A very dangerous end of year

An unrelenting holiday season

Victor Ângelo

 

This could be a troubled end of the year, on the international scene. There are three major crises looming - Iran, Russia, and the new variant of the pandemic. These things tend to erupt at the worst of times, when politicians are out celebrating the holidays, skiing, or sunbathing away from their offices. To say that we are entering a period when a lot can happen is not pessimism. It is simply a sign that we are paying attention to a particularly complex reality.

Let us start with Iran. This week's UN Security Council debate on Iran's nuclear programme showed that the conditions are not in place to revive the agreement signed in 2015 between Tehran and the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany and the European Union. The US continues to impose an extremely tight regime of economic sanctions. And although Iran has turned to China, the truth is that American sanctions have a huge impact.

On the other hand, the new Iranian government has been accelerating its uranium enrichment programme, in clear violation of the 2015 Plan of Action. By now, it has accumulated enough fissile material to be able to produce several nuclear weapons. At the same time, it has accelerated the production of ballistic missiles and air assets capable of carrying a nuclear payload. All this is very serious and raises many red flags in the usual places.

At the time of the Council meeting, the permanent representatives of Germany, France and the United Kingdom to the UN issued a joint statement expressing their governments' deep concern. The final sentence of that statement says it all: "Iran's continued nuclear escalation means that we are rapidly reaching the end of the road." Such a statement sends the signal that it will soon be time to opt for solutions other than diplomacy. The probability is now stronger.

As far as Russia is concerned, President Putin met on Wednesday with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, by video conference. The main objective seems to have been to show a united front against the Westerners. It would be too farfetched to see in this summit a coordination effort to link the tension around Taiwan with a possible offensive by the Russians against Ukraine. The timetables do not coincide, it is not credible to think of simultaneous operations. The American response would be different, in one case fundamentally economic and financial - against Russia - and in the other, with military means.

In any case, the most immediate threat is still the Russian one. Vladimir Putin made the foreboding even more real by speaking of "genocide" that would be in preparation against the ethnically Russian population of Eastern Ukraine. This would be the justification for a military intrusion, an invention easy to propagandise internally and in some international circles.

Meanwhile, this week, Putin again insisted on the urgency of talks with the Americans and NATO. What for? Essentially, for the West to approve Moscow's demands and its vision of geopolitical relations with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, among others. Washington and Brussels do not seem willing to accept these impositions. Which means that tension will continue and the possibility of destabilising action in Ukraine is quite high.

Omicron is also complicating the end of the year. Apart from its health dimensions, it has serious economic costs, at a time when the most developed states are experiencing exceptional levels of public debt and budget deficit. In several European countries, it also has a political impact that cannot be ignored. The restrictions it imposes have given segments of the European radical right the opportunity to mobilise. These are minority groups. Even so, they worry the democratic leaderships of the countries where this is happening. The pandemic and the denialists remind us that the fight against radicalism cannot have a truce. Not even during the festive season. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 17 December 2021)

 

 

 

 

What next regarding Aghanistan?

We can't sweep Afghanistan under the rug

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi, the Italian Prime Minister and current leader of the G20, is convening an extraordinary summit of the group for October 12, with only one item on the agenda: Afghanistan. This is an urgent meeting that cannot wait for the annual summit, which is scheduled for the last two days of this month. The concerns about Afghanistan are essentially twofold: the humanitarian drama, already much worsened at the moment, but which will become catastrophic with the imminent arrival of winter; and defining the conditions necessary for the international recognition of the Taliban regime.

The European Union has meanwhile approved a humanitarian package of 200 million euros. Other aid is urgently needed, not least because the donor community pledged more than a billion dollars on September 13, in response to an appeal launched by António Guterres. But, as always, promises are one thing, but their materialization is another. In addition to logistical difficulties and insecurity, the humanitarian agencies need guarantees of neutrality from the Taliban. This is the only way to ensure that food aid, medical and health care, and educational support reaches those in need without exclusion on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, or power relations.

Still in the humanitarian area, there are three other major issues.

One is the payment of salaries to civil servants and security forces who have not been paid for months. I don't think there is a willingness at the G20 level to finance this. Recently, my former colleague Jan Egeland, a recognized voice in the humanitarian field and who now heads the prestigious Norwegian Refugee Council, wrote an open letter on this subject to the UN Secretary-General. It called for mechanisms to be put in place to find a solution to pay salaries to the Afghan civil service, as was already largely the case under the previous government. The letter was a follow-up to his recent visit to Afghanistan and his shock at the widespread poverty. 

