated trade issues. Instead of asserting Canada’s rights in a binational infrastructure project based on a legal and binding agreement, Carney quietly acquiesced. His government’s refusal to release the details of the deal speaks volumes. It’s another instance of when Trump pushes, Carney yields.

The F‑35 procurement paralysis: More than a year after Carney called for a review of Canada’s purchase of F-35 fighter jets, his refusal to make a clear decision—despite years of planning and billions of taxpayer dollars already committed—is another example of his unwillingness to confront Washington. Trump’s administration openly pressured Canada to accelerate the procurement and Canada even put in a down payment on 14 additional jets, and Carney has responded with indecision rather than resolve. His hesitation signaled weakness and an unwillingness to make a decision that affects the future of the RCAF.

Withdrawal of the Online Streaming Act levy: Perhaps the clearest example of Carney’s capitulation came with his withdrawal of the Online Streaming Act levy. The levy would have required major American streaming platforms—Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and others—to contribute up to 15% of their Canadian revenues toward Canadian and Indigenous content production. The policy was designed to strengthen Canada’s cultural sector and ensure foreign platforms invested in the country from which they profit.

But after intense pressure from US officials, American tech companies, and Trump’s trade representatives—who called the levy “discriminatory”—Carney reversed course. He directed the CRTC to rewrite the rules, effectively scrapping the levy and replacing it with a $600‑million annual federal subsidy. Carney framed the decision as an affordability measure, claiming the levy would raise subscription costs for Canadians. But critics immediately recognized the move for what it was: another concession to Washington in the middle of Trump’s trade war with Canada.

The reversal shocked Canada’s cultural sector, blindsided Liberal MPs, and signaled to foreign corporations that Canadian cultural policy is negotiable whenever U.S. pressure is applied. It was a textbook example of Carney’s governing style—rhetorical toughness paired with policy surrender.

Avi Lewis represents the politics many Canadians want

Lewis’s victory in the NDP leadership race signals a profound shift in the Canadian political landscape, as is the NDP’s rise in the polls. Canadians are rejecting the politics of fear and capitulation and instead choosing a politics of empathy, solidarity, and material improvement.

The truth is that Lewis understands what Canadians want: affordable housing built for people, not investors.  Affordable groceries in a market dominated by corporate giants; affordable internet, data, and phone services in a country where telecom monopolies extract some of the highest fees in the world; a government that stands up to corporate power, not one that bends to it; a foreign policy rooted in human rights, not one shaped by the interests of states like Israel whose actions violate international law with impunity.

Lewis’s politics are grounded in the daily realities of Canadians who are struggling to pay rent, feed their families, and stay connected in an increasingly digital world. He speaks to the majority, not the elite minority.

A new kind of leadership

Lewis offers something Canadians have been denied for years—a politics of courage and compassion. He does not posture. He does not perform toughness while quietly capitulating behind closed doors. He does not weaponize anger or fear. Instead, he offers a politics rooted in human dignity.

He has shown he can empathize with people’s struggles and articulate a vision of Canada that is not defined by corporate interests or foreign pressure. He has demonstrated that he understands the basic needs of the vast majority of Canadians—and that he is willing to fight for them.

This is why his rise to lead the NDP matters. It is not simply a victory for the party’s left wing. It is a declaration that Canadians are ready for a new political era.

The Canadian public has shifted

The old political class still insists that Canadians are fundamentally centrist, cautious, and resistant to bold change. But Lewis’s victory proves otherwise. Canadians are tired of being told that they must accept corporate greed, rising costs, and foreign interference as inevitable facts of life. They are tired of being governed by people who do not understand them.

Lewis’s election is a wake‑up call—not just for the NDP, but for the entire country. It shows that Canadians are ready to embrace a politics that prioritizes human dignity over corporate profit, sovereignty over submission, and solidarity over division.

Carney and Poilievre offer Canadians politics as it has been for most of Canada’s existence—alternating between two parties which have both shifted to the right of the political spectrum.  Lewis offers a politics of hope, and Canadians are making it clear which they prefer.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Carney showed Canadians his weakness by paying “ransom” to Trump over Gordie Howe Bridge opening

If the US can extract concessions on a bridge it did not pay for, what will stop it from doing the same on pipelines, rail corridors, or energy grids?

