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.

Security in Munich 2026: a complex debate

The Munich Security Conference is set to take place from the 13th to the 15th of February. It remains a watershed moment in global political discourse; one need only recall the fractious intervention of the American Vice President, JD Vance, at last year’s gathering to grasp the weight of the meeting.

We find ourselves now in an even more precarious phase. As the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, remarked recently in Davos, we are in a state of "permanent rupture"—an era of "brute reality" where Great Powers wield trade and force as instruments of coercion. He is, in large measure, correct. Indeed, his observation is one I have touched upon in recent writings.

I must reiterate, however, that we cannot permit ourselves to be overcome by pessimism, nor by the irrationality and violence of autocrats. To fold one's arms is no solution. The world is not fated to be ruled by narcissists, dictators, or the deranged. Mahatma Gandhi once reminded us that there have always been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall—always.

The speeches to be delivered in Munich are currently being drafted. It seems to me, therefore, an opportune moment to share a series of thoughts on themes I consider paramount.

I shall begin by quoting Kofi Annan, with whom I worked for several years: "Our mission is to place the human being at the centre of everything we do. No wall is high enough to keep out global problems, and no country is strong enough to solve them alone." Long before him, Martin Luther King Jr. observed that we are "caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" that ensnares us all.

The messages of both men are plain to understand: either we commit to solidarity between peoples, or our societies and the planet, as we know them, can only draw closer to the abyss.

I observe with concern the apologia for "useful subordination," which some term political realism. This so-called realism, to which the Great Powers seek to subjugate us—and which certain theorists and leaders champion—must be regarded as a perilous anachronism. It is a sort of "survival guide" that, under the guise of accepting force as the defining factor in international relations, proposes the abandonment of universal principles in exchange for an illusory stability. This political vision being sold to us stems from the exhausted and dangerous premise of accepting "spheres of influence." In other words, they draw inspiration from the suzerainties and vassalages of yore, claiming them to be the best means of ensuring peace. There must be those in Munich prepared to dismantle this fallacy.

The true strength of a State does not reside solely in its military arsenal. It rests equally upon its legitimacy and the courage of its people. To invest in an atmosphere of fear is the preferred pursuit of dictators and populists. When we allow them to wield that weapon, we march toward perdition. This is happening even amongst us. A climate of dread is developing in Europe. The paralysis engendered by fear is the true weakness of a nation. It is vital that it be said in Munich: we are ready to overcome this terror, from wherever it may come. Audacity, anchored in values, is the answer.

Ukraine serves as a testament to this. Her people know it well. Ukrainian resistance is an act of moral courage proving that a people of free spirit is invincible, even when confronted by an imperial philosophy that views the world through a nineteenth-century lens. Zelensky’s address in Davos was a plea for reflection, though it was somewhat eclipsed by Carney’s speech. Zelensky openly criticised Europe, describing it as a "fragmented kaleidoscope of small and medium powers"—hesitant, dependent on the United States, and lost in internal squabbles while Russian aggression persists and Putin’s oil flows freely along European coasts. He proposed that this oil be seized and the proceeds used to fund the legitimate defence of Ukraine and, by extension, our continent.

It is true that the financial assistance provided to Ukraine by the EU since the illegal Russian invasion of 2022 already exceeds 193 billion euros—a considerable sum, surpassing even that of the Americans. Zelensky may, perhaps, have gone too far in his rhetoric. He did, however, have the merit of underlining that without fierce determination, financial means (including those necessary to procure arms), imagination, and political steadfastness, it will be impossible to withstand Russia’s unjustifiable violence.

It would be well for Zelensky to deliver a similar speech in Munich, but to replace criticisms with proposals. And democratic Europe must respond by showing it grasps the danger that the intentions of Putin—and others—represent. The hybrid war against Europe is already underway; and while the greatest threat emerges from the East, we must not lose sight of threats arriving from other quarters.

All of this reminds us that national sovereignty is an inalienable right which we have a responsibility to protect. This is enshrined in the world's commitment to the Charter of the United Nations. Munich must underscore this, while simultaneously placing the reform of the United Nations on the agenda. This is among the most urgent priorities on the international stage. Those countries that cherish the rule of law, the equality of rights between all States, and peace, have here a standard around which to rally. And a priority.

