The Carney government is under growing pressure to drop what is known as the “EV mandate.” This is a policy first introduced in 2022 wherein Canadian auto manufacturers will be mandated to sell a minimum quantity of EVs each year until 2035, when the sale of new gas-powered cars will be banned entirely.

The singular problem with the mandate is that nobody wants to buy EVs. Even with Canada having the highest fuel prices in the hemisphere, sales of EVs have only ever peaked at about 20 per cent of new vehicle sales. And even that has been in freefall in recent months.

In Dear Diary, the National Post satirically re-imagines a week in the life of a newsmaker. This week, Tristin Hopper takes a journey inside the thoughts of the EV mandate.

Monday

One of the most pressing challenges of modern governance is how to compel ones’ citizenry to meet a rote, inconsistent and often contradictory picture of ideal behaviour. We have identified the perfect Canadian life: The specific pattern of development milestones, core values and consumer choices that will yield a citizen best attuned to the interests of the collective.

The only problem is to how to take this average Canadian — a scared, superstitious and mostly obese bipedal primate — and mould them into the rational, inclusive, evidence-based form that we have decreed for them.

Because it is here where we are weakest. I need not remind you that China is nipping at our heels. If we are to stay competitive, I’m afraid that we risk too much by sticking to archaic models of “letting people buy the vehicles they would like to buy.”

And that’s where I come in.

Tuesday

I admit the EV mandate may look draconian in isolation. If presented as a stark dichotomy of “freedom” versus “compulsion,” a sentimental public will naturally favour the former.

But if we start from the premise that the Canadian public must obviously be compelled to cease purchasing internal combustion engines within 10 years, then the only question is how to go about it.

My sober and reasonable offer is that private businesses be obliged to meet an objective, and the details are left to them … as would be expected of any free society.

Would a better solution be to incarcerate the owners of gas-powered cars? To mandate gasoline additives that prematurely wear the engines of ICE vehicles? To make highways more dangerous to facilitate higher attrition of the existing vehicle fleet? I think you’ll agree that mine is the most humane and inobtrusive option.

Wednesday

In this line of work, one quickly grows weary of the bottomless mendacity of the auto sector. Their chief criticism of the EV mandate, to my read, is that it stands in defiance of “consumer preferences.” They say the Canadian auto buyer does not want to purchase EVs at the “arbitrary” rates we are setting, and thus the program is unworkable.

I find their lack of imagination insulting, if not traitorous. These are companies that routinely convince chartered accountants that their daily driver needs to be a Ford F-350. Or that a 700-horsepower sedan is an appropriate vehicle to pick up their kids from school. There are people out there driving Cybertrucks, Pontiac Azteks and Hummer H2s, all of them brainwashed by clever marketing into thinking that they made a smart decision.

Tell the public that the gas cars cause impotence. Shoot a couple commercials with Jason Statham. Offer the cars with a free Spotify subscription. It’s not my fault you’re not trying hard enough to sell EVs.

Thursday

The public has an unfortunate habit of obsessing over the alleged downsides of green policy. This came up often in regards to carbon pricing. Joe and Sally Taxpayer would complain endlessly about the extra $10 or $20 at their fill-up, without a thought as to how their government had won the acclaim of closing plenary delegates at multiple U.N. climate change summits.

But these boors miss the opportunity inherent in the mandate. Remember when we made it unbelievably difficult to build houses, thus causing a housing shortage that caused the existing housing stock to perpetually skyrocket in value? In a world with no new gas-powered cars, your 2009 Jetta could become a luxury commodity sooner than you think.

Friday

The worst thing about all this current controversy is that when the policy is inevitably a smashing success, all of today’s critics will pretend they supported it all along. But any cursory reading of history reveals that true progress comes only from government telling private firms the precise share of their sales that should be filled by a politically desirable consumer product.

After all, is this not how we obtained roads filled with gas-powered cars in the first place? A government compelling the makers of horse buggies to incrementally increase sales of automobiles until all of their original product lines were rendered obsolete?

Did the fisherman not swap out row boats for motor vessels because a government told him to? Did we not transition from VHS to DVDs based on the sage yet mandatory advice of a centralized bureaucracy? Forcing people to purchase things is the Canadian way.

An important summit of some 100 faith leaders — roughly 50 Jewish rabbis and 50 Christian pastors — was held in Toronto this week to combat rising antisemitism in Canada. The focus was more theological than strategic or political, with an opening address by the peerless professor Rabbi David Novak, Toronto’s gift to all who sincerely desire to speak to God and about God. Novak spoke of Jacques Maritain, the French philosopher who served as France’s post-war ambassador to the Holy See. It was that kind of gathering, where wise men shared the wisdom of the ages — a tonic for today’s toxic twittering and taunting.

The summit was a summons to Christian congregations to stand against antisemitism, not only in solidarity with Jews, but primarily because of their own religious beliefs.

Two such beliefs are foundational, one general and one particular. Generally, Jews and Christians believe in universal human dignity, that everyone is created in the image of God. In particular, Jews believe that God chooses, and that they are a

chosen people

for the sake of all nations. Christians believe that from this comes, in Jesus Christ, a Jew, the universal gift of salvation for all peoples.

For both reasons, Christians ought to be concerned about antisemitism, a rising scourge in Canada. Last year, columnist Terry Glavin documented the “

explosion of Jew hate

” that we have seen in our streets of late, with vile speech, vandalism and violence visited upon Jews, their synagogues, schools and shops.

“This is not Paris,” said Rick Eckstein, the driving force behind what is called the “

Simeon Initiative,

” in his introductory remarks. Eckstein is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who is deeply convinced that one righteous person can make a difference. He recounted how his own mother was saved from the Holocaust by three righteous Poles, including a Catholic priest. His very existence is the fruit of those Catholics standing with courage for Jews.

The Paris comment struck me. Rising levels of antisemitism, including terrorism, have meant that “normal” Jewish life in France now proceeds under multiple layers of security — private, police and military. France’s Jews have their own organized “

protection service

,” which serves to co-ordinate the need for security. To be a Jew in France is to live under perpetual threat.

Is Toronto headed in the same direction? Private security is now “normal” at Jewish community centres, schools and daycare centres. Synagogues spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security — costs that would sink many Christian parishes. Jewish neighbourhoods are regularly targeted by demonstrations supportive of Hamas and its explicitly genocidal goal of driving Jews into the sea.

If France can adjust itself to a permanent slow simmer of antisemitism, occasionally exploding to a boil, will Canada do the same?

The Simeon Initiative is named after the biblical figure who greets the infant Jesus in the Temple in Jerusalem, thus serving as a bridge between Jews and Christians. It is a joint venture of my colleagues at Cardus, Canada’s leading Christian think-tank, and my former colleagues at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Canada’s leading Jewish advocacy group. It is a pleasure to see Christian and Jewish colleagues in common cause; would that the cause be a happier one.

Recent antisemitism in Canada has largely been a product of radical Islamism, often carried here by those from societies were antisemitism is actively promoted in educational, cultural, religious and political circles. It has been tacitly — and sometimes enthusiastically — supported by progressive political forces, who see Jews as “settler colonists” who deserve denigration and even destruction.

The Simeon Initiative began percolating last year under the leadership of

Father Deacon Andrew Bennett

, Canada’s first (and only) ambassador of religious freedom during the Harper government. He launched the “

Canadian Christian Declaration Against Antisemitism

” last year, garnering 750 signatures from Christian leaders, three times his original goal. The new goal is to move from declaration to concrete action in the wide array of Christian congregations across Canada, beginning with getting to know local Jewish leaders and their communities.

Is it useful to rally mostly conservative Christians against antisemitism? Jihadist sympathizers and extreme secular progressives are not an audience we reach.

That remains true, but over the past year I have become more aware of antisemitism creeping into conservative circles, including those that are ostentatiously Christian in their profession, if not their practice. The

sulphurous

sewer of online agitation is filled with “Christian” nationalists who flirt with antisemitism — and sometimes seem to lust after it.

The Simeon meeting explored the roots of antisemitism. Despite having worked in related fields for 20 years, I learned that the Soviet Union, resenting Israel for aligning itself with the United States during the Cold War, was the great promoter of what Irwin Cotler calls the “new antisemitism” — i.e., that Jews do not have the right to live together as other people do in the community of nation states.

Antisemitism on the right was dealt, for a long while, a debilitating blow after the Nazis made “fascism” a dirty word. There seems to be a disturbing revival now. The seeds of antisemitism on the left, cultivated decades ago by Soviet communists, are also flowering anew.

Religious leaders discussing theology can only accomplish so much. They do have congregations, though, who are capable of concrete action. Moreover, ideas matter, and religious ideas are the most fundamental of all, shaping even the thoughts of those who emphatically eschew religion.

May Simeon and his latter day companions flourish, as they seek to proclaim a light for revelation to the nations.

National Post

• Avi Benlolo: Spitting at Christians is an affront to human decency and the Jewish faith
• Raymond J. de Souza: Attacks against Jews are attacks against Christians, too

Some readers will recall that in this space last week I opposed those calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and de-escalation in the Iran-Israel war because that would only lead to renewed terrorist activity in Gaza against Israel and the deployment of nuclear weapons by Iran, whose government has pledged to destroy the Jewish people. To paraphrase Japanese Emperor Hirohito after the detonation of two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, in the light of this week’s events, it is time for the “unthinkable.” (The Japanese emperor acknowledged that the war had not gone “entirely as we had hoped.”) As predicted here and elsewhere, the United States Air Force and Navy successfully penetrated and destroyed the underground Iranian nuclear development sites. Those who immediately predicted a drastic escalation of hostilities and were soiling themselves in lamentations of imminent world war were placated, and in many cases doubtless disappointed, at the ceasefire that followed 24 hours later. Incorrigibly anti-American and particularly Trump-hating outlets such as the BBC, the CBC, the Guardian, Al-Jazeera, CNN and MSNBC attached themselves like limpets to the instant conjuration that the damage done by the American attacks had only been superficial and would easily be repaired. In the only known honest words that the criminally diseased regime in Tehran has uttered in its 47 years, the Iranian Islamic government acknowledged that official American reports of the success of the raids were accurate. U.S. President Donald Trump’s opponents dismissed this as disinformation. The more vocal political suicide cases among the American congressional Democrats, who had been calling for Trump’s impeachment for plunging the nation into war without authority, were struck mercifully dumb.

Many will require tranquilization, therapy or even defibrillation in contemplation of this, but without incurring a single American casualty, President Trump has satisfactorily ended a potentially dangerous and enervating war; has dealt a shattering blow to the forces of terrorism in the world; has assisted Israel in honouring the pledge of the Jewish people after the Nazi Holocaust murdered approximately half the Jews in the world: “Never again!”; and has helped the Jewish people to the highest level of unconditional security it has enjoyed in its tumultuous history of over 5,000 years. At the same time, as commander-in-chief, Trump has executed the most successful military operation of the U.S. armed forces since Gen. Douglas MacArthur landed nearly 50,000 men in less than an hour at Inchon and annihilated the North Korean army in four weeks in 1950. (MacArthur’s subsequent insubordination was unacceptable, but if his strategic advice had been followed, Korea today would be united and a powerhouse, a second Japan, and the world would have been spared all the outrages of the Kimist regime in North Korea these 75 years.)

President Trump’s very astute deployment of American military force and his agile diplomacy has been the greatest strategic tour de force of any world leader since U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1972-3 triangulated the great power relationship with China, negotiated the greatest arms control agreement in world history with the U.S.S.R. (which incidentally restored American nuclear military superiority), while extracting the United States from Vietnam and preserving a non-communist government in Saigon. The events of the last week have given the world a clear perspective on the dangerous vacuum of American enfeeblement that was created by the previous three U.S. presidents. George W. Bush’s insane invasion of Iraq, which made most of that country a vassal state of Iran, and his insistence on elections that raised up Hamas and Hezbollah, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s appeasement of Iran, including Obama’s nuclear treaty with Iran, under which the Iranians would at this very time be joining the nuclear club with the blessing of its other members: all of this created an opportunistic appetite in some of the world’s most irresponsible and dangerous governments. It is almost certainly true that if Trump were the president, it is unlikely that Russian President Vladimir Putin would have invaded Ukraine or that the Iranian leadership would have masterminded the Hamas invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. It is also worthwhile to go a little further back in unearthing western strategic blunders in the Mideast: as I remarked (to an indifferent response), in Their Lordships’ House in London some years ago, the British government essentially precipitated the chief crisis of the Middle East by effectively promising the same territory to two different and contending parties: the Jews and the Arabs, in 1917 (unruffled by the fact that the territory was then being governed by Turkey, which ultimately did a better job of it than the British who followed them).

U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower made a serious error in promising to assist Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in constructing the Aswan Dam and then reneging, and the subsequent Anglo-French attack on Suez, pretending to be peacekeepers in a war that they had themselves promoted and initiated, must rank as one of the most spectacular and inexplicable disasters in the entire foreign policy history of either of those two venerable countries. And President Jimmy Carter’s role in the eviction of the Shah of Iran must also rank as one of the most colossal strategic errors of the postwar era. We are now in a time of opportunity. The American administration is absolutely correct to take the attitude that if there’s to be regime change in Iran it must be generated by the Iranians. But that country will no longer have the ability to bankroll and promote terrorism as it has and that fact coupled with Israel’s destruction of more than 80 per cent of the terrorist apparatus of Hamas, and almost comparable demolition of Hezbollah, and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria and the expulsion of Iran from that country, all augur well for a more constructive era in the Middle East.

Trump’s astoundingly successful visit to the region last month, bringing back $5 trillion of Saudi and Emirati and Qatari investment in the United States, opened prospects of vastly greater commercial and development activity from the petro-states. The skies should now be clear for completion of a comprehensive understanding between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and there may be some possibility of a thorough reconstruction of a demilitarized Gaza, overseen by Egypt and the Saudis. In these evolving circumstances, there is a further distinct possibility of authentic Palestinian leadership that acknowledges the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and is prepared to accept realistic borders for a state of their own. There is also a message for Russia in these events: the Israelis made short work of the military equipment Russia supplied to Iran and they appear to have destroyed the chief source of Russian drones. The crisp efficiency of the American air incursion should be taken on board by the Russian leader as a hint of what he might be facing in Ukraine if he continues to demand concessions that the appalling fiasco of his aggressive war has failed to produce on the ground.

It is a much brighter political horizon than it was a week ago and we have Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the two bête noire of the fatuous western political press, to thank for it.

National Post

• Vivian Bercovici: Iranian regime’s survival now depends on milquetoast leaders
• Avi Benlolo: It’s time to end the war — and rebuild a stronger, more resilient Israel

Last week, Nippon Steel Corp. of Japan formally completed a takeover of U.S. Steel (USS), the venerable but diminished American industrial giant created by J.P. Morgan in 1901. The Japanese company originally placed its bid for USS in late 2023, but it ran into immediate trouble with the Biden administration. U.S. Steel, once widely regarded as an overmighty pollution-spewing relic of Gilded Age cartelization, had magically evolved to become a vulnerable “national champion” of morally superior things-making industries; and the company still has a powerful unionized workforce in U.S. rust-belt states that are electorally pivotal. Pennsylvania-born President Joe Biden wasn’t going to let a corporate brand virtually synonymous with the city of Pittsburgh be raffled off without a tussle.

Government foreign-investment approvals necessarily have this sort of personal-rule character wherever they happen, which is pretty much everywhere. If you want to sell a bundle of industrial assets in Country X to folks from Country Y, you had better have approval from the top political boss of X, whether that approval be tacit or explicit.

Still, Biden did go through the motions of being head of a government of laws rather than men. He had a U.S. Treasury Department panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), whack together an indecisive but fact-based report on the potential costs and benefits of the proposed takeover. Only at that point, with mere days remaining in his term of office, did Biden (or whoever was wielding his executive autopen) fully and officially block the Nippon Steel deal.

Biden’s successor had already been re-elected, and nobody could imagine that Donald Trump would be any less of an unruly economic nationalist — but the thing that is nearest and dearest to Trump’s heart is deal-making, and Nippon Steel found a way to get the takeover done. The Japanese company had already promised to preserve U.S. Steel’s Pittsburgh national head office and to honour existing collective-bargaining agreements with the unions. Trump extracted further concessions on investments and hiring, along with a means of enforcing them, namely a “golden share” controlled by the U.S. government.

A “golden share” is a special kind of equity that gives its holder veto power over specified corporate decisions. It is often used in privatizations to give governments some vestige of control over corporate entities originally created by the state (or, in Canada, the Crown) for public purposes. In this unusual case, the U.S. government is magically gaining a golden share in exchange for permitting the sale of one private company to another. The government will be given the right to choose some U.S. Steel board directors, to forbid any name change, and to veto factory closures, offshoring, acquisitions and other moves.

