editor
Bunu da Okuyun
Poland’s Radio Revolution: OFF Radio Replaces Hosts with AI
The scenario of Iran’s disintegration is not merely an “external crisis” for Europe, but also the brink of a strategic impasse. For Europe is both historically too fragile to intervene in the Middle East and too intertwined with it to remain aloof. An Iran-centered disintegration would reignite the continent’s long-delayed security, migration, and Foreign Policy issues. But the matter is not merely this.
Europe’s real vulnerability lies in its inability to make sense of such crises. As Iran’s integrity collapses, Europe has neither a narrative nor the capacity to intervene. Strategically trapped in the shadow of the US, with its diplomatic reflexes in disarray, Europe will become a passive spectator in the new regional equation that emerges after Iran. This means that the continent will face a crisis of legitimacy not only in the Middle East but also in terms of its own internal political architecture.
Europe’s Open Doors: Israel’s Strategic Leap and the Continent’s Institutional Surrender
A regime change in Iran brought about by Israel would not only mean a transformation centered in Tehran; it would also mean the gradual dissolution of Europe’s geopolitical reflexes and institutional independence. Such a transformation would directly draw Europe into the Middle East along the axes of migration, security, and radicalization, thereby integrating all of Europe’s diplomatic, security, and political capacities into this crisis zone. The strategic winner of this integration would be Israel, which acts as if it were not the architect of regional crises but has the capacity to direct the post-crisis architecture.
Europe’s being pushed back into the position of a “Middle East intervening actor” under the post-Iran migration pressure will divert the continent’s entire attention and resources to the east. This state of fragility and preoccupation creates a unique maneuvering space for Israel. For Israel, as Europe’s security partner, will establish deeper and more lasting relationships not only with structures such as NATO or Frontex, but also with the continent’s internal security, intelligence, technology, and migration management institutions. Europe’s definition of an ally that is driving itself into an abyss as a “stabilizing force” is essentially the failure of its own political intuition.
At this point, Europe’s institutional integrity and decision-making mechanisms will be reshaped under Israel’s identity as a “friendly actor.” Because when the continent faces an existential security crisis, it embraces operational pragmatism rather than the intellectual clarity needed to distinguish between the perpetrator and the solution provider. This transforms Israel not merely into a regional state but into a new actor with operational freedom within Europe.
In short, an Israel-driven regime change in Iran does not lead to Europe turning toward the Middle East; rather, it makes the Middle East an integral part of Europe. And this state of integration means that Europe’s geopolitical decision-making centers are slowly but surely shifting toward Tel Aviv.
