Global nuclear non-proliferation dealt a fatal blow with US-Israeli attack on Iran

The US-Israel military campaign against Iran is not just another regional war. It is a profound setback to the slow, fragile progress toward a world with fewer nuclear weapons.

 

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

 

On February 28th the United States and Israel launched a coordinated and unprovoked military assault on Iran. This unprecedented aggression targeted Iran's nuclear facilities, ballistic missile sites, military command structures, as well as targets in Iran's major urban centres.  The strikes were intended to destroy what remained of Tehran's nuclear program after a previous round of strikes in June 2025, which US President Donald Trump claimed at the time "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities.

He framed the operation this week as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but provided no proof that Iran was anywhere near completing a nuclear warhead.  However, the repercussions of the attack are far more damaging. By attacking a non-nuclear state amid ongoing diplomatic talks, the US and Israel have not only done serious damage to the Iranian regime but also dealt a severe blow to global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This act of aggression sends a chilling message to smaller nations that the only reliable deterrence against powerful bullies like the US and Israel is to acquire nuclear weapons of your own.

The assault on Iran underscores a harsh truth about international power dynamics. For decades, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been the main tool used by the international community to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, with nuclear-armed states like the US promising security in exchange for others' restraint. But the attack on Iran flips this logic on its head. Iran, a signatory to the NPT, had been negotiating limits on its nuclear activities when the bombs fell.  Diplomacy was abandoned in favor of force, proving that even compliance offers no protection from pre-emptive strikes. As experts have noted, this incentivizes proliferation, with other nations with the capability now looking to develop nuclear programs as a deterrent before they themselves are attacked and their governments overthrown. Smaller nations, witnessing Iran's fate, will conclude that nuclear weapons are essential for survival against hegemonic powers like the US, China and Russia.

Consider Ukraine, a stark example of the perils of denuclearization. In 1994, Ukraine inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal from the Soviet Union but relinquished it under the Budapest Memorandum, receiving security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. Russia violated those assurances in 2014 by annexing Crimea and again in 2022 with a full-scale invasion. Ukrainian officials have lamented the decision to denuclearize, with one MP stating, "We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement. Now, there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake." Had Ukraine retained its arsenal, Russia might never have considered invasion, deterred by the threat of nuclear escalation. Instead, denuclearization left Ukraine vulnerable, reinforcing the lesson that lack of a nuclear deterrent invites aggression.

Libya's experience echoes this tragedy. In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, including nascent nuclear efforts, in exchange for normalized relations with the West and a security guarantee. Eight years later, in 2011, NATO intervened in Libya's civil war under a UN mandate to protect civilians, but the operation expanded into regime change, leading to Gaddafi's overthrow and death. The intervention, led by the US, UK, and France, demonstrated that giving up WMDs offers no lasting security. As one analysis put it, this set a precedent for authoritarian regimes--nuclear weapons deter foreign intervention. North Korea's Kim Jong-un has cited Libya as a reason for his nation developing its nuclear arsenal, viewing it as protection against a possible attack by the US.

North Korea stands as the counterexample, proving the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. Facing US threats of regime change since the Korean War, Pyongyang pursued nukes relentlessly, conducting its first test in 2006. Today, with an estimated 50 warheads and advanced missiles, North Korea has effectively shielded itself from invasion. Analysts argue that its arsenal deters US aggression, allowing provocations like missile tests without fear of full-scale war. The US-Israel attack on Iran only bolsters the view that non-nuclear states are prey, while those with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them are predators.

Israel's role in this hypocrisy cannot be ignored. It possesses an undeclared nuclear arsenal of an estimated 90 to possibly more than 200 warheads, and refuses to sign the NPT or allow IAEA inspectors into its nuclear facilities. Its policy of "nuclear opacity" undermines global non-proliferation efforts, as it demanded that Iran disarm while maintaining its own nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Since the 1980s, Israel has threatened Iran, viewing its support for Palestinian rights as a threat, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly claiming that Iran was weeks away from a nuclear bomb—assertions dating back to the 1990s that have never materialized. He made similar false claims about Iraq's WMD in 2002 and Libya, both strong supporters of Palestinians. Israel's history of aggression—bombing or invading every neighbor since 1948, including recent strikes on Yemen, Qatar, and now Iran—fuels regional instability. This belligerence, backed by undeclared nukes, drives others to seek deterrence, thereby undermining non-proliferation efforts.

The fallout from the Iran attacks last summer is already evident. In September 2025, Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defense pact with Pakistan, placing the kingdom under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella. Officials hinted that "all military means," including nukes, are encompassed. This deal, a response to perceived threats from Israel after the June 2025 attacks on Iran, shows how attacks on non-nuclear states by those with nuclear arms accelerates proliferation. Saudi Arabia, fearing similar strikes, has secured nuclear protection without developing its own arsenal, bypassing the NPT. Now, given the most recent aggression by the US and Israel, more nations may follow, eroding the global regime.

Why does the West accept this double standard? Canada, for instance, opposes rogue nuclear states but overlooks Israel's illegal arsenal, and does little beyond PR statements and political platitudes in response to repeated military aggression by the Zionist state against neighbouring nations. The US, the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war, lectures others while enabling Israel's opacity.

