Europe Needs Its Own Middle East Strategy

Strategic autonomy is not only the ability to act independently. It is also the ability to communicate independently.

Another round of American - Iranian negotiations appear to be stalling with again mutual military actions (https://en.mehrnews.com/news/245062/Iran-retaliates-against-US-attacks-warns-full-Hormuz-closure).
Iran threatens a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Where both sides continue to suggest that an agreement remains possible, current reality is that negotiation results proove difficult to achieve and repeated military actions can persist.

For Europe, this should raise an uncomfortable question.
Why does Europe's economic security remain so dependent on negotiations over which Europe exercises so little influence?

Europe did not start the war between the United States, Israel and Iran.
Throughout the crisis, European leaders have repeatedly emphasized restraint, diplomacy and de-escalation. They have largely avoided direct military participation while calling for stability and freedom of navigation.

Yet, despite these efforts, Europe continues to be perceived as part of the American - Israeli camp.

That would be a strategic mistake.
Not because Europe should distance itself from its allies, but because Europe possesses—and can further develop—a different geopolitical asset:
Diplomatic credibility independent from the United States.

A Different Position

Europe's relationship with Iran has never been simple.
The European Union has profound disagreements with Tehran over human rights, regional security and nuclear proliferation. Those differences are real and will remain so.

At the same time, Europe has never officially embraced regime change as its objective. Nor did it choose to initiate the current military confrontation.

This places Europe in an intermediate position.
Politically aligned with the West. Militarily largely uninvolved. Diplomatically still searching for solutions.
That position offers opportunities.
Europe should ask itself whether it fully exploits the diplomatic space it still possesses.

The Limits of Military Logic

American strategy often rests on a familiar assumption: military pressure creates negotiating leverage. Perhaps it will.

But Europe cannot build its own security entirely around the expectation that Washington and Tehran will eventually reach an agreement.

Iran appears to operate according to a different strategic logic. It may believe that time favors larger regional powers, that Western political attention eventually shifts elsewhere, and that economic adaptation is possible.
Whether that calculation is correct is almost secondary.
What matters is that Europe's economic exposure to prolonged instability is enormous. A lasting disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would directly affect European energy supplies, inflation and industrial competitiveness. Europe therefore has a large stake in long-term regional stability.

Europe cannot build its Middle East policy solely around the expectation that others will eventually solve Europe's strategic problem.
Strategic autonomy also means preparing for futures that Washington may not expect—or prefer.

Asia Offers Another Lesson

Interestingly, several major Asian powers have pursued a different approach.
China, India, Japan and South Korea all maintain extensive economic relations across the region.
    They cooperate with Gulf states.
    They maintain communication with Iran.
    They work with the United States.
    They maintain relations with Israel.
None of them have solved the region's conflicts. But they have largely avoided becoming identified as direct adversaries. This has preserved diplomatic channels that may become increasingly valuable as crises deepen. Asia has largely built its own relationships with Iran.

Europe still largely waits for the outcome of America's relationship with Iran. That is not strategic autonomy. It is strategic dependence.

Europe is free to explore another route.

Thinking Beyond Regime Change

Much Western discussion about Iran quietly assumes that lasting stability depends upon political transformation inside the country. Perhaps one day that will happen.
But strategy should also consider another possibility:
What if Iran remains broadly the same political system for the next twenty years?

What relationship should Europe seek then?
This is not an argument for accepting Iranian policies. It is an argument for preparing for geopolitical reality.
Europe has already begun asking similar questions about Russia.
How can deterrence coexist with a future political relationship?
How can conflict eventually give way to stability?
The same question deserves to be asked about Iran.

Europe should not wait for a future American - Iranian settlement to define its own interests. It should begin developing its own long-term diplomatic framework for stability in the Gulf.

The Value of Diplomatic Capital

Europe today invests heavily in military capabilities. That is necessary. A more dangerous world requires stronger defenses.
But military assets are not the only strategic assets that states possess.
    Countries also accumulate trust.
    Communication channels.
    Mediator credibility.
    Political legitimacy.
These forms of diplomatic capital are difficult to build and remarkably easy to lose. This is why Europe's emerging role in militarily protecting navigation around the Strait of Hormuz deserves careful consideration.

Protecting civilian shipping is a legitimate and necessary objective.
But Europe should avoid gradually becoming perceived as merely an extension of the American military approach. The closer Europe moves toward direct military integration in the conflict, the smaller its diplomatic space may become.

Security and diplomacy should reinforce one another, not compete with one another.

Strategic Autonomy Means More Than Weapons

Europe often defines strategic autonomy in terms of defense spending, industrial production and military readiness. Those capabilities matter.
But genuine strategic autonomy also means possessing an independent political voice.
    It means retaining the ability to speak to actors that others cannot.
    It means preserving channels of communication during conflict.
    It means being able to help shape the peace that eventually follows war.

America's comparative advantage is military power. Europe's comparative advantage may increasingly become political legitimacy and diplomatic credibility. Europe should be careful not to trade away the latter while trying to strengthen the former.

Conclusion

The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz directly affects European energy security, inflation and industrial competitiveness. Europe's stake in regional stability is big and immediate.

Europe should not outsource its Middle East strategy to Washington and Tehran.
Europe should begin developing Strategic Autonomy now.
With an independent diplomatic framework. Carefully balancing military activities to not to be an extension of US.

Because durable security ultimately requires more than military power, developing the ability to communicate a future beyond conflict is required
Europe did not choose this war. Now Europe should choose its own peace strategy.