The newsletter of Alberta Conservative MP Garnett Genuis explaining "cautious" just war support for U.S.-Israeli intervention in Iran.

During my first term in Parliament, I got involved in efforts to shut down operations of the Iranian regime’s military terrorist arm, the IRGC, here in Canada. That work was the beginning of a close relationship with the Canadian Iranian community. As war broke out in Iran, my response reflected those relationships. The Iranian people have faced terrible oppression by this authoritarian regime, and they deserve to be able to control their own country. How they think and feel about this war should be key data for how everyone else thinks about the war. 

It is evident to me the Iranian diaspora here and in other countries—where they can express themselves freely—are overwhelmingly supportive of the intervention by the US and Israel. The long-term implications are obviously complicated and uncertain, but these communities know that complexity more intimately than Western politicians or analysts. 

People of Iranian descent in overwhelming numbers willing accept the realities of war—including the inevitable accidental civilian deaths—in hopes of seeing the liberation of their country from a regime behaving as an occupying force. 

Iranian diaspora communities spent weeks calling for external intervention because internal protests in Iran were met with the most horrific and violent response imaginable. The regime in Iran not only kills peaceful protesters. It also kills doctors trying to treat them. People trying to change their own government were slaughtered. 

In some cases the perspectives of diasporas do not align with that of the people in a country. In Iran, however, the sheer scale of protests despite the government’s violent response clearly shows the popular sentiment.  

If we can reasonably conclude the people of Iran want this, then their desires provide a clear justification for intervention. Such amoral basis would not be enhanced by appealing to the UN Security Council, where Russia would veto the intervention. (The regime in Iran has provided Russia significant material support in its invasion of Ukraine.) It is not obvious why anyone should seek Russian permission to stop the slaughter in Iran while civilians continue to be targeted in Ukraine. 

While the desire to see freedom and self-determination for Iranians is my primary reason for supporting this intervention, it is growing security threats this regime poses that were cited as primary motivation for Israel and the US. The regime continues to arm and empower recognized terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, and to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  

Ultimately, the justice of this intervention will be determined by a plan to give Iranians back control of their own country. The complexities and failures of other foreign interventions have led some people to oppose any instance of Western intervention outright. But there are also plenty of cases where non-intervention has allowed threats to fester and grow. When intervention is undertaken, it must be approached cautiously. Success requires knowledge of the terrain, connection with the people on the ground, a realistic plan, and sufficient commitment to see it through to completion. These requirements are why Iranian Canadians I know are generally happy with the intervention so far but still describe their optimism as “cautious.”