Wednesday, March 18, 2026

The Iran war is negatively impacting national economies, and will have severe impacts on real estate

Beyond higher interest rates and inflation, wars cause jobs to dry up, slow construction, and increase unemployment. 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

Regional wars that break out far from Canada can still send strong ripples through the economy and impact every sector in the economy, particularly real estate and housing. The current war on Iran instigated by the United States and Israel, which started on February 28, shows exactly how this happens. Rising oil prices, higher everyday living costs and the Bank of Canada keeping interest rates elevated all make it tougher for average families to buy homes, slow down sales and push house prices lower. The longer these conflicts last, the more damage they do.


Canada’s real estate sector stands out as one of the largest parts of the national economy, accounting for roughly 13.2% of GDP – the biggest single slice of the national economic pie. This covers the value of people living in their own homes, rental properties, commercial leasing and the work of real estate agents and brokers. It also accounts for jobs in construction, banking and related services, which fuels much of the consumer spending that keeps the economy moving. When this sector takes a hit, the pain spreads quickly, touching everything from the more than one million mortgage renewals due in 2026, to plans for the construction of new homes and condos across the country.

The way these economic shocks reach Canada's shores is straightforward—and it plays out the same way with every major global conflict. Wars in the Middle East hit particularly hard because the region produces a substantial share of the world's oil supply; under normal conditions, countries there (including key Gulf producers) account for roughly 30 per cent of global output, and critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz carry about one-fifth of seaborne crude trade.

When fighting disrupts production, threatens tankers or blocks key shipping lanes—as has happened dramatically since the current conflict escalated—oil prices surge quickly. That higher cost flows straight into everyday expenses—gasoline at the pump gets pricier, home heating bills climb, and even the price of fruits and vegetables rises because so much modern farming relies on oil-based fertilizers and fuel for transport. Even though Canada is a net exporter of oil and produces more than it consumes domestically, the country isn't shielded from these international swings. When global oil prices jump, the cost of living rises for everyone, no matter where they live, pushing up inflation and pressuring central banks to respond.


To stop prices from spiralling out of control, the Bank of Canada holds off on cutting interest rates or raises them if needed, thus making mortgages more expensive, especially the variable-rate ones many households carry. According to the International Monetary Fund Canadians already carry some of the heaviest household debt in the world relative to their income, consistently ranking at or near the top among developed nations. As of the fourth quarter of 2025, Canadians held approximately $1.77 in credit market debt for every dollar of disposable income, according to Statistics Canada data released in March 2026.

In the current market, with housing affordability already a major problem, and households struggling under these heavy debt burdens, even modest rate increases make buying a home feel out of reach for many. In such a scenario, many owners would likely decide to stay put rather than sell and take on a costlier new mortgage, while first-time buyers find entering the market even more difficult. 

This pressure has been building for years.  Since 2021, consumer insolvencies—including bankruptcies—have risen annually, with 2025 recording the second-highest annual volume on record since tracking began in 1987, a 16-year high. Consumer bankruptcies specifically increased by 4.3% compared to 2024, driven largely by persistent inflation, higher debt servicing costs from elevated interest rates, and growing debt loads, particularly on credit cards.

These trends leave families more vulnerable when external shocks like rising energy prices from a distant war push borrowing costs higher, turning what might be a temporary squeeze into longer-term financial strain that further cools the real estate market.

Building new homes becomes noticeably more expensive too, because oil plays a central role in producing many construction materials—asphalt for roads and roofing, plastics for pipes and wiring, paints, and insulation—while also raising the price of trucking those supplies across vast distances to building sites. At the same time, when wars disrupt global supply chains and sows widespread uncertainty about the economy, people considering entering the housing market or moving to a bigger home, along with investors eyeing properties, often choose to pause and wait for a more stable situation. That collective hesitation quickly becomes visible in the market as fewer homes sell, activity slows sharply, and house prices flatten or begin to trend downward. 

