Geopolitics of crisis creation
French President Emmanuel Macron declared that the activation of the ‘snapback mechanism’ (automatic reinstatement of UN Security Council sanctions from 2015) against the Islamic Republic was a fait accompli. In an interview with Israel's Channel 12, he said: ‘We will apply the snapback mechanism and this measure will be followed by all those who support this decision.’ This decision, although belated, is nevertheless inevitable. Any further postponement would only give the regime a new opportunity to intensify internal repression and fuel belligerence and crisis in the region.
Without the revelations of the Iranian resistance—in particular, the discovery of clandestine nuclear facilities since 2002—the current regime would be closer today to the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon and would bring the world even closer to the brink of war and crisis. The repeated rejection of offers from the European Troika (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) has shown that this regime has never had any intention of abandoning its nuclear programme, and Europe is forced to resort to the ‘snapback’. The reality is that if the policy of accommodation and the suspension of resolutions had not continued for the last decade, we would not now be facing a war accompanied by so much killing and destruction.
Iran: epicentre of the crisis and war in the region
In contemporary geopolitical literature, some states are identified as ‘hubs of instability’ or ‘exporters of instability’. The Islamic Republic of Iran, both because of its propensity to generate crises and because of its geostrategic position (Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, connections with the Caucasus and Central Asia, and borders with Iraq and Afghanistan), has been one of the main sources of tension in the region for the last forty years.
Theorists such as Barry Buzan, within the framework of the ‘regional security’ approach, explain that a revisionist power can drag the entire ‘regional security complex’ into instability, and that this instability spreads beyond borders through spillover mechanisms.
The concept of ‘spillover instability’ is fully verified in Iran's regional behaviour. Following the ‘Arab Spring’ uprising, the Iranian regime intervened directly in Syria to prevent the spread of protest movements within the country. This intervention led to massive clashes that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of displaced persons, and ultimately led to the entry of Russian air power into the conflict. Even after major chemical attacks—Ghouta (2013), Khan Sheikhoun (2017) and Douma (2018)—that killed hundreds of civilians, the West did not respond decisively.
This silence and inaction had wider consequences. Russia, undeterred, annexed Crimea in 2014, and then war broke out in Ukraine. Moscow subsequently benefited from Iranian military aid, particularly in the form of drones and missiles. Even today, drone attacks in Ukraine and reports of drone incursions into Romanian territory—a NATO member—show that European deterrence is once again being tested.
Repairing the past
The impact of the war and the crisis has not been limited to the Middle East, but has also affected parts of Europe. The destruction and massacres continue, and in many cases, the main beneficiary has been the Iranian regime. However, there is still not enough will to eradicate the causes of these crises. The process that began in Iran first spread to the region and now clearly affects Europe.
The nuclear project, together with other instruments of intervention, has served as part of a strategy of deterrence and crisis generation, which has come at a high human and political cost to the Iranian and regional populations. Although the regime now appears to be cornered and, for 95% of Iranians, the central question is no longer whether the regime will remain in power, but when it will leave, it is not too late to repair the past and prevent new disasters.