Morteza Makki – Expert on European Affairs

Iran represents one of the issues that has become more pronounced between the two sides of the Atlantic over the past year and a half. Russia’s attack on Ukraine confronted Europeans with serious security challenges. Europeans believed they could control and manage Russia through soft power. They held a different perspective from the United States and sought to contain Russia within its borders by expanding NATO’s military umbrella in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics. However, ultimately, with American encouragement toward accepting Ukraine into NATO, political and security equations and calculations led to a point where Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022, placing Europeans in an unexpected and unavoidable situation. Consequently, Europe was compelled to confront Russia in Ukraine. Therefore, had Donald Trump not come to power, there might have been minimal disagreement between Washington and Brussels regarding the Ukraine issue; however, with Trump’s return to the White House, these disagreements became significantly more pronounced. This is because the US President pursued unilateralist policies regarding Ukraine and believed he could end the Ukraine war within a short timeframe—a goal that was not achieved in practice. The war in Ukraine involved numerous variables that somewhat constrained Trump’s ability to advance his objectives. This very issue caused Donald Trump’s unilateral approaches in negotiations with Russia regarding the war to fail to achieve expected results, generating a tense process between Europe and the United States over the past year. The issue of economic and trade tariffs that the US President imposed on most European export goods further complicated transatlantic Europe-US relations.

Meanwhile, in the recent US and Zionist regime war against Iran, Europe somewhat aligned with Washington. This is because challenges between Iran and Europe in recent years—regarding the events of autumn 1401 [2022] and Iran-Russia cooperation, which Europe essentially perceived as a security threat—had complicated and intensified the Tehran-Brussels relations file. To such an extent that even Friedrich Merz, Germany’s Chancellor, expressed considerable solidarity with the United States and the Zionist regime during the 12-day war, stating that the Israelis had done our dirty work. However, this policy of European governments regarding the 40-day war with the Islamic Republic of Iran changed. This is because Iran’s regional responses to this experience and the global consequences of this war compelled Europe to adopt a different position regarding the 40-day war, and Trump’s request for their alignment in reopening the Strait of Hormuz or imposing a naval blockade on Iran did not receive a positive response. This is because no clear horizon existed in this war for Europeans that would motivate them to align and cooperate with the United States and the Zionist regime.

Certain European governments, particularly former European officials, explicitly and transparently declared their positions on this matter.

Moreover, the economic consequences of the 40-day war for Europe were greater than for the United States, and these economic repercussions entailed political and social consequences for a severely vulnerable and distressed Europe. The victory of the Reform right-wing party in local English elections serves as an indicator of the economic consequences of the fragile situation facing European governments, which have become even more vulnerable due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Indeed, according to many European officials, Americans undertake actions whose costs European governments must bear. These were variables that led European governments to adopt a position different from that of the United States regarding the 40-day war. Of course, this does not mean they are aligned with Iran; rather, Europe’s political, economic, and security situation compelled them to adopt such a position and policy, despite knowing that this stance could harm the Europe-US security partnership and the NATO security alliance. It must be noted that any solidarity and alignment with Americans in European public opinion—which is strongly opposed to the United States in the recent war—could entail political and social consequences for these countries. Europeans, particularly countries aligned with the United States such as Britain, Poland, Italy, and Spain, which deployed troops to Iraq in 2003, have not forgotten the extent to which they were harmed during the US war, and even governing governments collapsed due to this alignment. This situation has led European governments, while having minimal influence on regional developments, to attempt to adopt positions that minimize damage to themselves while generating the least tension between Europe and the United States.