Categoria: English version

The European risposta all’atto ostile and contrary to the international diritto compiuto dalla Bielorussia non si è fatta attendere proprio perché è stata considered essenziale una risposta forte ed adeguata sia contro lo stato autore della violazione, sia per prevent risuali possibili imitatori: stato di diritto nei cieli del mondo. Belarusian sarà così sottoposta ad un isolacion ancora maggiore, attraverso l’inasprimento delle sanzioni economhe, increasing the list of the personalità of the sottoposte e da sottoporre a sanzioni ed infine vietare alla company di bandiera di sorvolare il European territory and chiendo allendo, altres chiendo compagnie europee di non sorvolare lo spazio aereo bielorusso. The Minsk zone of directing an air line, from Athena to Vilnius, with the use of military air appears precedent and the soft gravity puts the regime of the Belarus always più ai margini of the consesso internazionale. It is modalità with cui è stata condotta l’azione sono superate only dall’arroganza dei modi e si rivelano analogous to methodology che stanno assuming modalità always più comuni negli stati autocratici e nelle dittature. Collegare Minsk a Mosca sows almost an obligatory step: the practice of impiety of the military is insensitive, as it is carried out in Crimea and continues to reach the Ukrainian confinement and is strongly similar to all’azione di Minsk, in più in entrembi and paesi the repression of the opposing è diventato un fatto comune, attraverso il quale eliminare ogni voce contrary to the regime al potere; From the rest, the legame is due to the country if it has been completed, but recently, it has been shared by the dissent: it is for Minsk è question of the survival of the political ceto to the potere, for Mosca è essenziale will eliminate the contrary voice of the pressi dei propri confini. The Cremlino has published the Ukrainian lezione without being able to support the point of the deboli alla its frontiera, if it will keep the area of ​​influenza, if it will not feed and give the heart to the own internal opposition. It is not possible to believe that the Belarusian law does not abide by the blessing of the Fly, its own perch is interpreted even as a chiaro messaggio verse l’Europe, always più intesa as origine dell’avversione ai regime nell’orbita Russa. But this is the most serious violation of a foreign mobile phone, equivalent to a war attack against a Soviet state, has an erratic calculus that is still symptomatic of a paura, which is the imprint of the Minsk regime: if it treats, infatti, give a sorta Say atto disperato, say cui, forse, not if sono valutate le ricadute. Belorussia is one of the satellite states of Russia, the first reaction is, obviously, directly to Minsk, but the next step will be that it will be good for rapport, già molto difficili, tra Bruxelles e Mosca. The tattica di portare the tension end quasi to the breaking point è a constant of the Cremlino and l’azione della Bielorussa potrebbe seen as a sorta di test of the European risposta in termini di unità politica e di velocità; I know that it is true that Russia has avuto la risposta che temeva: malgrado tutte le divisioni su diversi temi, che attraversano l’Europe, Bruxelles has saputo produced a reaction adeguata al torto subito, che è only a cousin provvedimento cui, verisimil, ne they will not altri. The Minsk errore and, di conseguenza, di Mosca is a special status of spaccare and ventisette paesi member per trovare an incrinatura in cui potere introdursi. The economic damage for Belarus will be heavy, while the political plan rimane il giudizio di paese inaffidabile as deve essere per ogni dittatura, but per Mosca the diplomatic situation non potrà che peggiorare: l’azzardo dell’ennesima infrazionale del diritto internal volztatura perpetrated directly against the European country without the possibility of peggiorare the bilateral relations, già messe a dura prova with the provvedimenti control and massimi rappresentanti istituzionali dell’Unione. The realtà is that if this proceeding from the new verse a marked division between the western bloc and the eastern bloc, is in the cousin of the US ruolo, with Biden president, this privileging a new collaboration with gli europei, in the second the preminence cinese obliges the Russia to close di trovare a ruolo di maggiore importance e l’unico spazio dove trovarlo è appunto in Europe, waiting and rapport with Bruxelles, even with an anti-American meaning, a subordinate commune to Pechino. Il quesito è se Putin, who has sufficiently molto his nazionalismo, riuscirà to maintain his suo potere with questi methodi o se oltrepassare di continuum i limiti della legge internazionali, not siano il segnale dell’inizio della sua fine politics of him.