Russia and China acquired nukes after World War 2 fearing US dominance. The UK and France followed suit due to Cold War threats from the Soviet Union. North Korea's program stems from fears of a US invasion. The only way to understand this mentality on a personal levels is to consider if a neighbor threatens you with guns and authorities fail to protect, then you would most likely arm yourself.  Under the seeming lawlessness that the world is witnessing with the attack on Iran it wouldn't be surprising if nations behaved similarly.

The attack on Iran will accelerate this cycle. Experts warn, it incentivizes proliferation and makes adversaries hesitant to participate in good faith diplomacy with the United States lest they experience the same fate as the Iranians. Iran, battered but surviving, may redouble secret efforts, and others, like Saudi Arabia, will seek alliances with nuclear states. Weaker nations with resources will prioritize nukes for self-defence, with Iran being a prime example of what could happen to a nation that does not bow to stronger military powers.

To salvage the global non-proliferation regime, we must confront its deepest underlying cause--the stark power imbalance between nuclear-armed states and those without them. A genuine commitment to nuclear disarmament requires universal action—dismantling all arsenals, including Israel's undeclared one—and bringing an end to hegemonic aggression that fuels insecurity worldwide.

The NPT rests on three inseparable pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. True adherence demands that nuclear-weapon states fulfill their Article VI obligations by leading through example, rather than perpetuating a system where they retain monopoly power while demanding restraint from others.  As long as the nuclear powers modernize and expand their arsenals instead of disarming, non-nuclear states will view nuclear weapons as the ultimate equalizer—the only credible guarantee of survival in a world where might dictates right.

The ongoing US-Israel military campaign against Iran is far more than another regional war. It is a profound setback to the slow, fragile progress toward a safer world—one with fewer nuclear weapons and stronger diplomatic norms. By choosing pre-emptive force over negotiation at a moment when talks had shown promise, this assault risks shattering the NPT's credibility entirely, accelerating proliferation pressures, and closing the door on the very diplomacy needed to prevent a cascade of new nuclear states.

The path forward is clear.  Nuclear powers must finally honor their disarmament commitments, or the treaty they claim to defend will collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy. Only then can we hope to build genuine security—not through endless cycles of dominance and retaliation, but through shared vulnerability and mutual restraint. The alternative is a more dangerous world for everyone.

© 2024 The View From Here.  © 2024 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Canada's Middle East policies and lack of action to fight Islamophobia at home are endangering Muslim lives

Canada’s apparent indifference to innocent Muslim lives—whether in Gaza, Iran, or elsewhere—cannot be attributed solely to geopolitical considerations.

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

March 15 marks the seventh anniversary of the Christchurch mosque shootings, in which a white supremacist gunman killed 51 Muslim worshippers in Christchurch, New Zealand. It is also the fourth International Day to Combat Islamophobia, designated by the United Nations in 2022 precisely in response to that atrocity.  This year, the observance falls during the final week of Ramadan, a time of spiritual reflection, community connection and heightened sensitivity to threats against the global Muslim community.

As Canadian Muslims observe Ramadan nationwide, imams and community leaders are voicing a stark and shared concern--the federal government has not only turned a blind eye to the rise of institutional and structural Islamophobia within Canada but has, through its foreign policy choices, actively defended or even amplified it internationally. Symbolic measures—such as the annual National Day of Remembrance of the Québec City Mosque Attack and Action against Islamophobia, observed each January 29—offer little comfort when juxtaposed against tangible policy failures. These gestures, while acknowledging past tragedies, appear increasingly performative in light of the government's unwillingness to safeguard Muslim rights at home or to accord equal value to Muslim lives abroad, and in fact contribute to the ecosystem of Islamophobia.

At the domestic level, particularly in Quebec, Muslims feel acutely endangered by a series of provincial laws that restrict religious expression and practice. Federal inaction—failing to actively challenge measures like Bill 21's ban on religious symbols for public-sector workers or the more recent expansions of the law under Bill 9, which target collective prayer in public spaces, prayer rooms in institutions, and exclusive halal food options—has contributed to an erosion of Muslim visibility and security without meaningful intervention. The recent elimination of the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia by Prime Minister Mark Carney further signals a retreat from dedicated efforts to address systemic anti-Muslim prejudice.

More recently, Quebec’s Bill 9—introduced in late 2025 as “An Act respecting the reinforcement of secularism in Québec”—has escalated these restrictions. The legislation will prohibit collective prayer in public spaces without municipal approval, eliminate dedicated prayer rooms in universities, colleges and other public institutions, and bar public facilities from offering exclusively halal or kosher meals.

Framed as advancing Quebec’s state neutrality, these measures overwhelmingly target religious minorities, particularly Muslims whose daily obligations include five prayers and dietary requirements. Critics describe the incremental layering of Bill 21 and Bill 9 as a targeted erosion of minority rights, drawing parallels to the early legal and administrative exclusions faced by Jews in Nazi Germany. Some analysts call it “ethnic cleansing by stealth”, where racialized Muslims are forced to choose between practising their faith openly while working in public sector jobs, or advancing their careers by leaving Quebec altogether.  The federal government’s inaction in the face of these provincial assaults on human rights leaves Canadian Muslims more vulnerable to harassment, discrimination and social exclusion—precisely the institutional Islamophobia the UN day was created to combat.

