Ukraine, Iran and the European geopolitical priorities

 

Ukraine or Iran? The Frontier of European Sovereignty

By Victor Ângelo

The war launched on 28 February by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a flashpoint of instability in the Middle East and a high-risk global disruption. It is the result of a labyrinthine decision that raises many questions. For this reason, it has become the most debated topic in various international arenas. The angles of analysis are numerous: the legality of the decision, its objectives—including Iran’s nuclear power and the essence of its regime—geopolitical, macroeconomic, and humanitarian implications, the absolute marginalisation of diplomacy and the multilateral political system, as well as issues related to American domestic politics.

For us, it is also the shock that has exposed the European Union’s strategic hesitations. While the world wonders about the future, Europe faces an undeniable truth: by allowing itself to be dragged into the Persian Gulf, it risks forgetting that the future of our continent will be decided, in large part, on the plains of Ukraine.

For Europe, supporting Ukraine is not just any foreign policy choice among others—it is an absolute priority. It concerns the defence of our territorial integrity and our values, the security of neighbouring countries seeking to join the community, and the survival of the European project itself. Russian aggression targets not only Kyiv, but above all the demolition of the entire architecture of cooperation that has sustained peace on our continent since 1945.

Ukraine’s return to a solid and just peace will reinforce the conviction that European borders remain inviolable. For Europe, to lose would herald a future of submission to Moscow or an endless dependence on a Washington that is now increasingly distant from European philosophy and political choices.

Leaving Russia aside, let us add that the EU cannot be subordinate to American zig-zags and interests. Partnership and alliance must not be synonymous with vassalage. This does not imply waiving the right to criticise or sanction autocratic regimes. Sanctions are a way to resolve disputes between states without resorting to war. What remains unacceptable are armed conflicts and military actions outside the legal framework of the United Nations.

An alarming dimension of the current conflict in the Middle East is the immediate drainage of resources that would be vital for the legitimate defence of Ukraine. Recent estimates indicate that more than 1,000 Patriot (PAC-3) interceptor missiles have already been fired against Iranian attacks since 28 February. It is a contrast in which Ukraine loses out, despite the gravity and legitimacy of its situation being incomparably superior. In four years of resistance, Ukraine has received fewer than 600 of these very same interceptor missiles.

This disparity suggests that the Trump administration markedly prioritises the regional objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over European democracies. Brussels cannot stand by in silence while the "shield" that should protect the Ukrainian air space is consumed in a strange war in the Middle East. Every resource spent in the Middle East represents a new opportunity for the Russian missiles that massacre the Ukrainian people day and night.

It is in the light of this strategic error that the recent position of the European leadership must be read. In this scenario, the message Ursula von der Leyen delivered this week to EU ambassadors is profoundly ambiguous. The speech left the impression that von der Leyen has moved closer to the ideas of Trump and Netanyahu than to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the specific case of the attacks on Iran, von der Leyen echoed the arguments—the pretexts, to be more precise—repeatedly mentioned by Washington and Tel Aviv rather than International Law. She abandoned the field of neutrality and mediation, once again weakened Kaja Kallas’s more dialogue-oriented line, and left a significant portion of European observers perplexed, including important wings of the European Parliament.

Europe must be seen by the rest of the globe as a space of values and compliance with international law, of geopolitical balance, and as a defender of the multilateral system. Our strength lies there: in cooperation with the countries of the South who see in International Law the protection they require. By adopting the rhetoric of "military force," as if Europe could become an armed superpower overnight, the President of the Commission seemed to ignore that the true authority of our Union rests on the acceptance of universal values and solidarity with the different peoples of the world. As António Costa stressed after the President’s speech, the EU must defend the international order based on rules. Costa left no room for ambiguity.

I, too, do not wish to be seen as ambiguous. I am against submission, and I do not defend a policy of neutrality, because not choosing is in itself a choice, and rarely the best one. I advocate neither silence nor indifference. As Dante said more than seven centuries ago in his monumental work, the Divine Comedy: "the most pitiless flames in Hell are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis." Respect for International Law and the right to self-defence are not neutral. They are civilised ways of saying no to arbitrary decisions, the use of brute force, and attacks against human rights. It is this crystal clarity that I expect from European leaders and that the future demands of us.

