When the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and the European Union clinched a deal with Iran on its nuclear program in 2015, there were some hopes that the agreement would usher in a period of stability in the Middle East.
But when Donald Trump was elected U.S. president in 2016, he stuck to his word and turned his back on the nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He argued that the deal was flawed and that Tehran was not sticking to its conditions. This was despite the elaborate system of inspections that were established to monitor compliance.
Over the past year, Washington has reimposed sanctions on Iran. And over the past few days, Trump has signed an executive order that slapped sanctions on Iranian officials including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader. Trump has not ruled out a military option.
European diplomats and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have traveled to Tehran in a bid to rescue the deal, which Iran has threatened to disown, and to reduce tensions between Washington and Tehran. But so far, to no avail. This is because the political dynamics surrounding the deal have fundamentally changed since Barack Obama left the White House in 2017. The new circumstances show how the Europeans have no political or strategic influence either in rescuing the nuclear deal in particular or in stabilizing the region in general.
Israel and Saudi Arabia opposed the JCPOA. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly argued against it, claiming it would not curb Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons that could destroy Israel. In addition, he contended, the deal did nothing to stop Iran’s meddling in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria and its support of terrorist organizations.
Saudi Arabia opposed the deal because it would bring Iran out of isolation, provide its economy with much-needed foreign investment, and give Tehran more status in the region. Despite all these objections, Obama stuck to the deal. His administration had, to say the least, very poor relations with Netanyahu and the Saudis.
Indeed, Washington pursued hardly any dialogue with Israeli or Saudi leaders, and had little or no strategy on how to end the war in Syria—much to the dismay of what were once America’s closest allies in the region.
Trump completely reversed Obama’s policies, and radically. With his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, playing a pivotal role in the region, Trump overturned decades of American policy by moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. To the delight of Jerusalem and Riyadh, Trump walked away from the JCPOA in May 2018.
He supported the decision by Mohammad bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, to militarily intervene in Yemen, where a war has created a shocking humanitarian disaster. Trump played down bin Salman’s role in the October 2018 assassination of Saudi journalist and critic Jamal Khashoggi. All in all, Trump’s policies toward Iran have revived Saudi Arabia’s geostrategic influence in the region and reassured Israel. They have also left the Europeans powerless.
Diplomatic efforts by European leaders have failed, even though those leaders know that the conflict between Washington and Tehran could escalate toward a military confrontation. The Strait of Hormuz is now highly vulnerable. One-fifth of the world’s oil supply is transported through this part of the Gulf. The attack on June 13, 2019, on two tankers in the strait—an incident that Washington blamed on Iran and Tehran denied—should be a catalyst for diplomacy.
But European leaders are woefully ill prepared to play a role in the Middle East. Their unequivocal support of the Iran deal has been criticized by Israel. Their role in mediating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been dismal. As for the war in Syria, the Europeans have had no diplomatic strategy—not that other countries could boast one. And they have no ability to curb Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen or play a role in Libya.
The reason for these failings is twofold. First, when it comes to dealing with Israel and Palestine, the EU lacks a common, hard-nosed strategy. Having left it up to Washington to deal with this conflict, the EU became a bystander that consolidated the status quo in Israel and Palestine. Second, in the case of Syria, the EU again became a bystander because the use of hard power was anathema to the EU. Its diplomatic role is absent.
Now that Washington supports Riyadh’s ambitions to carve out a major role in the region, the Europeans can only further retreat into strategic irrelevance.
This irrelevance may well be called into question by Trump. If Washington and Tehran embark on or stumble toward a military confrontation, European leaders and NATO may well expect a phone call from the White House requesting support. A confrontation would have unpredictable consequences. Apart from the impacts on the Strait of Hormuz and on oil and shipping-insurance prices, any war, however short, could drag in other players. And if Israel were targeted, how would the Europeans then react?
