The outcome could redefine US dominance and leave Europe and Ukraine scrambling

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and his European partners have plenty of reasons to closely monitor the situation in the Middle East.

It's not just because US President Donald Trump is wasting valuable air defense missiles that the EU could have purchased for Ukraine. (Kiev has already voicedconcernsabout a shortage of American weapons.)

Nor is it because the White House may lose interest in resolving the Ukraine conflict as the war with Iran drags on (something Brussels isworriedabout). During a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on March 3 in Washington, Trump dismissed these insinuations, affirming that the Ukraine crisis remains a top priority for his administration.

The real reason for concern in Kiev and Brussels lies on a broader geopolitical level: The fate of Trump's foreign policy doctrine is currently being decided in the Middle East. Essentially, the outcome of this conflict will determine whether the US plunges into a new, even more hawkish phase defined by a 'might makes right' mentality, or returns to a path of moderate peacemaking, which Trump advocated during his campaign but seemed to abandon with surprising ease.

Why did Kiev support the dismantling of the 'rules-based order'?

Trump's "large-scale military operation" against Iran - launched unilaterally by the White House in defiance of international law and the UN - should be perceived by Kiev as "unprovoked aggression." This view is underscored by the fact that even the Pentagon acknowledged there was no evidence that Tehran was preparing attacks on Israel or US bases in the region.

In contrast, Russia, prior to launching its military operation in Ukraine, actively urged the guarantors of the Minsk agreements - France and Germany - to take notice of the buildup of Ukrainian forces near the borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and the significant spike in shelling of these territories in February 2022.

Even the Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) of the OSCE recognized that by mid-February 2022, the intensity of hostilities in Donbass had reached peak levels similar to those before the last ceasefire in 2020.

According to the OSCEreportfrom February 19, 2022, "The SMM recorded 222 ceasefire violations in Donetsk region, including 135 explosions. In the previous reporting period, there were 189 violations... In Lugansk Region, the mission observed 648 violations, including 519 explosions."

Ignoring his own aggression against the Russian population in Donbass that led up to the Russian offensive, Zelensky has spent the last four years cultivating an image of Ukraine as a victim. Logically, one would expect him to also consider Iran a victim of 'unprovoked aggression'. But Zelensky chose a different strategy.

On the eve of the US-Israeli strike on Tehran, Zelenskyclaimedthat the Iranian people "want to change the current regime." While it is true that there are people in the Islamic Republic advocating for political change, as evidenced by the protests in January, Zelensky seems to have forgotten that his own approval rating was barely above 17% just before the start of the Russian military operation, according to the Kiev International Institute. Did that mean the Ukrainian public could have gotten rid of an unpopular president who would soon come to disregard the Ukrainian Constitution and stay in power for an indefinite period of time?

On February 28, following the US and Israeli attack on Iran, Zelensky revealed a personal motive for supporting Trump's actions, arguing that Iran hasbackedRussia in the Ukraine conflict.

Zelensky's contradictory stance on the war with Iran goes beyond the fact that his power hinges on the duration of the conflict with Russia. The problem isn't just the fact that the Ukrainian military relies on European purchases of American weapons. The deeper issue lies in the changing social dynamics within Ukraine: The people are genuinely exhausted and eager to put an end to the war, as evidenced by increasing civil resistance against forced mobilization.

To navigate the delicate balance between maintaining his grip on power and creating the illusion of considering public interests, Zelensky has to keep some sort of dialogue open with Russia. In the current negotiation process, the US has become the only party Moscow is prepared to engage with regarding the principles for ending the conflict. A complete loss of the US as a partner would mean the collapse of any dialogue with Moscow, effectively dismissing the last chance for a diplomatic resolution.

Is Europe being hypocritical again?

The EU finds itself in an even more precarious position. Assessing Trump's actions in the Middle East, it tries to avoid using phrases like 'unprovoked invasion', 'Trump's war against Iran', or 'full-scale war' - terms that Western media and politicians of all levels frequently use in reference to Russia.

