Iran Archives - Roel Thijssen

12/05/202612/05/2026

Wall Street Journal: United Arab Emirates carried out multiple airstrikes against Iran

According to the American newspaper The Wall Street Journal, the United Arab Emirates carried out multiple airstrikes against Iran during the ongoing war initiated by Israel and the US. The report cites anonymous sources.

The UAE has not yet responded to the report. If confirmed, it reveals that a third country is actively involved in attacks on Iran, alongside Israel and the United States.

While not all alleged strikes were detailed, the report identifies the UAE as responsible for an attack on an Iranian refinery on Lavan Island in the Persian Gulf in early April. At the time, Iran reported that the refinery had been hit by enemy fire and responded by launching missiles and drones at the UAE and Kuwait. Both Israel and the US denied involvement in the Lavan Island strike.

The attack caused a major fire and rendered the refinery largely inoperable for an extended period. These actions took place while President Trump repeatedly claimed a ceasefire with Iran was imminent. The US has not commented on the potential active involvement of the UAE in the conflict.

Until now, there were mainly rumors, speculation, and regional media reports, but no major Western outlet had reported that Abu Dhabi was conducting strikes against Iran. This makes The Wall Street Journal report significant: it shifts the narrative from mysterious attacks on Iranian infrastructure to the suggestion that the UAE is an active participant in the war.

If true, this marks a major policy shift for Abu Dhabi. As the country that has faced the highest number of Iranian retaliatory strikes, the UAE appears increasingly willing to deploy independent military force to protect its economic and strategic interests. In doing so, they are charting their own course, moving further away from Saudi Arabia and becoming less dependent on the US.

However, the risks are escalating. Iran may now explicitly view the UAE as a direct adversary, further heightening tensions in the Gulf. This makes not only military targets more vulnerable, but also ports, airports, and energy facilities, the very infrastructure that drives the Emirati economy.

Escalation in the Gulf

Iran began launching airstrikes against the UAE and other neighboring Gulf states shortly after the war broke out in late February. The UAE has been the primary target, with over 2,800 Iranian missiles and drones fired at its territory, significantly more than the number of strikes directed at other Gulf nations or even Israel.

The consequences for the UAE have been severe, with key sectors such as aviation and tourism hit hard. According to The Wall Street Journal, this has prompted the country to adopt a more aggressive stance toward Iran, including direct military action.

08/05/202608/05/2026

The Fragmentation of Global Order: Transatlantic Divergence and the Reconfiguration of Regional Alliances

The contemporary international landscape is undergoing a profound structural transformation characterized by the erosion of traditional transatlantic cohesion and the emergence of new strategic alignments.

Recent shifts in United States foreign policy (specifically regarding the escalation of conflict with Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz) have acted as a catalyst for global realignment. By analyzing the diplomatic outcomes of the European Political Community (EPC) summit in Yerevan, I am exploring the dual phenomena of non-Western tilt toward Russo Chinese influence and the simultaneous consolidation of Western middle powers around the European Union’s institutional framework.

Introduction

The onset of military hostilities against Iran, initiated by the Trump administration with Israeli support, has triggered a series of systemic shocks that extend far beyond the Middle East. The resulting maritime blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted global energy and fertilizer supply chains, forcing a pragmatic reorientation of trade policies in the Indo Pacific. Concurrently, the decision to withdraw substantial military contingents from Germany and Romania has signaled a retreat from the post Cold War security architecture, prompting a re evaluation of the European Union’s role as a primary security guarantor for democratic states.

The Pragmatic Pivot: Energy Security and Russian Influence

Data from recent trade agreements suggests that Asian and Middle Eastern powers are increasingly prioritizing resource security over normative alignment with Western sanctions. The disruption of traditional supply routes has led nations such as India, Indonesia, and the Philippines to strengthen ties with Moscow.

Industrial Infrastructure: The joint development of urea production facilities between India and Russia indicates a long-term strategic commitment to agricultural stability.
Nuclear Energy Expansion: The ratification of contracts for nuclear power plant construction in Vietnam and Myanmar signifies a shift toward Russian technological dependence in the energy sector.
Resource Pragmatism: Negotiations involving Thailand and the UAE regarding Russian fertilizer imports demonstrate that the “aggressor” narrative prevalent in EU discourse fails to resonate in regions where domestic food and energy security are at stake.

Strategic Sentiment and Historical Path Dependency

The resilience of Russian and Chinese influence in the Global South can be attributed to deep seated anti Western and anti colonial sentiments. For many former colonies and erstwhile communist states, the perception of Russia as a counterweight to Western hegemony remains potent. China, under President Xi Jinping, leverages this sentiment to challenge the existing world order. The “century of humiliation” serves as a foundational narrative for Beijing’s current strategy: ensuring that Russia does not face a strategic defeat in Europe, which would otherwise bolster Western dominance and impede the transition to a multipolar system.