If a conflict ends quickly, things can usually return to normal fairly soon once oil supplies stabilize and interest rates come down. But when the fighting drags on—as appears increasingly likely in the current US-Israel operations against Iran, now in its third week with no immediate end in sight—the elevated costs take root as the new everyday reality.  Borrowing remains expensive for an extended period, and the harm to home values grows deeper and more persistent, affecting markets nationwide from high-rise condos in Vancouver and Toronto to single-family houses in Halifax and communities in between.


During the six long years of the Second World War, Canadian factories turned almost entirely to producing weapons, vehicles, and other military supplies, left civilian construction—including new homes—severely limited. With building materials rationed and labour redirected to the war effort, the number of homes added to the market was far below what was needed. As the conflict dragged on, cities swelled with workers drawn to wartime jobs and, later, with returning soldiers eager to start new lives. The result was a sharp housing shortage that left families crammed into overcrowded apartments, shared homes, or whatever shelter they could find.

Because the disruption lasted so many years, the housing market could not begin to recover until well after the fighting ended in 1945. Only then, with the help of government programs such as those run by the newly created Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, did large-scale home building finally take off and ease the pressure. Even though Canada was never bombed or occupied, the long diversion of resources and attention to the war effort still created a deep and lasting housing crunch for ordinary families across the country.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War and the oil embargo that followed also brought years of rising prices and economic pain to Canada. Fuel costs quadrupled, pushing up the price of almost everything. To fight the surge in living costs, the Bank of Canada pushed rates higher, eventually topping 20% by the early 1980s. Mortgage payments became crushing for many families, sales slowed dramatically and home prices stagnated or fell when measured against inflation. The effects lasted well into the 1980s because the oil shock did not fade quickly, showing how a distant conflict can keep housing under pressure for years even when Canada was not directly involved.

The 1990-1991 Gulf War lasted only months but still helped trigger a recession that weighed on Canadian real estate+ for several years afterward. Oil prices spiked at first, inflation rose and consumer confidence cratered. The Bank of Canada eventually cut rates, but the damage had already been done as sales weakened, new building slowed and average house prices dropped noticeably in many parts of the country. The short duration of the war allowed an eventual rebound, yet it proved that even brief regional wars can create extended drags on the market through higher costs and lost confidence.

The Russia-Ukraine war, now entering its fourth year, offers a recent warning of how drawn-out fighting keeps hurting economies far away. Energy and food prices jumped as a direct result of the Russian incursion into Ukraine, forcing the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates within a week after the invasion began, driven by fears of runaway inflation and soaring commodity prices. Housing sales volumes cooled, affordability worsened and price growth slowed across the country even in strong markets like Toronto and Vancouver. The conflict’s length has prevented a full recovery, leaving higher borrowing costs and uncertainty in place far longer than a quick resolution would have allowed.

The current situation with Iran is already showing early signs of the same pressures. Since the strikes began in late February, oil prices have climbed to more than US$100 per barrel, with gas prices topping $2.00 per litre in British Columbia, approaching $1.70 per litre in Ontario and Quebec, and reaching $1.80 per litre in Atlantic Canada. Bond yields have moved higher because investors worry about lasting inflation, making mortgage rates firmer just as hundreds of thousands of Canadian families face renewals. Economists note that if the conflict stretches on, the Bank of Canada may have to increase rates and keep them elevated longer, delaying the relief many home buyers were counting on for the spring market.

Wars create extra layers of harm beyond higher interest rates. Construction jobs dry up when building slows because of costly materials and hesitant buyers, leaving tradespeople out of work, and more families are forced to sell homes quickly—sometimes at a loss—to cover bills. This extra supply on the market pushes prices down even further in already soft conditions.

Overseas investors who once saw Canadian real estate as a safe place to park money are also likely reassess their investing and with many of them looking at investment opportunities in other countries. With uncertainty rising, capital will flow elsewhere, cutting demand sharply in cities where foreign buyers play a large role in the market—cities like Toronto and Vancouver—and will cause noticeable price drops in certain neighbourhoods. The simple fear of what might happen next will freeze the market in place, as families put off buying their first home or moving up, while sellers who can afford to wait hold off until the market improves. Fewer deals mean that prices will drift lower as the lack of activity itself signals trouble to everyone watching.

