Security or Politicization? What Did Munich Choose?

A Misreading of Iran’s Domestic Landscape

The conduct of the Munich conference organizers toward Iran revealed, above all, a widening analytical gap in Europe’s understanding of the country’s internal realities. The political emphasis on economic protests—without acknowledging the direct role of unilateral sanctions in generating livelihood pressures—suggested a selective rather than comprehensive approach.

Even as certain international bodies have criticized the humanitarian consequences of sanctions, European actors chose to foreground their own political narrative. Meanwhile, the large-scale rallies marking the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution and official congratulatory messages sent to Tehran by various governments were largely overlooked—an omission that points to a disregard for tangible indicators of political legitimacy within Iran.

This perceptual gap has steered Europe toward decisions that appear driven more by ideological calculations than by political realism. The outcome has been a diminished analytical capacity and a growing disconnect from on-the-ground realities in Iran.

The posture of the three European powers—Britain, France, and Germany—regarding developments in West Asia indicates a gradual transfer of geopolitical weight to another actor. Their explicit political backing of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, even following the issuance of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court, has projected a new image of Europe’s strategic alignment with Tel Aviv.

Such alignment has effectively reduced Europe’s independent leverage in regional equations, increasingly positioning it as a follower of Israeli policy. The consequences include the erosion of Europe’s traditional mediating role and a weakening of its capacity to manage regional crises. By tying its credibility to Israel’s controversial actions, Europe risks further diminishing its symbolic capital across the Global South.

Once a central pillar in nuclear negotiations with Iran, Europe now plays a noticeably diminished role in ongoing developments. Discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program are influenced less by initiatives from Brussels and more by direct interactions among regional actors and other global powers.

This shift reflects a broader decline in the European Union’s role within the architecture of international security. Several factors underpin this stagnation: security dependence on the United States, internal divisions over the Ukraine crisis, and the absence of consensus on how to engage Tehran.

The result has been the sidelining of the European troika and a reduction in its capacity to shape sensitive security dynamics. Europe now appears less as a decisive actor and more as an observer of processes shaped by others.

A Crisis of Media and Political Credibility

Western claims of defending freedom of expression have come under scrutiny amid accusations of selective coverage regarding Iran. Media outlets such as BBC, Deutsche Welle, and Agence France-Presse have faced criticism for emphasizing opposition figures while downplaying other domestic developments. This perceived selectivity raises serious questions about the narrative of “free flow of information.”

At the same time, the highlighting of political figures such as Reza Pahlavi on the sidelines of the Munich gathering was viewed by critics as an attempt to craft an alternative vision of Iran’s future. Yet the lack of organizational coherence and a clearly defined social base for such movements rendered these gestures largely symbolic rather than politically transformative.