This domestic neglect is compounded—and amplified—by Canada’s foreign policy, which has consistently defended or enabled Islamophobia on the global stage. The ongoing Gaza crisis, now more than 29 months old and widely characterised by human-rights experts, organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and UN bodies as genocide, stands as the prime example of violent Islamophobia intertwined with genocidal anti-Palestinian racism. Palestinians, who are more than 90% Muslim, have been violently persecuted for decades and since October 2023 have endured relentless bombardment, famine and displacement while Canadian leaders refuse to label the atrocities as genocide, and continue to provide diplomatic cover and a flow of Canadian made arms to Israel. Additionally, Prime Minister Carney’s suggestion of a “Zionist Palestinian state” was widely condemned as dismissive and ignorant, effectively demanding that Palestinians adopt the ideology of their oppressors rather than achieve genuine self-determination.

The recent US-Israeli military strikes on Iran represent another stark manifestation of Islamophobia.  Since the 1980s Iranian Muslims have been portrayed by the Americans as evil incarnate, with George W. Bush calling Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil" in a speech to Congress in January 2002.  The most recent US-Israeli attack on Iran has been described by legal scholars and international observers as illegal and unprovoked aggression by two nuclear-armed powers. Prime Minister Carney initially voiced support for the campaign to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program (which Donald Trump said the US "obliterated" during the June 2025 bombing), framing it as necessary for global security.  Yet Canada’s willingness to align with allies launching unprovoked attacks on a Muslim-majority nation sends a clear message—Muslim lives and sovereignty are negotiable when politically convenient.

The selective outrage becomes even more glaring when contrasted with Canada’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ottawa has committed more than $25 billion in multifaceted aid—including billions in military assistance—to Ukraine, a country whose population is predominantly white and Christian, and more than 225,000 Ukrainian refugees have been accepted into Canada.  No comparable aid package or refugee program has been extended to Palestinians, and there has been steadfast refusal to impose meaningful sanctions or accountability on Israel despite its genocidal crimes.

The ongoing crises in Gaza and the recent US-Israeli military strikes on Iran represent some of the most severe manifestations of global Islamophobia today. These conflicts echo earlier US-led military interventions, such as the Iraq War—founded on lies about weapons of mass destruction—and the broader "War on Terror."  According to Brown University's Costs of War project, post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and related zones have resulted in at least 4.5–4.7 million Muslim deaths, directly and indirectly at the hands of the US and its allies.

Muslim community leaders contend that this apparent indifference to innocent Muslim lives—whether in Gaza, Iran, or elsewhere—cannot be attributed solely to geopolitical considerations. Rather, it points to a profound and entrenched devaluation of Muslim lives compared with those of white Christians (as seen in the response to Ukraine) or even segments of the Israeli Jewish population, a large percentage of whom support the genocide against Palestinians.

Confidential assessments from former Global Affairs Canada officials and independent reports have long pointed to institutional anti-Palestinian racism embedded in Canadian diplomacy.  The pattern is unmistakable.  When Muslims are under attack by Western allies, Canadian leaders remain silent or equivocate.  When the victims are European and Christian, or Israeli Jews, the response is swift, supportive and unequivocal.  Such double standards do more than undermine Canada’s claim to moral leadership, they actively promote Islamophobia globally by normalising the idea that Muslim suffering is less worthy of intervention.

None of this should surprise observers of Canadian history. A nation founded on Indigenous genocide, slavery and structures of white supremacy has never fully confronted the racism woven into its institutions. These foundational biases continue to shape policy, subtly influencing even leaders who publicly deny prejudice. The refusal to stand on the “right side of history”—whether by challenging Quebec’s anti-Muslim laws or by demanding an immediate end to the Gaza genocide and the illegal strikes on Iran—reveals a political class more comfortable with expediency than principle.

Canadian Muslims, observing this International Day amid Ramadan fasting and global crises are not asking for special treatment. They are demanding consistency with the same human-rights standards applied to Ukrainians, Palestinians, Iranians and other Muslims alike.  The same vigilance against hate at home must extend to foreign policy abroad. The government’s failure to act domestically leaves Canadian Muslims physically and psychologically endangered, and its complicity abroad signals that Muslim lives overseas—defenceless and overwhelmingly racialized—are simply less valuable.

Canadians must make a fundamental choice. Are we willing to accept leaders who offer only rhetorical commitments to fighting hate, upholding international law and defending human rights? Or will we insist on conviction-driven leadership unafraid to challenge allies, confront institutional racism at home and refuse to sacrifice principles for political or diplomatic convenience?

For the sake of social cohesion, international credibility and the lives of Muslims both in Canada and abroad, the latter path is not merely preferable—it is urgently necessary.

© 2024 The View From Here.  © 2024 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

SMART PEOPLE DON’T

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

Smart people don’t believe that
the United States rides in to save the day,
waving flags of freedom while bombs fall like rain,
turning cities to rubble in the name of democracy.

Smart people don’t swallow tales
of soldiers dying for noble causes, when the orders
come from boardrooms and think tanks, and the dead
 and injured are just numbers on someone’s ledger.