No to realpolitik, yes to principles and the International Law

 

Geopolitical Realism: When Might Prevails Over International Law

By Victor Ângelo

I regret having to repeat myself, but criticising the theory of geopolitical realism (realpolitik) does not constitute an exercise in naive idealism. On the contrary, it is a matter of recalling three fundamental dimensions of the relations between States. First, that peace must be the foundational principle of the international order. Second, that the United Nations Charter — even if it lacks updating regarding representation and the functioning of the Security Council — must be scrupulously respected. Third, that the power of military force cannot, and must not, prevail over the force of International Law. The world is not a boxing ring, nor a gladiatorial arena, where the strongest invariably wins.

The central error of so-called "political realism" lies in reducing the State to the role of the sole actor, ignoring democratic practices. Institutions, citizens' associations, economic agents, the media, and intellectuals are devalued or instrumentalised as mere pawns of power. Oppositions are diminished in their rights, despite being normal alternatives in a democracy. In reality, this alleged realism, which is nothing more than a form of political reductionism, opens the doors to absolute and arbitrary power, even in apparently consolidated democracies.

When leaders view the world solely through the lever of force and military aggression, they live anchored in other times; their mental roots are buried in the past. They place themselves outside the law and call it pragmatism. They ignore — or pretend to ignore — that there is a "before" and an "after" 1945, and that the world has changed radically since the end of the Cold War. When they speak of "negotiations", they are actually referring to the submission of the weak to the will of the strong. In the 19th century, such a practice was termed an "ultimatum". Today, it is presented under the cloak of a dense "geopolitical fog". This lack of visibility allows for a game played without clear rules. Diplomacy is captured to buy time, sow confusion — both among adversaries and domestic public opinion — and prepare, in the shadows, the logistics of war. Can we trust such leaders, today or tomorrow?

The war against Iran reminds us that it is imperative and urgent to insist on international ethics and human rights. When brute force becomes the primary criterion, no one is truly safe — not even the most powerful. If human rights are despised, fear becomes the only acceptable truth and the dominant social rule. George Orwell's "Newspeak" is, disturbingly, beginning to be imposed as a linguistic norm when, in certain European capitals, people speak of unusual characters now appearing at the front of the stage.

What is happening today in the Middle East underscores a constant reality: during and at the end of bad decisions and despotism, there is always a vast number of human beings paying the bill. This reality leads me to contend that the only sovereignty that truly counts is that which is based on the protection of life and human dignity. Everything else belongs to the tragic comedy of power, to absurd megalomaniacal ambitions, and to indifference towards people and the world itself. Are we witnessing the definitive decline of humanist concerns?

It is urgent to bring this theme to the table of the Security Council. Portuguese diplomacy, committed to obtaining a seat on the Council for the 2027-2028 biennium, must adopt this vision as its own banner: the banner of peace, dialogue, and tolerance, with humanity above all else. By doing so, Portugal will align itself with the majority of Member States and with the very essence of the UN. We will not be mere passive spectators of the current nihilism and unilateralism, but an active voice capable of proclaiming that great challenges demand collective and multilateral responses.

Our participation in NATO has an objective of peace and does not prevent the building of bridges with regional organisations in Latin America, Africa, or Asia. At a time when some powers are distancing themselves from the UN, or seeking to subordinate and capture it, Portuguese diplomacy can serve as another pillar — in coordination with other States — in building consensus, defending International Law, and supporting institutions of common interest. For example, the international courts based in The Hague and the bodies of the United Nations system, which are vital for billions of people and for the planet.

In June, the General Assembly will vote on the composition of the Council for the next two years. The Portuguese campaign takes place in a demanding and quite delicate context. Our greatest asset must be the intransigent promotion of peace through the reinforcement of the political role of the UN. This is the message that the world wants — and most needs — to hear with clarity.

---

Contextual Post-Script (March 6, 2026)

As I review this translation, the events of this week add a sharp layer of irony to the text's call for "institutional ethics" and its critique of "transactional realism":

• The Merz-Trump Dialogue: Just three days ago, on March 3rd, Chancellor Friedrich Merz met with President Trump at the White House. While Trump pushed his "energy dominance" agenda, Merz was forced to navigate the exact "geopolitical fog" you describe. He specifically cited the war in Iran as a disaster for energy prices, urging a swift conclusion to protect German industry.

• The Rosneft "Carve-out": In a classic example of the "transactionalism" you critique, the US Treasury just yesterday (March 5th) lifted sanctions on Rosneft Deutschland. This was the result of intense lobbying by Merz to ensure Germany could continue refining oil through its state-controlled (but Russian-owned) assets. It confirms your fear: the "ideals" of sanctions are being traded for the "pragmatism" of industrial survival.

