Hadi Zivari – Expert on European Affairs
Strategic Divergence on the Western Front
The transatlantic order, established after World War II on the basis of security convergence between Europe and the United States, has faced growing fractures in recent decades. Successive crises—from Iraq to Ukraine—have gradually revealed the reality that the strategic interests of the two sides of the Atlantic no longer fully overlap. The war against Iran has also elevated this rift from the level of tactical disagreements to that of structural divergence.
Even within NATO, there was no political readiness to enter a costly and high-risk war against Iran. This situation has been exacerbated, particularly under circumstances where the United States has faced domestic challenges and decision-making inconsistencies. Reports regarding disorder in Washington’s decision-making processes have further intensified European doubts.
On the other hand, Europe faces a set of internal crises that have limited its capacity and willingness to enter a new war. From political developments in Eastern Europe to instability in the Balkans and divisions within the Union, all indicate that Europe is not in a position to participate in a costly military adventure. Analyses from the European Council on Foreign Relations also emphasize that Europe’s strategic priorities have shifted toward economic issues, industrial policy, and geopolitical competition with emerging powers.
Geopolitical and Economic Considerations
One of the key factors in Europe’s refusal to enter the war has been geopolitical and economic considerations. Iran occupies a position wherein any extensive conflict with it would have direct consequences for global energy security and trade. The Strait of Hormuz, as one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, would become a crisis point in the event of war.
Studies published by the Chatham House institute indicate that even limited disruption in this region could significantly increase energy prices and confront European economies—which are still recovering from previous shocks—with crisis. Meanwhile, some analyses emphasize that Europe is still redefining its position in the global system and does not wish to become entangled in a war whose consequences would be beyond its control.
Alongside these considerations, concerns about the expansion of war and the involvement of other actors such as China and Russia have also played an important role. Such a war could transform into a multi-layered crisis that would severely impact the global balance of power. Europe, which is heavily dependent on the stability of the international system, has no desire to enter such a scenario.
Disagreements with the Zionist Regime and Divisions in Europe’s Middle East Policy
Europe’s refusal to align with the United States is not limited to disagreements with Washington but is also linked to this continent’s complex relations with the Zionist regime. In recent years, certain European countries have adopted more critical positions regarding Israeli regime policies. Countries such as Spain and Belgium have, at various junctures, criticized the Zionist regime’s policies toward Palestinians and have even, in some instances, called for a reassessment of relations with this actor. These disagreements, particularly in a wartime context, have become a deterrent factor against full alignment with this regime.
The European Union’s relations with the Zionist regime, contrary to common perception, are neither uniform nor without tension. This diversity of perspectives has prevented Europe from positioning itself uniformly alongside the United States and the Zionist regime. From a domestic policy perspective as well, public opinion in many European countries is sensitive toward entering a new war in West Asia. Past experiences, particularly the Iraq war, have caused governments to act with greater caution in this regard.
Forced Autonomy: From Choice to Necessity
Europe’s refusal to engage in war against Iran must be analyzed within the framework of a broader trend moving toward increased strategic autonomy. This concept, which has gained prominence in European foreign policy discourse in recent years, signifies reducing dependence on the United States and strengthening the capacity for independent decision-making.
However, what is observed in the recent crisis is, more than a conscious choice, a form of forced autonomy. Europe has found itself in a situation where it can neither fully follow the United States nor yet possess the necessary instruments to play an independent role.
The world is moving toward a multipolar order in which traditional alliances are being redefined. In such an order, Europe is compelled to balance maintaining relations with the United States and safeguarding its independent interests. This situation is particularly observable regarding Iran, which has been misrepresented through biased and baseless propaganda. Europe is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program on one hand, and on the other, has no desire to enter a costly war. This duality has led to the formation of a cautious yet independent approach.
The war against Iran, rather than leading to cohesion within the Western front, has made existing fractures more apparent. Europe’s refusal to align with the United States and the Zionist regime indicates profound changes in the structure of transatlantic relations. This transformation not only has short-term consequences for ongoing crises but could also influence the future of the international order. If this trend continues, the likelihood of a Europe with an independent strategic identity—albeit facing numerous challenges—will increasingly grow.
No comments:
Post a Comment