Europe faces an energy paradox: condemning Iran while justifying Israel's actions reveals a double standard in international politics. While Israel bombs energy infrastructure in Iran, and Iran retaliates by targeting similar infrastructure in Israel, the European reaction is far from neutral. Iran is immediately labeled a "terrorist state," while Israel is granted the right to defend itself, an asymmetry that highlights a deep contradiction in Western diplomatic doctrine.
European capitals perceive Iran as a regional destabilizing force, supporting various armed groups in the Middle East. Israel, on the other hand, benefits from recognition of its right to security and a strong diplomatic foothold. This distinction leads to a European security doctrine that differentiates between "defensive strikes" and "terrorist aggression," ignoring the reality that striking energy infrastructure, whether Israeli or Iranian, produces similar consequences.
This approach relies on a discursive construction where Israeli infrastructure is seen as a symbol of civilian vulnerability, while Iranian infrastructure is considered a legitimate military target. Historical ties and strategic alliances between Europe and Israel, particularly in intelligence and security, partly explain this asymmetry. The term "terrorist state" suspends any consideration of proportionality concerning Iran.
This diplomatic dissonance has significant consequences. It weakens the credibility of European institutions, as any future condemnation of attacks against civilian infrastructure will face this precedent. Criticism from the Global South, notably from China and Russia, exploits this contradiction to challenge the Western-dominated international order. The protection of energy infrastructure as a global common good is compromised.
Europe's position reveals a tension between defending historical allies and respecting universal principles. How far can Europe maintain this double standard without irreparably compromising its credibility?