Another issue concerns the electricity supply. Millions in Kabul and the country's largest cities are at risk of being left in the dark. With the onset of winter, this could be yet another cataclysm to add to all the others. Afghanistan imports about 70 percent of the electricity it consumes. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Iran are the suppliers. With the Taliban victory and the administrative chaos that followed, payments for electricity imports have ceased. If the situation does not change soon, it is very likely that some of these countries, especially those that were part of the former Soviet Union and have no sympathy whatsoever for the extremists in Kabul, will suspend supply. If this happens, popular unrest will take on a new dimension. 

How long Afghanistan will need exceptional humanitarian aid is the third big question. Assistance must have a time horizon. The country needs to build an economy that allows it to import the energy and basic commodities it cannot produce, and to have a reasonable standard of living. The economy should not be based almost exclusively on opium production.

Recognition of the new regime, including its representation in the UN, will depend on the position that each G20 member adopts. Recent events show a tendency to establish occasional contacts, while at the political level there will continue to be talk of values, human rights, national inclusion, or the fight against terrorism. And to show a lot of mistrust towards Taliban governance. As time goes by, if there is no extreme migratory crisis or terrorist attack that affects the Western world, the new Afghan regime, whether recognized or not, could be just one more to add to the list of repressive, failed and forgotten states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8  October 2021)

 

 

In Europe, migration remains a critical issue

Migrations and European fears

Victor Ângelo

 

The Afghan crisis has placed the problem of immigration again at the center of European discussions. In essence, it is the fear that thousands and thousands of people coming from Afghanistan will arrive in Europe, pushed to migrate for a combination of reasons: the flight from the Taliban regime, the economic misery, the lack of future prospects and the attraction that richer societies exert on those who live a daily life of despair and constant struggle for survival. Faced with this fear, the European ministers have identified the lowest common denominator as a plan of action: to try to contain the people within Afghanistan's borders or in the bordering countries. To do so, they are counting on the cooperation of the new Afghan power, the self-interested will of the Pakistani and Iranian leaders, and the experience and good name of the UN humanitarian agencies and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

The President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss Peter Maurer, was in Afghanistan this week for three days for discussions with the Taliban leadership and field visits. Also, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, the British Martin Griffiths, visited Kabul to meet with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, now Deputy Prime Minister, and to obtain minimum assurances necessary for the acceptable delivery of humanitarian aid. These rounds of contacts have gone well, and the EU is likely to be the main source of resources for these organizations to do what is expected of them.

However, many Afghans will end up seeking refuge outside their national borders, particularly in Pakistan. It is not clear how many Afghan refugees were already living in Pakistan. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) officially registers 1.4 million people. But there is a multitude outside the records. It is estimated that since August 15, the day Kabul fell, about 10,000 people a day are crossing the border into Pakistan. This flow will possibly increase because of the political, economic and social situation now in Afghanistan. A significant portion of these new refugees will seek to reach Europe.

Pakistan does not have the economic and institutional conditions necessary to host a new wave of refugees. It needs international support. The Pakistani ruling class knows how to operate. It will ask Europeans for material aid and political favours. It is not that it needs much political support, as it already has the full backing of the Chinese. Still, it will let the Europeans know that its willingness to provide humanitarian reception will be stronger if there is, in return, a cooling - even if discreet - of relations between the EU and India. In this geostrategic game, New Delhi stands a good chance of losing.

In the case of Iran, it is a different story. Relations between Europe and Iran are affected by two types of constraints: the lack of agreement on the limits of Iran's nuclear program and the sanctions and restrictions imposed by the Americans, which the Europeans are not capable of challenging. Despite all this, I maintain that Europe cannot exclude Iran from the humanitarian process. Even more so if we take into account that most of the migratory routes pass through that country. What will Tehran ask in exchange for a collaboration that will prevent the transit of human masses? This question cannot be ignored.

The different European states are willing to welcome those who have worked directly with their military forces. But they have no intention of going any further. The usual Viktor Orbán and company are now joined by a new star, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. And the social networks are already full of catastrophic theories about the impact that an increase in the proportion of Muslims in European lands would have. Not to mention, they say, the possible dangers of terrorist attacks. The reality is that here in the EU, as in other parts of the world, questions of cultural identity are increasingly at the centre of the political agenda.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 September 2021)

 

 

Our collapse in Afghanistan

Kabul: And After the Farewell?

