The Iran war spreads

Every idea starts with a problem.

Warby Parker's was simple.

Glasses are too expensive.

So, they set out to change that.

By designing glasses in-house and selling directly to customers,

they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted

and unexpectedly affordable.

Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials,

like impact-resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate.

And they start at just $95, including prescription lenses.

Get glasses made from the good stuff.

Stop by Warby Parker's store near you.

This is a CBC podcast.

Hey, it's Katie Simpson.

And what I'm not hosting power in politics,

I join live from Washington, where I break news from the White House,

do unscheduled interviews with senators.

And one time, I did fight a mouse.

It's as chaotic as our politics have been,

so if you want to keep up, follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

The deadly conflict in the Middle East intensifies,

risking a broader regional clash.

Canada backs the U.S. Israeli airstrikes in Iran,

but also pushes for a diplomatic solution.

It's Monday, March 2.

I'm Katie Simpson.

The Power and Politics podcast starts now.

The U.S. and Israel continue their intense

aerosol on Iran, prompting retaliation by Iranian forces,

which have struck American and Israeli interests,

including in neighboring Gulf countries.

And it appears a new front has opened.

Israel has targeted Hezbollah,

the Iranian-backed militant group in Lebanon.

The CBC's Crystal Commencing joins us now from Jerusalem Crystal.

Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us.

Israel and Hezbollah, the militant group,

are exchanging fire in the wake of this conflict.

What is the latest?

Well, Katie, it's widely believed that Israel will once again

send ground forces into Lebanon.

Israel Defense Forces spokesperson was asked about that tonight.

He did not confirm it, saying only that all options

are currently on the table.

The IDF did say that more than 70 sites were hit today

for throughout the day, including into tonight.

Those include weapons storage facilities,

missile launching locations, and missile launchers.

Exactly how long this operation will go.

We don't know.

They did sign a ceasefire agreement.

Israel and Lebanon back in November 2024.

Obviously, that is no longer an effect.

It was earlier today when Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy,

fired towards Israel, prompting this response.

Now, the IDF is saying that the main focus is Iran.

That is their core focus, but they say they will respond

to any threats coming from any location.

And when that initial launch came in towards Israel,

they said that they ordered forces to go after Hezbollah

with as much force as possible.

So it is ratcheting up on that side of this front,

a new front being added in.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

who spent the day, part of the day anyway,

at the direct missile strike location in Bet Shimesh.

That's about 30 kilometers west of Jerusalem.

He toured the destruction, talked about the pain

that Israelis are experiencing, but also reminded people

once again what this war is about.

When I stand here in a place that was bombarded

by the terrorist in Tehran against innocent civilians,

you see the difference.

The tyrants of Tehran target civilians.

We target the tyrants of Tehran to protect civilians.

I've said for many years that they threatened not only Israel

and not only America.

They chant death to Israel, death to America.

That's their ultimate target.

At that location, nine people were killed on Sunday,

including a number of children Katie.

And Crystal, we also heard from Israel's opposition leader

who visited one of the attack sites.

You were there.

What is his political positioning?

Yeah, the leader of the opposition, Yarlupid,

was also at that same site.

His visit was actually delayed because while he was walking around

taking a look at the destruction,

there was an air raid alert siren,

so he was rushed off to a different area for a little bit.

But he talked about expressing sympathies to the families

who lost loved ones.

But unlike what we would normally see

between these two politicians, he said,

no, there is no daylight here.

He expressed to the prime minister

that he has his full support for this operation.

The entire state of Israel is behind our security forces

and the government in this war.

It's a just war against a vicious enemy.

And we are also thankful and full of admiration

to the leadership of President Trump on the issue.

We wish the people of Iran, if possible,

we will help them get rid of this terror organization

that pretends to be the regime of Iran.

Now you heard him say that maybe they'll be able to rise up.

Maybe they can offer help.

He did not respond to questions about how that could possibly happen.

What sort of measures would be offered

to ensure people who did rise up could actually overpower

the incredibly powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard?

All right, Crystal Gamancing.

Thank you very much.

Crystal Gamancing in Jerusalem.

Thank you.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says,

Canada supports the latest U.S. action in Iran.

Canada's position on the developments in the Middle East remains clear.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability

and terror throughout the Middle East.

It has one of the world's worst human rights records

and must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.

Canada supports the United States

acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon

and to prevent its regime from further threatening

international peace and security.

To take a closer look at what the Prime Minister had to say,

I'm joined now by Bob Rae, Canada's former ambassador to the U.N.

Thank you very much for joining us today, Mr. Rae.

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada does support

the American military action targeting Iran.

Do you think that's the right move for the Canadian Prime Minister?

Well, I think the Prime Minister's statement,

you need to add to that.

I think the comments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs made

to over the last 24 hours where she made it very clear

and so did Mr. Carney, that Canada is not a party to this at the moment.

Canada has not militarily involved and we're not engaged in that way.

