Tehran\u2019s warning to Brussels exposes a growing rift inside the bloc<\/p>\n
The EU\u00a0is facing a dilemma that could define its role in the escalating confrontation with Iran. Supporting Washington\u2019s military campaign may strengthen transatlantic unity, but it also risks dragging the continent into a conflict that could trigger severe economic and energy consequences for the bloc.
\nTehran has made this risk explicit. Majid Takht-Ravanchi, political deputy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran, recently stated that Europe could become a legitimate military target if it aids the US and Israel in their aggression against the Islamic Republic. In an interview with France 24, he emphasized that any logistical or military support European nations provide to American operations would lead Tehran to view them as participants in the conflict, with all the associated consequences.
\nEssentially, Tehran is signaling to European countries that if they choose to side with Washington and West Jerusalem, they should not expect any special diplomatic treatment. Iran has made it clear: those who assist an aggressor become part of the aggression.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
\u2018This is going to hit all of us\u2019: How far does the echo of the Middle East war reach?<\/p>\n
NATO solidarity \u2013 and European hesitation
\nThis reaction from Tehran came on the heels of remarks made by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Just days after the start of the US military operation against Iran, Rutte declared that Europe fully supports US actions and labeled Iran a threat to Europe, Israel, and neighboring regions. However, he added that NATO has no plans to engage in military operations against Iran. This underscores a delicate nuance: Rutte essentially spoke on behalf of all of Europe and NATO, despite significant internal disagreements within the bloc.\u00a0
\nFor example, Norway, while a NATO member, has distanced itself from Washington\u2019s policies. Oslo openly stated its disapproval of US President Donald Trump\u2019s decision to attack Iran, characterizing the strikes on the country as violations of international law. Such rhetoric is quite severe for an ally within NATO.
\nSimilar sentiments have emerged from Spain. Spanish Foreign Minister Jos\u00e9 Manuel Albares asserted that Spanish military bases are not being used for US and Israeli operations against Iran, signaling Madrid\u2019s desire to avoid being drawn into the conflict. Washington\u2019s response was swift and sharp. Donald Trump said that if the US could not use Spanish bases for operations against Iran, it might reconsider trade agreements with Spain and impose sanctions.
\nThe situation escalated further when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Spain had agreed to assist the US. The Spanish government quickly countered this claim, clarifying that no such agreement had been reached. Consequently, Madrid publicly accused the American administration of dishonesty, which undoubtedly dealt another blow to Washington\u2019s reputation in Europe.<\/p>\n
Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Eduardo Parra \/ Europa Press via Getty Images <\/p>\n
The positions of France and the UK remain notably ambiguous. On the one hand, these countries have a long-standing tradition of demonstrating solidarity with the United States. On the other hand, both clearly recognize that the conflict surrounding Iran could lead to serious political and economic repercussions for Europe. As a result, their rhetoric remains cautious and ambiguous.\u00a0
\nGermany remains the only major European nation that openly supports the US. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz happened to be visiting the White House when the US launched its operation against Iran. Just days later, he managed to shift the blame for aggression against Iran onto\u2026 Iran itself. According to him, Tehran is responsible for the ongoing conflict. Merz even stated,<\/p>\n
\u201cThe sooner the mullah regime stops, the sooner this war will end.\u201d<\/p>\n
He echoed a familiar Western narrative, branding Iran as a \u201ccenter of international terrorism\u201d that must be eliminated, and said the United States and Israel are undertaking this task \u201cby their own methods.\u201d\u00a0This stance effectively legitimizes military action against Iran. It\u2019s unlikely we can expect any neutrality from Berlin; Germany will always side with Israel due to its \u2018historical memory\u2019, thereby endorsing aggression against Iran.
