No more bets. War comes on top of war and the whole Middle East is being engulfed. Having left Gaza in ruins, the Israeli government opened up a new front on 13 June, this time against Iran, having given Washington advance notice. Then, on 22 June, the American superpower dropped anti-bunker bombs on the Iranian nuclear sites of Fordo, Natanz and Ispahan. President Trump immediately launched an impassioned plea for peace, but the ‘Guardians of the Revolution’ pledged revenge: this new war is only just beginning. It may take various forms. Governments of the neighbouring countries condemned the bombings, calling for de- escalation. Meanwhile, another superpower continues its war of attrition against Ukraine and the civil war in Sudan rumbles on, causing one of the worst humanitarian crises, to the indifference of the Western media.
In 1940, the fateful interplay of existing alliances set in train a series of events leading to the First World War. This was mostly played out between Europeans, as was the second. We must now hope for de-escalation, a word that can be heard repeatedly from those not involved in the war. Does Europe have a contribution to make to this? Or is it simply on the sidelines?
Most intelligent observers consider that only the United States of America has the power to influence Israel’s and Iran’s decisions. Russia is keeping a very close eye on developments in the region, to the point that it has proposed mediation that nobody really believes in. In January of this year, it signed a ‘global strategic pact’ with Iran for 20 years. Iranian drones have been used in the war on Ukraine. The Sultanate of Oman, the official mediator in the nuclear dossier dispute, is calling for peace, but is in no position to impose it. Straight-line thinkers may deduce from this that only the two superpowers can ever be in a position to impose peace. After all, hasn’t a deal between Rwanda and DRC that was brokered by the US just been initialled?
‘A united Europe was not achieved and we had war’, said Robert Schuman in his major speech launching the ECSC. He was referring to the European Federation project proposed in 1930 by Aristide Briand (1926 Nobel Peace Prize winner). Achieving Europe was the path to peace and it had the desired results, as France and Germany reconciled and the member countries of Community Europe no longer went to war with each other, despite successive enlargements and differing sensibilities. The internal borders were made stable. This was not always necessarily the case with external players. The European Union looked on helplessly at the wars in Yugoslavia, just on its doorstep. It was endlessly divided over the war in Iraq. These differences without were assigned to the structural deficit, which the Common Foreign and Security Policy set out to remedy, pieced together little by little out of the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.
In 2012, the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its contribution ‘to the advancement of peace, reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe over six decades’ (see EUROPE 10709/8). It should be noted that the official point of the prize is to be awarded to ‘the person [or community] who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses’ – without referring to any specific region of the world. As Nobel prize-winner, the EU is under a moral obligation to militate for peace outside its own turf.
Furthermore, article 3.5 TEU stipulates that in its relations with the rest of the world, the EU shall ‘contribute to peace, security […], solidarity and mutual respect among peoples […] and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter’.
Obviously, these values are rarely breached in straightforward circumstances. In the case of the annexation of Crimea, the international community failed, but in the case of the war on Ukraine, the EU did its duty. In Sudan, it is providing generous – and risky – humanitarian aid (see EUROPE 13651/35), even though it was not able to propose a peace plan. As for Afghanistan, the decision to withdraw the forces of the international coalition was imposed by Washington as a matter of urgency.
When it comes to the deeply rooted drama in the Middle East, the Europeans were shocked by the dreadful attack carried out by Hamas on Israel on 7 October 2023, triggering a full-scale reaction by the Hebrew state. Politically, they have espoused the two-state solution (without going into detail on the modus operandi), but only 12 member states of the EU recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. This does not stop the EU from being the largest donor of development aid to Palestine. Its humanitarian aid over the period 2023-2024 stands at 1.5 billion euros, but due to the blockade on the ground in Gaza that has been in place by decision of the Israeli government for the last four months, this aid does not always reach its destination and is not enough to cover all needs.
