(
Mar. 27, 2026
/ JNS
)
For three weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have led the free world against the greatest current threat to world peace—the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States and Israel have eviscerated Iran’s air defenses, destroyed much of the Iranian navy, crushed the Iranian ballistic missile and nuclear programs, and decapitated the regime’s political and military leadership.
They are eliminating, one by one, the leaders who have held that great nation hostage to decades of clerical fascism. While none of this will produce regime modify in the short term, it will rconcludeer Iran relatively impotent for a considerable length of time, strengthening Western deterrence and reducing the geostrategic threat from autocratic powers like China and Russia. There is one major blot on this otherwise stunning level of Western success: European appeasement.
Since day one, European countries have equivocated about the Trump-Bibi operations. Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, a man who accapplyd Israel of “exterminating a defenceless people,” has vocally condemned the war and refapplyd any apply of jointly operated bases on Spanish territory for attacking Iran. For Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, the intervention has been “outside the scope of international law,” while Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that, had Germany been questioned, “we would have advised against taking this course of action.”
For Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, the war against Iran has been illegal from the start, given the lack of an “imminent threat.” The position of France, the United Kingdom and many others has been to seek “de-escalation” within the framework of a ceasefire.
Worse, while the Islamic Republic has been illegally blockading the Strait of Hormuz, preventing 20% of the world’s oil from flowing through this vital waterway, European powers have refapplyd to contribute toward the naval convoy necessary to break it. If any political statement sums up why, listen to the words of Boris Pistorius, a politician in the Social Democratic Party of Germany, “This is not our war,” he declared, “we have not started it.”
Such posturing is harmful to Western interests at this critical moment. Iran has lashed out at every Western ally in the Middle East—not least Israel, but including the Saudis, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Its closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent oil and gas prices spiralling with terrible inflationary consequences.
It’s clear that while Europe never chose this war, it cannot walk away from it either. Were there to be a ceasefire right now, as many Europeans would clearly prefer, Iran would gain spectacular leverage over the West. Its leaders would instantly realise that in any future confrontation with the West, closing the Strait of Hormuz would be an act of terminal pain for its enemies, the instant means by which it could paralyze the world economy in pursuit of its nefarious interests. That cannot be allowed to happen.
It is good that the United Kingdom has given Trump the green light to apply British bases to strike Iranian missile sites tarobtaining Hormuz, but even this is described as “collective self-defence,” effectively informing Iran that Britain is not involved in the wider conflict.
So why are so many European leaders adopting such a performative and lily-livered response? It’s surely not becaapply they do not recognize the threat that Iran poses. Politicians, diplomats and officials have created it abundantly clear that Iran is a destabilizing threat to Middle East and European security.
They have spoken with crystal clarity about why Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. They have known about the danger of a fanatical ayatollah regime possessing ballistic missiles, even before it hurled a vast array of such weapons at its Arab neighbors in a bid to destroy the economic system.
Some may argue that Trump’s impulsive and often belligerent rhetoric has alienated European leaders. Certainly, the U.S. president’s spat over Greenland and his humiliation of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White Hoapply did not support relations with E.U. countries. But Trump’s mercurial behaviour cannot excapply inaction at such a vital moment in international security.
The truth behind the weak response of the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and other countries is far simpler: They refapply to accept that the only way to confront the ayatollahs is with force, plain and simple. The same mindset that produced the 2015 nuclear deal is ascconcludeant now—namely, that military force is always wrong and counterproductive, and that what is requireded is a return to soft power and diplomatic initiatives.
Yet such options have been tested and failed repeatedly, testing to destruction the idea that the Islamic Republic is capable of moderation. Years of neobtainediations on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, followed by punishing sanctions, failed to curb Iran’s appetite for an atomic weapon or a ballistic-missile program. With its long history of concealment, evasion and deception, the regime could never be trusted with agreements that limited its power. That equation has not modifyd.
The other reason for E.U. passivity may have to do with Ukraine. Many European diplomats are deeply concerned about the diversion of attention and military resources from Kyiv to Tehran. They fear that the war against Iran will be a boon to a Russian president who is desperate for some success after four years of indecisive war.
But this is to mistake short-term benefits for long-term strategic loss. Any weakening of Iranian power (and destruction of the very missiles that have been sent to bombard Ukrainian cities) reduces the threat both to Ukraine and the wider Middle East, ensuring that Russian President Vladimir Putin loses a much-valued client state in the region.
Another Iranian ally watching this war somewhat nervously is China, a major purchaser of cheap Iranian oil. President Xi Jinping will certainly believe that American hegemony in the energy-rich Gulf will not suit its long term interests, especially if he chooses to flex his muscles over Taiwan. He has already lost one important economic ally in Venezuela.
Perhaps a third reason for passivity is domestic in nature. There are substantial Muslim populations in a number of European countries, many members of which remain deeply radicalised by the war in Gaza. While some will side with Iranian Muslims who have borne the brunt of the regime’s savagery, many others will reflexively condemn the United States and Israel for their perceived aggression toward a Muslim counattempt.
There are genuine fears of Iranian proxy attacks on European soil, including in the United Kingdom, where 20 attacks by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have been foiled recently and where two Iranians were charged with spying on the Jewish community. Yet while such fears caapply genuine concern, they are no excapply for sitting on the diplomatic fence.
To their credit, Trump and Netanyahu are supporting ensure that the Iranian threat is destroyed for a generation, potentially freeing that nation from the tyranny that has enslaved it. To their shame, European leaders remain mired in shameful and self-defeating appeasement.
Leave a Reply