At a regional juncture fraught with shifting spheres of influence in the Middle East, the Strait of Hormuz has returned to the forefront of global tensions, not only as a vital energy chokepoint but also as a testing ground for the will of international powers.
Recent developments, most notably Iran’s announcement of its intention to re-close the strait, coupled with the ongoing US naval blockade and US President Donald Trump’s renewed threat to resort to military force, have shifted the crisis from a state of containment to the brink of open escalation.
The Franco-British summit in Paris, which brought together around 49 countries last week, aimed to accelerate the development of a multinational “peaceful and defensive” mission to secure international navigation in the Strait of Hormuz when conditions permit.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that more than 12 countries are prepared to contribute military assets, with a planning meeting scheduled to take place in London. French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized the neutral nature of the initiative.
Growing tension
Nonetheless, these steps reveal a growing tension between the rhetoric of freedom of navigation, mutual deterrence, and Europe’s ambitions for strategic autonomy, and the practical constraints imposed by the escalating US-Iran confrontation. Here, the initiative appears to be more than just a diplomatic maneuvre. It is a test of Europe’s ability to act in one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical chokepoints.
In this context, two French experts explained in statements to Qatar News Agency (QNA) that the European role in the Strait of Hormuz crisis remains limited and marginal, especially in the absence of US support. They also emphasized that Europe’s declining presence in international mediation efforts reveals a decrease in its global geopolitical weight, arguing that regaining the role of honest broker is no longer an option but a fundamental condition for Europe’s repositioning within the international system.
In this context, Dr Thierry Coville, a political analyst specialising in Iranian affairs at the French Research Centre for International and Strategic Studies, explained that the European Union already possesses the military capabilities that allow it to intervene on the security level, but the main problem, in his estimation, is related to the absence of political will.
He pointed out that the current stage is pivotal, given the escalating tensions between Europe and the United States, which have made the issue of achieving European strategic independence more urgent than ever. He noted that any intervention of this kind could fall within this trend toward independence, which has become a pressing necessity, despite Europe’s continued heavy reliance on the United States for military equipment.
Conversely, he noted that Europe is well aware that it cannot ignore the issue of strategic waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz, but at the same time, it shows no desire to engage in a military confrontation with Iran, especially in a conflict that was not even reported to it by the United States and Israel when it erupted.
He indicated that there is a growing European tendency to demonstrate a degree of independence from Washington, without this implying a readiness to engage in a military confrontation with Tehran. This, according to his analysis, explains the argument that any potential security intervention will only come after a ceasefire is reached.
Regarding the overall context of relations, Kovel explained that tensions between Europe and Iran are not new, but recent European statements clearly reflect a strong tension with the United States as well.
He cited, in this context, Europe’s refusal to participate in a US-led operation aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz, along with the various tensions witnessed in recent months, including Donald Trump’s statements on Greenland, tariff issues, and other matters reflecting shifts in the nature of the transatlantic relationship.
Critical juncture
He argued that these factors confirm that Europe finds itself at a critical juncture, forcing it to seriously reconsider its strategic independence, especially given the declining role of the United States as a traditional ally on whom Europe has heavily relied.
As for the relationship with Iran, he pointed out that despite the existence of genuine tension, Europe, after the recent war that pitted Iran against the United States and Israel, understands that engaging in a military confrontation with Tehran does not serve its interests.
He explained that the Europeans’ primary focus is preparing for the post-conflict phase by working to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and perhaps seeking to rebuild better relations with Iran, thus enabling Europe to play a role in the geopolitical balance.
He also considered Pakistan’s mediation between Iran and the United States, while Europe remained completely absent from the scene, to be one of the most significant lessons of this crisis. This, in his estimation, reveals a genuine European dilemma concerning the need to regain its role in the geopolitical environment of the Middle East, perhaps by improving its relations with Tehran.
In this context, he emphasized that the issue is not so much about assessing the Iranian regime as it is about Europe having gone too far in severing its relations with Iran, which has left it today in the position of a mere spectator on vital issues, including ceasefire negotiations.
