Iran war highlights importance of neutrality

The Iran war has already badly affected many sectors across the world, from international politics to a potential global economic crisis. It has also revealed some miscalculations over the Ukraine war.

The Iran war is fueling a new energy crisis in Europe, meaning countries will have to choose between Russian energy and their commitment to Ukraine. Europe’s energy costs have soared since the start of the war, with oil prices rising to above $100 a barrel.

This is already affecting their economies. The UK’s natural gas price soared by more than 20 percent due to last week’s attack on Qatar’s Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas complex. Since the start of the Ukraine war, the UK and Europe have become more reliant on LNG. Energy bills are expected to rise by up to £300 ($400) this summer if the conflict in the Middle East continues. This is a potential nightmare for ordinary citizens.

Despite their contributions to Ukraine, EU states have returned to the point they were at when the war started

Dr. Diana Galeeva

The crisis has further contributed to Europe’s political dilemma: having to choose between a state-centered approach and its own interests or continuing to support a country that is not even a member of the EU. The European Commission reports that the bloc’s support for Ukraine’s energy security since 2022 totals €3 billion ($3.4 billion), including €977 million for emergency gas purchases during the 2025-26 winter.

The Trump administration has temporarily eased sanctions on Russian oil in response to energy market volatility as a result of the Iran war. This decision has been criticized by Canada, EU members and Ukraine. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez even declared a sweeping package of measures to deal with the fallout of the energy crisis driven by the Middle East conflict.

At the same time, Hungary asked the EU to lift sanctions on Russian energy, sparking a rift among the bloc’s members. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stressed that easing sanctions on Russian energy would be “wrong.” European Council President Antonio Costa stated that such a move would “enable Russia to increase its revenue.”

No one knows how the Ukraine and Iran wars will be solved, but the global elites must stop taking a zero-sum approach

Dr. Diana Galeeva

Following its repeated earlier efforts to derail EU defense, humanitarian and financial assistance to Ukraine, Hungary is now blocking a new €90 billion loan to Kyiv. Hungarian officials have declared they will not lift their veto on the EU aid package until the Ukrainians repair the damaged Druzhba pipeline, accusing the country of an “oil blockade.” Slovakia also criticized Ukraine for delaying shipments of Russian oil through this pipeline. Bratislava stopped offering emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine as a result of the disruption.

The EU this week indefinitely postponed its plan to fully phase out imports of Russian oil. It was previously due to submit a legal proposal on April 15 to bring about a permanent ban from the end of 2027. This might signal that European leaders are considering redirecting their focus to the benefit of their own nations by following a state-centered approach.

It seems that a state-centered approach, which places the state at the center of economic and political analyses, should be considered by the European elites amid the current developments. The logic is simple: despite their ongoing contributions to the Ukrainian cause, EU states have returned to the point they were at when the war started. They need energy at home. The situation has worsened despite the assistance sent to Ukraine, while European states have not received any clear results in return.

This approach can be linked to foreign policy as well, as neutrality is the best option to develop state interests. Neutrality is viewed as a tool of foreign policy through which a country follows its national interests. States can follow the so-called niche diplomacy approach within this concept.

Niche diplomacy is when a country focuses its attention on a specific area of foreign policy in order to get essential yields in that domain. It is a foreign policy strategy that aims to make a state an essential actor in a specific field. For example, the EU is well-known for its “normative power” and it can continue benefiting from this approach rather than continue its hard power thinking.

No one knows how the Ukraine and Iran wars will be solved, but the global elites across the world must stop taking a zero-sum approach. They must choose national interests. Moreover, states would benefit from win-win strategic thinking rather than continuing their Second World War mentality. That conflict still has echoes in policymaking decisions. In any scenario, a hard power mentality brings only disruption.

Those privileged enough to be chosen to rule have a responsibility, first and foremost, to their own nations and people. The world’s political elites should reorient their thinking toward a state-centered approach and maintain their neutrality in all conflicts, as history shows us that wars bring only crises to the global political and economic systems and affect all fields of humanity worldwide.

• Dr. Diana Galeeva is an academic visitor to the Center of Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge.