Iran, Ukraine and the Middle East: diplomacy under pressure

Three parallel diplomatic tracks are unfolding this week between Geneva and Washington, each shaped as much by military pressure as by negotiation.

Talks on Ukraine, which opened in Geneva on Monday, continue today and are expected to run through Thursday. Representatives of the United States, Russia and Ukraine are meeting as the war enters its fifth year, with fighting still active along several fronts. 

In Washington, separate contacts between U.S. and Iranian officials are focused on Tehran’s nuclear programme and its missile capabilities, particularly those seen as a threat to Israel. 

At the same time, a broader Middle East format is taking shape with the first meeting of the so called Board of Peace, intended to address Gaza’s post war governance and regional stabilisation. Italy is participating as an observer.

Across all three tracks, Europe’s role is marginal.

Europe on the sidelines

The EU has been excluded from the core Ukraine talks, despite Kyiv’s insistence that any durable settlement will require European security guarantees and long term financial backing. 

President Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly described Europe’s absence as a serious mistake, arguing that the continent cannot be expected to underwrite an agreement it did not help shape.

A similar dynamic is visible in the Iran channel. European powers were signatories, alongside Russia and China, of the 2015 nuclear agreement abandoned during Donald Trump’s first term. Yet the current negotiations are being handled directly between Washington and Tehran. 

European diplomats are being briefed, but not formally seated at the table.

In the Middle East format, the presence of Hungary and Bulgaria contrasts with the absence of the EU’s larger member states. Italy’s decision to attend as an observer reflects a careful balancing act. Rome is seeking to maintain access to Washington without openly diverging from its European partners. 

The European Commission has adopted a comparable stance, signalling interest without assuming a central role.

Talks in the shadow of force

Diplomacy this week is accompanied by visible military signalling.

In Ukraine, Russian missile and drone strikes have continued against infrastructure and logistics targets, underlining that negotiations are not taking place against a backdrop of de escalation. 

Moscow appears intent on preserving, if not strengthening, its leverage on the ground even as talks proceed.

In the Gulf, tensions have also risen. After President Trump warned that military options remain available if negotiations with Tehran collapse, Iran launched new naval exercises in and around the Strait of Hormuz. 

The U.S. has reinforced its regional presence, with two aircraft carriers now operating in the broader theatre.

American officials present the deployment as both deterrence and contingency planning. Tehran signals that it wants sanctions relief and a workable agreement, but insists that its missile programme and regional posture are integral to its national security. 

Oil markets have reacted cautiously, with prices edging upward as traders assess the risk of disruption.

High stakes, limited trust

Each track carries significant implications. In Ukraine, the central issue is whether Washington and Moscow can outline a framework that Kyiv can accept and that Europe can sustain politically and financially. 

In the Iran talks, the challenge lies in reconciling Trump’s demand for a stricter and longer agreement with Tehran’s insistence on sovereignty and sanctions relief. In the Middle East discussions, any credible plan for Gaza will require security guarantees for Israel and a viable political horizon for the Palestinians.

Trust is scarce. The negotiations are less about reconciliation than about recalibrating power relationships.

What stands out is not only the return of hard power to the forefront of diplomacy, but Europe’s reduced visibility in processes that will directly affect its security, energy stability and migration pressures. 

On Ukraine, the EU will likely bear much of the economic burden of any settlement. 

On Iran and the Gulf, it will absorb the consequences of escalation through energy prices and regional instability. In the Middle East, it will face the humanitarian and political fallout of failure.

Yet in each case, others are setting the pace.

If Europe remains largely an observer while others redraw the parameters of war and peace, it will reinforce a pattern that has become increasingly difficult to ignore. The costs of instability are European. The decisions shaping it too often are not.