A lack of emotional intelligence can lead to various issues, such as difficulty controlling emotions, a lack of awareness of one’s own feelings and those of others, challenges in maintaining relationships, insensitivity, and poor communication skills. This ultimately damages the office atmosphere and jeopardizes the careers of both individuals and their colleagues. The expectation for employees to follow orders blindly, regardless of their correctness, can yield devastating consequences.

In many offices, it is often said, “Don’t argue with your boss,” which is typically viewed as a sign of respect for authority. However, this mindset can be misleading. Remaining silent in the face of questionable decisions may indicate weakness, while insecure leaders may silence their juniors to protect their self-esteem. In contrast, secure leaders welcome constructive criticism, viewing it as an opportunity for personal and organizational growth.

In such situations, possessing strong emotional intelligence is essential for both individual and organizational development. Refusing to consider dissenting opinions can set leaders up for failure. There is a pervasive belief that questioning seniors is disrespectful, based on the assumption that the boss knows best. While some might reference the saying, “Never argue with stupid people; they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience,” the truth is that no one has all the answers, and even the most experienced leaders can make mistakes. Dismissing criticism limits access to valuable feedback and hinders growth, ultimately eroding trust and confidence among junior staff, with serious repercussions for the organization.

It is crucial to revisit our hiring practices to prioritize candidates with strong emotional intelligence. This change can enhance the overall effectiveness of our institutions by fostering better team dynamics, promoting empathy, and facilitating effective collaboration. Officers with high emotional intelligence are essential for setting a positive tone within organizations, ensuring both technical and interpersonal excellence.

The writer is a government officer using the alias Abu Hashim and can be contacted at Baloch_iqbal@yahoo.com.

EU-Iran relations close to crisis point

1. MAJID RAFIZADEH

While the EU has maintained a relatively soft stance toward the Iranian government compared to the more hard-line approach adopted by the US, tensions between Brussels and Tehran have been gradually escalating across multiple fronts. This rise in tensions highlights increasing friction, which could lead to significant diplomatic consequences if not managed properly by both sides.

One of the most critical issues contributing to this deterioration is Iran’s role in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. This involvement has drawn the ire of Western nations, including those in the EU, which see it as an alarming development.

Iran’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has evolved through several distinct phases. Initially, when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei endorsed Moscow’s actions, aligning Tehran with Russia’s position. This public endorsement reflected a close relationship between the two nations. However, Iran’s support for Russia did not remain limited to verbal or diplomatic backing.

Over time, Tehran’s role in the conflict escalated from symbolic support to military involvement. Reports emerged in the first year of the war indicating that Iran was supplying Russia with kamikaze drones, which reportedly became a critical component of Moscow’s military operations. These drones, specifically modified by Iranian engineers with advanced explosives, have proven to be highly effective and have caused significant destruction. This underscored Iran’s expanding influence in the conflict and its growing role as a key supplier of military hardware to Russia, further exacerbating tensions between Iran and the West.

The next phase in Iran’s involvement saw it take an even more direct approach by sending troops to Crimea to assist Russia in its military operations. In September 2022, these actions were further corroborated when the US Department of Defense confirmed that Iran had supplied Russia with Fath 360 short-range ballistic missiles, which are capable of hitting targets with precision.

The EU has issued warnings to Iran about its involvement in supplying military hardware to Russia, particularly ballistic missiles. Its disapproval of Iran’s actions became more evident last week, when Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, submitted a formal proposal to member states urging them to impose sanctions on Tehran.

This was seen as a direct response to Iran’s continued supply of ballistic missiles to Russia, in defiance of earlier warnings. The Iranian government responded with diplomatic action, summoning the ambassadors of the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands to express its dissatisfaction with the accusations leveled against Tehran regarding its missile transfers. The Iranian leadership has consistently denied supplying such weapons.

Moreover, the UK, France and Germany this month took further steps to counter Iran’s missile supply to Russia. In a joint statement, they described Iran’s actions as a significant escalation in the conflict. “We will be taking immediate steps to cancel bilateral air services agreements with Iran,” the statement read. The three countries also announced their intention to pursue the designation of key entities and individuals associated with Iran’s ballistic missile program. These new measures appear to be aimed at curbing Iran’s ability to provide additional support to Russia, especially in the form of ballistic missile supplies.