And I think the kind of focus which the government will now be moving to

is to look at what can we do diplomatically to try to find a way

out the other end of this.

Their regime change from 50,000 feet is not something that that happens.

And I do think it has to be clear that even the effort

to find a solution by bombing alone,

the Americans in the Israelis tried that seven years ago,

a seven months ago and that didn't work.

So we're going to have to find a way through international institutions

like the Atomic Energy Agency and others to find ways to make sure that Iran will agree

to a monitoring of whatever activities that has with regard to nuclear energy

and to make sure that Iran doesn't build a bomb and that they're not capable of building a bomb.

That will require diplomacy and frankly international law and legality

as much as anything else.

And so we've got to be thoughtful about this as we go forward.

Canada's role, since we're not a military party, this has to be to be talking with other

countries about how we can find a longer term, more secure, better solution to the current

security crisis than the one that has been going on.

I was going to say, do you what sort of role do you, is there a role for Canada as a middle

power being involved sort of on the diplomacy front for Canada to play?

Is there a role for Canada to play in this moment with that in context?

Absolutely, not alone.

Canada is not going to do this alone, but Canada needs to be looking at how can we

together through the G7, through other countries in the region with whom we have very strong

relationships. How can we create a frame that says, okay, what do you think the end game is?

And there's something we have to say to both our American friends as well as to

to the Israelis and others. This conflict is spreading. It has the potential to cause

substantial economic damage if the straits of our moves are closed.

Oil won't be getting out. Oil prices have already jacked up.

And a regime that is cornered and is hit as badly as it has been over the last couple of days

is not a regime that's likely to do anything than just fire back as desperately and as strongly as

they possibly can. And so we do have to understand the risks that are being run when you start a war

in the way in which this one has been started and understand that it is going to be challenging

to get us to a situation where we can talk about what does the victory look like?

How quickly could a change in government take place realistically?

The people of Iran have no guns. They have no arms. They have no missiles. They have no drones.

They have almost no military capacity. And there's 30,000 young,

principally young women and men who've been killed in the streets over the last several months.

And I know people say, oh, now that the bombing has started and the supreme leader is dead and

his whole team is dead, you know, that gives us great cause for hope. Well, strategy without

resources is not called hope. It's called hallucination. We need to understand what it actually

takes to do the stuff things that people talk very in very loud language about what they want to do.

The reality is getting Iran's military nuclear capacity, the capacity of its missiles

down and under control is something that requires agreement from those people who are in positions

to enforce an agreement. How do you get there? Right now we're far away on all sides.

But I think it would be no question that Canada doesn't think Iran should have a nuclear weapon.

That's where we signed the anti-proliferation treaty. We believe that new other countries

should not be getting into the nuclear business. We want to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons,

not augment nuclear weapons. But we also need to understand that solutions have to be found

that ultimately have a chance of succeeding. The obliteration tactic was used seven months ago.

Normally when something is obliterated, it stays obliterated for a little longer than seven months.

So we've got to understand that a purely military solution is not likely to have a long-term

lasting impact on the region of a positive kind. And we're beginning to see the depth of the

ferocity of the response that's coming from both sides. And you need to ask yourself the question,

is this really going to produce a solution that's going to make us all more secure?

I want to pick up on a couple of things you said in that answer there. First of all, you sort of

mentioned, what do you think the end game is here based on what you've heard from Donald Trump so

far, based on what you've heard from Benjamin Netanyahu so far? What do you think the end game is?

And in the context of part of that answer where you sort of suggested, you're unclear whether there's

a long-term plan here besides the immediate. Can you sort of expand upon that?

Reporters have to be very careful not to ask me to expand. I'll keep you here for a couple of

hours, Katie. Let me just be brief. I believe honestly that the end game in the minds of I saw

Pete Hegs' exests statement this morning. I have listened to everything President Trump and

Prime Minister Netanyahu have said. I understand completely that for Israel there is a powerful

desire to defang the capacity of Iran to wreak havoc on the Israeli people. I understand that

completely. But you have to ask yourself, is a purely military solution going to produce this?

Is that what is going to produce the security that Israel needs and wants? We all want Israel to be

secure. And we also, by the way, want Palestinian people to have their own country. So

those are things that we need to keep in our upper most center minds as we look at what is it going

to take to get to a solution that's going to be provide for greater security for all the people in

the region. As far as the United States is concerned, I hear two things. One is obviously to

disempower any nuclear or missile capacity of Iran, which has been the position of the U.S.

for a very long time. Well, they negotiated that under President Obama and then President

Trump tore up the equipment that had been negotiated and said there will be no negotiation.