The requests of the left of the Democratic party, towards the president of the United States, for a different stance towards Israel, represent a novelty at the institutional level, due to the growing importance in the party and to the contribution provided for the election of Biden to the highest office American. They are an institutional novelty due to the large presence of the left in parliament, but they are not a novelty in the US political debate, because a substantial social share of democratic voters has always spoken out against the violence on both sides, but with particular attention to Israel. due to non-compliance with agreements, denial of a two-state solution and violence, which often resulted in civilian casualties. Biden, however, found himself with a situation created by Trump, which had an easy life due to the lack of constraints left by Obama. The previous American president privileged the relationship with Netanyahu, both for personal and political affinity, directing American politics in a totally unbalanced way towards Israel, providing his legitimacy to the settlements of the settlements and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli state. The unresolved crisis of Israel’s politics, which must continually resort to elections whose results remain unchanged and do not allow a resolution of the situation, does not help the country, but neither does its allies, where the US remains the main, even after the change at the White House. Netanyahu is an unscrupulous politician and is using the current situation to prevent being evicted by the government and being overwhelmed by an increasingly compromised judicial situation. Biden, already in his intentions during the elections, made the same mistake as Obama: privileging the commitment in Southeast Asia considered more important and strategic, both from a geopolitical and economic point of view, neglecting attention on the situation Middle East and thus making a major error of assessment. The Israeli repression against the Gaza Strip has provoked a greater Iranian financial commitment, which allows the terrorist group to have advanced weapons, as demonstrated in recent days and, above all, the fact that it has come under the influence of Tehran. Israel’s attitude is compacting the Sunni world as a result of Turkish activism: Ankara, while rejoining the Atlantic Alliance, is moving autonomously with purposes often in contrast with Western interests. Europe confirms its own political littleness and its own leaders appear confused and committed to declarations of pragmatic only. The general picture is therefore not the best for the US President, however the situation, precisely because it is so uncertain, forces the first world power to take a clear and not hesitant position: it is a necessary act in front of the international scenario, but also a response to the pressures of a substantial and politically relevant part of his party, which also includes part of the center. In the US, the recognition with Israel of American citizens of the Jewish religion is on the decline and this may foster greater conviction towards an action capable of protecting the rights of both parties and assuming a permanent condemnation of violence that includes civilians. What Biden has lacked so far has been diplomatic action capable of going beyond the usual interlocutors, but capable of involving Hamas as well, which although it is considered a terrorist organization is directly involved in the conflict. The implications of the Israeli-Palestinian affair must remain central to American politics, precisely to prevent situations similar to those experienced in Syria and recently in Turkey, where the American absence has allowed the arrival of new protagonists, capable of changing structures and balances. regional. The action of Iran, Turkey and Russia is contrary to American and Western interests and, in the long run, to Israelis and Palestinians themselves; relaunching the two-state solution, through pressure on Tel Aviv to induce it to abide by the agreements and put an end to the policy of settlements and the lack of respect for Arab citizens of the state of Israel, remains the greatest assurance to defuse Hamas and those who finance it and finally give stability to the region; after all, it is precisely among the Jews of the world that favor towards this solution is growing and if Biden will be able to interpret it, he will be able to write on his curriculum a result never achieved so far that will be the most important factor in foreign policy of his presidential action.

