European military operations in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, while publicly framed as counterterrorism missions against groups like ISIS and associated jihadist networks, fundamentally reflect deep-seated geopolitical and economic competition.

The purported goal of "defeating terror" often serves as a necessary and unifying justification for interventions that are primarily motivated by a complex calculus of great-power rivalry, securing vital interests, and projecting influence into historically significant spheres.

The distinction between counterterrorism and geopolitical competition blurs because terrorism itself is a symptom of the regional instability that European powers seek to shape and control.

The military operations are thus not just about eliminating threats but about positioning European states favorably in the future regional order.

I. Securing Energy, Trade, and Migration Interests

The most tangible geopolitical drivers of European military involvement are tied to securing critical economic and security lifelines that run through the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

A. Energy Access and Control

The instability in Libya, Iraq, and Syria directly threatens European energy security. The need to maintain stable, uninterrupted access to oil and gas resources often trumps a purely counterterrorism focus.

• Libya and the Oil Crescent: Before the 2011 NATO intervention and in the subsequent civil war, France and Italy engaged in clear geopolitical competition over Libya's vast oil and gas reserves. Italy, with its historical ties and the presence of its energy giant ENI, traditionally held a dominant position. France, through its support for Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar's faction, was accused of seeking to gain a larger share of the country's energy contracts, challenging Italian and UN-backed interests. The fight against local militias was often a proxy for control over the strategically vital "Oil Crescent" and key energy infrastructure, making it an economic rivalry dressed as a stability effort.

• Syria and Iraq: While less central to immediate oil supply than Libya, the stability of Iraq is vital for global oil prices, which directly impact European economies. European participation in the anti-ISIS coalition was a way to secure its economic interests in the wider region and ensure that a major global energy producer didn't collapse into a permanent terror haven.

B. Containing Migration Flows

For European states, particularly those on the Mediterranean littoral like Italy, Malta, and Greece, the collapse of state authority in Libya is an existential security issue due to uncontrolled migration.

• Libya as Europe’s Border: The power vacuum in post-Gaddafi Libya turned its coastline into the primary launch point for irregular migration across the Mediterranean. European military and coast guard efforts in the area, while framed as humanitarian and anti-smuggling, are fundamentally a geopolitical defense of the EU's southern border. By training and equipping Libyan factions (often the UN-recognized government or specific local militias) to act as border guards, Europe is projecting its internal border security requirements deep into a foreign state, a classic exercise of external influence and control that goes far beyond a simple counterterrorism objective.

II. Inter-European and Great Power Rivalry

European operations are not monolithic; they frequently highlight geopolitical divisions and rivalries among EU and NATO members, as well as competition with extra-regional powers.

A. Franco-Italian Rivalry in Libya

The civil war in Libya became a clear arena for inter-European rivalry, often undermining the concept of a unified EU foreign policy.

• Competing Clients: France (historically backing the eastern faction led by Haftar, citing counterterrorism in the Sahel as a motive) and Italy (backing the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli, citing historical ties and energy interests) adopted divergent and often contradictory military and diplomatic strategies. This competition was less about eliminating a terrorist threat and more about establishing a preferred political client who would secure post-conflict contracts, access, and regional influence for the respective European power. The use of military and intelligence assets to support these rival factions is a textbook example of geopolitical competition.

B. Competition with Russia and Iran in Syria

European involvement in Syria cannot be isolated to the fight against ISIS. It is deeply interwoven with the desire to counterbalance the growing influence of Russia and Iran in the Levant.

• Political Future of Syria: While ISIS was the immediate military target, a core European strategic interest was ensuring that Russia and Iran did not solely dictate the post-Assad political transition. European political and military support for moderate opposition groups (before the full dominance of jihadist groups) and later, their intelligence and logistical support to the US-led coalition, was a way to maintain leverage and influence the ultimate outcome of the Syrian state. This objective is about regional power balance, not just counterterrorism.

• Preventing a Regional Hegemon: Ensuring that no single non-European power (be it Iran or Russia) achieves regional hegemony in the Levant is a core strategic objective for maintaining European interests and trade routes.

III. Post-Colonial Influence and Status Projection

For major former colonial powers like France and the United Kingdom, military interventions in the MENA region serve the vital geopolitical purpose of status projection on the world stage and reaffirming influence in their historical spheres.

A. French Projection in the Sahel and Levant

France, in particular, views its military capability as essential for its status as a great power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

• The Sahel-Libya Nexus: France's extensive military presence in the Sahel region (Opération Barkhane), officially aimed at jihadist groups, is intrinsically linked to Libya’s security. The argument is that instability in Libya fuels the extremism that plagues its former colonial sphere in the Sahel. By acting as the security guarantor for West and North Africa, France maintains political, economic, and security relationships with the region, often preempting the influence of other global powers. The counterterrorism narrative justifies a continuous military deployment that upholds French prestige and deep-rooted influence.

B. Maintaining the Transatlantic Bond

European interventions, particularly in Iraq and Syria, are also a means of securing the transatlantic relationship by demonstrating burden-sharing within NATO and the US-led coalition.

• Soft Geopolitics: Participating in US-led military campaigns, even symbolically, ensures that European voices are heard at the highest levels of global security planning. This move is less about immediate threat elimination and more about geopolitical alignment and solidarity with a key ally, an indispensable act for Europe's broader security architecture.

In conclusion, European military operations in the MENA region are a geopolitical trifecta: they are attempts to secure economic and physical lifelines (energy and migration), expressions of inter-European rivalry and great-power competition (France vs. Italy, Europe vs. Russia/Iran), and vital tools for status projection for former colonial powers. Counterterrorism provides the moral clarity and political consensus needed to mobilize military assets, but the strategic objectives are consistently rooted in the long-term, self-interested calculus of geopolitical competition.