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack

Mark Carney’s government has now provided the clearest evidence yet that Canada’s “elbows‑up” strategy, which he promoted after becoming prime minister, is over. The prime minister who promised Canadians that their country would no longer be pushed around or intimidated by the United States under Donald Trump has instead delivered a humiliating concession over the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge—an infrastructure project that Canada fully funded, managed, and built. And yet, when the moment of truth arrived, Carney folded.

To understand the scale of this capitulation, Canadians need to revisit the history of the bridge itself. The Gordie Howe International Bridge was conceived as a long‑overdue modernization of the Windsor–Detroit crossing, a corridor responsible for on average US$360 million in daily trade between Canada and the US. The existing 96-year-old  Ambassador Bridge—owned by the Moroun family, a private US business dynasty—had long been a chokepoint, a monopoly crossing plagued by aging infrastructure and political interference.

In 2012, after years of obstruction from the Ambassador Bridge owners, Canada and the Obama administration signed a binational agreement, that began construction of a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.  Under the arrangement Canada would pay the full cost of the new bridge—$6.4 billion—and in return Canada would collect 100% of toll revenues until its investment was recouped. Only after Canada recovered its costs would profits be split 50/50. It was a fair deal, a rational deal, and a deal that was supposed to protect Canadian taxpayers.

Then Donald Trump entered the picture.

According to multiple investigative reports, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge donated $1.5 million to a Trump‑aligned MAGA PAC shortly before the Trump administration began obstructing the bridge’s opening with claims of a bad deal for the US. The timing was not subtle and the intent was not hidden. The Ambassador Bridge owners wanted to delay or derail the Gordie Howe Bridge, and they were willing to pay whatever it took to do it.

Being the corrupt, transactional thug that he is Trump delivered.

The Trump administration signaled that the bridge would not open unless Canada renegotiated the financial terms of the original deal. In other words: the United States demanded a ransom, and Mark Carney paid it.

The new arrangement—forced on Canada under threat of indefinite delay—hands the United States benefits it never earned and concessions it never paid for. The US contributed nothing to the bridge’s construction. Yet Carney agreed to a deal that gives Americans a share of profits, a veto over toll increases of more than 10%, and access to a US‑only economic development fund financed by toll revenue.

The specifics of the “ransom” Canada paid include:

• 15‑Year Profit Sharing: Canada still collects toll revenue, but 50% of net profits for the first 15 years will be diverted to a US regional development fund—money to which Canadians will not have access;
• US Toll Governance: Canada must obtain US consent to raise tolls more than 10% or lower them below regional averages. In other words, Canada no longer controls the pricing of the bridge it paid for.
• US‑Only Reinvestment: The diverted profits will be spent exclusively on American infrastructure and economic projects. In other words, Canadians will fund it but only Americans will spend it.

This is not partnership, or diplomacy, or respect between two sovereign nations.  It is extortion and blatant gangsterism.  And Carney’s response to Trump’s thuggery was not “elbows up.” It was “hands up.”

The prime minister who once declared that Canada would no longer be intimidated has now demonstrated the opposite. Canada can be taken into a back room by a gangster‑style US president and beaten until it agrees to whatever Washington demands. Trump threatened to block the opening of a bridge Canada built, and Carney surrendered.

This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern we have seen since Trump returned to office, one where Trump threatens and Canada capitulates.

Carney has repeatedly shown weakness in the face of US pressure. His government’s digital services legislation—originally intended to ensure fair taxation of tech giants like Amazon, Google and Meta operating in Canada—was rescinded on June 30, 2025 in order to restart trade talks with the US. The result was that Canada gained little given that trade talks are still effectively halted.  It conceded much to the detriment of Canadians, and once again demonstrated that US threats and intimidation can bend Ottawa’s spine.

The Gordie Howe Bridge fiasco is not an isolated embarrassment—it is the clearest, most visible symptom of a deeper structural failure. Carney’s decisions have not fortified Canada’s sovereignty in its relationship with the United States; they have steadily eroded it. No matter how loudly the Carney government advertises its other international “wins,” the reality is unavoidable: Canada is emerging from these confrontations with the Trump administration weaker, more vulnerable, and more dependent on the goodwill of its single largest trading partner.

Consider the symbolism. The bridge was meant to be a triumph of Canadian initiative, a strategic investment in national economic security. Instead, it has become a monument to American coercion and Canadian capitulation. The country that paid for the bridge now needs permission to operate it from the country that paid nothing.

