Xhabir Deralla
In cooperation with CIVIL’s Hybrid Threat Monitoring Team (CHTM)

The war in Iran is not a distant crisis. Its consequences are already being felt on Europe’s most vulnerable periphery. The Western Balkans once again finds itself in a familiar situation: political leaders proclaim stability while risks accumulate beneath the surface.

In my previous analysis for CIVIL Media, published on the third day of the Middle East escalation, I warned that the region cannot be viewed as a peripheral zone of global crises. On the contrary, the Balkans is often one of the first areas where global geopolitical shocks translate into economic, political, and security instability.

Recent developments are confirming exactly that thesis.

To better understand the full scale of the risks, CIVIL’s Hybrid Threat Monitoring Team (CHTM) analysed multiple sources and consulted experts from across the region about the security, energy, and information-warfare implications of the crisis.

The war in Iran is not a distant conflict — it is already reshaping the security landscape of Europe’s most fragile periphery. In the Western Balkans, the familiar pattern is repeating itself: stability is declared while instability quietly accelerates.

After convening the National Security Council following the U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran, North Macedonia’s President Gordana Siljanovska Davkova stated that the situation in the country remains stable and secure. Yet in reality, the Western Balkans is entering a period of heightened risk across several fronts.

As a geopolitical frontier of the European Union, the region is among the first to absorb the shockwaves of Middle Eastern escalation.

In this fragile context, Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vučić — while formally maintaining a neutral position and insisting that the country remains stable and secure — once again signalled a degree of distancing from the European Union. Commenting on Europe’s reaction to the strikes on Iran and its insistence that Iran must not possess nuclear weapons, Vučić ironically asked “which god, under international law, is authorised to decide who has the right and who does not,” as reported by RTS.

This rhetoric is familiar and far from accidental. It reflects the broader strategic posture of official Belgrade which, in times of global crisis, contributes to regional instability by creating ambiguity and political fog — dynamics that ultimately benefit Serbia’s political and business elites.

For that reason, it is important to stress that, despite the reassuring statements of political leaders, the Western Balkans is now facing a convergence of serious risks across several interconnected domains.

Energy shock and the new geopolitics of corridors

CIVIL’s early-warning analyses indicate that the warning signals are already clearly visible.

Europe remains highly sensitive to instability in energy prices, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, which are still affected by disrupted supply chains, unresolved infrastructure dependencies, and political disputes over energy routes.

In this context, Professor Aleksandar Ivanov of the Faculty of Security Studies told CIVIL Media that the war in Iran is already producing “tectonic consequences for the global energy market,” while the Western Balkans — as a “still unfinished geopolitical entity” — is especially exposed to these shocks.

According to Ivanov, the crisis cannot be analysed without taking into account the gradual closing of energy valves from the East and the reconfiguration of global energy flows.

“The Budapest–Belgrade axis is already under serious pressure. That is why we are seeing growing efforts to reposition energy corridors — from Alexandroupolis toward Romania, as well as the connection between Burgas and Durrës through Corridor VIII,” Ivanov explains.

These infrastructure routes, he notes, are not merely economic projects but part of a new security architecture.

“These corridors must enable large-scale movement of energy resources, goods, and services — and, if necessary, military equipment. This directly positions North Macedonia as a key transit artery within the emerging security architecture,” Ivanov warns.

A similar assessment was offered by Tonino Picula, a Croatian Social Democratic MEP and member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. Speaking to the Croatian weekly Nacional, Picula warned that the strikes on Iran will have political and economic consequences far beyond the immediate conflict zone.

“There is no doubt that the European Union will once again feel the negative energy effects of this war, and in the Western Balkans certain groups may attempt to further radicalise relations on the local political scene,” Picula said.

Another factor is the role of Turkey, which — after the failed coup attempt a decade ago — has developed significant strategic distrust toward the United States and is seeking to redefine its geopolitical position.

Under such circumstances, geopolitical corridors across Southeast Europe are urgently searching for alternatives to Russian energy routes, as well as ways to bypass existing bottlenecks in supply chains.

No immediate direct security threat, but indirect consequences are already visible

From a security perspective, the risks facing North Macedonia are real, but they take different forms.

According to Professor Oliver Andonov of the Military Academy, speaking to CIVIL Media, the crisis should be analysed along two dimensions: the possibility of direct military threats and security risks stemming from proxy actors.

“The main risk for our country is not a direct missile strike, but the possibility of terrorist attacks or activities by proxy structures as a response to our support for the United States,” Andonov said.

Regarding a direct military threat, he considers the probability limited.

“According to available information, we are at the very edge of the roughly 2,500-kilometre range. North Macedonia hosts no NATO base, and Iran does not possess missiles capable of reaching Bondsteel in Kosovo,” Andonov explains.

A similar assessment was offered by Professor Stevo Pendarovski, former president of North Macedonia, who stated in an interview with Prizma.mk that “there is no imminent danger on our territory.”

“The missiles Iran possesses — even those it threatens to deploy in the future — cannot exceed a range of about 2,000 kilometres while remaining accurate. At most, depending on the launch point in Iran, they could reach somewhere near Sofia,” Pendarovski told Prizma.

However, according to Andonov, the broader strategic consequences could be far more serious.

Escalation in the Middle East will inevitably redirect Western attention, creating space for other actors to expand their influence.

“We are likely to see reduced attention from the EU, the United Kingdom, and the United States toward the Russian hybrid threat, which gives Russia greater room to intensify its activities in the region,” Andonov warns.

