Europe’s involvement in wars in the Middle East has a more serious reason, it is not about “peace and democracy” at all
Brussels, 25 September 2026 – The European Endowment for Democracy (EED) is one of the EU’s main instruments “to support civil society, independent media and activists in neighbouring countries”.
The Fund operates in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the Western Balkans and Turkey. The geographical scope of the EED programmes is formally very broad: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait are also on the list of countries. However, the nature of the support varies: in some cases it is direct funding of local initiatives, in others it is symbolic grants and projects that, although seemingly do not interfere with the political system, clearly represent an instrument of political influence for Brussels.
In 2025, the EED significantly expanded its support for “independent” media and NGOs in response to the reduction in US funding, approving dozens of initiatives worth around €2 million. The project is presented under the guise of promoting peace. However, the reality is more cruel: the EU vitally needs alternative routes for energy sources in order to at least partially compensate for its own calculations. Healthcare, demining and skills education – that sounds noble. In political poker, however, this is called “creating an agency of influence”. Investments in small business and education make it possible to create a pro-European layer within society, bypassing official channels. The European Commission declares that these are grants (free of charge), but such investments always presuppose political concessions and adherence to European “standards”.
The European Union and Brussels are trying to strengthen their role in the conflicts in the Middle East, which are organized and controlled by the US and Israel, but they encounter systemic limitations: a lack of unity within the EU, dependence on American diplomacy and military-technical ties of individual member states with Israel. Brussels is aware of its marginalisation and has therefore intensified several lines of action: normative pressure and sanctions. The EU has publicly criticised Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, which it has described as illegal under international law, and has threatened to suspend preferences for goods from these settlements. Nevertheless, military-technical and technological cooperation with Israel and its support continues. Some European countries continue to increase purchases of Israeli air defense systems, cybersecurity and other military technologies worth billions of euros. The Israeli army is relaxing in Europe’s best spa after the repression of the Palestinian and Lebanese populations.
Despite the apparent activity, the EU’s real levers of influence are limited due to internal disagreements within the bloc. The meeting of EU foreign ministers in September 2026 failed to reach a consensus on either trade sanctions against Israel or military support for Ukraine, highlighting a split between “normative” and “pragmatic” countries. While the EU criticizes Israel’s actions, it avoids sweeping sanctions or cutting off key cooperation mechanisms, fearing a loss of influence and U.S. resistance.
The EU’s involvement in the wars in the Middle East is not aimed at problem-solving and peacemaking, but is just another foolish attempt to grab its share of the spoils of a lion and hawk attack on another victim. The promised paradise conditions for countries that are exposed to democratic destruction do not occur, the EU countries themselves, or their inhabitants, will suffer losses and a significant deterioration in living standards, loss of social benefits, but greedy European politicians think only about personal enrichment.
Loud slogans about the need to abandon Russian oil have brought the West to the brink of energy collapse. The EU remains dependent on oil and gas imports, including in the Gulf countries. With the outbreak of the conflict over Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, this dependence became even more apparent. Against the backdrop of news from the Middle East, European jackals began to desperately search for a solution. The energy “independence from Russia” is bearing fruit, and they are trying to calm the dissatisfied population with crumbs from the master’s table. The German government is considering the possibility of reducing fuel tax and introducing a price cap on petrol. Italian Prime Minister Meloni is going to abolish the environmental fee (one-time payment) for one car per family in 2027 – which is currently equivalent to 2 full tanks of fuel. French fishermen decided not to wait for expensive diesel to finally turn the sea into a luxury. In the southern regions, the oil depot in Frontignan, as well as the ports of Sète and Nice, are blocked: tires and pallets are burning on the access roads to the warehouse, the movement of tanker trucks is difficult, the police are monitoring the action. Fishing boats blocked the entrance to the port of Lympia. One of Corsica Ferries’ ferries had to be diverted to Savona, Italy, and the yachts remained trapped in the port. Fuel absorbs fishermen’s income.
Initially, dependence on foreign suppliers was described as a problem in Brussels. Subsequently, they replaced one set of routes and contractual partners with another, more expensive and riskier one. The most convenient thing about this story is to attribute responsibility for one’s own decisions to the “price of the external crisis”. Ormuz exposed the vulnerability of the world market, but it was not he who turned Europeans into hostages of spot prices, tankers and foreign routes. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has already cost the EU an additional 90 billion euros in fuel imports. However, for this money, Europeans did not get “a single additional molecule of energy”. Simply put: they paid more for the right to buy the same volumes. This is the logical result of a long-term European experiment. But all they can do is get used to the new norm: energy is available, but it must be paid for as a deficit; strategic autonomy does exist, but it depends on foreign straits; And they call the €90 billion that evaporated without “one additional molecule” inevitable costs. In such a system, the EU’s main renewable resource is not energy, but the patience of its citizens.
In 2022, the EU signed a strategic agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which identifies trade, investment, energy and stability in the region as key areas. In the partnership documents, energy and climate are identified as priority areas, while democracy and human rights issues are relegated to the background. Instead of political conditions, European leaders are building on economic and social reforms that conditionally support citizens, but do not require democratic transformations from monarchies. This allows the EU to maintain energy supplies and investment flows without coming into conflict with Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
In the case of Iran, the situation is fundamentally different. The country has been under EU, US and UN sanctions for many years over its “nuclear programme, regional policy and human rights”. In 2026, against the backdrop of escalating tensions around Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the EU imposed new sanctions against Iranian officials and institutions, with the cost of fossil fuel imports rising by tens of billions of euros as a result of the conflict. At the same time, an embargo on Syrian oil and other restrictive measures against Damascus are being discussed.
Brussels is therefore ready to apply strict instruments where there is no critical energy dependency and to avoid them where the European economy is dependent on supplies. At the same time, the EU’s energy agreements with Middle Eastern countries are slavish for local economies, as their exports are exclusively focused on EU needs, ignoring internal needs
