Europe then and now: the failure of appeasement
Eldad Beck
The great symbolism is that precisely on the 73rd anniversary of the end of World War II and the defeat of Nazi Germany, Europe found itself biting its nails in a tense and nervous wait for an American president's decision on the future of the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran is still far from being compared to Nazi Germany - although certain parallel lines can be found between the messianic-destructive ideology that is being guided by certain elements of the regime in Tehran and the Nazi ideology. However, the obvious historical comparison concerns Europe's conduct vis-à-vis concrete threats to world peace: then and now, appeasement and the desire to find a political solution at any cost, to avoid a military confrontation that would require Europeans to pay for principles, led to disasters. Then and now, it was the US that saved the West from total collapse.
It was strange to hear French President Emmanuel Macaron, British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson and even Luxembourg's foreign minister warning of a new Middle East war that would threaten Europe if President Trump decided to renew the sanctions against Iran, - as their warnings, to the collapse of the nuclear agreement with Iran. Is it conceivable that the advisers of those who warn at the gate have forgotten to update them that such a war involving Iran has been raging for a number of years - in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and its implications for Europe? Or do these advisers whisper to the heads of European administrations future scenarios of terror, as they want to divert attention from the failure of the Iranian concept they developed and nurtured?
One of the main reasons for signing the nuclear agreement with Iran was the desire to strengthen the "moderate elements" in the Iranian regime, headed by President Rowhani, to give them a great political achievement, to remove the global isolation ring and to release funds to rehabilitate Iran's economy, Of the "extremist elements" on Iran. Europe - the foreign ministry of the European Union Commission in Brussels and governments in the major capitals pushed the nuclear agreement out of the belief that it would allow an internal change in Iran that would lead to the replacement of the regime (if not to its downfall) and the subsequent concession by Tehran's other government to renounce Iran's nuclear programs.
In this context, it is important to note that over the past few years many European elements have also tried to promote understanding of Iran's efforts to achieve nuclear independence, particularly nuclear weapons. One reason for this was the American military presence threatening Iran's borders. Another time, Iran's advocates of honesty were accused of Israel's military and ostensibly military power. It was very clear to the Europeans that Iran did not need a nuclear program to supply electricity to the homes of Iranians. In this respect, the exposure of the Iranian nuclear archive to Israel has indeed not taught the Europeans anything new. They were prepared to accept Iran with a nuclear bomb, without realizing that the implications of Iran's atomic program go far beyond an existential threat to Israel. This is the nature of European appeasement: ostrich policy. Bury your head in the sand, and forget that your body is exposed to predators. When the Europeans signed the nuclear agreement, they knew full well that a decade after the document was signed, Iran could quickly develop nuclear bombs that would threaten them. The years that have elapsed have not created the impression that Iran is moving toward an internal revolution that will, in the near future, shelve its nuclear programs. On the contrary, under the auspices of the nuclear agreement, knowing that it enjoyed full European backing for maintaining the validity of the agreement, the Iranians conducted aggressive colonialist expansionist policies throughout the Middle East. It is not about safeguarding the interests of the Shiite populations in countries with a Sunni majority, but about taking over entire Middle Eastern countries in Iran. Here, too, the Europeans found a very conciliatory approach. Their view was that Iran was a "moderate" partner in the struggle against the extremist Sunni terrorist organizations, while turning a blind eye to Iran's relations with Hizballah and Hamas. After all, these organizations only threaten Israel. Instead of a nuclear agreement that would restrain Iran, it allowed it to run wild as it pleased.
Trump puts the Europeans in their place. The Europeans' fears, which have not yet faded, from the consequences of a "war of tariffs" that the American president is still waving like a Democles sword over the heads of Europeans are perhaps the best proof that the Europeans will not rush to break with Washington - for the same reason they are courting Iran: economics. Trump rejected a few days ago, not coincidentally, his decision on the imposition of taxes on imports of metal and aluminium from Europe. Such a decision, which could seriously hurt some European economies, was postponed until June, probably to ensure relatively calm European responses to the decision on the nuclear deal with Iran.
Moreover, Trump gave the Europeans an opportunity to work towards a complementary agreement with the Iranians, which would take care of all the holes in the nuclear agreement. It was clear to all sides that the four months Strump had spent on such negotiations would not be enough. It was clear to all sides that Iran would stand on its hind legs in its opposition to any supplementary agreement. In retrospect, Trump's tactics have so far borne fruit: London, Paris and Berlin now openly admit that the nuclear agreement is a "bad agreement" and are mobilized to achieve a complementary agreement or impose sanctions on Iran if it remains in its refusal. Even the European "foreign minister", Federica Mugrini, who said that the agreement with Iran was the "baby" of her ministry, admits today that for the Europeans, the nuclear deal is not based on training in Iran. And the Iranians themselves are already making less stringent chants about an American withdrawal from the nuclear agreement.
It remains to be seen whether the Europeans will finally be able to formulate a realistic worldview and join the United States in exerting pressure on Iran to achieve a comprehensive agreement to replace the Vienna Agreement, the failed nuclear agreement. Common Western pressure could change the rules of the game. But the past teaches us that Europeans will prefer to stick to their appeasement.
- By wat0n
- By Potemkin