Europe divided between caution and alignment in the Iran crisis
Experts believe that all officials in Europe blame Trump for opening a dangerous door for the region, as well as for gas, oil, energy, and global trade.
Experts agree that the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran does not serve Europe’s interests. They point out that the position of countries across the continent oscillates between alignment, caution regarding participation pending clarity, and outright rejection accompanied by fears over its impact on European interests.
Former Tunisian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ounaies stated that Europe’s stance on conflicts in the Middle East has shifted since last year, particularly with regard to adopting the principle of a Palestinian state. This was reflected in the recognition of Palestine by the United Kingdom, France, and Spain, a step he described as “significant.”
He added that the concept of a Palestinian state as a foundation for lasting peace in the region has become more deeply embedded in European strategy, unlike in the United States, “due to the influence of pro-Israel lobbies.”
He continued: “This position is fundamentally rejected by Israel, which considers the establishment of a Palestinian state near its borders a threat—an assessment also shared by Trump.”
Ounaies argued that European officials blame the U.S. president, openly or through diplomatic channels, “for opening a dangerous door for the region, as well as for gas, oil, and global trade,” adding: “Trump makes decisions based on short-term interests, which is far removed from Europe’s strategic culture.”
He stressed that instability in the Gulf and the Middle East has immediate economic consequences, particularly through rising energy prices, a trend likely to worsen with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
On March 2, Iran announced restrictions on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and threatened to attack any vessels attempting to pass through without coordination, in response to the U.S.-Israeli attack launched on February 28.
Around 20 million barrels of oil pass through the strait daily. Its closure has increased shipping and insurance costs, raised oil prices, and sparked fears of global economic repercussions.
He added: “I believe Europeans are considering this and will seek to design a framework that ensures a ceasefire initially, followed by negotiations involving the United States, Europe, Israel, Iran, and Gulf countries on nuclear and ballistic security, leading eventually to a peaceful transition toward resolving the Palestinian issue.”
Ounaies expressed the view that the meeting between the German Chancellor and Trump on March 3 at the White House aimed primarily to ease tensions, “as Europe is experiencing economic recovery and does not want a major confrontation.”
He added: “The German Chancellor failed in his visit because Trump ultimately did not move toward de-escalation, but rather escalated the war.”
Meanwhile, Tunisian political researcher Jalel El Wergui, based in London, said that European positions are generally cautious and opposed to instability in the world and in the Middle East, “because Europeans are the most affected by instability.”
He stated: “The region is the main departure point for migrants to Europe, and every crisis in the Middle East leads to large-scale migration flows.”
He added: “The biggest issue shaking Europe today, affecting even its internal unity and fueling divisions and the rise of the far right, is migration, which they see as primarily driven by instability in the Middle East. That is why their overall stance is highly cautious.”
He confirmed that “Germany is not enthusiastic about striking Iran,” but noted that the broader European position—especially among key countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, with Spain as an exception—is that they cannot fully distance themselves from the issue, “as these countries are among Iran’s most important economic and trade partners.”
He continued: “If the United States goes far in Iran, including regime change and reshaping the landscape, it will take control of the country’s wealth, and Europeans will lose out.”
He added: “Europeans were Iran’s main economic and trade partners within the Western system, and they may end up simply searching for new markets.”
On the issue of the United States seemingly not relying on Europe, El Wergui said: “On the surface, the U.S. does not take Europe into account, but in reality, the opposite is true. It needs Europe, as the U.S. is geographically distant from the region and requires a base of operations.”
He added: “Bases such as Al Udeid in Qatar or the U.S. Sixth Fleet base in Bahrain cannot serve as secure platforms because they are within range of Iranian missiles, whereas bases in the United Kingdom, Greece, and France are secure and fully operational.”
He continued: “Outwardly, the U.S. appears strong, but its stockpiles of munitions and missiles are limited, and it cannot achieve its objectives in Iran without real logistical and material support.”
He also noted that “part of Europe considers the war illegal and sees diplomacy as the only solution, including within the group comprising France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United Nations.”
He affirmed that Europeans remain committed to diplomacy, and even their naval deployments and bases made available to the United States are conditioned on being used for defensive purposes—protecting allies such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia—rather than for attacks on Iran.
He predicted that Europe’s position will remain “wavering,” attempting to uphold diplomacy, but that “if Europe sees that the United States is moving toward regime change, it may find justification to join in order to safeguard its economic interests.”
For his part, Kamel Ben Younes, former director of the Tunisian journal “International Studies,” stated that the new U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and Lebanon has deepened divisions within Europe, particularly in Western Europe.
He noted that these contradictions and conflicts of interest among European countries have intensified over the past four years due to differing positions on the Ukraine war, the war in Gaza, and the escalation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
He added: “This war has deepened Europe’s internal crises, exacerbated by the conservative administration led by Donald Trump and its attempts to rapidly reshape the global order.”
He also referred to “practical steps aimed at controlling global resources of hydrocarbons and rare minerals in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, as well as in Ukraine, Greenland, and resource-rich Asian countries with strong ties to China and Russia.”
He continued: “Conflicting interests between Washington and Tel Aviv on one side and Europe on the other have further weakened the European Union and intensified internal divisions among its member states.”
He explained that three main axes are emerging: one led by Germany, more aligned with Trump and Netanyahu; a second led by Spain and Belgium opposing these wars; and a third led by France and the United Kingdom, adopting a middle position.
He clarified that this third axis has refused to participate in attacks against Iran and its allies, while engaging in defensive military operations in certain Gulf countries and Jordan.
This comes amid continued escalation of U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, including Wednesday’s strikes on the Asaluyeh refinery and the South Pars gas field.
In response, the Iranian military announced its intention to target five oil facilities in Arab countries as retaliation for strikes on its energy infrastructure, while issuing evacuation warnings for the surrounding areas.
Netanyahu has repeatedly called on Iranians to protest against their government, stating that regime change depends on popular uprisings.
Since February 28, Israel and the United States have been waging war on Iran, resulting in hundreds of deaths, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and security officials, while Tehran has responded with missiles and drones targeting Israel.
Iran has also launched attacks on what it describes as U.S. bases and interests in Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Iraq, and Jordan, some of which caused casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, drawing condemnation from the affected Arab states.
