[Ter]

EU impotence against US sanctions on Iran expose bloc as bumbling old fool of international politics

John Laughland, who has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford and who has taught at universities in Paris and Rome, is a historian and specialist in international affairs.



The sight of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker stumbling at the NATO summit in Brussels last month, when he had to be held up by others, is a powerful symbol of the EU’s status on the world stage.

Donald Trump’s decision to activate sanctions against European companies that trade with Iran, and the EU’s response to it, demonstrate that the 28-nation bloc is little but a bumbling old fool in international politics.

There is no doubt that EU leaders are furious with Trump for ripping up their beloved Iran deal. Their fury is only aggravated by their inner knowledge that there is nothing they can do about it. French leaders like Emmanuel Macron and his finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, may bewail the fact that Europe is not “sovereign,” using the EU’s impotence in the face of US unilateralism as an argument for more European integration. However, this is the very policy that they have been pursuing for a quarter of a century, and which has brought them to the impasse in which they now find themselves.

In response to the Iran sanctions, the EU announced that it was activating a “Blocking Statute,” a legislative measure which has hardly ever been used before because it does not work. Even the Brussels panjandrums admit that it is useless: one of them was quoted as saying, “It is a political signal given by the EU. It is not a miracle cure.” In other words, this statute will not protect European firms against US sanctions. Hundreds of them are already making for the exit from Iran if they have not already done so. Included among these are some of the biggest industries in the world, the French oil giant Total, and Airbus, whose contracts worth billions have just gone up in smoke thanks to the US president.

While EU institutions have been peddling the Democratic Party's line that Russia is the cause of all “doubt” and “division” within the bloc, the fact is that Donald Trump has single-handedly blown the European dream apart. That dream was indeed always just that – a fantasy not based in reality. The illusion consisted of believing that European unity would make its composite states collectively stronger. The reality is the European integration was, from the very beginning, a US-backed project designed to help the West fight the Cold War. EU integration was and is ideologically and institutionally inseparable from NATO, which is dominated by the US. In other words, EU integration is impossible without US patronage and, as a result, if it is withdrawn, as it has been under Trump, EU leaders are like little schoolboys caught with their trousers down.

None of the benefits of a monetary union, which were heralded in Maastricht in 1991 and in the run-up to it, have been realized. It was said that the euro would favor growth, when in fact the US has hugely outperformed the eurozone since the single currency was introduced in 1999. It was said that it would protect Europe from external shocks, whereas the collapse in output was as great in Europe as a result of the financial crisis in 2008 as elsewhere. Above all, it was said that the euro would start to replace the dollar as an instrument of international commerce. Some 20 years later, and the dollar continues to be the almost unavoidable currency for trade, especially in oil.

It was precisely because BNP Paribas, like all banks, used dollars for contracts with Iran and other blacklisted states that it was hit with a gigantic $9 billion fine by the US in 2015. Europe did nothing about this gross overreach of US jurisdiction under nice Mr Obama then, even though this was exactly the same sort of measure as Trump has now announced: the BNP Paribas fine was handed down in the immediate aftermath of the Ukraine crisis, when the EU, as usual, had run to its American nanny to hide in her skirt. The same EU is now reaping its harvest of sorrow now under nasty Mr Trump.

Ever since 2015, all European banks run a mile if you say you do business with a rogue state like Russia, or even more so Iran, and so companies simply do not have the ability to trade with those countries. It’s as simple as that. As Volker Treier, deputy head of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has said: “Even the companies that aren’t affected by US sanctions, for example from the medical field or those who don’t have a business with the US, can’t find a bank that would process the transactions with Iran.”

The US has therefore seized control of the world economy by threatening to throttle the banking system. The existence of the euro has done nothing to stop this. For as long as the link persists between the dollar and oil, a link which is sustained by the massive military dominance the US wields in the world, this will not change. Militarily, European states outsource their defense to the US – so-called “European defense” is in fact assured by US-dominated NATO. As a result, the former great powers of world history like Britain, France and Germany are now pitifully reduced in military stature. When a nuclear power like France starts to boast about the fact it can conduct a successful military operation in the wastelands of a failed state like Mali, then you know that Europe counts for nothing any more.

