Iran’s decision to escalate the war last week appears counterintuitive. As Omani mediators sought to preserve a diplomatic opening through a renewed truce and continued negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran instead launched a direct ballistic missile attack on U.S. bases in Jordan, while expanding pressure across other fronts. The move sharply increased the risk of a broader regional conflict.

Reports soon emerged that Washington was preparing strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure before Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates reportedly intervened to preserve the diplomatic track. Why did Tehran choose escalation at the very moment when an off-ramp appeared within reach? The answer lies in the Islamic Republic’s internal balance of power.

Three distinct centres of power currently compete over how Iran should prosecute the war and negotiate its eventual settlement. They differ on methods and acceptable levels of risk. Yet they remain broadly aligned on the strategic objectives they seek to achieve.

The first , and currently the most influential, is the faction that’s likely led by Ahmad Vahidi, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This camp represents the dominant force in shaping Iran’s wartime decisions. It views military pressure as the prerequisite for any meaningful outcome and insists that, if negotiations occur at all, they must proceed from a position of strength.

For Vahidi, the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s principal source of strategic leverage. Maintaining coercive control over the Strait strengthens its hand in future negotiations over its nuclear program. Losing that leverage would weaken Tehran’s bargaining position long after the current war ends.

The second faction is represented by President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. This camp’s priority is to contain the economic damage that war and sanctions are inflicting on the regime.

They are equally concerned about the domestic front. A population that has repeatedly demonstrated its desire for political change is a strategic challenge no less consequential than the military confrontation abroad. They are prepared to negotiate limited compromises over the administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

The third faction, centred on the Paydari Front and figures such as Saeed Jalili, rejects negotiations with Washington altogether. Although smaller than the other two camps, it continues to exert ideological pressure against compromise and enjoys influence through key state institutions, such as Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting .

This group’s strategy is to move beyond a defensive posture and seize the initiative . Rather than confining the conflict to Iranian territory, it seeks to widen the theatre across the region and beyond, raising the costs for Iran’s adversaries and restoring deterrence on more favourable terms.

The other factions have adjusted to the strategic environment created by military escalation. That pattern became evident immediately after Iran’s attacks on American bases in Jordan, when Araghchi launched an intensive diplomatic effort, speaking with his counterparts in Cyprus and Bulgaria before contacting British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband.

Those conversations reportedly sought to discourage additional support for American military operations and warn against further expansion of the conflict. In this instance, military escalation and diplomacy served as sequential instruments of the same strategy.

For years, officials and analysts in Tehran have discussed U.S. President Donald Trump’s strategic posture through the language of the “ madman theory ” — the deliberate cultivation of unpredictability to gain bargaining leverage. Recent Iranian behaviour indicates that the regime is attempting to appropriate the same logic. Rather than reacting to American unpredictability, Tehran is attempting to manufacture uncertainty of its own.

Immediately after Trump reportedly signalled his intention to strike Iran’s energy infrastructure, Nour News, a media outlet closely associated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, published a list of energy facilities across the Persian Gulf that the IRGC could target in retaliation. The message was unmistakable: any attack on Iran’s energy sector would be met with a region-wide response.

In effect, the IRGC’s conduct throughout the latest round of hostilities suggests a deliberate willingness to escalate, in order to demonstrate resolve and shape America’s calculations. This is classic brinkmanship, as defined by Thomas Schelling : the deliberate manipulation of escalating risk to convince an opponent that continued confrontation may lead to consequences that neither side can fully control. Iran’s recent conduct closely fits this model.

This strategy places Washington in an increasingly difficult position. Every attempt to increase military pressure carries the risk of provoking another round of Iranian escalation rather than compelling restraint. The result is a strategic dilemma in which measured responses risk appearing indecisive while stronger responses threaten a wider war. Trump’s reported decision to suspend planned strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure, even if only temporarily, illustrates the precarious balance he is trying to achieve.

This locks the conflict into a dangerous strategic dynamic. Temporary pauses in escalation, even when tactically prudent, should not be mistaken for a durable solution. They merely postpone the next crisis while allowing each side to prepare for it.

