Europe Would Pay the Price for a War with Iran
Recent events in the Middle East prove the EU is powerless
Another Middle Eastern war broke out.
On Friday, June 13, the world awoke to the news that Israel had launched a barrage of missiles at Iran, aiming to destroy the Islamic regime’s nuclear program once and for all. Although this wasn’t the first time that Israel had struck at Iran in recent years, what made this day more frightening than most was that the attack was of a far greater scale and came in the context of recent unrestrained assaults on Gaza and Lebanon. It appeared that the Israeli Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, had finally decided to launch an all-out war on Iran with the aim of dragging the U.S. into yet another regime-change operation in the Middle East. Panic ensued, and many watched in horror, fearing another catastrophe on the horizon. Who would pick up the pieces from such a large, populated, and strong country like Iran potentially becoming another failed state?
Although President Trump initially showed interest in dislodging the Ayatollah, seemingly shapeshifting from an ardent isolationist to a war hawk overnight, his mood quickly shifted back again. A few days later, he announced that he had managed to make Israel and Iran agree to a ceasefire. However, the cessation of hostilities only lasted a few hours, with the two agitators blasting a few more rockets at one another for old times’ sake before eventually falling into line. For the first time, Mr. Trump criticized Israel for “unloading” more bombs. A shaky truce holds for now, but only a blind optimist should expect it to last. This is the Middle East after all, a region that has become a slaughterhouse, where tribal warfare is the default setting. Mr. Netanyahu has shown that he refuses to be constrained, and Mr. Trump’s position changes with the wind. This war is by no means over, which is why all of us in Europe should be concerned.
I’ve become desensitized to another round of violence in the region. Most of my life has been marked by some Middle Eastern war we’re supposed to get involved in for a reason that proves to be utterly false and counterproductive. However, I hope for stability, because I’m also aware of how Europe will bear the brunt of the ensuing mayhem. Like in 2015, it is we who will be forced to deal with a stampede of culturally incompatible refugees and migrants rushing towards our borders while politicians in Washington go back to playing golf, safe in the knowledge that they’re protected by the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean. But even for the U.S., there is a price to pay now.
Israel has been threatening to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacities for more than a decade. While Iran maintains that its nuclear program serves peaceful energy needs, Mr. Netanyahu remains convinced its real aim is to develop a nuclear bomb. He has repeatedly stated that he will not allow this to happen, and it appears that now he senses a moment to go for the jugular. Having decapitated Hezbollah in Lebanon and witnessed the fall of the Assad regime in Syria—two key Iranian proxies—the Israeli Prime Minister knows that the Islamic regime is unusually vulnerable right now and, logically, wants to press home the advantage while he has the chance. But the majority of American citizens oppose a war with Iran. Skepticism towards Israel’s influence over foreign affairs is rising on all ends of the political spectrum. Any further intervention by the U.S. on behalf of Israel will be met with uproar.
Regime change in Iran wouldn’t be a negative in itself. A prosperous, post-Ayatollah Iran that is capable of reasoning with us and that can return to its Persian glory is an appealing prospect. However, regime change in the Middle East through our intervention has consistently proven disastrous, especially for Europe. Our close geographic proximity curses us, and we inevitably pay the price of a fallout. The collapse of the Iranian state would trigger another refugee and migrant crisis, just as the Arab Spring revolutions led directly to several in 2015: either Syrian refugees fleeing through Turkey, or Sub-Saharan African migrants using Libya, governed by rogue militias, as a transit country to reach European shores. The radical elements funded during the Arab revolutions have turned the region into an Islamic terrorism hotspot. European citizens are still suffering for the catastrophic decision to welcome in millions of unvetted newcomers from cultures antithetical to ours. This mistake cannot be repeated, or Europe as we know it might never recover.
Angela Merkel’s act of misplaced compassion has already been disastrous. A little more than a decade ago, you could go for a stroll in Germany without worrying whether you might get run down by a car driven by an Afghan who recently had his asylum application rejected. Women used to be able to welcome in the New Year in Milan’s Piazza Duomo without being surrounded by gangs of North African men sexually assaulting them and chanting under historic European statues, a practice that they call “taharrush gamea” (collective assault). At the time, Mrs. Merkel told us “wir schaffen das” – we can handle this. But the last decade has proven the opposite, rather than being a display of so-called “European values”, Mrs. Merkel’s willkommenskultur will be remembered as a historic act of civilizational suicide.