There are a number of concomitant factors that contribute to the current tense situation in East Jerusalem; the presence of causes that contribute to fueling the current state is present to a greater extent within the Israeli side, but also in the Palestinian side there are elements that contribute to making the whole question unstable. Starting from Israeli causes, it seems impossible not to consider the main responsibilities of the political and even electoral growth of the nationalist far right, which has made its program of making the Israeli nation a Jewish state an instrument of forcing within the country’s political dialogue; dialogue with this political party appears impossible, if not with the intention of using it in a functional way for one’s own purposes and, therefore, giving in to its requests to secure its support. This political strategy was the basis of Netanyahu’s action, who used it without too many scruples, although sometimes not completely sharing the approach of the nationalist right, to reach his fundamental goal: to remain in power in every way. Seen from this angle, the fact of having sacrificed the Arab residents, legitimate inhabitants of the occupied colonies, and, therefore, the two-state solution, never completely officially denied, and, consequently, the peace and stability of the country, confirms his lack of scruples and the inadequacy of governing a country at the center of major international issues. We must also consider the contingent fact of Netanyahu’s current judicial situation: being under investigation for corruption, fraud and abuse of office makes it necessary to shift public attention from these legal issues and the fact that the former premier does not was able to form the new government, making evident his responsibility for the continuous state of paralysis of Israeli politics: the increase in tensions in the occupied territories and the centrality of the issue of East Jerusalem, are considered excellent tools to operate the distraction of mass. There is also a great absentee in the dispute over East Jerusalem: Israeli society as a whole, reluctant to take a stand and take a stand against the provocative actions of the Netanyahu government, thus revealing a certain addiction to the homologation policy operated by the rhetoric of the right. nationalist and in general by the tendency of the last Israeli governments; The reactions of the Orthodox and Christian churches were quite different, which strongly condemned the repressions and evictions that Palestinian families displaced from East Jerusalem had to endure. Although they cannot be framed within the dialectic of Israeli politics, at this moment the Christian and Orthodox leadership represent the most authoritative voice against the work of the Tel Aviv government, present in Israel. The current situation seems to follow what already happened with the start of the second intifada, caused by Sharon’s provocative attitude, which has many similarities with Netanyahu’s current one. The most important political consideration to make is that if the expropriation of the Palestinian neighborhood of East Jerusalem is successful, the immediate consequence will be the end of the possibility of the solution of the two-state formula, while from a legal point of view Israeli action is still once a violation of international law and we must ask ourselves how long the international community intends not to ask Tel Aviv to account for its actions. On the Palestinian side, the most serious failure was that of Abu Mazen and his political side to repress all dissent, up to the postponement of the elections so as not to lose them, the Palestinian elections have not taken place for 15 years and this has prevented a normal political dialectic between the various Palestinian components, forcing Arab dissent to be directed only against Israel. From the point of view of international politics, the current issue risks reuniting the Sunni world, which has resumed dialogue trying to overcome their respective mistrust: the activism of the Turkish foreign minister has allowed Turkey to resume dialogue with Arabia. Saudi and with Egypt, despite the profound differences of view and a topic at the center of the talks will undoubtedly have been the Palestinian question, which risks coming back strongly to the fore, also as a factor of further cohesion of the Sunni world: an element in more of concern is for the USA, too silent until now, and for Israel itself, which risks a worsening of relations with Arabia.

The first real conflict, after the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, takes place on the subject of fishing and on access to portions of the sea, considered confidential by some subjects; in particular, the problem arose between France and the island of Jersey, which, although it is not part of the United Kingdom, is represented by London in relations with foreign countries: the islands of the channel, in fact, are autonomous English dependencies and have administrations own. It appears significant that the first diplomatic conflict, from the agreements between London and Brussels, concerns precisely the matter of fisheries, which was one of the hardest obstacles in the negotiation and in any case one of the last to be defined. The Jersey administration has implemented a series of restrictions against French fishing vessels, delaying the issuance of fishing licenses, introducing limitations and controls to French fishermen, such as the number of days in which to operate, which types of prey can be caught and with what gear; in essence, according to Paris, we wanted to introduce new elements, which are intended to hinder the French fishing activity and which are in stark contrast to the fisheries agreements stipulated between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The impression is that the Jersey administration wanted to take advantage of the beginning of the period following the agreement, perhaps interpreted as an interlocutory and uncertain phase, to counter French fishermen, who are the main patrons of its waters; however, every action corresponds to a reaction and that of France was to threaten the interruption of the supply of electricity, which reaches the island of Jersey with submarine cables from the French country. The threat from Paris was perceived as disproportionate by the island of Jersey, despite the action of the British dependence being in clear violation of the post-Brexit agreements, and this resulted in the dispatch of two patrol boats of the London Navy, which has helped raise the tension between the two sides; but, if on the one hand, London has shown strength, justifying the presence of its military ships only as a precautionary measure and