Angehefteter Tweet
Few things have annoyed me more since the start of the war on Iran than to hear some European politicians repeat the narrative that it was "all about China."
One surprising (and disappointing) example was France’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of La France Insoumise, France's main left-wing opposition party, who claimed that the war's objective was to “limit China's oil supply capabilities” (x.com/JLMelenchon/st…).
By saying this he literally parrots - almost word for word - the narrative of Lindsey Graham on Fox News (x.com/OunkaOnX/statu…) or that of the Hudson institute, an American right-wing neoconservative think tank (hudson.org/foreign-policy…). Which, you'll agree, is rather unexpected company for Mélenchon...
Why does it annoy me so much? Because it's painfully obvious that the consequences of this war are far, far worse for Europe than they are for China.
Heck, if anything, this war may even ironically prove beneficial for China: it is quite literally the best advertisement for green energy the world has ever seen. Every day the Strait of Hormuz remains contested, every oil price spike - all of it is a live demonstration of exactly why fossil fuel dependency is a massive strategic liability.
This war is vindicating China's bet in spectacular fashion, and there is little doubt it will further encourage much of the world to buy exactly what China is selling: replacing dependence on whoever controls oil and gas chokepoints with energy from the sun and wind.
See, in large part due to its green energy ramp-up China, as of last year, reached an 85% energy self-sufficiency rate (chinadaily.com.cn/a/202602/03/WS…) which is absolutely remarkable for a country that consumes as much energy as the U.S. and the EU... combined.
The same, however, very much cannot be said of Europe. Where China is at 85% they're at an appalling 41% (ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stati…), less than half.
So already, for this alone, Mélenchon should be worrying about Europe, not China. But that's just the beginning - the full picture is much worse.
What is this war, when one strips it to its essence? What is the precedent being set?
You have the world’s most powerful country attacking a sovereign nation, assassinating its leader, and attempting regime change - without even bothering to provide a casus belli (insanely the "casus belli" advanced by Rubio was that the victim would defend itself: x.com/RnaudBertrand/…).
In other words, the world this precedent establishes is a “might makes right” world on steroids, like we haven’t seen in many generations.
And, by definition, in a “might makes right” world what matters is… might. And let's be real: today China has it, and Europe just doesn’t.
For instance, what do you think happens to Greenland if Iran goes the way Trump wants and the lesson he gets out of it is that he can simply do anything he wants with impunity if the other party is weak? And when the Europeans who cheered that precedent then turn around and ask the world to respect their sovereignty? Europe is the kind of power that only survives in a world with rules and they’re foolishly cheering their destruction.
My latest article makes the full case, with the data to back it up. China will be fine, Europe won't and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because even the precious few politicians who aren't totally vassalized to the U.S. - the Mélenchons of Europe - are starting to work off the exact same delusional script as U.S. neocons, just reading from the opposite side (replying “they’re encircling China” and objecting to neocons saying “we’re encircling China” and cheering).
Which raises the question: who exactly is looking out for Europe?
I don't have an answer but my article, I believe, makes a pretty strong case for why this question has never been more urgent. Read it here: open.substack.com/pub/arnaudbert…
English
