Reeker: NATO members in the Western Balkans will have to position themselves regarding the war in the Middle East

Ambassador Philip T. Reeker, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, stated in an exclusive interview for Kosovo Online that Western Balkan countries that are members of NATO will have to decide how to position themselves regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

In an interview with our portal, the diplomat spoke about the impact that a conflict between the United States and Iran could have on the entire world, as well as on the Western Balkans. He emphasized that the consequences could be felt in the economy, but also potentially through new migration flows and security issues. In his view, relations between the United States and the European Union have been going through a difficult period over the past 15 months, while the war in the Middle East is further burdening economies across the region due to rising oil prices. Although U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that he expects the conflict with Iran to end soon, Reeker is not optimistic that the war in the Middle East will conclude in the near future.

In the current geopolitical climate, with the United States and Israel at war with Iran, should countries in the region maintain unconditional political alignment with the administration of Donald Trump and the decisions of U.S. foreign policy, or should they place greater emphasis on protecting their own national and regional interests?

Every nation must make its own decisions, and every nation should determine its policy based on what is in its best interest. In this case, they will have to weigh those interests. Clearly, the countries of the Western Balkans have generally been aligned with the United States. In fact, several of them are, of course, allies of the United States within NATO. They will have to determine how they want to position themselves in the future with regard to this conflict. I do not believe that the Gulf conflict, the Israeli-American war against Iran, and Iranian retaliation are a particular focus for the Western Balkans. However, it is clear that there are global implications, especially in terms of economic consequences. Oil prices are rising dramatically, there are concerns about supply chains that we have already seen, and all of these are factors that could have an impact on the western part of the continent, and certainly on Europe as a whole.

If tensions between the United States and Iran escalate into a broader conflict, what potential impact could this have on the Western Balkans, particularly in terms of new waves of migration or refugees toward Europe?

This is something that must always be taken into account when considering earlier challenges—the Syrian civil war and other wars and conflicts in the region that produced refugee flows which affected, certainly, Europe as a whole. Countries that are on the front line when refugees move toward Europe are often those in Southern Europe and the Western Balkans. Therefore, this is something that must be monitored. I do not believe we have seen this yet from Iran. However, Iran is, of course, a large country of around 90 million people, and as they continue to bear the greatest burden of this war—while the United States and Israel have destroyed Iran’s main military capabilities—we will have to see whether there is any movement, what is happening inside Iran, and whether this could potentially produce refugee flows that might affect countries all the way to the West.

How significant is the risk that a wider conflict in the Middle East could encourage radicalization among small extremist networks in the Western Balkans, and could this increase security threats to U.S. or NATO installations in the region, including Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo?

I believe we all must take security very seriously. Iran has for decades been the leading state sponsor of terrorism around the world, through its networks and its cells. I do not believe that the Western Balkans are a particular focus for them, but I think we can expect increased vigilance and increased chances that Iran, having lost much of its military capacity, could take other actions in an attempt to impose costs not only on the United States and Israel but also on other countries, particularly in the Gulf region. We have seen them deploy weapons, drones, and missiles against countries in the Gulf—from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to Qatar—where U.S. military facilities are located. Many people did not expect these actions. This happened at a time when many of those countries had improved relations with Iran, so they did not anticipate that Iran would attack them through terrorism or other means. Now the calculation is different, and those countries are assessing the implications of this for their future security and strategic planning.

Israeli and Western officials have suggested that Iranian ballistic missiles could reach parts of Europe, including the Balkans. How credible is that assessment and what would it mean for the strategic vulnerability of countries in the region?

One of the reasons cited by President Trump and others for launching this war against Iran was its ballistic missile program. That has, of course, long been a concern, along with its nuclear program, its state sponsorship of terrorism, and other issues. There are a number of different matters that the administration has raised as justification, as objectives, and as reasons for taking this action. Once again, I do not believe the Western Balkans are a target for Iran. A large part of their capabilities has already been destroyed in that regard. However, we must think about the long-term implications, certainly against the broader West in general. I believe everyone will have to take monitoring more seriously and remain cautious in cooperation with allies regarding terrorist threats.

With European leaders, such as Pedro Sánchez, emphasizing “no to war,” and the EU signaling readiness to defend its economic and political interests, are we witnessing the widening of a strategic gap between the United States and Europe? What could that mean for the Western Balkans, a region that relies heavily both on EU integration and on U.S. security guarantees?

I believe that over the past 15 months you have already seen some difficult moments in transatlantic relations, in U.S.–EU relations—for example in the economic sphere, particularly regarding tariffs and trade—although there has been some progress in reaching agreements, including the U.S.–EU trade agreement and the U.S.–United Kingdom trade agreement. This issue—the war in the Middle East—is placing additional strain on economies across the region, largely due to the price of oil, concerns about supply chains, and questions about ships passing through the Red Sea and oil moving through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz. These are all issues that remain worrying. President Trump has indicated that he expects the conflict to end in the coming days or weeks. I doubt that will be the case. Some sort of declaration about achieved objectives has been made, but we will have to see what that actually means. The President has called for unconditional surrender. The Iranians, in their view, are not surrendering at all. They will continue to pursue this as best they can, using all the means they have. I do not see the regime of the Islamic Republic—or the system that has been in place for decades—disappearing anytime soon.