As

the Cato Institute immediately pointed out

, this is a

de facto

nationalization of U.S. Steel — the sort of thing that would have had Cold War conservatives climbing the walls and hooting about

socialism

. But at least socialism professes to be social! Yesterday a lefty energy reporter named Robinson Meyer was

nosing around in the revised corporate charter for the newly-acquired U.S. Steel

, and he discovered

a remarkable detail

that the Cato folks had missed: the decision powers of the golden share have been legally assigned to Donald Trump

in person and by name for the duration of his presidency

. Only after Trump has left the White House do those golden-share powers revert to actual U.S. government departments (Treasury and Commerce).

The stench of banana-republicanism here is truly overwhelming. Again, any species of government foreign-investment review is bound to have a personal character, but such decisions are not supposed to involve the legally explicit assignment of a valuable corporate asset to the decision-maker in his own person. Can this be described as anything but legalized, open bribery — assuming that U.S. courts will find it legal if the terms of sale are challenged? Where in the U.S. Constitution, or in the history of the United States, can any warrant for this extraordinary behaviour conceivably be found? And will unholy bargains of this nature soon become routine?

National Post

Prime Minister Mark Carney is seemingly in the process of moving Canada away from the United States — our longtime friend, ally and trading partner — and thrusting us into the waiting arms of the European Union. This is where he believes Canada, which

he describes as

the “most European of non-European countries,” truly belongs. Yet his narrow-sighted approach to the U.S. and EU could have devastating consequences.

There’s nothing wrong with the general concept of diversifying Canadian trade and strengthening our alliances and partnerships with European countries. Liberal and Conservative prime ministers have worked to build strategic relationships and cast a wider net in the global marketplace. It’s hard to argue against their logic.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper, for example, supported diversifying Canada’s trade with India, Asia and other parts of the world, which helped decrease our economic dependence on the U.S. “Look, we have to diversify our trade and continue to,”

he said

in a 2011 interview with Bloomberg.

“But we’re not going to pretend that we’re not going to be closely tied to the American economy. That’s frankly one of the great assets, most of the time, for the Canadian economy. We want to work with the (former U.S. president Barack) Obama administration, bilaterally and through the G20, to do what we can to move the continent forward.”

When it came to security matters, Harper was clear in his position that Canada and the U.S. must continue to work together. “We’re working with the Obama administration on what we call ‘perimeter and security measures,’ to enhance our integration, enhance our access, in a period of heightened security,” he said.

If Carney had done something along those lines with the EU, you could nitpick certain details but understand the basic strategy of diversification. But that’s not what the PM is doing. Rather, he’s moving us heavily into a relationship with the EU at the expense of repairing Canada’s historic relationship with the U.S. No previous Canadian prime minister, be it a Liberal or Conservative, has ever seriously considered taking this highly controversial step. It’s an enormous error in judgment on Carney’s part.

To begin with, the

security and defence partnership

between Canada and the EU will “establish and implement a tailor-made, mutually beneficial partnership that will frame bilateral dialogue and co-operation across the full security and defence spectrum.”

It will also “promote multilateral dialogue and co-operation with like-minded countries in relevant areas of security and defence where considered mutually beneficial.” Some of the matters mentioned in the agreement include support to Ukraine, peacekeeping operations, military mobility, maritime security, sharing information on defence initiatives and cybersecurity.

And it doesn’t stop there. Businesses

will be encouraged

to “grow and diversify markets by fully and effectively implementing” the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The parties also agreed to work towards a “digital trade agreement,” “identify trends and risks of mutual concern that could affect our economic security,” “reduce barriers and strengthen agriculture and agrifood trade” and focus on shared energy needs.

What about the future of Canada-U.S. relations? While there have been issues between our two countries due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and leadership style, it’s vitally important for Carney to rebuild ties with the U.S. There have been political, economic and military disagreements between Canada and the U.S. before. We fought one another during the War of 1812. Nevertheless, we always found ways to agree to disagree and move forward like good friends and allies do.

Things looked promising at one point. Carney

said

earlier this month that his government was “in intensive negotiations with the Americans” to end the tariffs on aluminum and steel that chilled relations between our two countries. Carney and Trump also agreed to work towards an economic and security pact within the next 30 days during last week’s G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta.

Alas, Carney’s determined tone has noticeably shifted. He’s now hemming and hawing about the path forward. “We’ll do what’s right for Canada,”

he told reporters

in Brussels. “We’re working hard to get a deal, but we’ll only accept the right deal with the United States. The right deal is possible, but nothing’s assured.”

