Afrasianet - While European leaders assert that "war is not a European affair" and that the chances of NATO joining it are "slim and non-existent," other views suggest that there is "behind-the-scenes" participation from several European countries.
At the same time, countries are gradually finding themselves drifting into conflict despite their initial reluctance, due to their deep interests and the presence of hundreds of thousands of their citizens in the Gulf states, and the scene is further complicated by the lack of clarity and coherence of U.S. strategy, which raises deep concern among traditional European allies .
He says Analysts say that European countries believe that the war is wrong and is being managed for incorrect and unnecessary reasons, especially since Washington started it with an ally, and it is now too late to ask permission from other countries to join it. They noted that many European countries are already helping behind the scenes despite their public reluctance, as evidenced by France's reinforcement NATO Defense Systems in Turkey.
Over the past few days, a number of European leaders have refused to engage directly in the war on Iran since its inception, but the American discomfort with the position of European allies was clearly evident in the statements of US President Donald Trump , who launched a scathing attack on European leaders at the beginning of the war, accusing them of failing to support the United States.
The US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28, 2026, and has so far killed thousands of people, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and high-ranking security officials, and Tehran has responded by firing missiles and drones towards Israel and targeting what it describes as US interests in the countries of the region, resulting in deaths and injuries and damage to civilian facilities in the Arab Gulf countries.
NATO refuses direct involvement
Former U.S. officer Harlan Ullman clearly asserts that "the likelihood of NATO joining any kind of accompanying operations ranges from negligible to non-existent," noting that Article 5 of the alliance's charter provides for joint defense in the event of an attack by a member, and in the event of a war on Iran, "NATO has not been attacked in this specific situation."
Ullmann goes further, explaining that some European countries believe that "the war is wrong, it is being run for the wrong reasons, and it is unnecessary," pointing out that Washington started the war with one ally, Israel, and "it is a little late to ask permission from other countries to join it."
The US military warned that "the use of military force will not have the support of many allies besides the United States". He stresses that opening the Strait of Hormuz militarily is a "very difficult process".
Chris Doyle, director of the Arab-British Council of Understanding and an expert on Middle East affairs and international politics, explains the initial British hesitation and then gradual entry into the conflict as the result of "deep British interests in the Gulf."
Doyle notes that Britain had "240,000 British citizens living in the UAE alone before the war, as well as military bases and close allies," which made it "very difficult at first to say no to the United States."
But Doyle reiterated that "Britain is not as enthusiastic about war as it was in 2003", stressing that former Prime Minister Keir Starmer "was acting very cautiously and did not want to get involved in any deeper, preferring negotiations and seeing the Strait of Hormuz open".
The director of the Arab-British Understanding Council reveals deep British concern about the "complete lack of strategy" of the US in this war, as "we hear divergent views from President Trump (escalation, de-escalation, talk, no talk) which is of concern to traditional allies."
Participation behind the scenes
In contrast to the previous photo, Zahra Kharrazmi, an academic and researcher in political science at the University of Tehran, paints a different picture of the nature of the European position, stressing that "many European countries are already helping behind the scenes," despite showing "a reluctance to join the scene in public discourse." She points out that "France and NATO are strengthening Turkey's defense systems."
"Iran faces war when it bombs different cities heavily with Israeli and American planes flying and refueling over Gulf cities," Kharrazmi added, citing Western articles and newspapers.
In a sharp tone, Kharrazmi asserts that "Iran cannot sit back and watch itself bombed and at the same time be deceived by diplomacy," pointing out that negotiations were underway when "the Israelis and Americans attacked Iran," as the Iranian prime minister was "talking about a lot of hope and cooperation" just 24 hours before the attack.
A strategy that doesn't seem logical
Professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews and an expert on military affairs and international strategy, Philip O'Brien provides a reading of the U.S.-Israeli strategy.
