top of page
Search

Europe’s Strategic Dilemma: The War in Ukraine and Iran

  • Writer: Conor Long
    Conor Long
  • 12 minutes ago
  • 4 min read

Introduction:

As the US-Israeli campaign against Iran escalates, Western Europe is finding itself in an

increasingly uncomfortable geopolitical position. Governments across the continent

have advocated for a de-escalation, but that appears unlikely in the short term. Despite

the urge for peace, an increasing number of European naval vessels are making their way to the eastern Mediterranean. This contradiction exposes a strategic dilemma facing Western European allies. While Ukraine still requires resources and political attention as it fends off Russian aggressors, Europe’s attention is being diverted towards a second crisis. Furthermore, varying European responses to the war on Iran highlight division amongst European allies. Some nations, such as the UK and France, were quick to align themselves with Washington, while others such as Spain underscored the importance of diplomatic restraint and the possibility of regional destabilisation in the Middle East.


UK and France:

Both the UK and France have been quick to take an assertive role in the crisis. France was particularly quick to respond, as it deployed "about a dozen naval vessels, including its aircraft carrier strike group, to the Mediterranean, Red Sea and potentially the Strait of Hormuz" to support its allies in the region and protect vital shipping lanes. Following a drone strike on an RAF base in Cyprus, further warships were deployed, "When Cyprus is attacked, it is Europe that is attacked," French President Emmanuel Macron stated as he vowed to protect Cyprus.


Britain, on the other hand, has a more vigilant approach, but nonetheless it has also

reinforced its presence in the region. The Royal Navy deployed the HMS Dragon to the

eastern Mediterranean, becoming "the UK's first and only warship in the region when it arrives in about a week." Ultimately, the actions taken by both France and the UK enable “necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source.”


Spain:

While the UK and France represent a more assertive approach by European states, Spain seems to represent the opposite. Initially, the Pedro Sánchez-led Spanish government was quick to publicly disapprove of US-Israeli strikes against Tehran, stating that “We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel,” while simultaneously condemning Iranian counterattacks, noting the importance of preventing further regional destabilisation and respecting the rule of international law. As a result, Sánchez initially refused to allow US military forces to use Spanish military bases to coordinate strikes on Iran. In this sense, Spain differs largely from the UK, France, and indeed most of Europe.


However, this difference ends when it comes to Spain’s practical actions. Despite

condemning both sides of the war, and preventing American use of Spanish military

bases, the Spanish Defence Ministry has announced that “the frigate Cristóbal Colón

joined the Charles de Gaulle Naval Group on 3 March to carry out escort, protection, and advanced training duties in the Baltic Sea. The group will now head to the

Mediterranean, arriving off the coast of Crete around 10 March.” The Cristóbal Colón,

Spain’s most technologically advanced frigate, will provide air defence and protection to its allies in the region.


Balancing Act:

This dual approach taken by Spain may seem contradictory, but it represents a balancing act that many European governments must come to terms with. On one hand, most European states, bar the likes of Switzerland and Ireland, remain deeply embedded within NATO’s security framework. Drone strikes affecting Türkiye and British RAF bases on Cyprus could prompt NATO consultations and potentially collective defensive measures to protect NATO territory, particularly if Article 5 is invoked. Furthermore, Europe relies heavily on transatlantic cooperation for defence and shouldn’t distance itself too much from the US and their objectives in the Middle East. On the other hand, European states cannot afford to get dragged into another large-scale conflict, while Ukraine keeps Russian forces at bay on the European eastern front. Thus, the timing of the emergence of the Iranian crisis complicates matters greatly for European states. While the war in Ukraine requires continued financial and political support, resources and attention are being diverted elsewhere, depleting Europe’s already limited strategic capacity. Of course, for Moscow, the conflict in Iran could prove advantageous. So far, Putin has not yet provided any support to its Persian ally, besides condemning the killing of the Iranian supreme leader, describing it as a “cynical violation of all norms of human morality and international law.” For now, it seems Russia is willing to stand aside with the hopes that the Iranian crisis may provide some strategic benefits for the war in Ukraine in the long run.


Conclusion:

European governments have previously advocated for the continent to take a more

assertive geopolitical role in the world. However, while European presence in the Eastern Mediterranean increases by the day, it is not necessarily occurring on their terms. Rather, it is a reaction to a conflict conducted by the US and Israel, which Europe has struggled to shape, getting drawn in as a result of the transatlantic security architecture already in place. Thus, this emphasises a common European pattern: while European governments call for de-escalation, their security commitments ensure they remain tied to the very conflict they seek to contain.


For now, European governments must simultaneously manage two major conflicts, both

of which directly or indirectly affect the continent. Moving forward, Europe must also

decide what the continent’s role will be in an increasingly unstable geopolitical order. As tensions stretch from Ukraine to the Middle East, Europe needs to decide if it is content with being a reactive crisis manager, or if it wants to move beyond that and become a geopolitically strategic actor in its own right.


Sources:

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page