EU Paralysis Over Middle East War Exposes Strategic Failures and Internal Divisions
In a stark admission of geopolitical weakness, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared that "Europe can no longer be a custodian for the old-world order" and must adopt a "more realistic and interest-driven foreign policy." This statement, delivered during a major foreign policy speech, came as missiles rained down on Tehran and southern Iran on the tenth day of the Middle East conflict, underscoring the precarious global environment she described.
Disunity and Muted Responses
The reverberations of the Middle East war have triggered a fragmented and ineffective European response. France has deployed a dozen naval vessels to the Mediterranean and Red Sea, while EU officials convened an ad-hoc summit with Middle Eastern leaders to show solidarity. Humanitarian aid for Lebanon is being dispatched to assist 130,000 people, following the displacement of at least half a million due to Israeli bombs and evacuation orders.
Despite this frenetic activity, Europe's voice has carried no weight on the international stage. As Donald Trump oscillates between conflicting war aims—declaring the conflict "very complete, pretty much" in one moment and "we haven't won enough" in another—Europe's muted calls for restraint have been entirely ignored.
The core issue lies in profound disunity among EU member states. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has taken a solitary stand, refusing "to be complicit in something that is bad for the world and that is also contrary to our values." In stark contrast, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz argued that it was "not the time to lecture partners and allies" on international law.
Criticism from Former Insiders and Analysts
Amid this division, EU officials have issued impersonal calls for diplomacy, an approach that has earned withering criticism from former insiders. A former head of the EU's diplomatic service wrote that Brussels has "slipped into a starkly paralysed role as mere commentator on the geopolitical upheaval on its Southern flank." A second former EU official, who served as the EU's representative to the Palestinian territories, did not hold back, stating, "Europe's response to the American and Israeli strikes on Iran has been shameful: stunned, sidelined, and disunited."
Analysts at the European Council on Foreign Relations concluded that "Europe's collective response has been, at best, a fiasco—and at worst, strategic lunacy." They noted that European officials have called out Iran for its counter-retaliation without referencing the US and Israel's decision to launch a war when facing no immediate threat.
Julien Barnes-Dacey, director of the ECFR's Middle East and North Africa programme, explained the dilemma to the Guardian: "We're stuck in this bizarre situation at the moment where Europeans are treading around Trump with such timidity, out of fear of antagonising him, that they refuse to come out with a meaningful position on the war." He added that while Europeans may not be able to shift dynamics on their own, they could pressure Trump by more assertively stating that the war is a disaster and contrary to European interests.
Leadership Struggles and Diplomatic Tensions
The conflict has also exposed old fault lines over who speaks for Europe on the global stage. In a rebuke to von der Leyen's diplomatic outreach, France accused the commission of usurping the role of EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who operates on a mandate agreed by all 27 member states. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called on the commission to "adhere strictly to the letter and spirit of the EU treaties," without directly naming von der Leyen.
This criticism followed remarks by senior French MEP Nathalie Loiseau, who criticized von der Leyen's telephone diplomacy with Gulf leaders as "NOT your business." However, the critique is not universal. Some EU sources argue that it is important for a commission president to assume leadership during a global crisis, while others see no issue with it. One EU diplomat dismissed the criticism as "just a fig leaf for saying, 'We don't like this, that or the other decision that you took.'"
Debate Over International Law and Strategic Miscalculations
Von der Leyen has created unease with her quickness to embrace regime change in Iran, interpreted as an attempt to stay close to Trump. Kallas, by contrast, has been more cautious, describing a democratic Iran as "the dream scenario" but far from certain. There is a significant nuance in their approaches: von der Leyen appeared to deliver an obituary for the international rules-based order, calling for "new ways of cooperating with partners," while Kallas advocated for a restoration of international law, warning that otherwise "we are doomed to see repeated violations of the law, disruption and chaos."
European Commission Vice-President Teresa Ribera, a Spanish Socialist, issued a public reprimand to von der Leyen, stating that "maybe it was not the most adequate manner to express herself." Ribera emphasized that "international law is a key element of building the European project and the European security." Socialist MEP leader Iratxe García Pérez went further, accusing von der Leyen of failing to defend international law: "If we accept that major powers can bomb whenever they want, then international law ceases to exist and we end up with the law of the jungle."
In response to the criticism, von der Leyen offered a more full-throated defence to MEPs, asserting, "Seeing the world as it is, in no way diminishes our determination to fight for the world as we want it." However, Barnes-Dacey interpreted her call for realism as an attempt to keep Trump on side over Ukraine, describing it as "a tacit acknowledgment of the illegality of this war [on Iran] and Europe's failure and unwillingness to call it out based on a perception that we need to keep Trump happy."
Broader Implications for Ukraine and Global Stability
EU leaders are deeply concerned about the implications of the Middle East conflict for Ukraine, more than four years after Russia's full-scale invasion. Russia stands to gain from higher energy prices, the diversion of air-defence systems and ammunition to the Middle East, and reduced attention to the war it launched on its neighbour. European Council President António Costa starkly noted, "So far, there is only one winner in this war—Russia."
Barnes-Dacey warned that Europe is making "a disastrous strategic miscalculation" in its approach to the Iran war: "For the sake of managing the Ukraine conflict and preventing more trade and economic shocks, they are effectively unwilling to confront Trump on a conflict that is so deeply going to impact their wider interests." As Trump muses about waiving oil sanctions to guarantee supply—potentially including Russia—this strategy appears increasingly doomed.
The European Union's paralysis over the Middle East conflict has laid bare its internal divisions, strategic failures, and a troubling willingness to compromise on international law. With critics labeling the response as shameful and lunatic, the EU faces a critical test of its coherence and influence on the global stage.