Looking back at past conflicts makes the pattern clear. During the early 1990s slowdown linked to the Gulf War, Canadian real estate took a particularly heavy hit, with property values declining sharply in many rmarkets once lending tightened and confidence vanished. The 1973 oil crisis produced similar years of flat or falling prices once inflation was taken into account. These repeated drops show how deeply wars can wound the housing market even in a peaceful country like Canada.

Notable is that the economic damage does not stop when the shooting ends. It often takes years for confidence to return fully, for rates to settle and for large numbers of buyers to feel secure enough to jump back in. During that slow recovery period, many families watch their biggest asset—their home—lose ground or fail to grow, eating into retirement equity and overall wealth that most Canadians count on. This long-lasting drag is why experts stress that extended wars are especially dangerous for the housing sector.

Real estate’s large role in the Canadian economy makes these blows land harder. It not only drives a big share of GDP but also supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, and lets families tap into home equity for everything from children's education to daily spending. When wars disrupt that foundation through higher interest rates, increased costs, fewer sales and lower values, the effects reach far beyond individual homeowners to slow growth across the national economy.

Taken together, history and the present situation prove the point clearly. Regional wars send shocks through energy prices and interest rates that reach Canada regardless of any direct involvement. Short conflicts may cause only brief dips, but longer ones—like the multi-year oil crises of the 1970s, the lingering effects of the Gulf War recession or Ukraine’s ongoing drag—embed higher costs, greater uncertainty, and sustained pressure on real estate prices.

The new Iran conflict, with its potential to push oil prices to new record highs, and keep inflation elevated, risks repeating the worst of those patterns if it continues. Mortgage payments could stay at painful levels, new construction could remain stalled, and buyer confidence could remain shaky, leading to clear declines in real estate values nationwide. The longer such wars go on, the more severely Canadian real estate and housing values suffer—a reminder of how connected even a peaceful country’s biggest asset class is to distant conflicts
.

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

Monday, March 16, 2026

OP-ED -- Refusal to condemn US-Israeli illegal war on Iran shows the hypocrisy of Canada’s ‘rules-based’ PM

Mark Carney’s powerful words at Davos now ring hollow as he fails to stand up to the US and Israel after their illegal attack on Iran.
 
This has previously been published on Rabble.ca.
A version of this can be found on Substack.

In the final judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946, the Allied powers delivered a verdict that still echoes as the bedrock of modern international law: “To initiate a war of aggression … 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.”

 
That supreme international crime is being committed right now, in real time, by the United States and Israel. On February 28, these two rogue powers launched an unprovoked, unjustified assault on the sovereign territory of Iran. As missiles and bombs rained down one of the targets hit on the first day was a girls’ primary school in Minab, slaughtering at least 165 innocent schoolgirls. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was also assassinated along with a number of senior leadership figures. Civilian infrastructure, including oil depots, have been pulverized, more than 1,300 have been killed so far and more than 17,000 have been injured. This was not an act of self-defence, but rather naked aggression—the exact crime the Nuremberg Tribunal branded as a supreme evil. 
 
The history of the current Iranian regime is not a pretty one. Yes, it has been brutal, it crushes protesters, oppresses women, jails and tortures dissidents. That deserves unequivocal condemnation. But Iran’s brutality at home does not grant a license to other nations to bomb a sovereign state into submission. The rule of law is not a buffet. You don’t get to pick and choose when it applies based on whose regime you dislike. 
 
Yet that is precisely what Mark Carney is doing. Canada’s prime minister has refused—point-blank—to call this aggression by its proper name. He has issued tepid calls for “restraint” while conspicuously refusing to condemn the two nations that started this inferno. He even expressed support for the strikes, framing them as necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The reality, confirmed by anonymous US intelligence sources, the International Atomic Energy Association, and independent experts, is that Iran was nowhere near a functional nuclear weapon. No imminent threat existed. Diplomacy was progressing. Talks were constructive. Then came the missiles.  
 
