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