If Greenland & St Pierre et Miquelon can be in the EU, I don’t see why we can’t.
(Edit: I hadn’t realized that Greenland isn’t, even though Denmark is. Well, the point about St Pierre stands. Edited edit: oh, it’s even more complicated than that.)
What did you expect? You are talking about the EU!
Now I challenge you to summarize the status of the Canary Islands wrt Spain, the EU (politically, fiscally and tariff/import excise duty-wise) and NATO (militarily) in less than ten pages. Have fun!
Then check why Ariadne rockets launch from where they launch and search which is the longest inland flight connection in the world. If you add the France aspect to the EU side it gets byzantine.
Canada will never be able to disengage entirely from the US - as you say, geography is important.
However, we will have much stronger trade and military alignments with the rest of the world going forward. To the detriment of the US economy.
To quote Mark Carney here:
Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The attack on Iran is just the final nail in the coffin, after plenty more nails have been driven in. The era of the US is over. This is how history will be written.
If the US ever moderates enough that an attack on Canada seems unlikely and Canada remains unconquered, I expect them to take the moment of respite to speedrun building nuclear weapons so they have a real deterrent for the next Trumpoid leader.
One consequence may be a permanent lessening of the embargo on Iran. The US has already paused part of the oil embargo, but if there is any sort of peace agreement it is likely to include this. Iran has been pushing for war reperations, which the US will not agree to, but eliminating the embargos would be an out.
Another consequence is a reminder of the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and the US’s inability (or really unwillingness) to secure it. Iran is charging ships high fees to pass and using Rubbles or Yuan. Either of these could become the new normal.
Perhaps the biggest consequence could be establishing a Chinese peacekeeping presence to the Strait to ensure 20% of the world’s oil makes it to Asia.
The problem, from an Iranian point of view, is that the easiest it is for America to “off-ramp” this mess, the likelier it is that they will try again later.
After an enemy kills your entire leadership, it’s not a good idea to let them get away with it easily.
Funny, I would think there would be some concern about pushing the crazy person currently leading the strongest military in the world too far. Is it a victory to have all of your infrastructure wiped out but hey, you broke the world economy for a few years, victory?
I mean wouldn’t you have some concern about your people?
That would, from their point of view, be effectively capitulating, if you accept that this crazy person can get away with anything because he leads the strongest military in the world you may as well surrender now.
They have, then, to balance the destruction they are willing to accept against the cost they need to impose to avoid a repeat of this.
If it allows them to later rebuild the infrastructure, safely in the knowledge that nobody will attack them again because they fear the consequences, may be.
They would reason that their sovereignty and independence are worth the price, as most nations do when attacked.
A majority of the Iranian people may or may not agree, but they are not going to be consulted.
For certain degrees of autocracy, the idea is fixed that the people are literally better off dead than ruled by anyone but you.
The problem is that you already have a lot of concern for your people. At this point, maybe you think the best bet is to hurt the US enough that it will think twice next time. 
I visited Austria many years ago. Austria still has lots of artifacts of having once been the “center of the world”. I think of it as a minor nation, so this was a surprise to me. But it got me thinking about what the US looks like when we stop being the leading super power. I didn’t, at that time, expect that to happen in my lifetime. But now i think China may take over that spot. Possibly soon.
True, but at the risk of overplaying their hand. If they can extract some concessions like lessening embargos or adding peacekeeping forces to the region, that would be a win.
I don’t think the war offers any advantage to the IRGC other than shoring up internal support, but it has a lot of disadvantages and risks. They could stretch out the economic pain and hope that it causes a ‘regime change’ in the US, but it may be the IRGC prefers the status quo.
From Iran’s perspective, ending the war would allow them to consolidate, rebuild, and rearm. I was surprised that their attack on Qatar took out 17% of Qatar’s LNG production for 3-5 years (about 3.4% of worldwide production). That’s some lasting pain. Maybe one consequence for this war will be that Iran focuses less money on attacking Israel and more on methods for retaliation.
The idea of deterrence is that, ultimately, it is not supposed to happen. Even if we take it for granted that politicians care only about their own asses, fucking up the domestic and international economy may have some political consequences in the U.S. and Israel, destabilize those regimes, shift the global balance of power, etc. In other words, the calculus is that obliterating a bunch of Iran’s critical infrastructure would also result in trouble for not-Iran.
“In German, oder Englisch, I know how to count down / Und I’m learning Chinese!” says Wernher von Braun.
That’s why I said:
Consequences will impact some Catholic Holy Week celebrations in Jerusalem.
Acknowledged.
As well as the point you made here that I repeated:
A majority of the Iranian people may or may not agree, but they are not going to be consulted.
One of the consequences of this war is a dramatic increase in fertilizer costs. Apparently urea (which I thought comes from pee) is largely sourced from the Middle East, causing a price hike.
This is going to have a direct impact on the cost of food.
They did recently kill about 30,000 of those people themselves, so probably not.
As for the cost of resistance and what people will consider victory, I point to WWII. Massive bombing campaigns and mass destruction (short of nukes) consistently not only fails to produce capitulation, but stiffens resistance.
Also consistently, nations find that an obvious fact about themselves, but fail to project that response onto enemy nations and are convinced those nations are weak cowards who will surely surrender with just a little more bombing. The US, Iran and Israel are just repeating history that way with their respective bombing campaigns.
Add to that, diesel is going up faster than gasoline. Since the war started, gas has gone up by just over a dollar/gallon; diesel by over $1.50/gallon. Tractors and harvesters are usually diesel powered. So farmers are really taking it on the chin.
It’s hard to feel sympathy for the majority of them given the way they voted. You reap what you sow seems quite apt in this case.
Would that all of the damage were confined solely to his electorate.
…his real name is Cardinal Pizzaballa?