Follow us on social

Emmanuel Macron,  Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz

The EU's pathetic response to Trump's Iran attack

Europe jettisoned its principles to suck up to a president that doesn't even know they exist

Analysis | Middle East

The European Union’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran Saturday has exposed more than just hypocrisy — it has revealed a vassalization so profound that the European capitals now willingly undermine both international law and their own strategic interests.

The statement by the E3, signed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron, following similar statements by the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and its high representative for foreign affairs Kaja Kallas, perfectly encapsulates this surrender.

The European trio affirmed their support for the security of Israel — and only Israel, as if other nations in the Middle East weren’t entitled to security. They repeated the rhetoric that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon” and endorsed the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities despite the numerous conclusions of both the IAEA and the U.S. intelligence community (IC) that Iran is presently, or at least before Saturday’s attack, not working on weaponizing its nuclear program.

In truly Orwellian fashion, the E3 called on Tehran to “engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program” — despite the fact that Iran was literally engaged in those very negotiations with the E3’s foreign ministers on Friday, the day before the U.S. strike — as it was preparing to continue negotiations with the U.S. in Oman before Israel launched the war a week before. In fact, Israel’s brazen decision to sabotage U.S.–Iranian diplomacy is precisely the evidence that, contrary to what the E3 now imply, Iran has engaged in talks seriously enough to make the prospect of concluding a new deal realistic.

The timing of the U.S. strikes — coming after diplomatic efforts by E3 and Iran — makes a mockery of the E3’s assertions that the onus is now on Tehran for renewing the talks. It prompted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to ask: “how can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up”?

Even more damning is the EU’s refusal to acknowledge what former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt forthrightly stated: the U.S. attack was a clear-cut violation of international law. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an imminent attack or with Security Council authorization — neither of which applied in this case. Yet the current EU leadership, so vocal in condemning Russia’s breaches of Ukraine’s sovereignty, remains conspicuously mute when Washington or Jerusalem does the same.

This hypocrisy does more than expose EU moral posturing — it actively erodes the foundations of international law and the much-vaunted “rules-based international order.” By legitimizing the "right of the mighty" to wage preventive wars, the EU fatally undermines Ukraine’s cause and sets a precedent that its adversaries are certain to exploit. If preventive strikes are permissible for the U.S. and Israel, why not for Russia, China, or any other power claiming a "threat"? Why should nations of the Global South rally behind Kyiv’s appeals to the U.N. Charter when Europe itself excuses blatant breaches by Western powers?

Worse, this vassalization of Europe is proving strategically useless. No evidence that the Trump administration even bothered to warn its European "allies" in advance of its attack on Iran has yet come to light, a damning indication, if borne out, of the contempt the Trump administration holds for its main European NATO allies which then rush willy-nilly to defend Washington’s flagrant violations of international law.

The timing couldn’t be more conspicuous. Days before a critical NATO summit, this episode confirms what sober observers already knew: Europe’s servility earns neither respect nor reciprocity from Washington. The Trump administration’s apparent failure to consult the E3 — despite their ongoing diplomatic engagement with Iran — proves that U.S. policymakers view Europe not as partners, but as lackeys to be ignored at will. This dynamic poisons the atmosphere ahead of NATO’s meeting, where European leaders will once again appeal for “transatlantic unity” while accepting their role as Washington’s junior subordinates.

But the deeper tragedy is that Europe’s leaders have internalized their own subordination. They betray international law not for tangible gains, but out of reflexive obedience — a habit that weakens Europe’s global standing while emboldening Washington’s and Jerusalem’s worst impulses. This is one of the big differences with the run-up to the last big U.S. war of choice. Back then, leaders of France and Germany had the backbone and foresight to oppose George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Fast forward to 2025, and Germany’s neoconservative chancellor Merz enthusiastically endorses Israel’s illegal attacks on Iran as the necessary “dirty work” performed on behalf of the “West.”

The expanding war in the Middle East should be a wake-up call: given Europe’s geographical proximity to the Middle East, the spillover effects in terms of possible new migration flows, terrorist threats, and energy shocks that would be massively destabilizing for Europe. Given the stakes, if Europe won’t assert its interests now, when will it? When Washington and Jerusalem unilaterally drag it into another endless Middle Eastern war? When the next illegal strike hits a third country? Vassalage doesn’t pay — it only degrades.


Top image credit: TIRANA, ALBANIA - MAY 16: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz speak during a Ukraine security meeting at the 6th European Political Community summit on May 16, 2025 at Skanderbeg Square in Tirana, Albania. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS
Analysis | Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep reading Show less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep reading Show less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep reading Show less

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.