Escalation of Russian hybrid operations

Beyond the energy and security risks, the escalation of the conflict in Iran has opened another frontline — information warfare in the region, with long-term consequences for Balkan societies. This process builds on already existing narrative and propaganda ecosystems linked to the concepts of the so-called “Serbian world” and “Russian world,” as well as to broader networks of disinformation and hybrid operations.

CIVIL’s analysis indicates that the escalation in the Middle East is creating strategic space for the Kremlin. As Western attention shifts toward Iran, the focus on Ukraine — and on the Balkans as well — is inevitably reduced.

Russia has already used this moment to intensify hybrid operations through expanded disinformation campaigns, the activation of proxy media networks, and political signalling through aligned actors.

The narratives are familiar: “The West is destabilising the world,” “The EU is weak and divided,” and “Neutrality is the only path.” It has often been noted that Kremlin propaganda consistently translates democratic debate into weakness and disunity, even where there is clear and obvious unity. This undermines public trust in institutions and in the ability of the EU, NATO, and their member states to respond to growing threats.

According to Andonov, these processes may have long-term consequences.

“Even after the Iranian crisis is over, Russian influence in public and political discourse in North Macedonia may deepen further,” he warns.

The main danger in this context does not stem only from direct military threats, but from the manipulation of narratives surrounding the Middle East conflict. The same channels and networks simultaneously instrumentalise developments related to the war in Ukraine, as well as other major processes in Europe and beyond, creating a complex information environment in which facts and propaganda are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish.

Analysts and journalists across the region have long warned that Middle Eastern conflicts are often used as a catalyst for disinformation campaigns in the Balkans, with the aim of fuelling political and social divisions. In such narratives, these conflicts are framed as proof of “Western hypocrisy,” in an effort to undermine support for NATO and the European Union.

In the context of escalating Middle Eastern tensions, the risk cannot be entirely ruled out that Israeli institutions, diplomatic missions, and tourists in the Balkans could become potential targets for proxy actors linked to Iran. Although such scenarios are not considered highly likely, the region does have certain structural vulnerabilities — less developed security infrastructure compared to Western Europe, geographical proximity to the Middle East, and increased activity within the framework of Russian hybrid operations.

Political positions across the region

Political responses in the Western Balkan countries vary, further reflecting the complexity of the region’s geopolitics.

Albania and Kosovo generally maintain a clear diplomatic stance and strong political support for the United States and Israel. Serbia, by contrast, continues its characteristic policy of “balancing,” seeking to preserve economic ties with Israel while at the same time maintaining broader diplomatic flexibility and friendly relations with Iran. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, reactions are divided and often filtered through the country’s complex internal political, ethnic, and religious structure.

North Macedonia, a NATO member, formally expressed solidarity with the United States and Israel through Foreign Minister Timcho Mucunski. However, this positioning comes at a moment when many European governments, as well as EU and NATO institutions, are using far more cautious rhetoric and trying to avoid further escalation of the conflict.

In that context, some regional analysts note that statements from Skopje sound more like political alignment with the positions of Donald Trump and his administration than an expression of deeper diplomatic and strategic orientation.

Although it may not appear so at first glance, this position differs from those of Kosovo and Albania, whose support for Israel and U.S. policies has a different historical and political foundation — deeply rooted in a longstanding alliance with the United States and in the specific context of their relations with Israel.

Ethno-political flashpoints are reactivating

The history of the Balkans shows a clear pattern: external crises tend to reactivate semi-dormant internal conflicts.

According to Andonov, several regional flashpoints may be reactivated, including those that could be triggered by one of the most influential Bosnian Serb figures, Milorad Dodik.

“We can expect rising tensions between Serbia and Kosovo. Bosnia and Herzegovina is particularly vulnerable, where the secessionist policies of leaders such as Dodik could further intensify tensions,” he warns.

Geopolitical analyst Admir Lisica, director of the Sarajevo-based think tank Geopol, told CIVIL Media that the escalation of conflicts on a global level is creating additional security risks for the Balkans.

Under such conditions, he adds, the risk of hybrid operations and economic vulnerability is increasing, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“Global instability always has direct consequences for politically fragile states. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, this may translate into intensified political tensions, economic pressure, and new forms of hybrid influence,” Lisica says.

In North Macedonia, meanwhile, identity-based polarisation — long dominant in public and political discourse — may deepen further under the pressure of external narratives and internal political conflicts.

The likely outcome is not an immediate large-scale conflict, but a condition of prolonged controlled instability.

The Balkans — First to Be Hit, Last to Recover

The Western Balkans is not isolated from global crises. On the contrary, it is often among the first to feel their consequences and among the last to overcome them. The escalation in the Middle East builds on already existing tectonic geopolitical shocks caused by Russia’s prolonged and brutal military aggression against Ukraine, the devastating war in Gaza, the rise of authoritarianism around the world, and hybrid warfare in Europe and beyond.

Under such conditions, risks do not emerge separately — they accumulate and reinforce one another. In the coming period, deeper political instability, information warfare, economic pressure, and new security uncertainties — particularly in the Western Balkans.

That is why, regardless of what politicians say — and no matter how much they seek to portray this crisis as distant or abstract — its consequences are already here.

And however surreal the world may seem today, one thing is certain: the consequences of these shocks will be deep and long-lasting.

The findings and views presented in this analysis are the sole responsibility of the author.
This text was prepared in cooperation with CIVIL’s Hybrid Threat Monitoring Team (CHTM).
© CIVIL MEDIA | All rights reserved