OP-ED: The hidden price of Canadian neutrality

Dotan Rousso writes, "A country that wants the protection of the West while shrinking from the burden of defending it isn't preserving its values."

Wikimedia Commons

By: Dotan Rousso

Dotan Rousso is an academic and legal scholar specializing in criminal law, privacy, and the intersection of technology and legal ethics.

The recent strikes against Iran by the United States and Israel were not symbolic. They were a targeted assault on a nuclear program, ballistic missile infrastructure, and a regime’s capacity to project force. These actions didn’t occur in a vacuum; by June 2025, the IAEA Board of Governors had formally found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations. The Trump administration has framed it as an effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability and to degrade its military reach.

Canada’s own rhetoric leaves little room for ambiguity. In February, Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that the Islamic Republic is “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East” and that it “must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.” Ottawa has imposed extensive sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities, and maintains the IRGC’s status as a terrorist group.

Liberal Minister blames housing unaffordability on Iran war

Yet, when military confrontation arrived, Canada chose a familiar, hollow path: rhetorical support stripped of meaningful action. Ottawa made it clear that Canada would not participate in offensive operations.

A country is entitled to choose caution. But we must stop pretending that “standing on the sidelines” is a cost-free position.

The first cost is credibility. A state that speaks the language of principle but avoids burden-sharing when those principles carry risk weakens its global standing. Allies notice which partners absorb danger and which issue carefully balanced statements from a distance.

The second cost is solidarity. Western alliances do not endure on a shared vocabulary alone. They require a willingness to act when a common threat is plainly identified. If Canada expects our allies to stand with us when our own sovereignty is challenged in the Arctic or our maritime borders are ignored, we cannot habitually absent ourselves when their security is on the line. Deterrence is a two-way street; if the alliance becomes a shell, we are among the most vulnerable.

The third cost is moral seriousness. It is easy to condemn a regime that crushes dissent and arms global proxies when someone else is doing the hard work of confronting it. By outsourcing the physical defence of our values to our neighbours, we are effectively living off the principles and the courage of others.

Canada can choose distance. We can even choose a polite near-neutrality while our allies confront a regime we ourselves describe as a source of terror and instability and as a state that must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. But let us at least be honest: A country that wants the protection of the West while shrinking from the burden of defending it isn’t preserving its values. It is merely hoping someone else will pay the price to keep them.

Why did it take two weeks to learn that Iran bombed Canadian troops?