The escalating conflict in the Middle East, encompassing Israel's ongoing war in Gaza and Lebanon, the heightening tensions between Israel and Iran, and the persistent threats to Red Sea navigation, raises questions about Europe's stance on these developments that directly affect its interests. European leaders are striving to prevent a full-scale regional war; however, Europe's ability to effectively manage this conflict remains limited by a multitude of challenges.
Risks of Escalation
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East undeniably poses significant implications for Europe's interests and security, a consequence of the deep-rooted geographical and historical connections between these regions. As hostilities escalate, Europe confronts an array of potential repercussions and risks, which we will explore in the following manner:
1- Security implications:
Europe faces significant security challenges emanating from the Middle East, primarily in the form of migration pressures and terrorism threats. Historical patterns demonstrate that regional instability and conflict often result in increased migration flows towards European borders. Simultaneously, the persistent threat of terrorism, fueled by militant groups thriving in unstable areas, continues to be a major security concern for European nations. These dual challenges have provided fertile ground for populist movements across the continent, who exploit these issues to disrupt established political systems. As a result, Europe must proactively address these threats at their source to mitigate potential negative consequences within its own territories.
2- Geopolitical consequences:
Despite the geographic proximity and historical ties between the Middle East and Europe, European influence in the region has diminished in recent years. While the reasons for this decline are complex, the expanding scope of regional conflicts presents an opportunity for other international powers—notably Russia, China, and the United States—to strengthen their footholds in the area. This shift not only undermines European interests but also constrains its diplomatic maneuverability. The situation is further complicated by perceived inconsistencies in Europe's approach to the Israeli war on Gaza compared to its stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These apparent double standards have eroded European credibility and threaten to exacerbate tensions with the Global South.
3- Economic losses:
The spread of conflict in the Middle East poses significant economic risks for Europe. Potential disruptions in oil supply chains from the region could trigger a surge in energy prices. In late October 2023, following Israel's initiation of the war on Gaza, the World Bank cautioned that this conflict might precipitate a global economic shock, potentially driving oil prices to $150 per barrel. Such a spike would not only exacerbate inflation but also elevate commodity prices, including grain, while creating economic instability across Europe. Moreover, it would increase shipping costs as vessels seek to avoid missile strikes by the Houthis in the Red Sea.
Furthermore, the widening regional conflict is likely to have a detrimental impact on foreign investment in the area, indirectly affecting European companies with economic interests there. Although Europe's economic ties with Israel are particularly significant, continued escalation could prompt calls for a reassessment of trade agreements. This was exemplified by Spain's October 14 appeal for the European Union to suspend its free trade agreement with Israel, citing possible violations of the human rights clause embedded within the agreement.
These developments would further compound the conflict's negative repercussions on Europe, exacerbating the energy crisis it has been striving to overcome since the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Two Main Tracks
Given the significant risks at hand, Europe finds itself in a position where, perhaps more than other international actors, it must take decisive action to either halt or, at the very least, mitigate the escalating conflict in the region. The goal is to contain the consequences to a manageable level. Despite this pressing need, European efforts have adhered to a familiar pattern of crisis management, focusing primarily on two main tracks:
1- Diplomatic efforts for a ceasefire
European diplomatic efforts have focused intensely on the critical goal of achieving a ceasefire and containing the conflict within its current boundaries. In pursuit of this objective, major European capitals—notably Paris, Berlin, and Rome—have taken proactive steps to engage with key regional players, including Israel, Iran, and Lebanon. France and Italy, both of which maintain a military presence in Lebanon through their participation in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), have demonstrated a particularly strong commitment to regional stability.
Josep Borrell, the European Union's High Representative, has been at the forefront of these diplomatic endeavors, consistently and vocally advocating for an immediate ceasefire. He has repeatedly called upon all parties involved to adhere strictly to their international legal obligations. While the EU has reaffirmed its support for what it terms "Israel's right to self-defense," it has simultaneously and emphatically stressed the paramount importance of protecting civilian lives and ensuring the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, in full accordance with international humanitarian law.
