Europe's approach to the Middle East is best described as a state of "convergent divergence" from Washington's strategy. Europe is not simply following Washington’s lead, but neither is it acting with full, unified independence. Its policy is a continuous, complex navigation between coordination with the U.S. where interests align (like counterterrorism) and deliberate separation where core European interests and values diverge (like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the Iran nuclear deal).

The desire for "strategic autonomy"—the ability to set its own priorities and act independently if necessary—is a core driver of European policy, fueled by the perceived unpredictability and re-orientation of the U.S. away from the Middle East.

Areas of Significant European Divergence from Washington 

Europe has clearly defined areas where its core interests and principles force it to adopt a different policy from the United States, especially since the Trump administration highlighted the potential unreliability of the transatlantic partner.

1. The Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

The clearest example of European independence was the unanimous, sustained commitment by the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the UK) and the European Union to preserve the JCPOA after the U.S. unilaterally withdrew in 2018.

• European Action: The EU established the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX)—a mechanism designed to facilitate non-dollar trade with Iran, bypassing U.S. secondary sanctions. While INSTEX was largely ineffective in practice due to the risk of U.S. retaliation, its existence was a major political and symbolic statement of divergence, positioning the EU as a committed multilateralist partner.

• The Rationale: For Europe, the JCPOA was a successful non-proliferation agreement and a critical tool for regional stability. Washington’s withdrawal was seen as destabilizing and a rejection of diplomacy, prompting Europe to act as the guardian of the agreement.

2. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The core of the European position—which is shared, even if inconsistently applied—is a firm, long-standing commitment to the Two-State Solution, based on the 1967 lines with mutual recognition.

• Divergence: While the U.S. historically acted as Israel’s primary security guarantor and mediator, successive European leaders have been more outspoken in their criticism of Israeli settlement expansion and actions that violate international law.

• European Action: The EU is the largest donor of humanitarian and financial aid to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA. Furthermore, the EU requires products from Israeli settlements to be clearly labelled—a policy that directly contrasts with the often-unconditional diplomatic support given by Washington to Israel. This commitment to a values-based, rule-of-law approach contrasts starkly with the more transactional, pro-Israel-first policies seen from the U.S. in recent years.

3. The Use of Force and Hard Power

Europe’s historical experience and geographic proximity to the Middle East instill a profound aversion to unilateral military intervention, differentiating its approach from the U.S. “security-first” and military interventionist tradition.

• European Preference: The EU prioritizes diplomacy, economic incentives, soft power, and development aid as primary foreign policy tools. It prefers UN or multilateral mandates for any military or crisis-management operations.

• The Iraq War: The Franco-German opposition to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq remains a defining moment of transatlantic divergence, illustrating Europe's reluctance to join a war of choice outside the framework of international law.

• Individual Action: When military action is required, it is often undertaken by individual member states, such as France's military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Sahel, which is driven by specific national security concerns, often operating outside a comprehensive, unified EU framework.

Areas of Crucial Strategic Alignment with Washington 

Despite the calls for strategic autonomy, Europe's foreign policy remains fundamentally tethered to the U.S. on matters of grand strategy and security.

1. Counterterrorism and Security Cooperation

The threat of terrorism, particularly from groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, creates an overarching security alignment.

• Cooperation: European and U.S. intelligence services maintain deep and essential operational cooperation in the Middle East, sharing data, intelligence, and targeting information crucial for preventing attacks in both continents. European states participate in U.S.-led coalitions, such as the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.

• Military Dependencies: Major European military operations in the region (even those with a distinct European flavour) often rely on U.S. strategic enablers, such as satellite communications, air transport, and advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. Full autonomy in this domain is years away, at best.

2. Great Power Competition (China and Russia)

Europe and the U.S. share a common, growing concern over the long-term strategic threat posed by Russia’s destabilizing actions and China's expanding economic and technological influence in the Middle East.

• Russia: European policy on Syria and Libya, while differing in tactics, shares the U.S. goal of countering Russian military and political gains. The EU's sanctions regime against Moscow also finds strong alignment with Washington's.

• China: While Europe wants to maintain an economic relationship with Beijing ("partner and competitor"), it increasingly views China as a "systemic rival," aligning with U.S. concerns about China's technological penetration (e.g., 5G networks) and opaque investment through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a stance that has significantly hardened in recent years.

The Hindrance to Full Independence: Fragmentation and Weakness 

Europe's independent policy ambition is consistently undercut by two major structural flaws:

1. Internal Fragmentation: The lack of a unified, singular European foreign policy is the biggest hindrance to true independence. Different member states have varying national interests, historical ties (e.g., France and Lebanon, Italy and Libya), and threat perceptions. The Gulf crisis, the Libyan civil war, and the recent war in Gaza all exposed significant public divisions among EU members, making it difficult to project a consistent, strong, and independent European voice.

2. Military Weakness: Despite recent increases in defense spending, Europe still lacks the expeditionary military capacity and integrated command structures to assume the U.S. role as the primary hard security provider in the MENA region. This reliance on the U.S.-led NATO framework ensures that, on core security matters, European policy must remain, at the very least, deeply coordinated with Washington.

Conclusion: Europe's policy in the Middle East is therefore a constant balancing act. It is pursuing a path of "strategic independence" by actively seeking to diversify its partnerships and asserting its own diplomatic priorities (like the JCPOA and the Two-State Solution). However, its dependence on the U.S. for collective defense, its reliance on U.S. military enablers, and its internal political fragmentation prevent it from truly separating its strategic course from Washington’s orbit. Europe is acting independently in its diplomatic methodology and priorities, but remains largely dependent in its security architecture.