The core issues are not resolved yet. The next round of hostilities is likely to begin with a higher level of intensity than the last. Each cycle of brinkmanship raises the threshold of deterrence, requiring ever greater demonstrations of resolve to preserve credibility. This means that every future confrontation will begin where the previous one ended.

National Post

Avideh Motmaen-Far is the president of the Council of Iranian Canadians. Masoud Zamani is director of Nexara Intelligence.

• Bryan Brulotte: The West’s adversaries don’t think like us. The sooner we get it, the better
• Noah Shack: Iran’s terror-crime nexus is a growing threat to Canadians

When the Carney Liberals lecture Canadians on history it is with a smugness and self-righteousness that is as loathsome as it is tiresome.

Saturday’s Emancipation Day — created by the Liberals in 2021 — proved such an occasion for pontificating and sermonizing by our prime minister and senior ministers.

In a statement over the weekend, Prime Minister Mark Carney was at pains to point out that “slavery existed here” and that while the 1834 Slavery Abolition Act marked a turning point, “freedom was not granted in a single day.”

He went on: “Today, we honour those whose courage helped make our country freer, fairer, and stronger.”

But the vital component missing from the prime minister’s statement was context.

The 1834 act that abolished slavery across the British Empire wasn’t the first turning point in Canada aimed at giving Black people their freedom.

More than 40 years earlier, John Graves Simcoe, the lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, passed the 1793 Act to Prevent the further Introduction of Slaves and to limit the Term of Contracts for Servitude, the first anti-slavery legislation in the British Empire. While the law did not ban slavery, it prohibited the importation of enslaved people into Upper Canada.

It added that no person is “to be subjected to the condition of a Slave, or to a bounden involuntary service for life, into any part of the Province.”

The act also paved the way for the “Underground Railroad.” A University of Toronto article on the subject estimates that 30,000 to 40,000 African Americans fled to Canada and freedom between 1793 and 1865.

This is in contrast to the estimated 4,000 to 8,000 African and Indigenous people who were enslaved during 200 years of Canadian history.

So if the prime minister wants to honour those who made this country freer, fairer and stronger, he should start by celebrating Simcoe’s abolitionist legacy.

Meanwhile, in a Saturday tweet , Foreign Minister Anita Anand said that on Emancipation Day, “I join Canadians in reflecting on the dark legacy of slavery.”

That same day, Identity and Culture and Minister Marc Miller said in a statement , “On this Emancipation Day, I invite Canadians to deepen their understanding of the history of slavery in Canada and the long-term effects of anti-Black racism.”

How sweet and humble of Anand and Miller to invite us to deepen our understanding and to pause in reflection. The implication here, of course, is that these two Liberal ministers have already done that emotional legwork and it’s only the proletariat who need educating.

Unfortunately, Carney and his ministers are merely reflections of these times when our penance must be on full display, our sackcloth and ashes be in full view and, like good Pharisees, we must stand proudly on street corners in order to show our sincerity.

There’s nothing wrong with condemning slavery; that it is evil goes without saying. But there is everything wrong in insinuating that the “peculiar institution” so prevalent in America — it is estimated that there were more than 10 million slaves in more than 200 years of American history — was in any way comparable to Canada.

But that is the effect of the Liberal announcements when they leave out that slavery was not widespread in Canada, that we led the way in abolishing the practice and that we were a refuge for tens of thousands of slaves.

If we are to “reflect on the dark legacy of slavery,” then we should also consider the fierce abolitionists who fought to end it.

In his Emancipation Day statement , Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre was happy to denounce slavery — “that immoral practice across Britain’s vast and mighty empire.”

But he added, “We as Canadians have a special place in this story because it was 40 years prior, in the young colony of Upper Canada, that a reformist lieutenant-governor by the name of John Graves Simcoe passed the first law limiting slavery in any of Britain’s territories.

“In Simcoe’s time, British North America was already home to communities of Black Loyalists, many of whom were once enslaved. In the coming decades, these colonies would play an important role as the end point of the Underground Railroad: providing freedom and refuge for tens of thousands who were unjustly held in bondage.”

