On June 25, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada should reopen its embassies in Iran and Venezuela.
Canada is at a “disadvantage” in countries where it does not have diplomatic missions, Carney said in remarks reported by the Associated Press.
“Engagement is not endorsement,” he added. “Having an embassy, having consular services in a country, does not mean we endorse the policies of that country.”
Others say engagement does carry risks. Reopening an embassy in Iran would reward a regime that has not answered for its actions against Canadians and dissidents, critics say.
“Nothing about the regime has changed,” said Masoud Zamani, a lecturer at the University of British Columbia who specializes in international relations.
“The problem that Canada has with this regime goes much deeper [than geopolitics].
“This is a regime responsible for flagrant human rights violations, and this is a regime with which normalizing relations may not be possible.”
‘Controlled Engagement’
Canada has had no embassy in Iran since 2012, when the Harper government cut diplomatic ties with Tehran, describing the Islamic Republic as the world’s gravest threat to international peace.
Since then, the relationship has only grown more strained. In 2020, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down a passenger airplane flying from Tehran to Kyiv, killing all 176 people on board, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents.
Canada has since listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity, imposed sanctions on hundreds of Iranian individuals and entities, and accused the regime of human rights abuses and transnational repression.
Today, Canada’s official posture toward Iran is governed by what Global Affairs Canada calls a Controlled Engagement Policy.
That policy limits bilateral engagement to consular affairs, such as helping Canadians abroad with passports, detentions or other emergencies.
Canadians in Iran are directed to seek consular assistance through Canada’s embassy in Turkey, or through the Emergency Watch and Response Centre, a 24/7 consular assistance centre.
In an emailed statement two days before Carney’s remarks, Global Affairs Canada told Canadian Affairs it is not looking at re-opening an embassy in Iran.
“While we continually monitor opportunities in which diplomatic representation may be in the interests of Canadians, and noting that engagement is not endorsement, we are not currently considering re-opening an embassy in Iran,” a GAC spokesperson told Canadian Affairs in a June 23 email.
The embassy dilemma
Those who favour re-engagement say it benefits Canadians to have diplomats in Iran.
In addition to providing consular services, embassies serve a broader diplomatic function. They may gather political information, maintain contact with local officials, manage crises and represent Canada at official events. Where policy allows, they can also support economic, educational and cultural ties.
Critics say Iran’s regime would see a reopened embassy as a political victory.
Kaveh Shahrooz, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, warns that reopening an embassy in Tehran could be part of a broader restoration of diplomatic relations, which could allow Iran to re-establish an official diplomatic presence in Canada.
“What they want is a political footprint here in Canada through an embassy,” he said. “I don’t know if we gain anything by allowing them to do that.”
Zamani says that, despite Carney’s remarks, he does not believe Canada is likely to reopen an embassy in Tehran in the near term.
“ I don’t think that there is a real intention to do that,” he said.
But he also acknowledges that Canada’s messaging on Iran has been inconsistent, creating uncertainty for Canada’s approximately 280,000 Iranian-Canadians about Ottawa’s actual position.
“This issue of inconsistency in the positions adopted by the prime minister is itself quite a serious matter,” he said.
When the U.S. first attacked Iran in February, Carney said Canada supported the U.S. acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and from further threatening international peace and security.
Days later, Carney said that support came “with regret,” describing the conflict as evidence of the failure of the international order. He then said the U.S.-Israeli strikes appeared to be inconsistent with international law, while adding that he was not an international legal expert.
“One day he comes out in support of regime change,” said Zamani. “The other day he says that the U.S. intervention in Iran is in violation of international law.”
Protracted grievances
More recently, Carney has lauded the U.S. and Iran for signing a memorandum of understanding to end the four-month war in Iran.
There is “a likelihood that this memorandum of understanding agreement could be a game changer,” Carney told reporters on June 17 while attending the G7 summit in France.
But experts say that even if the U.S.-Iran framework eases pressure over Iran’s nuclear program or regional conduct, it does not resolve the deeper issues that have severed ties between Canada and Iran for more than a decade.
“It’s a temporary deal, and it remains to be seen whether it has the potential to develop into a sustainable agreement,” said Zamani, who says Canada should not treat that framework as a diplomatic breakthrough.
Shahrooz says Canada’s grievances with Iran cannot be resolved by the U.S.-Iran framework, which is focused on nuclear inspections, sanctions relief and regional de-escalation.
“Canada has unique grievances with Iran,” he said, pointing to Iran’s past detention of Iranian Canadians, the 2003 death of Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi after her arrest in Iran, and the airplane tragedy.
Like Zamani, Shahrooz believes nothing has materially changed in Canada-Iran relations as a result of the U.S.-signed memorandum.
“Matters are still irreconcilable and will be so until such time that there’s accountability for the crimes that Iran’s regime has committed against Canada and Canadians,” Shahrooz said.
