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

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

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

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

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

This is not hyperbole, its reality.

Bill Clinton: The quiet architect of catastrophe

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

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

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

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

George W. Bush is a war criminal shielded by power

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

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

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

Barrack Obama: The drone executioner

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

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

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

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

The destruction of Libya

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

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

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

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

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

Syria and Iran were targeted for supporting Palestinians

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

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

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

Iran is the ultimate target of US–Israeli aggression

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

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

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

The human toll: A region bleeding from US wars

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

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

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

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

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

Canada: The neighbour living beside a volcano

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

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

This is not speculation. It is history.

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

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

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

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

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

Gaza genocide has shown that Western “humanity” is an illusion

The Gaza genocide has shattered the illusion of Western humanity, exposing the moral bankruptcy of the Western alliance, and revealed the selective nature of the “rules based order.”

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

For nearly eight decades, Western governments have portrayed themselves as the architects and guardians of the post‑World War Two international order—a system built on the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention. These instruments were meant to ensure that the horrors of the mid‑20th century would never be repeated, and that all peoples, regardless of geography or political alignment, would be protected from mass atrocities.

Yet the genocide in Gaza since October 2023—and the broader pattern of Israeli and American military aggression in Lebanon and Iran—have exposed a devastating truth. That the Western alliance does not uphold the universal principles it claims to defend. Instead, it applies them selectively, shielding allies even when they commit grave violations of international law. The result is a profound crisis of legitimacy for the so‑called “rules‑based international order,” and a shattering of the illusion of Western moral leadership.

The Gaza genocide, and the refusal of Western states to stop or even meaningfully condemn it, has revealed a system built not on universal human rights but on geopolitical interests. It has exposed the complicity of Western governments in atrocities committed by Israel and the United States, and it has accelerated the erosion of global conscience and morality.

Gaza: A genocide in full view of the world

The scale and nature of the destruction in Gaza have been documented extensively by UN agencies, humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and Holocaust scholars like Raz Segal, Omer Bartov and Amos Goldberg. By early 2024, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported tens of thousands of civilian deaths, widespread destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, and water systems, and the displacement of nearly the entire population of Gaza. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese even cited a study by Australian academics Richard Hil and Gideon Polya which calculated that the Palestinian dead toll is more then 680,000.

In March 2024, Albanese concluded that Israel’s actions constituted a “genocide in progress,” identifying all five prohibited acts under Article II of the Genocide Convention, The report further stated that the genocide was “enabled by the failure of third states to prevent it,” directly implicating Western governments that continued to arm and support Israel.

In June 2024, the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry reached a similar conclusion, finding “reasonable grounds to believe” that Israel was committing genocide and that senior Israeli officials bore responsibility. The Commission also noted that states providing weapons or diplomatic cover to Israel risked violating their own obligations under the Genocide Convention.

These findings were not fringe opinions. They were the conclusions of official UN bodies, supported by legal analyses from major human rights organizations. In November 2023, a coalition of legal scholars from the University Network for Human Rights, Yale Law School, and other institutions published a comprehensive report concluding that Israel was committing genocide and that third states were complicit through arms transfers and political support.

The evidence was overwhelming. The world saw the destruction unfold in real time. And yet Western governments did nothing to stop it.

Western complicity

The Genocide Convention imposes a clear obligation on all states: the duty to prevent genocide. This duty is triggered not when genocide is proven in court, but when there is a serious risk of genocide — a threshold that UN bodies and legal experts argued had been crossed early in the conflict.

Despite this, Western governments continued to supply Israel with weapons, intelligence, and political protection. The United States alone approved billions of dollars in military aid during the conflict, including expedited shipments of bombs and artillery shells. The United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and other NATO members also continued arms exports, even as their own legal advisers warned of potential violations of international law.

Diplomatically, Israel’s Western allies repeatedly blocked or watered down UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire. The United States used its veto power multiple times to shield Israel from international scrutiny, even as humanitarian conditions in Gaza deteriorated to catastrophic levels.

