Why appeasing Iran is the road to disaster

Sometimes I wish Iran, like Brexit, would just disappear from the headlines. Neither subject adds to what that great Englishman, Dr. Johnson, called the gaiety of nations. And their constant presence in the news simply reminds us that something somewhere is wrong, even if we can’t agree on exactly what that might be.

For many in the EU, Iran, which has a 40-year record of sponsoring violence and terror internationally, executing or assassinating those among its own citizens who disagreed with the country’s direction of travel, subverting or suborning its neighbors, harboring members of Al-Qaeda, attacking shipping and now refusing to cooperate with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) monitoring, is simply a victim and needs to be accommodated. The real villain is the US.

And here we come to President Macron’s recent generous offer to Tehran to establish a $15bn time-limited line of credit in return for full compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. Now I’m all in favor of diplomacy. I admire the creativity, expertise and persistence which the French have undoubtedly demonstrated. But every time Paris or the EU as a whole offer an incentive to Iran or suggest — however quietly — that they can act as mediators between Tehran and Washington, the Iranians do something provocative and

the White House dismisses the idea. On this occasion, the Iranians announced that they were removing all restrictions on their research activities and the enrichment of uranium.

And this is all part of a larger picture. During Javad Zarif ’s visit to Moscow a few days ago, the Russian press announced that Moscow was prepared to hold joint naval exercises with Tehran and allow the use of Russian ports for the shipment of some Iranian oil exports. The Iranians have just revealed an agreement with Beijing for an additional $280bn of Chinese investment in Iran’s energy infrastructure. And they continue to develop an ingenious system of dark funding for their economy through the IRGC, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela and other parts of South America and indeed Africa.

This is all suboptimal. It reflects a degree of global political fragmentation that is not irreversible but gives opportunists a chance to exploit. In all of this, Europe, which needs global order to thrive, is a player — but a minor and sometimes reluctant one, given intra-EU divisions. The big prize for Iran remains the US. But it’s not at all clear that Tehran actually wants a deal with Washington, certainly while it sees a chance instead to divide the US from Europe, Russia and China. It wants instead to sow division and define the terms of victory.

In order to secure this it is willing to allow other historic enemies, such as Russia or Turkey, to benefit. It may be willing to allow the Iranian energy economy to become a constituent part of the One Belt, One Road project that leads inexorably to Chinese hegemony across Central Asia. And — like Vladimir Putin — it is happy to exploit European rivalries in order to exacerbate splits within the EU and accelerate a drift away from the historic, if sometimes strained, Atlanticist posture of European political elites.

That way lies disaster. Whatever Eurooptimists may claim, Europe needs the US as its principal partner for the foreseeable future. In all this it is Iran that is the minor player. Yet some European policy elites still seem to treat the issue as a choice between Iran and Washington.

It bears constant repeating that this is not the case, nor is it about Donald Trump. There may well be profound changes afoot in US domestic politics, and it is hard to argue that this administration has helped the cause of collective action with its transactional unpredictability. But this can be exaggerated: Secretary Pompeo’s unwillingness to sign off on a so-called peace deal in Afghanistan that allows the Taliban essentially to do what they want perhaps sheds an interesting light on the limits of US willingness to disengage internationally.

And what has not changed are the fundamental geopolitical realities of shared security and economic interests and an ideological and political commonality that has lasted centuries. Europe needs to seek to ensure the US stays engaged, not simply abandon the central ideas of international order on which the post-1945 world was built. Any sign of weakness only encourages Tehran to seek more concessions. They are playing Europe — not the reverse. But their real goal is Washington. It is always possible that negotiations between Iran and the US will resume at some point. There are rumors of a Trump-Rouhani meeting at the UN in New York at the end of September. But for this to happen and be productive,

Tehran must be convinced that the West will stay united.

While we wait, the wheels of war grind slowly but inexorably toward more conflict in southern Syria and the Gulf.

The real moral of President Macron’s $15bn is that Europe risks being sidelined when the choices get tougher. Because when they do, it really will be a question of who stands where, not who is willing to pay for the privilege of bribing Iran to de-escalate and then finding it won’t. And a Europe that wants to face all ways will find itself irrelevant.