THE WAR IN IRAN AND THE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES FOR LIBERAL INTERVENTIONISM

Abstract

The 2026 war between the USA and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, has eluded the initial hopes of the Trump administration that a decisive victory could be achieved in a quick fashion and in addition to having wide-ranging impacts across many different spheres, including on the world economy as a whole, also appears likely to significantly reduce the prospects for European involvement in humanitarian interventions taking place beyond the borders of the continent, at least in the conceivable future. The paper employs qualitative methodology, which is reliant on the integrated analysis of a vast collection of primary and secondary sources that fall within the international relations, political science, and international security disciplines. Following a literature review, in which it examines the main assumptions that underpin the philosophy of liberal interventionism and some of the relevant trends, it advances a threefold argument. Firstly, it contends that military operations inspired by liberal interventionist principles, in order to be able to stake a claim for credibility, need to at least pay lip service to multilateralism. However, Trump’s embrace of unilateralism and frequent disregard for the opinions of European allies, as it occurred during the prelude to the Iranian crisis, makes it increasingly likely that US-led interventions would be associated with the pursuit of narrow Realpolitik interests, resulting in them being unpalatable for European politicians and the general public in European countries. Secondly, the strategic vulnerability of Europe due to the war in Ukraine not appearing to be winding down, with Trump widely perceived as having done less than the bare minimum in terms of putting pressure on the Russian side in order to negotiate in good faith and make concessions, coupled with the economic fallout for Europe courtesy of the Iran war, is quite likely to dampen European enthusiasm for the use of force in order to end human rights violations in Africa, Latin America or Asia, especially given that they would detract from or at least be perceived to be detracting from the support offered for the Ukrainian war effort or be viewed as economically unsustainable. Thirdly, the war in Iran may give a significant boost to nuclear proliferation around the world and in the long-term possibly increase the number of “rogue” states possessing some sort of nuclear capacity, which would further reduce the space for humanitarian interventions due to Western countries’ risk aversion and general unwillingness to test certain red lines pertaining to sovereignty in the case of nuclear powers.