The European Parliament on Wednesday debated the rapidly escalating crisis in the Middle East, as lawmakers grappled with the geopolitical, economic and security consequences of the war with Iran. The discussion came just days before EU leaders are due to gather for a European Council summit where the conflict is expected to feature prominently alongside competitiveness, defence readiness and energy policy.
The exchanges reflected a chamber struggling to balance condemnation of Tehran, concern over the humanitarian toll of the conflict and growing anxiety about the war’s impact on Europe’s own security and energy markets. Opening the debate for the rotating EU Council presidency, Cyprus’s Deputy Minister for European Affairs Marilena Raouna warned that the crisis posed serious risks for regional stability and European security, particularly for countries on the Union’s eastern Mediterranean frontier.
Situation nothing if not serious
In a lengthy address touching on security, diplomacy, trade routes and humanitarian concerns, Ms Raouna argued that the conflict must be understood as more than a regional confrontation. From Cyprus’s perspective, she said, the crisis is already affecting Europe directly.
“Let us be absolutely clear: the situation in Iran and the broader Middle East is extremely serious,” she said, warning that the new cycle of attacks and counter-attacks threatened both regional stability and global security.
Proximity is everything
The deputy minister pointed to the proximity of Cyprus to the conflict zone, noting that recent incidents had demonstrated how quickly instability in the region could spill into Europe. While Cyprus had not been directly targeted, she said, a drone incident near British bases on the island illustrated how unpredictable the conflict had become.
She also warned that the crisis could disrupt global trade and energy flows if tensions escalate further in key maritime corridors. “The events unfolding in the region risk disrupting international trade and supply routes, notably for energy,” she said, stressing that safeguarding freedom of navigation and maritime routes through chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz would be essential.
You might be interested
How to de-escalate
Much of Ms Raouna’s address focused on the need for diplomacy and de-escalation while addressing the longer-term security concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme and regional activities.
“Only a sustainable diplomatic solution will allow us to address decisively our multiple long-standing concerns related to Iran,” she said, referring to issues ranging from Tehran’s missile programme to its wider role in destabilising the region.
Commission president addresses lawmakers
Following the Council presidency’s remarks, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen addressed Parliament, striking a sharper tone toward Tehran while warning that the conflict had already exposed Europe’s economic vulnerability to geopolitical shocks.
In a speech that combined condemnation of the Iranian leadership with a broader argument about Europe’s strategic resilience, Ms von der Leyen described decades of repression under Iran’s ruling establishment and its role in regional conflicts and made clear that there was no defending the embattled leadership.
“For decades Ayatollah Khamenei ruled through repression, violence and fear,” she said, adding that the regime had imprisoned and tortured its own citizens while supporting militant groups and providing assistance to Russia’s war against Ukraine.
“There should be no tears shed for such a regime,” she told lawmakers.
At the same time, Ms von der Leyen emphasised that the European Union remains committed to the principles of international law and the UN Charter, reiterating that the bloc was founded as a peace project. She also warned that the economic consequences of the war were already being felt across Europe.
Iran’s crisis did not begin on 28 February… It began much earlier, when this cruel and oppressive regime chose to wage war on its own people. – Jeroen Lenaers, MEP speaking for the EPP group
Gas prices have risen sharply since the conflict began, she said, while oil prices have also surged. In total, the first ten days of fighting had already cost European taxpayers an additional three billion euros in fossil fuel imports. “That is the price of our dependence,” Ms von der Leyen said, arguing that the crisis underscored the need for Europe to reduce reliance on fossil fuels imported from unstable regions.
Lawmakers clash over Europe’s response
When the floor opened to the political groups following the Commission statement, the debate quickly revealed sharp divisions across the chamber over how Europe should interpret the conflict and what role the EU should play in responding to it. Some lawmakers argued that the crisis must be understood in the context of years of repression by the Iranian regime and its broader destabilising role in the region.
The first major intervention came from the EPP group, where Jeroen Lenaers said Iran’s current turmoil could not be separated from the government’s long record of violence against its own population.
“Iran’s crisis did not begin on 28 February,” the lawmaker stressed. “It began much earlier, when this cruel and oppressive regime chose to wage war on its own people, when young protesters were shot in the streets and women demanding freedom were beaten.”
He argued that the collapse of Iran’s leadership could potentially open the door to political change in the country. That is one potential positive but many would note — a huge if — given that regime change is rarely successful through air strikes alone. Analysts have drawn comparisons with Gaza, where Hamas still retained control despite years of war.
Other speakers focused on the security implications for Europe, particularly after drones linked to the conflict reached Cyprus.
“Iranian drones reached Cyprus,” one intervention warned. “That means this conflict is no longer distant. It has already touched European soil.”
Several lawmakers also used the debate to criticise the EU’s fragmented geopolitical voice, arguing that internal divisions weaken Europe’s influence internationally.
“A Europe with twenty-seven different voices is not taken seriously,” one speaker charged. “When Europe is divided, Europe can be ignored.”
Others emphasised the economic consequences of the conflict, warning that rising energy prices would directly affect European households and businesses.
Who ‘kills worse’
Later in the debate, German non-attached MEP Lukas Sieper argued that the conflict shows Europe’s geopolitical weakness and the need for stronger EU defence integration.
“People want me to pick sides. People want me to pick sides as a politician between an Islamist terror regime and war criminals who are corrupt and transforming their state into authoritarianism. I refuse to pick sides, because the only people I care about in this are the civilians who suffer. And you can choose which side kills more or kills worse, these civilians. What I can tell you from all of this is that we need to transform Europe to play a real role in the future. We need a European army; we need a common foreign policy; we need to be able to get our own citizens out of such a situation — but only if we make ourselves ready.”
Sharp words
Taken together, the debate revealed several currents of opinion in Parliament, including far-right and far-left criticism of Ms von der Leyen herself or of a Commission that had not done enough. Others found fault elsewhere. There were calls for a tougher geopolitical stance toward Iran and stronger European defence cooperation; warnings that escalation risks undermining international law and destabilising the region further; and concerns about the economic fallout of the conflict, particularly energy prices and disruptions to global trade routes.
With fighting continuing and no diplomatic breakthrough in sight, the conflict that dominated the Strasbourg debate appears far from resolution — and likely to remain high on the EU’s agenda in the weeks ahead.