More than 200 years after Simcoe led the way in ending slavery, the Liberals are intent on using selective history to take Canadians on a guilt trip.

However, it wasn’t guilt but gratitude that was expressed by those slaves who made their way to freedom in Upper Canada.

“I left Mississippi about 14 years ago,” said Mrs. Christopher Hamilton, a freed slave living in what is now London, Ont., in an interview that was published in 1856. “I was raised a house servant, and was well used, but I saw and heard a great deal of the cruelty of slavery. I saw more than I wanted to — I never want to see so much again…. I had rather live in Canada, one potato a day, than to live in the South with all the wealth they have got.”

On Emancipation Day, Canadians can rightly reflect on the fact that this country laid the groundwork for abolishing the evils of the slave trade.

National Post

Here we go again.

As it did in 2023, the federal government is seeking to restrict prayers by military chaplains, instead encouraging them to offer “spiritual reflections” — essentially life lessons or other inspirational bon mots.

To jog memories: A 2023 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) directive updating a 2013 military policy told chaplains to avoid using religious symbols at public events, to filter religious expression through “Gender Based Analysis” to avoid asking anyone to remove a hat or headwear during their presentations, and, most infamously, to replace prayer with nebulous, sanitized alternatives called “spiritual reflections.” This new document , taking the form of Military Personnel Instructions, clarifies that such reflections “do not use religious specific language” but rather “reflect upon lessons learned, beliefs, values, and experiences to inspire gratitude, remembrance, hope, and integrity.”

The federal government is once again presenting this change as a more inclusive measure while achieving the exact opposite. As my colleagues said in 2023, prayers across different faith lines are not interchangeable. A spiritual reflection that applies to all ultimately applies to none. Trying to appease everyone actually makes no one happy.

So would more religious prayers actually be a preferable option? We believe the research says yes. Working with the Angus Reid Institute, we have polled Canadians several times on the subject of religious tolerance. The religiously committed, privately faithful, and spiritually uncertain, by and large, view most faiths positively. While a Hindu prayer might not suit the needs of a Catholic, there is a broad endurance by those who are believers or consider themselves agnostic for other people living out their faith lives. It is only atheists, representing just a third of Canadians, who hold a negative perception of all other religions.

What the government calls inclusion, in this case, is an effort to achieve neutrality that instead turns into secular uniformity, which is not the same thing.

CAF leadership in 2023 argued that this change was necessary to comply with a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that enforced “state neutrality” which said “it must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief.” Yet the policy the CAF has adopted plainly favours non-belief.

The CAF defends its policy by assuring that it “does not limit a chaplain’s personal beliefs or ability to provide spiritual or religious care,” which is a false statement. If chaplains are prohibited from praying in contexts where prayer has historically been expected, their ability to exercise their ministry has, in fact, been narrowed.

This same new policy states that “the spiritual and moral health and well-being of CAF members are essential.” How do those faithful members of the CAF feel today, I wonder, when finding out how their command structure feels towards their choice of faith?

A better approach would be one that is rooted in the pluralistic thinking that emerged from thousands of years of thought and hard-won experience by western states. A wider array of prayers, offering value and meaning to more members of the CAF and the broader community, is of greater value than a one-size-fits-all Valedictorian speech.

This new policy is not the best use of the talents of our military chaplains and it doesn’t align with the job they were hired to do. Chaplains are not generic wellness coaches or motivational speakers. They are representatives of particular faith traditions invited into military life because service members seek spiritual care rooted in those traditions. Asking chaplains to set aside the very language of their faith in public settings misunderstands both the vocation of chaplaincy and the needs of those they serve.

CAF members are best supported when chaplains come to work as their whole selves, and when their leaders focus on the real issues. This is critical at a time when the CAF is facing decaying equipment, ammunition shortages, recruitment woes and an increasingly unsteady world.

It is our prayer that this policy will be revisited to ensure broader faith representation in public events. Because if there is anything the CAF needs now, it’s exactly that.

