Op-ed
Ukraine and Iran — Two Geostrategic Challenges for 2023: Op-ed by Ischinger for Handelsblatt
Among the many foreign policy issues of 2022, two are likely to remain of particular geostrategic relevance in 2023: Ukraine's desire to become a member of NATO — yes or no? And: Dealing with the Iranian regime — Should we stand by the nuclear deal or impose more rigid sanctions due to human rights violations by the regime in Tehran?
A German version of this article by the German newspaper Handelsblatt on December 16, 2022.
Firstly, NATO:
Turkey's continued refusal to approve Sweden and Finland as new members of the alliance illustrates how complicated the procedure of enlarging NATO is. Not only is unanimity required by member states, but each member requires approval by their respective national parliaments, since the decision is linked to a formal international treaty. In order to appropriately react to Ukraine's request to join the alliance, it might be useful to recall the three criteria applied during the initial NATO-Enlargement round of 1997. We asked three questions then:
- Is the country in question united in its desire to join NATO (or would a potential membership result in internal division)?
- Are all members of the alliance in favor of granting membership?
- Would the membership of the country in question enhance European security and stability generally?
Back in 1997 we recommended that Presidents and Heads of State invite prospective member states only if all three questions could clearly be answered with: Yes! In the cases of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary all three questions were then answered with a resounding "Yes"! When the topic of Ukraine arose during the NATO-Summit in Bucharest in 2008, a controversial debate ensued, and former Chancellor Merkel and former President Sarkozy concluded that not all of the three questions could be answered positively. Arguably, from today's perspective, one could draw different conclusions, even though, surely, not all concerns by all member states have been eliminated, particularly regarding the third and final question. That explains why the Alliance continues to be quite hesitant in responding to Ukraine's membership bid.
Now, to Iran:
The other challenging issue is going to be the question whether we should exercise restraint regarding current human rights violations by the Iranian regime, because of our interest of reviving the nuclear deal.
Here, the answer has to be a clear "no"! Naturally, serious concerns for safeguarding the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) remain. If and when Iran has a bomb – when will Saudi-Arabia follow? However, most experts believe that the chances of reviving the "JCPOA" had hit rock bottom long before the unrests in Iran were triggered. Tehran has not signaled any willingness at all to agree to the present draft proposal. Any concessions by the West vis-à-vis Tehran would now feel like a slap in the face for Iranians fighting for their freedom. Moreover, signing an agreement with Tehran at this time would send the completely wrong signal. It might look as if the West were supporting the Iranian regime. For those fighting for their rights, or those already imprisoned, there could not be any worse sign.
The West should therefore not hesitate to impose additional sanctions on the Mullah regime. Current measures planned by the EU appear somewhat half-hearted. The EU should demonstrate unity and toughness.
At the same time, it should be clear that the JCPOA offer should stay on the table. It must be made clear to Tehran that they are not just facing a massive domestic challenge, but that they will face further international isolation. Considering the ongoing delivery of drones to Russia, Tehran supports the genocidal war of aggression waged by Russia in Ukraine. This is unacceptable. If the west wishes not to abandon its own values, it should make clear that the people of Iran will not be abandoned in their courageous fight for their rights and for their freedom.