And so, the result is finding a military solution. As I said, they tried the obliteration

tactic hasn't worked. It's like, this is not like mowing the lawn. It has serious consequences

for human life. And civilian life, let's remember, has been lost on both sides. And we'll continue

to be lost. And on all sides, as this conflict potentially spreads. So the talk of regime change

is another story. We all would love to see a democratic pluralistic Iran. But you have to

continue to ask yourself the question, how is that going to happen? It isn't going to happen

as a result of a bombing campaign from the air. And the willingness on the part of

nation-states to engage in a boots on the ground strategy in Iran is not going to work. Look at

what happened in Iraq. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. We have to learn some lessons for how

we deal with countries that are facing this level of extremism and this level of terrible governance

and terrible treatment of women and denial of human rights. We went into Afghanistan thinking we

were fighting for freedom and for better governance. And we ended up with a Taliban back again.

So we've got to be careful to learn from mistakes and also to learn some common sense lessons.

There's no evidence anywhere in history of a country being bombed into regime change

from 50,000 feet. It doesn't happen. Even people would say to me, well, what about Japan at the end

of the Second World War? You say, well, first of all, don't think anybody's talking about a nuclear

strategy. But secondly, don't forget the Americans have to fight mile by mile and other allies

going from island to island to island for three and a half, four years before the war was finally

in a position to be ended by the dropping of two nuclear bombs. So we're not. This is

this is difficult, painful stuff. And I'm really worried that we're raising hopes,

creating expectations, which frankly, I don't think either the United States or the Israelis

have the capacity or the willingness, frankly, to take it on to that extent. And even then we have

to understand regime change is a very difficult thing to do. And I'm not opposed to it. In fact,

I'm in favor of it. I'd love to see the regime change in Iran. But I don't think we should be

holding out an objective that is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve without an

extraordinary loss of life. Former Ambassador Ray, thank you very much for your insight and analysis

today. Well, thank you, Katie. I'm sure it'll get me into the trouble that I usually get into,

but thank you very much. Thanks.

The fallout after the U.S. and Israel launch strikes on Iran quickly spread through the region.

These are the locations where Iran launched retaliatory attacks this weekend. You can see

a cluster of targets in Israel and a number of other attacks in countries like Kuwait, Qatar,

and UAE and as far south as Oman.

And this is eyewitness video from Lebanon that's been verified by Reuters, though the exact

time it was recorded still has not yet been confirmed. Israel launched waves of attacks on Beirut

and Southern Lebanon today after Hezbollah targeted an Israeli military base early this morning.

Hezbollah said it was seeking revenge for the killing of Iran's supreme leader.

To get a closer look at what this means and whether more parts of the Middle East could

become engulfed in this conflict, we are joined by Rhonda Salim, the director of the Middle East

program at the Stimston Center, a Washington-based think tank. And she joins us now from Beirut,

Lebanon. Thank you very much for joining us because you are in Beirut right now. I want to

start with, you know, are you okay? Are you in a safe spot to talk to us and what has it been

like over the last 24 hours for you? Yeah, I'm in a relatively safe spot. I mean, if you,

you know, travel around the country, some parts of the country, away from the southern

suburbs of Beirut, it's pretty safe. People aren't taking walks along the Kurdish, you know,

by the sea. They are going to restaurants, but there is definitely tension in the air.

You don't see as much traffic. We did not see as much traffic today, as we usually see

on a typical Monday morning. And so the feeling that the country is really now facing very dangerous

times, there was hope among the majority of the Lebanese that the country will not be dragged into

the ongoing confrontation between the US, Israel and Iran. And the decision yesterday by

to launch rockets and missiles at Israel was, was, is being seen by, again, the majority of the,

of the Lebanese as stupid, so we side the, depending on who you talk with. There is a lot of anger

that's being aired on social media, in private conversation, on TV, by Lebanese about why

that has, Allah make this decision and drag the country into yet another world.

I imagine that there are citizens in a number of Gulf countries that are, there are afraid that

their countries too could get dragged into this sort of growing conflict. From your perspective,

is that sort of inevitable that the pace this is moving at right now, that this is only going to

get broader and become longer and sustained? Yes, I think the battlefield is expanding. We are

saying now pro-Iran militias in Iraq launching drones at, you know, at Kuwait or threatening to

launch drones at Kuwait, threatening to expand the battlefield to Jordan and launch missiles at Jordan.

We are seeing potentially the Houthis of Yemen, which have not yet decided to join the fight,

maybe, you know, soon join this fight and expand again, and they would be resuming then their

attacks on Red Sea shipping, on other US military installation in the region. So it's definitely

expanding. The trend of escalation is worrying, to say the least, and what we see based on what

Iranian officials have been saying is that for them, the plan is to increase the cost on US

allies in the region through these attacks on not only US bases, but also civilian areas,

neighborhood, residential neighborhoods, residential towers, hotels, ports, civilian airports.

And so they want to increase the cost on these allies and hoping that these allies will then turn

around and start pressuring the United States to de-escalate and to seek a diplomatic off-ramp.