Trump then announced on Friday through his Truth Social account that he was “terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.” Why? This was due to Canada’s decision to introduce a “Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies.” Trump believed the Carney Liberal government was “obviously copying the European Union” with this tax, and felt it was a “direct and blatant attack” on the U.S.

No one is suggesting that Carney is obligated to bend to Trump’s every whim and desire during these crucial negotiations. At the same time, this is hardly the sort of descriptive language and rhetorical tone he should be using in public before the July 21 deadline.

If there have been issues between the two sides, fine. All Carney had to do was take a more neutral position for the bulk of the 30-day process and crescendo accordingly. This would have shown that he recognized the importance of preserving Canada-U.S. relations and was taking things seriously. It would have been hard to argue against such logic.

It appears that Carney’s infatuation with the EU has further strained our friendship with the U.S. for the foreseeable future. While some will claim that Trump is the main reason, it’s a false narrative. He’ll be out of office in a number of years, as will Carney. The devastating political and economic effects of a fractured Canada-U.S. relationship will last long past then.

National Post

• Chris Selley: Carney’s bizarre fixation with calling us ‘European’ makes no sense
• Joel Kotkin: If Carney brings Canada closer to Europe, financial ruin would follow

“Death to America” has been the defining chant of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979, when radical Shi’ite clerics overthrew the ruling Pahlavi monarchy.

“Death to Israel” has always been the companion slogan.

For more than 50 years, the Pahlavi dynasty had ruled Iran with increasing ruthlessness. The poor, religious Iranians struggling in the teeming slums, seethed. They saw the Shah and his family as being decadent infidels defiling and degrading Iran and Islam.

In a

recent interview

,

Beni Sabti

, a Tehran-born expert who now resides in Israel, recalled the pro-revolutionary fervour that swept Iran in the early years of the Ayatollahs’ rule. Beni was Jewish, and he and his family were constantly threatened and harassed. In 1987, when he was 15, the family escaped on a treacherous journey guided by smugglers.

Approximately

15,000 Jews remain in Iran

and

reports

are trickling out that some are being arrested and harassed by the military, particularly in Shiraz and Tehran. Their phones and homes are being searched for any indication of communication with people in Israel. Almost all likely have close family who escaped to Israel or elsewhere since 1979. Such contact could mean death.

As we are going to press, a

report

just came in that the regime has arrested up to 700 Jews in the country for alleged ties to Israel. Ceremonies have been organized in which Jewish leaders and others in attendance pledged allegiance and support to Iran.

The regime has

shut down internet access

for approximately two weeks now, and a

vicious clampdown

appears to be ongoing, targeting more vulnerable minorities — like the Kurds in the north — and Jews in the cities. Everyone gets the message. Head down. Shut up.

Today,

80 per cent or more

of Iranians loathe the ruling theocracy. And whereas the opposition factions in the Iranian diaspora may have their differences, there is a broad consensus that the religious regime must be toppled.

The overwhelming majority of Iranians want the brutal repression to end. They want a life where they can work, achieve, think and express themselves freely, dress as they please, become citizens integrated with other nations and people without fear of extreme reprisal. But freedom, of course, is the ultimate threat to a totalitarian state.

Beginning on June 13, continued waves of Israeli air force attacks deep inside the country shattered the nuclear aspirations of Iran. For days, the skies of Iran were dominated by Israeli and American air forces. All Middle Eastern countries — including Syria — allowed Israeli fighter jets to access their airspace. To attack Iran. Why? Because Saudi, Bahrain, Oman, Syria, UAE — they all loathe the fanatical Iranian regime as much as does Israel.

Iran has financed and offered every manner of support to terror groups in the Mideast and globally. Since October 7, all the proxies in which it invested decades and billions to attack Israel and establish a

land bridge

from Tehran to the Mediterranean — have been significantly weakened. The regime’s prized military proxy — Hezbollah —

has been uncustomarily quiet

— in terms of oratory and firing at targets in Israel.

When Israel launched attacks on Iran the operation was intended to destroy — or at least significantly forestall — its imminent nuclear breakout. Waves of Israeli air force jets destroyed what remained of Iran’s air defence systems early on. Key nuclear scientists and IRGC generals were

assassinated

. Important

military bases

and infrastructure were hit. Civilian neighbourhoods were deliberately avoided by the Israeli air force, unlike the IRGC ballistic missiles that were aimed at the heart of densely populated cities in Israel.

