We spoke to the former Slovenian Ambassador to Washington, Tone Kajzer, about the US military intervention in Iran and the reaction of the Slovenian left to the intervention. He explained that what is happening in the Middle East is part of a broader geopolitical storm, and one of the goals of the US military intervention was not only to destroy the nuclear programme, but also to send a clear message to other major players – that the USA will protect its global interests.
“We need to look at the full picture. I see the situation in the Middle East as part of a global geopolitical storm. As you know, storms have eye points where the intensity of the storms is the highest. The eye of the storm has now opened in the Middle East,” our interlocutor said in the introduction.
But still, what finally led to the decision in the White House to intervene militarily in Iran? The road to intervention was a long one. The fact that Iran’s nuclear programme was unacceptable to the USA had been repeatedly pointed out by several successive US administrations, and the decision to intervene seems to have been taken when diplomatic options had finally been exhausted and, at the same time, at the opportune moment when Israel had degraded Iran’s military capabilities to such an extent that the USA could intervene without any significant immediate threat to its armed forces.
“Based on the statements and communications that have so far been shared from the White House and the USA, it appears that several options were open. I believe that the decision to intervene was based on intelligence information. In fact, one of the sites that was eliminated according to the public information (as far as we can believe it) was so fortified that Israel was not able to destroy it with its own capabilities,” Kajzer noted, adding that the intervention also had a broader geopolitical component, namely – Iran’s hegemonic aspirations in the Middle East and its connection with (what he calls) the unprincipled alliance that we now call the “Dragon-Bear” alliance – the friendship pact between Russia and China.
“At the same time, the decision to intervene could be seen as a clear signal to China that the Americans will protect their vital interests as much as possible. The vital interest of the United States of America is, as President Trump has repeatedly said, that the Iranian regime does not get its hands on nuclear weapons. Iran is a factor of instability, regardless of how the Slovenian ‘media monolith’, which portrays Iran as the victim of some kind of justice fighter, reports it for internal purposes or for internal PR. Those of us who follow what is happening and know the situation there know that this is not the case,” he explained.
Namely, from the very beginning, meaning from the moment the extremist regime of the Iranian Ayatollahs came into power, Iran has expressed and actively worked to become a regional and wider hegemon by funding its regional extensions, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and others. Iran’s calculations have not worked out, however, as today, the organisations they supported have been disabled or eliminated to the point where they no longer pose a serious threat, Kajzer added.
What is the escalatory potential of intervention in Iran?
The US intervention has also sparked a wider public debate about the possibility that it could lead to an escalation of conflict in the region. Unlike Slovenian analysts, analysts abroad assessed the escalatory potential of the intervention as low. And yet, the world system is complex, and some analysts warned of the law of unintended consequences. One such consequence, though predictable, was the possibility of an Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
For Kajzer, the potential for escalation and for the conflict to spread into an uncontrolled war has been reduced or no longer exists with US intervention. The aforementioned “Dragon-Bear” non-principled alliance, which aims to “throw off course” the “Pax Americana” world order established under US leadership after the Second World War, has also been weakened.
The announced blockade of the Strait of Hormuz cannot succeed, in his opinion, because Iran does not have the capacity to implement it successfully, nor would it suit Iran’s allies. “While Iran is not their biggest supplier of oil products, it is significant that China imports about 80 percent of all the oil products it needs through the Strait of Hormuz. So, this escalation would not benefit any of the major powers, and the USA side has also made it clear to the Iranian regime that if there are any attempts to retaliate or strike back at US interests in the region, even more serious intervention will follow,” added Kajzer. In his view, the current interest of the “Dragon-Bear” alliance is primarily to prevent the fall of the Iranian regime.
The danger of the Iranian cultural-civilisational model
In our conversation, Kajzer also recalled the erroneous thinking of the post-Cold War era, perhaps best articulated by the American intellectual Francis Fukuyama, who prophesied “the end of history”, an era when the world would be dominated by a liberal world order, and when there would no longer be any rivalry in terms of cultural-civilisational models. That Fukuyama was wrong is shown precisely by the case of Iran, which, with the erosion of American influence at the global level that we saw during the previous presidential term, felt that it could spread its cultural-civilisation model with greater intensity, with the help of the “Dragon-Bear” alliance.
“For us in Slovenia, it must be made clear that the cultural-civilisational model promoted by the Iranian clergy or Ayatollahs is fundamentally incompatible with our cultural-civilisational model. I can even say that it is life-threatening to it,” Kajzer pointed out.
The strange reaction of the Slovenian left
If the Iranian cultural-civilisational model is incompatible with the European one, the question arises as to why the regime there has so many allies in the West, including among the Slovenian left. Kajzer explained the public demonstration of support for Iran with the term “Stockholm Syndrome”.
And the response of the Slovenian left? The Foreign Ministry issued a statement at the same time condemning the US military intervention and expressing concern about the size and ambiguity of Iran’s nuclear programme. How do you interpret such statements? Kajzer noted: “If you don’t have a clear centre of value and purpose, an identity, then you are just flailing around. Then you are trying to please everybody. Or perhaps they are trying to create the impression, as in the former undemocratic country, that we are non-aligned. In short, we are always in favour of peace, which is, of course, absurd, because at home, we walk over the unburied victims of extrajudicial killings. This is completely contradictory,” he replied.
He made a similar comment regarding the position of the Left party (Levica), where they unequivocally condemned the intervention in Iran, citing international law. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they called for peace and the unilateral disarmament of Ukraine. “That is the incredulity. I cannot explain it myself. They will have to explain it themselves”, he concludes, adding that such views should be exposed by the functioning media.
Ž. K.
