by Rajnish Singh
As EU leaders gather in Brussels this week for their monthly summit on 19–20 March, the war in Iran will take centre stage. The conflict, involving the US and Israel against Iran, has shaken an already fragile geopolitical landscape, prompting governments to re-evaluate energy security, military commitments, and domestic political narratives. What started as a regional confrontation has quickly escalated, raising questions about Europe’s strategic autonomy, EU unity, Ukraine’s future, and shifting power dynamics in Asia.
This is not just another Middle Eastern crisis. It is stressing the entire international system. From Brussels to Washington, New Delhi to Kyiv, policymakers are scrambling to understand how the conflict reshapes their priorities. Five key issues stand out.
1. Energy shock sharpens electrification push
The global energy shock, caused by Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and drone attacks on gas processing plants in neighbouring Gulf countries, has exposed Europe’s vulnerability to disruptions in external energy supplies. The war has pushed up prices and revived fears of another winter of energy insecurity, making it a top priority at this week’s EU summit.
For EU leaders, the lesson echoes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the oil shocks of the 1970s: dependence on fossil fuels is a geopolitical liability. Electrification — spanning renewables, nuclear power, heat pumps and electric vehicles — is increasingly seen as a security imperative.
Yet progress remains uneven. Infrastructure gaps, supply chain constraints, and political resistance continue to slow the transition. Even as some governments call for expanded gas exploration in the North Sea, the war reinforces a clear conclusion: Europe’s energy sovereignty depends on accelerating the shift away from fossil fuels.
2. NATO, the coalition of the unwilling
Washington’s call for NATO allies to deploy naval assets to secure the Strait of Hormuz has met with hesitation and, in some cases, rejection. US President Donald Trump argues that European economies depend heavily on Gulf energy flows and should shoulder more of the burden.
However, European governments remain unconvinced. Germany’s chancellor rejected the proposal, while Spain’s prime minister described the war as illegal. Even UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who generally maintains a good relationship with Trump, has faced criticism for his perceived lack of commitment.
Many European leaders are cautious about becoming embroiled in an escalating confrontation with Iran, particularly given the lack of clarity over US objectives. Some capitals fear that participation in a US-led shipping mission could lead to a prolonged conflict reminiscent of Afghanistan.
3. Ukraine risks losing out
The war in Iran complicates Ukraine’s strategic position at a crucial moment. With global attention divided and military stockpiles stretched, Kyiv risks slipping down the priority list in Western capitals.
Some European governments worry that overlapping crises could erode public support for long-term military aid. Putin, meanwhile, is likely to see an opportunity in this distraction. For Ukraine, the immediate challenge is to remain central to Western strategic thinking as priorities shift. At the same time, it continues to advise the US on countering Iranian drones, which Russia uses in attacks on Ukraine.
4. India walks a tightrope
India faces a complex mix of economic pressure and diplomatic constraint. As one of the world’s largest oil importers, it is highly exposed to price spikes driven by Gulf instability. It has also maintained relations with Tehran, Jerusalem and Washington.
For New Delhi, the war narrows diplomatic space and geostrategic options. Higher energy costs risk fuelling inflation, while geopolitical pressure tests India’s strategic autonomy.
However, opportunities remain. Gulf states are seeking to diversify partnerships, and India’s influence in the Indo-Pacific is growing. Nonetheless, in the short term, the focus is on economic pressure and cautious diplomacy.
5. Cheap weapons, costly problems
The conflict highlights how low-cost, unsophisticated weapons — particularly Iranian Shahed-type drones and naval mines — are proving a major challenge for even advanced militaries.
These systems are inexpensive, scalable and difficult to counter, creating disproportionate challenges. Drone swarms can overwhelm air defence systems, forcing the use of costly interceptors against cheap targets. Naval mines disrupt shipping lanes, raise insurance costs, and stretch maritime patrols.
The lesson is stark: the economics of warfare are shifting, and technological superiority alone no longer guarantees dominance.
Conclusion: A system under strain
The war in Iran is influencing global politics well beyond the battlefield. It has reignited Europe’s energy concerns, exposed NATO and EU divisions, complicated Ukraine’s position, challenged India’s diplomacy and compelled militaries to confront the rise of asymmetric tactics threats. Of course, if the war continues for a longer period, the EU will quickly have to brace itself for the possible refugee implications. Iran is larger than Syria, so the effects of migration could be significant, both in terms of resource use and political impact.
More broadly, it highlights a world of intertwined crises, fragile alliances, and domestic politics increasingly shaped by foreign policy. Whether governments can adapt will shape not only the course of this conflict but also the stability of the international order.
By: N. Peter Kramer
