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.

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.

On Turkey and Iraq

At the same time the offensive against the Islamic State terrorists moves on towards Mosul city, we have seen a very serious Turkish military build-up on the border areas with Iraq. Apparently the leadership in Ankara has decided to launch a major armed operation inside Iraq, as a means of stopping the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

This Kurdish group is seen as major threat by the Turkish government.

But one should be aware that any major military incursion into Iraq would further complicate a very delicate and dangerous situation. The Turkish authorities have the right to defend their borders. There is no ambiguity about that. However, they should refrain from getting deeply involved in the internal affairs of Iraq. That would add fire to the region. 

Closing the gates on immigrants

The Balkans route, as it is known, is now closed to the immigrants stuck in Greece. The Macedonian government got the message well before the European media and public opinion. That´s why they decided to prevent people from crossing. And if we look carefully at what they have been doing during the last week, we can say that they have also been informed that Iraqi people as well as Syrians from Damascus will not be accepted any longer as refugees. This means the EU approach is becoming much narrower. Fine. But the big question is about what to do with the tens of thousands of people from those areas and from elsewhere, Afghanistan, North Africa, Iran, etc, etc, that are already in Greek soil? Repatriation? How fast can that go before it has a dissuasive impact on those getting ready to cross the sea from Turkey?  

On UN peace operations

Many political and military leaders are very much influenced by their experiences in the stabilisation missions as implemented in Afghanistan and Iraq and would like the UN peace missions to be somehow modelled on those experiences. That explains also why there is these such a push for more robust UN peacekeeping operations and for enforcement campaigns.

It was a bit the same after the operations in the Balkans in the 1990s. 

Dealing with the terrorists in a comprehensive manner

The number of players against the terrorists of the Islamic State is increasing by the day. There is a growing military engagement from the West in Syria and Iraq, in addition to the forces committed by the region and by Russia. There is even some military coordination with Assad in Damascus.

All this is fine. It shows the extraordinary concern that is shared by a good number of countries. IS represents indeed a very serious challenge to the region and to our part of the world as well. It has to be defeated. But I am afraid that the military response might not be enough to settle this major challenge. Even if we take into account the forthcoming deployment of some US Special Forces units, a decision that should be supported.

The military response is the easy response to IS. We need a political strategy too. And I can´t see it, neither in Baghdad nor in Damascus and even less so in Europe.

People say the comprehensive strategy will come. Good. In meantime, we should understand that this crisis is a long term affair. 

The absolute and unique target should be the IS structures

In Syria and Iraq, the main goals are by far to bring peace and stability back as well as to endeavour for democracy and rule of law.

In the current circumstances, the achievement of such priorities passes by the destruction of the Islamic State. The neutralization of their command-and-control structure is the most urgent step, the overriding concern. Every alliance should be directed at fighting IS. Placing other groups in the bull´s-eye is a very serious political and strategic mistake.

We have to be clear about it. Among ourselves and vis-à-vis our friends and allies. 

Turkey has taken the right decisions

The most expected decision has finally been taken by the Turkish President. From now on, the US Air Force is allowed to make use of Turkey´s military airports to launch air raids against IS targets. This will increase the operational capacity of the American planes as the flying distances become much shorter for missions related to Syria.

In addition, President Erdogan has also authorised his own air force to target IS infrastructure in Syria. This is also a very critical decision. If it is properly implemented, it will add a good amount of pressure on the terrorist group.

In the meantime, the neutralization of IS top fighters has gained a new pace. That approach is certainly the most effective way of degrading the capacity of the organization. It requires, however, a new level of intelligence exchange between the allied forces. Particularly a much stronger determination to share from the Turkish side. 

Two additional questions about the Middle East

After the agreement on Iran´s nuclear programme, there are two additional questions related to the Middle East that should receive the same amount of attention. They are both related to peace and security in the region. As such, they are vital for a geopolitical space that has known decades of conflict and remains the major focus of international instability.

One of those questions is about fighting violence. What can the UN Security Council and the countries of the region do to bring peace to Syria and Iraq as well as to Yemen? In different words, can we launch a regional conference on peace and security in the Middle East? This is a very central question. It has to be raised and we have to call on the international leaders to take up their responsibilities and dare to initiate such a process.

It cannot be just about peace in country A or B. In this very volatile part of the world we need to look at the future from a regional perspective. The country by country approach has a very limited impact.

The second question is about the Palestinian crisis. The Quartet is not producing any tangible results. The Palestinian issue is just not being properly addressed. We need to ask ourselves what can be done to change the trend and be in a position to initiate a true process that can lead to a durable solution. 

Here, I see a much greater role for the EU. The EU should take the lead. And it has a chance to do it, now that Tony Blair has moved out of the picture. It has also the moral responsibility, to compensate for all the years we have lost with Blair pretending to be around.

More on the strategy against the terrorists of the Islamic State

We usually emphasise that each national crisis should have a political response and end up with an agreement between the parties. In the case of Syria, it would be, at this stage, a serious mistake to insist on a political solution. The situation has reached such a dramatic level that the only way forward, for the moment, is through a military approach. Politics and diplomacy have to wait. They will come later.