This pattern of behaviour—continued arms transfers, diplomatic obstruction, and public messaging that minimized or justified civilian casualties—moved Western governments from passive bystanders to active enablers. As the UN Special Rapporteur noted, “genocide is a collective crime,” and the failure of third states to prevent it constitutes a breach of their own legal obligations.

Lebanon, Iran, and the expansion of impunity

The crisis of Western complicity extends beyond Gaza. Israeli military aggression in Lebanon, including strikes that killed civilians and destroyed infrastructure, raised serious concerns under international humanitarian law. Yet Western governments offered little more than muted expressions of “concern,” while continuing to affirm Israel’s “right to self‑defence.”

Similarly, joint US-Israeli operations against Iran in June 2025 and subsequently in 2026—including targeted assassinations, attacks on civilian infrastructure, and cross‑border strikes—have been criticized by legal scholars as violations of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. These actions risked escalating the conflict into a regional war, yet Western governments largely supported or justified them.

The message was clear, when Israel or the United States uses force, even in ways that appear to violate international law, Western allies will not intervene. This double standard undermines the very foundation of the post‑war legal order.

The myth of the “rules‑based international order”

Western leaders frequently invoke the phrase “rules‑based international order” to describe the system they claim to defend. Yet their response to Gaza reveals that this order is not based on universal rules at all. It is based on power. When adversaries violate international law, Western governments demand accountability, impose sanctions, and mobilize international institutions. But when allies commit similar or worse violations, those same governments offer weapons, diplomatic protection, and political support.

This selective application of international law is not merely hypocritical. It is destructive. It erodes the legitimacy of global institutions, fuels resentment and instability, and encourages other states to disregard international norms. As one legal scholar noted, “A rules‑based order that applies only to enemies is not a legal order. It is an instrument of geopolitical power.”

“Never again” and the collapse of Western moral authority

The Holocaust gave rise to the Genocide Convention and the universal promise of “Never Again.” But Gaza has revealed that this promise was never truly universal. It was conditional—applied selectively, depending on the ethnic or religious identity of the victims and the interests of powerful states.

The genocide in Gaza does not match the Holocaust in scale, but in other respects it is uniquely horrifying:

• It unfolded in full public view, live streamed to the world.
• Western governments knew exactly what was happening.
• They had the power to stop it.
• They chose not to.

This betrayal of “Never Again” has profound implications. It signals to the world that the West’s commitment to preventing genocide is not based on principle but on politics. It reveals that some lives, particularly Palestinian lives, are valued less than others. As the UN Special Rapporteur wrote, “The failure of powerful states to prevent genocide in Gaza marks a collapse of the international system’s moral foundation.”

The death of global conscience and the rise of authoritarianism

The Gaza genocide has also accelerated a broader trend—the erosion of human rights norms and the rise of authoritarian tendencies within Western democracies. Across Europe and North America, governments have cracked down on pro‑Palestinian protests, censored dissenting voices, and targeted journalists, academics and ordinary citizens who criticize Israeli actions.

Human rights organizations have warned that these measures represent a dangerous slide toward authoritarianism, driven by the desire to suppress criticism of Western foreign policy. The result is a shrinking space for democratic debate and a growing climate of fear.

This internal repression mirrors the external abandonment of human rights principles. Together, they signal the emergence of a “post‑human rights world,” in which the universal values proclaimed after World War Two are being systematically dismantled.

A world forever changed

The Gaza genocide has shattered the illusion of Western humanity. It has exposed the moral bankruptcy of the Western alliance, revealed the selective and self‑serving nature of the “rules‑based order,” and demonstrated the willingness of powerful states to tolerate — and even enable — mass atrocities when it suits their interests.

The consequences will be long‑lasting. The credibility of international law has been gravely damaged. The promise of “Never Again” has been betrayed. And the global moral order that emerged after World War Two is now in deep crisis.

Whether the world can rebuild a genuine, universal system of human rights remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the illusion of Western moral leadership will not recover from the atrocities committed in Gaza.

