Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your invitation.

I'll start with a brief introduction. When I speak about the Middle East, it's often—as you know—about controversial topics. This can convey an image that isn't mine. I want to make it clear from the start that I have absolutely no sympathy for the Iranian regime, let alone for the violent Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. However, I'm also fully aware that I'll likely say some things that go against the grain. Of course, I won't do so for ideological reasons, but for the benefit of Canada and—since I've been invited as a professor—of the people here who want to make the most of my expertise.

I want to say that five minutes isn't enough time to talk about everything. I'll simply talk about the issue of placing the IRGC on the list of terrorist entities. Let me be clear about this. Under the current circumstances, this isn't a good idea. I'll tell you why.

First, this discussion must take place in a non‑ideological context. The international news over the past 30 years has provided clear evidence of the devastating impact of building international and foreign policy choices on predetermined ideologies that lack any connection with the reality of the international situation. This is particularly true for the Middle East, which has both contradicted these ideologies and challenged them. The Islamic State terrorist group was the direct result of this logic, which must be avoided at all costs.

We need to learn from history and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The IRGC is certainly one destabilizing force in the Middle East. However, it's only one of many and no less dangerous. This type of selective decision will certainly undermine the relatively neutral and moderate position that Canada seeks and, in my opinion, should maintain in the Middle East. It could certainly prevent Canada from playing a mediating role in the endless conflicts taking place in this region, particularly given the total failure of American policies. In the opinion of most experts in this region, including American experts, these policies have been thoroughly discredited.

You need an idea of the risk. You need to determine the potential danger of manipulating such a dangerous topic for political gain. We're fully aware that ideological tendencies in our political life seek to align Canadian foreign policies in the Middle East with the American policies. It seems that this choice is purely ideological and devoid of any strategic vision. Moreover, it poses a real danger to our interests in the world and to our national security.

In doing so, we'll be taking sides in deeply rooted identity conflicts. These conflicts are compounded by historical, colonial, political, religious, denominational and territorial disputes that remain virtually unresolvable. The extreme complexity of these conflicts makes it difficult to take a fair and balanced stance, at an equal distance from all the antagonists involved.

In addition to pointlessly intervening in these conflicts, we're also likely to invite them here. This type of invitation could significantly affect our social peace and internal security. The terrible tragedy currently unfolding in Gaza confirms that Canadian society is deeply and uniquely divided on the issues in the Middle East. Governments often adopt definitions of terrorism that enable them to serve their interests; enforce their vision; take unpopular or even freedom‑destroying measures at times; delegitimize the actions of their enemies; and impose measures that depend on the circumstances faced.

For example, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service defines terrorism as the threat or perpetration of serious acts of violence to compel the Canadian government to act in a certain way—