How divided is Europe over war with Iran?
European states have different stances on the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stressed at a meeting with US President Donald Trump on Tuesday that Germany agrees that the regime in Tehran must be removed from power. The UK initially refused to allow the US to use British military bases for attacks on Iran but has now given permission in specific cases. Meanwhile Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has spoken out against the strikes and called them a violation of international law.
Backstabbing instead of unity
La Repubblica shudders at the thought of the meeting between Merz and Trump in Washington:
“Not only because President Trump launched a frontal attack on European countries that do not obey him yesterday, going so far as to threaten an embargo against Spain and the end of the special relationship with Britain, but also because of the earthquake his aggression is causing among his allies. Visibly embarrassed by the tirade delivered by his host as they sat before the fireplace in the Oval Office, German Chancellor Merz agreed with him to appease him and repeated his accusation that Madrid was not investing enough in defence. Madrid is unlikely to have appreciated this stab in the back. If this dynamic were to repeat itself, with every member of the bloc rushing to take cover at the expense of its neighbours, Brussels' days would be numbered.”
Collective response needed
Spain should not break ranks within Europe, El País argues:
“The Spanish government must strive to achieve a common position in Europe. Given the profound differences between many countries it would be naïve to underestimate the difficulty of this undertaking. But it would be a mistake not to continue seeking common ground. Rejection of an attack on Iran without legal justification should not detract from Spain's will to contribute to the defence of the interests of its European allies against the despicable Iranian regime. ... Germany, the United Kingdom and France have demonstrated their unity. ... The best European response is a unified response, not 27 separate ones.”
British caution is appropriate
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's decision to keep Britain out of the war is right, The Independent argues:
“It was, we may assume, on the basis of legal advice that a serious military assault by any nation on another where there is no immediate threat of aggression is unlawful, breaches the United Nations convention, and represents a return to the dangerous principle that 'might is right' in settling international disputes. ... Shielding British interests in the region and the country's honour as a responsible member of the international community were more than adequate reasons for the UK government to deny the US permission to use bases on British territory for the bombing raids.”
E3 states step into the breach
TVNet says it's clear that the E3, aka Germany, France and the UK, and not the EU, has taken the leading role:
“This dynamic is reminiscent of previous crises in which European security policy was controlled not by the institutional centre in Brussels but by a core group of major powers. If the E3 were to take on a more active role, this could mean the de facto establishment of a new security centre in Europe - with France and Germany as the political axis and the UK as a militarily strong partner outside EU structures. ... The question is: is this a temporary solution in a crisis or a structural change in the European security architecture?”
At the mercy of events
De Volkskrant feels pained by Europe's powerlessness:
“Europe has neither the military capabilities nor the will to attack Iran itself. But it is also unable to consistently defend international law. ... If the war in Iran descends into chaos - and there is a good chance that it will - Europe will suffer the consequences, possibly in the form of refugees, high energy prices and terrorism. However, Europe is standing on the sidelines with no influence on the course of events. ... Military power would also strengthen Europe diplomatically, but only if it is united. That is currently not the case.”
Toppling the ayatollahs is in Europe's interest
If Europe could see the world as it is rather than as it would like it to be it would realise that Iran is undoubtedly an enemy, the Tages-Anzeiger points out:
“For four decades it has terrorised its own people and its neighbours, sowed violence, sought to acquire nuclear weapons and to destroy Israel. The overthrow of the ayatollah regime is in the interest not only of the people of Iran but also of Europe - whether or not the American-Israeli 'preventive war' complies with the rules of international law.”
Only appeals from the sidelines
Europe has let itself be relegated to a minor role again, the Salzburger Nachrichten criticises:
“What are the Europeans doing? As usual, they're struggling to decide how to best respond to the conflict. They weren't involved in the planning or even the execution. So their role was limited to appeals from the sidelines. This wasn't always the case. The United States relied on solidarity from Europe in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s. Respect for those who were once its closest allies has given way to contempt. The Europeans had become 'pathetic' and 'soft', said a senator close to US President Donald Trump after European leaders failed to applaud the bombing of Iran.”
EU gagged on foreign policy
La Stampa also laments the EU's inability to agree on a common position:
“The tidal waves from the Gulf immediately hit Europe. Directly in Cyprus, an EU outpost in the Mediterranean [where a drone hit a British Air Force base]. And indirectly on the markets, in oil and gas prices, in the plight of tens of thousands of citizens stranded in holiday resorts that have become war zones, in air and sea traffic. And in the need to take a position that is not empty rhetoric but foreign policy. ... The first sign of a position came from the only format capable of providing it: the E3 states of France, Germany and the UK. It's just a pity that Italy - not because it was excluded but out of its own conviction - was not part of it.”
Selling off Portugal's sovereignty
In its preparations for the attack, the US used the Lajes Air Base on the Portuguese Azores island of Terceira without first informing the Portuguese government. Público is outraged:
“The idea of national sovereignty being sold off for an illegal war that once again tramples on the last remaining vestiges of international law turns Portugal into a nation enslaved by Trump. Trump can do whatever he wants with the agreement [on the use of the base]. ... The idea of permanent subjugation to the leader with the baseball cap, whatever his intentions may be, is an attack on national sovereignty. If, after Greenland, Donald Trump decides he wants to occupy the island of Terceira, someone from the government will no doubt be there to reverently hand over the keys.”
Indirectly involved because of US military bases
Romania is already participating in the war, the Romanian service of Deutsche Welle observes:
“Romania is indirectly involved in what's happening in the Middle East through its logistical hub at the Mihail Kogălniceanu military base. Some of the military aircraft used in the conflict take off and land there, and there's also a missile shield [in Deveselu] specifically built to deter Iran. This is not just a matter of our geographical location on the edge of Europe, not far from the Middle East, but above all Romania's long-standing military loyalty to the Americans. ... The US has also used other European military bases for the attack on Iran.”
A historic opportunity
Der Tagesspiegel would like to see Europe play a more active role in Iran's future:
“We may justifiably find Trump's narcissism repulsive, doubt the sincerity of his motives and question his unconditional love for American democracy. But it can hardly be denied that for many Iranians the new situation opens up an opportunity that has not existed for decades. Together with the US, Israel and the neighbouring Arab allies, Europe should now do everything in its power to turn this opportunity into a new reality. Iran may not become a democratic country by European standards. But it will be freer and more open than it is now. That would be a true historical success.”
On the wrong track with fossil fuels
In view of the increasing geopolitical risks, Expressen calls for greater independence from gas and oil:
“Europe must recognise that being massively dependent on fossil fuels for heating and power generation is unsustainable. The phase-out needs to be accelerated. Nuclear power and renewables are the way forward, as are alternative heat sources such as heat pumps and district heating and, last but not least, energy efficiency. The use of fossil fuels is not only harmful to the climate and the environment. This dependence places the future of the bloc in the hands of American presidents and despotic leaders in the Middle East. The sooner Europe realises this, the better.”
Keep the focus on Ukraine
Europe must not neglect its aid to Ukraine as a result of the war in Iran, warns Denník Postoj:
“Europe's current military and economic situation is such that intensive involvement in a protracted conflict in the Middle East would inevitably lead to a significant weakening of its support for Ukraine. Although no one can legitimately sympathise with the theocratic regime in Iran, European states should avoid becoming too deeply involved in this conflict or being dragged into it, simply because supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion is much more 'our' war.”