Smart people don’t imagine women’s rights blooming
from drone strikes and invasions, when the perpetrators
arm tyrants who oppress their people, and the truth
vanishes under the roar of precision-guided lies.

Smart people don’t expect flowers and parades
after governments are toppled, when chaos births
power vacuums that breed new monsters, all while
oil contracts are quietly signed without fanfare.

Smart people don’t trust the official story

spun by the same mouths that sold previous wars
with doctored intelligence about WMDs, then shrugged
when the graves of the innocent were being dug.

Smart people don’t see cartoon heroes
in camouflage and stars-and-stripes, pitting flawless
“good” against cartoonish “evil”, while the real
ledger dripping in blood, records huge profits.

Smart people don’t pretend that
Washington’s hands are cleaner than Tehran’s,
when both crush dissent and both count bodies,
yet only one controls the global headlines.

Smart people don’t gorge on atrocity porn
served up fresh each morning, without asking
who benefits from the latest horror, or why stories
about the other side’s victims and orphans are never told.

Smart people don’t accept “self-defence” 
as a legitimate excuse for waging war, when the
battlefield is thirteen thousand kilometres away, and
the threat is a lie manufactured in briefing rooms.

Smart people don’t buy compassion
from a man-child who destroys democracy at home,
while preaching freedom to distant populations, as if
the cruelty he inflicts abroad is invisible to his own people.

Smart people don’t march to war
because ancient scripture says they should, or because
one patch of desert is part of one people’s prophecy, and
those on that land are bled for another people’s faith.

Smart people don’t weigh
an Iranian life less than an American one,
as if geography and complexion decides whose blood 
has value, and whose screams of terror deserve only silence.



Smart people don’t look at a military machine
and see a global charity, when its legacy is
annihilation, mass graves, and repeated atrocities,
and its mission is domination dressed as deliverance.

Smart people don’t expect democracy to grow from
bombing foreign lands, when history shows that
occupation breeds resentment and revenge, and 
puppet leaders show their strings being pulled by the US.

Smart people don’t cheer a war that fattens the
wallets of defence contractors and shields a genocidal ally,
while the people it claims to be saving pay a price 
in blood, and the rest of us are told to look away.

Smart people don’t mistake a fading fascist empire’s mask
for a saviour’s face, when the arc of its history bends
toward control, and it only values freedom in order
to pursue its own imperial agenda.



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

Trump declared war on Canada upon taking office, and this country isn't prepared for the coming US invasion

The threat is not abstract or confined to some distant future, but is immediate and demands a fundamental recalibration of Canadian defence and foreign policy before it's too late. 

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

Since Donald Trump assumed the American presidency for his second term in January 2025, the United States has pursued a calculated campaign of economic coercion, rhetorical intimidation, and internal destabilization against Canada.  These actions amount to an undeclared war that erodes Canadian sovereignty without crossing into open military confrontation (yet).  Far from the traditional alliance built on shared defence and trade, the US-Canada relationship has been transformed into one of predation under Trump’s administration, where American power is leveraged to weaken and eventually absorb its northern neighbour. 

This is not mere speculation but a pattern evident in exorbitant tariffs on key exports, baseless accusations linking Canada to fentanyl flows into the US, allegations of Canada’s lax border insecurity, and public musings about Canada becoming the 51st state.  Regrettably the Canadian government’s hesitation in decisively and aggressively responding fuels public anxiety and highlight the urgency of the situation.

The tactics employed by Trump bear a striking resemblance to Adolf Hitler’s approach to Austria in the years leading to the 1938 Anschluss.  Hitler did not launch an immediate invasion, instead, he waged a war of nerves—a multi-year strategy of coercion, intimidation and subversion—often described as a “cold Anschluss.”  Through an aggressive propaganda campaign he portrayed Austria as a natural part of a greater German realm, funded and encouraged sympathetic factions within Austria to agitate for unification, applied economic leverage to create dependency and crisis, and issued ultimatums to the Austrian Chancellor.  This forced concessions that culminated in a rapid and essentially unopposed German troop crossing on March 12, 1938, after the Austrian government had already collapsed.  The result was a bloodless annexation that Hitler framed as inevitable and mutually beneficial.

Trump’s strategy follows a parallel script to Hitler’s.  During his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos he made claims that Canada survives only through American benevolence, while his administration coordinates with groups advocating Alberta’s separation in a manner reminiscent of Nazi Germany's support for annexationist factions in Austria.  Punitive tariffs on automobiles, aluminum, steel, and lumber have been imposed and been increased, with explicit warnings of 100 percent tariffs should Canada pursue independent trade ties with China.  Additionally, he has made public statements have demeaning Canada's leaders by referring to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and current PM Mark Carney “governor”, and has threatened infrastructure projects like the Gordie Howe Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, unless Canada offers concessions.  These steps systematically undermine Canada's economic stability and national cohesion, softening resistance ahead of potential absorption, just as Hitler’s incremental pressures dismantled Austrian independence and stability before the final march across the border.

Canadians themselves have registered this shift in threat perception with remarkable clarity.  Multiple independent surveys conducted in late 2025 and early 2026 reveal that a majority now consider the US as the foremost danger to national security in the eyes of the public, eclipsing long-standing concerns about China or Russia.  One Nanos poll found that 55% of respondents identified the US as the greatest security threat, making it 3.5 times more likely to be named than China, and significantly ahead of Russia at 14%. 