2- Provision of humanitarian aid:
In response to the worsening humanitarian crisis caused by Israel's war on Gaza, the EU has significantly ramped up its aid for affected populations in the enclave, increasing its contribution to €103 million for 2023. This assistance has included an airlift to facilitate the delivery of essential food, medical, and other aid. By 2024, total European humanitarian aid for Palestinians in need, both in Gaza and throughout the region, had reached €193 million, according to an EU statement on April 26. Furthermore, the EU pledged over €104 million in humanitarian assistance for Lebanon amidst the ongoing conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, demonstrating Europe's commitment to alleviating suffering in conflict-affected areas.
Despite these substantial humanitarian efforts, the two European pathways have thus far proven ineffective in de-escalating the regional conflict. Nonetheless, they remain the only areas of consensus among European nations, highlighting the challenges in formulating a unified response to the crisis. The divisions among EU members regarding their approach to the situation have hindered the development of a cohesive European position on the conflict.
In light of these circumstances, a crucial question emerges: To what extent can Europe influence the course of the regional conflict? If such capability exists, what viable options does Europe possess to exert this influence, and what obstacles must it overcome to achieve this objective?
European Constraints
Europe possesses a range of options and tools to exert pressure on Israel, potentially halting or at least mitigating the current escalation. One such measure, currently championed by Spain and France, involves suspending European arms exports to Israel. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at the 11th Summit of the Southern EU Countries (MED 9 summit) in Cyprus on October 11, described this approach as "the only lever that can put an end to what is happening today."
Another avenue for influence lies in leveraging economic ties. This could involve suspending or reviewing the free trade agreement with Tel Aviv, a suggestion recently put forward by Spain. Such action could be maintained until tensions subside, serving as a diplomatic tool to encourage de-escalation.
While these options appear theoretically effective in steering the conflict towards a more peaceful resolution, their practical implementation may prove challenging for Europe due to several factors:
1- Challenges to reaching consensus:
For these decisions to be effective, they must be enacted collectively at the EU level, rather than individually by member states. However, the challenge lies in the EU's decision-making process, which operates on consensus. This approach would inevitably hinder such a step, given Europe's internal divisions over the regional conflict and the varying interests of member states. This complex context also sheds light on France's recent "strong" stance towards Israel. The French position is further complicated by Israeli threats against European UNIFIL troops in Lebanon, as well as Israel's call for the evacuation of European bases and its subsequent attacks on these bases on October 14.
2- Diminished influence:
The European Union's strategic influence on Middle Eastern developments, including the current conflict, has waned in favor of other global powers, primarily the United States, Russia, and China. Acutely aware of this shift, Europe recognizes its diminished standing, particularly in light of growing internal divisions over numerous foreign policy issues. These divisions impose direct constraints on the EU's capacity to act as an independent, unified, and effective force during times of crisis.
In response to this reality, Europe has pivoted its approach. Rather than attempting to exert direct influence, the EU now focuses on engaging with other influential parties in the region, such as the United States and key regional actors. Through these diplomatic channels, Europe hopes to leverage indirect pressure on Israel and other involved parties. The ultimate goal of this strategy is twofold: to prevent further escalation and spread of the current conflict, and to shield the region from additional consequences that may arise from prolonged instability.
3- The energy variable:
As Europe seeks to diversify its energy sources and reduce its dependence on Russia, Israel has emerged as a promising alternative supplier of natural gas. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the subsequent tightening of Western sanctions against Moscow have further highlighted this energy dynamic, which consequently limits Europe's ability to exert pressure on Israel for de-escalation in the current situation.
In conclusion, European countries may find their options limited in addressing the current Middle East crises. Their role is likely to remain confined to providing increased humanitarian aid to those affected by the regional conflict and issuing relatively "cautious" political calls for a ceasefire. This restrained approach persists despite Europe being among those most significantly impacted by the continued escalation, which poses considerable political, economic, and security risks.
The inability of Europe to effectively leverage its influence and pressure tools renders expectations of a decisive European role in easing the ongoing tensions in the Middle East unrealistic.
