Canadian politician says sustainable peace requires more than transactional deal-making

TABNAK, Mar. 31-Referring to Trump's contradictory remarks about war on Iran, Canadian politician said, "When leaders engage in contradictory public statements about military operations, it introduces uncertainty that can destabilize diplomatic channels and escalate tensions unnecessarily, " adding that, " Negotiation is welcome, but sustainable peace requires more than transactional deal-making."

News ID: 7278

Date: 31 March 2026 - 15:54

The US and the Israeli launched a large-scale unprovoked military campaign against Iran following the assassination of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, along with several senior military commanders and civilians on February 28.

The attacks have involved extensive aerial strikes on both military and civilian locations across Iran, causing significant casualties and widespread damage to infrastructure.

In response, the Iranian Armed Forces have carried out retaliatory operations, targeting American and Israeli positions in the occupied territories and at regional bases with waves of missiles and drones.

To shed more light on the recent developments and the ongoing war, TABNAK reached out to Celina R. Caesar-Chavannes, former member of parliament and parliamentary secretary to the prime minister of Canada Justin Trudeau.

Following is the full text of the interview with her:

Trump says that he has postpond US attack on Iran's energy infraustructures. Some say he is trying to buy time. What do you think of this?

Claims about postponed military action should always be examined critically, regardless of who makes them. What we can observe is a pattern: Trump frequently positions himself as the central figure in any narrative, which complicates our ability to assess what is strategically accurate versus what is politically convenient. However, the more substantive issue here isn't whether Trump or Iran is telling the truth, it's what this kind of public back-and-forth signals.

When leaders engage in contradictory public statements about military operations, it introduces uncertainty that can destabilize diplomatic channels and escalate tensions unnecessarily. Whether Trump is "buying time" is difficult to assess without access to classified intelligence, but the inconsistency itself is concerning from a conflict de-escalation standpoint. The focus should be less on who is lying, and more on the fact that this kind of public ambiguity undermines the trust necessary for meaningful negotiation, and destabilizes an already fragmented world order.

Trump claims that he is negotiating with Iran for cceasefire. If this true and considering the fact he said Iran must surrender unconditionally at the begining of the aggression on Iran, how do you assess his success in acheiving his goals?

The shift from demanding "unconditional surrender" to engaging in negotiation reflects a common pattern in high-stakes diplomacy: opening with maximalist positions before recalibrating toward achievable outcomes. This is not unique to Trump however. It's a recognized, if controversial, negotiating tactic. That said, effective diplomacy requires more than theatrical positioning. It requires institutional credibility, consistency, and the ability to deliver on commitments over time. The challenge with the current approach is that it prioritizes short-term optics, such as headlines about potential deals, over the long-term relationship-building that durable agreements require. If we measure success by whether Iran has fundamentally changed its posture or whether regional stability has improved, the evidence is limited. If success is measured by keeping the issue in the news cycle and maintaining a perception of active engagement, that's a different calculation entirely. Negotiation is welcome, but sustainable peace requires more than transactional deal-making. It requires genuine commitment to multilateral frameworks and regional security.

If Iran and the US decide to end the war, will Israel respect the US decision?

The U.S.-Israel relationship is complex and institutionally deep. It predates Trump and will outlast him. However, it's fair to observe that under his administration, certain decisions (such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the Abraham Accords) reflected alignment with specific political constituencies both domestically and in Israel. The question of whether the U.S. is acting primarily for Israel's benefit oversimplifies the situation. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has always involved a mix of strategic interests, domestic political considerations, ideological commitments, and alliance management. What has shifted under Trump is the degree to which personal relationships between leaders, specifically Trump and Netanyahu, appear to influence policy direction. Would Israel respect a U.S. decision to de-escalate? Israel operates according to its own security calculations. It may align with U.S. decisions when convenient, but it has historically acted independently when it perceives existential threats, and this is regardless of American preferences. The "U.S. acts only for Israel" framing is reductive, but legitimate questions exist about how personal political alliances shape foreign policy under this administration.

How do you assess the public opinion in Canada towards the US- Israeli aggression on Iran?

As someone who has served in Canadian federal politics, I can speak to the Canadian context with some specificity. Canadians have historically valued multilateralism, international law, and diplomatic solutions to conflict. Public opinion in Canada, and dare I say globally, tends to distinguish between the American people and institutions, and the policies of specific administrations. There is widespread concern that the current U.S. approach introduces volatility into already fragile situations, prioritizing unpredictability as a strategy rather than stability. Pew Research Center data consistently shows lower global confidence in U.S. leadership under Trump compared to previous administrations, with particular concern about unilateralism and disregard for allied perspectives. In Canada, this translates to skepticism about following American leadership uncritically, and a preference for independent foreign policy assessment. More broadly, there is growing global fatigue with conflicts that appear driven by (personal) political calculations rather than genuine security needs. Canadians, like many around the world, are watching closely and hoping for leadership that prioritizes stability and human security over political theatre.

Any closing comment?

The situation between the U.S. and Iran cannot be reduced to a single leader's personality or motivations, though leadership style certainly matters. What's most important is whether the actions being taken move us toward or away from peace, stability, and the protection of civilian lives, including the people of Iran (and beyond) who are navigating these tensions daily. From my perspective, grounded in years of public service and commitment to evidence-based policy, the path forward requires genuine multilateral engagement, respect for international institutions, and leadership that prioritizes long-term stability over short-term political wins.

Thank you for these important questions. Given the current situation in Iran, I appreciate the effort to reach out despite the communication challenges you're facing. I did my best to offer a balanced analysis that considers multiple factors, including leadership style, institutional dynamics, and broader geopolitical realities.

I hope these reflections are useful, and I wish you safety and resilience during this difficult time.

Interview by Payman Yazdani