Conflating crises not conducive to ending them: China Daily editorial
The attacks and threats of further strikes on oil and gas fields and facilities both in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries mark a major escalation in the conflict initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran.
A few hours after Israel struck Iran's offshore South Pars natural gas field on Wednesday, Iran responded with a series of attacks targeting gas fields and infrastructure in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The escalation of the Iran war has sent shock waves through the world market, with oil and gas prices skyrocketing again. The targeting of energy infrastructure in the Middle East must stop as it could spin out of control if the vicious tit-for-tat cycle continues.
Apart from international energy supply security, concerns about a nuclear accident are also high, with Iran reporting that a projectile struck the grounds of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in the country on Tuesday. Although no release of nuclear material was reported, it underlines the validity of such apprehension.
Yet, the spillover of the Iran war does not stop here. Recent signs of a "grand bargain" being discussed by some in the European Union and the US, linking the Middle East crisis with the Ukraine crisis, threaten to pour oil on both fires rather than extinguish them.
The idea of bargaining with the US emerged during a question-and-answer session at London's Chatham House think tank on Tuesday, in which Finland's President Alexander Stubb said he saw real potential in offering the US what it wants: European military support to secure the Strait of Hormuz, while in exchange the US delivers all the help Ukraine needs to reach an acceptable peace deal with Russia.
The Ukraine crisis and the Iran war are two hot spot issues, each with its own distinct causes, nature and trajectory. To forcibly tie them together through geopolitical bartering is not only wrong but also dangerously irresponsible. The logic of this entanglement is as simplistic as it is perilous.
This is not a theoretical risk; it is a clear and present danger of further escalation that would expand the theater of war, not contain it. The notion that exchanging favors can lead to stability is a dangerous illusion.
The EU remains deeply divided on multiple issues and is unwilling to undertake large scale military engagement as a unified bloc. Linking two separate crises will only aggravate differences and further complicate diplomatic solutions. The approach that tries to kill two birds with one stone will only prolong both hostilities, further disrupt global energy supplies and increase global economic instability.
The EU ought to act as a responsible pillar in safeguarding international stability. Lasting peace requires patience and commitment, not short-term geopolitical bargains.
In the process, the EU should uphold the central role of the United Nations and avoid blindly following the US agenda, which has repeatedly led it into difficult positions.
Political negotiation and diplomatic dialogue remain the only realistic path toward resolving these crises.
The EU should refrain from exploiting US demands for allied support in the Middle East to pursue a hasty resolution in Ukraine.
