Related Articles
US President Donald Trump, who once tore up the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, may now be in a position to deliver a stronger one, Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria wrote in an opinion piece Thursday.
“Trump reminded us that sometimes his willingness to take risks and think outside the box can shake up tired old ways,” Zakaria wrote, pointing to the president’s recent moves in Saudi Arabia, including lifting sanctions on Syria and signaling openness to a new deal with Iran.
He argued that the time is now favorable for a deal with Tehran because of two key shifts: Iran’s growing weakness and Saudi Arabia’s increasing strength. “Iran is in worse shape than it has been in a generation,” he wrote, citing economic decline, military setbacks, and the collapse of Bashar Assad's government in Syria.
Zakaria said Trump faces resistance from within his own camp — between realists, including chief negotiator Steve Witkoff, and hawks like Senator Marco Rubio. But he noted that Trump has the political capital to act.
"The more prosaic reality is that Iran is run by a bunch of brutish mullahs and corrupt military officials, who have spent their energies amassing fortunes in this world, not preparing for the next one," he wrote.
“There is a deal to be made with such men,” Zakaria wrote of Iran’s leadership, “not to become friends, but to serve a common interest of defusing the dangers of nuclear arms races and bringing stability to a Middle East that has been scarred by generations of war and terror.”
"There is no diplomatic or military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, only toppling the regime will prevent disaster,"Akhondisaid speaking to Israeli media during a public visit to Israel.
He expressed concern that a potential deal between the Trump administration and Iran would undermine efforts to weaken the Islamic Republic.
"They are at their weakest point during the 46 years since the Islamic Revolution," Akhondi said, adding that "any deal will set back two and a half years of my work to weaken the Islamic Republic."
"Any kind of deal is a threat," he said, arguing that even a comprehensive agreement dismantling Iran's nuclear infrastructure would be insufficient.
Akhondi, who was born in Iran and immigrated to Sweden as a child, criticized what he called the US envoy's inexperience and suggested that Iran and Russia were exploiting his lack of expertise.
“To be honest, I’m upset that they used an amateur like Witkoff as a negotiator. The Islamic Republic demanded that it not be Marco Rubio, but Witkoff. Russia demanded him, too. It’s the same strategy. Why? Because it’s easy to play with him. He has no experience in such sensitive geopolitical issues,” Akhondi said.
Poilievre asserted recently that about 700 operatives and affiliates of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which Canada has designated as a terrorist entity, must be tracked down and expelled.
But this was nothing new. He had expressed similar views in many speeches and interviews before. So what is different this time? How could rhetoric translate into action beyond gestural politics, built on a tenuous perception of Canada’s strategic leverage?
Poilievre and his caucus appear to have presumed that IRGC operatives would vanish the moment Canada listed the group.
Last June, when reports broke hours before the announcement, they erupted in a frenzy, lamenting the leak as if operatives were standing by the door moving assets in anticipation. Yet once the dust settled, everyone returned to their routines, leaving the world undisturbed.
With bells tolling for the Liberals after a lost decade, and the Conservatives hoping to be incoming sheriffs, they must face a deeper reality. Tehran’s reach is not a statistic but a network resistant to rhetoric. Something beyond grandstanding is inevitable.
The Myth of 700
First, one must ask: where did the 700 figure originate?
It came from an independent effort by a coalition named Stop IRGC, aimed at identifying those affiliated with the Islamic Republic who settled in Canada through legal channels. While notable, it was not government-backed and lacked security resources for verification. No intelligence assessment, inquiry, or briefing has substantiated it.
Poilievre nonetheless repeated it as fact, reducing complexity to a tally shaped by partisan urgency.
I do not, for a second, believe the IRGC’s presence ends there. Years of inaction have turned lingering suspicion into undeniable reality. Activists, whether living in Canada or passing through, must now calculate their security risks.
Nor did operatives scramble to flee upon the listing. For Tehran’s fortune-brokers, Canada was never an obstacle. Even when the Conservative government had a chance over a decade ago to act against Mahmoud-Reza Khavari—a top Iranian banker who financed the IRGC’s missile program, embezzled billions, and fled to Canada—it turned a blind eye.
The regime and its IRGC presence are the product of sustained drift, allowing influence to fester across levels and seep into corners.
Beyond numbers: a real plan
Poilievre and his allies must recognize that strategy cannot rest on recital. A committed resolve is the only way to dismantle the IRGC’s hold. The Liberals never had one; when superficial action was taken, it collapsed under contradictions, punishing the wrong people.
A two-pronged strategy, I propose, is required to deal with the problem. First, focus on critical entities: IRGC and Basij members, operatives posing as civilians, financial networks, propaganda arms, and regime-linked organizations. Second, avoid actions that unjustly impact innocents.
A real strategy recognizes that IRGC operatives do not arrive in bloodstained green uniforms. They come as businessmen, investors, and tourists, traveling freely from the land they loot to the land where they hoard.
Any action has to hinge on the recognition that the IRGC and the Iranian state are one—indistinguishable in form, inseparable in purpose.
It is alarming that last December, an IRGC-affiliated news agency boasted of a “private sector” bypassing sanctions, especially in Canada. Individuals from a Canadian-registered nonprofit were interviewed on “innovative solutions” to do so.
This same group hosts webinars on exporting oil, gas, and petrochemical products, claiming collaboration with Iran’s Ministry of Industry—whose officials are sanctioned and banned from entering Canada for human rights violations.
Collaboration with entities sustaining the power structure of the Islamic Republic cannot be permitted under the pretense of legitimacy. Targeting the theocracy means little if you enable the institutions that sustain it.
Tehran’s playbook has long capitalized on Canada’s strategic vulnerability. The story is not about mythical figures who once slipped through. It is about a decades-old infiltration campaign that has unsettled our foundations from within.
Has Poilievre assigned the color of his cards before the real test calls?
Poilievre’s true test
If the Conservatives take power, let them not chase ghosts. Let them identify a handful of real, high-profile regime and IRGC operatives, transparently held accountable in full view of the public. That alone would shake Canada’s quiet standing as a sanctuary for tyranny’s enforcers more than any grand arithmetic of slogans.
The duplicity of senior Iranian officials in Canada offers a case study in calculated deceit—silencing hearings, disclaiming crimes, vanishing when accountability nears. Sadly, even rare breakthroughs fade under a Liberal establishment where secrecy lingers and accountability bends.
For any future leadership to set a real precedent, groundwork must begin before power is seized. Not hours before a designation. Not weeks into a mandate.
As a powerful voting bloc, the Iranian-Canadian community appears to be moving towards the Conservatives to turn the page on staged politics. For years, those in charge sold them a political vaudeville called a pie in the sky on Canada’s political Broadway.
If Poilievre plans to peddle another ticket to the same tired show, he should know: not a single seat will be sold. No more.