The second major point of contention that has strained EU-Iran relations is the latter’s nuclear program. Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a source of concern for the international community, but in recent years Tehran has made rapid advancements in its nuclear technology. It is now reportedly only a short step away from possessing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

This alarming development has brought renewed urgency to the issue. Talks aimed at reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal have repeatedly failed, leaving diplomatic channels between Iran and the EU at a critical impasse.

Should tensions related to both the Russia-Ukraine war and Iran’s nuclear program continue to escalate, the EU is likely to respond with a series of punitive measures. Firstly, political sanctions will undoubtedly increase, further damaging the already fragile diplomatic relationship between Iran and the EU. These sanctions could target key figures within the Iranian government, as well as individuals associated with its military and nuclear programs.

In addition, economic sanctions may be imposed, significantly disrupting trade between Tehran and European countries. While some limited trade still takes place between Iran and the bloc, comprehensive economic sanctions could effectively halt these exchanges, which would have severe consequences for Iran’s already struggling economy.

In the next stage of these rising tensions, diplomatic relations between the EU and Iran may face complete severance. Such a move would mark a significant shift in international relations and further isolate the Iranian government on the world stage. Without diplomatic ties, it would become exceedingly difficult for Tehran to engage with European nations, resulting in a sharp decline in cooperation on a wide range of issues. In response to this isolation, Iran is likely to escalate its defiance, particularly concerning its nuclear program. This would lead to a dangerous cycle of provocations and sanctions, with no clear resolution in sight.

In conclusion, relations between the EU and Iran have now reached their lowest point in years and the situation shows no signs of improvement. With two major issues — Iran’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war and its advancing nuclear program — fueling tensions, the likelihood of further deterioration remains high. If these underlying issues are not addressed soon, the relationship could spiral into a full-blown diplomatic crisis, with serious implications for both sides.

• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Ball in Europe’s court over Ukraine ceasefire talks

KHALED ABOU ZAHR

With the war in Ukraine well into its third year, the conflict remains intense, with developments on multiple fronts. Fighting in the Donetsk region brings reminders of world war-era trenches, while Ukrainian forces have advanced up to 30 km into Russia’s Kursk region. Ukraine has also renewed its call to be allowed to use Western weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory. However, despite these efforts, Russian forces continue to gain ground in eastern Ukraine.

Missile strikes and heavy fighting persist in various regions, making the situation fluid and unpredictable. One also has to include developments on the international diplomatic and geopolitical front, as they are important in understanding how fluid the situation is.

Western support for Ukraine has been vital, helping the country sustain its defense. The EU has already offered tremendous support. In a statement to the European Parliament on Tuesday, European Commission Executive Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said the EU’s financial commitments to Ukraine total about €118 billion ($131 billion), including military, economic and humanitarian aid. Additionally, the EU is working on a $50 billion G7-backed loan package to meet Ukraine’s immediate financial needs.

However, this support, specifically the military aspect, also risks escalating the conflict into a broader European war. Some believe that EU leaders are allowing the conflict to drift without a clear strategy. While there is consensus that support for Ukraine must continue, questions remain. Should the EU initiate negotiations to end the war? Is this conflict purely a Russia-Ukraine issue or does it require an agreement between Russia and the West? The latter seems key, yet negotiations must start somewhere, with the immediate priority being to stop the war. Is this still possible?

Drawing a historical parallel, one could compare Ukraine’s struggles to the Algerian War of Independence from France. Algeria became a French colony after the 1830 invasion and, in 1848, it was annexed into France. Under French rule, violence and exploitation were common, with the French settler population dominating the locals. The war for independence began in 1954, fueled by decades of grievances over colonial oppression. At that time, decolonization movements were growing worldwide, as European empires weakened after the Second World War. The Cold War also played a role, with both the US and the Soviet Union supporting decolonization to expand their spheres of influence. In Algeria, the National Liberation Front launched guerrilla warfare against French forces, sparking a brutal conflict.