Another survey indicated that 49% of Canadians view the United States as the single greatest threat to world peace, outpacing Russia by 20 points.  Even more alarmingly, polling in early 2026 showed that 57. 9% of Canadians consider a direct American military invasion plausible in the near term.  These figures mark a historic reversal, because for generations, the US was seen as a dependable partner.  Today, ordinary citizens across the political spectrum express fears of economic strangulation or worse, with many reporting increased interest in personal preparedness measures in the event of an American military assault.  The polling numbers demonstrate that Canadians no longer regard traditional adversaries as the primary risk.  The clear and present danger to Canada at this time emanates from Washington DC.

Compounding the danger is the evident lack of readiness within Canadian government and public institutions to respond to a American military incursion.  Senior officials within the Carney government continue to frame bilateral ties in terms of a longstanding and unbreakable partnership, insisting on cooperation despite aggressive US measures aimed at key economic sectors and territorial claims.  Comments about defence and security prioritize ongoing NORAD and NATO operations over standalone contingency measures to the US threat, and diplomatic statements emphasize outreach efforts that overlook the long-term impact of prolonged American trade pressures and internal division tactics.  To date, no comprehensive public strategies have emerged for strengthening Canada's border with the US, prioritizing military preparedness, or implementing protective economic policies to endure extended coercion or possible military action by the US.

Of particular concern is the absence of any framework to counter a scenario in which the US applies the same approach used in Venezuela—leveraging economic and political pressures, followed by military action to orchestrate a change in leadership more aligned with Trump's agenda.  The recent US military strike and regime realignment there serve as a clear precedent for how resource-driven imperialism can force governmental change without full-scale conventional war, through sanctions, support for sympathetic factions, and strategic ultimatums.

In Canada, there are no apparent protocols to detect or neutralize comparable influence campaigns, such as the Trump regime coordinating with Alberta separatists, or amplifying calls for structural changes that could install more compliant political figures sympathetic to the US administration’s agenda.  As Adam Gordon, a visiting fellow at the Cascade Institute and former senior legal and policy adviser to Canadian foreign affairs ministers, warned in the wake of the Venezuela operation, “We can’t take off the table anymore the idea that it is at least plausible that there would be some use of force or threat of use of force, and we need to be prepared for that.”

This shortfall in Canadian preparedness propagates a dangerous complacency.  Vague statements by Carney or his ministers offer only broad assurances of national strength without specifying actionable defences for the population or key infrastructure.  Canadians are left with no evident strategy to safeguard territorial sovereignty or personal security, heightening feelings of exposure.

Experts are sounding alarms that are going unheeded, with international security scholar Aisha Ahmad of the University of Toronto stating bluntly that, “There is no political party, or leader, willing to relinquish Canadian sovereignty over economic coercion, and so if the US wanted to annex Canada, it would have to invade.” She added that, “Trump is delusional if he believes that 40 million Canadians will passively accept conquest without resistance.”

American political analyst Eric Ham echoed this in direct reference to the Venezuela precedent, calling it “a clear warning shot” for Canada and urging immediate recognition that Trump’s territorial ambitions extend northward.  Urgent steps, from expanding independent intelligence operations and securing new international partnerships to accelerating domestic production capabilities and even considering measures once unthinkable—mandatory military service, a hardened land border, acquiring nuclear weapons—are essential to avoid the fate of states that dismissed early warning signs until external forces dictated their leadership and future.

The broader international behaviour of the Trump regime underscores the gravity of the situation.  In rapid succession, the United States has launched an unprovoked war against Iran, increased the blockade of Cuba by blocking tankers from delivering essential fuel supplies, advanced explicit ambitions to assert control over Greenland and the Panama Canal under a revived hemispheric dominance doctrine, and executed military action leading to regime change in Venezuela.  These operations demonstrate a pattern of unilateral force and territorial appetite that treats smaller or neighbouring states as vassals that exist to serve the economic and security agenda of the US.

These actions illustrate that Canada is not dealing with a rational negotiating partner but a leader whose style is marked by sociopathic behaviour, erratic escalation, disregard for established norms, and a willingness to upend alliances for perceived economic and political gain.  Facing such unpredictability requires immediate recognition that traditional diplomacy with the US offers little protection, and that preparation must treat the possibility of further escalation as a realistic contingency rather than a remote hypothetical.

Independent assessments by security scholars and economists echo and amplify these concerns, consistently positioning the Trump administration as a more acute danger to Canada than either Beijing or Moscow.  Janice Gross Stein, a leading professor of conflict management at the University of Toronto, has analyzed the 2025 US National Security Strategy as a deliberate return to 19th-century spheres-of-influence thinking that explicitly challenges Canadian control over its Arctic waters and resources, framing it as incompatible with American hemispheric priorities.

Michael Devereux, an economics professor at the University of British Columbia, observes that longstanding assumptions of reliability have collapsed.  “We’ve always seen the US as a very strong and reliable ally.  That has really been undermined in the last year.”  Aaron Ettinger, a political-science professor at Carleton University, warns that bilateral ties have reached a dangerous “precipice,” where continued provocations risk irreversible damage to sovereignty and economic stability. 

