Israel-Iran, or Europe afraid to exist

The world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place. In the military conflict between Israel, supported by the US, and Iran, it is more important for Europeans to understand what Europe’s role can and should be than to predict what might happen. It is clear that the main actors in this conflict are the governments of Israel, Iran and Donald Trump. Without the support of US “military intelligence” and its non-veto on this military operation, Israel would hardly have launched the initial attack. In a second line, in the shadows but with clear messages, are Russia and China, supporters of Iran. Only Europe comes in third place. However, similar to the modest European reaction to the widespread killings in Gaza and the obstacles to humanitarian aid, Europe has been conspicuous by its almost complete absence in its position on the conflicts in the Middle East, and the internal division regarding this conflict is worrying.

Like all wars, this one began with an official narrative that is conveyed by the Israeli government (never to be confused with its people) and disseminated by the American administration. Iran has a nuclear program to enrich uranium, far beyond what would be needed for energy production. It is on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and having the capacity to attack its neighbors, in particular Israel, which, in the light of the Iranian theocracy, should not exist. Israel has the right to defend itself and that is what it did by launching a “pre-emptive” attack. In this way, the United Nations Charter was not violated, which states that a state has the right to attack if it is under imminent threat of attack. The initial “narrative” justifying Israel’s attack added that the US was not “militarily” involved.

This narrative has a weak argumentative logic. No one questions Israel’s right to defend itself or that the current Iranian regime would welcome the elimination of the State of Israel. What does not appear to be true, according to independent reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other institutions, is that Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons. What the agency states in its latest report is that there are grounds for concern about the enrichment of uranium to 60% and that there has been a lack of transparency and lack of cooperation from Iranian entities regarding its nuclear program, taking into account its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to which Iran is a signatory. This means that the argument of an “imminent attack” by Iran falls apart and consequently that the Israeli attack on Iran does not violate the UN Charter.

It is worth quoting the last paragraph of the IAEA’s lengthy report, approved on May 31 but declassified and made public on June 12, just before Israel’s attack on Iran: “ In light of the above assessment, the Director-General reiterates his urgent call on Iran to cooperate fully and effectively with the Agency. Unless Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding issues, the Agency will not be in a position to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.” In other words, what the IAEA is saying is its concern, stating the need for Tehran to cooperate more with the agency by providing more information. Netanyahu misreads this line as stating that Iran has nuclear weapons. It was the missing written line to justify his attack hours later.

It is important to remember that Israel has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is not bound by it and has never admitted or denied having nuclear weapons, although all experts are convinced that it does. The question immediately arises as to what justification there is for accepting that one state secretly develops a nuclear program and another does not. Because one is a democracy and the other a theocracy? This does not seem to be an argument. In any case, let us be clear: Iran should never have a nuclear weapon and there should be guarantees that this never happens. Since Israel has nuclear weapons, it should admit it and be forced to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

From the true premise that Iran poses a threat it does not follow that the best way to reduce that threat is to assassinate its nuclear scientists and attack its nuclear facilities. What is needed is to reduce Iran's desire for nuclear weapons because if that continues to be its goal, other nuclear scientists will emerge and new nuclear facilities will be built.

The reasons that led Netanyahu to strike should be sought not only in the threat posed by Iran, but in other dimensions. First, he was not happy with the ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran and the agreement that would emerge from them. There is a conviction among members of the US administration and hawks in the Israeli government that this attack and the assertion of Israeli supremacy would strengthen the US negotiating position. On the other hand, an attack on Iran would divert attention from what is happening in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. France and Saudi Arabia had scheduled a conference on the two-state solution. The EU was about to review the association agreement with Israel in a somewhat complex process. All this takes a back seat.

Donald Trump, after discrediting the efforts of European diplomacy (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) with the Iranian government in Geneva, and after having stressed the US's lack of military involvement a week ago, has just unilaterally decided to bomb three nuclear facilities in Iran using his famous bunker-busting bombs. Trump wanted to use this operation as a demonstration of American military power. It is still too early to know its real effect. Once again, the narrative is that this is merely a surgical strike and that it is not the US entering the war. This narrative serves to defend Trump from those who are already criticizing his decision as unconstitutional, given that only Congress has the power to declare war. The fact is that at this moment, the decision on whether or not the US entered the war is up to Iran, based on its response to this attack. Trump was thus not only against the policies of his predecessors in office, who prioritized diplomacy and sanctions, but also against the opinion of prominent and influential figures in his MAGA coalition support base, such as Steve Bannon, who argued that American involvement would be a huge mistake and that it is not desirable for the US to get involved in a new Iraq. What can now be expected is, in addition to direct Iranian attacks whose effectiveness will be limited, a spread of the conflict in the Middle East, a growth in anti-American sentiment as well as terrorism in various parts of the world, leading to a rise in the price of oil and the worsening of the already fragile world economy.

Whatever our position on this war, what we should hope for as Europeans, and even though we are aware of our secondary role, is for Europe to take a stand and use its influence. It has already used its influence in the past, in 2015, as a mediator when it facilitated (particularly with England, France and Germany) the nuclear agreement with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). Obama was then President. In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the agreement and today Europe’s capacity for influence is diminished. However, the EU should not be afraid to assert its strategic autonomy in its foreign policy. But the European position got off to a bad start with Ursula Van der Leyen’s tweet . She certainly forgot that it is not the European Commission that has foreign policy powers, but the European Council. She supported Israel’s action in a tweet saying that Israel has the right to defend itself and protect its people. This truth of La Palice , said without further ado and in defiance of the position of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Policy Kaja Kallas, was understood by all diplomacy, as well as by public opinion, as support from the Commission for the attack on Israel.

Many Germans, including Van der Leyen, feel an understandable sense of guilt about the atrocities that some of their Nazi ancestors committed against the Jews. The Holocaust was certainly the most insidious achievement of the human race, since it was premeditated, calculated and coldly carried out in concentration camps. While it is true that we must never forget the Holocaust, it is also true that this memory should not erase the critical spirit towards leaders like Netanyahu who make war his dominant form of “diplomacy”, and the way to stay in power and not be judged.

Unfortunately, European countries are divided on this new war. But there are some pillars on which there seems to be consensus, as stated by the person who should speak on the subject: Kaja Kallas. Iran must not possess nuclear weapons. The way to guarantee this is through diplomacy, not war, and the conflict must be de-escalated. Europe must therefore assert itself and not be afraid to exist outside the shadow of the United States, which, with Donald Trump, arrogantly ignores it.