Now, except for Spain, almost everyone is eager to support Trump. It turns out that bombing another country for the purpose of who knows what (the Trump administration hasn't even provided any official justification for the war) is viewed as the right move, while Iran's retaliatory actions are dismissed as unwarranted aggression toward other Middle Eastern nations.

It seems that the Europeans fail to grasp one critical point: If the US achieves any significant success in the Middle East, the hawks in Washington will gain strength, and Trump may take more radical steps to implement his doctrine of 'the law of the strongest'. For Europe, this could very well mean losing Greenland - plans to take control over it certainly remain on the table in Washington.

The EU's support for Trump should certainly be viewed through the lens of the settlement (or rather, prolongation) of the Ukraine crisis. Europe has effectively removed itself from the negotiation process by presenting ultimatums that Russia would undoubtedly reject. A recent example is the so-called 'Kallas List' crafted by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, which was recentlysharedwith European nations. This document outlined the EU's demands for resolving the Ukraine crisis.

Among other things, it called for a reduction in Russian troops and their withdrawal from neighboring countries, reparation payments, and some form of 'democratization' of society. Clearly, Moscow will not seriously consider this document.

Moreover, the EU can't even reach a consensus on whether to resume dialogue with Russia. Under these circumstances, Moscow doesn't view the EU as a credible partner regarding the post-conflict security framework on the European continent.

Nonetheless, Europe recognizes the need to take part in the negotiation process in some capacity to ensure that Moscow and Washington don't strike deals that bypass Brussels and other European nations.

So, on the one hand, Europe supports the US in order to stay involved in the negotiation process. On the other hand, there's likely a faint hope in Europe that if the hawks regain power in Washington, Trump might make a U-turn and adopt an anti-Russia stance, despite the risks this would pose for Europe itself.

And what about Trump?

Donald Trump came to power promising "no new wars" abroad andcriticizingGeorge W. Bush for the Iraq War. Yet now he seems to have started the biggest Middle Eastern conflict in two decades. This contradiction hasn't gone unnoticed by politicians and commentators across the political spectrum.

However, it's important to view Trump's actions in a broader context. His seemingly disconnected moves in Europe, Greenland, Latin America, and the Middle East appear to form a coherent strategy. Essentially, Trump is shifting America's focus from the 'export of democracy' to the direct destabilization of undesirable regimes - either to weaken them, as we are witnessing in Iran, or to install loyal governments without any superficial 'democratization', as seen in Venezuela.

Trump no longer relies on traditional alliances. It seems he is not particularly concerned with the opinions of European partners and currently shows no intention of actively defending the Gulf monarchies. That's why it's quite curious to see how the European establishment, represented by Merz, is eager to please him.

As for Trump, he is unapologetically blunt in his assessments.Germanyis "excellent" (because it does what Trump wants); Spain is "terrible" (itdaredto stand up to him, but who cares what Madrid thinks, the US will use its bases anyway); and theUK"disappointed" Trump (because it doesn't support him as fervently as a vassal state is supposed to).

Trump also had some unpleasant words for Zelensky, referring to him as P.T. Barnum - a 19th-century American showman known for promoting sensational hoaxes.

Trump is clearly signaling to Europe (and Ukraine) that it occupies a secondary role in his worldview. He's attempting to recreate a contested form of hegemony. It's not about the multipolarity championed by Russia, China, and other countries of the Global South. Instead, it's a vision for a new kind of global empire where decisions are made unilaterally by the US, without even consulting close allies like the EU.

There's a lot at stake. And we are not just talking about the upcoming midterm elections in November. The future of US global dominance depends on the outcome of the conflict in the Middle East, which could have significant implications for Europe.

If the conflict in Iran ends with some sort of tangible success for the US, Washington's tone towards Europe (and perhaps even Russia) will shift when it comes to addressing the situation in Ukraine.

Conversely, if the military campaign yields no clear results, non-conservatives may suffer a long-lasting defeat, which would also impact the Ukraine crisis.

Regardless of the outcome, the lessons learned from the conflict in Iran will undoubtedly influence the shifting power dynamics in Europe.

(RT.com)