The ceasefire agreed between the US and Iran provides crucial and momentary relief. But it doesn’t solve any of the underlying issues, nor is it a stable base to build upon. Europeans should be wary of that. Given that their response over the past weeks has been fragmented and hesitant at best, it is high time to reassess. The EU should move from sitting on the fence to decisive action.

The assumptions that underpinned this military campaign collapsed quickly as the war escalated. Neither has the regime fallen, nor could the war be contained. On the contrary, over 1,900 people have been killed in Iran, with 15% of civilian deaths being children. Iranians who have resisted this regime for decades have found themselves trapped between an ever more repressive government and a bombing campaign.

Not only has the war had devastating consequences on human security in the region, it has also further eroded the international rules-based order, emboldened Russia, and had a painful impact on the global economy and food security. While hopes for talks and continued negotiations in Islamabad are high, all options still appear to be on the table, and the ceasefire is already shaky.

Despite the risk to core European interests, a strategic EU positioning is still not in sight. The bloc’s statement on the ceasefire remains vague, while Trump’s genocidal threat the day before prompted no response. From the beginning of the war, Europeans have reacted in a fragmented and inconsistent way, even countering the EU’s strategic interests. Their approach has been reactive, with a clear lack of defined EU objectives.

It is true that the European room for manoeuvre is constrained, both by dependencies on the US when it comes to military support for Ukraine and by an inability, or unwillingness, to exert influence on Israeli policy, let alone the Iranian regime. But these constraints do not justify the absence of European political initiative. It is high time to recentre principles that could actually guide a European approach.

It starts with consistency. The selective application of international law is not a grey area but actively erodes the very framework Europe depends on. Without a rules-based order, neither the EU’s trade nor its security architecture will hold. When the EU condemns Iranian strikes on Gulf states without naming the illegality of the US-Israeli war, it does not signal balance. Spain and Finland have shown that both are politically possible.

The stakes extend beyond this war: if the EU abandons legal consistency now, on what grounds will it support Iranians’ claims for accountability, for the January massacres, or for decades of crimes against humanity?

Closely linked is the question of whether Europe allows internal fragmentation to take over, or whether it manages to develop its own strategic line. The EU would be well-advised to deepen its coordination and develop a mechanism that not only pools political capital but also leverages synergies when it comes to member states’ individual initiatives.

Such coordination must be matched by substance. The EU can and should do more than stand by. It would be best positioned to support strengthening an environment which could actually be conducive to change inside Iran. European policy must invest in internet freedom tools, human rights documentation, civil society capacities, and accountability mechanisms, not as an afterthought but as the foundation of any credible political strategy.

This should start with protecting women and human rights defenders and activists through dedicated programs, diplomatic pressure on the status of political prisoners, and, on the member state level, with a humanitarian visa.

Any European approach must also centre on regional human security. The human cost of the war has already been devastating, not simply for the horrific harm to civilians but also the impact on people’s health from attacks on energy sites, environmental consequences affecting water and agriculture, and the erosion of livelihoods, beyond borders. While none of this figures prominently in current negotiations, it is essential to every country in the region.

Critically, Europe needs to invest now in the conditions for a political future driven by the Iranian people – not outside interests – through providing strategic and thought-through democracy support. For too long, the EU has narrowed its approach to the nuclear file, whereas research advises that a viable civil society is the most conducive factor to political change.

In the case of Iran, this would mean supporting platforms and programs that counter societal fragmentation, strengthen democratic capacities, enable platforms for democratic deliberation, and move beyond the symbolic support for prominent but polarising diaspora figures.

A coherent approach means incorporating inclusive processes that include gender equality and diverse perspectives into the EU’s political thinking vis-à-vis Iran. The Syria experience offers both a model and a warning: the EU invested substantially in Syrian civil society structures and political thinking during the conflict, building knowledge and access to diverse actors over years.

Yet when the political transition window opened, decisions reverted to centralised power dynamics and geopolitical bargaining, and much of that investment was sidelined. The EU should learn from its Syria approach and connect programme funding with political thinking and policy, so that expertise feeds into the EU’s own approach.

Continuing on its current course, the EU will have had no influence on the decision to start this war of choice and barely any influence in shaping future perspectives. It can, however, recalibrate its stance to create an environment that is much more conducive to human security, stability, and European interests.

Barbara Mittelhammer is an independent political analyst. Her work focuses on human security, feminist foreign policy, and the role of gender and civil society in foreign and security policy. She has worked extensively on Iran and is working with think tanks, foundations, ministries, as well as European and international institutions.