\nA similar tone was struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. She remarked that there \u201cshould be no tears shed for such a regime,\u201d\u00a0emphasizing, like Merz, that Tehran bears responsibility for destabilizing the Middle East. Her overtly cynical rhetoric sparked a significant debate within the EU. European Commissioner for Competition Teresa Ribera publicly distanced herself from von der Leyen\u2019s remarks, calling them unfortunate. In European political circles, von der Leyen faced accusations of overstepping authority, as her statements on such a sensitive foreign policy issue did not accurately reflect the stance of all EU member states.<\/p>\n
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Thierry Monasse \/ Getty Images <\/p>\n
The backlash following von der Leyen\u2019s comments highlighted a clear problem within the EU: a lack of consensus on the Iranian issue. The irony of the situation is that the demonstrative loyalty of European politicians seems largely aimed at demonstrating political unity with Trump. However, Trump has repeatedly shown disdain for European allies, treating them as subordinate partners. Still, some segments of the European elite appear hopeful that backing the US on this issue will strengthen their standing with Washington.
\nEurope\u2019s growing energy anxiety
\nIt\u2019s not like some European nations have suddenly come to support Iran; rather, it reflects more pragmatic concerns. European governments are acutely aware that a significant escalation around Iran could prove very costly for Europe, both politically and economically.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
America\u2019s Gulf war machine: What we know about the US military network in the Middle East<\/p>\n
The EU\u2019s primary concern is energy. For decades, Russia provided Europe with stable energy security. However, following the conflict in Ukraine, European countries began to turn away from Russian resources, driven largely by US pressure. They sought alternatives, attempting to redirect their energy supplies from Middle Eastern nations. While some European states managed to import limited amounts of oil from Iran, the main suppliers remained Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
\nNow, the situation has shifted dramatically. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for much of the world\u2019s oil trade from the Gulf states, has effectively been blocked by Iran. This narrow maritime corridor is essential for transporting oil both to Europe and Asian countries. When logistics through the Strait of Hormuz are severely disrupted, it automatically creates significant problems with oil and gas supplies to European markets. In this light, Europe is beginning to realize just how vulnerable its position has become.\u00a0
\nEssentially, European countries have trapped themselves in an energy deadlock. First, they voluntarily (or rather, under Washington\u2019s influence) turned away from Russian energy resources. Then they placed their bets on the Middle East, counting on the region\u2019s stability. But now, the conflict involving Iran jeopardizes that energy source as well. This growing tension is causing increasing anxiety in Europe. Many European elites are starting to understand that further escalation could lead not just to a military crisis but also to a profound energy and economic crisis in the EU.
\nThe limits of European\u00a0\u201cstrategic autonomy\u201d
\nIt\u2019s worth noting that the events surrounding Iran have highlighted a consistent feature of European policy: its amorphous nature and inability to act as an independent mediator in international conflicts. European nations often tout their diplomatic roles, proclaiming \u201cstrategic autonomy\u201d and asserting their capacity to be a separate center of power. Yet, time and again, they find themselves unable to assert their own agenda at critical moments.<\/p>\n
US President Donald Trump<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Chip Somodevilla \/ Getty Images <\/p>\n
In this context, we may recall the so-called \u2018nuclear deal\u2019 \u2013 the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). France, the UK, and Germany (the \u201cE3\u201d nations) along with the European Union as an institution acted as intermediaries between Iran and the United States during negotiations for this agreement. The terms were straightforward: Iran would limit its nuclear program and abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons, while the US and other Western nations would lift sanctions and reintegrate Tehran into the global economy.
\nAs part of the deal, Europe took on the role of a guarantor. It was expected that it would ensure compliance with the agreements and maintain balance between Washington and Tehran. However, reality was different .When Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reinstated sanctions against Iran, Europe proved incapable of protecting either the agreement or its own reputation as a credible mediator.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
\u2018They are terrified\u2019: Desperate families plead for evacuation of students stranded in war-torn Iran<\/p>\n
It\u2019s been over a decade since the agreement was signed, and it\u2019s now clear that European diplomacy has largely failed. European leaders have talked about the need to uphold the deal, made countless statements, and even established financial mechanisms aimed at circumventing American sanctions. Yet, all of this turned out to be little more than political posturing. In practice, European companies quickly scaled back their dealings with Iran, fearing pressure from the US.