Victor Angelo

 

Two days after the fall of Kabul, China conducted a major military exercise at the gates of Taiwan. It was a simulation of an attack, using a combination of air, naval and electronic jamming means. Taipei says that its defence space was repeatedly violated by Chinese fighter jets. And the exercise was seen as a dress rehearsal of what might follow.

It is clear that this military operation has been planned for some time, as part of a crescendo in recent months. But its intensity, level of penetration and intimidation seem to have been deepened, following what had just happened in Afghanistan.

Chinese leaders know that the American administration is fully focused on the aftermath of the chaos in Kabul. The Far East does not fit on Washington's political radar at the moment. More importantly, the new international reality - the image of a great power’s defeat - opened the opportunity to make the exercise more offensive, in a new test of American resolve regarding the protection of Taiwan's sovereignty.

Seen from Beijing, the events in Afghanistan indicate that American public opinion is less willing to commit itself to wars that are not its own, in distant lands, difficult to locate on the map and to understand culturally. Xi Jinping and his people have now become more convinced that the Americans will once again bow to the fait accompli. In this case, the reality that would result from the occupation of Taiwan by force. In this view, Washington would react with much ado, but would in fact hesitate until finally abandoning the hypothesis of a military response.

This may be a misjudgement on the part of the Chinese. But the truth is that the Americans have just projected an image that seems to confirm their choice of a policy of absolute primacy of national interests and that alliances with others only last as long as they do. That is, as long as they serve US interests. This image harms NATO, among others. Besides giving more arguments to those who say that the Atlantic Alliance is just a train of countries pulled by the US, it might make leaders like Vladimir Putin believe that they will not suffer major consequences if they cross certain red lines and threaten the security of European countries. It also undermines the fight for the primacy of rights and principles in political matters. Keeping human rights high on the international agenda when the population of Afghanistan has been abandoned to the primitivism of the Taliban is now more difficult.

Although it is still too early to assess the full consequences of the tragic end of twenty years of intervention in Afghanistan, the evidence is that it has changed the geopolitical chessboard in that part of the globe. We now have, side by side, three fanatical states, each in its own way. One, Pakistan, with nuclear capability. Another, Iran, with nuclear potential. And both in the orbit of China. The third, Afghanistan, is a powder keg domestically, a source of regional instability, and a possible breeding ground for international terrorist movements. Beyond the states, there are the people, who suffer the effects of fanaticism, oppression, corruption, and who live a daily life of misery and fear.

The European Union cannot look at these populations only through the prism of uncontrolled migrations. Unfortunately, this was the concern that guided the speeches of Emmanuel Macron and Josep Borrell, among others, when they spoke publicly about the new Afghanistan. It was as if they only saw hordes of Afghan migrants on their way to Europe. At a serious moment, which requires an innovative diplomatic strategy and an adequate humanitarian response, it is unacceptable to reduce the Afghan problem to a possible migratory crisis. The EU must learn the necessary lessons with regard to security, participation in conflict resolution in third countries and autonomy vis-à-vis the major powers. And it must seek to define a political framework to guide its way of dealing with backward-looking, hostile and inhumane regimes. As, for example, with the bearded men in Kabul.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Looking at Afghanistan's future with great sadness

Afghanistan: So many sacrifices, for what?

Victor Ângelo

 

Coming in like a lion, and then, exiting like a baboon. Perhaps this popular expression does not fully apply to the withdrawal of the American troops and their NATO allies from Afghanistan. It is, no doubt, an inglorious exit after almost twenty years of enormous human and financial efforts. The way in which they abandoned their main military base in Bagram, about an hour north of Kabul - in the dead of night, leaving behind an indefensible and unmanageable situation, namely a prison with more than five thousand prisoners linked to terrorism - has a dramatic symbolic value. It signifies impasse, retreat, and abandonment of the Afghan government and people to their fate. In a word, defeat. With Taliban fanatics gaining ground across the country, the withdrawal will allow them to reach Kabul before the rigours of winter. This is the ideal time of year for military campaigns in Afghanistan and the way is open for the assault on power.

