Welcome to Need to Know, The Hub’s twice-weekly roundup of expert insights into the biggest economic stories, political news, and policy developments Hub readers need to be keeping their eyes on.
Israel’s precision, the Islamic Republic’s peril
By Kaveh Shahrooz, human rights lawyer, senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Iranian-Canadian
Any attempt to make predictions about where the Iran-Israel war, which started over a week ago, may go is a fool’s errand. There is no better proof of that than this short piece itself, which has now been revised several times to account for Monday’s rapid twists and turns. As of the time of this writing, it is unclear whether the two parties have even agreed to Trump’s announced ceasefire, and, even if they have, whether that ceasefire will hold.
Whatever the state of play, it is clear that Israel has not just won the military battle in this round, but it has done so with surgical precision. According to Iranian sources, approximately 400 civilians have died so far. In the context of modern warfare, this number—while tragic—is remarkably low given the scale and intensity of Israel’s campaign. The ratio of high-value targets, both regime officials and military sites, to civilian casualties suggests one of the most precise bombing campaigns in recent history.
If the ceasefire holds and a more permanent end to hostilities is negotiated, it will almost certainly be on terms unfavourable to Iran’s regime. With the upper echelons of its military and security apparatus eliminated, its nuclear sites in ruins, its leading nuclear scientists killed, and its proxy forces significantly degraded, Iran’s regime has few cards to play at the negotiation table.
While predictions are nearly impossible, one can imagine a few possible endgames.
It is, for example, possible for the Islamic Republic to continue to stand, but in a very different form. Even if Ayatollah Khamenei survives, his role and power will be much diminished. The Atlantic recently detailed a growing internal plot to push Khamenei aside, a sign that the regime’s foundations are shaking. And whoever takes over after him, whether another cleric or the IRGC—a military force that is essentially the power behind the clerics—will likely have little appetite for the kind of bellicose adventurism that has brought the Islamic regime to near destruction.
Rather than sabre-rattle abroad, Iran’s regime will likely do what all dictatorships do when humiliated on the world stage: lash out at its own population. That repression has already begun.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Trump’s Sunday post hinting at regime change as U.S. policy lit up social media, with #MIGA (“Make Iran Great Again”) trending globally. The Iranian people’s frustration with their rulers has been simmering for years. Now, with Israel having targeted not just military infrastructure but also the regime’s tools of repression, like the infamous Evin Prison, the possibility of a revolution is no longer remote. But who can unite Iran’s revolutionary opposition is a mystery.
While the son of Iran’s former monarch has claimed that he is ready to lead Iranians during the transition period, it is not clear that he has the legitimacy or organization to play that role. As noted in a New York Times op-ed by leading Iran analyst Karim Sadjadopur, “while a critical mass of Iranians today may believe the Islamic Republic does not have a future, no opposition figure or movement has succeeded in channeling Iranians’ mass discontent toward a political alternative.” This will certainly hamper any effort to replace the Islamic Republic with a popular government.
What seems nearly impossible, however, is for an Iranian return to the status quo ante bellum. The regime, in the form the world has known it for more than four plus decades, cannot hold.
Just elbow past those elephants in the room, NATO leaders
By Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies and a professor and graduate chair at the University of Manitoba
The agenda for the NATO summit happening today and tomorrow in The Hague, Netherlands, is set, but there will be other elephantine geopolitical issues taking up space at the World Forum venue. Unrest in the Middle East, U.S. tariffs, climate change, and mass migration are just some of the contentious issues impacting the world, including particularly the 32 NATO states.
Mark Rutte, the new secretary general, is trying to focus and target NATO’s attention to three key issues and not become the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of Everything.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte attends a news conference at a NATO’s informal meeting of foreign ministers in Antalya, southern Turkey, Thursday, May 15, 2025. Khalil Hamra/AP Photo.
The priority is to confirm and increase defence spending to 5 percent of GDP. This includes an increase from 2 percent to 3.5 percent on direct defence spending and an additional 1.5 percent on defence infrastructure and security. Rutte noted that Russia spends nearly 6.7 percent of its GDP on defence and China nearly 7.2 percent, but spending to match adversaries is not the goal. Rather, it is to spend to ensure the protection of 1 billion NATO citizens.
The second priority is to improve readiness, defence production, and interchangeability of defence assets. NATO allies struggle to procure, for example, ammunition in the quantities and speed needed. More drones, missiles, tanks, and other defence capabilities are needed, not to mention access to critical minerals, cheaper fuel, and electricity sources. Most importantly, the NATO summit seeks to send a clear demand signal to allied industries that they are essential to NATO’s readiness.
Finally, Rutte seeks assurances that there will be continued support for Ukraine. As he stated, “[all of NATO] is on the Eastern flank now.” Russia, he continues, will be able to launch attacks against NATO allies in the next five years. Russia continues to be the proximate, persistent adversary, with China the longer-term and more powerful adversary of the future.
Consensus among 32 member states is incredibly difficult. As it is, there is no agreement on the three goals listed above. Therefore, adding additional crises that are not within the direct purview of NATO (to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means) or are exceptionally politically divisive will be given a wide berth and pursued via like-minded coalitions instead.
Medicine Hat Tigers’ Gavin McKenna (72) warms up before a Memorial Cup hockey game in Rimouski, Que., on Friday, May 23, 2025. Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press.
The biggest hockey story in Canada nobody is talking about
By Sean Speer, The Hub’s editor-at-large
Something profound is happening in Canadian junior hockey, and yet virtually no one is talking about it.
The growing number of top Canadian prospects opting to pursue NCAA careers—enabled by new eligibility rules that open the door to players previously locked into the CHL system—represents one of the most significant disruptions to junior hockey in decades. It’s on par with the introduction of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights in the NCAA: a paradigm shift in how young athletes think about their short-term options and long-term futures.
The CHL has long been the dominant path for elite Canadian players. But that model is showing signs of strain. Why are 15- and 16-year-olds expected to leave home, move in with billet families, and endure grueling travel schedules while still teenagers? Why should they be locked into a rigid developmental track when other options now exist—including playing competitive hockey while pursuing a world-class education at some of the top universities in North America?
The fact that elite prospects like Gavin McKenna (who is set to be the first overall pick in next year’s NHL draft) are seriously weighing the NCAA path tells you everything you need to know. This isn’t a marginal shift. It’s a structural threat to the CHL’s business model.
And maybe it’s overdue. The CHL has been slow to adapt to the changing preferences of players and families. Now it must fundamentally rethink its value proposition. What is it offering that the NCAA doesn’t? Can it compete on player development, education, or quality of life?
A more pluralistic system—where players have real choices—should be welcomed. It puts power back in the hands of young athletes. But make no mistake: this moment could change everything. The CHL must adapt or risk being left behind in a sport it once defined.