Only weeks before the attack, Carney stood at the World Economic Forum in Davos and delivered a lofty speech about the need for “smaller nations” to band together to uphold international law, sovereignty, and the rules-based order. He spoke passionately about middle powers defending territorial integrity and rejecting the law of the jungle. So what was the point of that speech if he now endorses the very thing he criticized? Was it empty rhetoric designed to impress Davos elites while he quietly supported the very violations he claimed to oppose in January?  
 
If Canada truly believes in international law, why the cowardly silence when the world’s most powerful actors torch it? The question demands an answer. Is Carney only interested in upholding international law when it serves Canada and its allies? Or is he committed to the territorial sovereignty of all nations—ally and adversary alike?
 
Carney’s initial response to this new war screams selective enforcement. Canada was among the loudest voices condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Sanctions were imposed amid speeches filled with outrage. “Rules-based order” became a mantra. Yet when the United States and Israel launch an illegal war of aggression against Iran—bombing civilian sites, assassinating leaders, and igniting a regional conflagration—Canada offers support “with regret” at best, and deflection at worst. No demands for accountability, just platitudes about diplomacy while the innocent die. 
 
International experts are calling out this grotesque double standard. UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul has stated bluntly that the US-Israeli strikes “appear to breach the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggression” and lack any valid legal justification.  
 
Yusra Suedi, assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, warns that the attacks amount to a crime of aggression and expose the “unravelling fragility” of international law—precisely the same fragility the West highlighted when Russia invaded Ukraine but now conveniently overlooks for its own allies.  
 
Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University said, “The use of wanton military force has contributed to a sense of impunity for powerful states and has degraded the international law system.”   
 
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has documented the pattern—a swift, unified condemnation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine contrasted with excuses, silence, or outright support for US-Israeli aggression against Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, and beyond.  
 
The greatest beneficiaries of Washington’s contempt for the UN Charter are the very actors the West claims to oppose—Russia, now emboldened in Ukraine, and China, watching for its moment in Taiwan. The message to the world is clear—international law is a weapon to be wielded against adversaries, never against ourselves. 
 
Instead of demonstrating principled leadership Carney has shown rank hypocrisy that shames Canada’s international reputation. Not surprising given his government’s refusal to recognize Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, despite the overwhelming evidence and the explicit findings of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Médecins Sans Frontières the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the UN and numerous other respected international organizations. 
 
Instead, Canada continues to ally itself with and politically shield nations committing the gravest of international crimes while Iran burns and its people suffer.By backing—or at minimum refusing to condemn—this war of aggression, Carney has aligned Canada with the very forces that he criticized in Davos, ones that ignore the rule of law, inflict chaos and suffering, while their victims are left to bury the corpses. We were supposed to have left that era behind after 1945. Yet here we are returning to the law of the jungle. 
 
The strikes were launched while negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were reportedly advancing. The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran—negotiated under Barack Obama—was working until Trump tore it up at Netanyahu’s behest. Carney knows this, yet he calls for “restraint” now that the genie is out of the bottle. He condemns Iran’s retaliation but refuses to name the original aggressors. Why? 
 
Because consistency would require Canada to stand on principle against powerful allies. Because admitting the attack on Iran violates the UN Charter would expose the hypocrisy. Because Carney’s vaunted Davos vision is performative theatre not meant to apply to the crimes of allies. 
 
Canada cannot claim moral authority when our prime minister shrinks from stating the obvious—the US-Israeli assault on Iran is illegal, dangerous, and a direct breach of the UN Charter and the territorial sovereignty of a member state. Carney’s refusal to condemn it reveals exactly where his true commitments lie—to power and alliance above principle. 
 
The world is watching. Smaller nations—the very ones Carney claimed to champion in Davos—are taking notes. If Canada will not defend the rules when it matters most, against the most powerful violators, then Carney’s words were worthless. International law either applies to everyone or it applies to no one. The shame belongs to him—and to every Canadian who still believes their government stands for something more than selective hypocrisy. 
 
The path forward is anarchy unless leaders like Carney find the courage to speak truth to power—starting with naming the supreme crime for what it is. Until then, his Davos speech will stand as a monument to empty rhetoric and moral bankruptcy. 

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

Sunday, March 15, 2026

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.

Saturday, March 14, 2026

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.

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

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.