Trump's aggression against Iran comes at a moment when Europe has been, once again, totally absent as a force in world politics in the Middle East. In 2011, France and Britain took the lead to work for regime change in Syria, becoming the first countries to break off diplomatic relations with Damascus. The EU set up one of the biggest packages of sanctions in history against that country. Its policy is now in tatters as Damascus regains control, with Russian and Iranian support, of the whole of Syrian territory. It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant example of a foreign policy failure than this one. Even one of the most hardline Israeli figures, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, now accepts that Bashar Assad has won the Syrian war and that he is now a possible interlocutor for Israel. Europe's spectacular diplomatic failure is Russia's spectacular diplomatic (and military) success, because Russia is now the lynchpin of peace between Israel and Iran.

Perhaps the greatest failure for the EU lies in the evident collapse of its ideology. Ever since its initial conception in the 1950s, the European construction has been based on the idea that it is possible to overcome power politics and to ascend to a higher form of international relations. This is much the same idea as that peddled by Soviet ideologues who claimed that the socialist bloc had advanced to a new form of international relations.

Putin's Russia seemed to European leaders to represent a naked return to power politics: they disapproved of it but were happy to be able to rally around and draw some bogus cohesion from the common fight against the new bugbear.

By contrast, the decision by Trump to abandon multilateralism so spectacularly undermines the very basis on which they have operated for decades, because suddenly the US is no longer the great protector but instead an enemy. European politicians have been intellectually lobotomized by their own infantile post-modern ideology and they have long forgotten how to do real politics. Lulled into a false sense of security by thinking they never had to think, the EU’s boring and mediocre leaders are nothing but (very bad) managers; they are now totally lost at sea in a suddenly uncertain world. It serves them right.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435327-iran-eu ... -response/

In my opinion a very realistic assessment of the inherent weakness of the EU.
It doesn't even mention the controversy about the massive migration which is separately ripping the EU apart.

[JohnRawls]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435327-iran-eu-sanctions-response/

In my opinion a very realistic assessment of the inherent weakness of the EU.
It doesn't even mention the controversy about the massive migration which is separately ripping the EU apart.

It is a tough situation actually. Us and Europe are very huge markets so no company wants to loose them. The article is very biased by the way, Ter.

But the situation in general is pretty hard to resolve because

1) Any sane company will choose US instead of Iran.
2) There is no real benefit for a company to be sanctioned by US or EU, so the rules will probably not be applied.
3) If the situation was the other way around (Eu put sanctions on Iran while US didn't want them). It still would be the same situation. No sane company will choose Iran over the EU.
4) I do not think that there is an easy way out right now from the whole situation. Somebody has to budge, either the EU or the US. (Or Iran can have a regime change which suits both US and EU)

[Ter]

1) Any sane company will choose US instead of Iran

Yes, of course.
Mogherini's groveling before the Ayatollahs will not help

[Albert]

Feminist leading by example.

[JohnRawls]

Yes, of course.
Mogherini's groveling before the Ayatollahs will not help

Way to nitpick the only part.

As for her wearing a scarf. Diplomats are responsible for not breaking decore of a specific country. They are not celeberties, they have a job to do.

[Ter]

Way to nitpick the only part.

It was the only part that made sense.

2) There is no real benefit for a company to be sanctioned by US or EU, so the rules will probably not be applied.

What does that even mean ?

3) If the situation was the other way around (Eu put sanctions on Iran while US didn't want them). It still would be the same situation. No sane company will choose Iran over the EU.

That is the same as sub-1

4) I do not think that there is an easy way out right now from the whole situation. Somebody has to budge, either the EU or the US. (Or Iran can have a regime change which suits both US and EU)

Well, I do not see Trump budging, do you ?
Mogherini has already said that the EU will not budge either.
But companies will not risk losing the US as a customer.
So back to 1.

As for her wearing a scarf. Diplomats are responsible for not breaking decore of a specific country. They are not celeberties, they have a job to do.

