Follow us on social

google cta
Macron Merz Starmer

Europe just made war with Iran more likely

France, Germany and the UK's push to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran is just the first step

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

France, Germany, and the UK (E3) have announced they will trigger snapback sanctions on Iran at the United Nations. This will launch a 30-day process that will likely culminate in the full reinstatement of all U.N. sanctions lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal. The move will carry four major consequences.

First, the U.N. Security Council will formally adopt the demand — pushed by Israel — that Iran cease all uranium enrichment. Israel designed this demand to sabotage nuclear diplomacy and edge the conflict toward war.

Next, a U.N. arms embargo on Iran will return, potentially curbing Tehran’s ability to rebuild deterrence against future Israeli or American strikes, provided Russia and China treat the snapback as legitimate and enforce it.

Third, Iran’s already fragile economy will deteriorate further; its currency has already taken a hit.

And finally, far from advancing diplomacy, the measure risks accelerating escalation. While Israel hardly needs a pretext to launch another strike on Iran, as I have argued, snapback could provide useful political cover — a thin veneer of legitimacy — for renewed attacks.

The E3 argues that snapback is necessary to pressure Iran into resuming talks with the U.S. and granting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its nuclear facilities, including disclosure of the stockpile of 60% enriched uranium.

On the surface, these demands may seem reasonable. But Tehran has legitimate reservations. Iranian officials suspect the IAEA of leaking sensitive information that enabled Mossad’s assassination campaign against their nuclear scientists, and they fear that revealing the stockpile’s location could simply invite another round of U.S. airstrikes.

Moreover, Iran was at the negotiating table when Israel and the U.S. began bombing it. The E3 now insists Tehran return to talks, yet they make no parallel demand that Washington refrain from bombing again.

Perhaps most importantly, given the unbridgeable gap over enrichment, Trump’s limited patience for diplomacy, and Israeli pressure to resume hostilities, restarting talks that are almost certain to collapse — unless both sides show greater flexibility on enrichment — only increases the likelihood that war will start sooner rather than later..

But that may well be the point. The E3 of today bears little resemblance to the one of two decades ago. When it was created in 2003, its purpose was to prevent the Bush administration — fresh off its disastrous and illegal invasion of Iraq — from launching another war, this time against Iran.

Today, the geopolitical context has shifted. Iran’s alignment with Russia in Ukraine has recast it as a direct threat in Europe’s eyes. The EU is also far more dependent on the transatlantic relationship than it was 20 years ago, while successive rounds of sanctions have rendered Iran a negligible economic partner for Europe.

Escalation with Iran through snapback now serves two EU objectives: punishing Tehran for supporting Russia in Ukraine, and aligning Europe with hawkish elements in the Trump administration — an alignment calculated to ease tensions in other areas of a transatlantic relationship under unprecedented duress.

In this sense, the E3 constellation that was designed in 2003 to prevent war may, in 2025, be pushing us closer to one.

But don’t take it from me. After all, Germany’s chancellor has openly admitted that Israel “did Europe’s dirty work for it” by bombing Iran in June.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Germany?s Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer pose as they meet on the sidelines of the two-day NATO's Heads of State and Government summit, in The Hague, Netherlands June 24, 2025. Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.