Carney’s defenders will argue that the deal was necessary to avoid further delays. They will say that opening the bridge is vital for trade, for jobs, for the economy. And they are right about the importance of the bridge. But they are wrong about the price paid.

Canada could have stood firm. Canada could have insisted that the original agreement be honoured, and even sued in US and Canadian courts. Canada could have refused to renegotiate under duress. Instead, Carney rewarded extortion with concessions.

The consequences will echo far beyond Windsor and Detroit.

First, Canada has signaled to the United States that bullying and extortion works. If Trump—or any future US administration—wants something from Canada, they now know the formula: threaten economic disruption, apply political pressure, and wait for Ottawa to fold.

Second, Canada has undermined its own credibility. A country that cannot defend a $6.4‑billion investment it fully funded cannot credibly claim to be a sovereign equal in North American negotiations.

Third, Canada has set a dangerous precedent for future infrastructure projects. If the US can extract concessions on a bridge it did not pay for, what will stop it from doing the same on pipelines, rail corridors, or energy grids?

Carney’s failure of resolve isn’t merely a political misstep. It is a direct threat to Canada’s national security posture.

This nation’s prosperity depends on cross‑border infrastructure. If that infrastructure becomes a bargaining chip for US political actors, Canada’s economic future becomes hostage to American domestic politics. And if Canada’s prime minister cannot stand up to a US president who openly uses extortion as a negotiating tactic, then Canada is not negotiating—it is submitting.

The Gordie Howe Bridge should have been a symbol of Canadian strength. Instead, it has become a symbol of Canadian vulnerability.

Carney promised Canadians that he would lead with strength. He promised that Canada would no longer be pushed around. He promised an “elbows‑up” foreign policy.  But when Donald Trump came knocking, Carney didn’t put his elbows up. He raised his hands in submission. And  for that Canada has paid the price, and will continue to for decades.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

The world’s most dangerous nation is Canada’s southern neighbour, and it is a threat to Canada

A full-scale US assault—tariffs, sanctions, border closures, financial pressure, military action—would result in Canada becoming a vassal state. 

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack

The United States is the most war‑embracing and dangerous nation in the world. Its record over the last 35 years—and many decades before that—makes this impossible to deny. No other country has launched more wars, bombed more nations, imposed more devastating sanctions, or destabilized more societies. Western politicians insist that China, Russia, or Iran threaten global peace. But the historical evidence points in only one direction—the greatest threat to world peace is the United States itself.

And other than the nations the US attacks, the country that stands to lose the most if the US goes rogue is Canada—America’s closest neighbour, largest trading partner, and most economically dependent ally. Canada’s prosperity, sovereignty, and security are tied to a declining superpower whose foreign policy has become increasingly reckless, militarized, and unpredictable.

This is not hyperbole, its reality.

Bill Clinton: The quiet architect of catastrophe

The calamity that the world faces today began in 1990s following the Persian Gulf War and the end of the Cold War, a time when the US was the only global superpower, a time often remembered as a peaceful decade. In reality, the 90s were the prelude to the global violence that took place in subsequent decades. Under President Bill Clinton, the United States imposed one of the most devastating sanctions regimes in modern history on Iraq. These sanctions crippled Iraq’s economy, destroyed its infrastructure, and led to widespread malnutrition and disease. UNICEF estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result.

When asked in a 1996 60 Minutes interview whether the deaths of half a million children were “worth it,” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied, “We think the price is worth it.” It was a moment of moral clarity where the vile mindset of senior American officials was revealed for what it was—one where: Washington openly admitted that mass civilian death, and those of children no less, was an acceptable cost of American power.

In 1998, Clinton also ordered the bombing of Sudan’s Al‑Shifa pharmaceutical plant, claiming—without evidence—that it was producing chemical weapons. In reality, the plant produced 50–60% of Sudan’s medicines, including treatments for malaria and tuberculosis, and its destruction plunged Sudan into a public health crisis that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths in subsequent years.

These were not isolated mistakes. They were early signals of a country that had embraced militarism as a permanent operating principle.