"The war has already gone on longer than the U.S. intended," O'Brien asserts, noting that Trump "probably expected a few days of bombing, then a new Iranian leadership, and then a declaration of victory." But the reality is quite different: "It's the U.S. that's discussing escalation, the U.S. is actually rolling back some of the sanctions on Iran spectacularly, and the U.S. is trying to force its allies to do their business in the Gulf," the military and strategic affairs expert said.
O'Brien concludes that Washington is "faced with the fact that it didn't know what it was doing," noting that "when a war starts, it loses control, and the other side has a role to play."
The professor of strategic studies discusses the concept of "victory" for the US president, and sees it as a "very subjective term": Trump "will eventually declare victory no matter what happens", but real victory "requires a change in the Iranian regime so that the new regime is more friendly to the United States".
O'Brien warns that Trump "might want to get out of this war now if he can," but "the problem is that he can't get out because he's not sure Iran will let him out." If Trump declares victory and returns to America, "and withdraws U.S. troops, Iran may say no, we won't let cargo pass through the Gulf," which he calls "an insult to Trump because he has thrown all these troops into the battle and has not even been able to keep the strait open."
Doyle asserts that "the whole strategy doesn't seem to make sense," arguing that it was "based on the idea that the Iranian regime will collapse, disintegrate, disappear," but that "aerial bombardment doesn't produce the changes you want." He warns that "even if the regime is on the verge of disintegrating, it will not turn into a great, safe government in Iran," but rather "there is more likely to be chaos and great danger."
The European position on the war on Iran reveals a real crisis in relations within NATO, as Europe finds itself caught between refusing to engage militarily in a war it considers "wrong and unnecessary," and between U.S. pressure and vital interests threatened in the Gulf.
In the absence of a clear strategy and contradictory U.S. statements, European fears are growing that the continent could be dragged into a long-term war quagmire that threatens the stability of global energy supplies and exacerbates the inflation crisis, while Tehran continues to show resilience and retaliation despite intense strikes, analysts said.
European concern over miscalculations. Are New Powers Entering the War Against Iran?
As the confrontation between the United States and the Israel On the one hand and Iran On the other hand, European capitals do not follow developments from a remote observer position, but rather from the perspective of direct concern for their energy security, the stability of their southern neighbor, and the balance of their international alliances.
The accelerated escalation in the Middle East reads not only as a regional conflict, but as a new test of the continent's ability to avoid engaging in an open conflict that could exacerbate its accumulated crises since the Ukraine war.
What began as a military operation by the United States and Israel against Iran, in an attempt to dismantle its military and nuclear capabilities, appears to be gradually turning into a complex regional conflict that threatens to turn the Middle East into an open theater for permanent escalation.
Although the confrontation is still defined as a direct conflict between specific parties, each strike carries with it the potential for miscalculations or unintended expansion, which may lead to the luring of new forces into the battlefield, whether through direct military engagement, intelligence and logistical support, or the movement of parallel fronts.
Territory action
Indicators on the ground show that operations are taking place within a "strike-for-strike" logic, with key parties relatively careful to avoid targeting large civilian facilities or declaring all-out war. But the geographic breadth of Iran's responses, and the distribution of U.S. interests in the Middle East, make it difficult to confine the conflict to a narrow bilateral framework.
Former French army general François Chauvancy does not rule out a scenario of a slide into a regional escalation if the countries affected by the conflict decide to enter a military confrontation.
"The air fleet of Arab countries still includes about 300 fighter jets, a number that Iran does not have. Its missile defense capabilities are also of the Patriot or Thad of great importance. Therefore, the Arab states today have the ability to respond if Iran does not realize the need to stop its attacks".
In another reference to the medium-tech strikes on Arab countries, the same spokesman pointed out the presence of long-range, medium-range and short-range Iranian missiles, with a range of approximately 500 to 1,000 kilometers, 1,500 and 2,000 kilometers. This means, in his opinion, that the number of missiles capable of hitting Israel is the smallest in terms of number.