with the aim of monitoring the situation, on the other hand it wanted to balance with a diplomatic attitude coinciding with the need to reduce tensions through constructive dialogue between France and the Jersey administration. The defense of fisheries must remain a fixed point in the post-Brexit attitude of the London government, since among the English fishermen there were the greatest supporters of leaving Europe due to the interests of the English fishing sector. France, too, but expressed the total determination possible that the fisheries agreement, an issue equally felt in French soil, is respected and implemented in a manner consistent with what is enshrined in the agreements signed after Brexit, while Paris did not want to comment on the threats of the interruption of electricity to Jersey, a fact which, perhaps, makes it possible to establish that the retaliation could be out of proportion, compared to the obstacles against French fishermen. The question highlights how the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union after the signing of the agreements resulting from Brexit, is not yet fully defined and also how the silence of Brussels on this specific matter catches the central European institutions completely unprepared for the to particular facts concerning the subject matter of the treaty; even the French attitude, the threat to cut off electricity does not seem to be shared by the Union, focuses on possible actions by individual states to defend the violations of the rights of citizens as national citizens, in this case French rather than in the sense of European citizens. The distinction is not insignificant because it indicates that in the first instance, the individual state seems to prefer to act in the first person, rather than resorting to Brussels; it would be interesting to know the reasons for this type of reaction, that is, if they are attributable to a lack of confidence in the European response, both for the reaction times and for the effective effectiveness or if they are due to the need to highlight a superior national capacity for action to the community one, functional to affirm the policy of the government in office. The salient fact is that Europe, once the agreement has been signed, gives it as in force without considering any exceptions as in this case. Still better than the United Kingdom, which took the opportunity to flex its muscles: a clear admission of the inadequacy of the London government.

Already during the electoral campaign, a possible election of Joe Biden had been classified as a transitional mandate, both for the age of the candidate and for the figure, considered to be a compromise between the various currents of the Democratic party, inserted in the electoral competition with the aim to take Trump out of the White House. This interpretation revealed an underestimation of the Democratic candidate, who, after the election and the first hundred days in the presidential office, highlighted an action that wants to be incisive and leave its mark on American politics, that is, anything but a transitional mandate. The desire to launch a very ambitious plan to reform the United States and implement a very strong policy on welfare, highlight the intention to take action aimed at achieving an epochal change. The reform of the American country, however, is not the only characterizing tool that Biden intends to use to connote his presidency; in parallel with his attention to domestic politics, the US president has also placed an emphasis on foreign policy, bringing Cold War speeches back to the center of attention, this time not directed against the Soviet Union but against China. Words have been directed against Beijing that none of Biden’s predecessors have ever used and the attacks have been carried out directly against the Chinese president and leading Chinese leaders. The central point is that the Chinese ruling class supports the failure of democracy and carries forward, in subtle ways, ranging from the use of large financial resources abroad and the use of soft power, a sort of belief in the goodness of Chinese system abroad. One of the reasons that Biden highlighted is the need for too much time to reach power through democratic means, an obstacle to achieving the too ambitious goals of Chinese projects. From a political point of view, the criticism appears correct, even if it must be pointed out that for China the question of a democratic development of its political system has never been on the agenda, precisely because of a natural aversion to the hegemonic political force. : the Chinese Communist Party, which has chosen the authoritarian path precisely as a central system, through which to pursue the objectives of national growth, favored by a system without rules to protect rights and work. This modality has favored economic growth in an unbalanced competition system in favor of Beijing, but which has pleased many Western entrepreneurs, and therefore also Americans. Biden’s criticism, therefore, is indirectly aimed at those industrialists, who, for their profit, have allowed the growth of China even to the detriment of the USA and represents the desire to bring back large slices of production to the Western field and this is certainly the worst threat. for Beijing, because it attacks it from an economic point of view; precisely for this reason we must expect the continuation of the commercial dispute on ever greater levels. The desire to prevent China from becoming the most important nation in the world, precisely to the detriment of the USA, but also by imposing its own political system, thus becomes an important part of Biden’s political program and functional for this purpose is also the maintenance of a strong presence in the Pacific Ocean, as well as in Europe, precisely to oversee Chinese objectives such as Taiwan, and to protect maritime trade routes, in a part of the world that China considers its exclusive area of ​​influence. Biden implements an overall strategy, which runs counter to Trump’s policy: large development plans on American soil, an extremism of the dialectic with China, identified as the number one opponent in the geopolitical and economic field, a functional tactic to aggregate the American population in nationalistic sense and to contain the main competitor and, finally, to put the center of foreign policy back on the alliance with Europe and the other Western powers in a framework of union based on common interests, where general objectives prevail, but also functional to single ones. This is an ambitious project, far from a transitional one, which if completed, even partially, could provide Biden with many possibilities for a new election, presumably in a renewed duel with Trump.

