1) canada has a large iranian diaspora that supports the strikes by the united states more than our government does, which is awkward. while mostly white fake left americans are protesting the american attacks, iranian-canadians are dancing in the streets. it's actually a pretty stark contrast. most of these voters are far more liberal than arab voters, but the demographic is also up for grabs. it's also a relatively wealthy diaspora that contributes substantively to political campaigns. it follows that smart politicians in canada need to be careful that they don't alienate iranian voters by condemning the attacks or standing up for the regime.
2) anti-israeli politicians have been extremely unsuccessful in canada, going back to the social credit collapse.
3) canada is a major oil producer and benefits from supply disruptions.
4) however, canada also benefits from what it calls international law, which is not written anywhere, and cannot be enforced with any meaning.
it follows that canada is forced into blatant hypocrisy, in supporting the strikes because they are popular amongst iranian-canadians, while trying to balance threats of us hegemony it perceives as aimed at itself.
canada actually has an opportunity to propose reforms to the international order, but it isn't doing it, because it's being driven by cynicism from both sides of it's ass. it should be. it should be arguing in favour of rules that allow for this kind of intervention when it is justified, to dismantle states that are willing to slaughter their own people by the thousands at a time, which i would argue includes ukraine.
taking the initiative to write new rules of intervention that clarify when and how intervention can happen when it should, and it should, is a more principled position than canada is currently taking, or appears willing to take.
sovereignty is not the same thing as self-determination, and is a stupid idea in the global integration of the 21st century.