Many attempts at negotiations failed but, starting in 1961, secret talks with Swiss mediation paved the way for formal negotiations in Evian-les-Bains, France. Even as fighting raged, the Evian Accords were signed in March 1962. The accords included provisions for a ceasefire, a referendum on Algeria’s future and protections for French settlers. Despite the agreement, sporadic violence continued until Algeria finally gained its independence on July 5, 1962. Relations with France have remained tense ever since.

Drawing a historical parallel, one could compare Ukraine’s struggles to the Algerian War of Independence from France

Ukraine’s history with Russia is much more deeply rooted and goes back more than 1,000 years, to the medieval times of the Kyivan Rus’. Following centuries of Mongol invasions and regional conflicts, most of Ukraine eventually came under Russian control in the late 18th century. After the First World War and the Russian Revolution of 1917, Ukraine briefly declared independence, but it was soon incorporated into the Soviet Union. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine declared its independence in 1991. Tensions with Russia have never stopped. They reflect deep historical disputes over territory, identity, political alignment and, more recently, between West and East.

The events leading up to the current war echoed past crises. In 2013, then-President Viktor Yanukovych abandoned a proposed association agreement with the EU, opting instead for closer ties with Russia. This decision triggered the Euromaidan protests, a ricochet of the Orange Revolution that had taken place a decade earlier. As Yanukovych fled Kyiv, leaving a political vacuum, Russia annexed Crimea. In eastern Ukraine, pro-Russian separatists seized control of government buildings, leading to a violent conflict that, despite ceasefire agreements in 2014 and 2015, has persisted ever since. This is clearly a fight that goes deeper into where Ukraine belongs and if it can build closer ties with Europe and the West without antagonizing Russia. This is the key issue.

We cannot avoid thinking that, just as the Algerian War of Independence was part of a larger shift in global power dynamics, the war in Ukraine reflects Russia’s declining influence. Europe, too, is grappling with its changing role on the world stage, as the US is weakened but remains dominant and China rises. This has led some Western analysts to call for Russia’s removal from international bodies like the UN Security Council, but such a move could have unintended consequences, especially as Russia retains a powerful nuclear arsenal, giving it significant leverage.

Negotiations involving all relevant parties, including representatives from disputed regions, should reset all previous agreements and start now

The path to peace in Ukraine may involve some of the lessons learned from Algeria. Negotiations involving all relevant parties, including representatives from disputed regions, should reset all previous agreements and start now. The terms of a ceasefire should be agreed upon and a new referendum, similar to the one in Algeria, could be held in contested regions to determine their status, provided it is carefully monitored and recognized by all parties. Protecting the rights of both ethnic Russians in Ukraine and Ukrainian nationals in contested regions would be essential.

Any agreement would also have to bring about acceptable conditions that preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty without meddling in its domestic politics. Moreover, for stability and long-term peacebuilding, the country should not be an outpost that becomes a consistent security threat to Russia.

Today, I dare to say that, despite Russia starting the war with its invasion, the ball is in fact in Europe’s court. The EU needs to decide on its future relations with Russia. It is now clear that Moscow will not integrate into the Western operating system unless it is given an impactful voice. And this will not happen, simply because its operating system is incompatible with the Western one. The EU needs Ukraine to be the interoperability switch between the two systems, not the firewall. I for one would say that a country’s sovereignty should allow it to choose whoever it wants to ally with. Whether it is to join NATO or the EU, Russia should not have a say. Yet, Ukraine should understand at what cost it will come.

Some European leaders are going as far as declaring the goal of erasing Russia from the international order and adding that, in a conflict with NATO, it would be defeated in three days. Even if NATO does indeed have military superiority, these declarations are dangerous and unrealistic. In the same way, if the goal is to severely weaken Russia in the event of a future broader conflict, such a strategy will probably lead to the broader war it is looking to prevent. And in the meantime, Ukraine will continue to pay the price of a forever war for which Russia has geared up on all fronts, while the West is still in consumerism mode.

Negotiations do not need a pause in the conflict to start, as we witnessed in the Algerian War of Independence. Yet, if they succeed, they will ultimately reflect the situation on the ground. I am not sure what the front in Ukraine is telling us, but the international geopolitical situation is pretty clear: it is a weakened Western front.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, CEO of EurabiaMedia, and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.