Europe’s wavering positioning on Israel-Iran conflict hasn’t helped. Here is why

The continuing Israel-Iran tensions have increased fears that the conflict could lead to a greater regional crisis. The US joining the fray added another layer of brinkmanship. The crisis has once again exposed the European Union’s weaknesses in general and, in particular, the limits of influence of the European leadership. The initial reactions acknowledged the right of Israel to defend itself against any attack, and at the same time urged both sides to refrain from actions that could lead to further escalation.

The conflict has left the EU unsure of its role in the regional political dynamics. This situation is not new: the EU’s leverage in the Middle East—more in terms of economic ties than credible alliances or political clout—has reduced in the past decade. This has created an image of EU—and Europe as a whole—as a bystander in the region.

This has not always been the case. France and Saudi Arabia had planned a conference on two-state solution that could have lead to Paris recognising Palestinian statehood, and the EU had launched the internal review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement that indicated that Tel Aviv had breached its human rights obligations in Gaza. While there is no love lost with Iran, European countries have been vocal against Tehran’s nuclear programme. They have unequivocally supported the need to resolve the Iranian nuclear question through diplomacy.

But the picture has changed today. Europe was sidelined by US President Donald Trump when he launched direct negotiations with Iran; Europe has consistently failed to come to a comprehensive position on the conflicts in the region; and there is no clarity on the date of the said France-Saudi Arabia conference. Therefore, the EU faces an uphill task—not only assert itself in the region, but also keep its 27 member states aligned.

Old divisions have reemerged, with some European countries in favour of Israel’s “right to self-defence”, while others arguing that “there was not sufficient evidence that Israel has the right under international law” to attack Iran. Hence, they are struggling to reach a common position, yet remain united on one key issue—Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has reiterated that Israel has the right to defend itself, saying Iran was “the main source of regional instability”. “Europe has always been clear: Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon,” she said, calling for a negotiated solution. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz praised Israel for doing the “dirty work” of containing Iran’s nuclear threat, while France has warned that trying to force a regime change in Iran through military means “would lead to chaos”. Spain has called for an arms embargo on Israel, and Norway said attacks that breach international law “set back efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear programme”.

Despite the overall agreement on the need to deescalate, EU member states are unable to agree on a unified diplomatic approach towards Iran and Israel. This has drawn criticism from Ali Bahreini, Iran’s ambassador and permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, who said “the minimum Europeans can do is to very explicitly condemn Israel and stop their support for Israel”. On the other hand, Haim Regev, Israeli ambassador to EU and NATO, highlighted that despite the “different tones” from Europe the Israeli government had “a continuous and intensive interaction” with the EU. Adding that Israel was also “engaged in an existential struggle by defending against the shared enemies of the west”.

In short, due to its political wavering, Europe has neither improved its standing with Israel, nor shored up its credibility as a diplomatic broker with Iran.

The E3/EU meeting (which includes representatives from the UK, France, Germany and the EU) with officials from Iran on June 20 aimed to deescalate the conflict. The talks ended on a hopeful note, but there was no indication of any breakthrough. A joint statement by the E3/EU released after the talks reiterated their “longstanding concerns about Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme” and expressed “their willingness to continue discussing all questions relevant to Iran’s nuclear programme and broader issues”.

European leadership was hoping for a diplomatic breakthrough within the next two weeks—a deadline set by Trump for direct involvement against Iran. While the talks did not yield any concrete results, the US’s early involvement in Iran on June 22 has further highlighted the transatlantic rift. For now, the US and Europe seem to have one issue of agreement: Iran’s nuclear programme. Despite this concern, the US has increasingly sidelined Europe—not only in Iran but also in Ukraine and Gaza—reinforcing Europe’s image of a bystander.

A rapidly changing Middle East is threatening Europe’s critical interests such as migration, counter-terrorism, energy security and safety of trade routes. An escalation risks dealing a blow to diplomacy and pushing the entire region to the brink—with Iran destabilising or following through with its nuclear weaponisation. With the US intervention in the conflict, the situation will continue to make choices harder for Europe. The continent’s leaders need to make a stronger and more viable case that a nuclear deal for Iran remains a possibility that is better than a devastating war.

The author is assistant professor, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.