As the US Israeli war against Iran intensifies, a highly complex geopolitical crisis is unfolding that extends beyond the Middle East and strikes directly at the heart of the transatlantic alliance.
The repercussions of this confrontation have not been limited to military objectives. They have also triggered an unprecedented political shockwave between Washington and its European allies. What positions have European countries taken regarding the war, and how prepared are they to intervene militarily?
This report examines the European positions on the US Israeli war against Iran.
1. Spanish Rejection and Threat of Sanctions
Spain has emerged as the spearhead of European opposition to the American approach. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez adopted a firm stance rejecting involvement in the conflict under the slogan “No to war”.
Madrid translated this position into action by explicitly refusing to allow the United States to use the joint military bases of Rota and Morón to launch combat strikes against Iran.
Sánchez warned that the military escalation amounted to “a game of Russian roulette with the fate of millions”, stressing that Spain would not become a partner in an escalation that violates international agreements.
The stance angered US President Donald Trump, who launched a sharp attack on Madrid and described it as a “terrible ally”.
Trump did not limit himself to rhetoric. He announced that he had ordered the Treasury Secretary to cut all trade relations with Spain, exploiting Madrid’s refusal to raise its defence spending within NATO to five per cent.
In response to what was widely viewed as economic pressure, the European Commission quickly intervened to affirm that it would defend the interests of the bloc, raising the prospect of a fierce trade dispute across the Atlantic.
2. An Independent French Approach
Contrary to the pattern of alignment with Washington, France chose a path reflecting its long standing desire to maintain strategic independence.
President Emmanuel Macron stated clearly that the military operations launched by Washington and Tel Aviv were conducted “outside the framework of international law”.
He emphasised that Paris cannot accept unilateral US Israeli military actions that destabilise the entire region and push it towards an uncertain future.
To translate this political position into military posture, Macron ordered the deployment of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean Sea while reinforcing French air defences in Cyprus to protect European interests exclusively.
This French positioning reflects a deeper strategy aimed at using the crisis to push forward genuine European strategic autonomy, away from what Paris views as reckless American military adventures. It also accelerates the erosion of institutional trust between Paris and Washington.
3. British Hesitation and American Mockery
The government of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer found itself caught between the pressures of the historic “special relationship” with Washington and growing legal and political concerns.
In the early days of the operations, London refrained from granting Washington permission to use its strategic bases, particularly the Diego Garcia base and its air facilities in Cyprus, citing serious concerns about the legality of the strikes.
Although Britain later reversed course and allowed limited use of its facilities for missile interception and defensive purposes, the initial hesitation was enough to trigger a deep crisis of confidence.
Trump openly mocked Starmer in a media statement, saying, “We are not dealing with Winston Churchill here,” expressing disappointment over Britain’s delayed response.
He added bluntly that he did not actually need their help to wage a war in the Middle East. The remark reflected a dismissive tone that strikes at the core of the long standing alliance between the two countries and suggests a potential marginalisation of the British role in future developments.
4. Constitutional Constraints in Germany
In Berlin, extreme caution shaped the German approach, as expressed by Chancellor Friedrich Merz during his recent visit to Washington.
Merz indicated that military plans aimed at bringing about political change in Tehran “carry significant risks and consequences”, expressing doubts that military force alone could impose a new reality without dragging the region into a broader regional war.
In practical terms, Germany tied any discussion of military participation to the requirement of prior approval by the German parliament, the Bundestag, adhering strictly to its constitutional framework.
While Merz appeared flexible regarding American pressure for European allies to increase defence spending, he maintained a careful distance from involvement in an open conflict that could negatively impact Germany’s energy security and economic stability.
5. Italy Will Not Send Troops
Italy, due to its geographic position and its relative dependence on energy imports, views the crisis primarily through its potential impact on Mediterranean stability.
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expressed serious concern, placing the crisis within the broader context of the erosion of international law that began with the war in Ukraine, while also calling on Tehran to halt attacks against Gulf states.
Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini stated clearly: “Italy is not at war with anyone. We have always said that we will not send troops to Ukraine, and I imagine we will not send troops to Iran either.”
He added: “Supporting the alliance of free and Western nations is one thing, sending soldiers into a war zone is another, and that is not part of the plan.”
Salvini concluded by emphasising that the issue concerns the lives of people in Italy and around the world, insisting that diplomacy remains the best path.
6. Contradictions Within the European Bloc
At the same time, sharp contradictions have emerged among Western institutions themselves. The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, warned of deteriorating diplomatic conditions and called for restraint.
Kallas described the situation in the Middle East as “dangerous” and confirmed that the European Union is coordinating with Arab partners to explore diplomatic avenues aimed at reducing tensions.
In contrast, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte quickly praised the American operations targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.
This divergence between European calls for de escalation and NATO’s support for the strikes reveals a structural crisis in the formation of a unified European foreign and security policy.
Redefining Transatlantic Relations
European positions on the conflict did not emerge in isolation. Since late 2025, Europe has increasingly reassessed its relationship with Washington following Donald Trump’s return to the White House, a period marked by tensions across multiple fronts including security issues such as Ukraine and NATO, and economic disputes involving tariffs.
These tensions were evident from the earliest days of the Trump administration. In July 2025, when Trump met European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland, the meeting was far from the cordial symbolism that had once characterised transatlantic relations. Instead, it followed months of tension and confrontation.
Trump questioned the value of NATO for the United States and hinted at the possibility of ignoring the principle of collective defence. He revived the idea of purchasing Greenland from Denmark as though it were a commodity and imposed punitive tariffs on imports from the European Union and Britain.
The peak of the European shock came in November 2025 with the release of the US National Security Strategy, which portrayed Europe as a weak partner that needed to be “reshaped”. The document declared that the era in which the world relied on the United States as the giant of the international order had ended and demanded that Europeans shoulder their own defence burden.
The crisis soon spread into economic relations. In April 2025, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs that included twenty per cent on European Union imports and increased duties on steel and aluminium to twenty five per cent and later fifty per cent.
In response, the European Union adopted countermeasures that included retaliatory tariffs on American goods worth seventy two billion euros and threatened to deploy its new Anti Coercion Instrument against the United States.
However, Europe’s security dependence on Washington during the Ukraine war limited its room for manoeuvre. The crisis ultimately ended with an agreement in July 2025 that European leaders described as humiliating and as a clear capitulation to Washington.
Under the agreement, the European Union removed most of its industrial tariffs on American products. Washington retained tariffs of fifteen per cent on European exports, three times higher than before the trade dispute. European governments also agreed to invest six hundred billion dollars in the United States and to purchase seven hundred and fifty billion dollars of American energy by 2028.
The divisions visible today are therefore not merely tactical disagreements or exchanges of diplomatic statements. They represent a structural rupture that threatens the entire architecture of the Western alliance.
The open war against Iran, launched without authorisation from the United Nations Security Council, has led some analysts to describe the current phase as the “great rupture” of the global order.
This development fits within the broader trajectory of the Trump administration’s policy of imposing facts on the ground while disregarding European reservations and relying on economic pressure rather than consultation with its allies.
This platform runs on funding from the Ummah & Our Community.
