Between June 12 and 13, Israel attacked Iran, which had become the primary front of the war, with the declared intent of stopping its nuclear escalation. Its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to what was revealed by the media, is intent on achieving a real “regime change”. And if, from the United States, President Donald Trump calls for an immediate de-escalation without (it would seem) excluding the involvement of the United States in the conflict, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, on the opposite side, seem to have denounced the Israeli attack with unequivocal determination and, again, seem to have shown their apprehension for the consequences on regional stability.

Moscow, and for it its President Vladimir Putin, would have proposed itself as a mediator by virtue of the existing relations with both contending parties and, between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, an intense telephone conversation took place and Donald Trump himself seems to have shown an openness to Russian mediation. To date, the European Union does not appear to be involved in the context of diplomatic initiatives. This circumstance, beyond the war scenarios and the fronts involved, could make its position very complex in terms of the international geopolitical affirmation in continuous evolution and which would seem to identify as interlocutors/competitors of the United States above all countries such as Russia and China, even if still moderately involved with regard to the danger of an extension of the conflict. First of all, because, the widely declared objective of Benjamin Netanyahu, would seem to be subsumed in the achievement of the elimination of any potential Iranian threat, considered as a threat to political stability in the Middle East. So, why, it would not be at all secondary to question the timing of the attack itself, decided and arrived when Israel's position in the international context began to suffer severe repercussions following the dramatic events in Gaza. Finally, why, even if it were to become increasingly intense, and even if and in any case the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran were to remain limited to the regional perimeter, it could nevertheless interest other players.

The European Union seems to be excluded from diplomatic operations on the future of the Middle East, and probably, the support given to Israel could have been decisive in this sense. More precisely, in this juncture, Ursula Von der Leyen, finally, while reiterating Israel's right to defend itself and protect its people, stressed that preserving regional stability remains the fundamental objective, while urging all parties to act with the utmost moderation.

Coordination and cooperation between the various Member States and between them and the United States should be privileged to reach a stabilizing diplomatic path and be an integral part of international mediation without having to remain conditioned by the determinations of other players. The risk seems to be that of remaining marginal in key contexts precisely in a historical moment that, due to its unpredictable peculiarities, is experiencing a rapid affirmation of China and Russia.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata