The escalation in military confrontation between the United States and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other has reopened one of the deepest fault lines in European foreign policy: how to balance loyalty to the United States with the continent’s long-standing commitment to multilateralism and international law.
The European response to the strikes on Iran reveals a complex mosaic of positions shaped by geopolitical alliances, legal principles, energy vulnerability and domestic political calculations. While most European leaders publicly call for restraint and diplomacy, their policies diverge significantly, exposing structural divisions that echo earlier crises such as the 2003 Iraq War.
The Iraq War marked one of the most dramatic splits within the Western alliance. At that time, France and Germany strongly opposed the US-led invasion, arguing it violated international law and undermined multilateral institutions. The United Kingdom, Italy and Spain, however, supported Washington’s campaign. The current divisions are not identical to those of the past. Europe today finds itself simultaneously more cautious and more constrained. The Iran conflict shows that Europe is caught between competing imperatives: defending international law, preserving transatlantic unity, ensuring energy security and managing regional stability.
Back in 2003, conflict over the invasion produced what many analysts described as a three-layered fracture in Europe: disagreements within the core European powers, tensions between “old” Western Europe and the newly emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, and a widening transatlantic divide between Europe and the United States. The political shock of the Iraq War helped shape Europe’s self-perception as a normative power grounded in diplomacy, legal frameworks and multilateral institutions. Intellectuals such as Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida articulated a vision of Europe as a post-national political community built on international law rather than military power.
This worldview also produced one of Europe’s most significant diplomatic achievements: the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal emerged from negotiations led by the European diplomatic format called the E3/EU+3, which included France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, Russia, and China. The agreement represented a triumph of European diplomacy – until it collapsed after the United States withdrew during the first presidency of Donald Trump. The unravelling of the nuclear deal set the stage for the escalating tensions now culminating in open military confrontation.
Europe’s response to the current conflict reflects both continuity and change. The European Union has officially adopted a cautious, diplomatic stance, emphasising restraint and adherence to international law. EU foreign ministers quickly convened emergency consultations and warned that prolonged conflict could destabilise the global order. The EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, framed the crisis as part of a broader erosion of international norms, warning that repeated violations of international law threaten global stability. Brussels continues to advocate a diplomatic solution aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while protecting civilians and preventing regional escalation.
However, the official EU position masks significant disagreements among member states. While some governments lean towards Washington’s strategic objectives, others openly question the legality of the strikes. The United Kingdom has attempted to strike a delicate balance between maintaining its close security relationship with Washington and avoiding direct involvement in military escalation. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made it clear that London does not support regime change through military intervention, emphasising the need for a negotiated settlement. Nevertheless, Britain’s actions reveal the complexity of its position. Although London initially restricted the use of British territory for offensive operations, it later allowed American forces to use certain facilities to support regional defence and Israeli security. The UK also increased its military presence in the Middle East by deploying additional fighter jets. This approach reflects Britain’s traditional role as a bridge between the United States and Europe, supportive of Washington’s strategic concerns but cautious about direct participation in controversial military campaigns.
France has taken a more explicitly legalistic stance. President Emmanuel Macron warned that military action conducted outside international law could undermine global stability. Paris has called for discussions within the United Nations Security Council and emphasised the need to preserve the international legal order. At the same time, France has avoided direct confrontation with the United States. While it criticised the legality of the strikes, it also condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks and deployed its own military assets to protect French interests in the region, including the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. This dual approach reflects France’s broader foreign policy tradition: defending international law while maintaining strategic autonomy and protecting national interests.
Germany stance has been somewhat more sympathetic towards the American position. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has emphasised the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme and argued that decades of sanctions and diplomacy have failed to curb Tehran’s activities. Berlin has allowed US forces to use the Ramstein Air Base, a critical logistical hub for American operations in Europe and the Middle East. Yet Germany also remains wary of prolonged war. Merz has warned that a collapse of the Iranian state could trigger major consequences for Europe, including migration pressures, security instability, and disruptions to energy supplies. Germany’s position reflects a broader tension in European policy: acknowledging security concerns about Iran while fearing the long-term costs of military escalation.
Several southern European countries have voiced more explicit criticism of the military campaign. Spain has taken the most outspoken stance. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez described the attacks on Iran as a “serious mistake” and refused to allow US forces to use Spanish bases for offensive operations. Sánchez framed the decision as a matter of principle, arguing that alliances should make room for disagreement. That stance triggered a harsh response from US and Israel. Italy has also raised legal concerns. Defence Minister Guido Crosetto warned that the military operation fell outside international law, while Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stressed that Italy is not at war and prefers diplomatic solutions. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has likewise warned that the conflict could produce unpredictable consequences across the Middle East. These positions highlight the strong emphasis on international legality and conflict avoidance prevalent in southern Europe.
In contrast, several Eastern European governments have expressed clearer political support for the US-Israeli operation. Their stance reflects a security outlook shaped by reliance on American military protection and a broader distrust of adversarial states. Polish President Karol Nawrocki framed the conflict primarily as a matter of international security, arguing that Iran’s actions threaten global stability. Similarly, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala described strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as an understandable effort to prevent nuclear proliferation. This perspective mirrors earlier divisions during the Iraq War, when many Central and Eastern European countries aligned closely with Washington. For those states, the United States remains the cornerstone of European security, particularly in the face of ongoing tensions with Russia.
Beyond geopolitics, the war has already had significant economic repercussions in Europe. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruptions to global oil supplies have triggered sharp increases in energy prices. European benchmark gas prices have surged by more than 50 per cent since the conflict began. Because Europe relies heavily on imported oil and gas, it is particularly vulnerable to global supply shocks. European Union energy ministers are now considering emergency measures to mitigate the impact on households and industries. Proposed options include tax cuts, state aid for energy-intensive industries, and adjustments to the EU’s carbon market. These debates also expose structural inequalities within the EU. Wealthier countries such as Germany have a greater capacity to subsidise energy costs, while poorer member states may struggle to provide similar support. The crisis therefore risks widening economic disparities across the bloc.
These divergent responses to the Iran conflict reveal deeper structural dilemmas in European foreign policy. Europe remains strategically dependent on the United States for military power and security guarantees. Even governments that criticise the strikes often hesitate to openly challenge Washington. But Europe’s identity as a champion of international law places at odds with military interventions perceived as unilateral or legally questionable. Economic vulnerability, on the other hand – particularly dependence on imported energy – limits Europe’s freedom of action. Escalating conflict in the Middle East directly affects European energy markets and domestic political stability. The European Union itself struggles to formulate unified foreign policy positions due to the diverse interests of its member states.
One of the most striking aspects of the current crisis is the relative marginalisation of Europe in diplomatic negotiations. In the past, European states played a central role in mediating tensions with Iran, particularly during the negotiations leading to the nuclear agreement. Today, however, the EU appears more reactive than proactive. Washington and regional actors dominate the strategic landscape, while Europe’s influence remains limited to diplomatic appeals for restraint. This shift raises broader questions about Europe’s capacity to be an independent geopolitical actor. The war on Iran has once again exposed Europe’s internal divisions and strategic uncertainties. While most European leaders agree on the importance of diplomacy and international law, their responses differ in practice, shaped by national interests, alliance politics and economic pressures. Whether the continent can rediscover the diplomatic cohesion that once produced the Iran nuclear deal remains an open question but the stakes, whether for Europe or the global order, remain high.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 19 March, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: