The unfolding sequence between Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran is not merely another episode of tension in the Middle East. It potentially signals a major reconfiguration of regional and global power dynamics. At the heart of this transformation lies an uncomfortable constant for Europeans: their growing marginalization in the management of major strategic crises.
President Donald Trump now appears engaged in a dual-track strategy. On the one hand, he has embraced direct confrontation with Iran, illustrated by joint military engagement alongside Israel following the collapse of negotiations on February 28. On the other, he is seeking to convert this military advantage into diplomatic leverage, aiming to impose a comprehensive agreement that would reshape the region’s balance of power. This approach reflects a transactional logic grounded in power: strike, weaken, then negotiate from a position of strength.
On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly understands this dynamic. His support for a negotiated outcome does not stem from a desire for de-escalation, but from a strategic calculation to consolidate military gains into a lasting political framework. The objective is straightforward: neutralize, or at least contain, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities without becoming trapped in a prolonged and unpredictable war.
Yet this strategy runs into a fundamental reality: Iran does not negotiate under direct pressure without securing structural concessions in return. For Tehran, its nuclear and ballistic programs are not bargaining chips but the core pillars of a doctrine of survival in a hostile environment. Accepting American demands would effectively mean relinquishing a deterrence capability built over decades. In this context, Israeli skepticism regarding the prospects of successful negotiations is far from surprising.
Even more striking is the disconnect between American statements and the Iranian position. While Donald Trump has described the discussions as “very good and productive,” Tehran has categorically denied that any negotiations have taken place. This gap is not a minor detail; it reveals an ongoing war of narratives, with each side attempting to shape international perception. Washington seeks to present itself as the architect of an imminent peace, while Iran aims to project the image of a sovereign actor refusing external pressure.
Meanwhile, Europe watches.
For Belgium, as for the European Union as a whole, this situation is deeply problematic. Not only because it exposes the continent to indirect risks—energy price volatility, migratory pressures, and security tensions—but also because it confirms a structural loss of influence in major strategic matters. The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, in which Europe played a central role, now belongs to the past. Today, key decisions are being made without European participation.
This marginalization is no accident. It is the result of a chronic inability to define a coherent and credible foreign policy. Diverging national interests, institutional hesitations, and continued security dependence on the United States have all contributed to weakening Europe’s geopolitical standing. The current crisis offers a near textbook illustration of this reality.
For Brussels—both the political capital of Europe and a hub of international diplomacy—the stakes are particularly high. Belgium, situated at the heart of European decision-making structures, cannot afford to remain passive. It must instead push for strategic clarity: what should Europe’s position toward Iran be? How much autonomy should it seek from American choices? And above all, how can it regain the capacity to meaningfully influence international negotiations?
The reality is stark: in today’s world, vacuums do not remain empty. They are quickly filled—by the United States, certainly, but also by other powers such as Russia, China, and increasingly assertive regional actors. If Europe continues along its current path of indecision, it risks becoming not an arbiter, but a mere arena where decisions taken elsewhere produce their consequences.
Whether or not Donald Trump ultimately succeeds in reaching an agreement with Iran, his initiative should be understood as a warning signal for Europe. It highlights a world in which major strategic shifts occur without European input—and sometimes at its expense. It also serves as a reminder that power is not proclaimed; it is built through coherence, political will, and the readiness to engage in power dynamics.
Ultimately, the question is not only whether an agreement between Washington and Tehran will be reached. It is whether Europe—and with it Belgium—still intends to act as a player in shaping history, or whether it will accept the far more comfortable, yet far more dangerous, role of a lucid but powerless spectator.
