When did this war start?

The war in Iran is 11 days old and the picture is shifting fast. A new supreme leader, an oil blockade threat, and Trump calling the whole thing a "little excursion" — Joseph and Andrew unpack why the conversation about international law feels so one-sided.

Plus: the EU quietly drops a protectionist bombshell that nobody seems to want to call by its name, and Carney's Indo-Pacific tour delivers billions in announcements but can any of it replace what's at stake with the US?

The guys close with the latest Canadian polling — and why the Liberals might regret winning back their majority.

• The Iran war didn't start on February 28. The regime has been at war with its own people — and with the West — for 47 years. Treating the US-Israeli strikes as Day 1 skips a step.
• International law is being selectively invoked. Nobody marched when Hamas crossed a sovereign border. Nobody marched when the regime massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens in January. The outrage only shows up when the West acts.
• The opposition from the right (isolationism, cost) is different from the opposition on the left (the regime as victim). Both are wrong, but for very different reasons.
• Carney's initial statement was the right call — clear, decisive, among the most hawkish of any world leader. His walkback was driven by caucus management, not conviction.
• Starmer's response was embarrassing. A mix of lawyerly caution, Iraq hangover, and pandering to sectarian politics after a by-election loss to the Greens. It damaged the special relationship at exactly the wrong moment.
• The EU's Industrial Accelerator Act is tariffs by another name. Macron called Trump's tariffs destructive. Now the EU is doing the same thing and calling it resilience. Everyone's a hypocrite on trade.
• Carney's Indo-Pacific tour was impressive in presentation and announceables. But none of it replaces the US trade relationship — it's points of a percent versus multiple points of GDP.
• The Liberal lead over the Conservatives has grown to 14 points. Poilievre's tone is evolving, but he's fighting a caricature that won't shift overnight — especially with Trump in the White House as a contrast.

00:00 — Welcome back!00:30 — Iran: new supreme leader, oil weaponised, Trump's mixed signals02:57 — Andrew on the regime's 47-year war and the hypocrisy of international law04:48 — Nobody invoked international law on October 706:07 — Right-wing isolationism vs. left-wing moral inversion07:41 — The regime as imperialist — anti-imperialists supporting imperialism08:00 — Andrew on the hierarchy of evil and the hard left's blind spots11:33 — The domestic threat: IRGC activity in Canada, FBI warnings13:01 — Regime change vs. containment — what's the realistic outcome?15:40 — Can the Iranian people actually overthrow the regime?17:23 — Intelligence infiltration and psychological damage to the regime18:07 — Carney's flip-flop and Starmer's embarrassing response19:04 — Andrew on Starmer: Iraq hangover, sectarian politics, and the special relationship24:29 — Was Carney's walkback driven by Liberal caucus pressure?25:21 — Andrew's rant: we can't bring ourselves to say taking out this regime is a good thing27:30 — Story 2: The EU's "Made in Europe" Act — protectionism dressed up as policy30:25 — Andrew: everyone's a hypocrite on trade33:13 — Why anti-Trump framing lets the EU get away with it34:17 — Should the UK try to get in on Made in Europe?35:44 — Story 3: Carney's Indo-Pacific tour — India, Australia, Japan37:13 — Andrew: great announceables, but it doesn't replace the US39:37 — The real test is what happens with trade south40:24 — Chart of the week: Liberals lead Conservatives by 14 points43:03 — Poilievre's evolving tone — is it too late?45:29 — Andrew: Canadians want a contrast to Trump, not a copy46:50 — The NDP leadership race nobody's watching47:55 — Wrap