Subscribe
The interventions in the Middle East, from Baghdad to Gaza, provide a fundamental lesson: military success does not equate to the consolidation of lasting peace. The outcome of the armed conflict represents only the beginning of a complex challenge: that of the post-war period. In the Iranian case, following a possible abdication of Ali Khamenei and the fall of the regime, a scenario could be generated where political stabilization, the consolidation of institutions and the development of a civil society must be supported by a long-term strategy. In absence of these factors, the power vacuum risks being occupied by non-state actors, clientelistic networks or extremist groups, compromising the democratic aspirations of the population and fueling instability even beyond national borders. Post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, for example, turned into a failure of nation building. Similarly, the retreat from Gaza, promoted at the time by Ariel Sharon, was followed by a political vacuum that favoured the radicalization and rise of Hamas. In both cases, the mistake was to give up managing the situation generated by the collapse of the previous order. The lack of institutional support prevented the construction of legitimate and stable governance mechanisms, favouring the fragmentation of power and the proliferation of conflicts. Without a concrete commitment to building institutions and promoting political pluralism, any change risks being ephemeral.
IRAN: A FRAGILE AND CRUCIAL OPPORTUNITY
In the case of Iran, the risk of repeating the mistakes made in other transition scenarios is very high. The theocratic regime has shown a remarkable capacity for resistance, also thanks to its repressive system, to the power of the Pasdaran and an ideological rhetoric centered on religious and anti-Western principles. However, beneath this authoritarian structure, a dynamic, urbanized and educated society is developing. Women’s mobilizations, artistic and literary expressions, as well as youth revolts, are tangible signs of democratic potential. Such vitality, nonetheless, requires a favourable political-institutional context to be translated into a process of transformation. Without an international framework that supports the transition and guarantees spaces for political action, even the most genuine impulses risk being neutralized or exploited by a new authoritarianism. The Iranian transition, if conducted with strategic vision, graduality and in full respect of the self-determination of the people, could constitute an epochal turning point for the entire region. A democratic, stable Iran integrated into the international community would represent not only the end of political, economic and military support for armed groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza and Yemen, but also a concrete opportunity to relaunch a negotiation process in the Israeli-Palestinian affair. However, the realization of this scenario requires multilateral coordination and a shared vision that, at present, are insufficient: the United Nations enjoy formal legitimacy but lack the necessary coercive instruments; the European Union maintains a strong diplomatic commitment, but has limited geopolitical weight; the United States, despite having resources and influence, suffers from a growing loss of credibility with Arab and global public opinion. In the absence of a coherent international direction equipped with adequate resources, any proposal for stabilization risks remaining confined to speculation.
UKRAINE AS A COLLATERAL VICTIM OF THE NEW REGIONAL ORDER
In this rapidly evolving geopolitical context characterized by multiple simultaneous tensions, the war in Ukraine is in real danger of being sidelined with respect to the strategic centrality of the Middle East. The attention of the United States seems to be gradually orienting itself towards the chessboard of the Persian Gulf and towards the management (in one way or another) of the Iranian dossier, with the result of relegating the Ukrainian conflict to a marginal position on the international agenda. The tycoon’s strategy is configured as an expression of radical political realism, where traditional Western democratic values are interchangeable and functional to a conception of foreign policy based on the pursuit of American interests. This approach not only compromises the coherence of Western action, but puts at risk the trust of European partners and emerging democracies in the ability of the United States to act as guarantor of an international order based on shared rules. The idea of assigning Vladimir Putin a mediation role in this crisis appears to be an attempt to restore the Russian positions to their maximum value in terms of international legitimacy. Assigning a negotiating role to the person who promoted armed aggression against Ukraine and contributed to the destabilization of the European order would lead to the normalization of Russian geopolitical revisionism. This decision has several complexities, especially if we observe it in relation to the behaviour of the US administration in relation to the disinterest towards the G7 and a reluctance to apply further sanctions against Moscow. This combination of factors highlights the inconsistency in American foreign policy. These signals, read together, fuel the perception of a progressive disengagement of the West from the Ukrainian cause, which risks being marginalized in function of new strategic priorities. Such an evolution would have serious implications for the credibility of the international order based on territorial integrity and the condemnation of aggression.
THE EROSION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE WEST
The attitude adopted by the new US leadership signals a progressive weakening of the concept of the West as a cohesive community, founded on shared values, democratic principles and common goals. The potential disengagement from the Ukrainian conflict and the conciliatory attitude towards authoritarian powers (such as Russia) represent a dangerous discontinuity with respect to the traditional American position. This strategic change risks compromising Western geopolitical effectiveness, favouring the fragmentation of the Atlantic Alliance. In the absence of leadership and a shared vision, the West could transform itself into a disintegrated coalition, in which each actor acts according to national logic, abandoning the idea of an international order based on certain rules. This scenario would represent a step backwards in the construction of a global system based on cooperation and the defence of freedom. For Europe, the progressive disengagement of the United States compels the continent to assume a more burdensome role in the management of its own security. The possibility of no longer being able to count on the US umbrella, which for decades has guaranteed stability and deterrence, requires a profound reflection on the need to develop an autonomous defence capacity. However, in the absence of a common strategy and effective operational tools, the European Union risks remaining an incomplete actor, vulnerable to external pressures and incapable of influencing global balances. Crushed between systemic crises, hybrid threats and a NATO increasingly fragmented in its strategic vision, Europe is now faced with the challenge of redefining its geopolitical identity and continental security, under penalty of marginalization on the international stage.
WAR AND POST-WAR PERIOD: THE REAL CHALLENGE IS POLITICAL
The simultaneity of the conflicts in Iran and Ukraine requires a profound and radical rethinking of international politics. The management of post-war transitions cannot be left to chance or limited to military operations; instead, it requires a global and far-sighted political vision. This vision must be able to promote regional stability, the strengthening of democratic institutions and the protection of human rights, avoiding neocolonial drifts that would compromise the legitimacy of the interventions themselves. At the same time, the West is called upon to pose a crucial question regarding its strategic and value-based future: is it possible to maintain cohesion based on shared principles, or will we witness a progressive subordination to cynical and pragmatic logics of power? The answer will not only influence the outcome of the current crises, but will decisively determine the fate and survival of the international liberal order in the long term, with repercussions that go beyond regional borders and involve global stability.