Why do Westerners always have to cave in to such demands? I am sure she would be received without a headscarf also. It would be preferable and it would give the Iranian women some help in their struggle for equal rights.

[Albert]

When Iranians came to France they covered up all the nude paintings in Versailles or something like that. It is symbolic of EU, that it does not uphold European history and heritage in face of foreigners. All in the name of their silly notions of humanitarianism, globalism, "open society" or some other bullshit. Hence it is falling apart as it is run by imbeciles that can get nothing done practically.

[JohnRawls]

It was the only part that made sense.


What does that even mean ?


That is the same as sub-1



Well, I do not see Trump budging, do you ?
Mogherini has already said that the EU will not budge either.
But companies will not risk losing the US as a customer.
So back to 1.


Why do Westerners always have to cave in to such demands? I am sure she would be received without a headscarf also. It would be preferable and it would give the Iranian women some help in their struggle for equal rights.

Regarding 2. The sanctions will not be applied because you can't sanction yourself, that makes absolutely no sense. (So although EU says it will sanction companies, it obviously will not sanction its own companies.) But in case of America sanctioning EU companies, the EU will probably sanction back US companies. This was more of a clarification.

Regarding 3. That was the point. The situation is tricky.

Regarding 4. I see Trump backing down the same way he backed down during the tarrifs and Europe. We do not want to burn the Republicans but if it needs to be done, then we will do it again. As soon as it happened both sides managed to create a peace treaty of sorts. I doubt anybody wanna risk a repeat of this just on a larger scale. Republicans needs money to get elected and having their sponsors whine "We are getting sanctioned because we support you so we are considering giving money to the D-tards" is not much of a way to get money. On top of that "Sorry dudes, you lost your jobs because of our spat with the EU" is not something the average joe will understand. Its a major loose-loose situation for Trump and Republicans.

Even if something does happen. Europe just needs to wait out Trumps 6 years. After that, a Democrat will probably be President. Europe has the resources to play the waiting game. US also does. The only one that does not have them is Iran (To what degree though?)

And as i said, a regime change would be mutually beneficial.

The decore thing: I do not understand. You are old enough to understand that diplomats can't show up in their own cultural clothes for diplomatic meetings. When did anybody visit the US president(Diplomatic visit from a minister lets say) in something other than a Tuxedo/Suit/Official dress. The last time i can remember was during the Afghanistan war when the Taliban "Founding Fathers" were invited. Same thing goes for many countries of Europe, Asia etc.

Bottom line, in Rome do like the Romans for a diplomat.

[anasawad]

@JohnRawls
I would say your view on the topic is following too much American logic rather than European.
The reason why the US is acting the way it does is because it sees a regime change as beneficial. And thats mainly because Americans (in general) don't seem to have the cognitive capacity to learn from history.
Europeans on the other hand look at the situation and see that regime change is not a good thing since regime change will, pretty much always, bring an even stronger and worse enemy to power than it was previously.
And seeing the size of Iran (by simply looking at the map and basic stats), a stronger enemy wont be beneficial.

[Albert]

The decore thing: I do not understand. You are old enough to understand that diplomats can't show up in their own cultural clothes for diplomatic meetings. When did anybody visit the US president(Diplomatic visit from a minister lets say) in something other than a Tuxedo/Suit/Official dress. The last time i can remember was during the Afghanistan war when the Taliban "Founding Fathers" were invited. Same thing goes for many countries of Europe, Asia etc.

Bottom line, in Rome do like the Romans for a diplomat.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/63 ... f-the-menu

[Ter]

Europeans on the other hand look at the situation and see that regime change is not a good thing since regime change will, pretty much always, bring an even stronger and worse enemy to power than it was previously.

Sorry for asking but what kind of regime in Iran can be worse than what they have at the moment ?
What would be wrong with a secular regime that carries out the will of the people ?

[anasawad]

@Ter
Carry out the will of the people ? You mean killing off Saudi Arabia type of will of the people ?

The only options other than the current regime are either Imperialists or Socialists.
Both are better for the Iranian people, but much worse for everyone else since they're significantly more powerful and stable than the clerics.