Once key operational goals had been achieved, a ceasefire was imposed — really

declared

— by President Donald Trump on June 23rd and came into effect just after midnight ET on June 24th. For ten days, Israelis lived this bizarre life, where all that mattered was sheltering from the next ballistic missile barrage from Iran — with a few add-ons sent our way by the Houthis in Yemen. For two nights now we have slept. Life has become more “normal.”

And we are just beginning to understand the scope of what we have lived through.

For several days, there have been wildly conflicting media reports purporting to analyze what — if anything — these attacks accomplished. Reporters for some networks rushed within hours to

declare

the entire operation a failure, suggesting the attacks probably only set Iran’s nuclear program back by months.

The truth is more complex and will take months to fully assess. But what we do know with certainty is that the combined impact of waves of Israeli air force attacks on military targets throughout Iran — culminating in the American B2 attack on the underground Iranian nuclear complex at Fordow on June 22 — either obliterated or severely damaged Iran’s nuclear ambitions

In the last 24 hours, much more

confident confirmations

have been issued by the U.S. Department of Defense as well as Israel. This operation was staggeringly brilliant. Planning to destroy Fordow has been ongoing for 15 years. Multiple attack points — in Iran and elsewhere — required precise planning and execution.

And on Wednesday night, we learned that Israel had

teams of commandos

on the ground in Iran throughout the attack period. Mind-blowing.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense assessments shared with media on Thursday, the IRGC

may have moved

some of the military grade enriched uranium they had been stockpiling to destroy Israel, but most of it is buried deep underground at Fordow. And it will likely remain there for all time.

What America and Israel have accomplished since June 13 is a dramatic remaking of the geopolitical order. The Iranian regime is the foremost sponsor of global Islamist terrorism. It appears to have been neutered. The axis of terror painstakingly built by Iran over decades — which until October 7 dominated the Middle East, from Tehran to the Mediterranean — may be in its death throes.

The question now is whether the regime itself will survive. Consensus broadly is that such a movement must originate with the people of Iran. But after 50 years of brutal dictatorship — and western leadership that has failed to support previous uprisings — Iranians are terrified and exhausted.

And most western leaders — including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney — are weak. They are

addicted to equivocation and appeasement

. Ceasefire. De-escalate. Their repetitive bromides are offered up, no matter the facts or which world issue they speak of. Meaningless, unprincipled statements.

It was only German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking to German media at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada, who praised Israel for taking the lead,

stating

: “This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us. We are also victims of this regime. This mullah regime has brought death and destruction to the world.”

Fordow — and the Iranian nuclear program — represented one of the most formidable threats to the global order since the 1930s. And just as we saw then, most leaders today are weak and lack vision.

Silence, today, is not an option. Neither is equivocation.

National Post

• Jesse Kline: Carney can’t fix the military by meeting NATO’s 5% target alone
• Ori Freiman: CUPE has no business cheering for Iran

First Reading is a Canadian politics newsletter curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, sign up here.

TOP STORY

The B.C. Conservatives are calling for measures to keep “radical drug lobbyists” out of schools after a school event that featured info cards on how to do drugs such as cocaine, meth and GHB.

“This isn’t education. It is grooming kids into drug culture,” said B.C. Conservative MLA Steve Kooner in a Tuesday statement endorsing his private member’s bill that, if passed, would compel schools to “explicitly discourage drug use.”

The event in question was a Pride festival sanctioned by the Nanaimo-Ladysmith Public Schools District.

After accompanying her 10-year-old to the event, Nanaimo, B.C. mother Ruth Taylor alerted local media to the presence of postcard-sized leaflets that local media described as “drug use information cards.”

A card labelled “meth,” for instance, details the drug’s euphoric effects, its reported ability to increase libido and even includes recommended dosages.

The NDP invite the pro-drug lobby into BC schools.

Conservatives are fighting to get them out. https://t.co/CDgjaHTphf pic.twitter.com/XQjX33c3AZ

— Steve Kooner MLA (@SteveKooner) June 24, 2025

“A light dose is around 5-10 mg, a common dose is around 10-30 mg, and a strong dose is 30-40 mg,” it reads.

