SANJA VUJAČIĆ: THE OUTCOME IS UNCERTAIN, BUT THE TREND IS CLEAR – ALLIANCES ARE CONSOLIDATING, BREAKING AND REALIGNING…

We are confronted with claims that the Israeli-American war against Iran lacks clearly defined objectives, and that it also violates international law, the UN Charter… How well-founded, exaggerated or media-hyped this is – we asked Dr. Sanja Vujačić, a geopolitical analyst based in Paris (https://grayscalegeopolitics.com).

– These claims do not hold up. On the contrary, the logic is clearly laid out through the America First concept championed by Donald Trump: escalation toward dominance. This is the classic “logic of escalation” (Kahn and Schelling) – constant pressure on rivals Russia and China to test whether they will react and how ready they are to support each other. If they do not react, the US confirms its global dominance; if they do react, the world enters a world war that resets the order. In other words, this is a deliberate geopolitical “Russian roulette.”

Such a strategy exists in theory, but in a world of nuclear powers it carries extreme risk and unpredictable consequences. The key danger is drawing China or Russia into direct conflict – the moment when “managed escalation” turns into an uncontrolled global war.

Therefore, if we are not yet in a Third World War today, it is above all because Moscow and Beijing are avoiding a direct clash with the US, despite the pressure, sanctions, NATO enlargement, the trade war with China, tensions over Taiwan and the abduction of Maduro in Venezuela; despite the withdrawal from the agreement with Iran, military strikes and targeted eliminations (“decapitations”) of the Iranian leadership and its proxy actors, and open threats to overthrow the Iranian regime.

In short, we are no longer talking about the “possibility” of war, but about the “structure of a Third World War” that already exists – all that is missing is the trigger: a direct clash between major powers!

CONTROLLING THE BACKYARD

What incident or provocation could push Russia and China to “pull the trigger”?

– One projection is becoming increasingly likely: the announced American attack on Cuba, which would turn the existing conflict from regional into transcontinental – and potentially global.

Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia form a single Eurasia, which is why the war in Iran is today described as a “great regional war.” But the opening of a Caribbean front would dramatically change the picture: the same actors – the US, Russia and China – would find themselves in indirect (proxy) conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Caribbean, that is, across several continents and hemispheres.

It is important to note that in identifying the conditions for the outbreak of a world war, the geographic aspect is not important only in itself – but also because it provides information about the operational reality: the various military commands, logistics networks, alliances and political blocs that are the classic elements of a world war. An attack on Cuba, like, for example, a projected escalation around Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific, would mean entering a “globalized war system on the brink of world war.”

In that sense, Trump recently invited NATO allies and partners from the Gulf states to join him in the Strait of Hormuz – with a direct message to China: if you use the passage, take part in protecting it. This put Beijing before a choice – act within the American framework or risk being labeled a free rider – one who benefits from the security that others provide.

Result: since the start of this year we have been witnessing growing pressure and an attempt to discredit Russia and China as powers capable of protecting their partners, at a moment of accelerating linkage between regional conflicts and a global conflict.

What role would Europe play, and of what kind, in this far from optimistic projection?

– If the projected attack on Cuba materializes, Trump could in the same way invite the Union to join him in the Caribbean region, where the French overseas territories (Guadeloupe and Martinique), which are part of the EU, are located, as well as the United Kingdom, under whose sovereignty the islands there fall (the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos).

That would mean a return to the logic of the Cuban Missile Crisis – “who controls whose backyard” – but with reversed roles. The US and Russia are already clashing in Ukraine, through political changes and a civil and interstate war, over control of the “Russian backyard.” By attacking Cuba, Trump would provoke Putin to retaliate in the “American backyard.”

Should Putin’s reaction fail to materialize, this would be interpreted as weakness, which could encourage allied troops to go on the offensive on the Ukrainian front as well – a scenario advocated by NATO and Union leaders. United behind Zelensky, they have already lined up alongside the Ukrainian leader, who is offering the Trump-Netanyahu duo and the Gulf monarchies help in defending against Iranian Shahed drones of the kind Russia is already using against Ukraine. This would also officially open the transfer of the Ukrainian war to the Middle East through an “exchange of services”: Trump does not give up on helping Ukraine; in return, the E3 (the United Kingdom, France and Germany), led by Zelensky, becomes more actively involved in “managing the consequences” of the Israeli-American aggression against Iran. Europeans could offer similar services in the Caribbean Sea or, if needed – should the Taiwan crisis escalate first – in the Indo-Pacific, where other French overseas territories are located.

Since the official Western strategy of expansion toward Russia has not changed since the end of the Second World War, Europe could once again find itself in the familiar scenario of a global East-West clash with conventional weapons. All the more so because Russia is failing to conclude the war in Ukraine – showing that it remains inspired by the old Russian “strategy of sacrifice”: a readiness for a long, exhausting war with heavy losses, which it will ultimately win.

It is becoming increasingly likely that this continuum can only be broken if one of the nuclear powers (the US, the UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel) is the first to reach for nuclear weapons.

THE LAW IS DEAD

Where do the Europeans and international law stand in this “structure of a Third World War”?

– The European states, with the exception of Spain, have neither condemned the illegal American-Israeli war in Iran nor offered a diplomatic initiative to stop the spiral of violence in the Middle East. Thus, of European foreign policy not even hypocrisy remains – only political irrelevance.