[Ter]

@anasawad
In case a social democracy would be in charge, they would first of all be interested in improving the lot of its own population. As you yourself said, Ian is a big country with plenty of resources, no immediate need to go on foreign adventures.

Whilst the present rulers of Iran have been doing a lot of that recently. Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, a lot of adventures to project power beyond its borders.

[anasawad]

@Ter
Disagree.
Iranian policy is inherintly defensive, by seeking and boosting up alliances in the far corners of the middle east (Lebanon, Yemen, Libya), and creating either buffer states or burned grounds around its borders (Iraq,Afghanistan, Azerbaijan) And also securing trade and access routes all while containing enemy centers (Syria and containing Kurds).
Iran has yet not started projecting power in a serious way, rather simply building a regional defense network against any foreign invaders and enemy states (US and Saudi Arabia).

The current Iranian regime does invest heavily domestically, and it can be seen in many provinces.
However due to corruption across government levels the degree of effectiveness varies between areas and provinces.
Some provinces like Tehran, Semnan, Golestan and Khorasan have significantly higher living standards than the rest, while others with more corruption and separatism have lower.

The difference between the current regime and what an imperial or socialist regime will be;
1- More crack down on corruption so more effectiveness and efficiency.
2- More and better utilization of natural resources since the power will become more absolute and such political disputes preventing it will no longer be a problem.
3- Much more aggressive power projection and foreign policy since a purely defense oriented policy would have proven ineffective and obsolete with the experience from the clerics.

Basically, if the current regime fell, the next one will be driving the proxy war into Saudi Arabia and the gulf states rather than just maintaining buffers with them.
And Israel wont be fairing much better since the Palestinians will probably be getting much heavier weapons in that scenario to keep Israel busy drowning in turmoil.

Also, probably, will see Iran starting to boost up the Taliban and other factions in Afghanistan so the US will be looking towards a much bigger fight there.

[layman]

Poor article. It’s title suggests it’s about the sanctions but goes on a general rant against the eu.

As it is rt, the political purpose of it is obvious.

[Ter]

Poor article. It’s title suggests it’s about the sanctions but goes on a general rant against the eu.

As it is rt, the political purpose of it is obvious.

You call it a rant, I find very little wrong in it.
The author is Western European, admittedly a Eurosceptic.

@anasawad
Thank you for your extensive views.
I am not convinced that your predictions will come to pass, but even then, the opposition will also have moves to make. I really think that it would be wise for Iran to become less belligerent because this will otherwise not end well.

[anasawad]

@Ter
Its not my predictions alone really, there aren't exactly many options on the table.
Either the current regime stays, or if it falls, one of the other main factions will take over.
So either imperialists or socialists factions. There aren't really others that exist to replace the current regime.
Nor are the "opposition" in other countries like some groups in the US and UK are strong or large enough to be able to even compete for power.
Take the MEK for example. They are the so called opposition in the US; Except they're hated by the current regime, hated by all the socialist factions, and hated by all the imperialist factions and dynasties. And they're barely in the few thousands while all the others are in the millions or 10s of millions in numbers and are much more heavily armed than the MEK could ever be. At best the MEK could be an insurgent terrorist group nothing more.

You say the opposition needs to do more under a new regime.
The opposition right now in Iran are the various socialist parties and movements all decendents of the Tudeh communist party.
The reformists are the bridge between the clerics (ruling faction) and socialists (opposition), while the Imperialist factions represented by the tribes and their ruling imperial dynasties are remaining neutral currently.

Lets say the clerics lost power, and the imperial dynasties stayed neutral, then the socialists will take power and the clerics will become the opposition.
So what are the socialists agendas and what do they think Iran should do.
Lets see, Corruption crack down in the form of a purge is occasionally brought up, so here's that.
Iranian Jews are seen as sleeper cells for Iran's enemies (US and Israel), so bye bye Iranian Jews.
Wahabis need to be cut short. So its clear how the gulf states will be handled.
Also you'll probably start seeing socialist and communist parties being propped up all around.

