In recent months, the European Union has issued resolutions against Iran, calling for the expansion of “targeted sanctions,” while at the same time imposing certain flight restrictions and aviation advisories. This approach has been adopted even as European officials claim to support freedom of expression and civil rights—a claim that has itself been called into question by reports from some international institutions regarding the state of free speech in Europe.
This pattern indicates that Europe is applying a model of “multi-layered pressure” toward Iran—a combination of economic sanctions, political pressure, and media narrative-building. Yet this strategy faces a fundamental contradiction: any escalation of pressure may not only threaten regional stability but also jeopardize Europe’s own economic and security interests. Past experience has shown that policies of maximum containment have led less to behavioral change than to deeper mistrust and widening geopolitical rifts.
Gaza: Gap Between Rhetoric and Action
At the rhetorical level, Europe speaks of the need to halt settlement expansion and to support Palestinian rights. In practice, however, its policies are widely assessed as aligned with the continuation of military and political support for Israel. The passage of flights carrying Israeli officials through the airspace of certain European countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute has raised serious questions about the extent of these states’ practical commitment to their obligations under international law.
Critical positions taken by figures such as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Palestinian territories have also been met with sharp reactions from some European governments. This confrontation indicates that, in dealing with the Gaza crisis, Europe appears to be driven more by political and alliance considerations than by a coherent strategy of crisis containment.
The continuation of this duality could widen the gap between European public opinion and European governments. Polling reports in the Arab world likewise point to widespread opposition to the normalization of relations with Israel—a factor that further calls into question the regional legitimacy of Europe’s policies.
Ukraine: Collective Security or Perpetuation of War?
In the Ukraine crisis, Europe has played an active role in financing and arming Kyiv. Multi-hundred-billion-euro packages and new military commitments are being pursued in coordination. The Secretary General of NATO has stated that the bulk of military assistance has been provided by members of the alliance.
This level of involvement has made Europe one of the principal actors in the continuation of the war. Although European officials define these actions within the framework of defending collective security, the ongoing provision of military aid—at a time when diplomatic pathways are also being discussed—raises the question of whether Europe may inadvertently be entrenching a war of attrition.
The persistence of this trend places financial and social resources in Europe under strain, while simultaneously increasing the risk of a broader escalation of the conflict—a danger that could pose additional threats to the continent’s energy security and economic stability.
Europe and Crisis of International Legitimacy
Taken together, Europe’s conduct toward Iran, Gaza, and Ukraine presents the image of an actor caught in a crisis of legitimacy. The claim to defend human rights, alongside extensive military support and sweeping sanctions, has created a clear gap between rhetoric and practice. This discrepancy—particularly in the Global South and among independent states—has weakened Europe’s normative standing.
If this trajectory is not corrected, Europe may decline from a “soft power” into a purely instrumental player in geopolitical equations—a development that would affect not only global security but also the future of the multilateral order itself.
NOURNEWS