• The "Empty Shell" Reality: While the UN General Assembly watches from the sidelines, the "Coalition of the Willing" (led by Merz, Macron, and Starmer) met virtually this week to discuss troop deployments to Ukraine if Trump's peace deal fails. The "rescue mission" you envisioned is being led by heads of state, while the UN remains the "passive spectator" you warned against.

Today's Iran: and tomorrow?

 

The Rubicon is Crossed: From the "Farsa" of Geneva to the Fire of the Gulf

Victor Ângelo
International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

 

When I wrote in these pages yesterday that the clock for an intervention in Iran was measured in "hours or days," I did so with the heavy heart of someone who has spent several years trying to prevent precisely this kind of diplomatic bankruptcy. Today, as the first reports of explosions in Isfahan and near the Strait of Hormuz confirm that the "Sentinel’s Wrath" (or whatever branding the White House chooses for this tragedy) is underway, the "Cantinflas" theatre has officially closed. The masks are off, and the stage is now set for a conflict of unpredictable proportions. 

The collapse of the Geneva talks—which I previously described as a "farsa"—was the final signal. Sending real estate investors to discuss nuclear enrichment with a millenary power was not an act of naivety; it was a deliberate provocation designed to fail. Their message was an ultimatum. 

By presenting the Iranians with an ultimatum disguised as a "deal," Washington ensured that the path to war was paved with a veneer of "having tried diplomacy." As I warned, it was a crass error to underestimate the pride of Tehran, but perhaps the greater error was believing that this administration ever intended for those talks to succeed. 

The immediate implications are now twofold. First, we face the inevitable economic blowback. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographical feature; it is the jugular vein of the global energy market. Any Iranian retaliation there—which their doctrine of "asymmetric response" practically guarantees and it is now closed—will send oil prices into a spiral that will make the inflationary crises of 2025 look like a minor market correction. The "triunfalismo" of the White House may soon be dampened by the reality of ten-dollar-a-gallon petrol. 

Second, we are witnessing the final decapitation of the Rules-Based Order. By bypassing the UN Security Council and ignoring the "patient persistence" that Gorbachev, Reagan and Kofi Annan once championed, the superpowers have effectively declared that International Law is a relic of a dead century. We have entered the era of "Transactional War," where the strongest decides the "deal," and the weakest pays the price in blood and sovereignty. 

The regime in Tehran is now at its most dangerous. While it is true that many Iranians yearn for an end to the theocratic dictatorship, history teaches us that foreign bombs rarely foster internal revolution; they more often unify a nation under the flag of "divine protection." 

We are no longer debating whether a "deal" is possible. We are now in a race to see if the world can contain a fire that was started by people who believe the globe can be managed like a luxury hotel chain. Churchill believed in the power of summits; today, we are left only with the power of the bunker.

On Iran and the new way of practising diplomact

 The Erosion of Diplomatic Architecture: Why Transactionalism Fails the Iran Test

By Victor Ângelo

The proliferation of unconventional actors in international security has reached a critical inflection point. While market volatility often reacts to the immediate rhetoric of world leaders, a deeper, more corrosive trend is emerging: the replacement of institutional diplomacy with a model of "circular discourse." This week’s State of the Union address in Washington was less a strategic roadmap and more a closed-loop allocution, designed for domestic signaling rather than geopolitical resolution. For those accustomed to the structured stability of the rules-based order, the current American trajectory represents a significant departure from established norms of statesmanship.

Nowhere is this divergence more acute than in the deteriorating situation with Iran. Yesterday’s session in Geneva provided a stark visual representation of this mismatch. On one side, a twenty-strong Iranian delegation—staffed by career jurists and nuclear experts representing a regime that prioritises millenary pride and theological survival. On the other, a skeleton crew of two American interlocutors, including property investor Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. This numerical and professional disparity suggests that Washington is no longer attempting to negotiate a complex multilateral treaty, but is instead treating nuclear non-proliferation as a transactional "closing."

This "real estate" approach to high-stakes diplomacy is a strange geopolitical decision. Unlike the pragmatic, persistent negotiations that defined the Gorbachev-era thaw, the current "triunfalismo" emanating from the White House ignores the specific gravity of the adversary. 

We are no longer in an era where words serve as a bridge; they have become a tool for division and ego-projection. With Benjamin Netanyahu signaling that the window for deterrence is narrowing, the risk of armed intervention has shifted from a theoretical contingency to a matter of hours or days.