There are many possible reflections on all this. At this moment it is especially important to understand the reasons for the American pull-out. Afghanistan has lost the strategic interest it held for years, when the fight against Islamist terrorism was considered a priority in Washington. The United States now thinks it is sufficiently protected against such threats. This is where they have a huge difference with their European allies. The Europeans continue to see terrorism as a major danger and view the Taliban offensive with great apprehension. But the Europeans in NATO had no choice but to uncritically align themselves with the American position.

For Washington, Afghanistan has come to be seen as an endless war and as a distraction from the new and now far more important focus: China. And it sees the rivalry between the two superpowers as resolved in the region where Afghanistan is located. This is why it does not want to waste any more time and resources in this geopolitical space where China already has the subordination of the two countries that matter most: Pakistan and Iran. The China-Pakistan economic corridor, which ends at the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, is perhaps the most relevant project of the New Silk Road. In Beijing's eyes, it is guaranteed. On the other hand, Iran signed a long-term economic agreement with China in March 2021. Chinese investments are expected to reach $400 billion in the coming years. It is Iran's passage into China's orbit. In the middle will remain the Afghanistan of chaos and radicalism, but without the capacity to harm Chinese interests in the region. The Taliban are dependent on these two neighbours, especially Pakistan, and should not act against their interests.

But beyond the strategic games, there are the people, victims of a cruel conflict, poor but resilient and dignified. They are deeply concerned, as are many of us here in Europe. First, because a regime based on a primitive vision of life in society has no regard for human rights. It treats all people, starting with women and girls, in an incredibly oppressive and inhuman way. We cannot remain indifferent to the extreme suffering that is looming for millions of Afghan citizens. Second, because potential terrorists in Europe will find in the resurgence of Taliban tyranny a new balloon of oxygen. Third, because radical killers operating in the Sahel and elsewhere in Africa, in countries that are part of our historic alliances, will be able to gain new opportunities for support.

One lesson that will be drawn from all this is that you cannot count on support from Westerners. That support comes and then disappears, in the dark of night, according to convenience, the direction of the political wind and the priorities of those who live far from the problems.

To think that these are some of the outcomes of the long and painful Western intervention in Afghanistan can only leave us desolate. Above all, we are left with a bitter feeling of failure and impotence. Of a Europe that is submissive in foreign and security policy, in a world where it weighs little and counts for less.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Lukashenko flies low and will crash

Lukashenko in choppy flight

Victor Angelo

 

For some states, the repression of dissidents knows neither limits nor borders. Anything goes when someone is considered an enemy of the regime. Even when he or she lives abroad, convinced that it is safer. One may not be, however, if one is considered a target for the criminals who control power in the home country. Some dictatorships have an awfully long repressive arm. They have no qualms about operating on foreign soil and conducting murders, kidnappings, or making frivolous or unsubstantiated accusations in order to force Interpol to issue international arrest and repatriation notices. In other cases, they brutally intimidate family members who have remained in the country, with the aim of silencing the opponent in other latitudes.

The atrocious execution in Istanbul of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 was the most visible case in recent times. But it is not only Saudi Arabia that violates international law in this way. In a recently published report, the reputable NGO Freedom House took inventory of individual cases of transnational repression and the regimes that practice it, with total disregard for the sovereignty of other states and the norms of political asylum and refugee protection. In addition to the Saudis, the list includes China, Iran, Rwanda, Russia and Turkey. It would be easy, unfortunately, to add a few others. North Korea, for example, which organized the assassination of Kim Jong-un's half-brother at Kuala Lumpur airport in 2017. And as of this week, we have to include Lukashenko's Belarus.

The Belarusian dictator, who is not cleared of the well-founded suspicion of having rigged the August 2020 presidential elections in his favor, is afraid of his population and of those who lead the opposition against his regime. Therefore, it follows the old methods of dictatorships, that is, it represses the street demonstrations with all brutality, creates a generalized situation of fear, and decapitates the organizational summit, the leadership that is capable of making the popular masses move. Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, did not go to KGB school like his protector Vladimir Putin, but that does not stop him from acting in "special operations" mode.

That is what he did, by forcibly and cunningly diverting the Ryanair commercial flight from Athens to the Lithuanian capital. The interception violated all international standards related to civil aviation safety. It was also a serious affront to the European Union because it was an air link between two Schengen capitals, and a total disregard for political asylum rules. But it allowed him to kidnap and put out of action an important activist in the fight for democracy in Belarus, the young journalist Roman Protasevich.

