Ángel Losada: "Iran's ruling class will die fighting"

MadridÁngel Losada (Bern, Switzerland, 1953) is a Spanish diplomat with a long career behind him. He has been Spain's ambassador to Nigeria, to Kuwait, European Union special envoy to the Sahel and ambassador to Iran. Now retired, he speaks to ARA to analyze the war in the Middle East.

After more than twenty days of war, would you say that Israel and the United States have the same interests in this conflict?

— The beginning of the conflict was clearly the United States and Israel against Iran, but as it evolves, I see three different wars. The first, that of the United States, is based on the fact that Iran cannot have atomic weapons, but wants to get out of it as soon as possible because it entails dire consequences from an internal point of view – there are the midterm elections in November – and also because it is catastrophic from an economic point of view. Therefore, for the United States, it is a short-term war, in which it wants to impose a person to lead the country who agrees with its interests, as has been done with Venezuela. The second war is the one that Israel is fighting, which is more strategic and long-term, as they want to get rid of Iran on a regional scale. They would not even mind a partition of the country taking advantage of the serious problems of separatism, such as the Kurds, the Balochis or the Azeris. Netanyahu would emerge as the great winner. And the third war is Iran's against everyone, which is existential, for survival. For them, the regime must survive at all costs. With all the leaders assassinated, everyone thought the regime would be destroyed. But no, even though it is weak, it still has strong structures. We must take into account that Iran has been a historical empire, with a glorious past, 90 million inhabitants, with an area three times larger than Spain... It is not Venezuela, the Americans have made a mistake in this.

What role does the decentralization of the Iranian regime's structures play?

— Iran realized that centralized centers of power are easier to attack. It should be noted that the United States and Israel have perfect control of the entire airspace, and any joint command or decision center could be immediately destroyed. There is a decentralization for survival, which at the same time can become a very dangerous element because each commander of the Revolutionary Guard has weapons and will take the measures they deem appropriate. A situation that is absolutely impossible to control could be triggered.

Can decentralization end up being a sign of regime weakness?

— The regime's resistance is mainly the resistance of the Revolutionary Guard, which Khomeini created when he made the revolution because he didn't trust the Shah's military. This Revolutionary Guard is not only a security body but has also taken over between 60% and 70% of the economy, pushing aside the private sector and creating discontent among the population. Therefore, they have nothing to lose; if they fall, they don't know where to go. That's why I always say that if the Iranian ruling class sees itself defeated, it will die fighting [...]. For me, the greatest danger is that they will now develop nuclear weapons to guarantee their security. We are in a much more dangerous moment than before the attack.

Do we have to be prepared for a long war?

— There are elements that suggest it will end soon and others that suggest the opposite. There is a very clear element, and that is that Iran's missiles are not infinite, and when they run out, it will be in a very difficult situation. Another scenario is that the United States finds a way to say they have already won because they have carried out a specific operation or because they have totally destroyed Iran's capabilities and withdraw from the conflict, then Israel would find itself alone and the diplomatic route would have to enter. The Gulf countries, in turn, wish for everything to end immediately and are showing incredible restraint because they know they are very vulnerable. Not only with the attack, for example, on the South Pars center, but also all oil capabilities or desalination plants can be destroyed. A city like Riyadh would be practically empty because there is no water.

Why doesn't the opposition take to the streets? Is the regime being internally legitimized by the war?

— Because there has been a calculation error on the part of the United States. The regime's structures are still strong, there is no strong leadership within, and the one outside –Reza– is very quiet because he cannot support the destruction of his country. The Basij also act, who are members of the paramilitary force, at least about 800,000 people who brutally suppress any sign of rebellion. These are highly hated among the population.

How many people currently support the regime?

— It's hard to say, but I would say around 25% or 30%, very ideologized and under the umbrella of Shiism. But there is a generational break. Young people do not feel identified at all with the regime and this is even noticeable with families from the ruling classes who saw their daughters being attacked in the eyes with pellets when they left school. And we must also take into account that the last revolt that has occurred was born from the bazaar merchants, who at the time supported Khomeini's revolution. These have had to move because the Revolutionary Guard has been economically occupying the country.

With all that explains, it seems that the regime could indeed fall.

— It's just that before the war, the regime was very weak. That's why the US and Israel acted. However, with the attacks, the regime has been reinforced. I speak with people who are opposed to the regime and what they say is: they attack us and the only thing that can now guarantee the territorial integrity of Iran and avoid a Balkanization is the existing regime. There is a nationalist reaffirmation in this sense, although I believe that the regime will have difficulties surviving as it was because the population does not support it.

What is the role of the European Union and Spain in all this?

— I am deeply pro-European. And I am saddened by Europe's position: it is sidelined from everything. We are not actors, but we will be the ones who pay the bill for the war without having been able to develop our diplomatic role because there is internal division within the EU.

Spain has dragged other countries towards the "No to war".

— There is a widespread opinion that it is an illegal war. And on this basis there are a number of countries that want to go in this direction, but this will have consequences because if the war ends, Iran will demand reparations and Israel will not pay them, we will see what the United States does. Each one swims and saves their clothes. For me, what is very important is that, despite everything, the transatlantic link is maintained while Europe strengthens itself from a defense point of view.