On the diplomatic off-ramp efforts, Canada is calling for that. Canada has made it very clear

it supports the US military action, though it is not involved in that or was a party to any

information before it began, but it is pushing to see this find some sort of diplomatic

resolution. What are the options going forward to get people to serious conversations to find an

off-ramp? The difficulty right now is that it's not clear what are the objectives of the United

States and Israel in this war. Last Saturday, when President Trump spoke to the American public

about when the operation was launched, he talked of regime change. Today, we hear Secretary of

War, Mr. Hexat, we hear Secretary of State, Mr. Rubio walk back or walk away from this narrative

of a regime change. Now they are talking about de-capitating Iranian missile production

capacities, attacking its navy and its ability to represent, to be ever become a threat again

to the United States, although it's not clear, what was the imminent threat that Iran represented

to the United States once we launched this operation, or to its allies in the region,

chief among them, Israel. So in order to engage in negotiation and seek a diplomatic off-ramp,

we need to first understand what are the objectives of the war and what are the success criteria

that the parties that have launched the war and that are active in this war are seeking.

And on this basis, we can start thinking about a diplomatic off-ramp and I think we are not there

yet. I don't think the American or the Israelis are yet ready to engage in this diplomatic off-ramp.

So you mentioned it there, the narrative from the United States. It has changed a number of times

in terms of what it is they say their goals are. What sort of impact does that have when it's unclear

what the Americans who were working with these Israelis as this attack, this effort was launched?

What does that have an impact? What does that do?

I mean, it creates uncertainty. For example, when you talk with officials in Gulf countries,

which are at the receiving end of this of this war, partly this war is being re-waged on their

territories by Iran to try to again increase the cost for the United States. I mean,

they are confused. I mean, and that's the first thing they say to you. What are the objectives?

Because then the objectives will define the success criteria and the success criteria will be

able to give us an idea about the timetable, about the timeline. Initially, we heard the US

president talking about a few days. Now we are talking about a few weeks. Now he's even leaving

the option of putting boots on the ground in Iran as being out there, which I don't think he's

going to do, but he's leaving it as an option. In the beginning, he said, no, no, no, there is no

protracted work. So it creates uncertainty about the way forward and it creates, it makes it

very difficult for the parties, especially in the region, to assess how this is going to evolve,

to assess risk, and then also to start laying the ground for this diplomatic offram. Because

they are the most interested in this diplomatic offram. They want this war to end as soon as possible.

Their economies are being affected. Their citizens are being affected. And so I think that's what,

that's what's the problem. And now with, for example, in the case of Lebanon, in the case of

Hasballah, again, it's a country that, I mean, the people in this country, again, don't know where

where the country is heading, don't know where Hasballah is going to take them. So there is a sense

of confusion in the region about, you know, about where this is going and when this is going to end.

Okay, I will leave the conversation there for now. Thank you very much, Ronda Salim, with the

Stimson Center. Thank you. You're looking at eyewitness video from Southern Lebanon,

verified by Reuters, though the exact time is unclear. Israel is carrying it attacks against

Hasbullah targets after Hasbullah fired drones and missiles at Israel. It's one of the new fronts

of this war opened after the U.S. and Israel launched aerosol and aerosol on Iran that continues

today. Adrian Arsno is the CBC's chief correspondent. She's in Tel Aviv. Adrian, thank you so much

for taking the time to speak with us. You're following the events there on the ground, but all across

the region, what is the latest? Well, hi there, Katie. It's been an interesting, slightly tense

hour and a half or so. There were just alerts here in Tel Aviv and in the Dead Sea region that

sent people once again scrambling into their shelters. That came mere minutes after there were

reports of two explosions near the broadcasting facilities in Tehran. There were also explosions

in a southern neighborhood of Beirut. The Israelis had issued evacuation orders for both of those

locations. It wasn't long after that that we then saw rockets being fired from Iran back here

into Israel. So additionally, also over the course of last hour, so there's been this very

unusual order from the U.S. State Department telling Americans in some 14 countries to leave

right now. So just think of the scale of that 14 countries and how quickly this is escalated.

You started talking about Lebanon and that user video of the strikes in Lebanon. There were more

than 70 strikes on sites in Lebanon over the last day. Largely aimed at the funding arm of Hezbollah

and all that happened after Hezbollah fired rockets and drones into Israel signaling, you know,

yet really another type of widening of this war since Saturday, since it started. The question

had been, when will the proxies join? These allies of Iran that are considered the axis of resistance,

Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, militias in Iraq, no sign of the Houthis so far, but Hezbollah

is definitely now involved. And if we step back a little bit, Katie, the expansion of this conflict

in just 72 hours is nothing short of astonishing. In terms of the effects here in Israel, as a few

hours ago, Israelis had counted nearly 112 waves of attacks. If you compare that to what happened

last June, the 12-day war with Iran, that was very different. Those Iranian strikes were aimed at

largely military sites. This is a lot more scattered. Residential areas are more vulnerable right now.

