European elites approach relations with the rival powers of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel through a sophisticated balancing act driven by pragmatism, historical ties, and the need to protect core European interests: energy security, counter-terrorism, and managing migration flows.

This strategy involves a mix of conditional engagement, deterrence, and maintaining parallel, non-exclusive diplomatic channels with all four capitals, even when they are in direct conflict.

The overarching goal is not to choose a side in regional rivalries, but to prevent escalation and uphold a degree of multilateralism that secures European interests in an increasingly volatile neighborhood.

I. Balancing Iran and Saudi Arabia: The Shia-Sunni Rift

European strategy toward the Iran-Saudi rivalry is defined by a commitment to containment without confrontation regarding Iran, while pursuing deep economic and political partnership with Saudi Arabia.

A. The Iran Strategy: Containment via Diplomacy (E3)

The EU and the E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) view Iran primarily through the lens of nuclear non-proliferation and regional destabilization via proxy groups.

• Nuclear Diplomacy: European elites have historically championed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), often in direct diplomatic divergence from the U.S. "maximum pressure" campaign. This commitment to the deal is a balancing act: it keeps Iranian nuclear activity constrained while demonstrating a commitment to multilateral diplomacy that keeps dialogue channels open.

• Targeted Sanctions & Restraint: While opposing broad U.S. sanctions, the EU imposes its own targeted human rights sanctions on Iranian officials and entities. In moments of heightened tension, such as direct Iran-Israel exchanges, the European stance is to condemn Iran's destabilizing actions while simultaneously calling for maximum restraint from all sides to prevent a wider war that would directly impact European security.

B. The Saudi Arabia Strategy: Transactional Partnership

The approach to Saudi Arabia is deeply pragmatic and transactional, prioritizing economic and geopolitical alignment.

• Energy and Trade: Saudi Arabia is a critical partner for oil, gas, and major European defense industry sales. European leaders frequently visit Riyadh to secure energy supplies, attract investment for green transition projects, and ensure contracts for national companies. This economic imperative often trumps public criticism of the Kingdom's human rights record or its involvement in regional conflicts like the war in Yemen.

• Strategic Alignment on Stability: Europeans align with Saudi Arabia's interest in regional stability and counter-terrorism. They view Riyadh as a crucial, well-resourced partner in efforts to de-escalate conflicts, as evidenced by European support for Saudi-led de-escalation with Iran and the peace process in Yemen.

The Balancing Act: Europe attempts to use the threat of alienation with Riyadh (through human rights discourse) to secure market access, while using the promise of nuclear diplomacy with Tehran to secure regional de-escalation, effectively positioning itself as a communication bridge between the rivals.

II. Navigating Israel and Turkey: Complex Security Partners

Relations with Israel and Turkey are complicated by deep historical security ties, internal European divisions, and the direct impact of their respective foreign policies on Europe.

A. The Israel Strategy: Unconditional Security, Conditional Policy

Europe's relationship with Israel is characterized by an unwavering commitment to Israeli security, derived from historical responsibility, combined with a strong conditional stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

• Security and Counter-Terrorism: Following major attacks, European capitals express immediate and unequivocal solidarity, providing intelligence and political support. Many European powers actively participated in defending Israel during direct missile exchanges with Iran.

• The Two-State Solution: European elites are nearly unanimous in their official policy of supporting the Two-State Solution, making the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) a central diplomatic focus. The EU uses its status as the largest donor to the Palestinians to maintain relevance and leverage. European condemnation of Israeli settlement expansion or actions that undermine the two-state viability often serve as the main point of political friction, balancing the absolute security commitment with the conditional policy on the occupation.

• Internal Division: The post-October 7 war highlighted deep internal EU divisions, with some member states favoring an approach closer to the U.S. (stronger alignment with Israel) and others advocating a more critical, pro-Palestinian position (Spain, Ireland).

B. The Turkey Strategy: Deterrence and Cooperative Pragmatism

Turkey, as a NATO ally, EU candidate, and key neighbor, represents the most complex balancing challenge, often placing individual European nations' interests at odds with one another.

• Containing Regional Ambition: European elites must manage Turkey's revisionist foreign policy, which involves military intervention in Libya, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus/Greece disputes). France, in particular, has taken a firm stance against Turkish naval and military expansion in the Mediterranean, using deterrence and diplomatic pressure to protect its regional allies and energy interests.

• Transactional Necessity (Migration and Economy): Despite political friction, Europe recognizes the geographical necessity of cooperating with Ankara. The EU-Turkey refugee deal remains the central pillar, whereby Turkey is paid to host millions of refugees and prevent onward migration to Europe. This leverage gives Turkey a powerful negotiating tool that European elites must constantly accommodate.

• The Rivalry Triangle (Turkey-Israel): European leaders must also manage the rising rivalry between Turkey and Israel. This involves urging restraint to prevent new conflicts in Syria, Iraq, or Gaza from being fueled by the two regional heavyweights, who have divergent ideological and strategic visions.

III. The Core European Balancing Tools

European elites rely on specific tools and strategies to manage these rivalries without becoming fully entangled.

1. "Normative Power" Diplomacy: Europeans consistently use the language of international law, human rights, and multilateralism to frame their engagement, which allows them to criticize the domestic or regional actions of all four powers (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel) while maintaining diplomatic ties. This contrasts with the more realpolitik and transactional approach favored by the U.S. or China.

2. Economic Leverage: The EU is the largest trading partner for Israel and Turkey, and a major one for Saudi Arabia. This economic interdependence is the primary source of European leverage, used to condition dialogue, promote investment, and enforce sanctions (as seen with targeted sanctions on Iran and Turkey).

3. The "Bridge" Role: European actors (especially the E3 and the EU's External Action Service) frequently seek to position themselves as neutral diplomatic brokers—a bridge between the U.S. and Iran, and a mediating force in intra-regional disputes. This helps keep lines of communication open, which is essential for crisis prevention and de-escalation, benefiting European stability.

Ultimately, Europe's balancing act is an attempt to define a "strategic autonomy" that is independent of both U.S. policy shifts and the destabilizing maximalism of regional powers, ensuring the stability of its immediate southern neighborhood.