Experts note that the president of the European Commission has increasingly intervened in foreign-policy fields traditionally assigned to others by EU treaties, ranging from the US-Israel strikes on Iran to matters involving Ukraine, Gaza, and American tariffs targeting the EU.

Detractors of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen depict her response to the US-Israeli conflict in Iran as the newest instance of a foreign policy «power grab»—despite the commission’s limited formal diplomatic authority and the fact that member states themselves are still weighing their responses.

ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT

Following the outbreak of the war marked by US strikes on Iran last Saturday, von der Leyen was the earliest European leader to communicate a response, describing the situation in Iran as “highly concerning.”

Since then, she has shared 12 messages about Iran on X and engaged in discussions with no fewer than 12 EU and Gulf leaders, including the Crown Princes of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

She was also the earliest European figure to advocate for a “credible transition” in Iran—an approach not supported by all 27 member states and aligning with US and Israeli preferences for regime change.

In an interview with Euronews, Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, stated that neither Israel nor the USA aims to impose a particular candidate, but emphasized their intent to “create conditions on the ground” enabling Iranians to challenge the regime.

Three days after the initial strikes, von der Leyen summoned a “special Security College” session that gathered all 27 commissioners, including those managing areas not typically linked to security policy, such as intergenerational equity and social rights.

Established last year, the Security College was designed to help the Commission “adopt a preparedness mindset” and deepen awareness of emerging threats like hybrid attacks. Yet, many in Brussels remain unclear about its precise function.

“We still don’t have a clear understanding of its role,” one Commission insider told Euronews.

The consequences of the US-Israeli actions in Iran are expected to dominate this week’s agenda as von der Leyen chairs the College of Commissioners’ meeting on Wednesday and holds talks with Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, on Thursday.

“A treaty transformation is underway”

Critics of von der Leyen argue that the focus on preparedness has become a pretext for broadening institutional powers and expanding the EU’s influence in foreign affairs.

According to EU regulations, neither the Commission nor its president holds an official role in foreign policy. The Commission’s core responsibilities include proposing legislation, ensuring its implementation by member states, managing the EU budget, and conducting international negotiations.

Diplomatic coordination at the EU level is formally led by High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, whereas European Council president António Costa is tasked with representing the EU externally among heads of state and government, including on matters of common foreign and security policy.

Von der Leyen’s announcement of her call with United Arab Emirates president Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan provoked strong backlash on social media platforms.

“She attempts to take charge in an area that is not hers,” stated Marc Botenga, a Belgian MEP from The Left. “She aims to centralize power. Acting without a mandate will not strengthen her position.”

“There is unease surrounding the way she executes her role,” Botenga added.

Spanish socialist MEP Nacho Sánchez Amor criticized the “special Security College” and questioned whether the Commission is unilaterally altering EU treaties.

“What exactly is a ‘security college’?” he questioned on X. “The silence from legitimate constitutional holders of EU security and defence competences is quite remarkable. A treaty change is occurring without debate or evaluation.”

In addition to MEPs, many political analysts accuse the commission president of exceeding her mandate.

“When von der Leyen reaches out to Gulf leaders about regime change in Iran, she operates far beyond her remit and contrary to treaty rules,” Alberto Alemanno, EU Law professor at HEC Paris Business School, told Euronews.

Preparedness as a strategic foreign policy instrument

Alemanno and other experts argue that von der Leyen has gradually encroached on foreign policy spheres reserved by EU treaties for other actors, particularly concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza conflict, and US tariffs imposed on the EU.

Upon assuming office in 2019, von der Leyen was a compromise candidate, relatively unknown in Brussels and with limited visibility on the European stage.

Since then, she has utilized successive crises—such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s full-scale Ukraine invasion—as chances to strengthen the Commission’s authority and build her profile as the EU’s leading figure.

Her skill in asserting herself among top diplomats was notably visible last summer when she was seated beside European heads of state and government at a meeting on Ukraine hosted by US President Donald Trump.

This positioning—placing the EU Commission head on equal footing with the President of France—was highly exceptional. Within Brussels’ institutional order, the Commission functions to support national governments; they are not formal peers.

Regarding Trump, who referred to von der Leyen as “a very powerful leader,” she appeared to seize an opportunity—albeit with certain drawbacks.

Although the US president publicly lauded her, he concurrently pressured the EU into an unfavorable trade agreement by tripling tariffs on European imports to the US, threatening further duties. Von der Leyen became emblematic of “a moment of humiliation for Europe,” famously photographed giving a thumbs-up next to the president.

Following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, von der Leyen promptly voiced support for Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a stance that drew sharp criticism from MEPs and some member states for not reflecting the consensus of the EU 27. She subsequently traveled to Israel for talks with Netanyahu.

“The issue is that no one restrains her, which reflects the weakness of current High Representative Kaja Kallas and the passivity of member states,” Alemanno noted.

The ultimate decision-maker

Nevertheless, Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, downplayed the criticism, asserting that von der Leyen’s quick reactions can sometimes be advantageous.

“She fills a gap when member states struggle or delay responding to political events,” Wolff explained. “In Ukraine’s case, she has assumed an important leadership role that deserves recognition.”

For Wolff, von der Leyen’s growing foreign policy influence highlights a broader institutional challenge.

“The Commission President cannot be the one to handle these tough, narrowly defined foreign policy issues,” he said, referring to von der Leyen’s early call for regime change in Iran. “Such decisions rest with member states, the High Representative, and the Council.”

“Currently, there are effectively two presidents plus a High Representative,” Wolff added. “Institutionally, it would be preferable to have essentially a single president responsible for major decisions.”