These voices, drawn from academic and policy circles, converge on a sobering conclusion—the US threat is not abstract or confined to some distant future, but is immediate and structural, demanding a fundamental recalibration of Canadian defence and foreign policy before it's too late.

All the evidence available since Trump took office in 2025—from targeted economic sabotage and propaganda mirroring pre-Anschluss Austria, through public opinion data that now ranks the US as the top security threat above all other powers, the administration’s record of aggressive interventions elsewhere, to the absence of credible Canadian defensive planning—paints a coherent picture of hostile intent towards a nation that has been America’s closest friend, neighbour, biggest trading partner, and strongest ally.

In the face of what is on the horizon Canadians cannot afford denial or delay.  The window for building resilience, forging new alliances, and hardening national defences is narrowing.  History shows that nations which fail to confront incremental aggression early pay a far higher price later.  The time to acknowledge the reality and act decisively is now, before Trump’s rhetoric becomes reality and economic blackmail gives way to something far more dangerous and violent.

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

America’s illegal attack on Iran is just as criminal as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

"War is essentially an evil thing . . . To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime . . .” – Nuremberg Declaration on the Crime of Aggression (1946)

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

For the past four years, American political and media elites have heaped condemnation on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—imposing sanctions, supplying weapons to Ukrainian forces, and framing Moscow’s actions as grave violations of international law. Yet as of February 28th, the United States under President Donald Trump—alongside Israel—has launched a large-scale, illegal and unprovoked military campaign against Iran.

 

The parallels between Russia’s war in Ukraine and the US-Israeli assault on Iran are striking and undeniable. Both involve unprovoked aggression against sovereign nations, Orwellian rhetoric to deny the reality of war, fabricated claims of imminent threats from the nation being attacked, and the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity through the targeting of civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, the attack on Iran echoes the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, which unleashed decades of regional instability, resulted in the death of millions of innocents, and risks the same catastrophic outcomes today.

It’s notable that both aggressors refuse to call their actions a “war.” When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it labelled its assault a “special military operation,” banning Russian officials and media from using terms like “war,” “invasion,” or “attack.” This linguistic evasion allowed Moscow to maintain the fiction of a limited, defensive action while prosecuting full-scale aggression against its neighbour.

 

The Trump administration is employing the same Orwellian doublespeak. In announcing the attack on Iran Trump talked about “major combat operations”, not a war. Similarly his Republican allies are insisting, “This isn’t a war,” “We haven’t declared war on Iran,” and “We are not at war with the Iranian people.” White House messaging to Republican in Congress has urged framing the campaign as “major combat operations” or “strategic strikes” rather than war.

This approach echoes the themes of George Orwell’s novel “1984”, where aggressive bombing becomes mere “operations,” war becomes “peace”, and denial becomes government policy. The hypocrisy is clear when one compares the current situation to the speech that President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the day following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—an attack that occurred during ongoing peace negotiations—which the US immediately deemed an act of war. By comparison, Oman-mediated US-Iran nuclear talks were reportedly making “significant progress” and were “within reach” just hours before the February 28 strikes began. Yet the Trump administration denies that any state of war exists.

Let’s examine the justifications for the attacks given by both Russia and the US. In both instances the leaders of each nation rely on baseless claims of “pre-emptive” strikes against an “imminent threat.” In 2022, Putin asserted that Ukraine and NATO posed an immediate danger to Russia—a claim unsupported by credible evidence. Similarly, Trump and his officials have justified the US attack on Iran by insisting the country posed an imminent threat, pointing to its arsenal of ballistic missiles, the alleged impending assembly of nuclear warheads, and potential retaliation against Israeli actions, which would endanger American troops in the region. Yet Pentagon briefings to Congress revealed no intelligence indicating Iran planned a first strike on the United States or that it posed an imminent threat to US military bases on its borders.

Adding to the confusion is the uncoordinated messaging from trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who suggested the US struck pre-emptively because Israel was planning its own attack on Iran, which would have prompted Tehran to retaliate against American forces in the region. This convoluted logic—attacking first to avert a hypothetical response to Israel’s planned aggression—only escalates an already unstable situation rather than pursuing de-escalation by restraining America’s primary Middle East ally.

The inconsistent and illogical American reasoning mirrors Putin’s pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine and quickly collapses under scrutiny. There is no credible evidence supporting the notion of an imminent Iranian attack or any direct threat to US military assets in the Persian Gulf region or on the US homeland. Moreover, assertions that Iran was on the verge of assembling a nuclear warhead are refuted by US and NATO intelligence experts, who confirm that Iran lacks the near-term capacity to produce a functional nuclear weapon.

Third, and most gravely, both the Russian and American attacks involve war crimes through the deliberate or reckless targeting of civilians. Russia faced global condemnation for bombing a school in Bilohorivka, Ukraine, on May 7, 2022, where around 90 civilians were sheltering, with approximately 60 killed or feared dead after an airstrike set the building ablaze. Russian attacks on hospitals drew similar condemnations from the US and its allies. In March 2022, Hillary Clinton tweeted that Russian leaders should stop bombing hospitals if they wished to avoid war-crimes accusations.