\nThe root of this failure lies in the lack of political courage among European nations to engage with Washington on an equal footing. Formally, Europe tries to position itself as an independent center of power, but in reality, its dependence on the US remains so high that any attempts at pursuing an independent policy inevitably lead to concessions. Trump understands this perfectly well. He has repeatedly shown that he does not view European allies as equal partners. In his political logic, Europe is a dependent ally that will ultimately conform to American directives. This is why Trump feels free to speak to European leaders with such bluntness and evident disregard.
\nThis same mindset extends to NATO. Trump has made it clear that without US funding, the bloc simply wouldn\u2019t exist. Essentially, Trump has openly stated that NATO relies heavily on American resources. There\u2019s a significant truth to this: in most European countries, military budgets have remained relatively modest for years, and NATO\u2019s key capabilities are ensured by US funding. Therefore, the statements of European politicians about unity and resolve within the bloc come off as a joke and have nothing to do with real military readiness.\u00a0
\nA telling incident occurred when debris from an Iranian ballistic missile landed in T\u00fcrkiye. Almost immediately, accusations emerged claiming Iran had intentionally targeted Turkish territory. However, Tehran quickly denied any intention to attack T\u00fcrkiye. Logically, the idea seems absurd: T\u00fcrkiye is not an enemy of Iran, and there are no reasons for Tehran to strike it. T\u00fcrkiye expressed discontent, but its response was measured. Ankara urged its \u201cIranian friends\u201d to monitor missile launches more carefully. Iran responded by insisting that it had no plans to attack T\u00fcrkiye or consider it a target.<\/p>\n
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Omar Havana \/ Getty Images <\/p>\n
NATO Secretary General Rutte condemned the incident but simultaneously stated that Article 5 of NATO (concerning collective defense) would not be invoked. In other words, even if a missile or its debris strikes the territory of a NATO member, it doesn\u2019t automatically trigger the mechanisms for collective defense. In effect, this means that the alliance is unwilling to enter into direct conflict over such incidents, especially when it comes to a country like T\u00fcrkiye.\u00a0
\nEurope\u2019s strategic dilemma
\nThe situation is further complicated by Iran\u2019s readiness to fight until the end. Iranian strikes have already targeted military facilities in the Gulf countries, including the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain. This indicates that the conflict is expanding beyond a bilateral confrontation. European powers are beginning to realize that, depending on how events unfold, these strikes could eventually impact European territories as well. For Iran, the stakes are high: the security and survival of the state are at stake. In this context, Tehran is unlikely to prioritize diplomatic considerations or exercise restraint.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
\u2018The threat is a lie\u2019: Meet Israel\u2019s lone anti-war voice in parliament<\/p>\n
European nations must also consider the activities of various Iran-aligned groups and Iran\u2019s radical supporters. If the conflict continues to escalate, there\u2019s a great risk that such groups may become active in Europe or North America. The Trump administration has already started distancing itself from some of the most controversial incidents, stating that the responsibility for certain operations may be attributed to Israel rather than the US. This appears to be an attempt to redistribute political responsibility for the consequences of the conflict. However, for Iran, such details may not be important; from Tehran\u2019s perspective, both sides should share the blame.
\nOverall, the unfolding events can be seen as the consequences of a decision that has effectively opened Pandora\u2019s box. Europe may end up paying a particularly high price for this situation. As a result, significant divisions are emerging within the EU. On the one hand, there are countries that are ready to unconditionally back the US, including Baltic states like Estonia and Lithuania \u2013 Europe\u2019s political minnows that eagerly support Washington\u2019s policies and earnestly believe they will help the US achieve more rapid success in Iran.
\nOn the other hand, there are those European nations that increasingly question whether participating in someone else\u2019s geopolitical game is worth the cost. Many European politicians have come to recognize that escalating tensions surrounding Iran could lead to serious economic, energy, and political consequences for the entire European continent.
\nAs a result, a deep internal rift is forming in Europe \u2013 between those willing to follow Washington at any cost and those starting to contemplate the risks and potential destructiveness of such a policy for Europe.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Tehran\u2019s warning to Brussels exposes a growing rift inside the bloc The EU\u00a0is facing a dilemma that could define its role in the escalating confrontation with Iran. Supporting Washington\u2019s military…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":31137,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","footnotes":""},"categories":[4,6,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economy","category-environment","category-politics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t