The damage that Tehran has inflicted on Israel so far does not correspond to the number of missiles it has fired, which may mean that it does not have enough long-range missiles today, he said.
Between duality and interests
European capitals are dealing with the escalation against Iran with a dual logic, based on condemning any threat to the region's security, while at the same time stressing the need to avoid sliding into an all-out war. PEuropean Union, which is already exhausted by the repercussions of Ukraine War and energy burdens, he does not seem ready to open a new political or military front in the Middle East.
In practice, this cautioity translates into refraining from any direct military commitment, whether by joining large-scale combat operations or sending troops. Even countries with close ties with Washington keep a clear distance from offensive operations. The French Defence Council convened by the President Emmanuel Macron, did not make strong statements, except for stressing the need to de-escalate and protect French citizens.
Chauvinsi stressed that there is no possible military intervention at the moment, questioning the extent of Europe's military readiness. "If a missile hits a European country, what will be the EU's reaction?".
Regarding NATO, the French general believed that NATO will not intervene because it precisely defines the geographical area in any conflict, and the Middle East is not part of it, despite the existence of agreements with a number of countries in the region.
As for Russia andChina, their position was limited to demandingHold your fire During a meeting Security Council. Apparently, you don't have Beijing There is an interest in escalation, especially with regard to oil, which it depends in part despite the sanctions. Russia, on the other hand, has other priorities despite signing a strategic partnership agreement with Iran last year.
Tehran has a Sukhoi Su-29 fighter jet supplied by Moscow, and Beijing has provided it with air defense capabilities without specifying its type, a sign that military support from Russia and China remains limited and minimal.
Diplomatically, the Russian-Chinese position does not deviate from its traditional framework of condemnation without engaging in any debate, or saying that it is wrong, without any additional commitment.
Von der Leyen: The repercussions of the war in Iran may weigh on Europe for years to come
From the repercussions of the war on Iran and its impact on Europe, the European Union is looking for alternatives to its economy away from participating in this war.
Von der Leyen stresses that the crisis reinforces the need to accelerate the EU's transition away from imported fossil fuels and move towards accelerating the electrification of the economy.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warns that Europe could face the fallout from the U.S.-Israel war on Iran for years to come, signaling that the crisis of high energy prices is likely to continue without a breakthrough soon.
Speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday, von der Leyen said: "There is a harsh reality that we all have to face: the consequences of this conflict may continue to reverberate for months or even years to come."
It explained that Europe is losing about 500 million euros a day due to the high cost of Fossil fuels"In just 60 days of conflict, our fossil fuel import bill has risen by more than €27 billion, without any additional energy".
The Wall Street Journal revealed that US President Donald Trump has directed the White House to prepare for a long-term blockade on Iran, as part of a strategy aimed at putting pressure on its economy by restricting shipping to and from its ports, which threatens to disrupt oil and gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a quarter of the global oil trade and large quantities of gas and fertilizers pass.
In light of this, von der Leyen stressed that the crisis reinforces the need to accelerate the EU's transition away from imported fossil fuels and move towards accelerating the electrification of the economy.
"The path is clear. We must reduce our over-reliance on imported fossil fuels, and promote the production of low-cost domestic clean energy, from renewable to nuclear, while respecting technological neutrality."
The European Commission will present an "electricity action plan" over the summer that includes an ambitious European target, to be launched on June 10 in conjunction with a broader strategy to boost energy security.
It also called for accelerating the adoption of the European "grid package" to modernize electrical infrastructure, and to increase its capacity to absorb renewable energy and growing demand.
It also called for greater coordination among EU countries on diesel and jet fuel reserves, oil stockpile management and refinery production, as part of a broader response to the worsening energy crisis.
EU transport, communications and energy ministers held a meeting in the Cypriot capital Nicosia to discuss the repercussions of the ongoing war, just days after a similar meeting in the same city brought together leaders from the region.