Europe and its autonomy

Europe Must Depart the Labyrinth and Establish its Autonomy

by Victor Ângelo

Europe can no longer afford the luxury of hesitation upon the international stage—most especially now, as the global landscape increasingly resembles a field of forces set upon a collision course. For too long, we have permitted our strategic vision to be held captive by two obsessions: a credulous subordination to the patronage of the United States, and a lingering dread of a destructive avalanche from the Russian quarter. In both instances, Europe has suffered a diminishment of its sovereignty and its standing. Our paramount duty is to reclaim them.

We exist today amidst hostilites emanating from various quarters. It is imperative that we confront them. The external strength and the reputation of the European Union are but a direct reflection of our internal cohesion. In these times, it is essential to accord respect to others, to advocate for equilibrium, and yet, at once, to project power. Internal cohesion is, therefore, in my judgment, the foremost concern.

To achieve this, we must bolster European complementarity through decisive measures: firstly, by the harmonisation of our principal policy dimensions, thereby ensuring that internal fragmentation is not exploited by external competition; secondly, by fortifying our democratic resilience against disinformation, establishing an effective protocol to counter hybrid threats and the falsehoods intended to fracture our societies; and thirdly, by massive investment in integrated infrastructures—both in energy and the digital realm—to ensure that no Member State remains a vulnerable target for the blackmail of third parties.

A Europe that is not solid at its core can never truly be sovereign at its frontiers, nor can it exert significant geopolitical influence. This necessitates the strengthening of our common identity—whilst respecting our cultural and national diversities—and the active engagement of our citizens and their representative institutions.

By "sovereign independence," we do not imply a defensive isolationism, but rather the capacity to assert and defend our strategic interests. We speak of a multidimensional sovereignty: energetic, technological, cultural, political, and military. To be sovereign is to ensure that the decrees of Brussels and elsewhere reflect our common priorities, and that our partners are chosen upon the basis of reciprocity, never of submission.

We must not overlook China, which occupies the very heart of the super-powers. Our relationship with China demands a realism unburdened by naivety. Our course must be charted in Brussels. The objective is the reduction of risk, though without a rupture, protecting strategic sectors and ensuring that relations are governed by mutually accepted rules.

Simultaneously, sovereignty is won by engaging with all. It is imperative that Europe, as a singular whole, speaks with Moscow as much as it does with others. To maintain open channels with the Kremlin is not a demonstration of weakness, but a realist acknowledgement of our geographic circumstance. A productive dialogue with the Kremlin is, at present, well-nigh impossible. To Don Quixote, it would be akin to inviting a serpent to one’s table and naming it diplomacy. Nevertheless, I believe that democratic Europe, in its entirety, must attempt a dialogue. Russia, under its current leadership, has been transformed into an ill neighbour; it inspires no confidence—rather the reverse—yet it dwells at our very doorstep. The first step must be to demonstrate to Moscow that the prolongation of its aggression against Ukraine leads to the ruin of all, Russia most of all. Sun Tzu, in his celebrated work The Art of War, observed that "there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." When victory is not swift and decisive, the wisest course for the aggressor is withdrawal.

Within this new architecture, NATO must transcend its one-way dependency. Aligning with the vision that Mark Rutte has brought to the Alliance at the commencement of his tenure, Europe must strive to construct a European pillar of defence that is operationally autonomous. As the Secretary-General has reiterated: "European security cannot continue to be an imported commodity." To reform NATO is to ensure that Europe assumes primary responsibility for the stability of our own continent.

In the wake of Davos 2026 and the forthcoming Munich Conference, and within the process of the United Nations' reorganisation (UN80), Europe must assert itself as the architect of a reinvigorated and effective multilateralism. The message must be plain and direct: we must restore trust between States. In the reform of the UN—which is now more urgent than ever—Europe must lead the transition toward a system that reflects contemporary reality, advocating for an expanded Security Council wherein the voice of the Global South and regional powers is institutionalised, and the power of veto ceases to be an instrument of paralysis.

This effort toward multilateral reform is currently imperilled by transactional and exclusionary proposals, such as the extraordinary "Board of Peace" suggested by the United States administration. This proposal, which seeks to replace collective diplomacy with a directory at the service of the personal interests of Donald J. Trump, constitutes an unacceptable ambition. By attempting to circumvent international institutions, the "Board of Peace" seeks to impose a mercantilist order, founded upon a vast ego and a nineteenth-century concept of empire that disregards the rights and sovereignty of States. In a word, it is an aberration.

The stability and geopolitical influence of Europe shall not spring from arms alone, nor from the modernity of our economies. They shall result, also, from our capacity to stand shoulder to shoulder at every level with those who wish to subjugate us, from the moral force we bring to the defence of universal values, and from the bridges we choose to build with democratic regimes across every region of the globe.