US-Iran: can apocalyptic threats bring peace?
At the last moment, Tehran and Washington have agreed on a two-week ceasefire. Donald Trump continued to ramp up his threats as the US ultimatum deadline loomed, announcing that 'an entire civilisation will die' if Iran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The initial reaction in the European press is one of shock rather than relief.
Just a reprieve
It's too early to draw conclusions at this point, writes the BBC:
“A nation that once styled itself as a force for stability around the globe is now shaking the foundations of the international order. A president who has seemingly relished shattering norms and traditions in domestic politics is now doing the same on the world stage. ... For the moment, however, this is a partial political victory for Trump. He made a dramatic threat and achieved the desired result. But the ceasefire is a reprieve, not a permanent settlement. The long-term cost of the president's words and actions, and of the war overall, has yet to be fully assessed.”
High cost for little gain
There can be no talk of this being a victory for Trump, says Infowar:
“In all his statements and announcements, Trump is attempting to portray himself as the undisputed victor who has humiliated his opponent. In reality, he has achieved none of his stated objectives: there has been no regime change in Iran, merely the assassination of the political and religious leadership; the Iranian nuclear programme has not been halted; and control of the Strait of Hormuz remains largely in Tehran's hands.”
Huge damage wrought worldwide
The relief over the fragile ceasefire is limited for several reasons, explains NRC:
“Even if the talks are successful, the world cannot return to the status quo ante. Iran now has control of the passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. Israel has again invaded Lebanon and has no intention of pausing the conflict there. Furthermore Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not pleased that Trump has granted Iran a ceasefire. The Arab Gulf states have lost their sense of security and their reputation for safety.”
Doubts about Trump gathering pace
A ceasefire may have been reached but Trump's extreme threats will have consequences, notes Politiken:
“Today even Trump's former allies so fear what he might do next that they are publicly calling for his removal from office. ... Trump's removal would require the backing of the majority of his cabinet and his vice-president, and there is no sign of this happening. Yet the fact that the discussion is taking place in public shows that Trump can't simply dismiss the announcement as a clever negotiating tactic. ... Now there is a ceasefire and hope for a negotiated solution. But Trump's words are irrevocable and there will be consequences – for him and for the rest of the world.”
Words are never only words
Such behaviour must not be tolerated, warns the Tages-Anzeiger:
“A few hours before Trump's midnight deadline, fascism researcher Timothy Snyder wrote: 'As any historian of mass atrocity knows, there is no such thing as 'only words.' The notion of killing a whole civilization, once spoken, remains.' ... The responsibility lies primarily with the Republicans. They are mistaken if they think they can simply sit this president out without suffering consequences and without imposing any limits on him. ... And Europe is mistaken if it still thinks it has an ally in the US. What comes next after threatening genocide?”
Brussels' Kafkaesque language
Eric Bonse criticises the EU's response on his Lost in Europe blog:
“What does EU Council President Costa, who claims to speak for the 27 EU member states, have to say? 'Any targeting of civilian infrastructure, namely energy facilities, is illegal and unacceptable. This applies to Russia's war in Ukraine and it applies everywhere.' ... In a sense, this is history's first 'no-name' war. Those responsible – Trump and Netanyahu – have become unmentionable. ... The term 'war crimes' is also strictly avoided. 'Illegal and unacceptable,' says Costa regarding the systematic destruction of bridges, hospitals and schools in Iran – but he doesn't speak of crimes. He doesn't even want to call the war a violation of international law. I find this Kafkaesque.”