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)

 

 

 

 

Iran, Europe and the distant US

The key European leaders are shocked by the extreme approach the US is following regarding Iran. They think the maximum pressure policy taken by the Trump Administration is outside the accepted rules of international engagement. They also find unacceptable the targeting of European interests by the sanctions unilaterally decided by the US. The issue of Iran is deepening the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic.  

Europe and the Iranian situation

Iran announced yesterday it intends surpass the uranium stockpile limit set under the 2005 nuclear agreement. They want to do it by 27 June.

Obviously, this is no good news. It brings the region to a new level of tension. For Europe, it makes the EU’s political position on Iran untenable.

Actually, the European position had already reached a dead end. Now, that is indisputable.  

Today, Federica Mogherini is on her way to Washington. I do not know what she will bring to the discussions with Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, the trusted son-in-law of President Trump. But she has no room left. On one side, she is confronted with an Administration that is determined to further tighten the sanctions already in place against Iran. Not to mention, of course, the additional military deployments to the Gulf region. On the other side, she sees a regime and a leadership that are placing themselves against the wall, when the wise move would have been to remain committed to the implementation of the nuclear agreement.

In my opinion, Mogherini, on behalf of the EU, has no choice but to be frank and direct. Direct means diplomacy with clear words. Here, the message should be that all sides must show restraint and accept to return to the negotiating table. EU and China, with the support of Russia, could be the conveners of such a negotiation.

On her return from Washington, Mogherini should also travel to Beijing and Moscow. Before that, she could meet the UN Secretary-General. That would send an appropriate signal. And it is something the UN needs.

INF and the UN

President Trump’s decision to pull out of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is as much about Russia – the other country signatory of the Treaty – as it is about China and its build-up of cruise missiles. Russia has been violating the INF since 2012. And China is investing heavily on new types of missiles capable of carrying nuclear heads. China is actually becoming a major military adversary of the US. And that is done in close coordination with Russia. Both Presidents – Xi and Putin – are consulting and have the same goal: to increase, in their geopolitical areas of influence, their countries’ capacity to confront the US and its allies. This is certainly a very dangerous strategy. The US will respond by augmenting their investment in nuclear capabilities. That means a serious arms race in a field that is particularly destructive and could bring mayhem to Europe and some parts of Asia.

One should be truly worried.

The UN could take the initiative to open a serious process of confidence building in the matters of nuclear armament. There is even a department within the Secretariat in New York that is mandated to deal with this type of matters. But the UN seems unable to move in such a critical area. Or, inaction and silence cannot be the right course of action at this very risky moment.

Focus on a conflict at a time

The recent US statements on the current status of the Iran Nuclear deal are not wise. They contradict the position of all the other signatories of the agreement, leaving the US alone on such a delicate matter. That´s what I would call to paint oneself into a corner by trying to appear smarter and bolder than the other key members of the international community.

Furthermore, the new war of words coming from Washington towards Iran opens an additional front of conflict at a time no one has a clear understanding of the Trump Administration's strategy on Syria and North Korea. Why should they want to have one more problem on the table at this stage when the two others are already complex and dangerous enough? And confusing, as well. 

On Iran and the lifting of the sanctions

The nuclear-related sanctions against Iran have been lifted. The country is back in terms of business with the West. It is also open for a new type of political engagement with our part of the world. All that can only be seen as good news. Besides the economic opportunities this new situation opens, it is also a contribution to a more balanced distribution of power in the Middle East. The next step is to help the country and Saudi Arabia to normalise their diplomatic relations. It´s in the interest of both countries and also to the advantage of conflict resolution in the region. 

Obama said that Netanyahu is wrong. Very correct, indeed!

Both on the internal and external fronts, President Obama has regained the initiative. Today´s comments in support of the nuclear deal with Iran are a clear demonstration of leadership. Including his remarks about Prime Minister Netanyahu´s campaign against the accord. In a diplomatic manner the US President did acknowledge Netanyahu´s strong position but concluded by saying very clearly that the Prime Minister “is wrong”.

And indeed, he is stubbornly wrong. And he knows it, I suspect. He keeps however repeating what he has been saying about the Iran agreement because he knows that internally, in Israel, that gives him a chance to score points. As it is well known, all statements about external politics are above all for domestic political gain. 

Iran´s nuclear accord

The nuclear agreement with Iran has been reached after nine years of negotiations.

During the last stage of the discussions, the discussions were carried out by the Foreign Ministers themselves. And as we look at them sitting around the table for so many months and incredibly long hours, we can only say that they represent the elite in terms of knowledge and capacity to understand the importance of such a deal for the world of today and tomorrow.

We should therefore trust their judgement and recognise this accord has to be a good thing for peace and security in the Middle East. The parties to the agreement deserve our trust and our support. 

A good framework deal with Iran

The perseverance has paid off and we have now the framework on a nuclear agreement with Tehran. This is good news at a time when good news from that part of the world are few and far apart.

As I said before, we should trust the negotiators and accept the deal as genuine step forward. This should be the position of every truthful leader. In the US, the right-wingers in the Republican Party are not prepared to see it from this perspective. They are even saying that they will call off the agreement if they get to the presidency in 2017. Such statements are very difficult to accept by the public opinion on our side of the ocean. And they make it more difficult for those in Europe that advocate for a strong partnership with the US. 

An excellent agreement with Iran

The agreement Iran and the P5 plus Germany reached and committed to is a very positive development in matters of international security. It can also have a very constructive impact in the stabilisation of the Middle East. Iran is indeed an important player in the region. The move towards cooperation with the West and the key representatives of the international community can open the doors for other agreements.

And the next one should be on Syria. It is now rime to engage on the solution of that tragedy as deeply as these countries have engaged on finding o modus vivendi with Iran.

Now a side comment. Israel has called the agreement with Iran “an historic mistake”. The mistake is however elsewhere. The Likud leadership, and especially Prime Minister Netanyahu, need to realise that those who signed the accord with Tehran are not simple minded fellows. They know very well what is going on in Iran and in the region. They know where their interests lie. If they have signed that means very clearly the step is in the right direction. No doubt, gentlemen! 

Israel and Iran

It would be a mistake to underestimate Israel´s strategic interests as we get closer to the next round of negotiations with Iran.

The country´s leaders see Iran as a major threat.

They will try everything – including in the Capitol Hill in Washington – to make sure that the pressure on Tehran is not eased out. And in their tricks box, there is the menace of unilateral military action against the nuclear installations in Iran. The public mentioning by the Israelis of such a possibility is in itself a way of convincing Washington that an agreement with Iran is only good if it is a lose-win accord.

 And that is not possible, as I see it, because no leader in Tehran will accept an agreement that looks like a defeat.