In the terrible picture of the “piecemeal” world war, prophesied by Pope Francis, it began in Iran a very dangerous “piece” full of consequences.
Not so much for the military confrontation, given that Israel’s superiority is beyond question and the offensive against Tehran has been prepared for years, in a systematic and meticulous way. A military action that was just waiting for the American green light to be implemented.
I can give direct testimony to this by recalling the bilateral meeting between Italy and Israel which took place way back in 2007. With the then Israeli Prime Minister Olmert we examined with friendship and diligence all the steps necessary to make possible a tolerable coexistence between Jews and Palestinians. With Benjamin Netanyahu, then leader of the opposition, the conversation was much simpler. He asked Italy for only one thing: to put pressure on American President GW Bush to authorize Israel to bomb Tehran.
Today Netanyahu achieved his goal. The only unknown is how long the bombings will last and whether they will be enough to break the Iranian regime. In fact, change can only be guaranteed by sending ground troops which neither the Israelis nor the Americans can and want to implement. In fact, in Iran we have a regime which, despite the presence of repeated popular revolts, has remained the undisputed master of the country for forty-seven years and still controls the life of every citizen with extreme harshness. Certainly the killing of the Supreme Leader, carried out with an operation of incredible demonstration of efficiency, opens up a succession problem which, after a possible period of instability and uncertainty, could be resolved. However, it is not taken into account that it was not just a simple political leader who was killed, but the supreme religious authority of 70 million Iranian Shiites. Added to all these difficulties is the fact that there are no organized opposition forces in Iran and not even a possible opposition leader. It is therefore very difficult for the United States to decide on the succession, as happened in Venezuela and as Trump himself has declared he wants to do.
In this context, the question arises as to the reasons why Trump, unlike GW Bush, not only allowed, but wanted and supported the war attack against Iran. The most plausible reasons, to the point of being obvious, are internal politics and are rooted in the recent difficulties regarding the Supreme Court’s opposition to the tariff policy, the increase in the cost of living, the concerns of a part of the Republican Party and the murky implications of the Epstein affair.
However, it is not particularly useful to dwell on these aspects as it is important to reflect on the future political consequences of this increasingly close alliance between Israel and the United States which, consequently, involves a growing American military presence in the Middle East. All this while Trump’s doctrine was just the opposite: closing all the wars that his predecessors had opened.
The consequences of all this will be serious. Not because of the proclaimed closure of the Strait of Hormuz, since the Iranians do not have the military tools to implement it. There will probably be a temporary increase in the price of oil, but world markets will see supply prevail over demand. The large manufacturers have in fact declared themselves ready to increase deliveries and China continues to slow down its demand due to lower economic growth and, above all, the spread of the electric car. While starting from these observations regarding oil, it must however be kept in mind that, as happened in the case of the Ukrainian war, the concerns generated by war conflicts certainly do not contribute to the improvement of the global economy.
More serious consequences will occur in the political context, with growing tension throughout the Middle East, destined to become the most unstable area of friction between the two major world powers.
On the one hand, Iran is in fact traditionally linked to Russia with a close relationship of military collaboration while, from an economic point of view, China has progressively replaced the West in relations with the ancient Persian empire.
The American invasion into an area that constituted a fundamental garrison for Russia and China can only cause new turbulence. The heaviest political question, and certainly one with serious consequences, concerns the possibility that a totally Islamic area, even if with heavy differences between Shiites and Sunnis, can accept total and absolute leadership from Israel. There may be, and I deeply hope so, agreements and compromises between Israel, Saudi Arabia and the various Gulf governments, but the sense of humiliation and revenge at a popular level will only increase. We have had too many cases in the past in which military and political imbalances, which grew without any mediation, led to repeated episodes of terrorism.
If a moment of mediation does not arise, we will therefore witness a progressive destabilization of the Gulf area and a return of the terrorism that we have so tragically suffered in the past. It would be obvious to conclude that Europe itself should have the possibility and interest in exercising a mediation role. This logical goal, due to our divisions and Trump’s aversion to Europe, cannot even be imagined. The American president, when everything had already been decided, in fact limited himself to giving a hasty phone call to the German chancellor and other European leaders, with the exception of course for the devout Italy which, ironically, saw its defense minister confined to Dubai as a logical consequence of the lack of warning.
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