As the press has not been able to enter the enclave since October 2023, information leaks out of Gaza only sporadically (see EUROPE 13651/27). It is, however, well known that the relentlessness of the Israeli army in Gaza, attacks on civilian targets, including children, and the desperate shortage of water, food and appropriate health care articles constitute serious infringements of human dignity and could be described as verging on genocidal, as experts, witnesses and even certain Israeli citizens believe. At its meeting on 20 March 2025, the European Council called for the immediate resumption of humanitarian aid to the enclave. It is expected to renew its calls at this week’s meeting (see EUROPE 13661/33).
Public opinion has made itself known in many of the world’s capital cities. Various forms of anti-Semitism have re-emerged. The staff of the principal institutions of the EU issued a memorandum replete with arguments in favour of concrete actions in the form of bringing pressure to bear on the Israeli government (see EUROPE 13655/19). Israeli society is torn asunder, particularly as many feel that the government has not done enough to bring hostages home. But the unexpected outbreak of war with Iran has helped re-forge ties within Israeli society.
The European Union is extremely divided over the attitude it should adopt towards Israel, which continues to enjoy strong support in central Europe and in the Baltic states. Additionally, the EU is the world’s largest trade partner of the Hebrew state, which sends a third of its exports to Europe and receives 40% of its imports from it. The entities are connected by an association agreement, article 2 of which is devoted to human rights. Those in favour of sanctions against Israel take this article as their basis. There are calls to boycott Israeli products or, at the very least, products stemming from the colonisation of the West Bank, which many consider illegal. This camp is also calling for an embargo on weapons exports (see EUROPE 13663/21).
On 21 November 2024, the ‘International Criminal Court’ issued arrest warrants for Hamas and the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, for crimes against humanity. At the time, it was an argument for the EU to toughen its stance; however, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, welcomed Netanyahu into his country, where he was not arrested (see Europe 13623/31).
All of this highlights the absence of a common EU foreign policy, which requires the unanimous agreement of the member states, which are nowhere near ready to drop this requirement. The position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was created to allow the EU to speak with a single voice. This voice has yet to speak on anything other than generalities (see EUROPE 13662/1). The diplomatic power of the EU is therefore purely rhetorical, be it on the subject of Iran (see EUROPE 13659/14) or Gaza (see EUROPE 13664/19).
With the support of its excellent army and intelligence service, the highly effective Mossad, Israel has been able to eliminate the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, moving on to the scientific and political apparatus of the Iranian regime, which supported the aforementioned movements. It is beyond doubt that Iran had plans that were a threat the safety of the Hebrew state, whose right to defend itself therefore made a comeback to the vocabularies of Western leaders. Having cut off the arms of the ‘octopus’, it went for its head. It appealed to the Iranian population to throw off the yoke of the theocratic dictatorship. There are sympathies for this population in the West, but there is nothing to guarantee the fall of the regime.
In their quest for peace in Ukraine, the two superpowers are hoping to impose their own way, but President Zelenskyy does not see things that way: the European Union must be at the negotiating table and it wants to be there too, if for no other reason than because of its immediate proximity. This is not the case in the Middle East. The Palestinians are disappointed in Europe and Israel has no expectations of it. Neither, obviously, does Iran. The EU can offer money, but beyond that, it will be a spectator – an upsetting paradox, given that it brought Israel into the world.
In her acceptance speech of the Charlemagne prize in Aachen on 29 May this year (see EUROPE 13651/23), the President the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, called for an independent Europe, ‘a new form of Pax Europeana for the 21st century, shaped and managed by Europe itself’, democratic, ‘open and ready to engage with the world’.
It seems to me that this can only be done if it invests in its own defence, is a respected power, well equipped right down to its intelligence services and capable of bringing about peace deals between third countries. I would like to point out here that the European project was based on a reconciliation, after years and years of horror, between two peoples who hated each other. If this reconciliation was possible here, against all expectations, then it is possible elsewhere.
The Europeans can help them to do this. After all, they memorised the instruction manual… didn’t they?
Renaud Denuit