By now, it’s clear that no matter what kind of resolution U.S. President Donald Trump attempts to impose on his latest misadventure in Iran, this conflict and its global repercussions will be far from over.
More likely, it will resemble George W. Bush’s infamous “mission accomplished” moment aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003: a premature declaration of victory that gave way to years of prolonged conflict, with consequences that are still unfolding today.
Whatever branding Trump chooses, it won’t stick.
But the economic consequences will.
As any reasonable observer can see, the ripple effects of this conflict will continue to move through the global economy and, like countries the world over, will land squarely in Canadian households in the form of higher prices.
Canada may be less exposed to oil shocks than it was in the 1970s and 80s, but when prices rise at the pump, the impact is immediate and unavoidable for consumers. And those pressures rarely stay contained. They spill over.
As BMO chief economist Doug Porter explains, higher energy costs cascade through the economy, raising the cost of transporting goods, producing packaging and moving food from farm to table. For example, with the Gulf region playing a key role in the production and shipment of fertilizer inputs, the conflict will increase costs for farmers, compounding pressure throughout the food supply chain.
And this is hitting a market already under strain. Statistics Canada reported food inflation spiking to 7.3 per cent in January, driven by supply constraints and persistent pressure on staples like coffee and beef.
This may not amount to a full-blown recession or stagflation. But that misses the point.
These are price shocks that hit the essentials of our everyday lives, the goods Canadians cannot substitute away from. Groceries. Fuel. The basics.
And that is where political risk lives.
Voters notice these pressures immediately because they experience them daily. And as history repeatedly shows, sustained affordability pain quickly translates into political frustration and then into blame.
That creates both risks and opportunities for the Carney government.
It is an opportunity to demonstrate that they understand the moment and are prepared to act decisively on affordability in ways that the Trudeau government was too slow to do.
The spectre of an affordability crisis should be treated the same way a political opponent is: define it before it defines you.
The Trudeau government hesitated too long to signal urgency on affordability amid rising inflation and global price instability. Pierre Poilievre filled that vacuum, owned the issue, and nearly rode it all the way to 24 Sussex.
The current government cannot afford to repeat that mistake, particularly as we head into what could be a difficult spring and summer economically.
But they are not without options.
On fuel, the federal government could offer temporary relief through adjustments to the excise tax or targeted rebates, even if only for a defined period.
On food, it must work with provinces and industry to reduce interprovincial trade barriers and provide targeted support along the agricultural supply chain to ease cost pressures before they reach consumers.
None of these measures will be a silver bullet.
But in politics, as in economics, marginal gains matter.
Even modest relief signals the government is paying attention to what matters to most Canadians. It demonstrates that the government is engaged, responsive and focused on the daily pressures Canadians are actually feeling.
And just as importantly, it prevents the opposition from owning the issue unchallenged.
Because in the end, affordability is not an abstract economic concept. It is a daily lived experience. Governments that fail to act early and visibly with plans to deal with it rarely get a second chance.
