Where will the US threats against Iran lead?
After the US deployed the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and other warships to the Middle East last week, it remains unclear whether there will be an attack on Iran. According to the Iranian state news agency Irna the country's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has called for a diplomatic solution to the conflict. Media reports suggest that talks on a new nuclear deal are taking place behind the scenes. European commentators warn of the dangers of a military strike.
Attack would be a gift to the regime
La Stampa voices concern:
“Iran is not Caracas. ... An operation to 'capture' the Iranian leadership would be particularly risky due to its regional consequences: killing Khamenei would risk triggering a widespread uprising among Shiite communities from the Levant to the Gulf. Furthermore, any escalation would immediately affect important energy hubs, starting with the Strait of Hormuz. In Iran, retaliation is not merely a collateral risk but an integral part of the defence doctrine. Above all, however, an attack would give the Iranian regime exactly what it needs most in times of internal unrest: a narrative of external encirclement that could prompt the regime to close ranks and justify even harsher repression.”
Too far, too foreign, too hostile
Any military intervention would be unlikely to succeed, Polityka agrees:
“Trump probably dreams of repeating the Caracas scenario in Tehran, a spectacular kidnapping of the bearded old man, the spiritual and actual head of the Iranian police theocracy. But Tehran is nothing like Caracas - too far away, too foreign, too hostile, probably much more of a challenge even for elite special forces. The Iranian capital is 500 kilometres from the nearest area accessible to Americans in Iraq, several hundred kilometres from the Persian Gulf and 1,500 kilometres from the Arabian Sea, where the aircraft carriers will be operating.”
This is not about democracy
People should not get their hopes up too high, writes the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
“In the negotiations that the US president is likely to push through, the Tehran regime is expected to give up everything on which its survival depends: its nuclear programme, its missile programme and its support for militias in the region. ... Trump's surviving opponents in Iran, on the other hand, can hardly count on the 'help' the US president promised them weeks ago. At best, political prisoners will become bargaining chips when Trump, after scuppering the 2016 nuclear agreement, now tries to force Tehran into a new one. The US president hardly mentions the murderous suppression of the protests anymore. He has other priorities.”
Gross violations of international law
The Irish Times points to the lack of an international legal basis for Trump's actions:
“What Trump has not done is even attempt to seek legal authority from the UN for what are likely to be gross violations of international law. ... Trump appears to be taking a similar approach to Iran as he did to Venezuela, where the US amassed forces just off its coast for months as part of a pressure campaign to oust Nicolás Maduro. Any follow-up in Iran, however, is likely to be more complicated and unpredictable, not least the search for a replacement government.”
Past interventions leave a devastating track record
El País calls on the international community to help:
“Military action would in no way guarantee reform or the fall of a regime. ... Trump should be aware of the devastating record of past US interventions: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and Syria. ... None of these societies has developed anything remotely resembling a democracy. ... While Trump posts his tweets, we should remember that the Iranians are fighting a merciless dictatorship virtually alone. It is for their sake that the international community must do more than issue ineffective statements, among other things to avoid giving the impression that the only ones taking action are precisely those who despise the international order and global security.”