At the break of March, Brussels awoke to a crisis it could neither ignore nor control. With mixed success, European officials tried to present a unified voice in response to yet another war.
In the small hours of 28 February the United States and Israel struck Iranian nuclear and missile sites. Iran answered with volleys against Gulf neighbours and American positions.
On the morning of 28 February European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa issued a joint note on X. “The European Union follows developments in Iran and the Middle East with utmost concern,” they wrote. Their words set the tone: Europe would condemn Tehran’s aggression, plead for restraint and promise diplomacy—while leaving hard power to Washington and Jerusalem.
Early alarm from Brussels
By midday High Representative Kaja Kallas had launched shuttle diplomacy with Israeli and Arab foreign ministers. “We call for maximum restraint, protection of civilians and full respect of international law, including the principles of the United Nations Charter, and international humanitarian law,” she declared. She reminded all that existing EU sanctions on Iran would remain in force and could be reinforced.
France, Germany and the United Kingdom also spoke with one voice—at least at first. In the early afternoon on Saturday, the leaders of the three countries released a joint communiqué. “We condemn Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms.” The statement underlined that they “did not participate in the strikes.” Above all, it insisted: “The Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future.”
You might be interested
But beneath that veneer the three capitals sounded different notes. Berlin, long the EU’s cautious power, shifted abruptly. On 1 March Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters: “This mullah regime is now coming to an end.” He admitted legal qualms over the strikes but argued “diplomacy had proven fruitless.” Officials said that Germany had been informed in advance of the assault and had convened its crisis-management team, yet offered no forces.
E3 unity frays
Paris remained more restrained. President Emmanuel Macron called an emergency UN Security Council session. “This outbreak has grave consequences for international peace and security.” he warned. Mr Macron said France stood ready to deploy assets to protect Gulf partners, but he shunned talk of regime change and kept open channels to Tehran.
London struck a middle course. From Downing Street on 28 February Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the nation: “The UK played no role in these strikes.” He confirmed that RAF Typhoons were now on defensive patrols in the region. He added: “Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Rome and Madrid preferred de-escalation. Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, said her government was consulting allies and regional leaders “to support efforts to ease tensions.” Spain’s Pedro Sánchez told the Cortes on 29 February that Madrid felt “grave concern” and insisted that any military action comply with international law. Both Italy and Spain offered extra consular help to their citizens in the Gulf.
Northern caution spreads
Farther north Norway’s foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, judged the U.S.–Israeli strikes “not in line with international law” and called for a renewed emphasis on diplomatic efforts. Sweden and Denmark also tightened protection of offshore infrastructure but refrained from military commitments. Across the EU the impulse was caution, even as fear of further escalation spread.
This mullah regime is now coming to an end. (…) Diplomacy had proven fruitless. — Friedrich Merz, Germany’s Bundeskanzler
On 1 March Ms Kallas issued a fuller statement for the European Union. “Iran’s attacks and violation of sovereignty of a number of countries in the region are inexcusable.” she said. She added: “The disruption of critical waterways, like the Strait of Hormuz, must be avoided.” The declaration pledged fresh sanctions, vowed to safeguard EU citizens in the region and reaffirmed support for any effort to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The crisis entered a new phase on 2 March when Ms von der Leyen convened the Commission’s Security College. “We must work hard to de-escalate and stop the conflict spreading.” she told assembled commissioners and commissioners, diplomats and military attachés. “We also saw a strike on the Saudi Aramco oil facility, and I condemn in the strongest terms these reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran and its proxies against sovereign territories across the region.” she added.
Diplomacy over gunboats
Above all, Ms von der Leyen emphasised diplomacy. “The only lasting solution is a diplomatic one.” The college discussed contingency plans for energy shortages, rerouting trade and hosting new refugee flows. It shelved, for now, proposals to send EU warships into the Gulf, citing crew shortages and legal hurdles under the current treaty.
We must work hard to de-escalate and stop the conflict spreading. (…) The only lasting solution is a diplomatic one. — Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president
That reluctance reflects deeper fears. Europe still imports a quarter of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz. A blockade there would send petrol prices soaring and threaten the fragile post-pandemic recovery. Another migration surge could destabilise Berlin and Paris ahead of crucial elections. And none of the EU’s current security instruments—the €5.8 bn European Peace Facility or the 5 000-strong Rapid Deployment Capacity—can match America’s ability to fight and fund a high-intensity conflict.
Still, Brussels hopes its moral voice matters to Iranians on the streets. It has underlined human-rights concerns more often than in past crises. Ms von der Leyen spoke of “a renewed hope for the oppressed people of Iran” and promised the EU would support their aspirations for freedom. The E3 communiqué and Ms Kallas’s statement alike evoked the power of popular unrest.
Strategic dependence exposed
For now the union cedes force to its American ally. But it has learned its strategic dependence carries risks. It can urge calm, pause tariffs on Iranian exports, freeze remaining Iranian assets and tighten sanctions on Revolutionary Guard commanders. Beyond that, it can only hope Washington and Tehran choose negotiation over escalation.
Europe’s unity on paper fractures on the ground. Berlin leans towards regime change. Paris and London hold out for mediation. Rome and Madrid call for restraint. The Nordics stress legality. No European army has mustered in the Gulf. Diplomacy remains the chosen instrument—even as some leaders privately welcome any weakening of Iran’s hard-line regime.
Whether this delicate balance holds will depend on Tehran’s next move and America’s response. For Brussels the task is clear: watch the Hormuz traffic, draft sanction packages and keep the phone line to Washington open. The choice for Europe is whether to remain America’s echo in another Middle-Eastern war or finally to strike out on its own strategic path.