He noted that the French and European discourse reflects an awareness of these threats and a desire to maintain strong relations with these countries.
However, he pointed out that the recent conflict erupted without Europe being inform, despite one of its fundamental roles being the defence of international law and working towards peace. He considered Europe largely absent in criticizing the American and Israeli attacks that disregard international law.
He added that Europe, in principle, remains in its natural position when it calls for diplomatic solutions, but reality shows that it is currently unable to play an effective role in peace negotiations or in organizing a ceasefire, due to the deterioration of its relations with both the United States and Iran. He stressed that Europe needs to regain its role as an honest broker.
He concluded by noting that the main challenge lies in finding a delicate balance between the need for Europe to assert its power, especially militarily, and to maintain its traditional role as an independent mediator seeking to achieve peace.
For his part, Emmanuel Dupuy, President of the Institute for European Perspective and Security Studies, told QNA that the European role in this matter appears extremely weak, almost marginal. He explained that France, as a permanent member of the Security Council, attempted to pass a resolution calling for the peaceful reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and guaranteeing freedom of navigation. However, the use of the veto by both Russia and China demonstrated the limitations of this move.
He pointed out that despite the desire of the UK and its Prime Minister, as well as French President Emmanuel Macron, to form a naval force to guarantee freedom of navigation, the European “room for manoeuvre” remains limited, and often merely theoretical, especially given the lack of American support for this approach.
He noted that the policies of Trump, particularly the imposition of a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, have contributed to weakening the Europeans’ ability to act in the same direction, especially since European countries such as France, Britain, Spain, and Italy refused to participate in this blockade or the proposed naval force.
He explained that European capabilities in this context remain largely hypothetical, primarily limited to France’s position within the Security Council. He added that European Nato members are hesitant due to fears of US sanctions, given the Trump administration’s view that these countries have not provided sufficient support for the US-Israeli operation. He did not rule out the possibility of countries like France, Spain, and possibly Britain facing sanctions, especially after their refusal to allow the use of their airspace for the operations, while other European countries are adopting positions leaning towards neutrality or reducing their level of involvement.
Regarding the nature of the European move, Dupuy clarified that it falls within a purely defensive framework. He pointed out that the initiative, led by France and the UK, with the participation of some 22 countries, aims primarily to ensure respect for international law, particularly freedom of navigation in straits, especially the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.
He emphasized that this initiative is in no way linked to direct or indirect support for the US or Israeli operation, as none of the participating countries have contributed to strikes against Iran.
He added that approximately 5,000 French troops are deployed in the region, including in Lebanon, the Gulf, and the Red Sea, and their mission is to protect forces and interests without engaging in strikes, even preemptively, against Iran. Regarding the balance in the European position, he indicated that it primarily aims to maintain credibility and the ability to participate in negotiations. He explained that possessing military capabilities does not imply their offensive use, but rather serves to strengthen the diplomatic position, with a focus on defence.
Clear principles
He pointed out that the European position is based on clear principles, including multilateralism, respect for international law, and working within alliances with countries through security agreements. He noted that this approach is not limited to the European Union, but also includes what he described as Greater Europe, including Britain, within a kind of coalition of the willing.
He added that several European countries are participating militarily in the region, including the Netherlands with frigates in the Red Sea, Italy with its forces in Lebanon, and France with military deployments in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. He also noted that France deployed the frigate Languedoc and the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to protect its interests, including protecting Cyprus.
He pointed out that this move has an implicit purpose, not only to address Iranian threats defensively, but also to maintain stability in the Eastern Mediterranean, prevent missiles from reaching European countries like Cyprus, and prevent the situation in Lebanon from deteriorating further.
He concluded by emphasizing that the ability of France and Europe to influence the positions of the United States or Israel remains limited, even marginal, noting that this is evident in France’s exclusion from certain negotiating tracks, such as the Washington conference, where it was not included as a party at the negotiating table.