European union is (un)able?

The debate in the European Parliament this week made one thing clear: when it comes to Iran, the European Union is struggling to turn its concerns into influence.Members of Parliament discussed how the EU should respond to the American-Israeli strikes on Iran &mdash; a sign of obvious divisions across the Union, but also within its own institutions. The scene in the parliamentary chamber in Strasbourg reflected a European Union deeply affected by the crisis and far less capable of shaping it than it would like.&ldquo;The European Union currently has absolutely no significant role. Period. Europeans are irrelevant,&rdquo; says Julien Barnes-Dacey, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a Berlin-based think tank. EPA/OLIVIER MATTHYS Once a mediatorThe European Union was once one of the key diplomatic actors when it came to Iran. Since 2006, the EU&rsquo;s High Representative for foreign affairs coordinated talks between Washington, D.C. and Tehran. The process ultimately led to the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 &mdash; an agreement designed to limit Iran&rsquo;s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. After the deal was signed, the EU served as its main coordinator and defender.Now just an observerMuch has changed since then. U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the agreement in 2018, dealing a major blow to the diplomatic framework in which the EU had invested heavily. But Julien Barnes-Dacey argues that the EU&rsquo;s loss of relevance cannot be explained by Trump alone.In his view, the EU neglected the Middle East for years, while Washington and Tehran increasingly stopped seeing Europeans as central players.&ldquo;Neither the United States nor the Iranians see Europe as a serious and credible diplomatic mediator,&rdquo; Barnes-Dacey told European Council on Foreign Relations&rsquo;s outlet DW. Eduardo Parra / ContactoPhoto / ProfimediaAnalyst Manelii Mirkan, who was born in Tehran and lives in Paris, shares the view that the European Union has lost its footing. She tells DW that the EU has been too naive for too long: although it focused on diplomacy and sanctions, the Union failed to prevent Iran from advancing its military, nuclear, and technological capabilities.A well-known problem: the EU is dividedBoth experts agree on one thing: the well-known problem of internal divisions within the European Union has worsened the situation. EU foreign policy still largely depends on consensus among member states, which is difficult to achieve during sudden security crises. In this case, Spain took the toughest stance, condemning the strikes on Iran as a violation of international law.As for Germany, it initially appeared that Chancellor Friedrich Merz supported the U.S. and Israeli goal of regime change in Tehran, before partially stepping back. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom now call for greater caution and restraint, while simultaneously criticizing Iran.Brussels has also sent mixed signals: EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas focused on de-escalation, while Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke of a &ldquo;credible transition&rdquo; and &ldquo;renewed hope&rdquo; for the Iranian people.The broader pictureFor Julien Barnes-Dacey, the effects of such disunity are further compounded by strategic weakness. The European Union, he says, has directed its geopolitical energy toward Ukraine. The bloc hesitated to confront Trump over Iran out of fear of undermining U.S.-EU trade cooperation and because of Russia&rsquo;s war in Ukraine.&ldquo;Europeans remain strategically focused on protecting transatlantic relations, primarily because they want to ensure that the Americans stay in alliance with them.&rdquo; KAY NIETFELD / AFP / ProfimediaThe compromise is paradoxical: when it comes to Ukraine, the European Union remains an indispensable actor, coordinating sanctions, aid, and military support; but regarding Iran, it operates only on the periphery. Barnes-Dacey attributes this to geography and priorities: Ukraine is treated as an existential security issue in the EU&rsquo;s immediate neighborhood.The Middle East has fallen down the priority list, despite the obvious risks of the conflict spilling over. But this also reflects a harder truth: the European Union still struggles to strategically leverage its economic weight.On the sidelines, but not untouchedBeing on the sidelines, however, does not mean remaining unaffected. Manelii Mirkan warns that Europe could pay a high price if Iran remains severely weakened yet politically intact. A prolonged conflict could further raise energy costs, destabilize the region, and create new migration pressures on Europe.&ldquo;If we fail to create conditions for a relatively stable transition, the risks for Europeans are very, very high,&rdquo; she says.The role to playOn this point, the two analysts diverge most clearly. Barnes-Dacey is deeply skeptical about whether the EU can regain significant influence without a major shift in political will.Mirkan is more optimistic. She argues that, even though the European Union does not have a central role in 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 among them, and helping shape a democratic framework for a possible transition. In her view, the EU should move &ldquo;from declarative and symbolic actions to a greater driving force.&rdquo;For Barnes-Dacey, the situation is clear: if all of this is seen as a test of whether the EU is a significant geopolitical actor, then, he says, &ldquo;Europe has failed.&rdquo; The Iranian crisis once again exposes the gap between the European Union&rsquo;s geopolitical ambitions and its ability to act on them. Regarding Ukraine, the Union has shown that it can still be important when it speaks with one voice. Regarding Iran, it has yet to prove it can be more than a mere observer.

European union is (un)able?

0 Komentari