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

Trump’s Iran war speech revealed an American imperial crusade disguised as "defence"

With its war against Iran and other aggressions—Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland—the United States has shown itself to be the greatest threat to global peace and stability in 90 years.

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

 

If anyone familiar with the history of the Middle East over the past 150 years had been thoughtfully absorbing President Donald Trump’s April 1, 2026, address to the nation, the words emanating from the screen would have transported them not to the present-day battlefield in Iran, but to the drawing rooms of 19th-century European chancelleries. There, kings and prime ministers justified the carving up of Africa at the Berlin Conference and the conquest of ancient Asian societies by invoking divine mandate and racial superiority.

This colonial mindset, once used to legitimize European domination over “uncivilized” peoples and their resources, has found a strikingly modern echo in Trump’s rhetoric. Beneath the boasts of military success and appeals to American strength lies the same underlying assumption: that certain racialized societies are inherently chaotic and backward, requiring the forceful hand of a superior power to impose order. The speech did not merely announce tactical victories; it revealed a deeper imperial logic that treats the Middle East as a theatre for great-power manoeuvring rather than a region of sovereign nations with millennia-old civilizations.

Trump’s triumphant declaration—that in just one month the US had destroyed Iran’s navy, reduced its air force to ruins, killed its leaders, and decimated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—read like a dispatch from a European viceroy announcing the subjugation of some “backward” colonial territory. He framed America as the indispensable force restoring order to a “fanatical regime” whose citizens have been chanting “Death to America” for decades, while congratulating troops on victories “like few people have ever seen before.” Yet the real barbarian in this picture is not Iran, a nation that has never invaded or attacked another sovereign state since long before the United States achieved independence. It is the United States itself—an agent of chaos and destruction that has destabilized the Middle East for generations in pursuit of its own geopolitical agenda and its enduring desire to control the region’s oil resources.

Trump’s speech was a masterclass in reductive Orientalism, the kind Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said dissected decades ago in his critique, where he asserted that European and Western powers simplify and stereotype the region and its societies as primitive, irrational, violent, despotic, fanatic, and essentially inferior to Western societies, and thus in need of civilizing. The president cast Iran as the world’s “No. 1 state sponsor of terror,” responsible for everything from the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing to the October 7 Hamas attack, while glossing over America’s own violent and destructive history of intervention. From the overthrow of governments in Central America, to the 1953 coup against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, to the illegal Iraq War, and support for proxy wars that have turned the Middle East into a perpetual theatre of instability and conflict.

He boasted that the US is now “totally independent of the Middle East” thanks to his Venezuelan oil venture, yet insisted on remaining in the region “to help our allies.” This is the colonial logic laid bare. The US doesn’t’ need their resources, but will bomb their societies into submission to dictate who controls them. It mirrors the European scramble for Africa, where powers like Britain and France invoked civilizing missions while securing diamonds, rubber, and trade routes. Trump’s divine flourishes—”God bless” the astronauts and troops—echo the manifest destiny that sanctified earlier empires, now repackaged as another example of American military aggression and exceptionalism.

This war is not only completely illegal it is unnecessary and unprovoked, as there was no impending threat to the US, as verified by intelligence leaks. In reality, it is the fulfillment of a fantasy Benjamin Netanyahu has harboured for nearly 40 years. For the better part of four decades, he has repeatedly claimed that Iran was weeks or months away from a nuclear bomb, using the spectre of a nuclearized Iran to lobby Washington for military action while sabotaging diplomacy at every turn. Wisely, no previous American president was reckless enough to listen to him and be sucked into a war of choice. They understood what Trump chose to ignore—subjugating Iran, a civilization with roots stretching back millennia, is impossible without catastrophic consequences. Previous administrations recognized the quagmire that would follow—endless insurgency, regional upheaval, and the risk of wider war. Trump, in his address, claimed to have corrected their “mistakes” by killing General Qassem Soleimani and tearing up Barack Obama’s nuclear deal. He presented these as acts of strength, but the truth is they were the opening salvos in a conflict that Netanyahu has long craved, that could be reminiscent of the US failure in Vietnam.