The US-Israeli campaign against Iran replicates Russia’s pattern. The day of the first strikes a missile hit a girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran, killing at least 165 schoolgirls (with some reports citing up to 175 deaths). Satellite imagery and analyses attribute the strike to US forces amid operations targeting a nearby naval base. Had Iran perpetrated such an attack on American soil it would have been front page news for days amid international outrage. But because the children weren’t white or Christian the response by Western governments, including Canada’s, has been muted.

Attacks in the following days saw bomb and missile damage to hospitals, including Gandhi Hospital in Tehran, forcing evacuations amid broader strikes on civilian sites. Iranian authorities reported that multiple medical facilities had been hit, alongside more schools and strikes in residential areas. United Nations experts condemned the school bombing as a “grave violation of humanitarian law” and called for investigation. If Russian attacks on schools and hospitals om Ukraine constituted war crimes—and international consensus holds they did—then US and Israeli actions demand the same judgment under the Geneva Conventions.

The rhetorical justifications by both Russia and the US are merely interchangeable propaganda. Putin claimed his actions in Ukraine were intended to fight “Nazis” and terrorists while “liberating” Ukrainians. Trump asserts that American actions combats Iranian “terrorists” and brings “freedom” to Iranians oppressed by the regime. Both promise that regime change will usher in freedom and democracy, while denying their on self-serving imperialistic geopolitical motives.

The true driver behind the US-Israeli assault on Iran is a long-standing Israeli strategic objective—spanning nearly four decades—to neutralize Iran, the last major Muslim power in the Middle East capable of resisting Israeli dominance and the last Muslim nation in the region steadfastly supporting the Palestinian struggle for freedom. For years, Israeli governments, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu, have pressed successive US presidents—both Republican and Democratic—to join or lead military action against Iran. Previous administrations resisted Israel’s agenda of military aggression, recognizing the likely havoc that would ensue—widespread instability, massive civilian casualties, and prolonged regional turmoil.

This pattern echoes the 2003 US invasion of Iraq—a war also strongly advocated by Netanyahu—launched without UN Security Council authorization, predicated on fabricated claims of weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent ties to al-Qaeda. Then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan explicitly declared the invasion illegal under the UN Charter, stating that it was not in conformity with the UN’s foundational document and was illegal. The consequences of that war (and the “war on terror”) have been devastating and enduring—more than four million dead, millions more displaced, the rise of ISIS from the resulting power vacuum, sectarian violence and instability, and the loss of an entire generation of human potential. The impact of that illegal war will continue to afflict the region for generations.

Today’s campaign against Iran follows the identical playbook—no congressional declaration of war, no UN mandate, and a constantly shifting set of rationales—regime change one moment, missile disarmament the next, nuclear prevention another. The inevitable outcome will mirror Iraq’s aftermath and result in widespread civilian devastation, power vacuums that breed extremism and new terrorist groups, and decades of chaos exported across the Middle East and beyond. History has already shown that such unprovoked interventions do not enhance security; they undermine it, creating the very threats they purport to eliminate.

International law offers no exceptions to nations, even those that are superpowers. The UN Charter prohibits unprovoked force except in self-defence against armed attack or with Security Council approval—neither applies here. Bombing schools and hospitals, assassinating leaders during diplomacy, and launching pre-emptive wars violate core humanitarian norms. The US cannot condemn Russian aggression while committing criminal acts that are similar. If outrage over Ukraine was principled, the same standards must apply to the US-Israeli attack on Iran. Accountability—via international courts if necessary—must follow.

The Iranian people, like the Ukrainians before them, deserve peace, not to serve as pawns in yet another superpower’s regime-change experiment. Regional stability will never emerge from more bombs. History, from the catastrophic aftermath of Iraq onward, proves the opposite with grim consistency.

As the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared in its final judgment: “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Until the US confronts its own reflection in Putin’s actions—that launching an unprovoked war of aggression carries the same moral and legal weight regardless of who wields the power—the cycle of hypocrisy, war crimes, and spreading instability will persist unbroken. The only real distinction between Russia’s war on Ukraine and the US war against Iran is the language spoken by the aggressor nation. The fabrications that justify invasion, the suffering inflicted on civilians, and the long-term ruin sown across entire regions remain tragically, inexcusably identical.

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

US-Israeli attack on Iran shows West’s hypocrisy, erodes our humanity, and opens Pandora’s Box

By assassinating a sovereign nation’s leader without provocation, the US and Israel have opened Pandora’s Box. What prevents other nations from doing the same against leaders they see as threats? 

 

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

On February 28th the world witnessed a brazen act of aggression as the United States and Israel launched a coordinated assault on Iran, resulting in the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, members of his family, and the bombing of a girls’ elementary school where 165 innocent children perished amid the rubble. This unprovoked strike, cloaked in vague claims of pre-emptive self-defence, exemplifies the depths of Western evil and hypocrisy. While the West preaches human rights, international law, and the sanctity of life, it unleashes devastation on non-Western nations with impunity, revealing a profound lack of humanity that prioritizes geopolitical dominance over innocent lives. Not only should the US and Israel be condemned for their actions, but also for their unfounded justifications for the attack, as should the shameful complicity of allies like Canada and certain European nations, whose support for this act of war expose the hollowness of their moral posturing.