The problem for Europe, however, is that Brussels is impotent in influencing events in the Middle East. The EU is an economic and regulatory power, not a military one. The biggest threat that it has in its arsenal is its ability to suspend trade agreements that it has agreed with third nations and cut off their access to the single market. This is a significant inconvenience, but it’s not one that holds leverage. Russia continues its assault on Ukraine despite being subjected to the most crippling sanctions regime in history because it has other large economic partners that it can turn to outside the West. Economic coercion is toothless compared to military might.
Now, let’s contrast that to the actions of Israel. After the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was toppled last December, Mr. Netanyahu ordered his army to move into south-western Syria and occupy a portion of the country’s territory bordering the already-occupied Golan Heights to serve as an added buffer zone along the Israeli-Syrian border. This gives Mr. Netanyahu extra manoeuvring room to manage any chaos that might erupt in the new Syria and increase the chances of preventing it from spilling over into Israel. The benefit of hard power.
Unfortunately for Europeans, EU member states have outsourced their military capacities to the U.S. for the last few decades, choosing instead to cower under the NATO umbrella. This means that the EU cannot carve out a refugee safe zone inside of Iran by force should the regime in Iran suddenly collapse. Instead, it has to bribe other countries, such as Turkey, Tunisia, or Libya, to stop illegals from reaching Europe’s shores, which exposes Brussels to potential blackmail and hardly achieves its objective. The money the EU provides is often lost through governmental corruption or militia mismanagement. One suspects that our neighbours would be less likely to waste these resources if there was a chance Ursula von der Leyen might react with airstrikes.
But not only does the EU’s lack of firepower mean that it is unable to shape the world in accordance with its interests, it also means that it can’t do much to oppose American foreign policy when it knows that Mr. Trump can threaten to pull the U.S. out of NATO. It has to resort to diplomatically pleading with the White House to consider Europe’s position. That’s why the U.S. and Israel will decide Iran’s fate while Europe watches on and hopes for the best. But even though the EU is doomed to be a victim of political decisions in which it has no real input, that doesn’t mean that it holds no influence.
Europe might not have the advantage of being militarily proactive, but it still has a wide scope to react and prepare itself for the consequences of others’ actions. Should Mr. Netanyahu decide to gamble on his chances of dragging the U.S. into a war against Iran, the EU can insulate itself from the oncoming influx by unilaterally fortifying its borders. The only problem is that, as much as the populist “far-right” has gained ground over the past decade, our continent is still ruled by Merkel-esque politicians in Brussels whose instinct is to keep borders open. It’s unlikely that these people have the willpower to follow the Viktor Orban blueprint by sealing off the continent.
But we do have shreds of hope to cling to. The Merkel wave has permanently transformed European politics by making nativist parties, which were previously confined to the political fringes, serious contenders. Although real power has remained elusive, the centrist establishment has been forced into adopting policies that I never thought possible a decade ago.
Beyond simply hardening immigration rules, Denmark’s ruling Social Democrats have pushed forward with an anti-ghetto law that caps how many residents of a non-Western background can reside in a particular apartment block or neighbourhood and allows for the demolition of those where Westerners are a minority. Last year, Germany effectively suspended the Schengen Agreement to reduce pressure on its overloaded asylum system. Others, like the Netherlands, have sought to do the same. French politics has become so fragmented that Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National has become the largest party in a system that appears to be doomed to minority rule or incoherent alliances between centrists and leftists. Germany is just a few percentage points off from being unable to form grand coalitions anymore due to the growth of the AfD.
In 2015, Mrs. Merkel didn’t have to fear political suicide. Today, her ideological successors across the EU do. That’s why we shouldn’t give in to despair if the Iranian regime suddenly collapses next week, unleashing a new tide of migration towards Europe. Our career politicians might end up surprising us and choose self-preservation, even if that choice is opportunistic. Let’s not underestimate the capacity of an existential crisis to focus the mind. Maybe the EU needs to be pushed right to the edge before it decides to act in the European interest. Wir schaffen das, but now we will manage things differently.
Aleks Eror is a Serbian-born freelance journalist based between Rome and Belgrade. He’s written for Foreign Policy, Politico, The Guardian, and more.
 | A guest post by
|