While initial support for obliterating both Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs was somewhat commonplace among European capitals, support started to abate once energy prices rose and the Trump administration started to demand military burden sharing from European allies. However, this is not the Gulf War of 1990-1991. Neither for the Europeans nor for the Americans. A couple of weeks into the war, the Trump administration is sending mixed signals to both friends and foes. Sometimes it seems that the sentiment in the White House changes by the hour. Ultimatums are followed by the anticipation of a deal with Iran that would end the war as “major points of agreement” are reached according to President Trump. Yet, after the experience of two major military attacks during ongoing negotiations with the Americans and Trump’s occasionally optimistic declarations, there is not much reason for trust.
Nevertheless, the US is approaching midterm elections and the war against Iran is rather unpopular among Americans. The longer it goes the higher the economic costs, raising energy prices and thereby the price of other daily commodities such as food. This, in turn, raises the issue of burden sharing on Washington’s agenda. But as EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas recently said, EU member states “have no appetite” for this war. NATO’s secretary general Mark Rutte may have declared open support for the US-Israeli war against Iran and warned that Iranian missiles could hit European targets. Yet, the most some European allies are willing to contribute –also in an attempt to appease Trump- is to chip in with support missions to secure the Strait of Hormuz once the war is over. French President Emmanuel Macron has announced that Paris is seeking a United Nations framework for such a mission.
Germany, a close ally of Israel and the US, has reiterated strong diplomatic support since the war began. Moreover, it successfully pushed the EU to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. But for now, military involvement seems off the table. Prior to the EU summit in Brussels, Chancellor Friedrich Merz called on the Europeans to be more self-confident. This may be to offset his -to put it mildly- overly accommodating visit to the White House in early March, which earned the Chancellor ample criticism both at home and across the European neighborhood. Germany is also vulnerable to rising energy prices as Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil lamented the “insane rip-off at the gas station.” Germany’s former top diplomat, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, now the country’s president, openly stated that the war violates international law and that not admitting it does not enhance German foreign policy. Steinmeier, in his own words, “is frustrated” because this war was “avoidable” and a “politically disastrous mistake.”
While EU members are growing increasingly uneasy about the prospect of a prolonged war, not least because of another looming migration crisis due to the destabilization of the whole region, Spain has been against the war since the outset. Madrid has been the staunchest critic of the US-Israeli war of choice against Iran and has denied US fighter jets permission to take off from Andalusian air bases. These had to relocate to Ramstein, Germany. As Spain’s economy is, compared to other EU members, less reliant on the US market, it is better prepared to deal with higher tariffs. Thus, Trump’s threats to cut off all trade with Spain were to no avail. Spain spearheads a European stance of stability and peace, which may find more followers if the war is prolonged.
Serra Can – Sakarya University, Middle East Institute
