War in the Middle East: Geneva's diplomatic sign of life comes from Paris

It's only a small window of opportunity. US President Donald Trump wants to give himself two weeks at most to decide whether or not to deploy American forces alongside Israel against Iran . Trump is notoriously unpredictable, and his announcements aren't always reliable. But two weeks are just long enough for the Europeans, who have so far only played a peripheral role, to intervene with their diplomatic efforts – as prominently and as visibly as possible. The goal is to de-escalate the conflict.

A first tentative attempt was made on Friday in Geneva. The foreign ministers of three major European countries, France , Germany , and Great Britain , met with their counterparts from Tehran in Switzerland. Kaja Kallas, the European Union's foreign policy chief, was also present.

A "comprehensive negotiating package" will be presented to the Iranians, said French President Emmanuel Macron shortly before the summit. The list of demands includes four points: access to all nuclear facilities for UN experts so that the Iranians can no longer enrich uranium; control of Iran's ballistic activities; an end to the financing of terrorist organizations; and the release of all hostages. Even before the Iranian Foreign Minister left for Geneva, he had already cooled hopes: Iran, Abbas Araghchi said, will not be pressured into negotiations until Israel has stopped "its aggression" against its country. And that is unlikely.

Federal Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul (CDU) said in the evening after the meeting that "serious talks" had been held. All fundamental issues would continue to be discussed, and Iran was ready for this.

The stage in Geneva thus served primarily to send a diplomatic signal of life. And if the impression was created that Europe's three most important geopolitical players agree on their assessment of the war between Israel and Iran, then that would have been quite a significant achievement. In recent days, it hasn't seemed as if the Europeans were speaking in the same language or choosing similar terms. Even in Paris, there was surprise at Friedrich Merz's statement that Israel was doing the "dirty work for all of us."

The undiplomatic tone of the German Chancellor's comment, to say the least, complicated the French diplomatic efforts. They have already experienced a complicated diplomatic week. After the G7 summit in Canada, Macron had to listen to Trump say that while he was "a nice guy," he was always wrong and suffered from a lack of self-confidence. This hit Macron at a delicate moment.

Originally, a major conference was planned for June 17-20 at the United Nations in New York. France and Saudi Arabia would have chaired the conference, and the aim was to revitalize discussions on the two-state solution. France wanted to be the first G7 state to recognize Palestine and hoped that other states would follow suit. Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries might have shown a willingness to recognize Israel.

This was a fragile hope for the French, almost a desperate one. But they clung to it: Macron calculated that with an initiative for the future of the Middle East, he could restore some of the shine to his waning presidency. He even clashed with the Israeli government to achieve this. The political tension between the two countries is greater than it has been in the past two decades. But then Israel attacked Iran, and everything changed.

Macron postponed the major conference on Palestine without setting a new date. Israel, he said, had the right to defend itself against the enemy that wanted to destroy it, and the right to attack its nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure. He added that if the Israelis needed help in their defense, France would also support them militarily. But when it became clear that Israel wanted to go much further, he changed his stance.

Now Macron is warning against a military, externally induced regime change in Iran, such as Israel is likely seeking. The experiences in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 have shown how much "chaos and devastation" this would bring, Macron said. France did not participate in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But in Libya, the French played the leading role. Macron sees himself in a sense in the role of Dominique de Villepin, France's former foreign minister. In a memorable, powerful speech to the UN Security Council, de Villepin explained why France opposed military intervention in Iraq. The performance earned him much honor.

The Geneva initiative, as the French see it, is entirely thanks to Macron. After a turbulent week, the European position has established some firm cornerstones: no regime change from outside; an appeal for moderation; and a return to "demanding" negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The adjective "exigeant," or demanding, also comes from Macron. It's one of his favorite words. But it's also rather imprecise.