The North Atlantic Triangle

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Tomada de la web
La Jornada Maya

Martes 22 de mayo, 2018

Since 1945, the North Atlantic Triangle – Western Europe, Canada, and the United States – has been the mainstay of Western security and economic interests. As the main bulwark against Soviet expansionism, the Triangle defended itself and its values by coming together and espousing multilateral unity.

Today, the actions of the Trump administration are weakening that strategic alliance, and the outcome could be perilous for the West.

President Trump’s decision to publicly attack his NATO allies repeatedly for not contributing enough to mutual defense, while remaining silent on Russian expansionism, has irritated his erstwhile allies to the extreme.

His apparent welcoming of illiberal democratic regimes in Poland (during his visit there in 2017) and Hungary, not to mention Turkey and the Philippines, has given many cause for concern. His admiration for Russian strongman Vladimir Putin has also contributed to this shift in mood among traditional allies.

Now the relationship between the United States and its traditional allies has gone from bad to worse.

Trump’s decision to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran nuclear deal), signed in 2015 by Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Iran, reinstate economic sanctions against Teheran, and pursue sanctions against European companies that continue to deal with Iran, has led to a greater debacle for the Western alignment.

After 73 years, Western European powers now find themselves aligned with Russia, China and Iran against the United States.

The United States has announced its readiness to begin a major trade war with the Europeans should they persist in trading with and investing in Iran.

European leaders have responded with harsh rhetoric, with European Union President Donald Tusk tweeting “Looking at latest decisions of @realDonaldTrump someone could even think: with friends like that who needs enemies. But frankly, EU should be grateful. Thanks to him we got rid of all illusions. We realize that if you need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your arm”.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Trump’s assault on the Iran deal had created a “real crisis” for the global order. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire opined that the unilateral U.S. imposition of sanctions as “economic policeman of the planet” is “not acceptable.”

The Europeans are now caught between the proverbial rock and hard place.

Their citizens will balk at allowing Trump to appear to be dictating their sovereign right to do business with whomever they want, especially when these sanctions are not governed by a United Nations Security Council resolution. They could well insist that their government go it alone. Anti-U.S. sentiment is at the highest point that it has been in decades – anti-Trump sentiment is even higher.

On the other hand, however, are the Europeans willing to undergo the major economic disruptions that US sanctions against their companies will entail, with thousands or tens of thousands of European jobs and billions of dollars of business lost as a result?

European exports to Iran are estimated at ten billion euros annually. In addition, a billion-dollar investment by France’s energy giant TOTAL is at stake, as are hundreds of millions of dollars in airliner exports to Iran by Airbus.

The EU exports over $400 billion worth of goods to the United States, making it by far the bigger export market – one the Europeans cannot afford to lose.

So, the EU decision will come down to national pride versus jobs and exports.

Which will win?

That remains to be seen.

Will jobs outweigh pride, or will political leaders conclude that they must stand against Trump and their traditional ally who provides them continental security, or lose their national dignity and sovereignty?

From the Iranian point of view, it should be remembered that while it experienced a lot of pain, Iran survived for many years under an economic embargo, as well as a costly eight-year war with neighboring Iraq in the eighties.

It could probably do so again.

At this point, Iran’s hardliners have emerged from the nuclear debate strengthened, underscoring their traditional position that the United States could never be trusted.

Iran’s moderates are much weaker now that Trump has dealt the deal, and by extension them, a death blow.

President Rouhani will be on slippery ground, while the ultimate position of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is unknown at time of writing.

Much depends as well on how Iran’s youth reacts.

This group – the majority in Iran – seeks the economic benefits promised by the nuclear détente in force since 2015.

Now, once again, they will face a future with poor economic prospects, fewer jobs, less freedom, and even fewer Western consumer goods.

Will they remain silent, or will Iran become more unstable?

Can the Iranian regime control massive demonstrations once again with social media fueling their organization and execution?

And if Iran becomes more unstable, will hardliners promote rapidly increasing nuclear development in order to ensure geopolitical advantage over their Arab adversaries and parity with Israel, and seek to rally nationalist sentiment around the nuclear option at the same time?

Or will the moderates prevail, if Iran continues to be allied with the other signatories of the agreement and, in turn, join them in isolating further their arch-enemy, the United States?

These are questions that should concern us all, given Iran’s involvement in almost all of the conflicts in the Middle East and its increasing influence as far away as Venezuela and Bolivia.

In fact, the only geopolitical winners of Trump’s actions at this time appear to be Russia and China.

This decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement has driven a far deeper wedge within the Western alliance that Russia or China could have accomplished themselves.

The emergence of strong illiberal governments in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and, increasingly, Austria, is driving a wedge within the European Community that could benefit Chinese economic interests as they seek to incorporate Central Europe in their “Belt and Road” plan, and Russian security interests as it seeks political hegemony in what used to be its own backyard. The loss of U.S. support is yet another blow.

And that is a sad conclusion to eight decades of strategic relations between the United States and its North Atlantic Triangle allies – relations based on common values and common objectives.

Indeed, the major geopolitical loser could well be the United States, as “America First” becomes even more “America Alone”.

[b][email protected][/b]