‘Caught unawares’: France put to the test by the US-Israeli war in the Middle East
Donald Trump said it bluntly and without mincing words in a message posted on his Truth Social network on 30 March: France has been "VERY UNHELPFUL" in the war on Iran, and the United States “will REMEMBER!!!".
The open ire, tinged with threats, denounced Paris's refusal to allow American aircraft carrying military aid to Israel to fly over French territory.
Paris’ decision, until then confidential, had actually been in effect since the beginning of the Israeli-US war on Iran, as the Elysee Palace said in response a few hours later, expressing its “surprise” at Trump’s criticism.
While the US president and his administration appear more than a month after the start of hostilities, bogged down in a very costly war with an uncertain outcome, Trump’s outburst reflects growing anger toward his European allies, which have not followed him in his bellicose adventurism.
Aware of the risks of a break with Washington, but also keen to position itself as a guarantor of multilateralism and to limit its growing loss of influence, France has adopted a cautious diplomacy since the beginning of the conflict, walking a tightrope.
Immediately after the first US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on 28 February, Paris took a critical stance.
In a televised address, President Emmanuel Macron expressed his reservations about strikes carried out “outside of international law”, after attributing “primary responsibility for this situation” to Iran, pointing to its nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities.
This line was echoed throughout the French diplomatic corps. In a speech in early March, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot lamented that the offensive had not been preceded by discussions and had been conducted without a mandate from the UN Security Council, the only international framework that can legitimise the use of force.
In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye, the French ambassador to Oman, Nabil Hajlaoui, went further, calling the operation “unjustified and illegal”.
“[France’s] objective is precisely to not be dragged or involved in any way in this war,” he said.
‘Neither consulted nor informed’
Diplomatically active to prevent further escalation since Israel’s 12-day war on Iran last June, Paris “was caught unawares” according to Karim Emile Bitar, research director at the Institute for International and Strategic Relations (IRIS) in Paris and associate professor at the Faculty of Law and Political Science of Saint Joseph University of Beirut.
“France was neither consulted nor informed by the United States, even though it has several important military bases in the Gulf. The French, and more broadly the Europeans, have clearly been marginalised in this sequence of events,” he told MEE.
‘The French, and more broadly the Europeans, have clearly been marginalised in this sequence of events’
- Karim Emile Bitar, political scientist
For former ambassador and Sciences Po Paris professor Maxime Lefebvre, this episode “is not the first where the logic of power prevails over international law and multilateralism”, citing Libya in 2011, Israel’s numerous violations of international law and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
The comparison with the latter, led by former US President George W. Bush, is often invoked by critics of the current Israeli-US operation.
It too was similarly structured around the idea of "regime change" - the Iraq war targeted Saddam Hussein, while the current war on Iran targets the Islamic Republic.
Furthermore, the war initiated by Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February also centres around a threat - chemical weapons for Iraq, nuclear weapons for Iran - the existence of both have been hotly debated.
The analogy, however, has its limits, since, as Lefebvre points out, in 2003 "there was a multilateral sequence before and after the US operation in Iraq”, where Washington sought to rally its allies to its cause or at least to negotiate with them.
"This is not the case in the current situation in Iran,” Lefebvre told MEE.
“Beforehand, Trump did not seek to involve the partners in the Iranian nuclear negotiations, i.e. the three major European powers [France, the United Kingdom and Germany], but also the Chinese and Russians. Nor is this the case for the aftermath, since there are no political, diplomatic or multilateral prospects,” he added.
A French diplomatic source stationed in the Middle East told MEE: “Today, we are witnessing a fully embraced and almost proudly proclaimed circumvention of multilateral frameworks, a fait accompli policy that is plunging the region into a new phase of instability.”
And while both France and Europe in general has declined to be drawn into this new sequence of events, the position of French diplomacy is sometimes considered too neutral.
Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, the face of France's refusal to participate in the 2003 Iraq invasion, criticised the timidity of the French authorities, whom he said have not sufficiently mobilised the EU to stop the ongoing war.
"I believe that our democracies must and can act. Economic sanctions are possible, political sanctions are possible. France is missing the boat, it is missing history," he said.
France’s caution can be explained by the fear of a break with the United States. The Greenland episode - when Trump threatened to buy the island, provoking an outcry in Europe - had already severely strained relations between Washington and European capitals.
“France is trying to preserve the transatlantic relationship while setting red lines and moving towards greater European autonomy,” Lefebvre said.
A thorny military question
While this autonomy is proving difficult to achieve diplomatically, on the military front, France finds itself drawn into the ongoing war, trapped as it is by its integration into the western security architecture in the Middle East.
France has a military base in the United Arab Emirates as well as troops in Jordan and the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan. It was there, in Erbil, that a French soldier was killed and six others wounded on 12 March in a drone attack attributed to Iraqi Shia militias allied with Tehran.
The French military presence in the region is also part of defence agreements concluded with several Gulf countries, notably the UAE and Qatar.
