Hovering above it all is the President of the United States, with a boundless overestimation of his own power. Donald Trump famously claimed he could end Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in a single day. So far, there is little evidence of progress. Despite the American’s overtures toward the aggressor, Putin’s attacks have only grown more brutal. And now comes the new war in the Middle East – one that, experts warn, could prove even more dangerous to global peace than the conflict in Eastern Europe.
Trump’s crisis management in the Israeli-Iranian confrontation is erratic and unpredictable. Some of that may be attributed to his personality: a man who has surrounded himself with a circle of yes-men. But the absence of a coherent strategy may also reflect deeper structural dynamics – namely, the fractured power structure of the United States. On one hand, Trump seeks to project strength abroad, threatening devastating retaliation against anyone who defies his directives. On the other, he is constrained by a political base that includes radical isolationists who would not forgive him for sending American troops into faraway wars.
The leading Western industrialized nations have now reached a minimalist consensus at their summit in Canada. The G7 leaders affirmed that Israel has a right to self-defense and reiterated their commitment to the security of the Jewish state. Their core message: Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. How this long-standing goal aligns with the now-familiar calls for de-escalation remains an open question.
Israel’s escalation against Iran lacks a clearly articulated military objective. Even members of the Israeli government have conceded that Tehran’s nuclear program cannot be dismantled by military means alone. In the meantime, calls to bomb the regime into collapse are gaining traction. But Israel’s experience in Gaza serves as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to resolve a conflict through overwhelming military force alone.
There are no signs that Israel intends to scale back its military operations on either front. As long as the supply of heavy weaponry from the West – most notably from the United States – continues uninterrupted, the war machine will keep rolling. Meanwhile, diplomacy is bustling. Berlin, London, and Paris – once central players in the negotiations surrounding the Iran nuclear deal – have been relegated to the sidelines. Europe’s foreign policy influence in its own neighborhood is limited. This is partly due to internal divisions, but above all to a growing rift with Washington. There is no longer any talk of a united Western front or a coordinated division of labor between the U.S. and Europe. We see this in Ukraine, where Trump at times appeared to align himself with the Russian aggressor. Nor is there evidence of a transatlantic alliance in the Middle East.
Much has been said in recent days about tectonic shifts. The current war is being compared to the Six-Day War of 1967 or the Yom Kippur War of 1973 – conflicts that redrew the region’s political map. While large parts of the Arab world have condemned Israel’s attack on Iran, the Gulf monarchies have stopped short of siding with the embattled mullah regime. A weakened Iran serves their interests too – especially Saudi Arabia, which under certain scenarios could emerge as a regional hegemon alongside Israel. The prospect of a joint Saudi-Israeli dominance in the region delights Trump – and many in Israel as well.
Such a regional realignment would leave clear losers. Chief among them, in addition to Iran, which would be reduced to political and military impotence, is Erdoğan’s Turkey. Over the past years, Ankara has methodically sought to expand its influence across the Arab world – and more broadly, throughout the Muslim world. Syria is only the most recent example of this ambitious and, in many ways, successful strategy. Erdoğan has also consistently played the Palestinian card, a mobilizing issue for the Arab street like few others. In doing so, he has aligned himself with sworn enemies of the Israeli state – a major factor in the current rift between Erdoğan and Netanyahu.
The G7 statement included a brief reference to the need for a ceasefire in Gaza – an indirect acknowledgment that a lasting peace in the Middle East is impossible without a viable perspective for the Palestinians. The unresolved Palestinian question has long been – and remains – the root cause of the region’s strategic instability. Without a mutually acceptable solution to this issue, there will be no peace in the Middle East. The outcome of the Israel-Iran war will not change that.
Dr. Ronald Meinardus is a Senior Research Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP).
