Syria has just delivered an event that could have a profound impact on Europe and its neighbors. The question is: how are Europeans confronting the challenge of adapting to this rapidly evolving and multi-faceted new situation in the Middle East? The initial European response can be described as one of hesitation, a sense of being “stuck.” Even the UK, which exited the EU in search of a more agile role on the world stage, is approaching the situation with caution. The consequences of Syria’s crisis resonate deeply across Europe, second only to the broader repercussions felt across the Middle East. Europe stands at a crossroads, and its next steps will define its role on the global stage in the years to come. The UK’s ongoing hesitations can be traced back to 2013, a pivotal moment when British lawmakers made a decision that would carry far-reaching global implications. Reportedly, President Barack Obama had drawn a firm red line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, with plans to authorize a strike in retaliation against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The expectation was that Britain would back the US, following the precedent set in Libya just a few years prior. Instead, British MPs voted to stay out of the conflict, throwing Washington’s calculations into disarray. Obama, facing resistance in Congress, eventually stepped back from direct military involvement. This moment marked a turning point in US foreign policy, especially after Obama’s earlier reliance on the UK and France in Libya—where he eulogized their leading role while he opted for a more passive stance.
As early as the mid-November, it had become evident that Bashar al-Assad’s government was becoming increasingly vulnerable to a rebel offensive. With the US stepping back, a vacuum emerged, quickly filled by Iran-backed militias aiming to shift the battlefield dynamics. Alongside this, Russia’s strategic interests in Syria required a firmer foothold. The 2013 decision continues to cast a long shadow over Britain’s response to the potential collapse of the Assad regime. The lingering sense that it may not be Britain’s place to intervene now haunts Foreign Office officials, complicating the country’s position in a rapidly evolving crisis. The echoes of that fateful vote remain a defining factor in how Britain tackles the precarious future of Syria. Adding a new layer to the dynamic, the return of Jonathan Powell as the national security adviser to Prime Minister Keir Starmer signals a shift in Britain’s approach to the Middle East. Powell, who made headlines a decade ago, will now oversee the UK’s response to the shifting power balance in Syria, particularly concerning Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS).
The terms of Britain’s engagement, under Powell’s guidance, will be closely examined by allies and adversaries alike. Dowing Street, mindful of the stakes, have conducted intensive role-play exercises, shaping a strategy that they are confident has been thoroughly stress-tested. Initial contacts with HTS are already underway, but significant caution prevails in Whitehall regarding the UK’s ability to carve out a meaningful role in the region’s evolving crisis. Meanwhile, across the English Channel, EU foreign affairs ministers gathered in Brussels for critical talks on setting guidelines for European policy towards Damascus. These discussions, marked by technical intricacies, are infused with a sense of cautious optimism as European leaders consider their next steps. Among their key priorities is the appointment of a new EU special envoy, who will be tasked with managing the sensitive and evolving diplomatic situation in Syria.
For a region shaped by the lasting repercussions of government collapse, the calm deliberations in European capitals seem detached from the chaos unfolding in Syria. European leaders, in their meetings, remain focused on processes, goals, and an overarching aim of normalisation. However, underlying these discussions is the looming specter of instability in Iran. Here too, the prevailing sentiment is a reluctance to abandon the long-held “E3 approach” – led by France, Germany, and the UK – that remains tethered to the controversial Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal. Despite the changing geopolitical dynamics, Europeans cling to a strategy defined by an outdated legacy, unaware of how swiftly the regional winds are shifting. The storm in Syria may soon reach their doorstep.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) belongs to the Obama/Kerry era, a momentous agreement struck in 2015, before the Trump administration withdrew the U.S. three years later. Since then, China and Russia have distanced themselves from the broader coalition that supported the deal and its accompanying UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Now, it is only the E3 – France, Germany, and the UK – that remains engaged, united in their diplomatic efforts concerning Iran. This trio continues to uphold a principled belief that the framework prevents a nuclear-armed Iran, but their adherence to this stance leaves them ill-prepared for what lies ahead. As the rapidly evolving crisis in Syria demonstrates, and with the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to office, the landscape is shifting drastically. While engagement with key actors in this new era is essential, it is not enough to retain influence as the changes triggered by the downfall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime take hold. The E3’s narrow focus on their legacy strategy is increasingly out of step with the emerging realities of the region.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