George W. Bush is a war criminal shielded by power

George W. Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan which led to a 20 year war and occupation, and its war o Iraq reshaped the Middle East and South Asia. The Iraq War—launched based on lies about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)—was illegal under international law and lacked United Nations authorization. By the international legal standards applied to other leaders, Bush should have been tried and convicted at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for launching a war of aggression, and as the leader of a nation that committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The consequences of the war were catastrophic.  It is estimated that up to a million Iraqis were killed or died from the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Iraqi society. Millions more were displaced, and a region was destabilized for generations. Iraq had long been a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, and its destruction removed a major political counterweight to Israeli regional ambitions. Israel had openly identified Iraq as a strategic threat and quietly encouraged US confrontation with Saddam Hussein.

Yet Bush has never faced accountability for the destruction caused by his policies. His war crimes have been sanitized through political power, media complicity, the passage of time, and the myth of American exceptionalism.

Barrack Obama: The drone executioner

Under Barack Obama, US warfare expanded dramatically. Obama did not merely inherit Bush’s war machine and continue operating it, he refined it, technologized it, and made it more lethal.  Central to this transformation was the massive enlargement of the CIA’s drone assassination program.

Military drone warfare intensified in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, turning these countries into unacknowledged killing fields.  American missiles struck homes, weddings, funerals, marketplaces, and entire villages. Independent investigations repeatedly found that the vast majority of those killed were civilians, including children.  The Obama administration even adopted a policy that counted any “military‑aged male” in a strike zone as a “combatant” unless proven otherwise—a bureaucratic trick that erased civilian casualties from official records.

These were extrajudicial executions carried out across sovereign nations with which the United States was not formally at war. By any reasonable standard, Barack Obama is a war criminal, as is Hillary Clinton, who championed and defended these operations. Senior US officials who designed and expanded the drone program belong in international tribunals, not lecture halls or corporate boards.

The fact that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 is one of the most grotesque ironies of the century. Based on his record in office his prize should have been rescinded long ago.

The destruction of Libya

Libya stands out as one of the most consequential and destructive interventions of the 21st century. Obama and Clinton sold the NATO bombing campaign to the UN Security Council as a humanitarian mission in support of Arab Spring protestors. In reality, it was a plan to destroy a functioning state, one which plunged Libya into civil war, and opened the door to slave markets, and effectively made it into a failed state.

Libya was not bombed simply because of the Arab Spring. It was bombed because Muammar Gaddafi threatened Western financial dominance. Gaddafi had proposed a Pan‑African Gold Dinar, a currency backed by gold rather than the US dollar. His plan included: an African central bank; an African investment bank; an African monetary fund, a unified African military, and a common African passport.

These institutions would have reduced Western financial and political control and allowed African nations to trade oil and other natural resources based on the intrinsic value of gold.  Crucially, Gaddafi’s plan threatened the petrodollar system, which underpins American financial hegemony.

Libya was also a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, and  Israel had long viewed Libya as a regional adversary and quietly supported Western pressure against Gaddafi.

By any reasonable standard, Obama, Clinton, and the leaders of NATO nations that participated in the bombing are unindicted war criminals.

Syria and Iran were targeted for supporting Palestinians

Syria and Iran have long stood outside the orbit of American and Israeli geopolitical control. Both nations have been consistent, vocal, and material supporters of the Palestinian cause for decades. And in Washington’s worldview—shaped heavily by Israeli lobbying—this alone has been enough to mark them for punishment.

Syria became a battlefield for US airstrikes under Barack Obama, with bombings justified under the banner of fighting ISIS and supporting Arab Spring protesters in that country. But the reality was far more complex. The United States armed and supported militant groups, imposed sweeping sanctions, and carried out airstrikes that devastated civilian infrastructure. The Costs of War Project at Brown University documents tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Syria attributable to US military operations, sanctions‑driven deprivation, and the cascading effects of regional destabilization.

Syria’s long‑standing support for Palestinian resistance movements made it a target for Israeli pressure, with Israel openly advocating for US confrontation with Damascus, viewing Syria’s alliance with Hezbollah and Iran as a strategic threat. Washington obliged, turning Syria into another front in its endless war doctrine.

Iran is the ultimate target of US–Israeli aggression

Iran has been under US sanctions for more than four decades—sanctions that have crippled its economy, restricted access to medicine, and harmed millions of civilians. These sanctions are not defensive measures but instruments of economic warfare. They are designed to break Iran’s political will by destabilize its society and forcing regime change.