The political costs of this criminal act are high. The European Council was expeditious and unanimous in its condemnation and response. The airspace Lukashenko controls is no longer on the route for European flights - and not only that, as several Asian airlines have followed suit - and the national airline of Belarus will have to suspend its connections with destinations within the EU. Moreover, the economic sanctions will be extended.

Some will say that these kinds of penalties have little effect on a country that depends primarily on its relations with Russia. They also add that such measures will increase Lukashenko's political subordination to the Kremlin. It is hard not to recognize the merit of these remarks. Experience shows that sanctions against third countries do not lead to major political transformations, except when they directly hit the ruling clique and the sectors vital for the country's economic survival. It is not yet known which will be the new personalities and which activities will be added to the existing sanctions list. But in these matters, the symbolic dimension is equally important. The political and diplomatic isolation of Alexander Lukashenko, and his people, must be made very clear. It serves as a lever. It is up to the Belarusian democratic opposition to do the rest. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Writing about Iran

Iran: the next day

Victor Angelo

 

 

In 2018, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh became known when Benjamin Netanyahu accused him of being the scientist at the head of the Iranian nuclear programme. Fakhrizadeh was murdered on the outskirts of Tehran a week ago. There are contradictory accounts of the crime. What is certain is that the ambush was conducted by a reasonable number of agents, at least ten of them, and in a professional way - the wife, who was travelling with him, came out of it unharmed, she was not part of the objective. I have no doubt that the ambush was carried out by special forces, with perfectly trained executioners, who had at their disposal the information, logistics and means necessary for a high-risk mission. It is peaceful to conclude that it was not the work of the internal Iranian opposition. It had all the characteristics of an operation planned, organised, and carried out by a state hostile to Iran. And I cannot help but think of the regime's three main enemies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Donald Trump's United States.

Those who know these things point in the direction of Israel. It is true that the secret services of that country, in particular the legendary Mossad, have already demonstrated an incomparably greater ability to penetrate Iranian official circles than any other espionage service. One example of this ability, with the trial of the indicted currently taking place in Antwerp, is the following: it was Mossad that made known to the Belgian authorities the terrorist attack the Iranian government was plotting in 2018 against the National Council of Iranian Resistance in exile. The European intelligence services where the plot was being prepared - the Belgians, the French, and the Austrians - had not noticed anything. 

Israel can never admit the slightest hint of responsibility for murders of this kind. Such an admission would open the door to prosecution in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or in the jurisdiction of a United Nations member country. International law is clear. An extraterritorial, summary, and arbitrary execution, promoted by a State outside a situation of armed conflict is a crime which violates international human rights law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Moreover, the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace.

For all these reasons, the paternity of what has now happened to Fakhrizadeh will remain unknown for the time being. We will have to be contented with the suspicions.

The assassination has shown that the Iranian system of internal espionage and counterespionage, which terrifies the population, has very serious flaws. The powerful Ministry of Intelligence is more concerned with the repression of the growing internal opposition than it is prepared to identify the most sophisticated threats from outside. This is not new. In early July, for example, the security services were unable to prevent an explosion at the Natanz nuclear power plant, nor were they able to avert the sabotage of missile-making programmes. All these actions were handled by a foreign country.  

A fundamental issue is to try to understand the central motive for the assassination. What seems more obvious, which would be to strike a major blow capable of further delaying the regime's nuclear programme, makes no sense. The country already has several teams of scientists capable of enriching uranium. The attack on Natanz and the sabotage have already delayed the plans. The real reason must be different.

If we look upstream, we will see that the Israeli government is on the brink of collapse and that Netanyahu will need convincing campaign arguments again. The presumption of a strong hand against the ayatollahs will certainly bring a good number of votes. Looking further ahead, we see that the new Biden administration is in favour of reopening a negotiating process with Tehran. This would be more difficult if the clerics responded to what happened to Fakhrizadeh in a violent manner. The old leaders of Iran are fanatical and backward. But they are astute in international politics. They must look at the assassination as an attempt at political provocation. And they know that waiting patiently for Joe Biden to take office may be the best response to the challenge they were given days ago.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

Iran's growing dependence on China

Iran is counting on China’s investments and political support. China will become the most powerful ally of Iran. Oil is one of the reasons, but not the only one. They are now negotiating a cooperation framework for the next 25 years. All in all, Iran will become seriously dependent on China.