Additionally, Iran remains the last major Middle Eastern power that unequivocally supports freedom and justice for Palestinians. Through funding, arms, and diplomatic backing to groups resisting Israel’s occupation, Tehran has stood as a patron where other Middle East nations—Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia—have been neutralized through diplomacy, economic incentives, or military action. Remove it, and Palestinians face a future of more Israeli subjugation, oppression, and occupation with no significant state-level ally left to help them achieve freedom.

Trump’s address barely mentioned Gaza, and didn’t even use the word “genocide”, focusing instead on Israel’s security as a core justification. This omission is deliberate, with the war serving as a grotesque distraction. As global eyes remain fixed on Iranian missile sites and oil tankers set ablaze, Israel continues its documented campaign of mass murder in the enclave—a genocide that the world has done nothing to halt. With attention diverted to the war against Israel presses forward unchecked, continuing the destruction of Gaza and the annihilation of its people.

The speech’s tone of bravado cannot mask the deeper truth—that the United States is showing itself to be the greatest threat to world peace and global economic stability in 90 years with its aggressions against Iran, (and Venezuela, Cuba, and Greenland). Trump claimed “core strategic objectives are nearing completion,” but the conflict has already exposed America’s limits. Despite its military might, the US has failed to achieve a swift victory. Iran’s resilience—its ability to absorb strikes and maintain asymmetric pressure—signals to Russia and China that Washington is not invincible despite its military power. If the mightiest military in the world cannot impose its will on a mid-tier adversary without calling for help from its NATO allies, Moscow and Beijing may calculate they could fare even better were a conflict to breakout with the US.

This war has not stabilized the region; instead it has brought the world palpably closer to World War Three, with supply chains fracturing, oil markets convulsing, and alliances realigning. Trump’s claim that “America is winning bigger than ever” rings hollow against the funerals at Dover Air Force Base and the American lives already lost.

As people listened to the address, they would likely be reminded of the casual racism that has underpinned American Middle East policy for decades. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld under George W. Bush once reportedly dismissed Arabs as “lazy” because they sat atop too much oil. Texas Rep. Keith Self has claimed Islam is “stuck in the 8th century,” while Sen. Lindsey Graham quipped that anything starting with “Al” in the Middle East is bad news—oblivious that “algebra,” “alchemy,” and “algorithm” entered Western knowledge through Arab and Persian scholarship. Florida Rep. Randy Fine’s preference for a dog over a Muslim ignores Jalal ad-Din Rumi, the 13th-century Persian poet whose wisdom graces countless lives today, or the fact that Arab numerals underpin modern mathematics.

These stereotypes, as Said warned, erase the Middle Eastern society’s foundational contributions to human civilization. No one denies the region’s post-colonial challenges resulting from Western intervention—artificial borders drawn by former colonial masters, autocracies born of foreign meddling, and tensions exacerbated by external destabilization. But the notion that it requires Western “wisdom” imported at the barrel of a gun is the same conceit that justified colonial conquest. Iranians, like all peoples, deserve safety, freedom, and respect, not bombs justified by clichés of a “blood-stained land.”

Essentially, Trump’s address was more than just a war update. It was a declaration of imperial continuity. By aligning so brazenly with Netanyahu’s long-sought war against Iran, the US has cast itself as the latest in a line of powers convinced of their divine right to reshape ancient societies.

Iran did not seek this fight but it is prepared to fight to the bitter end to preserve its society and sovereignty. The chaos we now see in the Persian Gulf originates in Washington’s endless quest for dominance. As gasoline prices continue to rise and the shadows of a wider war lengthen, Americans should ask--who is the true threat to civilization—the nation defending its people and territorial integrity against an unprovoked attack, or the superpower carving up the map once more?

History’s verdict on 19th-century colonialism is clear. The question is whether we will see that historic barbarism repeated, or finally reject it and then toss it onto the trash heap of history where it belongs.  

