Washington Holds the Reins: European Influence in Middle East Decisions Curbed by U.S. Dominance

JERUSALEM – Despite recent high-level diplomatic engagements, including a visit by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Israel, the true architects of Middle East policy reside not in Berlin or Brussels, but in Washington. This stark assessment comes from Shimon Stein, a former Israeli ambassador to Germany and a distinguished voice in international relations, who observes that European efforts often unfold within a framework where the United States maintains ultimate decision-making power. Stein's comments underscore a persistent geopolitical reality, casting a shadow over European aspirations for a more influential role in the region.

The Enduring Weight of Washington's Influence

Shimon Stein, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv and former Israeli ambassador to Germany (2001-2007), has consistently offered nuanced perspectives on German-Israeli relations and broader Middle Eastern dynamics. Stein's recent observations suggest that while European leaders like German Chancellor Merz engage in crucial dialogue, their capacity to fundamentally shape regional outcomes is constrained by the overwhelming leverage exerted by the United States. He highlights that despite Germany's historical commitment and the European Union's economic prowess, significant strategic decisions affecting the Middle East frequently emanate from Washington.

The United States has long been the primary external actor in the Middle East, a role solidified by its extensive military dominance, political alliances, and substantial financial aid to key regional partners. America's military presence and ongoing security assistance, particularly to Israel, grant Washington unparalleled influence over critical defense and diplomatic initiatives. This dependency provides the U.S. with leverage that neither individual European nations nor the European Union as a collective can consistently match, positioning the U.S. as the "indispensable architect of any viable post-war regional order."

Germany's "Special Relationship" Navigates Complex Realities

Germany's relationship with Israel is characterized by a "special" and "unique" bond, deeply rooted in its historical responsibility for the Holocaust. This bedrock principle dictates an unwavering commitment to Israel's security and right to exist, forming a cornerstone of German foreign policy. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's recent visit to Israel in December 2025, his first since assuming office in May of the same year, aimed to reaffirm these traditionally solid ties, which have faced new challenges amid ongoing regional conflicts.

During his visit, Merz met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior officials, reiterating Germany's support while also engaging in talks with Jordanian King Abdullah II on the broader peace process. His itinerary included a visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, underscoring the historical foundations of German-Israeli relations. However, Merz's chancellorship has also seen moments of divergence. In August 2025, his government temporarily suspended certain arms exports to Israel for use in Gaza, a decision that caused internal debate within Germany and was noted by Israeli officials. This suspension was later lifted following a U.S.-backed ceasefire and hostage deal. These actions illustrate Germany's attempt to balance its steadfast support for Israel with concerns over humanitarian issues and international law, a delicate act often performed within the larger shadow of American strategic direction.

Despite Germany's significant economic partnership with Israel—being its second-largest arms supplier after the U.S. and its fifth-largest export partner—Stein's perspective suggests that this strong bilateral connection does not necessarily translate into independent, decisive influence on the region's core geopolitical trajectory.

The European Union's Pursuit of Cohesion Amid Division

The European Union has long aspired to be a significant geopolitical force, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, consistently advocating for a two-state solution and adherence to international law. The EU provides substantial financial aid to Palestinians for state-building and humanitarian purposes and engages in diplomatic efforts to foster peace. However, the effectiveness of the EU's foreign policy is frequently hampered by a "consensus trap"—the requirement for unanimity among its member states. This structural challenge often leads to fragmented responses and slow decision-making, allowing external events to outpace European diplomatic action.

Internal divisions are a recurring theme, with member states holding divergent perspectives and national interests, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Some nations maintain a strong pro-Israeli stance, while others prioritize Palestinian rights or broader regional stability. This lack of a unified front means that even when the EU speaks with a collective voice, its authority may not always be heeded by individual member states. While the EU possesses analytical depth and policy expertise, its political machinery often struggles to translate these strengths into decisive, unified action. The perception remains that Europe's role is largely one of coordination and complementation to U.S. policy, rather than leading independently.

A Multilayered Geopolitical Landscape

The landscape of Middle Eastern foreign policy is thus defined by a clear hierarchy of influence. While European nations, especially Germany, maintain deep historical and economic ties and engage in robust diplomatic efforts, the United States continues to hold unique leverage that shapes the most critical decisions. America's combination of military backing, political weight, and consistent engagement positions it as the principal external actor capable of driving significant regional shifts.

European contributions, including significant humanitarian aid, trade relations, and advocacy for a two-state solution, are undoubtedly valuable. Yet, in the face of major crises and complex negotiations, the capacity of Germany or the broader EU to dictate terms remains limited. Their influence is often applied within parameters set by Washington, or in areas where American interests align with European goals. This dynamic suggests that while European engagement is crucial for regional stability and humanitarian support, the strategic narrative and the ultimate path forward in the Middle East are predominantly shaped by U.S. policy.

Conclusion: Navigating a Unipolar Reality

Shimon Stein's assessment serves as a sobering reminder of the enduring preeminence of Washington in Middle Eastern affairs. Despite Germany's profound historical responsibility and the European Union's significant economic and diplomatic engagement, the locus of decisive power remains firmly across the Atlantic. Merz's visit to Israel, while important for bilateral ties, occurred within this established geopolitical framework.

For Germany and the EU, the challenge lies in translating their moral authority and economic weight into more cohesive and impactful political influence. Until internal divisions within the EU are consistently overcome, and in the absence of an equally powerful geopolitical counterweight, European efforts in the Middle East are likely to continue as essential supportive actions, rather than primary determinants of the region's future. The complex realities of international power dynamics dictate that, for now, the critical shots in the Middle East continue to be called from Washington.