Commenting on the State of the Union and the crisis in the Middle East (Iran)

 

Opinion Diário de Notícias 

From the State of the Union to Iran: Between Rhetoric and Real Risk

Victor Ângelo

International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

Published on: 27 Feb 2026

---

We live in a society where "doctors" in the most extravagant branches of "Political Science" are proliferating. Many of them provide commentary on television opinion programmes in a manner that is as irrational as it is effective at capturing the largest possible number of viewers. This leads me to wonder whether any of them has ever studied the political thought of Cantinflas, who won a Golden Globe in the field of comedy—a close relative discipline to party politics. Although he passed away in 1993, it seemed appropriate to revisit his interventions in the art of politics and imagine how he would have reacted to the "rigmarole" speech Donald Trump delivered this week on the State of the Union.

Cantinflas was a shrewd man and, as a neighbour to the US by virtue of being Mexican, he would certainly have paid mockingly close attention to the American president’s harangue. I have no doubt he would have been delighted. Trump proved, once again, to be one of his own: an extraordinary orator in a style the Mexican character appreciated—the circular discourse. That is to say, an endless allocution that repeatedly returns to the same themes, as if the speaker were trapped in an arena with no exit.

Trump, in his 2026 State of the Union, dwelt repeatedly on immigration, the success of his administration (particularly in the economy), the incompetence of the Democrats, patriotism, the eight peace deals achieved, and negotiations with Iran. The intentions of the speech were clear: to display brilliance, project power, and sow division. Cantinflas used to say that these are a politician’s primary weapons, to which I would add intrigue. The comedian would have given Trump’s lecture top marks.

He would, however, be concerned regarding Iran. Although Trump speaks of negotiations and claims to prefer a deal—yesterday, a new and strange session of talks took place in Geneva, featuring two American interlocutors and two dozen representatives from Tehran, a contrast that reveals the disparity in expectations—the reality is that we are very close to an armed intervention. I do not know if it is a matter of hours or days, but the signs do not seem to deceive. Benjamin Netanyahu could enlighten us, as he is surely on the inside of the matter.

I have already written in the 6 February edition of the DN that a confrontation between the US and Iran would be "profoundly dangerous and complex." For the region and for various other parts of the globe.

The White House, however, prizes triumphalism over diplomacy. In this regard, it mirrors the dominant position in the Kremlin: the superpowers have ceased to believe in talks. Now, it is about crushing one’s adversaries.

It was not like this during the Cold War, especially in the final decade that ended with Mikhail Gorbachev’s mandate. My generation at the United Nations and in international diplomacy will remember that Gorbachev advocated, when speaking with Washington or in New York, the idea of persistent negotiations and openly criticised any decisions he deemed thoughtless, unbalanced, or dangerous to global stability.

It was through working with people like that, on both sides of the wall, that I learned that to win in the ceaseless quest for respect for International Law, one must be persistent and patient. This message should be reminded to those in charge in Washington regarding Iran. Similarly, it would be relevant to underscore to both the White House and the Kremlin another lesson from the times when agreements reached at the UN and other multilateral forums were respected: it is generally a crass error to underestimate one’s opponent.

At the UN General Assembly in September 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian guaranteed that his country does not intend to build a nuclear bomb. Words are worth what they are worth and, in politics, they often fail to withstand a sudden gust of wind. For most leaders, good political practice means being skilled in the art of lying through one's teeth. Pezeshkian’s promises certainly do not withstand the vision of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who views the US and Israel as his country’s mortal enemies and the production of missiles—and likely nuclear weapons—as the only salvation for his regime. But the truth is that the regime suffers from a much greater threat: the majority of Iranians want to end the theocratic dictatorship of the ayatollahs, a power that is terribly repressive, antiquated, and unacceptable by the standards of Human Rights.

In a world of courageous people, the United Nations should be trying to promote, tirelessly, an encounter between Donald Trump and Ali Khamenei. A direct dialogue, a face-to-face between the two. It would be difficult, but not impossible. This was one of the lessons we learned from Winston Churchill and many other high-calibre statesmen. Churchill believed in the efficacy of summit meetings. He would be flabbergasted to learn that Trump had sent the poor soul Witkoff and the property investor Kushner to Geneva to discuss the solution to a confrontation that could turn the Middle East and other parts of the world upside down. They are not up to the task. Especially when, on the other side, stands a nation with millenary pride. And one that feels inspired and protected by a divine force. That kind of illusion holds great power.