As the Americans invest in their relationship with the Saudis, the Chinese can only get interested on the opposing side. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fierce rivals in the region. A good deal of the future of the Middle East will derive from such rivalry. But behind it, there is the growing and dangerous competition between the US and China.

They can't drink oil

      The collapse of the oil price has several major implications. It is an economic tsunami. For the oil-producing developing countries, in Africa and elsewhere, it means an extraordinary loss of revenue. That’s the case for Nigeria, Angola, Congo, South Sudan, Algeria, Libya, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and so on. It adds fuel to social instability in those countries. It brings, at least, a new level of poverty and hardship to their populations. For the developed countries, it carries serious capital losses for the pension funds and other sovereign funds that were heavily invested in oil corporations and all the other companies that deal with bits and pieces of the oil industry. For all of us, it discourages new investments in renewable sources of energy. The bottom rock oil price makes any renewable too expensive to contemplate at this stage. 

The oil consumption is at present very low, because of the lockdowns that are implemented all over. But also, because the United States has continued to pump vast amounts of oil. They are now the largest producer, with 12.3 million barrels per day. President Trump could have compelled the industry to reduce daily production. There was a recommendation to cut it by 2 million barrels per day. He decided not to act because he saw this branch of the economy as a key pillar of his political basis. There are 10 million oil and gas sector jobs in the US, plus many billionaires that inject money in the Republican camp.   Now, he is promising them billions of dollars in subsidies. Public money being wasted when the solution was to reduce exploitation. His political choice has a huge impact on the domestic taxpayers’ money and on the world economy. It is inexcusable.

They say that misfortunes never come alone. Indeed.

NATO in Iraq: a very well defined role

The NATO training mission in Iraq (NMI) has been temporarily suspended due to the recent developments in the country. In my opinion, it should remain frozen for a few more days or even an additional couple of weeks. That would give time to all participating countries to do a proper assessment of the situation and take a more informed decision about the future of the mission. In an ideal world, it should not resume until the political stalemate within the Iraqi government isn’t resolved. But that can take a long time.

The critical issues regarding this mission are its own protection – it must be clearly assured – and the views of the Iraqi leaders. They must state, without any ambiguity, that they want the mission to continue its work.

In any case, it seems to me out of the question to expand the scope of the mission and combine the training with a more operational approach. This is no combat mission and it should remain as such. Any suggestion or request, from any member state of NATO, to transform the role of the mission into a fighting force should be firmly opposed.

One step in the right direction

The Iranian leadership has shown restraint. The attack against two military camps that accommodate deployed American service men was surgical, in order to avoid an escalation of the situation at this stage. That was a wise move. The American leadership responded to it with wisdom as well.

That could be seen as encouraging. However, it is too early to draw any definitive conclusion. One thing is the direct response from the Iranian military and political establishment, another is the way irregular groups can act as part of the feud.

The fact of the matter is that Iran cannot engage in conventional conflict with the US. Its military budget is a tiny grain of sand when compared with the US. Washington spends in about 9 days what the Iranians budget for a full year. We are therefore talking about two different worlds. For the tiny player, the options are clear: either play
 it down or make use of non-conventional means, which are cheap and can be very impactful. I really hope the Iranians will choose the first option. Much better for them and all of us.

What next in the Persian Gulf Region?

Regarding the killing of its star general, Iran might be envisaging an asymmetric response – meaning, through non-conventional means, making use of all kinds of irregular groups and covert operatives. I guess it would be a tit for tat, an eye for an eye move, an assassination attempt comparable to what happen to their man in Baghdad. They would consider that a measured response, a limited act of revenge.

I am afraid they would try to implement such an intent. They must be firmly and promptly advised not to pursue such a line. It would be a very serious mistake, as things stand now. The US would consider such strike as both escalatory and a trigger for a campaign of massive retribution. It would be like opening the gates of hell.

That’s why major international players must move fast in terms of re-opening the dialogue avenues. EU countries could play a major role if they dare to decide to pursue such an endeavour. It ought to be a well-publicised initiative, to help the Iranians to save face, combined with an extremely confidential and prudent set of moves.

It is a realistic possibility. It just requires the appropriate leadership at the EU level, people that could be accepted by both by the US President and the Iranian leaders.  

