Looking at the statements of many Estonian politicians, one gets the impression that our country has a natural obligation to express support for U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran and, if necessary, to be ready to discuss Estonia's contribution to military action should Washington request it.

The political elite speaks of international law and a rules-based world order, but in reality it is justifying aggression, the painful consequences of which are not borne by politicians but mostly by ordinary people — this time directly by residents of the Middle East and indirectly by the entire world, including Europeans.

It is cynical when violence is dressed in the language of "international law," as members of the parliament's Estonia–Israel and Estonia–U.S. parliamentary groups recently did in their joint statement.

For a long time, the handling of Estonia's affairs in the Riigikogu has been characterized by fundamental conflict between the coalition and the opposition, with no ability to reach agreement. Yet now coalition and opposition MPs — such as Eerik-Niiles Kross and Margit Sutrop (Reform Party), Peeter Tali and Kadri Tali (Eesti 200), Raimond Kaljulaid and Ester Karuse (Social Democratic Party), Henn Põlluaas (Isamaa) and all three Helmes (EKRE) — have found rare unity in supporting a foreign state's war of aggression.

It is noteworthy how the joint statement drafted by the leaders of both groups was rushed, meaning that not all of the signatories named in the press release saw the final text. Three of them — Anti Poolamets and Evelin Poolamets (EKRE) and Yoko Alender (Reform) — later decided to withdraw from it. This does not significantly alter the balance between coalition and opposition in the statement, but it does testify to a kind of hasty fragility in foreign policy in a situation where Estonia rather needs attentiveness and balance right now.

The joint statement emphasized reliance on international law, wished success to U.S. and Israeli armed forces and endorsed both countries' military strikes against Iran.

When one country bombs another, it does not automatically become lawful simply because the attacker is someone's ally. If Estonian politicians like this attack politically or strategically, they should say so honestly — but pretending that every U.S. or Israeli bomb is automatically a triumph of international law is a lie.

International law is not a buffet from which one picks only those principles that happen to suit current geostrategic preferences. If we speak of sovereignty, territorial integrity, a rules-based world order, the permissibility of military aggression and limits on the use of force, these principles must apply equally even when the threat or use of force comes from our ally. Otherwise, we are not defending international law — we are simply using its language as propaganda.

Although there are almost no public opponents of the U.S. and Israeli war among Estonia's top politicians and opinion leaders and supporters can be found in the leadership of nearly all parliamentary parties (with the possible exception of the Center Party), most Estonians do not believe their rhetoric. According to a Norstat survey conducted in March among Estonian residents aged 18–74, only 12.8 percent of respondents approve of U.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran, while 59.1 percent do not.

This is not a case of "society being split down the middle," but rather a very clear majority opposition. Even more telling is another figure from the same survey: only 7.3 percent believe these strikes have a positive impact on Estonia's security, while 57.4 percent see their impact as negative.

Estonia's political elite talks about strengthening security and advancing Estonia's direct national interests, while Estonian people see additional risk — and rightly so, as there are no signs that destabilizing activity in the Middle East serves Estonia's interests.

The gap becomes even more embarrassing when looking at how political forces that call themselves national and conservative and emphasize Estonia's independence behave on this issue. It is precisely from EKRE leaders that the most enthusiastic and sweeping readiness to endorse any adventure by Donald Trump comes, while their voters are far less hawkish.

According to the survey, among EKRE voters there are two and a half times fewer supporters of U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran than opponents (19 percent in favor, 44 percent against). Among Isamaa voters, supporters are half as many as opponents (25 percent in favor, 49 percent against).

In other words, even where political rhetoric tends to be most flamboyant, the electorate is by no means ready to welcome escalation in the Middle East with the same fervor. The survey results highlight that Estonians' views on this issue are not determined by left- or right-wing orientation, nor by support for globalism or nationalism.

One may therefore ask whether the policies of the Estonian state and parliamentary parties serve the sober self-preservation of the Estonian people or the obsessions and wishful thinking of the political elite.

Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna's statement that, from Estonia's perspective, "it cannot be said that this war there is not also our war" contains a one-sided political calculation. Tsahkna has also said that Estonia is ready to discuss sending its forces to the Strait of Hormuz with the U.S. Thus, he appears prepared to tie Estonia to this conflict and assume responsibility on behalf of the Estonian state.

The majority of Estonians likely do not agree. Estonia is not a U.S. state or Israel's press office, but an independent country that should have its own dignity, sense of proportion and judgment. When the foreign minister begins to speak as if Estonia is already mentally halfway involved in the next Middle Eastern war, this is not strategic maturity but a reflex of subordination.

This reflex of subordination has become customary in Estonia. For decades, we have been told the same simplified interpretation of history: that in 1939–1940, Estonia's great mistake was ending up alone. From this, the conclusion has been drawn that one must follow every geopolitical line of any major ally at all costs or history will repeat itself. This conclusion is not only childish but also dangerous.

Much can be criticized about Konstantin Päts's authoritarian regime, but not that it failed to tie Estonia to the "right" great ally in 1939. Because who would that ally realistically have been? Practically the only serious option would have been Nazi Germany. And frankly, it is better not to try and imagine what Estonia's fate would have been if our "strategic wisdom" had meant hitching ourselves to Berlin at the time.

What cannot be said, however, is that we used all opportunities back then to form a strong regional military-political alliance. That is the real lesson of history: a small state's path to survival is not blind alignment with every great power's military ambitions, but realistic situational awareness. In today's context, this should mean closer, more concretely structured alliances with our Baltic neighbors, as well as Finland and Poland. Our natural allies — the ones we are most likely to trust — are those whose interests and circumstances are similar to our own.

Of course, Estonia needs NATO and also allies among major powers, but an alliance does not mean self-abasement. Sycophants are respected nowhere. States do not have emotions like compassion in foreign policy and flattery does not change a great power's interests.

An alliance does not mean claiming every war as one's own or declaring every allied airstrike a victory for international law. Nor does it mean Estonian ministers should run after great powers like over-eager interns hoping for a pat on the back in return for loyalty.

Estonia has already demonstrated and affirmed its loyalty — for example, by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. If our ally suddenly forgets this, it speaks about the ally, not about us. We did not go there because those countries threatened Estonia or because the Estonian public demanded participation in those wars.

We went to demonstrate loyalty, because the elite considered that demonstration a strategic virtue. To justify participation in the invasion of Iraq, at least two Estonian ministers assured the public that Iraq did indeed possess weapons of mass destruction — the claim used to justify the attack globally. What was the result? Iraq was shattered and the region destabilized. This was done with Estonia's participation and in Estonia's name. The existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has still not been proven.

In the United States, there are clearly fewer supporters of the current strikes against Iran than opponents (according to one recent survey, 43 percent versus 53 percent of voters; other surveys put support below 30 percent). Nor are there other countries where reliable data shows more supporters of this war than opponents — with one exception: Israel.

Yet Estonia's state authorities have received their mandate from the Estonian people, not from any other country's public. Security guarantees should not be confused with a security lottery, nor realpolitik with staking all hopes on a single card. People do not see the bombing of Iran as increasing Estonia's security, nor do they want Estonia to become another example of hypocritical moral grandstanding and military toadying. Estonia needs reason, backbone and dignity.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!