Comments(4)
Iran signed the JCPOA because it enabled Tehran to maintain an industrial level nuclear program far into the future. Even President Obama admitted that sometime after 2023, Iran's nuclear weapon "breakout time" would become a matter of weeks rather than months. In other words, Iran signed a nuclear "sweetheart deal" with the Democratic Party under the auspices of Obama, Biden and Kerry. In fact, Iran loves the JCPOA and would like nothing better than a return to the JCPOA. That is, if the Democrats return to power after the 2020 election. The Supreme Leader understands the appeasement characteristics of both Europe and the Democrats and he is placing a huge bet on the next American presidential election. Tehran understands that both Europe and the Democrats will never agree to stop it from achieving its goal of being a threshold-nuclear-weapon state. The Islamic State will simply keep its weaponization program secret, all the while diminishing its crucial "breakout time" to an undetectable level. Europe has little leverage in these matters because it is perceived in Trump America (and among many moderates and independents as well) as parasitic in respect to its own defense. Trump America understands that for many decades Europe has had a near "free lunch" with respect to US defense largess. Trump America also understands who financed Europe's reestablishment in the aftermath of WWII and how Germany and the EU were allowed the luxury of a massive trade surplus. Now -- that great chunks of America's once dominant industrial base has been transferred to the cheap labor markets of Asia -- Europe's free ride has come under much greater scrutiny and criticism. Europe is under the delusion that American global unipolarity has somehow brought peace to its war ravaged and deeply fragmented political history. Nothing could be further from the truth. Russia and China understand the current Asian and European geopolitical reality far differently than Paris, Berlin and London. Combined with the US Democratic Party's support for a return to the JCPOA; is it any wonder that Obama's and Europe's misconceptions of reality has had a very negative effect on Israel and the Saudis? Albert Einstein defined insanity as - "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result". Europe's support of the Palestinian two-state solution is just such an insanity. Israel will never be confined to a Tel Aviv-wide state. Arafat might have fooled Europe, not the Jews.
Europe is present in the ME and everywhere else in the world, since 1494’s Inter caetera. Before that, for half a millennium they imported knowledge and technology from the Arab world and beyond (gunpowder); they honed shipbuilding, navigation and war fighting and made them into empire. In a couple of days, 07/28 will mark 115 years since Europe has unleashed industrial war upon the world, Empires colliding in all dimensions. Churchill’s memoirs tell the story of the 1908 APOC to fuel the British Navy to sea power dominance. The road to WWI war included colonial quarrels in that part of the world, Agadir and more. It is oil that brought there Europe’s Empires, and before the Treaty of Lausanne it was another Empire, the Ottoman. Sykes and Picot drew lines that later become states; these states witnessed Europeans fighting WWII tank battles across the desert. 1956, the Suez crisis ended France’s and UK’s influence in that part of the world. Two newcomers, the Soviet Union and the US asserted their influence there. To summarize, Oil-Sykes-Picot did it, and sowed conflict for the foreseeable future. Germany, France and the UK, their peoples have limited appetite for intervening anywhere in the world, a world where force is again central to anything. The best proof is the absence of anything war related form the EU elections, as well as other elections. AKK wants to build and aircraft carrier (not a carrier strike group) to project force, equipped with a new FCAS Eurofighter, which will project force in 2040 (if there is a planet left); Johnson doesn’t differentiate himself by talking ME foreign policy, busy to lead into a no deal Brexit. In what concerns JCPOA, INSTEX will never become functional, regardless of what the EU does. On a separate note JCPOA was supposed to be a beginning, not and end. The NATO EU members are still under the protection of US paid ABM systems against future Iranian missiles. Al Jubeir (in the picture accompanying the article) points (i2017 interview, CNBC) to the 1979 Iranian revolution as a turning point in the ME. The road from Mosaddegh to Khomeini’s arrival from France in 1979 is long and complex, an is still history in the making. “European leaders and NATO may well expect a phone call from the White House requesting support.” the answer will be yes, Stoltenberg will praise as usual in many interviews the NATO EU memberscontribution, and in real life it will be very limited (see Afghanistan), basically no. Peace is always better.
THE MIX BOWL The word “global leadership” is anathema to most Europeans, a significant majority would be as happy to become the Mecca of tourism where people of other races come to spend their savings, but not to stay. The trade deal with Mercosur is an unparalleled historic accomplishment; one that will force the EU to think and act in global terms. The future may be uncertain, but if Trump, Putin, and other illiberal ideologies are a small example the EU of tomorrow will be greatly involved in world affairs. Not as an illiberal, but a liberal democracy. How far into the future? If it took 20 years to add 780 million consumers, it may take 10 years for Europeans to realise the world is a smaller place by the day. First, the immediate consequences of the Mercosur deal is that Brexit may be dumped for good. Second, the lose term “bipolar economic powers” will be replaced by “tripolar” economic powers, and the world is more than ready to contribute for the EU to become relevant. Third, younger people are more accepting of people of other races, we can’t expect half of EU to change overnight, but God is wise to keep changing generations every 80 years or so. The fact is the greater the global trade, the greater is the responsibility and greater the mix bowl of races.
The reality is that U.S. have always been in the driving seat when it comes to the Middle East at large, with the Europeans being either marginalised or focussing on specific dossiers only (e.g. Libya) . It was true with Obama and it is equally obvious with Trump. Both aimed at disengaging from the region by creating a regional power balance system. The difference lies in the chosen partners and foes, and of course in the sophistication of the tools employed to that end.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.