First step, to stop the escalation

The UN Secretary-General made a brief statement today about the current situation in the Gulf. I see the statement as important. We have reached a very dangerous crossroads. António Guterres’s message was about restraint, the exercise of maximum restraint. My call, following his appeal, is for countries such as Russia, China, Japan and the EU to seize Guterres’s words and repeat them loud and clear. They should also launch an initiative that would aim at freezing the situation as it is and, from there, try to establish a dialogue platform. I know it is not easy. But these are exceptional times. Those countries have the historical responsibility of making use of their influence. They should try to get both parties to the conflict to put a stop to escalation. That would be a first but important step. A most urgent step, for sure.

A deeply divided Iraq

In the dangerous and complex situation we have now around Iran, one of the key losers is Iraq and its population. The country is deeply divided along sectarian and ethnic lines, has no economy and possesses very little capacity to respond to the multiple security threats it faces. These are all the necessary ingredients for an explosive national crisis. And tonight, the country is a step closer to such crisis. The Shia members of the national parliament voted a resolution recommending that all foreign armies be asked to leave Iraq. The Sunni and Kurd sides of parliament boycotted the vote. In fact, they feel excluded from the current political dispensation. That creates the right ground for new conflicts.

The EU's position on Iranian matters

As I express my disagreement and concern regarding the decision to execute General Qassem Soleimani, I must also recognise that the regime he spent his life fighting for is an aberration in today’s world.

I acknowledge the rights of the Iranian people to decide about their government and its politics. The problem is that their leaders do not give the people the freedom to choose. The leaders have imposed on the population a religion-based dictatorship, that has all the features of a medieval type of life. The country has become hell on earth, in the name of God. That is unacceptable, in Iran, as well as in the neighbouring countries or anywhere else in the world. And that must be denounced in all kinds of forums. The condemnation is not about religion, it is about making use of religious beliefs to impose a totalitarian regime on people.  

The European approach to such countries must combine pressure on human rights and democratic values with economic restrictions. In addition, it must include serious security measures to avoid those countries’ hostile actions, including the promotion they could make of all kinds of radicalism and religious fanaticism. Our policy must be a delicate mix of firmness, encouragement, dialogue, distance and prudence. In the end, it is about sticks and carrots, but certainly not about drones and bombs. It should also be about helping other countries that want to move away from the influence of those theocratic dictatorships.

This approach is certainly very different from the one President Trump is pursuing. That’s our right and nobody in Washington can challenge it. Secretary Pompeo’s remarks about the role of EU countries – he basically said that key European States have not been supportive enough of the American action – are not welcome. Here, as in other occasions, it is our duty to be clear about our policies towards a very explosive and complex area of the globe. And our policies are not subordinated to the views in Washington, or elsewhere outside the EU.

Killing Soleimani

The decision to authorise the deadly attack on General Qassem Soleimani raises many questions and opens the door to a few uncertainties. In my opinion, it was taken in the wake of two events that the US Administration considered to be especially striking.

One was the attack by demonstrators close to the militias that Iran is supporting in Iraq against the US Embassy in Baghdad. In Washington's ruling circles, this incident is seen as very serious. It is also a reminder of dramatic memories, of what happened in Tehran forty years ago. For the American leadership, the assault against the embassy is something that cannot go unanswered.

The other event was the naval military exercise that Iran carried out a week ago together with China and Russia. The current American Administration did not want any of these three countries to believe that such maritime manoeuvres would have any chance of intimidating it or diminishing its resolve. And this determination and firmness had to be demonstrated without any room for misunderstanding.

In deciding, President Trump must also have thought about the impact that such forceful action would have on his electorate. This is a decisive political year for him. He needs to show that he does not hesitate when it comes to respond to those who are presented as the enemies of the United States.

But we have several problems here.

One of them is that acting to show strength, based on the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is unacceptable. It opens the door to a spiral of violence and throws away certain basic norms of relations between states. It is an historic step backwards. You cannot build peace on retaliation. The international community has other mechanisms to deal with conflicts and to make governments that do not obey the established rules reflect.

Another problem is that this type of decision cannot be taken without measuring all the consequences that may follow. My analysis of Mike Pompeo's statements is that these consequences have not been considered. The Secretary of State now talks of lowering the tension in the region after an act that inevitably leads to an escalation. It sounds like that neighbour who spends the night with the music screaming and the next morning tells me on the stairs that we all need rest and tranquillity. 