People have been largely kept in their shelters for longer stretches of the day and night. So

this is very different. And of course, you know, these unprecedented Iranian strikes against

the Gulf States, initially US bases. And then we were looking at energy infrastructure in places

like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and then of course we saw this happening

in Cyprus. So that expansion to Cyprus, hitting a British Air Force base, which is important,

because the UK was going to let the US use that base represents an expansion of countries and

expansion of targets and an amping of the violence here. So what are the consequences of

hitting Gulf States like this? I think there are a couple of things. You know, any expansion

increases chances of mistakes, missignals, communications problems. You saw that today with

the downing of three US aircraft in Kuwait. It was Kuwaitis who shot them down. It was a mistake.

I thought it was something else. It also puts the Gulf States in this really difficult spot.

Many had been pushing for diplomatic ends for a piecement. But now they're trying to decide whether

they need to get more involved directly. If you look at Qatar, it's shot down to Iranian fighter jets

saying, hey, we are actively defending ourselves. But now it's saying, you know what,

we're going to go after Iran actively if the attacks continue. That is a very different

posture for Qatar. So it's really hard to know that Iranians are thinking or who is making the

decisions. If this moment is perceived as an end of day's threat to Iran and to the regime,

they may see that there is nothing to lose, that they have to throw everything they have

at preserving the regime. Or maybe they're hoping that dragging the Gulf States into it puts pressure

on the US to stop. I think in terms of the rest of the world, huge economic blows happening here

with the prices of oil, any goods that typically move through the state of Hormuz, which is, you know,

effectively in a standstill now, Iran saying it will set fire to any vessel that tries to go

through it. Qatar saying it's going to halt production of natural gas. So maybe that's an incentive

to try to find an answer. But, you know, you've heard the American talking points and the Israeli

ones too, that the language is of finishing this. It is the weaponry doing the talking. And if you

listen to Ali Larjani, who's effectively the name and face of the Iranian regime now, negotiations

are definitely not on the table. So what will you be watching for in the hours and the days ahead,

Adrian? I think it's interesting to hear the United States describe it as potentially being a

five-week-long campaign. What will determine that? A couple key things. What sort of missiles and

munitions do we see Iran using? What is the cost of intercepting them? The air defense systems

and the Gulf States are really stretched. Qatar says at the rate of what it is intercepting now,

it maybe only has four days worth of interceptors left. They're extremely expensive. Sometimes like

10 times the value of the weapons being shot down and there isn't an endless supply of them. So

how does that end? How do those interceptions end? Let's watch to the strikes inside Iran.

Israel uses this language today of standing in strikes, which basically just means they've been

able to directly drop explosives right onto targets from above. That sends a signal that it has

control of the airspace over Iran right now. What's it going to do with that? And Adrian, what is the

latest on Canadians that are in the sort of effective region? There are a lot of them. I think in terms

of Canadians and current residents in the region, Canada thinks there are at least 85,000 Canadians

scattered around. A huge proportion of them are in the United Arab Emirates. That might be a conservative

figure. So Canada needs to figure out how do you stay on top of their needs? It's urging people not

to travel to the region. We're not yet at the point where Canada is talking about evacuations,

but we're only three days into this war. So think about how much has already changed and what

may happen yet. Adrian Arsno is CBC's chief correspondent. Thank you so much, Adrian. You'll be

hosting the National tonight from Tel Aviv. You bet. Thousands of Iranian Canadians rallyed

across Canada this weekend, calling this a moment of hope for their homeland. The removal of

this region means one thing and one thing only. Freedom for Iranians, freedom and peace for the

Middle East and beyond. Large gatherings have appeared in many major cities. Some describe the

U.S.-Israeli military action that killed Iran's supreme leader as a step toward freedom and

regime change. But celebrations are also being met with concern as uncertainty over how Iran will

move forward our top of mind. Pyam Aquavan is a human rights chair of the University of Toronto's

Massey College and a former UN prosecutor at the Hague. He joins us now. Thank you very much

for speaking with us. Let's just start with what you've been hearing from Iranians both

in Iran and outside of the country. Thank you, Katie. The Iranian people are profoundly

traumatized. In January, they were subject to what was known the less than an extermination

campaign in which an estimated 35,000 largely peaceful protesters were killed on the streets

of Tehran, Shiraz Eswan throughout the country. And now there is a war which invariably

will have catastrophic effects also on civilians. Nonetheless, a significant element of the Iranians

are celebrating these attacks simply because of their desperation, their desperation to put an end

to the Islamic Republic. The question remains whether there is an endgame, there is a strategy

to these attacks. But the most important dimension of the

impending and the Islamic Republic is the rebuilding of the one secular democracy. So it's

easier to get rid of a regime much more difficult to transform and rebuild the country. And that

will be I think the focus of the Iranian people in the months ahead. You sort of talked about

concerns around what the strategy sort of is from the US, from Israel, what the endgame is there.

How does that sort of juxtapose to the possible hope that maybe this is the start of a change to

the step toward regime change that so many people have wanted for so long?

