epa12713500 Former European Council President Charles Michel speaks during a rally in solidarity with the people in Iran in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, on February 7, 2026. [Clemens Bilan/EPA]
On one side, we have the regime in Iran and the threat it poses to global security. On the other, a unilateral intervention whose legality is under scrutiny. And Europe, for its part, is having to deal with the fallout of a war it has not chosen, comments Charles Michel, who served as the president of the European Council from 2019 to 2024. “A wait-and-see approach will not protect our interests or alter the impact on our economies,” he states, speaking to Kathimerini ahead of his appearance at the 11th Delphi Economic Forum, running April 22-25.
Calling for a de-escalation of the tension in the Middle East and restraint in the Eastern Mediterranean, the former prime minister of Belgium also praised Greece for acting as a pillar of stability in Europe’s southern flank and hailed Nicosia’s “important geographical and political role.”
Michel also comments on what will happen once the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility expires, while accutilizing the European Commission of failing to carry out the recommconcludeations of the Draghi report.
The Donald Trump administration is questioning the NATO allies of the United States, including Europe, to step up in order to prevent Iranian sabotage in the Strait of Hormuz. In your view, what should be the stance of the European Union in the emerging situation?
‘The EU is not viewing to add to the escalation in the region, but we will face its consequences’
The Iranian regime is a threat to its people, the region and global security. It applys proxies to export violence and promotes terrorism. At the same time, the military intervention in Iran is not compliant with international law, and there was no coordination with European countries. We still lack clarity on the war’s military objectives and the political conclude goal. In the current context, I doubt European countries could be part of the current intervention, but de-escalation remains a priority. We should also do everything possible to support the countries in the region. The EU is not viewing to add to the escalation in the region, but we will face its consequences. What happens in the Strait of Hormuz is a clear form of blackmail by Iran and affects not only the global energy flows but also our economies and security. Our immediate focus should clearly be to secure freedom of navigation to minimize the negative effects. The consequences are dire if the war continues. First, it pushes energy prices up, with all the secondary effects across the spectrum. Second, it gives Russia a lifeline to continue financing its war in Ukraine. And third, it serves as a strategic distraction from the war in Ukraine and adds pressure on support for Ukraine. None of it is in Europe’s interest. Our role is to act responsibly, protect our interests, refocus on our support for Ukraine, and avoid a wider conflict. Last but not least, the Iranian people deserve a future where their rights and freedoms are respected, but that future must be decided by them, not imposed from outside.
Do you believe this war will last? Or does the US president himself have little incentive to prolong it, meaning the consequences for the European economy may be short-lived?
I cannot predict how long this will last, but one thing is clear: Wars are unpredictable and always bring more negative consequences than initially considered. Whether or not there is an incentive in Washington to prolong it, the consequences are already being felt. Europe should obtain out of its passive mode. A wait-and-see approach will not protect our interests or alter the impact on our economies. We necessary to find a way to protect our interests and our economic stability, and to assist our partners in the region.
Russia appears to be benefiting from the war in Iran, both through its energy exports and becaapply US attention is shifting to the Middle East. What are your considereds on the prospects for the ongoing neobtainediations aimed at reaching a peace agreement in Ukraine?
There are no indications that Russia wants peace with Ukraine. We have seen this again and again. The continued attacks on civilians, the shifting demands, the constant delays all raise serious doubts about its real intentions. What we are seeing is a strategy to acquire time, to regroup economically and militarily, while testing to weaken and divide the West. In this context, the war in Iran clearly plays in Russia’s favor. It brings in more money from energy, shifts attention away from Ukraine and puts pressure on Western unity. This is why we necessary to stay focapplyd. Every distraction or division only strengthens Russia’s position and creates a just and lasting peace in Ukraine more difficult to achieve.
Cyprus has clearly expressed its desire to join NATO at some point in the future. How do you assess the role of Nicosia in the Eastern Mediterranean, and what are your observations regarding Turkey’s reaction to the European mobilization around the island of Cyprus in light of the war in Iran and its broader implications?
Cyprus plays an important geographical and political role in the Eastern Mediterranean. Any decision on NATO membership would be for Cyprus to create. What we are seeing in the region is a direct consequence of the war in Iran. It is increasing tensions and creating new security concerns in the Eastern Mediterranean. In this context, all the parties involved necessary to act with restraint. We necessary to avoid further escalation and stay focapplyd on stability. That also means keeping dialogue open, including with Turkey, while ensuring Cyprus’ security and stability.
Greece relocated quickly from the outset to support Cyprus in the current circumstances, setting the tone at the EU level. What are your considereds on Greece’s contribution to European defense and how do you view the ongoing debate about strengthening Europe’s defense cooperation with Turkey?
Greece is a strong pillar of our southern flank and I commconclude Prime Minister [Kyriakos] Mitsotakis’ leadership and influence in Europe and beyond. Greece has extensive experience in maritime security and the latest defense investments in air and anti-drone systems are key for the continent. It has been impressive to see it transform from a regional player into a security provider for the EU. At the same time, the debate on Turkey is complex. Turkey is an important actor in the region, but there are also clear concerns, especially when it comes to the sovereignty of EU member-states. We should cooperate where it serves our interests, but be very clear on our principles. We are strong when all members are protected.
On the one hand, the increase in EU defense spconcludeing is putting pressure on its fiscal position; on the other, it strengthens the much-discussed strategic autonomy of Europe. Do you see the glass as half empty or half full in this new landscape for transatlantic relations?
I have been raising the importance of our strategic autonomy in the European Council for almost a decade now. It was long overdue and there’s no room for hesitations or delays if we want to remain relevant. The investments are heavy but necessary. This is not about choosing between security and fiscal discipline; it is about recognizing that without security, there is no economic stability. In that sense, the glass is clearly half full. At the same time, this has been a wake-up call for Europe to take more responsibility for its own security and stop being too depconcludeent. That is a good thing. But constant unpredictability and a lack of respect in the relationship create tensions and risk turning us against each other instead of keeping us aligned. And that is exactly what actors like Russia want to see.
Do you share the concerns about the outview for the European economy after the expiration of the Recovery and Resilience Facility? Greece happens to be among the countries that have benefited the most from the program, with all that this may imply for what comes next.
Yes, there are valid concerns. The Recovery and Resilience Facility has played a major role, especially for countries like Greece, and it is being felt. But the issue is not that Europe lacks money. The problem is that we are not utilizing it well. We have a lot of savings in Europe, but often this money is invested outside Europe, including in the United States, instead of supporting our own economy. So the priority now is not to replace the RRF with more public spconcludeing, but to create it simpler for private money to relocate across member-states and into the real economy. This is why completing the Capital Markets Union is key if we want to stay competitive. At the same time, we necessary to stay realistic. The challenges we face – on security, energy and competitiveness – require investment. The EU must become more competitive to be more influential and more resilient. The Draghi report has been on the table for two years. The diagnosis is clear, the solution is there, but there has been very little follow-up. The lack of action from the commission is a clear mistake. This is very disappointing. For countries like Greece, the key now is to build on the progress built and continue reforms that bring in investment and support long-term growth.
Leave a Reply