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

It’s time for regime change in the United States and Israel to restore international law

A global regime-change campaign against lesser violators rings hollow without confronting the architects of global impunity—the United States and Israel.

By Fareed Khan 

A version of this can be found on Substack.

In the pantheon of post-World War Two violators of international norms, no two states rival the United States and Israel in the scale, frequency, or the sheer impunity of their actions. As Noam Chomsky has powerfully documented in works such as Hegemony or Survival and his essay The Dangerous Rogue States Operating in the Mideast, these nations function as twin rogue powers, freely resorting to aggression, terror, and systematic violations of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention.

While other states, like Russia and China, have undoubtedly committed grave offenc

es, some on multiple occasions, none approach the breadth of America's and Israel's combined record—illegal wars, prolonged occupations, orchestrated coups, false-flag operations, and destabilizing interventions spanning continents. If a genuine global campaign is ever needed to enforce accountability through regime change, it must begin with Washington and Tel Aviv.

This is not hyperbole but the logical extension of analyses by Chomsky, William Blum in Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two, Ilan Pappé in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and Norman Finkelstein in Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom. Their scholarship lays bare a pattern that demands action to address the problem at the source.

Since 1948, when it was created on stolen Palestinian land, Israel’s violations form a continuous arc of territorial conquest and collective punishment. It has occupied and bombed every nation on its borders—Egypt in 1956 and 1967, Jordan in 1967, Syria repeatedly (seizing the Golan Heights in 1967 and annexing it illegally in 1981, in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 497), and Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 2006, and beyond. Palestinian lands have remained under constant and brutal occupation for almost six decades, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibitions on settlement and collective punishment, as well as UN resolutions 242 and 338 demanding withdrawal. Pappé meticulously chronicles this as incremental ethnic cleansing, while Finkelstein demonstrates how Gaza’s siege and repeated assaults meet the Genocide Convention’s criteria of intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

The International Court of Justice’s ongoing proceedings and UN experts’ findings underscore these breaches. Israel’s actions have displaced millions, killed more than 680,000 in Gaza alone according to one study, and flouted the Universal Declaration’s guarantees of self-determination and freedom from arbitrary deprivation of life. No other state since 1945 has maintained such prolonged, illegal occupations while rejecting UN authority with US protection and complicity.

The US ledger is even longer and more global. Blum’s Killing Hope catalogues over fifty CIA-orchestrated coups, invasions, and destabilizations—the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government (Operation Ajax); installing the Shah as his replacement and sowing seeds for decades of resentment; the 1954 coup in Guatemala that unleashed genocidal civil war; the 1973 coup against Chile’s Salvador Allende, ushering in the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet; interventions in Africa in Congo, Ghana, Angola and Mozambique; Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia); and Latin America (Nicaragua’s Contras, Grenada in 1983, and Panama in 1989). These are just a few of the operations that routinely violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter banning threats or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence.

The 2003 Iraq War stands as a textbook case of an illegal and unjust war. Launched on fabricated claims about weapons of mass destruction—blatant lies exposed by the Downing Street Memo—without Security Council authorization, it resulted in more than a million Iraqis killed, destabilized the region, and birthing extremist groups like ISIS. Chomsky labels this the hallmark of a “failed state” that exempts itself from the rules it imposes on others.

Both nations have weaponized false flags and covert coups to rationalize their criminal actions. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, later admitted as fabricated, propelled US escalation in the Vietnam War, costing millions of innocent lives. Proposed but unexecuted schemes like Operation Northwoods (1962) relating to Cuba, reveal a pattern of manufacturing pretexts to achieve geopolitical objectives. Israel’s history includes alleged provocations in border conflicts, while joint US-Israeli intelligence has fuelled coups from Tehran to Santiago.

