It is hard to imagine a scenario in which Canada would support an unprovoked military attack against a foreign country without a clear narrative and purpose, an extensive coalition, and an international mandate.

We stayed out of Vietnam. We stayed out of the second Gulf War in Iraq. We followed our obligations under NATO article 5 in Afghanistan. We have not been perfect in the shadow of American imperialism, but Canada has by and large tried to do the right thing when it comes to military intervention. It was not that long ago that we were known for our peacekeeping, the development of which earned Lester B. Pearson the Nobel Peace Prize before he was Prime Minister.

It’s puzzling, then, that Canada’s official position comes across as a mealy-mouthed toothless endorsement of the American-Israeli attack on Iran. While many have tried to justify the statement’s nuances, the bottom line is that Canada is now listed in the world consciousness as being on board with what we describe as “Iran-related hostilities throughout the Middle East” while avoiding the term “war.”

It was likely intended as a way of endorsing the purposes of the military campaign without endorsing the campaign itself, but in so doing irritated virtually everyone across the political spectrum. Those who believe we must strictly adhere to international law are offended that we would endorse an illegal operation. Those who believe we must help Iran rid itself of a dangerous and oppressive regime are offended that we are refusing to participate. While it is often said that you have made the right decision if everyone is equally mad, it is not especially clear here what decision we actually made.

It was only a month ago that our Prime Minister stood in Davos and addressed the global rupture and the need for middle powers to work together while the superpowers trample on nearly a century of developed international rules-based order. The notion that we could be endorsing this attack simply to avoid irritating Trump just a few weeks later is spurious.

The Prime Minister has access to intelligence that the vast majority of us cannot begin to imagine. His endorsement of the attack on its face was specifically an endorsement of a move to end Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. If the country truly were in a position to build and deliver nuclear weapons in the near term, it is something that he would likely know while the rest of us can only guess.

The trouble is that, even if it were true, it is assumes that such information has anything whatsoever to do with the launching of this war.

When George W Bush launched his illegal attack against Iraq in 2003, he spent months building up a case that the country was developing weapons of mass destruction. He put Colin Powell, one of the most credible figures in his country, up to presenting information that ultimately proved to be completely false in order to justify the invasion. The invasion went forward, and it destroyed Powell’s reputation.

This time, there is no such effort. There is, however, a mid-term election taking place in the United States where the president is so deeply under water that, should the election be free and fair, the Democrats would likely win supermajorities in both houses.

Meanwhile, there have been major developments in the Epstein case implicating the president in some of the most disturbing possible behaviour that are bubbling to the surface.

Trump announced the attack against Iran at 2 AM US Eastern time on his personal social media network, Truth Social. He often posts at that hour. It could be a coincidence, but it is hard to miss that 2 AM Eastern Time is 10 AM Moscow time. His wildest posts often appear while the United States is asleep but after Russia’s leadership has had their morning coffee.

The morning of the attack, Ukraine announced that Russia has for the first time accepted the idea of American security guarantees at the negotiating table, previously a non-starter.

That Russia is not defending Iran in this war, when Iran has been a steadfast ally for Russia against Ukraine, is more than a little bit curious. The timing of all these elements is clearly suspect.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on Monday that the attack was intended to reduce American casualties from the retaliation from when Israel attacked Iran. It is clear that Benjamin Netanyahu’s nomination of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize as part of his concerted, long-term efforts to groom Trump for his own ends, has been working, with Israel steering American foreign policy through careful ego management.

It is worth remembering an incident last year, before Trump started picking fights with countries all over the world, when Ukrainian president Zelensky visited the White House. In their joint media appearance, Zelensky observed that Ukraine could not hold an election because of the ongoing war. Trump visibly lit up to the notion and asked if that meant if the United States were at war, they also would not need elections.

Trump being offered a ready-made major war by Netanyahu that would be distracting enough to impact the viability of his domestic elections would seem to be too attractive of an opportunity to pass up.

Netanyahu has long wanted war with Iran and has been preparing Trump to carry it out for him over the past several months.

Trump’s advisors, who largely hail from the Christian nationalist organisation the Heritage Foundation, did little to dissuade Trump. War in the middle east is known to serve their purposes as well.

Each has their own motivation. Trump simply wants to stay in power and thinks war will help. Netanyahu wants to dominate the middle east and stay out of jail. And the Christian right wants to bring about the rapture, which is the basis of their support of Israel and has been for a long time.

There is no coherent narrative for launching this war, even among its instigating participants. Nor do they have any idea how to end it.

So why us? What does Canada get out of morally supporting US-Israeli offensive action in Iran? The United Kingdom, France, and most of the rest of our allies have not followed suit. Canada’s own government admitted that, in spite of our intelligence and military ties to the United States, we were not even informed of the war.

Prime Minister Carney is the master of nuance. He tried to explain our position while in India but it is still wide open to interpretation, some of which interprets it between the lines as quite positive.

Ukraine is on board because Iran has been directly arming Russia, and it is in their interest to encourage any action that causes Iran to be taken out of that war. It is one of few countries supporting the offensive that has an arguably legitimate reason to do so. If Canada’s position were based on Ukraine’s situation, at least there might be an argument to be made for us as well. But alas this too has not been the case.

Unilaterally decapitating foreign governments is not exactly Canadian tradition, no matter how vile their regimes might be. If taking down foreign leaders who suppress protest and kill their citizens is in vogue, there are quite a few other candidates to choose from with some being closer to home.

It is up to our government to clarify what exactly it is we are supporting, and why.

The sooner the better.