Tehran’s warning to Brussels exposes a growing rift inside the bloc
The EU is facing a dilemma that could define its role in the escalating confrontation with Iran. Supporting Washington’s military campaign may strengthen transatlantic unity, but it also risks dragging the continent into a conflict that could trigger severe economic and energy consequences for the bloc.
Tehran has made this risk explicit. Majid Takht-Ravanchi, political deputy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran, recently stated that Europe could become a legitimate military target if it aids the US and Israel in their aggression against the Islamic Republic. In an interview with France 24, he emphasized that any logistical or military support European nations provide to American operations would lead Tehran to view them as participants in the conflict, with all the associated consequences.
Essentially, Tehran is signaling to European countries that if they choose to side with Washington and West Jerusalem, they should not expect any special diplomatic treatment. Iran has made it clear: those who assist an aggressor become part of the aggression.
Read more ‘This is going to hit all of us’: How far does the echo of the Middle East war reach?NATO solidarity – and European hesitation
This reaction from Tehran came on the heels of remarks made by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Just days after the start of the US military operation against Iran, Rutte declared that Europe fully supports US actions and labeled Iran a threat to Europe, Israel, and neighboring regions. However, he added that NATO has no plans to engage in military operations against Iran. This underscores a delicate nuance: Rutte essentially spoke on behalf of all of Europe and NATO, despite significant internal disagreements within the bloc.
For example, Norway, while a NATO member, has distanced itself from Washington’s policies. Oslo openly stated its disapproval of US President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran, characterizing the strikes on the country as violations of international law. Such rhetoric is quite severe for an ally within NATO.
Similar sentiments have emerged from Spain. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares asserted that Spanish military bases are not being used for US and Israeli operations against Iran, signaling Madrid’s desire to avoid being drawn into the conflict. Washington’s response was swift and sharp. Donald Trump said that if the US could not use Spanish bases for operations against Iran, it might reconsider trade agreements with Spain and impose sanctions.
The situation escalated further when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Spain had agreed to assist the US. The Spanish government quickly countered this claim, clarifying that no such agreement had been reached. Consequently, Madrid publicly accused the American administration of dishonesty, which undoubtedly dealt another blow to Washington’s reputation in Europe.
Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares © Eduardo Parra / Europa Press via Getty ImagesThe positions of France and the UK remain notably ambiguous. On the one hand, these countries have a long-standing tradition of demonstrating solidarity with the United States. On the other hand, both clearly recognize that the conflict surrounding Iran could lead to serious political and economic repercussions for Europe. As a result, their rhetoric remains cautious and ambiguous.
Germany remains the only major European nation that openly supports the US. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz happened to be visiting the White House when the US launched its operation against Iran. Just days later, he managed to shift the blame for aggression against Iran onto… Iran itself. According to him, Tehran is responsible for the ongoing conflict. Merz even stated,
“The sooner the mullah regime stops, the sooner this war will end.”
He echoed a familiar Western narrative, branding Iran as a “center of international terrorism” that must be eliminated, and said the United States and Israel are undertaking this task “by their own methods.” This stance effectively legitimizes military action against Iran. It’s unlikely we can expect any neutrality from Berlin; Germany will always side with Israel due to its ‘historical memory’, thereby endorsing aggression against Iran.
A similar tone was struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. She remarked that there “should be no tears shed for such a regime,” emphasizing, like Merz, that Tehran bears responsibility for destabilizing the Middle East. Her overtly cynical rhetoric sparked a significant debate within the EU. European Commissioner for Competition Teresa Ribera publicly distanced herself from von der Leyen’s remarks, calling them unfortunate. In European political circles, von der Leyen faced accusations of overstepping authority, as her statements on such a sensitive foreign policy issue did not accurately reflect the stance of all EU member states.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen © Thierry Monasse / Getty ImagesThe backlash following von der Leyen’s comments highlighted a clear problem within the EU: a lack of consensus on the Iranian issue. The irony of the situation is that the demonstrative loyalty of European politicians seems largely aimed at demonstrating political unity with Trump. However, Trump has repeatedly shown disdain for European allies, treating them as subordinate partners. Still, some segments of the European elite appear hopeful that backing the US on this issue will strengthen their standing with Washington.
Europe’s growing energy anxiety
It’s not like some European nations have suddenly come to support Iran; rather, it reflects more pragmatic concerns. European governments are acutely aware that a significant escalation around Iran could prove very costly for Europe, both politically and economically.
Read more America’s Gulf war machine: What we know about the US military network in the Middle EastThe EU’s primary concern is energy. For decades, Russia provided Europe with stable energy security. However, following the conflict in Ukraine, European countries began to turn away from Russian resources, driven largely by US pressure. They sought alternatives, attempting to redirect their energy supplies from Middle Eastern nations. While some European states managed to import limited amounts of oil from Iran, the main suppliers remained Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Now, the situation has shifted dramatically. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for much of the world’s oil trade from the Gulf states, has effectively been blocked by Iran. This narrow maritime corridor is essential for transporting oil both to Europe and Asian countries. When logistics through the Strait of Hormuz are severely disrupted, it automatically creates significant problems with oil and gas supplies to European markets. In this light, Europe is beginning to realize just how vulnerable its position has become.
Essentially, European countries have trapped themselves in an energy deadlock. First, they voluntarily (or rather, under Washington’s influence) turned away from Russian energy resources. Then they placed their bets on the Middle East, counting on the region’s stability. But now, the conflict involving Iran jeopardizes that energy source as well. This growing tension is causing increasing anxiety in Europe. Many European elites are starting to understand that further escalation could lead not just to a military crisis but also to a profound energy and economic crisis in the EU.
