Brussels – The European Union must understand that “keeping Donald Trump happy” on the Iranian issue, in the hope of getting something in return on other fronts, is a strategy that does not pay off. This is the warning issued by the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) in ananalysis regarding the Old Continent’s position on the new Middle East crisis.
According to Julien Barnes-Dacey and Ellie Geranmayeh, respectively director and deputy director of the ECFR’s Middle East and North Africa programme, Europe’s response to the war unleashed by Israeli-US attacks on Iran is “at best a fiasco—and at worst, strategic lunacy.” Rather than seeking to push the US president to end the conflict, the main EU players seem to be “cheerleading Trump on from the sidelines.” There are numerous examples. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has stated that he does not intend to “lecture” the US on respect for international law and openly supports Trump’s call for regime change in Tehran. Similar enthusiasm for Washington’s strategies has been expressed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Her comments raised concerns among some European diplomats, who warned her to respect the limits of her mandate in foreign policy matters. The leaders of France and the United Kingdom were only apparently more assertive towards the White House: after a “hesitant” condemnation of the attacks that began on 28 February, both British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron “gradually increased their material support” for The Donald’s operation. The only country to “save itself”, according to the two authors, is Spain under Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, the only one in Europe to attempt to oppose Trump’s line: Trump’s “fury” has already been unleashed against him, with the threat of new tariffs and a complete cessation of business relations between Washington and Madrid.
According to the ECFR analysis, there are two possible reasons why Europe has so far chosen not to oppose Trump’s war. The first is the need to protect EU citizens and interests in the Middle East from Iranian retaliation. But the strategy chosen to do so, according to the authors, contains more risks than potential benefits: the use of European bases to support US operations risks “dragging the Old Continent
into a regime-change war already marked by all the hallmarks of a catastrophe.” At that point, it would be even more complicated to protect European assets in the Persian Gulf.
The second possible reason is linked to what analysts refer to as “the Iran-Ukraine nexus“: in order to “keep the American president happy” on the issue of US support for Kyiv’s cause, EU leaders believe it is necessary to swallow the bitter pill and not oppose him in the management of all other international issues. However, even in this case, the authors consider the approach to be “strategically counterproductive”. Energy prices, which are already beginning to rise, and the interruptions to gas supplies from Qatar will make Europe more dependent on Russian energy and fill the coffers of Vladimir Putin’s regime. Furthermore, “the more Western stocks of ammunition and missile interceptors are consumed in the Middle East, the less will remain to support the Ukrainian army.”
Finally, the risk of a new wave of refugees should prompt European governments to exercise caution. “Iran’s territory and population far exceed those of Libya, Syria, and Iraq,” the study reads, “and
Iran becoming another failed state would create a dramatic humanitarian crisis and new migratory flows towards Europe.” “Will Chancellor Merz,” Barnes-Dacey and Geranmayeh provocatively ask, “realistically pledge to support fleeing Iranians through humanitarian assistance and asylum, while also helping re-establish a functioning Iranian state?”
In light of all these factors, Europe should retrace its steps and make a “wiser choice: invest heavily in diplomacy,
to pressure Washington and Tehran into a ceasefire and back to the negotiating table, with significant Iranian concessions.”