Nevertheless, according to several sources, these agreements do not oblige France to join the front lines if these countries decide to participate in the US-Israeli offensive against Iran.
“There is no defence commitment that France is obligated to follow. It has no obligation; there is no Article 5,” Guillaume Ancel, a former lieutenant colonel in the French army, told MEE, referring to Nato’s article providing for collective defence among allies.
Despite not being formally engaged in the conflict, the French army is indirectly contributing to the Israeli-US war effort by assisting in or participating in the neutralisation of missiles and drones launched from Iran.
“[This] requires constant coordination with the involved forces,” a French military source stationed in the region told MEE, noting that “drones pose a significant challenge”.
“Like all western countries, France is facing its limitations in terms of interception capabilities,” Ancel said.
“Rafale fighter jets neutralised several dozen drones with highly sophisticated and very expensive air-to-air missiles, initially designed to intercept aircraft or missiles,” he added.
‘We have fallen considerably behind, mainly because we no longer expected to face high-intensity conflicts’
- Guillaume Ancel, French former senior army officer
Manufacturing an air-to-air missile takes 18 months and costs around one million euros, according to experts. This is a real financial black hole after more than a month of war, especially since ammunition stocks are dwindling rapidly.
“Our entire concept of weaponry needs to be rethought”, admitted French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu on 25 March in front of parliament.
He announced the creation of France Munitions, a platform that will act as a “wholesaler to meet the needs of the French armed forces, but also of our allies and our numerous export clients”. France also plans to spend an additional €8.5bn ($9.8bn) on munitions purchases through to 2030.
“We have fallen considerably behind, mainly because we no longer expected to face high-intensity conflicts,” Ancel said.
“Drones have profoundly changed the nature of warfare and are leading to an overconsumption of munitions. The Americans and Israelis are in a similar situation. And the Iranians have understood this well. That is why they have opted for a sustained saturating effort rather than a massive attack.”
The question of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s crude oil passes and which is blocked by Iran, is just as pressing.
The Europeans, with France at the forefront, are open to making efforts to ensure its reopening, but only once hostilities have ended, clearly also to avoid appearing to Tehran as co-belligerents.
This pragmatic stance has provoked the fury of the Trump administration, which was expecting military assistance in the strait.
“I think there’s no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to re-examine that relationship,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last Tuesday, referring to Nato.
The French diplomatic source sees this as “an overt form of blackmail”.
“Trump is aware of Europe’s vulnerability to Russia, and he doesn’t hesitate to touch on it. It’s a real means of exerting pressure,” the source told MEE.
Lefebvre believes that to preserve Nato, the Europeans will adopt “a logic of diplomatic transaction”.
“Then, of course, there’s the question of European autonomy and its future if the Americans withdraw. A plan B is clearly needed,” he added.
Influence in Lebanon?
While French diplomacy appears offside on the Iranian issue, it continues to be involved on the Lebanese front, despite the difficulties.
As Israel has clearly announced its intention to occupy southern Lebanon indefinitely and suggests a Gaza-like scenario in the area, Paris is attempting to exert pressure to find a way out of the crisis, based on the historically close ties between the two countries.
Despite its stated desire to avoid war, France has deployed the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Eastern Mediterranean. The decision, officially in support of Cyprus, whose British base at Akrotiri was hit by a drone at the start of the war, also aims to establish a French presence near Lebanon.
“France can still play a significant diplomatic and political role,” Bitar told MEE, noting that it was Paris that guaranteed the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the State of Greater Lebanon upon its proclamation in 1920, and that ensured the country did not fragment during the 1975-90 civil war.
‘Sometimes one gets the impression that French diplomacy, like European diplomacy in general, is nothing more than empty words in the face of fait accompli’
- Lebanese diplomat
“Today, with the possibility of Lebanon’s fragmentation once again being mentioned, France can exert pressure with its Arab allies and play a role at the United Nations, even if it remains dependent on US security guarantees and continues to operate within the western geopolitical orbit,” he said.
The task, however, looks challenging. At a time when, on the one hand, Israel is again pitting power against law - and receiving only tepid condemnations in return - two Lebanons appear to be facing off.
On one side, there are those who believe Hezbollah is responsible for the current Israeli invasion and a potential loss of territory; on the other, those who see the Lebanese group as the only bulwark against Israeli ambitions that many consider expansionist.
“Sometimes one gets the impression that French diplomacy, like European diplomacy in general, is nothing more than empty words in the face of fait accompli,” a Lebanese diplomat told MEE, adding that “Lebanon has always been captive to foreign interference.”
“In Lebanon, as elsewhere, traditional diplomatic levers are no longer sufficient in the face of the profound transformations of the international system, with actors fighting for their political or sectarian survival,” he said.
“Today, international diplomacy is no longer based on reason or wisdom, but on power.”
This article was sourced from Middle East Eye.
Read Full Article on Middle East Eye →