In 2015, Europe helped negotiate the Vienna agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. However, in the current conflict with Iran, the EU no longer plays a significant role.
The debate in the European Parliament this week made one thing clear: Europe is failing to translate its concerns about Iran into influence. Members of the European Parliament debated how the EU should respond to US and Israeli air strikes on Iran, revealing deep divisions within the bloc and its institutions on the issue. The Strasbourg debate revealed a Europe deeply affected by the crisis but barely able to influence it as it would like. “The EU is simply playing absolutely no significant role at the moment,” says Julien Barnes-Dacey, director of the MENA program at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). “Europeans are irrelevant.”
Previously a mediator
The EU previously considered itself a key player in Iran. Since 2006, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has coordinated talks between Washington and Tehran. This process led to the signing in 2015 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Vienna Agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, which set limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Even after the agreement was signed, the EU remained its most important coordinator and advocate.
Now spectators
Much has changed since then. Under the presidency of US President Donald Trump, Washington withdrew from the agreement in 2018, dealing a severe blow to the diplomatic framework that the EU had worked so hard to establish. However, the EU’s loss of influence cannot be attributed solely to Trump, argues Barnes-Dacey.
The EU has neglected the Middle East for years, the expert argues. At the same time, Europeans have become less and less important as key players for Washington and Tehran.
“Neither the US nor the Iranians see Europe as a serious and credible diplomatic mediator,” he tells DW.
Maneli Mirkhan, a Tehran-born analyst living in Paris, also says that Europe has lost its influence. Europe has been too naive for too long, she tells DW. The EU’s focus on diplomacy and sanctions has failed to prevent Iran from developing its military, nuclear and technological capabilities.
The familiar problem: a divided Europe
Mirkhan and Barnes-Dacey agree on one point: Europe’s internal divisions, an old problem, are only making things worse. A common foreign policy still depends heavily on reaching a consensus among member states; but that is difficult to achieve in a rapidly developing security crisis.
Spain has taken a particularly tough stance, denouncing the airstrikes as a violation of international law. On the other hand, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz initially appeared to support the US and Israeli goal of regime change, but then appeared to back down. Germany and France, as well as the United Kingdom, which has not been a member of the EU since 2020, are now urging caution, and linking their calls for restraint to criticism of Iran.
The messages from Brussels are also mixed. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, is pushing for de-escalation, while Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has spoken of a “credible transition” and “new hope” for the Iranian people.
Concern for the transatlantic relationship
The effects of this discord are further exacerbated by the Union’s strategic weakness, according to Barnes-Dacey. He says that Europe has focused its geopolitical energy on Ukraine. The EU, concerned about jeopardizing trade relations and cooperation between the US and the EU in light of Russia’s war against Ukraine, is reluctant to openly oppose Trump on the issue of Iran. “Strategically, the Europeans continue to focus primarily on protecting the transatlantic relationship because they want to make sure that the Americans remain on their side,” Barnes-Dacey concludes.
A paradoxical compromise. On Ukraine, the EU remains an indispensable player, coordinating sanctions, aid and military support. On Iran, the EU is a secondary player. Barnes-Dacey attributes this to geographical realities and priorities: while Ukraine represents an existential security problem in Europe’s immediate neighbourhood, the Middle East, despite the obvious risk of conflict escalation, has slipped down the list of priorities. It also reveals an uncomfortable truth: Europe is still struggling to use its economic weight strategically.
Marginalized
The fact that the EU finds itself in the role of a spectator does not mean that it remains unaffected by the conflict. Europe could pay a high price if Iran is weakened but politically remains unaffected, warns Mirkhan. A prolonged conflict could further increase energy prices, destabilize the Region and increase migratory pressure on Europe. “If we fail to create the conditions for a relatively sustainable transition, the risks for Europeans are very, very high,” Mirkhan emphasizes.
Next role
On this point, the two experts, Mirkhan and Barnes-Dacey, have different positions: Barnes-Dacey has serious doubts that Europe can regain any significant influence without a fundamental change in political will. Mirkhan is more optimistic. While Europe no longer has any real influence in the military phase of the crisis, it can still play an important role if the Islamist regime falls: by supporting opposition groups, mediating dialogue between them and shaping the democratic framework for a possible transition. Europe, according to Mirkhan, must move “from declarative and symbolic actions” to becoming a “driving force.” (DW)