The previous meeting focused on the accelerated security and economic repercussions of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, foremost of which is the issue of freedom of navigation. At the end of that meeting, the participants called for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz "without conditions or restrictions" and welcomed the extension of the ceasefire agreement, including in Lebanon.
In a related context, Britain and France expressed their aspiration to develop a military plan to protect the Strait of Hormuz, and work to ensure that it remains open once the war on Iran ends, allowing the resumption of trade through this vital corridor.
Since the outbreak of war in the Middle East, the European continent has been facing severe shortages of jet fuel, amid warnings that airlines may have to cancel scheduled flights over the next two months.
Gasoline prices are about 15% higher and diesel prices are about 30% higher in early April compared to late February 2026.
'Muted' European reaction to Iran crisis reflects the EU's role in the international world
The European Union's relatively tepid and muted reactions to the military escalation in the Middle East clearly reflect its marginality on the global geopolitical map.
Under a headline reflecting European frustration, the newspaper noted that statements by the leaders of the 27 countries and European institutions, led by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, "clearly" revealed the true place of the Union in the international power equations.
According to the newspaper, Europe "does not represent any real weight" not only in the Iranian file, but also in the efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even in the Ukrainian file, which is its direct neighbor.
The newspaper did not hesitate to describe the current European role as "inferior", pointing out that the old continent is practically absent from the negotiating table hosted by Geneva on its territory, after its role has been transformed into a mere "financier" that provides financial support to Ukraine without having an active voice in fateful decisions.
"The prevailing impression is that European diplomacy has voluntarily succumbed to a secondary role, or worse, has become just an additional actor on the stage of major events," O'Bienon concluded.
How does Iran's war affect European politics, security, and the economy?
The U.S.-Israeli-Iranian war, which broke out on February 28, 2026, poses a series of intertwined threats and risks for the European continent. Politically, the war reflects a state of division and disparity within the European arena, particularly between right-wing populist currents, which find themselves torn between their traditional support for US President Donald Trump and their constituents' fears of the economic and security consequences of the war. The current crisis has also revealed the limited influence of European countries in the equations of international power.
On the defense and security front, the war highlighted a number of challenges, including the arms gap revealed by military operations, the disparity in the levels of military capabilities between European countries and some international and regional powers, as well as concerns related to the possibility of waves of illegal migration to the European continent. On the economic front, the repercussions of the war are emerging in terms of energy security, in light of the disruption of oil and gas supplies through vital sea lanes, and the potential pressures on the European economy.
In light of this, we review the European position on the current war in the Middle East, as well as its most prominent repercussions on the political, defense, security, and economic levels for European countries.
European Variation
Since the outbreak of the current war, the European reaction has been characterized by a great degree of caution, with most European capitals and EU institutions refraining from condemning the US and Israeli strikes targeting Iran, while a limited number of countries, including Spain and Norway, have questioned the legitimacy of those strikes.
On the other hand, the European position was clearer in condemning Iran's blatant aggressions against the Gulf Arab states, and calling for a halt to military attacks and the resumption of the diplomatic track.
The war on Iran broke out without consulting the European side, but the escalation of the crisis prompted European leaders to intensify their political and diplomatic moves.
On February 28, 2026, European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen issued a joint statement in which they stressed the importance of ensuring nuclear safety and preventing any escalation that threatens the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, while stressing the continuation of European sanctions on Iran.
On the same day, Germany, France and Britain condemned Iran's attacks on countries in the region and called on Tehran to halt military operations and resume negotiations.
On March 1, the foreign ministers of European countries issued a joint statement calling for restraint, the protection of civilians, and full adherence to international law, stressing the need to maintain maritime security and freedom of navigation in light of the threats to the Strait of Hormuz.
