Europe’s diplomatic paralysis in the Middle East

By the time of writing this article, a fragile ceasefire appears to have been brokered between Iran and Israel, reportedly with the direct mediation of the United States, after Donald Trump ordered the destruction of areas suspected of holding uranium enrichment infrastructure, in many parts, including Tehran. I know it might sound paradoxical, but the very same person who ordered the attacks on Iran brokered a ceasefire deal in a matter of two days between the two parties in conflict.

Whether this delicate equilibrium holds remains to be seen, but its implications are immediate and geopolitical in scope. The current pause is not the result of rapprochement or softening of positions. Unequivocally, it is peace through strength, as widely known in diplomatic jargon. Even President Trump said it on his Truth Social. For those observing from Europe, particularly within the frameworks of diplomacy and external action, this is a moment that demands not mere commentary but proper diplomatic engagement. The European Union must now regain its seat at the table, not only as a diplomatic block but as a strategic continent that can truly provide European security.

Importantly, this episode cannot be decoupled from the partial collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that was not only an arms’ control measure but also a signal of diplomatic maturity on all sides. I was still based in Brussels when the JCPOA was brokered back in 2015. It was executed through the leadership of the European Union – when it was still advocating for peace through diplomacy – under its High Representative Federica Mogherini and Helga Schmid in her role as Secretary General of the EEAS, alongside President Obama’s administration. The JCPOA was a triumph of diplomacy over instability. However, in 2018, during his first term as president, Trump pulled out of the deal under unilateral pretexts and without any alternative mechanism, except heavy sanctions. This inflicted structural damage not just on Iran’s economy, but on the credibility of international commitments and agreements. It sent a bad message, and it was during this period that I came to understand sanctions more intimately through my work engaging with the International Committee of the Red Cross. These sanctions severely burdened Iran’s economy, disengaging relative moderate figures within Tehran’s leadership, especially when even medicine was no longer reaching the most vulnerable. I am not an apologist of the Iranian regime, but I do feel for people on the ground.

The impacts of that withdrawal are still felt today. Had the JCPOA remained intact and enforced through coordinated international effort, we would not possibly be experiencing such an escalation. Instead, the region became a fertile ground for proxy warfare and economic isolation. The lesson here is not simply that deals must be honoured, but that diplomacy must be resilient to political cycles. Well, even Joe Biden fell short to reverse it. Also, even Iran must understand that a deal is a deal. This is what we used to refer to in our PSC meetings, as Pacta Sunt Servanda. Agreements must be kept. The JCPOA’s erosion was not just a matter of policy reversal. In essence, it exposed the vulnerabilities of multilateralism when subjected to transactional governance or better put governments.

Now that a cessation of hostilities is in place, even if temporarily, we must revisit the architecture that allowed diplomacy to succeed in the past. The nuclear framework under the JCPOA remains technically viable. In tandem, Iran must not withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a crucial point in any renewed negotiations. The international community, led by the EU and the IAEA, must seize this window to rebuild verification mechanisms, if any left, and restore dialogue. However, such restoration cannot happen without institutional recalibration. The recent resolution passed by the IAEA’s Board of Governors, publicly criticising Iran for alleged lack of cooperation, came at a moment of acute sensitivity and escalation. In effect, it gave Benjamin Netanyahu a pretext to attack. Rather than facilitating transparency, it contributed to foster additional suspicion and escalations.

The Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, has now become a figure of embarrassment. To reset the tone and enable a diplomatic breakthrough, it may be necessary to appoint a new director general. When I watched his Sky News interview, he attempted to justify the resolution’s language and then backtracked from its implications. His body language said it all; lousy, fidgeting and visibly sweating. Diplomatic credibility often rests as much on optics as on substance, and the perception of impartiality is a non-negotiable requirement for diplomatic agencies during crises.

In parallel, the European Union must avoid errors in its political declarations. The recent remarks by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, taking a sharply critical tone against Iran before the full facts had emerged, risked undermining the EU’s role as an impartial mediator. The more she speaks, the more the situation deteriorates. The EU, through its High Representative, must reclaim its diplomatic strength. Well, it’s OK to collect honours and trophies. But for the love of God, we need substance, not fashion shows. To add to the spectacle, after the Foreign Affairs Council, the HRVP said that the EU is now “considering action” on Israel. One could almost picture Kallas raising her hand in a classroom to ask for permission. “Miss, can I say something please?” Having clearly secured von der Leyen’s blessing beforehand, the statement came across not as a bold foreign policy pronouncement, but as a carefully scripted performance.

Needless to say, if the ceasefire does indeed mature into a process, the EU’s re-engagement must follow the original diplomatic engagements that predate von der Leyen’s tenure. What is needed is structured dialogue, coordinated agreements for sanctions’ relief and sequenced compliance mechanisms under international supervision. This does not imply appeasement. However, it implies coherence and pragmatism. The alternative is strategic confusion, a condition that has already allowed non-state actors and regional proxies to expand and act with impunity. While attention remains focused on Tehran and Tel Aviv, we must not lose sight of the wider theatre of instability. My biggest worry in the region is actually Syria. Something shadowy is going on there, and the world is alienated.

Equally important is the economic dimension of the crisis. Iran’s economy remains under severe strain. The sanctions imposed after 2018 have not produced regime change or behavioural adjustment. Instead, they have led to market contraction, currency collapse and rising domestic unrest. Re-engaging Iran economically, through phased sanctions’ relief tied to measurable compliance, could offer incentives for constructive behaviour. The EU must not outsource its Middle East policy to Washington, nor should it act as a vassal in a security dialogue, where its interests and values are directly implicated.

What is now required is a diplomatic surge secured in multilateral legitimacy, starting with the United Nations and coordinated through the European External Action Service. It must be backed by practical solutions. If successful, it could revive not only the JCPOA but also the EU’s role as a credible global security actor. If it fails, the space will be filled by unilateralism and instability. Like it did in 2015, the EU must now decide whether it will lead, follow or be sidelined. This is a moment where diplomacy must be resilient, institutions must be credible, and peace must be pursued not through hope and strength, but through a cautious alignment of diplomatic strategies.