Col. Jacques Baud: Iran Goes All In -This Could Be the EU’s Biggest Blunder Yet

Col. Jacques Baud describes his personal experience with EU sanctions as an 'extrajudicial political decision,' meaning he was sanctioned without a formal trial, judge, or judgment. This prevents him from appealing the case through legal channels, as the decision is political, not legal. His bank accounts are blocked, and he is restricted from leaving Belgium, with any attempt to bypass sanctions considered a criminal offense. This situation, he argues, demonstrates a systemic failure of the rule of law within the EU, making it 'worse than a dictatorship' in this regard compared to countries like Russia where trials, however flawed, still occur.

Baud's bank cards are blocked, he is fed by friends, and cannot leave Belgium without risking criminal charges for bypassing sanctions. He states, 'In my case, there is no trial, no judge, no judgment, nothing. They just decide you are sanctioned. Period.'

The US military buildup against Iran, including two aircraft carriers and 600 Tomahawk missiles, suggests preparation for a quick, decisive strike rather than a war of attrition. However, the US lacks a clear, rational objective for intervention in Iran. Objectives fluctuate between concerns over nuclear potential, ballistic missiles, and regime change, without a defined plan for the aftermath. This erratic decision-making, reminiscent of the Iraq war where removing Saddam Hussein led to chaos, makes any military operation highly problematic and unlikely to achieve stable, positive outcomes.

Baud notes the US has 'contradictory messages' and 'no clear objective' for Iran, stating, 'Nobody can very much rely on what Trump says. When asked about the objectives of a possible action in Iran, he was not even able to say what he wants to achieve.' He compares it to the Iraq war where removing Saddam Hussein 'didn't solve the problem at all because after that you just had the chaos'.

Europe has significantly lost its diplomatic influence in major geopolitical conflicts, including Iran, Ukraine, and Palestine. While the US, Russia, and regional powers engage in negotiations or mediation, Europe is notably absent from these critical discussions. Baud argues that instead of acting as a neutral 'referee' in conflicts where it is not a direct party, Europe has become a 'promoter of war,' actively sabotaging peace efforts. He cites instances where the EU undermined Minsk agreements, Ukrainian diplomatic efforts in 2022, and even Trump's attempts at dialogue with Russia, prioritizing punishment over accommodation.

Baud states, 'Europe has absolutely lost the ground, lost any any power, has lost any even the confidence of their traditional allies and traditional friends.' He notes that in three phases of peace efforts (Russia 2014-2022, Ukraine 2022, US/Trump post-2022), the 'European Union made every effort to prevent Russia to have the Minsk agreement implemented' and 'sabotage the efforts of all these three actors'.

NATO, designed in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union's nuclear threat by placing European states under a US nuclear umbrella, is fundamentally unsuited for modern, limited conflicts. The use of nuclear weapons for regional disputes (e.g., defending a Baltic state or Donbas) is an 'overkill' that no one would initiate, rendering NATO ineffective for the most probable European conflicts. This leaves a significant gap in Europe's security architecture, as there is no conceptual framework for a defense system that can address threats without resorting to nuclear escalation, nor a unified political will to create one.

Baud explains, 'NATO was designed to cope with the nuclear threat of the Soviet Union in 1949.' He argues that 'the nuclear power in that situation is is an overkill for that. Nobody will use the nuclear weapons and start to trigger a nuclear war just for the sake of defending a 1.3 million state inhabit people state.'