As the proxy Russia-NATO conflict in Ukraine continues in political, media, military and economic domains, talk of Iranian energy products being used as substitute for Russian supplies is widely discussed.
While the idea is plausible, it is not realistic due to geopolitical ambitions of the US and even its European allies.
From a theoretical perspective, Western Europe should be putting all its focus on seeking alternative energy sources to withstand the economic impact of the US-imposed war with Russia in Ukraine.
It should be clear by now that unless a face-saving exit is provided to Russia, the war will drag on for some time.
At the moment a decisive military and political victory looks unlikely for the parties involved.
Therefore, an Iranian energy lifeline would be an important strategic step, but it is unlikely to materialize.
Her is why.
First, buying energy and building energy infrastructure is a long-term economic endeavour which is linked to a long-term political strategy.
This is not like importing cars or building hotels that can be accomplished quickly.
The energy industry is quite complex.
To bring Iran into the energy equation, the US and Europe would, therefore, need to drastically reorient their decades old policies in West Asia.
This is not going to happen, for internal political reasons.
Also, because the zionist lobby will vigorously oppose such a move.
Further, it would amount to admission of the west’s political defeat.
A long-term and well-thought-out energy cooperation with Iran would once again bestow geopolitical legitimacy upon the only modern successful model of Islamic governance.
This is something the west will not be able to bring itself to reconcile with, as their strategy of politics in West Asia is based on master-slave relationship.
A coherent energy strategy requires treating countries like Iran, Algeria and Nigeria as equal partners and not vassal states.
A public departure from this would be a serious political setback for the west.
Second, for Iran to become an alternative energy source for Europe, the EU would need to distance itself from Washington’s foreign policy and military objectives.
This is highly unlikely, as evidenced by the battering of European economies to serve the American agenda in Ukraine.
Third, Islamic Iran knows full well that the western-led world order is in terminal decline.
It is in the process of being replaced by a multipolar world order.
So, why should it offer a lifeline to the masters of the waning global order who have spared no effort in trying to overthrow Iran’s Islamic governing model since the success of the Islamic Revolution in 1979?
Europe’s inability to decouple its interests from those of the US will continue to inflict heavy economic and political costs.
The ramifications of this approach will not only be external, but also internal.
As the energy crisis continues to affect other areas of EU’s economy, right-wing populist forces in Europe will attempt to grab power and sow discord and division.
Many of these forces are fascist in outlook and lack concrete economic or political programs.
Thus, the European political landscape will remain in a state of internal turmoil which will prevent it from formulating a long-term energy strategy any time soon.