European elites significantly and systematically rely on the conflicts and instability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as a core justification—both commercial and strategic—for maintaining, funding, and developing their domestic defense industries.

This reliance is institutionalized through policy rhetoric, direct arms exports, and the concept of 'strategic autonomy,' creating a powerful feedback loop where instability is framed as an existential threat that must be countered with domestic industrial investment.

I. The Strategic Narrative: Instability as a Justification for Funding

European political elites consistently leverage the perceived threats emanating from the MENA region—namely terrorism, uncontrolled migration, and energy security—to mobilize public and political support for increased military spending and industrial subsidies.

A. The 'Threat Spillover' Argument

The primary justification for intervention and arms exports is the idea of 'threat spillover': that instability in MENA directly threatens European citizens and must be contained and managed externally.

• Migration and Border Security: Civil wars and political unrest in Libya, Syria, and the broader Sahel are cited to justify vast expenditure on border security technology, surveillance systems, and naval assets. Deals with North African states, which often involve military aid and training, are politically framed as necessary to 'protect the European fortress' from migrant flows. This narrative provides a clear, tangible, and politically popular reason for defense spending that goes beyond traditional territorial defense.

• Counterterrorism: The threat of transnational jihadism (ISIS, Al-Qaeda) rooted in the MENA region is used to justify the development of expeditionary military capabilities, drone technology, and intelligence-sharing infrastructure. This focuses European defense funds on capabilities required for out-of-area operations, which the industry is well-equipped to supply.

• The Strategic Autonomy Pivot: While the war in Ukraine is currently the primary driver of increased defense spending, the MENA region provides the diversified, long-term justification for developing a robust, independent European military industrial base. Strategic autonomy—the ability to act militarily without relying on the US—is essential, and the MENA region represents the critical testing ground and deployment theater for demonstrating this capability.

II. The Commercial Imperative: Export Reliance

Beyond justifying domestic spending, Middle Eastern conflicts are essential to the commercial viability and long-term competitiveness of European defense firms, especially for high-value items like combat aircraft and frigates.

A. The 'Export or Die' Dynamic

European defense industries are fragmented across multiple member states (France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.), leading to high research and development (R&D) costs and a lack of economies of scale. To remain competitive with the massive defense industries of the US and China, these companies must export their products.

• MENA as the Key Market: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar) are consistently among the world's largest arms importers, purchasing European aircraft, ships, and missile systems at an unparalleled rate. These enormous, high-margin contracts—often multi-billion-dollar deals—are absolutely critical for spreading the costs of R&D, keeping production lines open, and ensuring the long-term survival of the European defense industrial base.

• Indifference to Conflict Use: This commercial reliance creates a perverse incentive for elites to prioritize sales over ethical concerns. Weapons are sold to countries actively engaged in conflict (like the war in Yemen) or states with poor human rights records, often in violation of the EU's own Common Position on Arms Exports. The logic, sometimes explicit, is that if a European country refuses a sale, a competitor (US, Russia, China) will step in, denying the European industry essential revenue and influence.

B. The Lobbying and Policy Feedback Loop

The relationship between elites and the defense sector is institutionalized, ensuring that geopolitical instability translates into industrial profit.

• Powerful Lobbying: The arms industry's lobby in Brussels and national capitals is highly organized and well-funded. Reports have consistently documented a symbiotic relationship where industry representatives are integral to advisory groups that set the agenda for EU military research and funding. The industry pushes a vision of European security that necessitates massive investment in new defense technologies, often using the backdrop of external instability to support its case.

• The European Defence Fund (EDF): The creation of the EDF and other EU initiatives, aimed at promoting common procurement and R&D, is a clear victory for the arms lobby. The justification for channeling billions of euros of public money into defense R&D—which overwhelmingly benefits large private companies—is underpinned by the rhetoric of needing to counter 'rising global instability,' with MENA being a perpetual example of this threat.

III. MENA as a 'Market for Influence'

For major European powers, the Middle East is not just a commercial market for weapons, but a geopolitical market for influence that is maintained through military cooperation and arms sales.

• Soft Power through Hard Power: Countries like France and the UK use arms sales and military training as a primary tool of defense diplomacy. By supplying a vital security product, they cement long-term strategic relationships, gain access to military bases or intelligence cooperation, and secure a favorable position in a strategically vital region.

• Path Dependency: The sale of a complex European weapon system (e.g., the Eurofighter Typhoon) creates path dependency. The buyer becomes reliant on the seller for spare parts, maintenance, upgrades, and training for decades, ensuring a continuous revenue stream for the European defense industry and sustained political influence for the exporting nation. Instability simply increases the urgency of the initial purchase and the subsequent maintenance contracts.

In summary, the reliance of European elites on MENA instability to justify their defense industries is profound and multidimensional.

The geopolitical reality of war in the European periphery is strategically exploited to: 1) create a political consensus for increased defense budgets and R&D funding, 2) ensure the commercial viability of national defense companies through massive export contracts, and 3) secure long-term geopolitical influence.

This reliance establishes a deeply entrenched structure where the perpetual threat of conflict in the Middle East is not merely a tragedy to be resolved, but a foundational pillar of Europe's industrial and strategic policy.