Biden has about thirteen months to obtain effective results, which will allow him to arrive with a certain degree of tranquility at the appointment for the congressional elections. The government program is based on three main themes, the success of which will condition the judgment on the president’s work, but, above all, on the future structure of the United States, through a policy that promises to be based on large financial investments to stimulate structural growth of the country. The first point is based on pressing immediate needs and represents the overcoming of the pandemic. Overcoming this obstacle means then proceeding with peace of mind with the other development plans. The USA, currently, has already fully vaccinated 29.1% of the population, a figure that places the country much ahead of its European ally and, in itself, already represents a success on which it is mandatory to proceed without suffering. slowdowns. Success on the pandemic is necessary and preparatory for the other objectives set by the American president, both because it represents an undisputable instrument of credibility, and because it is functional to carry out the large investments that you want to make. The second objective is of an administrative nature and aims to overcome the divisions of a highly decentralized state, where the greatest difficulty is to bring together a series of public administrations, which can get in the way of federal-level projects with widespread bureaucracy. This is an ambitious challenge, because it means wanting to impose a change of mentality, which has the aim, in the short term, of starting the reform of the American infrastructural network, which, especially in the most remote regions, is not worthy of the first world power. Whether they are physical roads or digital highways, the bureaucratic process needs to be streamlined and the task is not easy when you have to maintain relationships with those who lead the administrations of America’s deepest. From the point of view of the institutional effort it is a program similar to the one that the European Union is about to carry out, but with a much greater financial effort, so much so as to invest an amount equal to two and a half times that made by Brussels. . It is understood that the intention is to stimulate domestic demand together with equipping the country with more advanced infrastructures, essential to allow the whole nation to face and support the economic development that the evolution of world challenges will already impose in the immediate future. . The third objective is the most ambitious, precisely because it must go in the opposite direction to the domestic policy, which the United States has undertaken since the 1980s. The intention is to support a welfare program, both from a regulatory, fiscal and investment point of view. Regulations capable of ensuring maternity leave, the free access to certain degrees of education and the transfer of funds from the state to families with children, are common measures in Europe, but whose introduction in the USA would represent a real innovation, especially after the period of Trump, however, the question of how to finance the increase in the welfare state can only come about with the tax reform that can make it possible to find the necessary funds. Biden intends to implement a series of tax increases towards the richest part of the population and which provides, in the main measures, to increase the taxation of corporate profits from 21% to 28%, the increase in taxation for one percent of the wealthiest population in the country and the increase in taxes on stock market capital gains from 20% to 30%. If the infrastructure plan will be financed in debt, the need to vary the taxation may encounter setbacks for the increase in welfare, which are largely predictable in the Republicans, but also present in some of the Democrats. Solving these problems is the greatest and most immediate difficulty that Biden will have to face, seeking a difficult dialogue with Congress and the even more complicated cooperation between the two parties. The game is open Biden has a rating of 55% of the voters, in the same period lower than Obama but higher than Trump, but with 68% of voters who appreciate the management of the pandemic; these are good starting points, which will have to be reinforced through the president’s ability to convince the social and political parties of the goodness of his projects.

