A debate this week in the European Parliament this week made one thing clear: When it comes to Iran, Europe is struggling to turn concern into influence.
Members of Parliament argued over how the EU should respond to the US-Israeli strikes against Iran, a sign of starkly exposed divisions across the bloc and within the EU’s own institutions. The picture that emerged in Strasbourg was one of a Europe deeply affected by the crisis, but far less able to shape it than it would like.
“The EU has absolutely no meaningful role at the moment. Full stop,” said Julien Barnes-Dacey, director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The Europeans are irrelevant.”
Once a broker
The EU once saw itself as a key diplomatic actor on Iran. Since 2006, the EU High Representative, responsible for dealing with the bloc’s external relations, coordinated talks between Washington and Teheran, a process that led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, designed to limit Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. After the deal was signed, the EU remained its main coordinator and defender.
Now a bystander
Much has changed since then. US President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the agreement in 2018, dealing a major blow to the diplomatic framework Europe had invested in. But Barnes-Dacey argues Europe’s loss of relevance cannot be explained by Trump alone.
In his view, the bloc has for years deprioritised the Middle East, while both Washington and Teheran have increasingly stopped seeing Europeans as central players.
“Neither the US nor the Iranians look to Europe to be a serious and credible diplomatic mediator,” he told DW.
Analyst Maneli Mirkhan, who was born in Teheran and is based in Paris, shares the view that Europe has lost ground. However, she told DW that Europe was too naïve for too long. While focusing on diplomacy and sanctions, she said, the bloc failed to stop Iran from advancing military, nuclear and technological capabilities.
The familiar problem: Europe is divided
Both experts agree on one point: Europe’s familiar problem of internal division has made matters worse. EU foreign policy still depends heavily on consensus among member states, and that is hard to come by in a fast-moving security crisis.
Spain has taken the toughest line, condemning the strikes as a violation of international law. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz intially appeared to endorse the US-Israeli goal of regime change before rowing back. Germany, France and the UK now urge more caution, pairing calls for restraint with criticism of Iran.
Brussels has also sent mixed messages: The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas has focused on de-escalation, while Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has spoken of a “credible transition” and “renewed hope” for Iranians.
The bigger picture
For Barnes-Dacey, the effects of this disunity are compounded by strategic weakness. Europe, he said, has focused its geopolitical energy on Ukraine. The bloc has been reluctant to confront Trump on Iran for fear of undermining cooperation on trade between the US and the EU and on Russia’s war against Ukraine. “The Europeans remain strategically focused on protecting the transatlantic relationship above all else because they want to ensure the Americans stay aligned with them.”
The trade-off is paradoxical. On Ukraine, the EU has remained an indispensable actor, coordinating sanctions, aid and military support. On Iran, by contrast, it looks peripheral. Barnes-Daceyattributes this to geography and priorities: Ukraine is treated as an existential security issue in Europe’s immediate neighbourhood; the Middle East, despite its obvious spillover risks, has slipped down the list. But it also reflects a harder truth: Europe still struggles to use its economic weight strategically.
Sidelined, but impacted
Yet, being sidelined does not mean remaining untouched. Mirkhan warned that Europe could end up paying a high price if Iran is left badly weakened but politically intact. A prolonged conflict could drive up energy costs further, destabilise the region and create new migration pressures on Europe. “If we don’t manage to create conditions for a relatively stable transition, then the risks are very, very high for Europeans,” she said.
A role to play
This is where the two analysts diverge most clearly. Barnes-Dacey is deeply sceptical that Europe can recover meaningful influence without a major shift in political will. Mirkhan is more optimistic. She argues that while Europe is no longer central to the military phase of the crisis, it could still play an important role in what comes after the Islamic Republic if the regime falls: supporting opposition figures, facilitating dialogue between them, and helping shape the democratic framework of a possible transition. In her words, Europe should move “from declarative and symbolic actions to more of a driving force.”
For Barnes-Dacey, the situation is clear. If this were a test of whether the EU is a meaningful geopolitical actor, then “Europe has failed.” The Iran crisis is exposing once again the gap between Europe’s geopolitical ambitions and its ability to act on them. On Ukraine, the union has shown that it can still matter when it speaks in once voice. On Iran, it has yet to prove that it can be more than a bystander.