A third aspect has to do with the legality and morality of this kind of action. These two sets of questions cannot be ignored. War itself has its rules. Several academics have been addressing these issues. There are good pieces of reflection written about conducting attacks with drones in foreign lands. And the majority opinion seems to go in the opposite direction to what has now happened.

Nor can one ignore the discussion about the military doctrine behind the so-called "decapitation" of hostile movements. I will not dwell on this subject, but the truth is that the validity of the theory that advocates the elimination of leaders to resolve a conflict has much to be said about. Let me just refer that often the dead leader is replaced either by another leader that is even more radical. In other cases, we witness a fragmentation of the movement, with smaller terror groups acting on their own, and a new level of danger, amorphous and more difficult to combat.

After all, all this is far more complex than many would have us believe. And this complexity increases exponentially when a character like Qassem Soleimani is assassinated by a great western state.

Iran and its allies at sea

What a present, just before the end of the year! Irony apart, the joint naval exercise that has just taken place in the Gulf of Oman and brought together Iran, Russia and China aimed at sending a very powerful message to the US and its allies. And it did.

The Oman sea lane is especially important for China’s strategic interests. It is, in my opinion, a top priority among China’s lines of communication with the world. That’s why they decided to participate. They wanted to demonstrate their navy’s modernity and outreach. For Russia, it was an opportunity to show they are back as an international maritime power. Both countries wanted also to send a message about stability in the region, meaning, their political commitment to discourage any strike against Iran, because it could have extraordinary consequences for a large part of the Middle East.

And in the case of Iran, the message was clear: to show they have powerful allies. Therefore, they should be left alone.

We must also note this exercise was a new one. It had not happened in the past.

Iran is choosing the wrong approach

The drone cum missile attacks against Saudi oil facilities remain a major international issue. Analysts have tried to read beyond these strikes. They seek to understand what Iran’s game plan is. That’s certainly a key question, in addition to several others. We need a plausible answer to it.

Iran is clearly coordinating its actions with their clients in Yemen, the Houthi rebels. Today, both Iran and the Houthi leadership have extended a hand of dialogue. Last week, the hand they were showing resulted in the attacks, a clear act of war. Now, they talk about bringing down the tension. At the same time, the Iranians organise military parades and public demonstrations of force.

But, again, the question is what is their plan? Escalation, on one side, and diplomatic talk, on the other, is a tactic but not a strategy. It is actually a very dangerous approach. It can easily get things out of hand. And that risk is still very much in the air. We are not out of the danger zone.

Iranian leaders think they are now in a stronger position. That’s probably the reason for the attacks. They wanted to show they can strike a country as heavily armed as Saudi Arabia is. A country that is a close ally of the Americans. They wanted to be seen as a sophisticated military power. And send a message that it is better to negotiate with them than to confront them. The problem is that they have little support outside the small circle that is constituted by a few client governments and a couple of armed groups. Bigger countries will choose the Saudi side, if they have to. And the extensive sanctions the US has imposed on them will ruin their fragile economy and will create further opposition to the clerics that control Iran’s power machinery.

I can only anticipate disaster for Iran, if they continue to strike the neighbours and to make bellicose announcements. Therefore, I see the attacks against the Saudi refineries and plants as a very serious miscalculation. It is a tactical victory and a strategic error.

To launch drones and other missiles is a serious mistake

I do not know yet who is behind the destructive action taken against the Saudi oil facilities on Saturday. I see many fingers pointing in the direction of Iran. They might be right. We will see. But what I certainly know is that the attacks must be considered acts of war and very serious political mistakes. Whoever took the decision to launch the drones and the missiles must be made to understand that conflict escalation can only bring further destruction and misery to the region. Our condemnation of such decision cannot be ambiguous. It must be as strong as they make them, which does not necessarily mean military retaliation. It means isolation and sanctions.  

Our reaction to the drone attacks

The drone attacks against the Saudi oil refineries brought a new level of danger and complication to the complex conflict involving, among others, Yemen, Iran and, of course, Saudi Arabia as well as an external actor such as the United States. 

The reactions we have seen in the key markets go beyond the oil supply issue. They indicate there is a deep concern about the crisis in that part of Middle East and its geopolitical consequences. 

I can understand the fears. Anything can happen. However, as long as there is a tiny hope of a summit between the US President and the Iranian one, I think we can expect our side to hesitate and avoid extreme actions. Am I right? I hope so. The opposite would take us into a much deeper conflict of unimaginable proportions.