Well, first of all, the Iranian people are not naive. They know that the United States and

Israel, just like Russia and China and the Gulf Arab nations, they have their own interests and

their interests are not necessarily that of the Iranian people. So in the long run, the Iranian

people will have to have an opportunity at genuine self-determination. But leaving that aside,

I think that what is essential now is to the extent possible a peaceful transition

that to the extent possible is orderly and not a situation where the country disintegrates

into chaos and large scale revenge killings and the sort of scenarios that we've seen in other conflicts.

Are you getting a sense of there were some initial difficulties with people being able to connect

with loved ones in Iran right now? Are we getting a sense at all as to whether the communications

are improving and people based in Canada or anywhere else in the world are able to better connect

with their loved ones that they might be concerned about in this moment?

There have been since the mass killings in January very severe internet restrictions.

So it remains difficult to communicate with people within the country and the situation is very fluid.

There are reports of killings in the streets when some of the jubilant crowds came

out in the streets to celebrate, in fact, the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the

Hamanay. There were also reports of the security forces killing people in the streets.

So the situation is very vital and Iran is a very big country as well. So the situation may be

very different let's say in the Kurdish regions in the west as opposed to the Balut regions

in the east and many of us are trying to get as much information as possible on what is actually

transpiring. Canada has shown support for the American efforts to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In this moment I'm wondering if you can start with your reaction to that and whether you see

any sort of role to play for Canada when it comes to the seeking of a diplomatic solution.

Canada has said it will not get involved militarily at this point.

Well apparently a diplomatic solution has failed. That is why we are witnessing this horrible

situation. Not only that but from the perspective of the Iranian people,

the opportunities at democratic transition have proved futile. Time and again the Islamic Republic

has confronted peaceful protests and demands for change with violent repression. So that is

the context in which we find ourselves. But I must say that the interests of the foreign powers

may be elimination of the nuclear threat and Iran's support for Hezbollah and other groups

in the region. But that is not the same as helping to empower the Iranian people to achieve

a democratic transition which is the only way in which we can have long-term stability in Iran.

And I do believe that countries like Canada and other middle powers, so to say,

would have a very important role to play in helping channel the many constructive forces which

exist. Iran has a very highly educated youthful population, a vibrant civil society,

the strongest feminist movement, ironically, in the Middle East. So when the time comes,

it will be very important to give those people a voice, to rebuild their country and not just

focus on neutralizing the nuclear issue, which of course is an important question of security,

but that is not what is going to solve the problem in the long run.

All right, Puyam Akhavon, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Katie.

There's one place for the newest drops in wellness and performance and the biggest sale of the year.

It's the drop by GNC, curating the best of what's new, handpicked by the pros who know what works.

And right now, get it all by one, get 150% off during the semi-annual live-well sale,

from crushing workouts to leveling up to nutrition and everything in between,

get the best deals on the latest innovations. All the newness is all on sale right now

during the live-well sale on the drop by GNC.

Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson, host of the Daily News podcast, Frontburner.

I got this really cool note from a listener the other day. They wrote,

I find myself torn between the desire to understand the world around me and the

anxiety associated with the easily-access barrage of terrible news. And yet, amidst the torrent,

there lies a sweet spot called Frontburner. This is exactly why we make the show.

So you don't get swept away in a tide of overwhelming news.

So follow Frontburner wherever you get your podcasts.

President Donald Trump is laying out the path for the US and Israel's war on Iran,

saying the goals are to destroy Iran's missiles, the Navy, nuclear capabilities,

and its ability to sponsor terror. And the timeline is, as long as it takes.

Right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks.

But we have capability to go far longer than that. We'll do it. Whatever somebody said today,

they said, oh well, President wants to do it really quickly. After that, he'll get bored.

I don't get bored. There's nothing boring about this.

This weekend, Prime Minister Mark Carney said,

Canada supports US action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

But earlier today, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Annan said, this isn't how Canada wants to get there.

We prefer a diplomatic solution. This is why I have spent the last two days

speaking with my counterparts across the Middle East and in the Gulf States. And all of my G7

counterparts stressing that Canada believes in a diplomatic and peaceful solution.

And as soon as possible, we would like parties to get to the table.

So is there still an option to even get to the table? Joining me now is Dennis Horak.

He was the last Canadian head of mission in Iran. Kaveh Shahruz is a lawyer and human rights activist

and a former senior policy adviser for Global Affairs Canada. And Tomad Juno is a professor

of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. Dennis, I'm going to start with you.

I want to sort of start on the timing of this. Do we have a better sense at this point in time

of why the US and Israel decided to do this now? What was it about now?

There's been various reports floating around. One was that the last round on negotiations

that the Iranians were playing negotiation games and that there was no movement towards bridging

the gap on enrichment. Other reports I've seen were that the US saw that the

hominay and the leadership had come above ground and we're all in one spot and then it was a

target of opportunity. I think it's really hard to say. I think at a certain point, the US had

assets in there for a while and they had moved the other asset into the Mediterranean and I think

they just said, okay, we might as well do it now. It's hard to sometimes pin bite down the

American administration on details like that, I think.