A card for GHB, a common date-rape drug, reads that the substance can “make the user feel more relaxed and more sociable.” It adds, “G can also increase libido.”

The cards were among the literature offered at a booth run by AIDS Vancouver Island, a harm reduction non-profit funded in part by government bodies such as Island Health and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Taylor told Chek News that she confronted AIDS Vancouver Island about the materials being inappropriate for schoolchildren, but that “they were not receptive to what I was saying” and “the cards stayed for the remainder of the event.”

AIDS Vancouver Island didn’t respond to a National Post query before press time. In a statement provided to Global News on Monday, the group said it was told the event was for older children and that they stood by “the fundamental importance of youth receiving honest, factual and appropriate substance use and sexual health materials.”

The Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District, in turn, said they took responsibility for “the lack of oversight” regarding the cards, and said they would be keeping a closer eye on the materials handed out by “external organizations” at events where students are in attendance.

🚨”SAFE SUPPLY” PROVIDER USING MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PUSH DRUGS ON KIDS🚨

I am disgusted by news that drug use information cards were made available to 10-year-olds at a school-sanctioned event in Nanaimo last week.

AVI Health & Community Services distributed the… pic.twitter.com/vcsu4IbWFn

— Elenore Sturko (@elenoresturko) June 24, 2025

The cards were manufactured by DanceSafe, a California-based non-profit that specializes in providing drug-checking materials to raves, music festivals and other events likely to feature illicit drug use.

The group produces “drug info cards” for 14 distinct drugs, ranging from nicotine to mushrooms to the synthetic psychedelic 2C-B. The cards only cover “party” drugs, so there’s no card for heroin or fentanyl.

DanceSafe stresses that its role is as a “nonjudgmental first point of contact.” As such, the cards warn of the drugs’ various side-effects, but they do not suggest that the drug might be best avoided.

The cocaine card, for instance, suggests using the drug “in moderation” in order to avoid developing a “problematic relationship with it.”

“Cocaine is very short-acting, and the after-effects (the ‘comedown’) can be quite unpleasant,” it reads, warning that the comedown can prompt “compulsive redosing.”

Each card is also decorated with stylized imagery inspired by the drugs’ effects. The meth card is adorned with lightning bolts, while the cocaine card has a 1970s aesthetic, complete with disco ball.

Taylor referenced the cards’ “bright” and “attractive” appearance in her comments to Chek News. Kooner called them “colourful flashcards.”

“This is not for kids.”
A Nanaimo mother says she was frustrated to find information regarding drug use being displayed at a recent school event.https://t.co/a06fyz2CKK

— Global BC (@GlobalBC) June 24, 2025

Kooner’s Tuesday statement said the apology from the Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District was “not enough,” and that “we must stop sending mixed messages on drugs to children.”

Earlier this year, Kooner tabled a private member’s bill that would require “mandatory anti‑drug messaging” in schools, that would include “stigma against drug use as a deterrent.”

The DanceSafe cards are far from the first time that a Canadian school event has run into controversy for making materials available to minor that either facilitated drug use or encouraged risky behaviour.

Two years ago, a B.C. high school just north of Nanaimo came under fire after a drug awareness presentation concluded with the session leader distributing “safer snorting” kits.

The kit, manufactured by the publicly funded Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, included plastic straws and cards to cut powdered drugs into lines that could then be snorted. “Have condoms and lube with you. You may want to have sex while high,” read an accompanying booklet.

That same year, a Canadian chapter of Planned Parenthood was barred from presenting in Saskatchewan schools after a sex education programmer distributed graphic cards describing fringe sex acts involving defecation and urine.

IN OTHER NEWS

With Canada still ostensibly planning to fix housing unaffordability by scattering the country with millions of government-built homes, a new Montreal Economic Institute report is urging Ottawa to take heed of a similar New Zealand program that failed miserably. KiwiBuild, much like the Carney government’s proposed Build Canada Homes, set out to build 100,000 affordable homes within a decade. It only managed 2,389.

And this is not the first time that New Zealand has provided Canada a tidy example of what not to do. Like the Liberal government is doing right now, New Zealand tried to combat gun crime by pursuing a massive gun “buy back.” It went way over budget, and ended up coinciding with gun crime going up.

Get all of these insights and more into your inbox by signing up for the First Reading newsletter.