The Yerevan Summit: The EU as a Normative Anchor

In contrast to the shift toward Moscow in Asia, the European Political Community (EPG) summit in Yerevan (May 2026) demonstrated an unexpected level of European and “Western aligned” consolidation. The choice of venue (a former Soviet republic) served as a symbolic rejection of Russian regional hegemony.

A significant development was the participation of Canadian Prime Minister Carney, marking the first time a non-European leader joined the EPG. This move signals a search for strategic alternatives to the United States among traditional allies. Under the leadership of European Council President António Costa and figures such as Macron and Von der Leyen, the EU is increasingly viewed as a primary bastion of the international rule of law.

Conclusion: The Erosion of US Hegemony

The current trajectory of US foreign policy (defined by the instrumentalization of military withdrawals as political punishment, such as the drawdown of troops in response to Chancellor Merz’s criticism) is inadvertently accelerating American isolation. While the White House may perceive these actions as exercises of power, the systemic result is the fragmentation of the global order.

Trump’s policies have not only driven key regional players into the Russo Chinese orbit but have also forced a consolidation of Western powers around the European Union, potentially diminishing the long term geopolitical leverage of the United States.

14/04/202623/04/2026

The Case for European Sovereignty: Why the EU Must Outgrow NATO

The geopolitical landscape of the 21st century is shifting rapidly, demanding a reassessment of established security structures. For decades, the European Union has relied on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the bedrock of its security. This alliance provided stability during the Cold War, but in today’s multipolar world, this deep and limiting dependency on the United States is becoming increasingly untenable.

If the EU is to become a truly independent global actor, it must make the difficult but necessary decision to step out of NATO and build its own sovereign defense architecture. One of the clearest, most damaging proofs of this divergent reality can be found in the West’s fractured approach to Iran.

The Divergence of Strategic Interests and the Iran Lesson

The core of the problem lies in the fundamental strategic priorities of Washington and Brussels, which are no longer fully aligned. While the United States is increasingly focused on the Indo-Pacific region and its systemic rivalry with China, Europe’s primary security concerns remain centered on its immediate neighborhood: Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East.

This divergence is nowhere more apparent than in the catastrophic failure of unified transatlantic policy towards Iran. For decades, European powers, notably the E3 (Germany, France, and the UK), led meticulous diplomatic efforts to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. This agreement was hailed as a benchmark for European soft power and a critical security measure for the region.

However, the 2018 unilateral withdrawal from the deal by the Trump administration, followed by the re-imposition of crippling economic sanctions, fundamentally undermined European strategic interests. The EU was effectively held hostage by American policy. European businesses, which had started to invest in Iran, were forced to retreat, and European banks were threatened with exclusion from the US financial system.

The EU’s subsequent attempts to create alternative payment mechanisms, like INSTEX, proved ineffective, highlighting how American unilateralism can invalidate European sovereignty. The US’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, far from stabilizing the region, heightened tensions, creating a direct security threat for Europe.

The lesson from Iran is clear: As long as the EU is bound within a security framework dominated by the United States, it will remain vulnerable to Washington’s policy swings. European security and economic interests are too often subordinated to American strategic goals, limiting Europe’s diplomatic flexibility and its ability to engage with critical regional actors on its own terms.

The Catalyst for Military and Technological Autonomy

True geopolitical power requires military and technological independence. Currently, European defense relies heavily on American hardware, intelligence, and command structures. This reliance creates a comfort zone that prevents the European defense industry from reaching its full potential.

Leaving NATO would serve as a forced catalyst for integration. It would compel the EU to consolidate its fragmented military capabilities, invest heavily in its own defense technology, and create a unified European command. Instead of buying off-the-shelf American systems, European capital would flow into European innovation, strengthening our technological independence and creating a robust, self-sufficient defense industrial base.

Confronting the Consequences

We must be realistic about the consequences of such a monumental shift. Transitioning away from NATO is not a step to be taken lightly. The immediate effects would be severe and demanding:

Financial Burden: The cost of replacing the American security umbrella will be immense. EU member states will need to drastically and permanently increase defense spending, diverting funds from other national budgets.
Short-Term Vulnerability: During the transition phase, the EU would experience a temporary gap in deterrence capabilities, particularly regarding nuclear deterrence and high-end military logistics.
Diplomatic Friction: A European exit from NATO would fundamentally alter transatlantic relations, likely leading to economic and political friction with the United States and non-EU NATO members like the United Kingdom.
Internal Political Division: Forging a unified European army and foreign policy will require overcoming deep-seated national interests and political resistance within the EU itself.

The Path Forward

Despite these daunting hurdles, the challenges are not insurmountable. Every complex systemic problem can be analyzed and solved with sufficient political will and strategic foresight.

For the European Union to secure its future, protect its economic interests, and stand as an equal among global superpowers, it must graduate from its historical reliance on Washington.

The path to a sovereign, secure, and technologically independent Europe will be expensive and politically fraught. However, the alternative is to remain a permanent junior partner in a changing world order.

True European autonomy is only possible outside the confines of NATO.