Kavi, do you have any sense of why Israel and the US decided to go now?

Good to be with you. I want to echo what the Ambassador said. It's often very difficult to know why

Donald Trump does anything when he chooses to do it. I've seen the same news reports indicating

that the Supreme Leader and his defense team were gathering at their bunker and that seemed to

provide an opportunity for them to act. I mean, the buildup had been going on for a long time.

My sense is that the feeling was that there was never going to be really a nuclear deal to arrive

at and so this seemed like the opportunity and time to take action. And Tomah, I saw you nodding along

there when Kavi said, you know, you can't really necessarily predict what Donald Trump is going to do.

Are we sort of in one of those moments again? We are. We are in terms of trying to understand

what exactly triggered the precise moment. I would agree with what my two colleagues just said.

And I think the same goes for the next steps. What exactly is the objective for President Trump?

If you collate a list of what he has said in the past 72 hours or so, he has talked about

regime change. He has talked about diminishing and eliminating, you know, Iran's nuclear program.

It's missile capability, it's ability to support terrorist groups in the region,

but he has also openly talked about reaching out or being reached out to by Iran's new leadership

and to start working again on a deal. So there is a lot of confusion now in terms of how long will

this go and what is the end game? And there's a bit of a tendency sometimes to dismiss that debate

as being academic or theoretical, but it's not because what the objective is for the US matters not

only in terms of what is going on now, but more importantly, what happens once that objective

is reached or not reached, which is when there needs to be a plan. There needs to be a plan in

terms of a next government for Iran if we go all the way to regime collapse. If we don't go all

the way to regime collapse and there is a deal or something that means that the regime survives,

well, then how are we going to deal with what is going to be a weaker, but probably even more

dangerous reconfigured regime after that? So these are really important debates to which

we have really no answer at all. Dennis, something that Tomas pointed out there, the confusion

around what the US end goal is at this point, is that something that actually helps President

Donald Trump? Because if you name all different kinds of goals for the outcome or the end game

of this military operation, you can sort of shift the goal post to whatever sort of suits you to

get to where you need to be to call something a win. I think that's absolutely right. He's

retained some flexibility. Whether there is a grand plan, whether there is a grand list of

objectives that they haven't shared with us, don't know, as you said, they've sort of put out

a whole laundry list. So it does provide some flexibility. I think we also have to consider here

what are these really objectives? What is there? What is the criteria for success for them

declaration of victory? Obviously, the US will have the upper hand in that, but I think they will

be working with the Israelis as well. And so, again, we don't know what the criteria of victory are.

They could just pull one out of that and say, I'm done with it. We just don't know.

Kavi, what do you make of the lack sort of of clarity about what the long term objective here is,

as well as the long-term timeline? Well, I think the cynical take is that Donald Trump

himself doesn't really know what his objectives are. He's playing it by ear. He's

testing out how this war will pull what it's effectively going to be on the markets.

Already, we're seeing oil prices go up. Six US servicemen seem to have been killed so far.

That's obviously going to impose a cost on Donald Trump politically. So, by listing all these

different possible objectives, if the war proves popular, he can keep going. If it proves unpopular,

he can pull back saying we've achieved our limited objectives. So he seems to be playing again,

but I do think though that a lot of these things are interconnected, achieving an end to Iran's

nuclear program, achieving an end to its ballistic missile program, and a change in regime. I think

it's really important to think of these things as being interlinked. I don't think there is any

part of this regime that is going to simply get along with the West. It's going not going to become

pro-Western, pro-Israeli. So I think any segment of this regime is going to continue to pose

a threat to the West, and ultimately, I think to achieve those objectives,

regime change really has to be on the table. Tomorrow, in the response that we've seen from

what's left of the Iranian regime is some airstrikes targeting that have hit and struck

some of the Gulf nations. How successful could it be to sort of pressure those Gulf states

if they get dragged into this conflict? What can that do to build pressure on the US and Israel

to perhaps change course? Well, the strategy, the intent on the Iranian side was transparent here,

the threat was if the US is actively pursuing regime change, and the threat is existential

for the Islamic Republic, which it is absolutely now. Iran will unleash most of what it has

all over the place. So it has targeted, obviously, Israel. It has targeted US military assets in

the region, but it has also hit very hard the six Arab states of the Persian Gulf. So the pro-American

oil rich Saudi Arabia, UAE Qatar, Bahrain Oman, and Kuwait. The strategy on the Iranian side is

to hurt them. So the vast majority of the several hundred missiles and drones that Iran has sent on

them hit residential areas, urban areas. It has an and not American military assets. That's only

been a small minority of the strikes. And the point is to hurt them, lead them so that they go to the US,

their friend, and pressure the US to stop the problem. That was the strategy. The problem is that

it is exactly the opposite that is going on right now. Arab states of the Gulf are absolutely

enraged right now at being targeted so hard by Iran. And I've been texting with a lot of my

