Dr. Noah Schwartz is an assistant professor in the Political Science department at UFV, and author of On Target: Gun Culture, Storytelling, and the NRA (2022).
On June 12-13, Israel launched a surprise strike on Iranian nuclear sites and senior military officials, sparking a wave of retaliatory attacks. The 12-day war escalated quickly, leaving hundreds dead — mostly in Iran. Pakistan voiced support for Iran, while President Donald Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes on Iranian targets. After nearly two weeks of intense exchanges, both sides agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. However, whether the truce holds is still up in the air. Dr. Schwartz shared with The Cascade his insight on the matter.
Reflecting on the conflict’s surprising yet unsurprising nature, Schwartz noted that these threats began during the Bush era. He commented that, despite the sudden news of the strike, it was a logical move by Israel, given Iran’s longstanding ideological rhetoric portraying Israel as illegitimate and destabilizing.
“A red line for Israel for a long time is Iran attaining a functional nuclear programme, because the leadership of Iran has made it clear they’re committed to the annihilation of the State of Israel. So, if a state has said that their goal is to wipe you out, [then] them having a nuclear programme is not in your national best interest.”
Schwartz also suggested that these strikes came at a fitting time, due to Trump’s lack of scrutiny toward Israel.
“Under Trump, you just don’t have those same checks and balances that you did under Biden, so I think [Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu saw that this was his opportunity to achieve this foreign policy goal.”
According to Schwartz, the war didn’t drag on likely because neither Iran nor Israel benefited from it. Schwartz also explained that Iran had already suffered significant military losses, and continuing the conflict risked turning public anger into regime collapse.
“Iran was getting pulverized, so they wanted the war to end as soon as possible, especially because the regime there has been increasingly unpopular.”
He added that Israel’s military success also came at a high economic cost. Schwartz emphasized that defending against thousands of rockets isn’t just dangerous but also extremely expensive.
“Their Iron Dome missile system and their other defence systems are just unfathomably expensive … Everybody involved had an incentive to stop fighting, and I think that’s why we saw the ceasefire happen so quickly.”
Regarding the stability of the ceasefire, Schwartz pointed out that Netanyahu’s leadership has shown to be unpredictable and politically fragile, which fuels the arguments that a prolonged conflict may serve as a strategic means to keep himself in power and avoid facing pending corruption charges — similar to Trump. Despite claims of the success of the operation, recent reports argued that it only stalled Iran’s nuclear program for months, not years. Iran also halted cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Schwartz said these factors could trigger a wider conflict.
“If there’s evidence that the damage wasn’t that effective and that they’re able to reboot their program quickly, Israel will clearly want to make sure that that doesn’t happen, which could create an opportunity for further escalation.”
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney urged both sides to ease tensions, and encouraged peaceful negotiations.
“Canada reaffirms Israel’s right to defend itself and to ensure its security. We call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and move towards a diplomatic resolution.”
This sparked outrage and controversy as it shifted away from his previous condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Schwartz commented that Carney is walking a fine line — trying to win back Jewish support while not alienating Canada’s growing, pro-Palestinian Muslim population, all while shifting the Liberal Party back toward a more political centre. He added that U.S.-Canada talks might have also influenced Carney’s public stance.
“Carney is playing a delicate game … Trump keeps trying to find excuses to break [negotiations] off in order to get more concessions from Canada. I think part of Carney’s calculation was, ‘Oh, is it worth risking antagonizing Trump over this when Canada realistically doesn’t have a huge role in this conflict.”
Schwartz said it was hard to judge whether it was the right move without access to the intelligence behind it and referred to it as playing high-stakes chess in fast-forward.
“I’m very happy that I don’t have to make that decision. Let’s put it that way.”
Being attentive to the conflicts can be debilitating, and Schwartz shared advice on how to avoid being brought down while staying informed.
“Treat reportage like your vegetables and commentary like chips — it’s ok to have some chips from time to time… but you want to make sure you’re eating your vegetables, too.”
Interviews have been edited for length and clarity