National Post

Brian Dijkema is the president of Cardus.

When does hate become terrorism? Answer: when it is orchestrated, repeatedly, to sow fear, cause chaos, and undermine society. One hateful act can be the work of a vengeful madman; a series of hateful acts, against the same community, conducted in a similar manner, constitute terrorism.

That is what Jews in Canada face today. Since October 7, 2023, B’nai Brith Canada has documented nearly 5,800 total incidents in 2023 and a record 6,800 incidents throughout 2025. By today’s stats, that’s one hate crime for every 487 Jewish residents. Jews are 22 times more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than non-Jewish Canadians

Take that in for a moment.

Jewish businesses, places of worship and schools have been shot at and vandalized. Jewish seniors’ homes, some of whom house Holocaust survivors, have been picketed by protesters chanting “So not negotiate with Israel, except with the gun” and “Go back to Europe.” Many Jews no longer feel safe in their neighbourhoods or even walking down Main Street.

And the apparent terrorists are getting bolder. Last week, two Jewish-owned businesses were attacked: two locations of Kiva’s Bagel Bar in Toronto were sprayed with gunfire , while Nöam restaurant in Montreal was burned to the ground . Diners at Kiva’s will look over their shoulder; patrons of Nöam can no longer eat there. Their daily lives are now singed with terror — which is exactly what the perpetrators of antisemitic crime want.

The violence demands a proportional response from lawmakers and law enforcement. But so far, Canada hasn’t had one.

Instead, the federal government treats antisemitism as hate-motivated crime, addressing it through legislative changes like the Combatting Hate Act , community security funding and the listing of specific violent groups as terrorist entities. After the Senate Committee on Human Rights issued a report recommending that the federal government create a task force on antisemitism, Ottawa instead launched the Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion — an umbrella group for all faiths, despite the fact that 71 per cent of faith-based hate crimes are directed against Jews.

As I have written previously , this response is wholly inadequate. Terrorism is not mere hate. Its scope and scale are much greater. And in Canada’s case, it is international.

In May 2026, U.S. federal prosecutors in New York charged 32-year-old Iraqi national Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood Al-Saadi, linked to Kata’ib Hezbollah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, with terrorism offences for attacks in Europe and Canada, including a March shooting at the American consulate in Toronto and a synagogue.

On July 27, the same week as the attacks on Kiva’s and Nöam, a gunman again fired bullets at the U.S. consulate. The Conservatives are now demanding that the federal government list Kata’ib Hezbollah as a terrorist entity.

That is the least Ottawa should do. To truly address this issue, it needs to go much further.

Prime Minister Mark Carney must declare antisemitic terrorism a national emergency. He should stop lumping it in with other forms of hatred and send the message that terrorism will not be tolerated, full stop.

The RCMP must create a dedicated national task force to deal with antisemitic terrorism. It should coordinate its efforts with foreign law enforcement to investigate and combat states and extremists working to destabilize Canada.

After the attack on Nöam, Illinois Congressman Paul Schneider, co-chair of the U.S. Congressional Jewish Congress, expressed his disgust and outrage at “yet another heinous attack on Jewish-owned business.” Yet in Montreal, police transferred the case to the arson squad, not even the hate crimes unit, because a person was seen leaving the building before the fire broke out.

These are not matters for local law enforcement. These acts are terrorism, and a community is being terrorized. All Canadians need to demand that our leaders step up and protect not just the Jewish community — but law and order itself.

National Post

British politics has become a farce, with Andy Burnham now the United Kingdom’s seventh prime minister in a decade. And no one knows what he really stands for or if he’ll even outlast the last six, as Daniel Hannan, head of the Institute of Economic Affairs and independent member of the House of Lords, tells Brian Lilley. They discuss the reason why so many prime ministers keep falling, and what the new Labour leader’s chances look like. They also get into the fates of Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative and Nigel Farage’s Reform parties, and why Hannan thinks they both need to take an important lesson from Canada’s Conservative party to beat Labour and start cleaning things up in Britain. (Recorded July 23, 2026.)

