How Trump's war against Iran became a test for EU and what problems it revealed

Despite all efforts, Europe has failed to avoid being drawn into the war with Iran. And it is not only about pressure from Washington. Iranian missile and drone strikes on British and French military bases left those countries with little choice.

However, many EU states still prefer to distance themselves from this war, pointing to its questionable legal basis.

In doing so, they are deepening the crisis in relations between Europe and the current US leadership.

At the same time, Iran is increasing its threats, promising to respond with attacks even to European countries’ security measures. This further narrows the room for EU states to stay aside from the conflict.

Read more about how the US and Israeli operation against Iran has become a foreign-policy challenge for Europe in the article by Uliana Krychkovska, a European Pravda journalist: EU between two fires: how the war in the Middle East became a test for Europe. 

The new war in the Middle East did not come as a complete surprise to Europe.

Over the past weeks, European leaders had been closely watching the gradual buildup of US military presence in the region, as well as Washington’s increasingly tough rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.

However, since the start of the US-Israeli operation, Europe has appeared at least confused and poorly coordinated. Brussels is trying to formulate a common line of action, but national interests and differing assessments of risks are complicating the development of a consolidated position.

First and foremost, European governments have focused on the safety of their own citizens who are in the risk zone in the Middle East. Consultations are ongoing regarding the evacuation of diplomatic staff and civilians.

Despite the initial confusion, three key European states,France, Germany and the United Kingdom, managed to agree on a joint statement. They warned Iran that they were ready to take "defensive measures" to neutralise its ability to launch missiles and drones.

At the same time, further steps showed that even within this triangle their positions differ.

In particular, the United Kingdom did not immediately agree to a US request to use two of its military bases for strikes on Iranian missile facilities, while in France mild criticism was voiced that the American strikes had not been discussed in collective bodies created precisely for this purpose, such as the United Nations.

Germany, meanwhile, stated that it would not directly participate in US and Israeli attacks against Iran, limiting itself to political support.

An important point: none of the three states publicly questioned the legality of the American and Israeli strikes from the perspective of international law.

However, some EU countries hold a different view.

Spain’s position has been particularly outspoken.

Iranian strikes on the territory of Cyprus were perceived as a serious signal of escalation. This forced EU states to reinforce the Eastern Mediterranean region.

It can be argued that these steps indicate the conflict entering a new phase, where the threat extends beyond the direct confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran and begins to affect the infrastructure of European states.

Ultimately, even those countries that tried to remain on the sidelines could not ignore this challenge.

Iran has already declared that it will treat any actions by European countries in the Middle East (including defensive ones) as an "act of war," which would result in attacks directly on the territory of those states.

In this context, Iranian strikes on Azerbaijan and attempts to attack Türkiye may appear as a warning to Europe.

European countries now find themselves caught between the need to demonstrate transatlantic solidarity with the United States and the need to remain faithful to international law, avoid uncontrolled escalation and at the same time protect their own economic and security interests.