A week after the launch of the Israeli-American offensive against Iran, France is walking on a tightrope. It oscillates between strategic prudence and assumed impotence. In this high-tension sequence, Emmanuel Macron tries to take on the role of mediator, capable of speaking to everyone. A classic ambition of French diplomacy. But in a world that has become brutal again, the words of the intermediary risk being lost in the din of the cannons.
The President of the Republic was initially kept at a distance from the launch of the strikes. Proof, if any were needed, of the relative downgrading of Paris in decision-making circles. Then Donald Trump ended up calling him, a minimal diplomatic gesture but immediately interpreted at the Élysée as confirmation of being useful. At the same time, in Paris, we assure that “channels with Iran remain open“. A line of balance, fragile by nature. By wanting to talk to everyone, France runs the risk of not really being listened to by anyone.
The dilemma is an old one. Nostalgic for a Gaullian grandeur where the permanent seat on the Security Council guaranteed a capacity for influence, the Quai d’Orsay now comes up against the reality of a world dominated by cruder balances of power. Is French strategic independence, so often invoked, still a policy or already a posture? Certainly, Paris does not systematically align itself with Washington, unlike London. Certainly, our large companies have long bet on the opening of Iran: Total, Peugeot and Airbus had invested and established promising partnerships. But when the American sanctions fell, economic reality spoke: everyone packed up.
This contradiction sums up the current situation. Emmanuel Macron finds himself facing an almost impossible mission: maintaining a position of balance in a conflict that demands clear choices. War doesn’t like nuance. The head of state’s televised address, sober and educational, was welcomed even by the opposition. She recalled the French line: dialogue, de-escalation, diplomacy. However, are these words enough in an international context dominated by polarization and brutality? By wanting to spare all the protagonists of the crisis, Paris especially risks arousing general distrust. Arab allies observe a France which advocates dialogue with Tehran while selling arms to the Emirates or Saudi Arabia. Iranian leaders see Paris as a vassal of the United States disguised as a mediator.
As for Donald Trump, he judges Emmanuel Macron naive in the face of Iran’s regional ambitions and its Hezbollah relays. As abrupt as they are excessive, the words of the American president reflect a reality that is difficult to contest: France has become a middle power in a world dominated by strategic empires. The country of Talleyrand can still propose, dialogue, sometimes convince. He doesn’t really decide anymore.
French public opinion has also understood this. She does not quite see what benefits would justify more direct involvement in this war. Between caution and resignation, France seems condemned to comment on the upheavals of the world more than to guide them.
