How the Iran War Will End and What Canada Must Do

The bombing in Iran and the broader Middle East will eventually cease. President Donald Trump keeps hinting about a possible end to hostilities and the U.S. has sent a 15-point peace proposal to Pakistan.

But that doesn’t mean the end of consequences. International relations experts are already discussing several scenarios for what comes next. Each could reshape geopolitics for decades.

Every war ends, because no society can wage war indefinitely. But the nature of any forthcoming peace will determine whether the seeds of the next conflict are sown.

In this charged moment, Canada’s often-touted identity as a “middle power” deserves honest scrutiny.

Five plausible outcomes could now unfold, each carrying ramifications not only for the geopolitics of the Middle East but for the trajectory of future conflicts in the region:

1. America’s ‘mission accomplished’ moment

The U.S. will likely end the war by declaring victory, much as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. This outcome would add to a growing legacy of incomplete military interventions stretching back to the Vietnam War in 1963.

Domestically, there will be two major political costs: diminished support for Trump among his MAGA movement and eroding public enthusiasm for unconditional backing of Israel.

For American voters, the gap between declared victory and lived reality will be difficult to ignore when at least 13 U.S. service members have already lost their lives and 200 have been injured so far.

2. An emboldened Israel

Israel will emerge from this conflict in a stronger regional position.

With Iranian proxies decimated at both leadership and operational levels, credible military threats to Israel will be diminished for at least a decade.

Yet the mass atrocities witnessed in Gaza and now in Iran will fuel new waves of resistance under new leadership. Israel will face the challenge of managing three fronts simultaneously: the Palestinians in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and a reformed — or further radicalized — Iran.

That’s because dominance secured through force rarely translates into lasting security.

3. The Strait of Hormuz becomes Iran’s leverage

One unexpected lesson Iran may draw from this conflict is the strategic value of the Strait of Hormuz.

Approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil passes through this waterway daily. Iran could seek to turn the strait into a revenue-generating asset, modelling it loosely on the economic frameworks of the Panama or Suez canals.

Although the strait remains an international waterway under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS-Part III), Iran may press to bypass or reinterpret existing conventions in order to recoup war expenses and rebuild its shattered economy.

This would set a dangerous precedent for international maritime law and have adverse effect on global economy.

4. The Gulf states’ security reckoning

The Iran war has exposed just how vulnerable the Gulf states are. Iranian drones and missiles struck not only military installations, but also American diplomatic facilities hosted by Gulf Cooperation Council countries — the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait — all of which were treated by Iran as legitimate wartime targets.

The experience will force a fundamental reassessment. The relationships cultivated through the Abraham Accords, which aimed to strengthen peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and co-existence, have been severely strained and new patterns of inter-state alignment may emerge across the region.

The lesson for Gulf Cooperation Council countries is clear, if uncomfortable. In the Middle East, the U.S. consistently prioritizes Israel’s security over theirs. Saudi Arabia, in particular, may need to adjust its strategic posture accordingly.

5. The failure of the ‘Venezuela model’

To the frustration of American strategists, the anticipated popular uprising in Iran did not materialize alongside the military invasion.

An estimated 20 per cent of Iranians supported the regime in the past and continue to do so in great numbers now. Despite the killing of key leaders, Iranians have steadily filled their ranks.

In Venezuela, the U.S. forcefully removed the regime’s leader with minimal resistance as the new government acquiesced to the terms and conditions laid out by the Americans. This model has not been replicated in Iran so far.

History offers a clear parallel: aerial bombing tends to strengthen civilian resolve rather than break it — consider the Nazi bombing of Britain during the Second World War. The post-conflict Iranian government will most likely be led by an even more conservative faction, one that will draw legitimacy from having withstood a joint U.S.–Israeli invasion.

Canada’s middle power moment

In his widely noted speech at Davos last year, Prime Minister Mark Carney championed the role of “middle powers” in stabilizing the international order.

Yet Canada’s stance during the Iran war has undermined that aspiration. Ottawa flip-flopped at least three times: first offering unconditional moral support, then retracting it, condemning the war and asking belligerents “to respect the rules of international engagement,” and most recently backing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

These inconsistencies have damaged Canada’s credibility at a moment when middle-power leadership is most needed.

Can Canada truly exert influence as a middle power when it’s publicly at odds with the U.S.? Yes, but only if Canada acts rather than simply speaks. Canada should take four concrete steps.

Four pathways for Canada

First, it could launch a formal middle power coalition for post-conflict accountability. Bringing together countries like Australia, South Korea, Norway and Japan would create a standing diplomatic forum to co-ordinate on reconstruction, civilian protection and legal accountability. Operating alongside — not against — the UN Security Council, such a coalition would give middle powers a collective voice when vetoes stall action.

Second, Canada should leverage its large Iranian diaspora by supporting what’s known as Track II diplomacy — informal dialogue among civil society leaders, academics and former officials. These channels can build trust and lay groundwork for negotiations when official diplomacy struggles.

Third, Canada could champion a Hormuz International Maritime Authority, modelled on the Suez and Panama canals. A multilateral framework governing transit through the strait would provide a rules-based counterweight if Iran seeks to restrict or monetize access — and Canada’s distance from the region strengthens its credibility as an honest broker.

Finally, Canada must clearly denounce illegal wars, including those involving allies. Defending the rules-based order requires consistency and political courage. Middle-power status is not inherited; it’s earned through decisions and actions.

The wars that define eras are remembered not just for how they are fought, but for what follows. For Canada, this is a moment to lead with clarity, consistency and purpose — not retreat into ambiguity.