Why? The E3 – together with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, failed to prevent the aggression through diplomacy between the US and Iran. By activating the UN’s snapback sanctions mechanism, they further raised tensions. They then avoided qualifying the war as illegal, as follows from international law, and immediately shifted focus to managing the consequences of that war – that is, to defense against Iranian retaliation – attacks on coalition bases and interests in the Gulf states.

This “loud” European silence on the question of Israel’s and the US’s responsibility for morally and legally actionable acts – decapitations and armed aggression – sends a clear message: international law holds only until the hegemon decides otherwise. This is by no means an expression of European neutrality, but rather an undermining of the order the Union claims to defend.

Pedro Sánchez is the only one who has clearly called the war illegal and banned the use of Spanish bases for attacks on Iran, for which Trump threatened him with sanctions. Other Europeans have largely not loudly backed him, and the Netanyahu-Trump duo has continued climbing the “escalation ladder” (escalation ladder). As in Western films, “wanted” posters of candidates for decapitation are already being plastered on every Iranian “post,” complete with the inevitable Wanted label and an attractive reward for whoever “turns in” the person sought. Without vigorous condemnation of these decapitations, similarly labeled posters of all critics of American and Israeli “ventures” could just as well appear on European posts too.

The purpose of what is today dead international law was precisely to prevent aversion (justified or not) toward some regime from becoming a justification for an illegal war. It was not conceived as a system for rewarding “good behavior” according to the hegemon’s criteria, but as a set of constraints for moments like this one – when powerful states determine that a target is so repugnant that the usual rules no longer need to apply.

How does international law treat Iranian retaliation, and how does the Union treat it?

– Under international law, foreign military bases are considered part of the armed forces of the state that uses them, and as such legitimate military targets. Attacks are lawful only with a legal basis, such as self-defense (as Iran claims), and with respect for proportionality and the protection of civilians. Iran has so far largely adhered to this.

It has been assisted by the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia Ashabal-Kahf, which claimed responsibility for the deadly drone attack on a coalition base (the US, France, Italy and Kurdish forces) in Makhmour near Erbil, in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan Region, in which one French officer was killed and six others wounded. This is infrastructure within Operation Chammal, where Western allies train pro-American Kurdish Peshmerga forces to fight ISIS and pro-Iranian militias in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

Pro-Iranian militias such as Ashabal-Kahf are on the Western list of terrorist organizations, on which the United States has also placed the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Unlike the US, the Union adopted only a non-binding resolution in 2013 that politically criticizes the IRGC and sanctions individuals. Why the caution? Declaring the IRGC a terrorist organization would mean the EU designating, for the first time in its history, an official military structure of a state in this way, with a possible domino effect. Indeed, Tehran had already announced that, in that case, it would declare European armies terrorist organizations and sever relations with the Union.

The Trump-Netanyahu duo thus knew that an attack on Iran would put at greatest risk the coalition’s military infrastructure near Erbil, since it is close to the Iranian border and runs camps for Kurdish militias in a way that prepares them for infiltration into Iran. In the context of the French officer’s death, the French president did not question the responsibility of the “supreme duo.” He immediately saw “the Russian hand” and invited Zelensky to Paris to jointly seek “ways to increase pressure on Russia.” Unlike Giorgia Meloni, who proceeded with the announced withdrawal of part of the Italian troops from the region in order to reduce security risks for Italy.

OPERATING LICENSE

After all this, what is the outlook, what awaits us in the further course of events…?

– The conclusion suggests itself: the war in Iran is becoming a testing ground for binding each of the opposing powers into operational alliances. For Trump – a test of loyalty through acceptance of his “logic of escalation” in the Middle East, with the warning that a lack of support calls into question the future of NATO.

At the same time, this is also a kind of test for the European Union. France, as the EU’s strongest military power, is building its position as the leading actor: from the defense of Greenland under Danish sovereignty and the base in Cyprus within the framework of NATO and the EU, through the agreement with Greece in the event of conflict with Turkey, to participation in the defense of Israel by intercepting Iranian drones and missiles, including the operation of aircraft in Jordanian airspace, and the intelligence role in Ukraine – which it took over from the Americans. It avoids open war with Iran, but maintains key infrastructure – Camp de la Paix (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates), Prince Hassan Air Base (Jordan) and French Forces in Djibouti, along with the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon corridor. Paris therefore expects from the Union political cover, operational support and financial participation – confirmation that its operations are not national, but European. But such interest is so far lacking in Europe.

Meanwhile, NATO and EU platforms are no longer succeeding in containing the rise of Russia and China. And even without formal defense alliances in the Middle East, these powers – thanks to a political, military-technical and economic network partnership with the BRICS states – are so far successfully supporting Iran.

That is why Trump is trying to reconfigure the Western alliances. The outcome is uncertain, but the trend is clear: alliances are consolidating, breaking and realigning – in line with the needs of the “structure of a Third World War,” which already exists and is awaiting its “operating license.” Let us hope it never receives it.

If Iran falls, Trump will find himself in the “Chinese backyard,” where Pakistan, closer to China, and the Afghan Taliban are already clashing. Bearing in mind that the Americans came to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, and left after reaching an agreement with them… n