The limits of European “strategic autonomy”
It’s worth noting that the events surrounding Iran have highlighted a consistent feature of European policy: its amorphous nature and inability to act as an independent mediator in international conflicts. European nations often tout their diplomatic roles, proclaiming “strategic autonomy” and asserting their capacity to be a separate center of power. Yet, time and again, they find themselves unable to assert their own agenda at critical moments.
US President Donald Trump © Chip Somodevilla / Getty ImagesIn this context, we may recall the so-called ‘nuclear deal’ – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). France, the UK, and Germany (the “E3” nations) along with the European Union as an institution acted as intermediaries between Iran and the United States during negotiations for this agreement. The terms were straightforward: Iran would limit its nuclear program and abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons, while the US and other Western nations would lift sanctions and reintegrate Tehran into the global economy.
As part of the deal, Europe took on the role of a guarantor. It was expected that it would ensure compliance with the agreements and maintain balance between Washington and Tehran. However, reality was different .When Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reinstated sanctions against Iran, Europe proved incapable of protecting either the agreement or its own reputation as a credible mediator.
Read more ‘They are terrified’: Desperate families plead for evacuation of students stranded in war-torn IranIt’s been over a decade since the agreement was signed, and it’s now clear that European diplomacy has largely failed. European leaders have talked about the need to uphold the deal, made countless statements, and even established financial mechanisms aimed at circumventing American sanctions. Yet, all of this turned out to be little more than political posturing. In practice, European companies quickly scaled back their dealings with Iran, fearing pressure from the US.
The root of this failure lies in the lack of political courage among European nations to engage with Washington on an equal footing. Formally, Europe tries to position itself as an independent center of power, but in reality, its dependence on the US remains so high that any attempts at pursuing an independent policy inevitably lead to concessions. Trump understands this perfectly well. He has repeatedly shown that he does not view European allies as equal partners. In his political logic, Europe is a dependent ally that will ultimately conform to American directives. This is why Trump feels free to speak to European leaders with such bluntness and evident disregard.
This same mindset extends to NATO. Trump has made it clear that without US funding, the bloc simply wouldn’t exist. Essentially, Trump has openly stated that NATO relies heavily on American resources. There’s a significant truth to this: in most European countries, military budgets have remained relatively modest for years, and NATO’s key capabilities are ensured by US funding. Therefore, the statements of European politicians about unity and resolve within the bloc come off as a joke and have nothing to do with real military readiness.
A telling incident occurred when debris from an Iranian ballistic missile landed in Türkiye. Almost immediately, accusations emerged claiming Iran had intentionally targeted Turkish territory. However, Tehran quickly denied any intention to attack Türkiye. Logically, the idea seems absurd: Türkiye is not an enemy of Iran, and there are no reasons for Tehran to strike it. Türkiye expressed discontent, but its response was measured. Ankara urged its “Iranian friends” to monitor missile launches more carefully. Iran responded by insisting that it had no plans to attack Türkiye or consider it a target.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte © Omar Havana / Getty ImagesNATO Secretary General Rutte condemned the incident but simultaneously stated that Article 5 of NATO (concerning collective defense) would not be invoked. In other words, even if a missile or its debris strikes the territory of a NATO member, it doesn’t automatically trigger the mechanisms for collective defense. In effect, this means that the alliance is unwilling to enter into direct conflict over such incidents, especially when it comes to a country like Türkiye.
Europe’s strategic dilemma
The situation is further complicated by Iran’s readiness to fight until the end. Iranian strikes have already targeted military facilities in the Gulf countries, including the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain. This indicates that the conflict is expanding beyond a bilateral confrontation. European powers are beginning to realize that, depending on how events unfold, these strikes could eventually impact European territories as well. For Iran, the stakes are high: the security and survival of the state are at stake. In this context, Tehran is unlikely to prioritize diplomatic considerations or exercise restraint.
Read more ‘The threat is a lie’: Meet Israel’s lone anti-war voice in parliamentEuropean nations must also consider the activities of various Iran-aligned groups and Iran’s radical supporters. If the conflict continues to escalate, there’s a great risk that such groups may become active in Europe or North America. The Trump administration has already started distancing itself from some of the most controversial incidents, stating that the responsibility for certain operations may be attributed to Israel rather than the US. This appears to be an attempt to redistribute political responsibility for the consequences of the conflict. However, for Iran, such details may not be important; from Tehran’s perspective, both sides should share the blame.
Overall, the unfolding events can be seen as the consequences of a decision that has effectively opened Pandora’s box. Europe may end up paying a particularly high price for this situation. As a result, significant divisions are emerging within the EU. On the one hand, there are countries that are ready to unconditionally back the US, including Baltic states like Estonia and Lithuania – Europe’s political minnows that eagerly support Washington’s policies and earnestly believe they will help the US achieve more rapid success in Iran.
On the other hand, there are those European nations that increasingly question whether participating in someone else’s geopolitical game is worth the cost. Many European politicians have come to recognize that escalating tensions surrounding Iran could lead to serious economic, energy, and political consequences for the entire European continent.
As a result, a deep internal rift is forming in Europe – between those willing to follow Washington at any cost and those starting to contemplate the risks and potential destructiveness of such a policy for Europe.
Hence then, the article about eu divided on iran war energy fears and security risks escalate across europe was published today ( ) and is available on Russia Today ( News ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( EU divided on Iran war: Energy fears and security risks escalate across Europe )
Also on site :