FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The West claims it is not just pursuing pure realist politics. It is also about doing what is right. The Iranian regime is unpopular and on the brink of collapse. Does that justify war?
Iranians suffer under the dictatorship that the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, established decades ago. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continued on the same path. His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, also remains loyal to the regime's course.
Many people in the US and even more so in Europe want to see Donald Trump fail. They cannot imagine that he can do anything right or that it is still too early to definitively judge his actions.
As a political stance this is completely legitimate. But as an analytical category it is quite poor. The war with Iran is the best example of this. Despite the military superiority of the US and Israel, Tehran has not surrendered even after 8 weeks. This is already being considered as proof of the defeat of the American president.
The most emphatic formulation of this idea was given by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. He declared that Iran had “humiliated” the American nation. According to this logic, the Iranian dictatorship has won and American democracy has lost.
Who will win this battle of nerves?
However, the Islamic regime has never been closer to collapse in its half-century of existence. Even during the defensive war against Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, when the Iraqi army was stopped only by extraordinary sacrifices, the country's internal unity was stronger than it is today.
At that time there was still hope that the revolution would create a better Iran. Patriotism was fueled by this hope. Today the people have lost all illusions. No old regime is more at risk than when it has to tell the hungry masses to “eat cake.” And today the economic situation in Iran is catastrophic.
Before the war, a dollar was worth 800,000 rials. Today, it is worth 1.8 million. Inflation is even higher than at the beginning of the year. In January, widespread dissatisfaction with the government led to the worst unrest since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. To suppress the protests, the regime is suspected of massacring up to 30,000 people.
And leaving this people to their fate at the very moment when the regime is tottering is more than cold-hearted.
The government in Tehran now has to subsidize food imports at devastating costs. Other imported goods have become almost unaffordable even for the wealthy. War damage and the American naval blockade are hitting the economy hard.
Papunësia është rritur ndjeshëm dhe eksportet janë shembur. Kjo vlen sidomos për naftën bruto, produktin kryesor të eksportit të Iranit. Kur Trump pretendon se Irani humbet çdo ditë 500 milionë dollarë nga bllokada detare, ndoshta ai nuk po e ekzagjeron.
Një bombë ekonomike me sahat
Problemi më i madh është se vetë prodhimi i naftës po vihet në rrezik. Që nga mbyllja e plotë e Ngushticës së Hormuzit, nafta duhet të ruhet në cisterna ose depo në tokë. Kur kapacitetet mbushen, burimet e naftës duhet të mbyllen. Por ky proces është shumë i vështirë për t’u kthyer pas.
Në këtë mënyrë Irani mund të humbasë përgjithmonë kapacitete prodhimi prej 300 mijë deri në 500 mijë fuçi në ditë, çka do të përkthehej në humbje prej 9 deri në 15 miliardë dollarësh në vit.
Një vend i dobësuar prej sanksioneve dhe ekonomisë së luftës nuk mund t’i përballojë lehtë këto humbje. Analistët perëndimorë që flasin për “poshtërimin” amerikan argumentojnë se Teherani ka arritur ta zhvendosë konfliktin nga fusha ushtarake në atë politike.
Kjo është e vërtetë, por edhe Irani ndodhet nën të njëjtin presion. Të dyja palët kanë armët e tyre në këtë luftë nervash.
Trump shpreson ta çojë Iranin drejt rrënimit ekonomik. Teherani beson se pakënaqësia në pikat e karburantit dhe zgjedhjet e ndërmjetme në SHBA do ta detyrojnë Trumpin të tërhiqet. Konflikti reduktohet në pyetjen se kush do të rezistojë më gjatë.
Është e mundur që presidenti amerikan të dorëzohet, sipas parimit të parë të “trumpologjisë”: “Trump gjithmonë tërhiqet në fund.”