• Michael Murphy: Andy Burnham’s empty promise to ‘do more’ for the British people
• Michael Murphy: The left’s nasty race-fuelled attacks against Kemi Badenoch

The latest U.S.-Iran standoff has laid bare the outdated lens through which Washington continues to see the Middle East. For nearly a quarter-century, American policy in the region has been locked into the assumptions forged in the post-9/11 era.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks — when al-Qaida under Osama bin Laden killed almost 3,000 Americans — President George W. Bush launched the “War on Terror.” That campaign marked a decisive break from traditional military thinking. Instead of preparing primarily for clashes with rival states, the U.S. redirected its attention toward loosely organized terrorist networks like al-Qaida and later ISIS.

“Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them,” Bush told Congress just days after the 9/11 attacks. He went on to say that U.S. military action would begin with al-Qaida but continue “until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

That diagnosis shaped American strategy for a generation. For nearly 25 years, counterterrorism focused on dismantling decentralized extremist groups. Today, that framework no longer captures the realities of the Middle East. Instead, the region is increasingly defined by the return of sovereign states as the primary actors shaping its security and balance of power.

For decades, Iran extended its influence through proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis — allowing Tehran to pressure the U.S. and Israel while limiting the risk of direct retaliation. Containing those groups came to be treated as the practical equivalent of containing Iran itself. This is no longer the case.

Iran has not discarded its proxies, yet they are no longer its sole tool. Senior Iranian officials have openly linked any ceasefire with the U.S. to events in Lebanon. In doing so, Tehran has inverted a long-standing logic. For years Hezbollah functioned as Iran’s forward deterrent, a heavily armed buffer meant to raise the price of striking the Islamic Republic. Now Iran is seeking diplomatic cover to protect Hezbollah.

Rather than relying chiefly on surrogates, the Islamic Republic is increasingly prepared to use force directly. Early Wednesday, Iran launched a surprise attack on U.S. forces in Jordan which was successfully intercepted. After that strike, the naval arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced it detained three “offending” oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. This escalation follows the announcement that two U.S. soldiers in Jordan were killed last week while nearly 100 American service members have been wounded in Iranian strikes on bases across the region.

Iran is not alone. Across the Middle East, governments are investing in military capabilities designed for long-term strategic competition. Turkey has expanded its defence industry as an instrument of statecraft, while Saudi Arabia continues to strengthen its domestic military capabilities under Vision 2030.

Egypt provides another example. The construction of “The Octagon,” one of the world’s largest military headquarters, underscores the enduring centrality of the armed forces in Egyptian strategy. Israel has reached similar conclusions under different pressures. After nearly two years of intense regional fighting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that Israel must evolve into a more self-sufficient “super-Sparta.” At the same time, debates over manpower shortages and ultra-Orthodox draft exemptions have moved to the centre of the country’s national security conversation.

The pattern is difficult to ignore. Across the region, governments are preparing for a security environment in which states — not proxies — are increasingly shaping the balance of power.

Nor is this shift confined to the Middle East. Earlier this week, Ukraine claimed responsibility for striking vessels carrying Iranian military-linked cargo to Russia in the Caspian Sea, underscoring how interstate competition is increasingly shaping conflicts well beyond the region.

Terrorism has not vanished. Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS and other extremist groups remain serious threats. But counterterrorism can no longer serve as the central organizing principle of American strategy in the region when formal states are asserting themselves through force. American strategy must once again begin with sovereign states, because they are now the principal drivers of regional competition.

Washington has started to adjust — lifting some sanctions, deepening military partnerships and pursuing new regional arrangements. Isolated steps, however, do not add up to a coherent strategy. The framework through which these policies are made must be completely rethought.

The question is no longer simply whether the United States can deter Iran’s proxies. It is whether Washington is prepared for a Middle East in which states, not proxies, once again determine the regional balance of power.

National Post

Bradley Martin is the executive director of the Near East Center for Strategic Studies. Liram Koblentz-Stenzler is the head of the Global Extremism and Antisemitism Desk at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at Reichman University, Herzliya, and a visiting scholar at Brandeis University.