The goals to be achieved are clear: to destroy the self-proclaimed Islamic State and protect the civilian population from further violence. These objectives do call for a major allied armed offensive and also for a change of tactics when it comes to the Assad regime.

On the military side, my writing of yesterday is clear. I can only add that we just have to make sure that those who will take the decision to go for the force option have the support of the popular opinion in their countries. And then ask those leaders to move fast.

On Assad, it is time to make a difference between the man and his people. The headman will have to go. The key criminals that have directly supported him must be brought to justice as well. But we need to find ways of bringing his ethnic group, the Alawites, and all those who are around the administrative and security machineries on board, on our side, as long as they have no real crimes in their hands. They should be part of the solution. If they are not they will be, soon enough, because Assad´s collapse is getting closer, the next mass victims of the brutes that only conceive death as the appropriate punishment  for those who are different.

It is indeed time to think strategically. And be strong.

Revise the strategy to destroy the Islamic State

The daily reports are clear. They point to a recent succession of military gains by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS), both in Syria and Iraq. As I see it, that terrorist group is stronger today than some weeks back. Its ongoing offensives on different fronts show vitality which can only result from new resources, including fresh money and weapons as well as a mass of additional recruits.

The other side of the coin is about weakness. Those opposing IS are today weaker.

The moderate groups in both countries first. They are losing ground and credibility. They have demonstrated they do not have enough vigour to take care of this major challenge. More than ever it is now obvious they necessitate a great amount of external support.

The raids also show that the Western strategy against the terrorist organisation is not working. It has to be revised immediately. Its revision has to focus on a much stronger involvement in the region, through additional deployment of special force units and better coordination among them, more effective and better shared intelligence, and a closer alliance with the Middle Eastern States that oppose IS.

I recognise that a deeper military engagement in Iraq and Syria is a complex and costly matter. But political hesitation is no longer a solution in this case. Public opinion is prepared, in our part of the world, for a serious increase of our military assistance to those who can be our regional and local allies in this combat. We just have to ensure that the alliances are clear and strategic, meaning, they should aim, above everything all, at destroying the IS threat.

The leadership of the "Islamic State" should be destroyed as quickly as possible

The operation that killed a key leader of the terrorist organization called “Islamic State” (IS) should be underlined as a major development. It shows in many ways that there is a new game in town, if we can say it with these words. It takes the fight against these terrorists to a new level: the direct involvement of US Special Forces. We know almost nothing about these extremely specialised branch of the American military. But the fact that they are on the ground against IS, operating from Iraq but ready to go across the border into Syria, can make us believe that the leadership of that brutal organisation will be sooner or later seriously weakened. The targets of the Special Forces are the very important people on the other side of the fence. We can only hope they will be able to do the job fast and cut the head of the monster soon enough.  

Our little world

Our part of the world is once again responding with indifference to the human tragedies that are taking place in Syria and Iraq and to the deepening of the security crisis around Yemen. As we remain unresponsive to so many other violations of basic human rights.

 Our leaders seem to be overwhelmed by our own domestic problems, the media is focusing on Le Pen, the UK forthcoming elections and the inability of the US local police to deal with the challenges of multi-ethnicity in their towns, and we, the little people, we are just trying to cope with the air control strikes and the taxes that keep falling on us. Or preparing for the next holiday.

These are indeed interesting times: the more we know about the world, and we know plenty nowadays, the more we close ourselves in our little circles. The information reaches us but we have learned to ignore it. 

Poor weather in the EU capital

Poor weather in Brussels today. Time thus to get ready for my quarterly meeting on peace building. And to realise that there is no strategy, in my part of the world, to deal with the current turmoil in the Middle East. More than ever, the piecemeal approach is the one that dictates the policy. Even so, I am not sure we have a clear policy for each case that is developing in the region. Maybe influenced by the weather, I come to the conclusion that the approaches we are now following are very tentative and full of messy actions. With the exception, maybe, of the dialogue with Iran on the nuclear issues. But the nuclear package is only one dimension of what our Iranian policy should be. Are we connecting it with the rest?

Syria: failure and despair

Syria´s tragedy is spreading fast into the neighbouring countries, particularly in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. Chaos and human distress have reached new levels, as it is also the case regarding insecurity and instability. People are just desperate, after so many years of war. Those who can afford the fees are now paying large amounts to human traffickers to take them across the sea into Europe. Even at this time of the year, when the seas are rough and the weather threatening. This is no time for hazardous crossings but the anxiety is so high that people just try to sail through. Everything is better than staying behind.

Their sense of urgency is not matched, on our side, by anything similar. We seem to have accepted that there is no solution to the Syrian crisis. The Security Council cannot agree on any meaningful approach to the resolution of the crisis. Now, Russia is preparing a conference – another so-called high level meeting! It will take place in a couple of weeks but nobody knows what for. It is not even clear if the UN Special Envoy will be given any significant role in that meeting. It could be just another excuse for the lack of substantive action. But, as things stand, it´s OK to go for it. At least it will allow a number of voices, here and there, to recall that the Syrian crisis is a major failure of today´s world. 

Turkey and its approach to the Islamic State bandits

Just a very simple question: what is Turkey doing to fight the terrorists that call themselves the Islamic State? The Turkish government is indeed very difficult to understand.