• In recent years, the US–Israeli campaign against Iran has escalated dramatically. The pattern is unmistakable:
• In June 2025 Israel launched strikes deep inside Iran, targeting infrastructure and military sites;
• From February 2026 onward the United States joined Israel in coordinated attacks, striking Iranian facilities, air defenses, and civilian areas;
• These attacks were carried out without UN authorization, making them illegal under international law;
• Western governments refused to condemn the strikes, revealing a profound moral bankruptcy at the heart of the so‑called “rules‑based international order.”

Iran’s crime, in the eyes of Washington and Tel Aviv, is not terrorism, nuclear ambition, or regional aggression. Iran’s crime is supporting Palestine, resisting Israeli expansionism, and refusing to submit to US geopolitical control.

The human toll: A region bleeding from US wars

The Costs of War Project provides the most authoritative accounting of the devastation:

• Iraq: Over 300,000 direct deaths, and more than 1 million indirect deaths.
• Afghanistan: Over 176,000 direct deaths, and more than 1 million indirect deaths.
• Pakistan: Tens of thousands killed by US drone strikes and counterterror operations.
• Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria: Hundreds of thousands more killed through US airstrikes, proxy wars, sanctions, and destabilization.

Across the region, the total death toll attributable to US wars since 9/11 exceeds 4.6 million people—a figure Brown University describes as “conservative.”

Iran now stands on the brink of becoming the next Iraq, the next Libya, the next Syria—another nation shattered because it refused to bow to American and Israeli power.

The US–Israeli attack on Iran—both in 2025 and since February 2026— is illegal, unprovoked, and geopolitically reckless. It exposes the West’s hypocrisy: preaching human rights while committing war crimes. It reveals that the “rules‑based order” is a myth—an ideological shield for Western militarism. And it shows that the US is willing to ignite a regional war that could kill millions, destabilize global markets, and plunge the world into crisis.

Canada: The neighbour living beside a volcano

Canada is the country most economically intertwined with the United Staten, with Canada’s manufacturing sector exporting nearly 75% of Canadian exports go to the US—energy, agricultural produce, steel, aluminum, manufactured goods, and supply chains are deeply dependent on the  American market. If the United States ever turned its economic or military power against Canada, the consequences would be catastrophic.  Canada has received only a taste of that aggression with Donald Trump’s tariff war.

However, if the US launched a full‑scale economic assault—tariffs, sanctions, border closures, or financial pressure—would devastate Canada’s economy within months. If such an assault were combined with military action, Canada would be unable to resist. The Canadian Armed Forces, professional and dedicated though they are, are simply not built to withstand the overwhelming force of the US military. Canada would be routed in weeks, if not days, if Washington ever chose to attack.

This is not speculation. It is history.

The last time Canada had a formal defence plan for responding to a US invasion was in the 1920s and 1930s: Defence Scheme No. 1, a strategy that involved pre‑emptively invading parts of the United States to slow an American advance. The plan was eventually abandoned because it was suicidal.

More recently, Canadian military planners quietly modelled a Taliban‑style insurgency as the only viable response to a hypothetical US invasion. The Canadian government even acknowledged this modelling publicly. Analysts have noted that both countries historically planned for conflict scenarios, though Canada’s options have always been limited.

If the United States continues down its current path of militarism, economic coercion, and geopolitical recklessness, Canada will not simply feel the shockwaves—it will be struck by the full force of the blast. No other country on Earth is as exposed to American instability as Canada. Every major artery of Canadian prosperity—trade, energy, manufacturing, agriculture, finance, supply chains—runs directly through the US. When Washington shakes, Ottawa trembles. When Washington lashes out, Canada gets bruisedbleeds. And if Washington goes rogue, Canada will become the first and most vulnerable casualty.

Canada must recognize that the greatest threat to its future is not a distant authoritarian power—it is the increasingly unstable superpower next door. If the United States continues down its current trajectory—endless wars of aggression abroad, economic blackmail against allies, and a foreign policy that tries to control and dominate other nations—Canada will be the first nation to suffer the consequences. The question is no longer whether Canada is vulnerable. The question is whether Canada is prepared to confront the reality that its greatest existential threat comes not from across an ocean, but from across a border, and Canadian leaders have to ask themselves are we prepared for this scenario, and what is the price Canadians are willing to pay to defend ourselves.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.