Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

Not a single reference to the international law that explicitly prohibits aggression. It is particularly Orwellian that the European leaders “urge the Iranian leadership to seek a negotiated solution,” when Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was literally doing exactly that the day earlier in Geneva.

By failing to condemn the strikes, the E3 has given the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government a blank check. They frame the crisis not as an act of war against a UN member state, but as a natural consequence of Iran’s failure to unconditionally accept its capitulation. The logic is perverse; the target is blamed for the attack, and the aggressors are seen as restoring order.

To understand this political and strategic abdication, one must examine the motivations driving European leaders — not to justify them, but to expose the cynical calculations behind their cowardice.

First, there is Ukraine. Desperate to keep Washington engaged in Europe's own security crisis, Brussels and most European capitals have calculated that picking a fight with Washington over the Middle East, or, in fact, anywhere in the Global South is a luxury they cannot afford. This follows the EU’s similarly spineless reaction to the U.S. attack on Venezuela less than two months ago.

Not only that, but some European leaders appeared to be, in fact, emboldened by the ease with which the U.S. kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, hoping that, perhaps, the same could be replicated in the case of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In fact, it is entirely reasonable to suggest, as the Stimson Center's Emma Ashford did, that the Venezuelan operation played a major role in encouraging Trump to think that changing the regime in Iran would prove to be similarly smooth.

Second, there is genuine animosity toward the Iranian regime — and not without reason. The brutal suppression of protests in January 2026, support for Russia in its war in Ukraine, and the persistent use of dual nationals as diplomatic hostages have all rightfully earned the Islamic Republic few friends in European capitals.

But here is the uncomfortable truth that European leaders refuse to confront: disliking a regime does not justify condoning illegal war against it. International law is not a reward system for good behavior. It is a set of constraints designed precisely for moments like this — when powerful states convince themselves that the target is so odious that the normal rules should no longer apply.

The West has made this mistake before. The invasion of Iraq was justified by demonizing Saddam Hussein. The bombing of Belgrade was preceded by the framing of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic as a uniquely monstrous actor. In each case, the short-term gratification of "doing something" about a despised regime gave way to long-term strategic catastrophe — the erosion of international legal norms that protect all states, including Western ones.

One leftist member of the European Parliament from Belgium put it far more bluntly than any foreign ministry dared: "The EU condones the US-Israeli illegal and unprovoked war of aggression on Iran. European failure to stand up for basic principles of international law legitimizes rogue state behaviour and endangers lives throughout the world. Shameful. Dangerous."

Indeed, by refusing to call the U.S.–Israel attack for what it is — an illegal, unprovoked war of aggression — the EU is not neutral. It is actively dismantling the very legal architecture it claims to uphold, and on which its own security ultimately depends. It tells Tehran and the Global South that diplomatic negotiations are merely an inducement to lower their guard, a deception to be respected only until the hegemon decides it is ready for a military action.

Indeed, in a striking repeat of the 12-Day War last June, these strikes occurred as U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, mediated by Oman, were reportedly showing progress. The message is unmistakable: there is no point in engaging with the U.S. as it does not negotiate in good faith, and its European allies will always be available to provide Washington diplomatic cover.

One case of dissent in Europe, however, offers a glimpse of a path not taken. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, alone among the leaders of major European countries, rejected the "unilateral military action of the U.S. and Israel" for contributing to "a more uncertain and hostile international order."

Similarly, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide rightly noted that so called preventive strikes violate international law unless an attack is “imminent." These leaders understand that international legal norms are not optional, and their selective application undermines Europe’s case where it matters most for the continent: Ukraine.

Yet, it is Spain and Norway that are the outliers. The mainstream, represented by the E3 and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, is consumed with managing the consequences of the aggression — not only having utterly failed to do anything to prevent it through a diplomatic settlement between the U.S. and Iran, but also exacerbating tensions by deploying snapback of the UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. Von der Leyen's response is to convene a "special Security College" on Monday to discuss Iran's "unjustified attacks on partners," effectively treating the escalation as a problem caused by the target's retaliation.

As the seasoned European foreign policy expert Nathalie Tocci put it, in reaction to von der Leyen’s feckless statement: "Any views on the illegal military attack by the US/Israel? I guess it can't even be defined as hypocritical. In hypocrisy there's at least the pretense of considering norms important. The only consolation is that on the Middle East we've become totally irrelevant."

Hard to disagree with this ruthless epitaph for European foreign policy. Not even hypocrisy remains —just irrelevance. As the Middle East teeters on the edge of a new, extensive war, history will not be kind to those who failed to contribute to any diplomatic solution to prevent it, then endorsed it hitting the last nail in the casket of the “rules-based international order.”