Kjo do të ishte vërtet një poshtërim. Por ndoshta ai do të vazhdojë kursin e ashpër, sepse nuk shqetësohet më për zgjedhjet ose sepse mendon për trashëgiminë e tij politike.
Nëse Irani detyrohet të bëjë lëshime thelbësore, Trump do të arrinte diçka ku të gjithë paraardhësit e tij, që nga Jimmy Carteri, kanë dështuar. Dhe kjo me një çmim relativisht të ulët: inflacion pak më të lartë dhe pakënaqësi të moderuar në pompat e karburantit. Kjo nuk do të ishte një marrëveshje e keqe.
Regjimi sakrifikon popullin e vet
Përballë krizës ekonomike, revolucionarët iranianë kanë shumë më tepër për të humbur. Ata po e blejnë çdo sukses me vuajtjen e popullit të tyre. Kjo është taktika klasike e islamistëve.
Ata sakrifikojnë mirëqenien e qytetarëve për “fitoren përfundimtare”. Kjo ndodh në Iran ashtu si në Gaza, ku Hamasi llogarit me vetëdije vdekjen masive të civilëve për propagandë.
Irani ende nuk ka rënë në atë nivel ekstrem. Vendi ka një qytetërim të lartë, gjë që edhe Trump e pranoi me zor kur kërcënoi me shkatërrimin e tij. Teherani është një metropol modern dhe Isfahani mbetet një perlë e kulturës botërore. Regjimi, pavarësisht brutalitetit, ende duhet të tregojë një minimum kujdesi ndaj shoqërisë.
Protestat e viteve të fundit tregojnë qartë frymën e rezistencës së popullit iranian. A nuk meriton ky popull mbështetje?
Rusia tregon se autokracitë janë të rrezikshme
At the same time, the Iranian leadership is not as monolithic as it tries to appear. The Revolutionary Guards have taken almost all power, while civilian forces have been marginalized.
There are political losers seeking revenge. The rule of the mullahs is increasingly turning into a military junta. Iran has been a strange system for half a century: half theocracy and half secular state. But the regime has always justified itself with religious legitimacy.
Today, this is turning into an empty facade, with an increasingly pale religious figure at the helm, whose main qualification is the fact that he is a “son.” This directly affects the foundations of the Islamic revolution.
For Trump, it's about the midterm elections. For Iranian revolutionaries, it's about everything.
Whether the dictatorship will fall or not remains unclear. Given the regime's brutal ability to suppress protests, it still has the upper hand. However, the regime has never been so weak.
Former President Barack Obama admitted years later that he regretted not supporting the Iranian democracy movement and focusing solely on diplomacy. Trump chose a different path. It's still too early to judge.
But the policy of appeasement and turning a blind eye to one of the world's bloodiest dictatorships carries a moral stain. The war in Ukraine and previous policy toward Russia show that autocracies are dangerous. This should be a basic lesson for foreign policy in the 21st century.
Constant warnings of “escalation” can be two things: a reasonable precaution against bloodshed or the cheapest excuse for doing nothing. The wars against Saddam Hussein and the Taliban showed the limits of Western intervention.
But to derive from them a policy of absolute non-intervention is as wrong as the humanitarian idealism after the fall of communism.
At that time, the concept of the “responsibility to protect” was promoted, the international obligation to protect peoples from their dictators, even with military force if necessary. This too can be reckless if applied blindly.
The conflicts in Iran and Ukraine are redefining how the West understands its role in the world. Is it enough to give Kiev weapons but not offer security guarantees through rapid membership in the European Union? Is it enough to give advice from a distance on how to deal with Tehran?
Henry Kissinger, the symbol of realist politics, insisted that foreign policy without a moral foundation ends in disaster. Iran and Ukraine are real-life examples of what this means in an era of ruthless competition between great powers. So it is possible that Trump's strategy will end in failure.
But shouting "humiliation" and sitting idly by is not a serious response to one of the most important foreign policy issues of this century. /Adapted from NZZ /
Lini një Përgjigje