BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Europe Powerless As Trump Takes On Iran

Following
This article is more than 4 years old.

As American missiles screamed down from the skies above Baghdad on Friday, European hopes for peace in the Middle East took a similar trajectory. In killing General Qassem Soleimani, President Donald Trump has stepped perilously into the unknown, inviting Iranian retribution upon the U.S. and her allies. Whether revenge will be sought militarily, we do not know; but decisive diplomatic action is inevitable. 

Even before the attack, the West’s headline agreement with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—hung by a thread. Brokered by President Obama, the accord curbed Tehran’s nuclear weapons programme in return for massive sanctions relief. It was heralded by many as a historic breakthrough—but for Donald Trump, JCPOA represented the “worst deal in history.” In May 2018, he announced America’s unilateral withdrawal.  

Co-signatories of the pact, EU leaders have long viewed it as a means to maintain Middle Eastern peace. When Trump pulled out and slapped sanctions on Iran—who had been abiding by the deal’s conditions—they reacted with mutual horror. In desperation, Europe has sought to sustain the agreement until November’s presidential election, when—perhaps—they may see a more sympathetic candidate take over.  

Yesterday, those dreams were dashed. With Soleimani’s elimination, fresh Iranian efforts to attain weapons-grade uranium are all-but guaranteed. But still, Europe clings to the hope of de-escalation. As news of the killing broke, leaders across the continent called for calm—and each was met with the same, hackneyed U.S. response. 

Europe’s biggest hitters—France, Germany, the U.K.—each share America’s concerns on Iranian belligerence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a spree of near-identical tweets. He hoped, presumably, to showcase a united front; but in reality, little more was achieved than the clear suggestion that only now were Washington’s allies being notified of the attack. 

This lack of pre-warning reflects the mid-Atlantic rift on Middle Eastern policy. Europe wants rapprochement with Iran, recognising its role in preserving regional stability. America, conversely, sees in Tehran a grievous geopolitical threat, and wishes to diminish its power wherever possible. 

Yesterday, despite Washington’s best efforts, the divide boiled over in public. Speaking on live radio, France’s European affairs minister declared that “we have woken up to a more dangerous world.” The mask slipping, Pompeo shot back on CNN: “Yeah, well, the French are just wrong about that.” 

But whichever way you cut it, the world is now more dangerous—in the short term at least. State-ordered assassinations don’t easily square with a rules-based international system, giving Iran license in its response. Regardless of their nationality, NATO troops across the Middle East will be in Tehran’s crosshair. Civilians, too, are in danger—America, unsurprisingly, has ordered citizens to leave Iraq, as has the Netherlands, with France and the U.K. warning against regional travel.

The incident has also given rise to worries that Iraq might vote to expel its U.S. troop contingent. Though relatively few in number, the 5,000 strong deployment has helped keep a resurgent Islamic State contained. At its height, the self-proclaimed caliphate brought terror to European streets—E.U. leaders would be justified in contesting any action that facilitates the group’s return.      

But Soleimani’s killing has exposed the weakness of Europe’s voice. Had they been consulted in advance of the hit, would the famously intransigent Donald Trump have reconsidered? Almost certainly not. Neither would the hard-line Tehran establishment which, emboldened by the attack, heads buoyantly into February's Iranian election. With both sides digging in, Europe’s ability to act as a buffer is set to diminish further. 

That, perhaps, is the continent’s fate: to be the impotent onlooker watching fearfully as the pair lurch towards war. In that scenario, an unenviable decision would have to be made—align closer with America as Iran seeks nuclear ascendancy, or strive continually for conciliation.    

Conflict is not yet inevitable, though. Now Trump has flexed his muscles, he might be more open to dialogue; assuming, of course, that Iran’s retaliation remains proportionate. But with “severe revenge” promised, the threat of unchecked escalation hangs heavy. From the sidelines Europe will appeal for peace, wondering evermore if anyone is listening. 

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out some of my other work here