friends and colleagues in the Gulf today, and yesterday, and that is the reaction. And the issue

here is that they have responded not by pressuring the US to stop, but by aligning themselves even

more closely with the US. So for Iran, it has basically, not for the first time, but shot itself

in the foot by hurting regimes that initially were somewhat reluctant, somewhat reluctant to

support the US. Dennis, is that your assessment as well? I think that's right. The idea is to raise

the costs. And it has back for the moment, if the cost for the back do go up, if oil facilities

in Saudi Arabia are hit. And if the streets or humours remain closed for a substantial amount of

time, I'm doubtful of that, but to say it does, then the cost, you could see the Gulf states start

to say to the US. Let's find an off-rank here. But for the moment, and Iran really had this was

in their playbook all along. When back into a corner, when really facing the existential crisis,

they're facing now, the idea was to lash out, was to cause as much damage to the neighboring states,

to stability in the region, to the international oil markets. They're doing the best at making that

happen. We've seen some, you know, scenes playing out all over the world, Iranians that are

living in different places, many cases have fled, celebrating the death of the Iatola, the Supreme

Leader, rooting for regime change, but also mixed with this undercurrent of fear and concern around

the uncertainty of this moment, especially in light of what happened in January. What has happened

time and time again with the regime cracking down on protesters in the streets and murdering

people in the streets? You know, in this moment, is there sort of a spark of momentum that perhaps

this could be the start of what could end up being a very long process toward regime change?

I think certainly there's a spark. Certainly, I think part of the reason why so many are

celebrating, and I don't think it's just outside the country. I think inside the country, some

of the videos that are coming out show people celebrating when, when bombs hit. The reason they're

happy is that for the first time, despite the potential for, for civilian casualties, despite the

destruction, for the first time, they're sensing hope that there is a possibility that this regime might

fall. This is something that Iranians have wanted for a very long time, and they've been increasingly

vocal about it over the years, and the international community by and large as a band in them that's made

deals with the Iranian regime. Donald Trump, for all his faults, has finally come through and done

something that offers a glimmer of hope. So I think that spark is going to, you know, keep them

motivated and keep them pushing for regime change. Tom, can that happen if the United States doesn't

get involved on the ground? I hope, but I fear that it won't. I think that the hope is real, and I think,

as Covi just said, there is a window of opportunity now, unlike in the past, for the regime to actually

fall. But that raises several questions, and these are not mutually exclusive views or dynamics.

One of them is the severe possibility. I think that Donald Trump would throw Iranians under the bus.

I can see a scenario where Trump ends up basically declaring victory, as we said a few minutes ago,

and saying, you know what, this war is too complicated. Oil prices are going up. It's going to

cost me at the midterms, and he basically stops and declare victory, and says we've achieved our

objectives, in which case the Islamic Republic survives, and the Iranians in the country, but also in

the diaspora, are basically thrown under the bus. The other scenario, which I also fear, is if Donald

Trump goes all the way, the regime falls, and then what happens next? The ideal scenario is a new

system takes over, ideally a democratic one, but the alternative is either a reconfiguration of the

regime, maybe centered around the revolutionary guard, which might be even worse than what we have now,

or chaos. And I want to be careful here to say that this is not a viewed as a threat,

or as an argument in favor of not doing anything. This is an argument in favor of being very

cautious about what comes next, mindful of the risks, and calling for preparation for the post-Islamic

Republic context, which I do not see the current Trump administration doing in any serious way.

Dennis, we have about a minute and a half left here. I want to put that same question to you

about regime change. You know, is it possible without American support on the ground, or in the

long run to sort of make this happen? Even with American support, unless it was massive as we saw

in Iraq, I don't see how it happens. It's hard to see the path from, okay, we've eliminated the

leadership, Iranians walk in and take over your government, as the president said. I don't see

what that path is from A to B. I'm not sure the Americans do either. I'm not sure, and as Thomas

said, I'm not sure that that's going to be a driving force for them. In any case, I think there was

a lot of hope in the American's comments. I don't know that the leader, the opposition, I don't think

is as united as somehow sometimes is portrayed on the streets of Toronto and other places. They're

fractious. They've tried to have coalesce in the past, not overly successfully. So I'm not really

sure where, how we get from A to B. I also worry a little bit that if there is a sort of a Venice

wave, a kind of situation where they clear out the people at the top, they get a much more

quiet government that comes in somehow, and then the U.S. starts crushing them for oil deals and

things like that. That also overly complicates things. Yeah, sorry. Oh, I'm going to have to jump

in because we have run out of time, but there's plenty more to talk about. I suspect I will talk

with all three of you again later this week. Thank you so much for your time, Dennis Horak,

Tomadu, Juno, and Kavai Sharus. Thank you so much.

That's it for today, and if you like this episode, please follow the pod,

and you can catch our next live show on CBC News Network. We're on weekdays at 5 p.m. Eastern.

I'm Katie Simpson. Thanks for listening.

For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca-podcasts.