These tactics erode sovereignty, as Blum details—sovereign governments toppled not for security or in response to aggression but for resource control and ideological conformity. The destabilizing fallout has been catastrophic, resulting in civil wars, refugee crises impacting millions, and economic collapse. The war in Iraq fragmented the Middle East, Latin American coups entrenched inequality, African interventions prolonged proxy conflicts. Such chaos, orchestrated by these two rogue nations, repeatedly violated the UN Charter’s core purpose—maintaining international peace and security.

Today, this pattern continues in the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran, launched February 28, 2026. What began as airstrikes under “Operation Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion” has resulted in the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, targeted nuclear research and missile sites, civilian infrastructure, all in pursuit of regime change. Experts at the UN have condemned it as “flagrant violation of international law” and an “act of aggression,” executed while the US was in diplomatic negotiations with Iran, where progress was being made. Legal scholars and analysts describe their actions as illegal under the UN Charter, lacking Security Council approval or a credible self-defence claim. Iranian retaliation followed, yet the initiators’ stated goal—overthrowing a sovereign government—mirrors the very interventions Blum and Chomsky have chronicled for decades.

This war, with civilian deaths mounting, including strikes on schools and hospitals, exemplifies the hypocrisy often displayed by both the US and Israel—powers that lecture on nuclear non-proliferation while violating it themselves through nuclear ambiguity (Israel) and pre-emptive force (both).

Critics rightly note that other states also have blood on their hands, but none approach the quantitative and qualitative dominance and aggression of the US-Israeli axis.  The US maintains over 800 overseas bases in 70 countries, projects power globally, and has vetoed UN resolutions dozens of times to shield Israel from being held accountable for its criminal actions.

Israel, as Chomsky observes, acts with impunity and with US support, rejecting International Atomic Energy Association inspections while demanding them of Iran. Their combined interventions have reshaped the destiny of nations around the globe, through coups (Iran, Guatemala, Chile), illegal wars (Iraq, Vietnam), and occupations (Golan, West Bank, Gaza blockade). The Genocide Convention, invoked against others, applies here also. Finkelstein’s inquest into Gaza and Pappé’s settler-colonial framework reveal systematic intent. The Universal Declaration’s rights to life, self-determination, freedom from torture are trampled daily at the hands of the leaders of these two nations. No rival tally is comparable.  China’s or Russia’s actions, while serious and at times egregious (Russia's war with Georgia and China's crackdown on democracy protests over the decades), lack this post-1945 breadth of extraterritorial subversion.

A global regime-change campaign against lesser violators rings hollow without confronting the two top architects of global impunity. Chomsky urges recognizing US exceptionalism as the obstacle to peace, while Blum demands dismantling the intervention machine. Pappé and Finkelstein join them with calls to end Israeli apartheid and occupation, with external force if needed. Extending their logic, the world must mobilize and apply universal sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC prosecutions for American and Israeli leaders, support domestic movements to rebuild democratic institutions, and amplify BDS-style isolation for the two nations. Regime change here will mean empowering peoples to reclaim sovereignty—through non-violent pressure where possible, and other means where necessary. Only then can the UN Charter regain meaning, the Genocide Convention deter future atrocities, and human rights become universal rather than selective. The alternative is a world trapped in perpetual hypocrisy—one where the most powerful nations proclaim universal rules while brazenly violating them, sowing the seeds of endless conflict and instability.  

 

Through decades of meticulous scholarship and irrefutable evidence, thinkers such as Chomsky, Blum, Pappé, and Finkelstein have demonstrated beyond doubt that no other states since 1945 have matched the United States and Israel in the sheer scale, duration, and audacity of their violations of international law, human rights, and the foundations of global order, all but making the case for regime change in these two nations.

 

True justice demands that we finally turn the lens inward. Rather than selectively punishing lesser violators while shielding the architects of impunity The international community must summon the resolve to launch a sustained, principled global campaign aimed at regime change in Washington and Tel Aviv, the very epicentre of systemic global lawlessness. Nothing less will restore credibility to the United Nations Charter, halt the cycle of aggression, and secure the survival of a rules-based international order worthy of the name.

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

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. 

By Fareed Khan 

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.

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