Latest news with #WesternIntervention
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Here's how the West made Israel-Iran war possible
Israel's attack on Iran, which began last Friday, is the culmination of nearly 25 years of relentless transformation across West Asia. This war was not born overnight, nor can it be explained by simplistic moral binaries. What we see now is the natural outcome of a series of miscalculations, misread ambitions, and power vacuums. There are no neat lessons to be learned from the last quarter-century. The events were too disjointed, the consequences too contradictory. But that doesn't mean they lacked logic. If anything, the unfolding chaos is the most coherent evidence of where Western interventionism, ideological naivety, and geopolitical arrogance have led. For much of the 20th century, the Middle East was kept within a fragile but functioning framework, largely defined by Cold War dynamics. Superpowers patronized local regimes, and the balance – while far from peaceful – was stable in its predictability. But the end of the Cold War, and with it the dissolution of the Soviet Union, dissolved those rules. For the next 25 years, the United States stood uncontested in the region. The ideological battle between 'socialism' and the 'free world' vanished, leaving a vacuum that new forces quickly sought to fill. Washington tried to impose the values of Western liberal democracy as universal truths. Simultaneously, two other trends emerged: political Islam, which ranged from reformist to radical, and the reassertion of authoritarian secular regimes as bulwarks against collapse. Paradoxically, Islamism – though ideologically opposed to the West – aligned more closely with liberalism in its resistance to autocracy. Meanwhile, those same autocracies were often embraced as the lesser evil against extremism. Everything changed after September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks did not just provoke a military response; they triggered an ideological crusade. Washington launched its so-called War on Terror, beginning with Afghanistan, and quickly expanded it into Iraq. Here, the neoconservative fantasy took hold: that democracy could be exported by force. The result was catastrophic. The Iraq invasion destroyed a central pillar of regional balance. In the rubble, sectarianism flourished and religious extremism metastasized. Islamic State emerged from this chaos. As Iraq was dismantled, Iran rose. No longer encircled, Tehran extended its reach – to Baghdad, to Damascus, to Beirut. Turkey, too, revived its imperial reflexes under Erdogan. The Gulf states, meanwhile, began throwing their wealth and weight around with greater confidence. The US, the architect of this disorder, found itself mired in endless, unwinnable wars. This unraveling continued with the US-imposed Palestinian elections, which split the Palestinian territories and empowered Hamas. Then came the Arab Spring, lauded in Western capitals as a democratic awakening. In truth, it hastened the collapse of already brittle states. Libya was shattered. Syria descended into a proxy war. Yemen became a humanitarian catastrophe. South Sudan, birthed under external pressure, quickly fell into dysfunction. All of it marked the end of regional balance. The end of authoritarianism in the Middle East didn't usher in liberal democracy. It gave way to political Islam, which for a time became the only structured form of political participation. This in turn triggered attempts to restore the old regimes, now seen by many as the lesser evil. Egypt and Tunisia reimposed secular order. Libya and Iraq, by contrast, have remained stateless zones. Syria's trajectory is instructive: the country moved from dictatorship to Islamist chaos and now toward a patchwork autocracy held together by foreign patrons. Russia's 2015 intervention stabilized the situation temporarily, but Syria is now drifting toward becoming a non-state entity, its sovereignty unclear, its borders uncertain. Amid this collapse, it is no coincidence that the key powers in today's Middle East are non-Arab: Iran, Turkey, and Israel. Arab states, while vocal, have opted for caution. In contrast, these three countries each represent distinct political models – an Islamic theocracy with pluralist features (Iran), a militarized democracy (Turkey), and a Western-style democracy increasingly shaped by religious nationalism (Israel). Despite their differences, these states share one trait: their domestic politics are inseparable from their foreign policy. Iran's expansionism is tied to the economic and ideological reach of the Revolutionary Guard. Erdogan's foreign escapades feed his domestic narrative of Turkish resurgence. Israel's doctrine of security has shifted from defense to active transformation of the region. This brings us to the present. The liberal order that peaked at the turn of the century sought to reform the Middle East through market economics, elections, and civil society. It failed. Not only did it dismantle the old without building the new, but the very forces meant to spread democracy often empowered sectarianism and violence. Now the appetite for transformation has dried up in the West, and with it the liberal order itself. In its place we see a convergence of systems once thought irreconcilable. Israel, for instance, no longer stands as a liberal outpost surrounded by authoritarian relics. Its political system has grown increasingly illiberal, its governance militarized, and its nationalism more overt. The Netanyahu government is the clearest expression of this change. One may argue that war justifies such measures – especially following the October 2023 Hamas attacks. But these shifts began earlier. The war simply accelerated trends already in motion. As liberalism recedes, a new kind of utopia takes its place – not democratic and inclusive, but transactional and enforced. Trump, the Israeli right, and their Gulf allies envision a Middle East pacified through military dominance, economic deals, and strategic normalization. The Abraham Accords, framed as peace, are part of this vision. But peace built on force is no peace at all. We are witnessing the result. The Iran-Israel war is not a bolt from the blue. It is the direct consequence of two decades of dismantled norms, unchecked ambitions, and a deep misunderstanding of the region's political fabric. And as always in the Middle East, when utopias fail, it is the people who pay the price.