On 3 March, European governments also participated in an emergency meeting under the Integrated Crisis Policy Response Mechanism (IPRM) to assess the risks associated with war, both in terms of the safety of citizens and energy flows and supply chains. As of March 6, more than 17 EU member states have requested the support of the European Civil Protection Mechanism to carry out the evacuation of European citizens from the Middle East.
In a joint statement on the two blocs after a video conference of their foreign ministers on March 5, the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) called for dialogue and diplomacy to resolve the crisis in the Middle East, while reaffirming that the Gulf states have the right to defend themselves from Iranian attacks.
In the same context, French President Emmanuel Macron, in a speech to the French public on March 3, stressed the need to protect European economic interests in light of the rise in oil and gas prices and the impact of international trade as a result of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas passes, calling for the formation of an international coalition to secure vital shipping routes.
During his visit to Cyprus on March 9, Macron also affirmed the solidarity of France and the European Union with the island after it was hit by Iranian drone and missile strikes, stressing that any attack on Cyprus is an attack on the whole of Europe, while stressing at the same time that Paris will not participate directly in combat operations.
Britain, especially the Labour Party government, seemed to be affected by the so-called "Iraq syndrome", as it initially refused to allow the United States to use the Diego Garcia base in offensive operations, before later changing its tone in light of the strikes on London's allies in the region, which prompted British Defense Secretary John Healy not to rule out the participation of British planes in air strikes on Iran.
On the other hand, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz considered that the United States and Israel have done a task that Europe was not able to do.
Some Eastern European countries, led by Hungary, have also adopted a position that is biased towards the American vision. Spain has refused to provide any military facilities to U.S. forces, prompting President Trump to threaten a trade boycott of Madrid.
This disparity reflects the difficulty of formulating a unified European position, as a result of doubts about the goals of the current war and the absence of a clear strategy to end it, in addition to the continued focus of a number of European countries on the priority of the battles in Ukraine.
Despite this disparity, the common denominator of European positions was a keenness not to get directly involved in the war, while still supporting the U.S. goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and undermining its ballistic missile program.
The Oath's Dilemma
The war waged by the United States and Israel on Iran has plunged Europe's right-wing populist parties into apparent political confusion, confronting an equation that is difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, these parties have close ties to President Trump, and often adopt close positions with Israel.
On the other hand, it fears the internal repercussions of the current war on European societies, particularly the rise in energy prices and the possibility of an escalation of waves of illegal immigration, which are at the core of its political discourse to its constituents.
This contradiction has led many of these parties to adopt a cautious and ambiguous stance, avoiding condemnation of the strikes on Iran, but at the same time not showing explicit support for military escalation, in an attempt to maintain a delicate balance between their political loyalty to Trump and their fears of the repercussions of the war at home.
Several leaders of the populist right remained silent during the early days of the war. For example, former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the leader of the Fidesz party, avoided taking a clear stance on strikes on Iran, despite his previous praise of Trump as a "peacemaker" in the context of the Gaza war.
Orbán appears to have found himself in a political dilemma, especially as he was campaigning mainly on a rhetoric calling for peace and criticizing the European Union's involvement in support Ukraine militarily.
Matteo Salvini's Italian League party is not much different from this trend, as Salvini has previously defended Trump's foreign policies, called for him to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and adopted a rhetoric calling for a reduction in foreign military interventions.
In Germany, AfD leaders have also taken a cautious stance, asserting that rising instability in the Middle East does not serve German interests and warning that the collapse of the Iranian state could lead to dangerous repercussions, including massive waves of migration and a sharp rise in energy prices.
This divergence within right-wing populist parties was also reflected in the European Parliament, where it seemed difficult to reach a unified position on the Iran war.
Both the Patriots for Europe (PfE) and the Europe Sovereign States (ESN) bloc left the question of defining the position on the war for each national party separately, a clear indication of the extent of the division within the European right over the war and its potential repercussions.
Military Lessons
With multiple wars raging on Europe's periphery, EU countries are seeking to develop new military capabilities that are tailored to the nature of the growing security challenges.
