After weeks of anticipation, Donald Trump has bombed Iran. Late last night, he announced in a press conference that airstrikes against three nuclear facilities were a “spectacular military success”, with all three facilities being “totally and completely obliterated”.
Whether that is in fact true will become clear over the next few days. Iran denies that the facilities have suffered irreparable damage, and even before the strikes some experts were sceptical that it would be possible to destroy Fordow—which is thought to be buried about 90m underground. The Iranians also claim that important materials had already been taken out of the facilities.
The real question is: what comes next?
Iran has already launched new strikes against Israel, reportedly hitting both Haifa and Tel-Aviv this morning. It’s therefore quite possible that the situation will continue to escalate. I hardly need to spell out what might happen: if Iran retaliates by attempting to strike US bases or ships in the region, or by ‘closing’ the Strait of Hormuz, the US would presumably feel the need to get more involved—and might even become a full participant in the war, alongside Israel.
If that were to happen, we could very well see regime change or the collapse of the Iranian state. While the country might be able to hold its own against Israel in a war of attrition, it seems unlikely that it could thwart the full power of the US Navy and Air Force.
Would that be good for Britain and the rest of Europe? It’s far from clear that it would.
To begin with, Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz—which it has been threatening to do since Israel’s surprise attack last Friday—would lead to a sharp rise in energy prices. (About 20% of oil and about 3% of gas passes through the Strait.) This is obviously the last thing Europe needs, as it claws its way out of the last energy crisis sparked by the War in Ukraine.
Even if it only took a few weeks for the US to ‘reopen’ the Strait by neutralising Iranian missile and drone capabilities, Europe’s economy could still take a sizeable hit (some experts say the price of oil might reach $100 a barrel). And given that months of US strikes against the less well-armed Houthis has not stopped them attacking Israel and Israeli ships, reopening the Strait could take far longer.
It’s also worth noting that the primary beneficiary of disruption to Gulf energy exports would be, you guessed it, Russia.
A rise in energy prices is not even the most serious potential consequence of further escalation. If the Iranian state collapses, Syria-style, there could be another mass exodus of refugees to Europe—just like the one in 2015, only larger. Iran has a population almost four times bigger than Syria did when a million Syrians fled to Europe. And there are hundreds of thousands of Iranians here already, whose families would surely seek to join them in the event of disaster.
Indeed, several commentators have already highlighted the prospect of a new refugee crisis, with one suggesting it could be the “largest refugee crisis in history”. President Erdogan, whose country hosts almost 3 million refugees, mostly Syrian, has warned that “a devastating war could create waves of irregular migration towards all the countries in the region”.
What do European leaders have to say about all this? All they can do is muster vapid statements about how Iran should “return to the negotiating table”, even though Iran was at the negotiating table when it was attacked, and the US unilaterally withdrew from the previous nuclear deal negotiated under Obama.
Is it too much to ask that our leaders take Europe’s interests into account?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.