Hell is truth seen too late.
Thomas Hobbes
The Russian invasion of Ukraine fundamentally reshaped Europe’s geopolitical outlook, not only within its immediate neighbourhood but also across regions such as the Middle East. This transformation was further accelerated by the return of Donald Trump to the White House, which signalled a shift toward a more unilateral and less predictable US foreign policy.
In response, European states began recalibrating their external relations, seeking deeper engagement with the Global South and attempting to reduce their longstanding security and economic dependence on the US. However, in the absence of a coherent grand strategy - one capable of clearly defining allies, adversaries, and strategic priorities - Europe’s external posture has become increasingly fragmented, reactive, and paradoxical.
This article examines Europe’s policy toward the Middle East, identifies its structural weaknesses, and argues that without a shift toward a coherent, autonomous strategy grounded in raison d’état, Europe risks further marginalisation in regional and global affairs.
Europe’s policy on the Middle East
Following the war in Ukraine, European states intensified their engagement with Middle Eastern energy producers to diversify away from Russian resources and enhance economic cooperation. While this shift reflected pragmatic adaptation, Europe’s approach towards Iran remained strategically constrained. European policy toward Iran has been shaped less by independent strategic calculation and more by its alignment with US preferences and concerns over Iran’s ties with Russia.
As a result, Europe has failed to articulate a consistent and constructive policy toward Tehran. This absence of strategic clarity has led to reactive and, at times, contradictory positions. Moreover, some European policymakers appear to underestimate the severe consequences of destabilisation in Iran - ranging from large-scale migration flows toward Europe to severe disruptions in global energy markets.
Such risks underscore the necessity of a more nuanced and forward-looking policy framework. The ongoing attacks of the US and Israel against Iran are rooted in a misperception of the so-called “resistance axis” as structurally weakened. This flawed assessment has fostered the belief that military pressure could compel compliance or even facilitate regime change.
However, recent developments suggest that such expectations were overly optimistic. The strategic ambitions of Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump have instead contributed to escalating instability, effectively opening a “pandora’s box” whose long-term consequences remain uncertain.
The two structural deficiencies
Europe’s diminishing influence in the Middle East can be traced to two structural deficiencies: dependence on the US and the absence of a coherent, unified strategic approach.
Firstly, Europe’s reliance on the US for security and economic stability has significantly constrained its strategic autonomy. Even in critical cases such as Ukraine and Iran, European initiatives have often been subordinated to US policy preferences. This dependency has not only limited Europe’s room for manoeuvre but has also exposed it to strategic vulnerabilities stemming from shifts in US policy.
Secondly, internal divisions among European states have produced a pattern of inconsistency and indecision. While Europe once played a central mediating role - most notably in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - it is now widely perceived as a secondary actor, largely confined to issuing statements of concern. This dual weakness has resulted in a form of strategic passivity.
Europe has struggled to respond rapidly and decisively to crises, thereby undermining both its credibility and effectiveness. In the case of US-Israeli invasion, Europe’s passive approach has translated into political marginalisation and economic costs, while simultaneously eroding trust from multiple actors.
The balance of power as a strategic imperative
A durable regional order cannot emerge in the absence of balance. While US and Israeli policymakers frequently invoke the notion of “peace through strength,” historical experience suggests that sustainable peace is more closely associated with a stable balance of power.
The lessons of the Thirty Years’ War demonstrate that attempts to eliminate rival powers often prolong conflict rather than resolve it. Similarly, the contrast between the post-Napoleonic Wars settlement and the aftermath of World War 1 illustrates the importance of constructing not merely a balance, but a just balance.
Europe possesses the potential to act as a stabilising force in the Middle East. However, this requires the adoption of a coherent grand strategy grounded in realistic assessments of power and interest. Such a strategy should enable Europe to function as a credible and neutral mediator capable of facilitating equilibrium among regional actors.
At present, however, there exists a clear gap between rhetoric and action. While European institutions emphasise diplomacy as the only viable solution, their passive alignment with US-Israeli initiatives has, in practice, narrowed diplomatic space.
The choice facing Europe
Europe now faces a fundamental strategic choice: the first is to deepen dependence on the United States, aligning closely with its Middle East policies, even at the cost of strategic autonomy; the second is to pursue a more independent course, which may involve engagement with actors such as Iran despite normative and political challenges.
Neither option is without cost. However, maintaining the current ambiguous posture is no longer viable if Europe seeks to remain a meaningful actor in global politics. Crucially, any strategic shift must be based on consensus among major European states. Without internal cohesion, even the most well-designed strategy will fail in implementation.
In politics, having to choose between imperfect alternatives is inevitable. For Europe, the Middle East represents not merely a regional challenge but a test case for its broader role in an evolving international order.
The decline of unipolarity and the erosion of the liberal international order demand that Europe rethinks its strategic posture. This requires enhancing both hard and soft power capabilities, developing mechanisms for rapid decision-making, and fostering greater internal coordination. Without such reforms, Europe risks continued marginalisation. With them, it may yet re-emerge as a consequential and autonomous actor capable of shaping outcomes - rather than merely reacting to them.
Follow the comments:
|
