In the EU’s initial response to the US-Israeli strikes, Kaja Kallas read the agreed wording calling of “maximum restraint, protection of civilians, full respect of international law”. The question of the war’s legality has laid bare a union roughly split into three camps — one applauding Washington, one hedging, one condemning
Across the globe, reactions unfolded in various ways. By Wednesday, oil prices had risen for the third consecutive day; European natural gas costs surged by up to 34 percent. Bloomberg Economics warns that a prolonged conflict “could put pressure on government coffers” as authorities aim to shield citizens from higher energy expenses.
Markets have declined sharply while bond sell-offs have intensified. With inflation in the eurozone unexpectedly rising last month, experts now anticipate that the European Central Bank may raise interest rates before year-end.
Waiting for Trump to go
Alongside market instability, public opinion in Europe remains unsettled. A Euronews/YouGov quick poll from February 28th to March 2nd reveals that 20 percent of respondents across the five largest EU nations view the United States as a “major threat”. In Spain, this sentiment rises to 31 percent. The survey also indicates that majorities in France, Italy, and Spain—54, 52, and 55 percent respectively—believe Atlantic tensions will ease “once Donald Trump is gone.”
Spain heads the group opposing the strikes. Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares stated: “We want military actions always under the United Nations charter and under collective effort.” He added: “When we don’t see that, Spain raises its voice to signal that’s not the right way to go.”
Madrid has denied American aircraft access to the Rota and Morón bases. Defence Minister Margarita Robles was equally firm, declaring Spain would offer “absolutely none” of the assistance Washington requested.
Mixed reaction
Within Spain, opinions differ markedly. The conservative Partido Popular accuses Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of “breaking Atlantic solidarity.” Nevertheless, polling data appears to support his position. No other EU capital has echoed Spain’s rhetoric, although opposition forces in Italy demand a similar stance. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni intends to present her government’s position to parliament on March 5, as her coalition remains divided over aligning with Madrid.
France and Germany occupy a more cautious middle ground. Paris, Berlin, and London have called for renewed negotiations with Tehran, condemned Iran’s retaliatory actions, and stopped short of denouncing the initial US airstrikes.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz adopted a more direct approach, stating: “We do not lecture our partners on military strikes against Iran.” However, members of his governing coalition, including Greens and Social Democrats, want parliamentary approval before committing military support; Mr Merz resists but acknowledges their influence.
Atlanticists to the east
In North Macedonia, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte asserted strong European backing for the campaign. His confidence is mirrored in the Baltics. Lithuania’s President, Gitanas Nausėda, alongside the foreign ministry, openly “condemn Iran’s retaliation, support allies,” and call for de-escalation. Latvia and Estonia have expressed similar positions. All three view a firm stance against Tehran as indirectly protecting Ukraine.
Poland is torn. Its government advocates caution, activates helplines, and rejects direct combat involvement. Yet President Andrzej Nawrocki, an ally of Trump, applauds the strike and calls Iran “menacing.” Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski claims Warsaw was forewarned about the attack. Public opinion trends toward moderation: 57 percent back the government’s decision against military engagement, while 31 percent favor direct American support.
We do not lecture our partners on military strikes against Iran. — Friedrich Merz, Germany’s Chancellor
Cyprus, hit by accidental Iranian rockets and cautious to avoid partisanship, has remained silent. Hungary has also kept quiet, though government-aligned media describe the conflict as a “US provocation.” In Brussels, Hungarian diplomats have delayed progress on new Iran sanctions, leading Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten to advocate for easing unanimity requirements.
Silence in the centre
Twelve governments—Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia—have offered no official statements. The Czech Republic participated in the March 1 video call but remained silent publicly. Sweden, governed by a caretaker cabinet awaiting confirmation, has also refrained from commenting. Officials in these states privately express reluctance to escalate conflicts they cannot influence.
The European External Action Service attempts to unify responses. Ms Kallas’s measured language provides something for all factions: Atlantic supporters laud the condemnation of Iranian missile strikes; skeptics highlight the emphasis on legality.
This delicate balance risks collapse if fighting spreads. Spain promises to block any requests for new base access. The Baltics and potentially Poland would advocate stronger measures. France and Germany might disagree on command arrangements.
Divergent futures
Economic concerns intensify. Rising energy prices, surging bond yields, and the possibility of ECB rate hikes challenge ministries already strained by efforts to protect consumers. Any extended spike in oil and gas costs will most heavily impact weaker southern economies, potentially deepening the north-south fiscal divide the EU has labored to reduce since the pandemic.
Currently, three blocs shape the landscape. The first, Atlanticist and hardline on Iran, comprises Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Polish presidency. The second, more moderate, includes France, Germany, Italy, and much of central and northern Europe. The third group, skeptical or openly opposing strikes, is led by Spain, supported by left-wing and Green parties elsewhere, with Hungary ambivalent behind the scenes.
Unity remains minimal, with all condemning Iranian actions and pledging humanitarian aid. Ambiguity about Washington’s role conceals deeper divisions. Unless civilian casualties escalate dramatically or maritime trade in the Gulf halts, Brussels is likely to maintain its current legalistic and distanced stance while member states navigate among these three camps. Polls indicate increasing distrust in America, particularly in southern Europe, where calm is preferred over confrontation.
One wording, incompatible readings
This general mood carries weight. Should Spain rally even a few governments, further sanctions may be blocked. If the Baltic states convince Germany that toughness deters Moscow, naval patrols might proceed. Much hinges on Mr Trump’s next moves and Tehran’s future actions. While Europe can agree on “maximum restraint,” interpretations of this phrase vary markedly.
The EU has weathered such disagreements before. In 2003, France and Germany opposed the Iraq invasion even as Poland and Britain supported it. The Union endured then and will likely survive this crisis too. Yet each dispute slowly erodes the appearance of strategic cohesion. Between Madrid’s criticism, Berlin’s prudence, and Vilnius’s assertiveness, a truly unified foreign policy remains as elusive as ever.
Original article: euperspectives.eu
About the Author