Russia Today
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Gaddafi warned them. Now the EU is living out his grim prophecy
The migration crisis on Europe's southern borders has been brewing for decades. Today, it has reached a breaking point. In a bid to halt the flow of refugees, the EU is increasingly shifting responsibility to third countries – primarily African states that often face instability themselves. Libya is the most striking example of what these policies have led to. Today, around 4 million African migrants live there without legal status – more than half of the country's official population of 7.5 million. Left in chaos after Western intervention, Libya has become a springboard for millions seeking to reach the shores of Europe. And it's not just Libya – in recent years, the European Union has been forging a web of agreements with African and Middle Eastern countries, aiming to keep migrants farther from its borders through a combination of financial incentives and political pressure. The critical situation in Libya is a direct consequence of Europe's longstanding attempts to contain migration. According to the European Commission, as of 2023, the EU's total population was 448.8 million, with 27.3 million non-EU citizens and 42.4 million people born outside the bloc. Despite a recent decline in illegal border crossings, the problem remains acute. Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, reported that in January–February 2025, the number of illegal crossings dropped by 25%, to around 25,000. The main routes now run through West Africa and the Central Mediterranean, with migrants predominantly hailing from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, and other countries. The threat of uncontrolled migration has loomed over Europe for years. It's worth recalling the warnings of the late Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who cautioned during a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in 2010: 'Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in.' In 2011, just months before his death, Gaddafi told Tony Blair that his removal would plunge Libya into chaos, empower terrorist groups, and trigger new waves of migration to Europe. These predictions came true: after the civil war and NATO's intervention, Libya fell into anarchy and became one of the main transit hubs for refugees. According to Libya's Ministry of Internal Affairs, over 4 million foreigners are currently in Libya, most of them undocumented. Many are held in detention centers, which, amid lawlessness, rampant drug trafficking and armed clashes, have become little more than prisons. International organizations have documented slave markets and abductions of migrants for forced labor or ransom. Those who fail to reach Europe face two options: deportation or death in the Mediterranean. UNICEF reports that more than 2,200 people died or went missing in the Mediterranean in 2024, including about 1,700 along the central route. Children and teenagers accounted for roughly one-fifth of all casualties. At a March 17 meeting at the Ministry of Interior of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in Tripoli, Minister Emad Al-Trabelsi stated that Libya could not cope alone, given its internal security and economic problems. In the presence of EU diplomats, African Union officials and representatives from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), he called on Western countries to help strengthen Libya's southern borders, supply modern equipment for controlling migration, and provide broader support to the country. Italy, one of the first destinations for many migrants, is actively seeking to change the situation. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni proposed the Mattei Plan – a multibillion-euro initiative to invest in energy, agriculture, water supply, healthcare and education in African countries. Named after Eni founder Enrico Mattei, the plan is based on a simple idea: fostering economic development in Africa to reduce incentives for migration. At the same time, Italy is not shying away from another tool – 'offshoring' migrants, meaning relocating them to third countries. Australia pioneered this model, sending asylum seekers to the island of Nauru since 2012. European countries are now adopting similar methods. In Europe, Albania may become a processing hub for migrants, thanks in part to Italian efforts. Under Meloni's ambitious plan, two migrant screening centers are to be opened in Albania, a non-EU member state, but operated under Rome's authority. The goal is to keep asylum seekers out of both Italy and the EU. Based on the November 2023 migration cooperation protocol signed by the Italian and Albanian governments, two centers have already been established in Shengjin and Gjader. There, migrants await decisions on their asylum status or possible deportation. The agreement allows for up to 36,000 migrants to be relocated to Albania annually. So far, however, all attempts to transfer people there have been overturned in court. Twice – in October and November 2024 – Italy was ordered to bring back groups of refugees from Egypt and Bangladesh, as the courts found that returning them to their countries of origin would endanger their lives. This determination is essential to granting asylum status, which must be decided on Italian soil. The UK's plan to deport migrants to Rwanda is an even clearer example of offshoring in action. Launched by Boris Johnson in 2022, the scheme aimed to forcibly deport those who arrived illegally in the UK. In April 2024, the first migrant was flown to Rwanda under a 'voluntary scheme' that offered up to £3,000 to participants. However, on his first day in office, new Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared the plan 'dead and buried,' citing its inefficiency: over several years, it affected less than 1% of illegal migrants. Meanwhile, the number of people crossing the English Channel continues to rise: over 5,000 since the beginning of 2025 and more than 120,000 since 2018. The EU has signed a number of agreements with African countries: with Tunisia in July 2023 (€1.1 billion), with Mauritania in March 2024 (€210 million), and with Egypt ten days later (up to €5 billion by 2027). While officially focused on macroeconomic stability, green energy, and trade, their underlying aim is to curb irregular migration. In exchange for helping Europe control its borders, African countries may demand political concessions – such as an end to the media portrayal of Tunisian President Kais Saied and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as human-rights-violating dictators, and reduced support for opposition figures living in Europe. As anti-migrant policies in Libya tighten, EU asylum seekers have begun to look for new routes. According to Frontex, Mauritania has emerged as a key transit hub for migrants heading to Europe. This helps explain the 18% increase in Atlantic route migration between West Africa and the Canary Islands in 2024. Mauritania is also seeking to benefit more from its cooperation with Europe. In September 2024, its government demanded that the EU fulfill provisions of the March migration declaration, including easing visa procedures for Mauritanians and waiving visas for diplomats. Mauritanian officials emphasized that only after these conditions are met will the country commit to fully cooperating in the fight against illegal migration. The agreement must be mutually beneficial: while the EU hopes Mauritania will contain the Atlantic migration flow – particularly to Spain – Mauritania is looking for investments, job creation, and increased visa access to the EU. Libya's example, however, suggests that despite the potential benefits, countries that agree to host migrants end up inheriting problems that only exacerbate their already fragile economic and security situations. North African states become hostages to the arrangement – taking on responsibility for housing, registering, and managing people the EU no longer wishes to deal with. In doing so, they risk becoming new hotspots for cross-border crime, human trafficking, and human rights abuses.