 

The assault’s unfounded nature is glaring. Iran posed no imminent threat to the US or Israel at the time of the strike. There were no credible intelligence reports of an impending Iranian attack, no evidence of nuclear weaponization beyond speculative rhetoric, and no active aggression against Western interests. Instead, the operation appears rooted in long-standing animosities, exaggerated fears of Iran’s regional influence, and a desire to decapitate its leadership under the guise of “strategic necessity.” This mirrors historical patterns where Western powers fabricate threats to justify invasions or assassinations, such as the US killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, which escalated tensions without resolving underlying issues. By framing Iran as an existential danger, the US and Israel ignored diplomatic avenues, opting for violence that has destabilized the Middle East further. Such actions are not defence but imperialism, echoing colonial-era interventions where might makes right.

The human cost is staggering and unforgivable. The bombing of the girls’ school in Minab, a civilian target with no military value, resulted in the deaths of 165 children, alongside scores of other innocents. This is not collateral damage.  It is a deliberate disregard for life, reminiscent of repeated Israeli strikes on schools in Gaza, where thousands of Palestinian children have been killed in similar assaults labeled as “precision” operations.

Reports from the scene depict rescuers pulling charred bodies from the debris, a scene of horror that underscores the barbarism at play. Western leaders often decry child casualties in conflicts involving their adversaries—think of the outrage over Russian strikes in Ukraine—but here, the response is muted, if not defensive. This selective empathy reveals a dehumanizing bias, one where Muslim and Middle Eastern lives are expendable, mere statistics in the ledger of power politics. The lack of humanity is profound, seeing as it treats entire populations as disposable to advance Western agendas, eroding the very principles of universal human rights that the West claims to champion.

Compounding the evil inherent in US and Israeli actions is the hypocrisy of Western support for the attack. Canada, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, offered full-throated endorsement, framing it as necessary to prevent Iran from threatening international peace. This stance is shameful, given Canada’s self-proclaimed image as a defender of multilateralism and human rights. Unlike in 2003 when Canadian PM Jean Chretien refused to support the illegal American invasion of Iraq and endorse the international rule of law instead, Carney has chosen the opposite path for Canada—endorsing illegal acts that further shred international law.

Similarly, European nations like France, Germany, and the UK issued statements urging restraint but stopped short of outright condemnation, emphasizing Iran’s “destabilizing” role while ignoring the unilateral and illegal actions of the aggressors. These countries, part of the E3 group, have long criticized Iran’s nuclear program and regional activities but turn a blind eye to Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal and aggressive policies. Their complicity exposes a double standard.  When Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe mobilized sanctions and aid. Yet when the US and Israel bomb Iran, they call for “negotiated solutions” without calling for accountability for the two nations’ criminal acts. This hypocrisy fractures global trust, as non-Western nations see the “rules-based order” as a tool for Western dominance, not justice. 

The attack’s broader implications are equally chilling. By assassinating a sovereign nation’s leader without provocation, the US and Israel have set a dangerous precedent that undermines international norms. If such actions are justifiable based on perceived threats—real or imagined—then what prevents other nations from taking similar action against the leaders of nations they see as threats?

Consider a hypothetical. If a Middle Eastern country viewed Israel’s leadership as a genuine threat to regional peace, given its history of unprovoked attacks on neighbouring nations and decades long occupation of Palestinian lands, could it not invoke the same logic to target Israeli officials? Or, extending the thought, if China perceived US policies as a threat to its security, might it rationalize assassinating American leaders?

This is not an endorsement of violence but a stark illustration of the anarchy that would ensue when powerful states act as judge, jury, and executioner. The world would descend into chaos, with assassinations becoming the norm and declarations of war being issued, eroding sovereignty and inviting endless retaliation. As odious as aspects of Iran’s regime may be—its human rights abuses and suppression of women’s rights—murdering its leaders will achieve nothing but cycles of vengeance. If the West’s rationale holds, then rogue actors everywhere gain legitimacy, opening Pandora’s Box and lighting a global inferno. 

In condemning this unjustifiable and barbaric attack, we are forced to confront the profound moral decay rotting at the heart of Western foreign policy. The actions of the United States and Israel, shamefully backed by Canada and key European enablers, are not mere aberrations but glaring symptoms of a global system that ruthlessly prioritizes hegemonic control over the sanctity of human life. As rescue workers continue to sift through the rubble of the girls' elementary school in Minab where at least 165 innocent children have been confirmed dead amid conflicting early reports of rising tolls, history will indelibly judge this not as a triumph over tyranny but as an eternal stain on the fabric of civilization—a grotesque tableau where the blood of the young fuels the insatiable fires of Western hypocrisy.

True peace can only be forged through unwavering accountability—impartial investigations under the auspices of international law, targeted sanctions against the aggressors, and a resolute recommitment to diplomacy rather than unjustifiable aggression. Anything less not only perpetuates the insidious evil that now indelibly scars Iran and imperils the world but condemns humanity to a future where the cries of slaughtered innocents echo unanswered, demanding that we rise as one to dismantle the machinery of imperial terror before it consumes us all.

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