With the current escalation of conflict in the Middle East, following the Israeli war on Gaza and Lebanon, which has been accompanied by mutual escalation between Israel and Iran, as well as the continued targeting of shipping in the Red Sea, questions arise about Europe’s stance on these developments that affect its interests. While European leaders are making efforts to prevent a broader and more comprehensive war in the region, European involvement in this conflict has been met with numerous constraints and challenges.
Risks of Escalation:
There is no doubt that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East will have dangerous repercussions for Europe’s interests and security, given the geographical and historical ties between the two regions, which necessitates a reevaluation of European strategies in the area. As the scale of this conflict broadens, its consequences and risks to Europe include the following:
Security Implications: The security threats that Europe faces through the Middle East include migration and terrorism. Historical precedents show that instability in the region and rising violence often increase pressure on migration to Europe. Furthermore, the threat of terrorism linked to groups more active in conflict zones remains a major security concern for Europe. These two threats provide fertile ground for populist parties in Europe to build their popularity, which has destabilized the foundations of many European political systems. Therefore, Europe needs to address these threats at their source to avoid negative repercussions.
Geopolitical Consequences: Despite the geographical proximity and historical connections between the Middle East and Europe, European influence in the region has diminished over recent years. Regardless of the reasons for this decline, the expanding scope of regional conflict could encourage other international powers, particularly Russia and China, alongside the United States, to expand their influence in the area, affecting European interests and limiting its diplomatic actions. The double standards of Europe, especially its stance on the Israeli war on Gaza compared to its reaction to the Russian war on Ukraine, have damaged its credibility and may lead to strained relationships with Global South countries.
Economic Losses: The continuation of the conflict in the Middle East poses significant economic risks for Europe; disruptions in oil supply chains from the region may lead to soaring energy prices. At the end of October 2023, following the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza, the World Bank warned that this conflict could lead to a global “shock,” including rising oil prices up to $150 per barrel, which would exacerbate inflation and increase the cost of goods like grains, as well as economic instability across Europe, in addition to rising shipping costs as ships avoid missile attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea. Moreover, the broadening regional conflict could negatively impact foreign investment in the area, which would affect European companies with economic interests there.
On the other hand, although European economic relations with Israel are particularly significant, continued escalation may lead to calls for revising trade agreements with Israel. For instance, Spain’s call on October 14 for the EU to suspend its free trade agreement with Israel was based on the argument that it “may violate the human rights clause included in the agreement.” This would further increase the negative repercussions of the conflict on Europe amid the energy crisis it has been trying to navigate since the outset of the Ukraine war.
Two Main Paths:
The aforementioned risks indicate that Europe, perhaps more than other international players, urgently needs to halt the escalating conflict in the region or at least mitigate its intensity to avoid dangerous consequences beyond Europe’s capacity to handle. Nevertheless, European efforts have been a continuation of the usual line of European thinking in dealing with recurring crises in the region, limited to two main paths:
Diplomatic Efforts for a Ceasefire: European diplomatic efforts have centered around the necessity of a ceasefire and avoiding an expanded conflict in the region. Consequently, European capitals, including Paris, Berlin, and Rome, have proactively engaged with regional actors such as Israel, Iran, and Lebanon. France and Italy, which have stationed troops in Lebanon as part of the UN Interim Force “UNIFIL,” are particularly invested in maintaining stability in the area. Moreover, Joseph Borrell, the EU’s High Representative, has been explicit about the need for an immediate ceasefire and has urged all relevant parties to adhere to their international legal responsibilities. While the EU clearly supports what it calls “Israel’s right to defend itself,” it also constantly emphasizes the importance of protecting civilians and ensuring humanitarian access in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Providing Humanitarian Aid: In response to the humanitarian crisis aggravated by the war on Gaza, the EU has significantly increased its assistance to affected populations in the territory to 103 million euros for 2023, including the launch of a humanitarian airbridge to facilitate the delivery of food, medical supplies, and more. In 2024, the total European humanitarian assistance for needy Palestinians in Gaza and throughout the region reached 193 million euros, according to a statement from the EU on April 26. Additionally, the EU committed over 104 million euros in humanitarian aid to Lebanon amid the ongoing war between Hezbollah and Israel. This reflects the nature of the European approach in attempting to alleviate the suffering of those affected in conflict zones.
However, these two European paths have not succeeded in easing the intensity of the conflict in the region. Nonetheless, they remain the only paths through which a consensus or unity can be achieved among European countries, especially in light of divisions among them since the outbreak of the conflict regarding responses to its developments and varying European biases, which have necessarily hindered the ability to formulate a unified European stance on this conflict.
Within this context, a pressing question arises about Europe’s fundamental capability to influence the course of regional conflict, and if so, what options does it possess that could enable it to exert such influence? What challenges does it face in achieving this goal?
European Constraints:
Europe has a range of options and tools through which it might press Israel to halt or at least reduce its escalation, including the option of halting European arms exports to Israel. This option is currently being advocated by Spain and France as “the only lever that can today put an end to what is happening,” according to statements made by French President Emmanuel Macron during the “Med 9” summit in Cyprus on October 11. A second option might involve leveraging economic influence by halting the free trade agreement with Tel Aviv, for instance, or at least suspending it and reviewing it until the conflict calms, as Spain has recently called for.
Theoretically, these options could be effective in steering the course of the conflict towards de-escalation, but practically, Europe may find it difficult to resort to them for several reasons, outlined as follows:
Consensus Issues: For these decisions to be effective, they must be made at the level of the EU, not on an individual state basis. The problem here is that the decision-making dynamic in the EU operates by consensus, which will necessarily hinder taking such steps, given the existing divisions among European countries over the conflict in the region and the varying interests of member states. Additionally, one of the motivations behind France’s recent “sharp” approach towards Israel is linked to Israeli threats against European UNIFIL troops in Lebanon and demands for the evacuation of their premises, followed by an attack on them on October 14.
Diminished Influence: The strategic status of the EU in terms of influence over Middle Eastern developments has declined, not just concerning the current conflict, in favor of other international powers, particularly the United States, Russia, and China. There is no doubt that Europe itself is cognizant of this reality, especially amid growing divisions among its member states over most foreign policy issues, which directly limits the possibility of undertaking a unified and effective independent European role during crises. As a result, European focus often shifts towards attempting to influence other key players in the region, such as the United States and certain regional actors, hoping they will exert greater pressure on Israel and the other parties in conflict, thereby sparing the region from the consequences of the current war’s escalation.
Energy Factors: As Europe moves towards diversifying its energy sources and reducing reliance on Russia primarily, Israel has emerged as one alternative for gas procurement, alongside other options, especially given the ongoing Ukrainian war and the associated tightening of Western sanctions on Moscow. Therefore, this energy variable may also limit Europe’s capacity to act and pressure Israel to halt its current escalation.
In conclusion, this analysis suggests that European nations may not be able to do much more than what they are currently doing in the ongoing crises in the Middle East. In other words, Europe’s role will likely remain confined to providing additional humanitarian aid to those affected by the current regional conflict and making “timid” political calls for a ceasefire, despite being one of the parties impacted by the ongoing and escalating situation, which poses political, economic, and security risks. As long as Europe cannot leverage its influence and pressure tools, reliance on a decisive European role in the current regional tensions seems unlikely.
