Europe is once again struggling with its position in international diplomacy as tensions in the Middle East rise in the wake of unexpected U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Washington and Tehran have taken center stage, leaving European powers to appear marginalized and mainly ineffectual, even though high-level meetings with Iranian officials were held just days prior to the American military action.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi met with foreign ministers from the E3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas in Geneva on June 20. The goal of the meeting was to defuse the escalating tensions and possibly rekindle the conversation about nuclear and regional security. But no commitment to additional talks was made during the talks, and any shaky momentum was swiftly destroyed when American forces attacked Iranian targets about twenty-four hours later.
European foreign ministers are currently attempting to reassemble in Brussels. In addition to the Middle East’s quickly changing dynamics, they also face internal EU divisions and waning influence over major conflict actors. European officials are facing a harsh reality despite all the meetings, declarations, and diplomatic attempts: they have little credibility and little influence in this most recent escalation between the US, Israel, and Iran.
Washington is vehemently disputing Kallas’ recent assertion that Iran had displayed some signs of openness during the Geneva talks. U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the European-led initiatives, saying European diplomats had done nothing and that Tehran had shown little interest in cooperating. The disparity in viewpoints highlights not only the strategic differences across the Atlantic but also the diminished importance of European diplomacy in Washington’s calculations today.
Washington is vehemently disputing Kallas’ recent assertion that Iran had displayed some signs of openness during the Geneva talks. U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the European-led initiatives, saying European diplomats had done nothing and that Tehran had shown little interest in cooperating. The disparity in viewpoints highlights not only the strategic differences across the Atlantic but also the diminished importance of European diplomacy in Washington’s calculations today.
Once heralded as a turning point in European diplomacy, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is currently in political limbo. The agreement provided Iran with relief from sanctions in return for reducing its nuclear activities, but it fell apart when President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States in 2018. Both Washington and Tehran have since adopted hardline stances, rendering the agreement essentially dead despite President Joe Biden’s attempts to save it.
European officials, however, are hesitant to completely let go. Reporters were recently reminded by Kallas that the JCPOA still has a “snapback” sanctions mechanism that could potentially impose severe penalties on Iran again. However, EU diplomats privately acknowledged that—both politically and strategically—activating such a clause is out of the question.
.
In addition to the nuclear problem, the wider conflict has sparked contentious discussions about potential sanctions against Israel inside the EU. Some capitals are quietly considering enacting an arms embargo or even suspending portions of the EU-Israel trade agreement in response to growing claims of human rights abuses in Gaza. However, it doesn’t seem likely that such measures will be implemented because of the stark differences among EU member states, which make a united front all but impossible.
Europe is walking a geopolitical tightrope while attempting to maintain a balanced approach. In addition to preparing for a crucial NATO summit this summer, the EU is currently working to prevent a transatlantic trade dispute. In light of growing regional instability, European governments are hoping to keep the United States involved in the continent’s defense, particularly as eastern EU members advocate for the maintenance or expansion of U.S. troop levels.
As a precaution against broader repercussions, some EU diplomats even speculate that the resurgent Middle East conflict may lead the United States to bolster its military presence in Europe. However, this is still up for debate, and for now, Europe’s involvement in the Middle East is mainly restricted to de-escalation calls and expressions of concern.
Europe’s current stance is essentially one of cautious observation, caught between wanting to mediate a settlement while wanting to be viewed as an observer. This posture may encourage communication, and bring up previous agreements, but real influence is still out of Europe’s reach.