Iran's ballistic missile strikes in various regions, not only in the Middle East, but also toward NATO members such as Turkey and members of the European Union such as Cyprus, have increased European awareness of the pivotal role that ballistic missiles play in modern warfare.
These developments have also raised serious questions about the size of the missile capabilities that European countries possess and the extent to which they are ready to deal with such sophisticated threats.
In light of this situation, several European countries are trying to accelerate the pace of military modernization programs and the development of new deterrence systems, whether through national projects or through joint defense initiatives within the European Union.
These efforts include the development of more advanced air and missile defense systems, as well as the improvement of long-range strike capabilities, which have become a key element of modern military power balances.
However, military estimates suggest that Europe is still not sufficiently prepared for the demands of modern warfare, especially in the field of long-range ballistic missiles. These capabilities are still limited to a few European militaries, led by France and Britain, which have relatively advanced programs in this field compared to the rest of Europe.
This reality is expected to prompt the EU to think increasingly about strengthening defence cooperation among member states with a view to bridging existing military gaps and building common capacities capable of countering the growing threats in the security environment surrounding the continent.
Immigration Concerns
The U.S.-Israeli-Iranian war is raising growing European concerns about the influx of waves of illegal immigration to the European continent, especially if the war dismantles the regime in Tehran. Iran is a country of about 90 million people, making any instability a potential source of large waves of migration.
As tensions in the region intensify, the European Union's asylum agency, in a report prepared before the outbreak of the current war, confirmed that the displacement of only 10% of Iran's population is enough to compete with the largest refugee influx in recent decades.
Although the number of asylum applications submitted by Iranians in Europe remains relatively low, reaching around 8,000 in 2025, the magnitude of the potential risk remains significant.
That is why the European Commission has already begun discussing this file with Turkey, which is one of the most important transit routes for Iranian migrants to Europe.
Economic repercussions
While Europe is yet to fully deal with the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, the war on Iran has renewed tensions over gas supplies. Tehran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led to a significant slowdown in trade, especially between Asia and Europe.
Although it is too early to talk about a real economic or energy crisis, the specter of an energy shock looms, with the risk of causing what is known as "stagflation," a combination of inflation and economic stagnation. According to the US Energy Agency, more than 20 million barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz every day.
Consequently, with the closure of the strait, bottlenecks in global energy supplies have begun to appear since the early days of the war, especially after the statement issued on March 2 by Ebrahim Jabbari, an advisor to the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who confirmed that his country would target any ship trying to cross the strait.
This situation has led to a 50% rise in the price of gas in Europe, a 12% rise in oil prices, and a 4.7% decline in the Paris Stock Exchange.
Economic estimates suggest that the continuation of the war could push Europe to the brink of an energy crisis linked to LNG supplies, which could lead to a significant rise in inflation and a slowdown in economic growth, especially in countries such as Germany and Italy, which rely heavily on LNG imports.
The British economy also appears to be vulnerable to the direct effects of the war, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has warned of the repercussions of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on inflation rates, in light of the strategic importance of the strait, through which about 11% of global maritime trade passes, according to some estimates.
In conclusion, it is clear that if the current war in the Middle East continues, its repercussions on the European continent could be far-reaching at the political, security, and economic levels. Politically, the war could deepen divisions within the European arena and increase pressure on governments as internal debate over the position on the conflict and its repercussions escalates.
On the security front, there are growing concerns about the potential for wider regional instability, including the possibility of new waves of illegal migration flowing into Europe. In contrast, the economic repercussions are reflected in the turmoil in energy markets and rising inflation as a result of the increase in oil and gas prices and transportation costs.
In light of these facts, European leaders, led by President Macron, are seeking to intensify diplomatic efforts to communicate with regional and international actors with the aim of containing the escalation and working to end the war as soon as possible, in order to limit its repercussions to Europe.
________________
