Three global consequences of a potential US attack. “That crisis will be nothing”

When Russia attacked Ukrainian power plants and thermal power plants throughout last winter, it was rightly condemned for war crimes.

The arguments used by Trump's supporters and Binyamin Netanyahu, whose army this morning called on Iranians not to travel by train because the roads, bridges and railways are used by Iranian troops, make a mockery of international law.

While there is a concept of dual-use technologies and devices, referring to know-how or products that can be used both for civilian purposes and for the production of weapons, there is no concept of dual-use infrastructure. If we were to recognize the right to destroy railway lines, bridges and power plants, it would be necessary to state that it is also permissible to bomb waterworks and water treatment plants (soldiers must drink water, after all) and bakeries (soldiers must eat, after all).

What the United States and Israel intend to do should not be supported not only because both countries want to violate international law or because their actions would be immoral. Both law and morality are, as we know, relative, and any action can always be justified – in this case, of course, by stretching both the law and the principles.

The announced actions of Washington and Tel Aviv cannot be supported because they are much more tangible. To put it brutally: because they are not profitable for us.

First, if the US and Israel actually destroy Iran's civilian infrastructure, We (and not the US and Israel) are facing a potential migration crisis, compared to which the one we remember from the times of the civil war in Syria will be nothing.

Secondly, Iran will respond to the announced attacks in a way that will guarantee oil prices such that not PLN 10, but PLN 14 or 16 per liter of fuel will become a real prospect. In a word, Trump and Netanyahu will cause not an oil crisis, but an economic crisis, and in its wake, who knows, or also not a recession.

And finally, thirdly, if we assume that the forces of the West and the so-called satrapy axis, of which Russia, Iran, China and other authoritarian states are part, are aligned, it There is a serious probability that the outcome of the confrontation will be decided by countries that we would once call non-aligned, such as India, Brazil, African and Southeast Asian countries.

Whether we manage to win these countries over to our side will be determined not only by naked force, as the supporters of primitive theories want, but also by whether we differ in any way from the satrapy axis. The thesis that rules don't matter is proof of nothing but stupidity.

Whether we represent certain values ​​is of fundamental importance

The great winners of the Cold War, i.e. John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, won the confrontation with communism also thanks to their moral strength.

Of course, they also made compromises with their own principles, which was eagerly pointed out by Soviet and now Russian propaganda. Russians often accuse the above-mentioned leaders and, more broadly, the West as a whole of the so-called double standards.

This accusation is not baseless. The West has indeed sometimes made compromises with evil, but the fundamental difference, which was the essence of what distinguished and distinguishes it from the satrapy axis, is that while the West sometimes forgets about standards, Russia, for example, cannot forget standards, because it never had them and does not have them.

However, if the greatest Western power not only committed war crimes, but also planned and announced their commission, the Russian argument that the West is in fact no different from Russia would cease to be manipulation and abuse. It would be unfortunately true.

Vladimir PutinALEXANDER KAZAKOV/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN POOL / POOL / PAP

So if Trump, together with Netanyahu, intends to attack civilian targets in Iran, a clear signal should come from Europe that this is being done on behalf of the US and Israel, but not the West, not NATO and not ours. Whether we represent certain values ​​is of fundamental importance. Not moral (although this aspect should probably not be ignored), but political.

There is, of course, a possibility that Donald Trump's words have no meaning and only indicate his increasingly progressive dementia, which is characterized by growing aggression, more and more frequent temper tantrums, growing rudeness and the inability to predict the consequences of his own actions.

If the US president is pretending or, worse still, has already become a Soviet, we should not follow him or we will also become Soviets.