Geopolitical analyst Drago Bosnic sounds the alarm over a new, extremely dangerous geopolitical escalation, maintaining that the latest developments between Ukraine and Iran could lead to a new front with unpredictable consequences for global security.
According to Drago Bosnic, the tension created following attacks against Iranian ships in the Caspian Sea transforms the Ukrainian conflict into part of a broader geopolitical confrontation, which now extends from Eastern Europe to the Middle East.
He maintains that Tehran considers these attacks a deliberate action, resulting in it now seriously examining military response scenarios beyond routine diplomatic protests.
In the assessment of Drago Bosnic, although long-range Iranian ballistic missiles, such as the Ghadr, Emad, and the newer Khorramshahr family, theoretically possess the range to strike targets in Ukraine, such a scenario does not constitute Tehran's most likely option.
Instead, he considers that Iran possesses much more effective and less dangerous ways to impose costs on Kyiv, without giving NATO the pretext for a broader military engagement.
As he characteristically points out, Kyiv's "fat targets" are located much closer to Iran, mainly in the maritime routes of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Ukrainian commercial interests targeted
Drago Bosnic estimates that Tehran's most likely response would be operations against ships connected to Ukraine or to its commercial lines in the region.
Such an option, according to him, would deal a significant economic blow to Kyiv, taking advantage of its reliance on international maritime transport, without generating the same level of risk of generalized military conflict that a missile attack against Ukrainian territory would cause.
At the same time, he maintains that such a move could function complementarily with Russian pressure in the Black Sea, further increasing the cost for Kyiv.
The analyst notes that statements by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi—who characterized the attacks against Iranian ships as a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and announced that they will not remain unanswered—show that the Iranian leadership now treats the issue as a threat to its strategic deterrence.
According to Drago Bosnic, even the loss of a single ship acquires particular importance, as it touches upon critical national security issues for Tehran and expands the scope of interests it considers vital.
Drago Bosnic maintains that the Ukrainian crisis may now be directly linked to the confrontation between the US and Iran, creating a new geopolitical node of tension.
He estimates that Tehran will seek to impose its own cost, but in a way that will not allow NATO to appear as an immediate military defender of Kyiv.
According to his analysis, the choice of asymmetric actions at sea is considered much more likely than an extensive exchange of missile strikes, as it offers Iran greater flexibility and a lower risk of generalized conflict.
Why did Ukraine retreat so quickly?
According to a publication by Noornews, recent statements by Ukrainian officials regarding the incident involving the alleged targeting of an Iranian civilian ship in the Caspian Sea created a picture different from Kyiv's initial positions.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attempted to justify this action, leveling accusations against the Islamic Republic of Iran and seeking to present Ukraine as a bastion of the West against Tehran and Moscow.
However, a few days later, the stance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine appeared to shift noticeably, indicating an effort toward de-escalation and limiting the consequences.
Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha, during a telephone conversation with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi, emphasized that his country does not seek the escalation of tension and had no intention of targeting Iranian ships.
Although this shift can be considered a step toward de-escalation, it does not negate the responsibility for the actions that preceded it nor the need for compensation for the damages caused.
Kyiv's diplomatic retreat cannot be interpreted simply as a political maneuver.
Instead, it must be analyzed in light of regional power dynamics and Iran's deterrent strategy.
The experience of recent years shows that the Islamic Republic of Iran pursues a policy of calculated but decisive reaction against threats and attacks on its national interests.
The recent stance of Zelensky can also be interpreted as an effort to secure greater political and military support from the United States and the West, rather than as an expression of an autonomous Ukrainian initiative.
This acquires particular significance during a period in which Washington appears more cautious regarding its support for Kyiv and has expressed concerns over potential involvement in new regional crises.
Iran's defense capability constitutes one of the most important factors in this equation.
This is a capability that has been confirmed in recent years across various sectors and has influenced the strategic calculations of many international actors.
International reactions to the incident with the Iranian ship also showed that even countries maintaining close relations with Russia, as well as other international actors, view the potential for further escalation of tension with Iran seriously.
Mikhail Ulyanov, permanent representative of Russia to international organizations in Vienna, also commented on Ukraine's change in stance, maintaining that Kyiv's initial statements were arrogant and that the subsequent change in approach aimed to prevent further escalation.
Iran's right to respond
Ukraine's attempt to argue that there was no intention of targeting an Iranian civilian ship is not sufficient to absolve the country of legal and political responsibility for the incident.
National security cannot be addressed with political assurances after the fact, and no country can expect an action against the interests of another state to remain without consequences.
Iran has repeatedly stated that it considers the source of any threat to its security a legitimate defense target and that it will use all legal and deterrent means at its disposal against hostile actions.
In the same context, Abbas Araghchi, responding to the telephone communication from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, characterized any attack against citizens or interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran as unacceptable and emphasized the need for full compensation for the damages caused.
Diplomacy and defense capability constitute two complementary dimensions of Iranian strategy: on the one hand, dialogue remains open for managing crises, while on the other, Iran maintains the right to react to actions it considers detrimental to its interests.
Europe and the test of its credibility
Meanwhile, European officials, including the leadership of the foreign policy of the European Union, have welcomed the dialogue between Tehran and Kyiv.
However, these statements acquire meaningful content only if accompanied by corresponding practical actions.
Europe cannot simultaneously appear as an advocate for peace and support Ukraine militarily and politically if this is considered to contribute to the continuation of tension.
If it truly seeks de-escalation, it is called upon to choose between the role of mediator and that of a directly involved party.
At the same time, the policy of pressure and attempts to coerce Iran into concessions have not yielded the intended results.
Just as the Islamic Republic resisted American pressure, so it will continue to make its decisions guided exclusively by its national interests and in the face of European pressures.
In conclusion, the publication maintains that any assessment according to which creating tension could lead Iran to retreat does not correspond to the realities of the region.
On the contrary, it estimates that Tehran has proven that it manages its national security with decisiveness and will not allow any actor to unilaterally alter regional security rules through hostile actions.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments