Canada

After his Davos speech, I expected a bit better. Instead, he decided to put the sign in the window:

“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.”

Carney had prefaced that endorsement with a description of Iran as “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East, [with] the world’s worst human rights records.” He added: “[Iran] must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.”

If Carney were a better politician, he would have said "I don't have a position yet - we don't know the specifics of what is happening."

I am not sure he shifted his position. His first statement was full of weasel words to allow him to take almost any position that was necessary in the future. Thar is, his first response was not a position at all, but a placeholder for a future position.

So as events unfold, the government updates its position. Why is the author presenting this as a bad thing? It's not surprising that the Canadian government would initially be generally supportive of strikes; they had already declared the IRGC a terrorist organization after all.