And if we were to take the more "radical" part of the socialist factions like the workers' liberation party (communist) or the movement of communist militants (communist obviously) which is the two largest movements and also happen to already have an semi-active militias in the north eastern provinces, along with other far left movements and organizations.
Based on their statements, Iran should prioritize building a nuclear arsenal to reclaim whats called its "rightful place in the world". They're also extremely nationalistic and will occasionally talk about how the middle east needs a good stalin style purge.

Excluding the imperial dynasties, those are the biggest right after the clerics. So If the clerics fall, its either them or one of the old dynasties. And those are, you know, empire.

So since you're saying that you disagree with my point of view, can you tell me what your point of view is ?
You so far haven't shared any opinion on who do you think will replace the clerics ?

All you said that it should be a democracy. Well, in a democracy the grounds are split between the clerics and their opposition, the socialists. Both having multiple parties and movements and vary on the political spectrum. On the non-democratic side are the old dynasties.


And how will it not go so well for Iran ?
Iran is barely spending a few billions on both its military and support of other militaries right now and its fighting off all of the gulf states, Israel, the US, and their allies.
You think they'll do much better when Iran goes full militaristic and start putting massive funding to its military and to fighting the cold war ?
Sanctions ? Didn't Iran spend the past 30-40 years under sanctions ? I don't see how sanctions will do much with all the resources and scientists Iran has really.


EDIT:
Lets be clear about one thing, which I think this point isn't being made clear enough for many people.
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and those bunch don't have any allies amongst the Iranian factions.
Since all the way back in the 80s with your support of Saddam to the current day, you've been working actively to ruin the lives of as many Iranians as possible. One of the few things, if not the only thing that all the factions agree on in Iran is that the US, Israel, and their Arab allies are enemies.
Whoever takes over after the clerics will be by default an enemy.
If there were open elections and the people voted for a new ruling faction, that faction will be an enemy of the US and Israel irregardless of where it stands on the political spectrum.

[Ter]

@anasawad
I do not see our exchange as adversarial.
When I wrote "opposition" I meant opposition to Iran, not Iran's internal opposition.
Whatever Iran might do in the future will cause a reaction from its external enemies.
They do not operate in a vacuum.
But I still hope that they will come to their senses and start acting in a peaceful manner.

edit: I did not ee your edit till now.

but I saw:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... ns-rouhani

[Beren]

I'm glad to see a Kremlin propaganda piece can be so thought-provoking. The EU and the US have just returned to the TTIP negotiations, I'm sure Putin would rather like to see them have a spat because of Iran. However, regardless of what the EU does European companies will leave Iran if they consider remaining too risky. If Iran wants them to stay, they have to make a deal with Trump until November, I guess. Which is a good thing, isn't it, @Ter?

[anasawad]

@Ter
Well, instead of asking Iran to start acting peacefully, why not start asking its enemies to start acting peacefully.
Because, and you can easily look this up, it seems that Iran is the one reacting to the actions of its external enemies not the other way around.
It was not Iran that started the conflict with the US, it was the US when it with the UK helped a coup by pahlavis.
It was not Iran that started the conflict with the Saudis, it was the Saudis and their bunch when they poured funds and weapons to Saddams army in its invasion of Iran in attempt to annex the oil rich provinces in south west of Iran.

According to what you're saying, your allies and countries should start looking in the mirror more often.

And what does come to their senses mean exactly ?
Lay down and die in order to allow the US and its allies to take control of all the resources and be an absolute hegemon.
We constantly hear that from westerners talking.
You and pretty much all westerners don't like that Iran isn't falling in line and following orders, and not being a puppet state to be more specific.
The only sensible thing for Iran to do is to be aggressive to push away foreign invaders and enemies away from its borders.
It will be out of its senses if it stopped doing that and allowed its enemies to take over peacefully, and by peacefully I mean the usual peaceful methods where 100s of thousands if not millions die and the rest of the population is free to starve with their lives ruined all to satisfy western hunger for more wealth and lust for power.

Its not going to happen so don't bother hoping for it.
You want peace to come, then you should tell your own people and allies to stop constantly pursuing expansion and control all around the world.
Your side are the ones seeking world domination and bringing wars and conflicts, not ours.