A provocative letter written to an ultraconservative French magazine and signed by retired generals, but also by officers and active soldiers, apprehends democratic France and signals a new possible strategy of the far right to direct the political debate towards forms that were thought now no longer usable. The recipients of the letter are all representatives of the political class of the French country, who are warned of the risk of disintegration of the nation and its society, to the point of foreshadowing a potential civil war. The analysis of the situation by the military authors of the letter presents a very serious assessment of the current French political and social situation, defined as apocalyptic, caused by factors of profound capacity for disintegration, such as Islamism and what are defined as the hordes of the suburbs, but also the populist revolts, such as that of the groups defined as yellow vests, which have produced serious revolts against the police. The conclusion is that the current society has produced a laxity that is too dangerous for the values ​​of the country and that the current situation seems to be without a return to the military, if not through the action of the armed forces. The intention is to protect the values ​​of national civilization, endangered by multiculturalism, and thus protect French citizens on their national territory and prevent a civil war that could upset the country. This is clearly a too conservative and extremist vision, which highlights an interpretation of the current French moment in an extremely nationalist direction; however, albeit in a disturbing way, this represents an unequivocal signal of the presence of a malaise on the causes of which, not on the ways of resolution, there may be some sharing. What is in contradiction with the French democratic spirit is not knowing how to propose alternative methods to the use of force in order not to solve problems, such as the lack of integration of Muslim society, often relegated to the ghettos of the suburbs, often caused precisely by those political sectors that share the same arguments of the letter. In this regard, the support given to the military authors of the letter by the leader of the largest French far-right formation is significant, who shared their concerns and invited them to share in the political struggle, albeit in a peaceful way: that the arguments were common it is not surprising, but that a possible military turn could become a political tool of a party, albeit of the far right, is a worrying factor both as a factor within French politics and as a factor within the European Union. Now this represents a void in the Brussels legislation that must be filled as soon as possible, in order to outlaw those political formations, even if democratically elected, which think they support and use in an instrumental way any help provided by the armed forces outside their institutional duties. If the problem is also Europe, in the first place, it involves France, which now must demonstrate that it knows how to govern this rebellion while it is still in the early stages, making a careful selection of the leaders of its armed forces, to dispel any doubts about its own. democratic seal. Paris, after Berlin, represents the most important member of the Union and a France under threat cannot be tolerated: in practice, the French country is not, let it be said with all due respect, Hungary or another of the countries of the former bloc. Soviet, which often feed doubts on the real democratic capacity and on the real reasons for joining Brussels, France is one of the founders of the European Union and one of the leaders precisely by virtue of the acknowledged adherence to the founding democratic values ​​of European ideals. Certainly the sentiment of the military who wrote the worrying letter is a minority in the French country and in the armed forces itself, but the support thus shown by the leader of the major far-right force, who nevertheless reached the ballot to become president, represents a fact. which cannot worry democrats across Europe and which is a reason why Brussels must act as soon as possible to prevent others in other countries from following this reckless situation.

The extraordinary climate summit directly concerns about 40 world leaders, but at the center of the scene is the new president of the United States, who returns to speak concretely about the ecological problems of the planet, after the denial attitude of his predecessor. Biden wanted this meeting precisely to officially sanction the return of the US in the 2015 agreement, a fact that coincides with the central point of his political program, which provides for the fight against global warming and the application of a development model. sustainable; this direction represents a clear signal to both the international and domestic audiences to achieve the goal of halving emissions by 2030. It must be remembered that the USA ranks second among the world’s largest polluters, preceded only by China. which also participates in the summit with an approach tending to seek the widest possible agreement, as stated by the Chinese president, who sees it as a duty of humanity to tackle climate change, but warns that this cannot constitute the pretext for a confrontation geopolitical. This consideration of the highest Chinese authority seems to constitute a fact with a double value: on the one hand a sort of warning to the United States, that China is open to a common dialogue, which cannot be influenced by unbalanced obligations to the detriment of the Chinese country for penalizing their industries and, at the same time, the fight against climate change must be a space where geopolitical claims must not enter. The fact that the two major world powers are also the two major polluting countries favors an approach to a mutual agreement for collaboration, which can, among other things, favor an aid plan for developing countries towards a transition. the use of renewable energies. But these considerations, apparently positive, do not take into account that the two productive models of Washington and Beijing are in profound opposition for the economic structures and the constitution of their respective social tissues: these differences influence the strategies that the two countries have undertaken, contributing to to remove a possibility of agreement, which, however, has become increasingly necessary. The fundamental and discriminating point is whether the climate issue can become