The Israel-Iran War ?

[Jacob]

Isn't European passivity basically saying "we're not supporting you because it's kind of excessive and unneeded, but neither are we condemning you because our alliance hasn't actually fully fractured and maybe it can be fixed some time down the road"?

Europe is allied with both the US and Israel, but given what's happened this year I don't think there's a whole lot of appetite for lining up and supporting whatever it is Israel and the US are trying to accomplish - in part because it's not clear what they're trying to achieve, how, or why; and in part because Trump especially has been antagonistic towards Europe.

And I'm sorry Sheilbh, I don't understand your line about calling de Villepin. Can you expand on it a bit?

[Sheilbh]

Isn't European passivity basically saying "we're not supporting you because it's kind of excessive and unneeded, but neither are we condemning you because our alliance hasn't actually fully fractured and maybe it can be fixed some time down the road"?

Europe is allied with both the US and Israel, but given what's happened this year I don't think there's a whole lot of appetite for lining up and supporting whatever it is Israel and the US are trying to accomplish (in part because it's not clear what they're trying to achieve, how, or why).

And I'm sorry Sheilbh, I don't understand your line about calling de Villepin. Can you expand on it a bit?

Yeah I think that's possibly part of it, especially not wanting to annoy the US too much given Russia - and it also demonstrates the value of European bases to Trump.

But what I was thinking was in the run-up to the Iraq war there were millions of people on protests against the Iraq war. French and German leaders were leading efforts to oppose the war in the UN - actively lobbying countries to vote against it in the General Assembly and, in the case of Fischer and de Villepin making very robust arguments openly at the UN against it.

On the other side you had Blair acting as an outrider for the war and US policy. Doing the opposite in many ways, travelling the world actively lobbying countries on behalf of the US and making the case for the war as well as being heavily involved in the UN approach. Aznar and Berlusconi were also, in their different ways, making the case for supporting the US.

We've got talk of regime change again for a country twice the size of Iraq - and Europe imports more energy now than it did in 2003 so is more exposed (again) to an energy shock. So I find the lack of response either from the public or leaders trying to shape events really striking - that could be a very hawkish leader backing the US and Israel (possibly aiming for a quid pro quo) or leaders trying to oppose it in all forums they have available. It's something that will have vastly bigger effects on Europe than America but everyone just seems to be spectating - I find it very odd.

[Razgovory]

I don't think that anyone knows what to do.  Not the Netanyahu, not the Iranians, not Trump, not the Europeans, not anyone.  I don't see the purpose of any of this.  The Israeli can't knock out the Iranian nuclear program with weapons, hell the US can't do that bar actually using a nuke.  The idea that Israel can instigate a regime change is laughable.  I agree with Minksy on Netanyahu, him trying to stay out of jail is the only plausible reason for this.  If someone else has a alternative idea what the fuck is going on, I'm all ears.

[Jacob]

I suspect that a strong European effort to influence events will largely be futile. Israel has basically ignored Europe on Gaza, why would anyone expect them to listen on Iran? And Trump, I suspect, would love getting European input primarily so he could publicly ridicule and ignore it

What would the possible European positions be? I can imagine a few:

• "Violence is not the answer, we urge negotiation and will happily facilitate it!" - IMO that's a position for later. It's going to be ignored now.
• "We are all in with Israel and the US in fighting against the imminent threat for Iran" - I expect that would be too big a domestic politics hit for most.
• "Hey, we'll support you quietly but in return please make sure ME energy exports aren't fucked up" - I guess that makes sense, but is probably best done behind the scenes.

None of them seem super compelling.

Maybe this is demonstrating that European influence in the Middle East is mostly a spent force. Europe is busy focusing on Ukraine and Russia. Maybe the Middle East is the US' show, with their Israeli friends.

Then there's the other bit where Trump's mercurial shifting means it may be better to wait and see what he actually does before crafting a distinct response. After all, he'll probably take five radically different positions in as many days. Basically, respond to what he does, not what he says.

[Jacob]

I don't think that anyone knows what to do.  Not the Netanyahu, not the Iranians, not Trump, not the Europeans, not anyone.  I don't see the purpose of any of this.  The Israeli can't knock out the Iranian nuclear program with weapons, hell the US can't do that bar actually using a nuke.  The idea that Israel can instigate a regime change is laughable.  I agree with Minksy on Netanyahu, him trying to stay out of jail is the only plausible reason for this.  If someone else has a alternative idea what the fuck is going on, I'm all ears.

That's the most plausible theory I can think of also.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Maybe this is demonstrating that European influence in the Middle East is mostly a spent force. Europe is busy focusing on Ukraine and Russia. Maybe the Middle East is the US' show, with their Israeli friends.

I think it's demonstrating that European influence, without the US to back it up, is effectively nil. Europe (collectively or individually) doesn't speak up because no one cares what Europe thinks, because they have very little way to force their preferred outcome.

[viper37]

and Europe imports more energy now than it did in 2003 so is more exposed (again) to an energy shock.

Do you have recent stats on that?  I'm curious, because I only see partial data for 2023-2024 and up to Q4 2024, it shows a drop in imports.

[crazy canuck]

I suspect that a strong European effort to influence events will largely be futile. Israel has basically ignored Europe on Gaza, why would anyone expect them to listen on Iran? And Trump, I suspect, would love getting European input primarily so he could publicly ridicule and ignore it

Yes, I think it is as simple as that. What role could European nations possibly have in this dispute.  Not to mention they would have to deal with a leader who has already been charged with war crimes.  I don't understand why they are being characterized as being passive.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with all of this and I'm not saying I'd expect "a" European position or even just talking about politicians. There wasn't a single European position in 2003 and one of the differences I find striking is - so far - the lack of protests.