the new opportunity for dialogue, with obvious repercussions also on world stability. However, it is clear that the decrease in emissions necessarily passes from a completely new vision of the production organization that requires long-term planning compared to those so far used more frequently, based on the short term to obtain immediate results. This reorganization, very hypothetical for now, must regard in a practical way the attitude of the public administration of a country, the labor policies and the infrastructure plan, all conditioned by the will to carry out investments and financial programs, which must necessarily , be politically determined. It is understood that states with a democratic system will not be able to take decisions that coincide with states with a dictatorial regime and yet the connection that has been determined by globalization imposes non-conflicting choices on issues of common interest. The only way to reach effective compromises is that of diplomacy, preferably carried out by third parties, such as Europe, which could finally have a decisive role in the international field. The current situation requires rapid decisions, given that the level of carbon dioxide emissions expected in 2021 should reach the second quantity ever issued, after that of ten years ago, during the financial crisis; then as now, with the pandemic in progress, the fastest system designed to restart the economy is to stimulate growth through the use of fossil fuels: as you can see, a very short-term choice that appears in sharp contrast with the need to find long-term solutions, capable of reconciling economic development and environmental protection. The need to reverse the direction is therefore not postponable and all international subjects will have to know how to find mediation solutions but in any case of rapid execution.

The need for the resumption of official relations between Tehran and Riyadh does not directly concern Iran and Saudi Arabia only, but are essential for Iraq and Yemen as the closest states affected by the rivalry between the two countries but also regional stability and the US commitment in the area to promote peace in the area and its worldwide repercussions. Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been formally severed for five years, but this was only the culmination of a long-term rivalry, due to religious reasons, in the context of the difficult relationship between Sunnis and Shiites, which has had consequences. moreover inevitable, on the political and geostrategic level. The current American presidency represented a reversal of the trend compared to the previous one, strongly skewed in favor of the Saudis: Biden prefers an attitude, in practice, more equidistant, even if officially it must be closer to Riyadh. In any case, the changed attitude of the White House, especially regarding the Iranian nuclear deal, has determined for Saudi Arabia the need for a relationship with Iran regulated by normal international relations. Moreover, although very cautious, the statements coming from Saudi diplomatic circles underlined the importance of the predisposition of the Islamic Republic of Iran to dialogue with the Saudi Kingdom in order to maintain peace between the two countries and the stability of the region. Riyadh seems to realize that if the Iranian nuclear deal returns to be in force, Saudi Arabia, already deprived of its privileged relationship with Trump, can no longer ignore the importance of diplomatic relations with Tehran. Certainly the diplomatic relationship will have to be built up and in the best of cases, it could be a sort of truce between two enemies, who have an opposite vision of their respective regional role, however both countries are aware that a well-defined bilateral relationship within the custom of international law, it represents the essential starting point for a peaceful coexistence, which becomes more and more indispensable; this despite the fact that there are forces in both countries that are working for a negative outcome, with the aim of strengthening the more traditionalist sectors, in foreign policy, of the two countries. Beyond the bilateral relations that strictly concern the two states, the official resumption of contacts can and must have consequences, hopefully positive, on third countries such as Yemen and Iraq. The Yemeni state is experiencing a conflict which has been ongoing since 2015 and which has caused one of the most serious humanitarian crises; the rebel militias are of Shiite religion and, therefore, ideologically close to Tehran, despite not having advanced armament, the Saudi army, while benefiting from more advanced equipment, was unable to achieve victory: this situation, placed in the dualism between Saudis and Iranians, it was experienced internally, but not publicly, in Riyadh as a sort of defeat against Iran, albeit indirectly; for this reason Saudi Arabia needs to get out of this conflict without compromising its international position and a negotiation to re-establish relations with the Iranian country could also contain issues relating to these aspects. Iraq also represents a central point in the relationship between the two states, the Iraqi nation is made up of Sunnis, who are in the majority and are linked to Riyadh and Shiites, a minority in power close to Tehran. Religious difference has produced profound contrasts which have duplicated themselves in political relations; Iraq has gone through very complicated periods after the fall of Saddam Hussein and the advance of the Islamic State and tries to reach a complicated balance to face an internal peace process, which needs to be sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Iran under conditions of agreement reciprocal, as well as the United States. As can be seen, the need for the resumption of a diplomatic relationship between the two main Islamic countries is essential for the balance that goes beyond the specific bilateral relationship, but affects regional structures; in this context, the main obstacle could still be the resumption of the Iranian nuclear agreement, however, a stop of the uranium enrichment processes by Tehran should also be convenient for Riyadh, for this purpose the role of the USA, Europe , China and Russia can only be decisive if these powers want to look at the overall interest rather than the one functional to single party interests: an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia is certainly an opportunity to be exploited for the whole world.