And I think Raz is probably right on leaders not really knowing how to respond. I suppose the other side to that is that is their job (as is often the case I think the only European leader showing at least a bit of ambition is Macron).

And I don't think it would necessarily work - I'd argue that in the end all the Euro-positions of 2003 (whether Blair, Schroeder, Chirac, Berlusconi etc) failed in delivering what they aspired to. That may also be part of the "just stay out of it" attitude.

But the bit I find troubling is that we've seen the knock on effects of Russia's war on energy on Europe's economies and politics and similarly the impact of Middle East instability to migration flows and European politics. We may want to stay out of the way of events - I'm not sure events are going to stay out of our way (and again I think this is the key job of a leader).

[Zoupa]

Maybe this is demonstrating that European influence in the Middle East is mostly a spent force. Europe is busy focusing on Ukraine and Russia. Maybe the Middle East is the US' show, with their Israeli friends.

I think it's demonstrating that European influence, without the US to back it up, is effectively nil. Europe (collectively or individually) doesn't speak up because no one cares what Europe thinks, because they have very little way to force their preferred outcome.

It could be that Europe doesn't really have a preferred outcome. We don't even have a credible list of possible outcomes at this point. Do you?

[Jacob]

I think it's demonstrating that European influence, without the US to back it up, is effectively nil. Europe (collectively or individually) doesn't speak up because no one cares what Europe thinks, because they have very little way to force their preferred outcome.

I don't think Europe's influence was based on the US backing it up. I think it was based on Europe's ability to influence the US, and to some extent Israel. Which it lacks now. So sort of the same think, but slightly different.

I don't believe Europe has independently tried to exert influence reliant on power projection essentially since the Suez crisis (?). Whatever power Europe has had in recent time has been because the US lead "the West" and Europe as an important part of "the West" had some influence on what "the West" wanted.

Europe backed up around US projects, the US considered European interests to some extent, and Europe could tinker around the edges with moral persuasion, trade, and culture.

That dynamic is mostly gone. It'll probably take a bit to figure out what's next for Europe. I agree European influence here is basically nil, because no one cares what Europe thinks here. Which - @Sheilbh - I think is a good reason not to make strong statements one way or the other.

[Zoupa]

It's also hard to compare 2003 to now. The reasons given for invading Iraq were ridiculous. Iran on the other hand has been a sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, Houthis and is clearly keen on getting nuclear weapons. There's also no sign (at this moment) of boots on the ground.

All in all I think most Europeans/European governments are fine with what's going on.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't believe Europe has independently tried to exert influence reliant on power projection essentially since the Suez crisis (?).

Bosnia and Libya.  Then there's France acting solo in the Sahel and the UK solo in Falklands and Sierra Leone.

[Jacob]

It could be that Europe doesn't really have a preferred outcome. We don't even have a credible list of possible outcomes at this point. Do you?

I think Sheilbh outlined one preferred outcome - that energy flows from the area are not massively disturbed by this conflict. Seems like we're aligned with China on this and (possibly?) the US (and of course the exporters themselves).

Beyond that, I think you're right. I don't see a strong European interest here, beyond preserving the rules based international order (that ship is sailing) and stopping nuclear proliferation (seems like that ship is also sailing).

And, of course, Europe doesn't have particularly many levers to pull here either.

[Sheilbh]

Do you have recent stats on that?  I'm curious, because I only see partial data for 2023-2024 and up to Q4 2024, it shows a drop in imports.

Sorry I think I'm wrong - it's basically flat-lined (but the mix has changed so it was more oil heavy in the early 200s and now more tilted to gas) so the energy import dependency is within a very similar range as in the early 2000s. It increased a fair bit from the 90s to the 2000s with shutting down of Communist era industry and some of the coal stuff (which Europe has in abundance).

Yes, I think it is as simple as that. What role could European nations possibly have in this dispute.  Not to mention they would have to deal with a leader who has already been charged with war crimes.  I don't understand why they are being characterized as being passive.

You've agreed that it would be futile and they'd be ignored - and question what possible role they could have. I don't necessarily disagree, I think that might well be right but to me that seems like an explanation for passivity rather than an argument that it's wrong to characterise them as passive.

Although the role Europe will have in this "dispute" is that we're next door to the Middle East and will be directly affected by the consequences. Whether that's migration or energy - if this keeps escalating and particularly if there's any attempt at "regime change" that will have an impact on Europe. We're talking about a country four times the size of Syria next to key routes in Europe's energy supply chain. I think we're more exposed than in 2003 when the rest of the Middle East was broadly solid seeming, if unsavoury, authoritarian regimes we either could do business with or sanctioned.

And to flip it the other way I think there are consequences with the Russia-Iranian relationship and perhaps proving the worth of Europe to the US and binding them in - which is why I think Kaja Kallas has been pretty hawkish.

Either way it feels consequential for Europe so a "let's wait and see" approach (again slight exception for Macron) seems striking to me. Especially compared with 2003 which, I think, was less consequential for Europe - and didn't come after a Middle Eastern refugee crisis or an energy crisis so would be expected by leaders at the time to produce have less impact.

It may well be the right approach - and I think Raz is right - but I think it's interesting.