The possibility of the resumption of negotiations on Iranian nuclear power enters a decisive phase thanks to a series of preliminary meetings which took place indirectly between the representatives of Washington and Tehran following diplomatic pressure exerted by both the two sides and the European Union. The goal is to restore the document signed during the Obama presidency and unilaterally canceled by Trump, but without the consent of the other signatories. For the US and the other signatories it is important that Iran respects the nuclear deal and for Iran it is essential that the United States lift the sanctions and allow the Persian economy to restart. If materially the meeting between the two delegations did not take place, the commitment of European diplomacy has concretely allowed remote dialogue. The current situation is to be ascribed to Trump’s erroneous strategy, which, by withdrawing from the treaty, favored the conditions for Iran’s return to uranium enrichment and, at the same time, created the conditions for Tehran to deem it groundless to sit at a table with the US, without Washington withdrawing the sanctions. From a political point of view, Iran’s position would be unexceptionable were it not that it too substantially withdrew from the agreement by enriching uranium. The current situation is stalemate: Biden wants the agreement back, but will not withdraw the sanctions until a new Iranian fulfillment, vice versa Tehran first demands the withdrawal of the sanctions to sit back at the table with the US and then get to ensure the ‘ interruption of uranium enrichment processes. This blockade situation could be removed by a demonstration of goodwill by the Americans, as the American spokesman also stated, who considers it necessary to stop the sanctions in order to restart the negotiations; words received positively in Iran, which suggest a positive solution. The latest preliminary meetings have resulted in the establishment of two working groups that will respectively regard the methods to interrupt the American sanctions and the path to restore the conditions of the agreement in the Iranian country. Washington, while preparing itself favorably for the development of the situation, maintains a low profile in the face of the possibility of a success of the negotiation, given that the time frame for the restoration of the agreement does not seem to be short. The US refuses the logic of first proceeding with the sanctions block to arrive at the consequent Iranian action, rather they prefer a synchronous modality with Tehran in the joint renunciation of the current conditions. For this purpose it is important that the two parties establish a procedure marked with certain times in the various steps, even if it is difficult to foresee a certain timeframe to reach the end of the process. The common goal of Washington and Brussels is to arrive at a solution before the Iranian elections in June, so that even a government of a different direction from the current one finds a situation already defined, however, several analysts believe it is highly unlikely to conclude the process by the date. election and this could cause a new start of negotiations with new interpreters and conditions. For the White House it is important to avoid a rapprochement of Tehran with Beijing, also caused by the common interest of weakening the dominance of the American currency in the world, a factor that has been at the basis of the success of the American sanctions, not only against Iran but also against other international entities. This argument, however, can be the basis of a project with a medium or long term, in the immediate future it is not feasible and the needs of the short term for Iran are to revitalize its economy, which is suffering, beyond the sanctions , the bad domestic and international economic situation and the effects of the pandemic. These practical reasons could be the decisive factor in giving an even greater impetus to the negotiations and resolving a situation for Washington that can divert American attention and resources to allocate them to scenarios considered more decisive, such as that of Southeast Asia, while for stability regional Iran without nuclear weapons would also mean the lack of proliferation by Saudi Arabia and a more cautious attitude by Israel.