Following recent U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, Western allies have responded in a way that confirms what many observers have long suspected: for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the concept of a “rules-based international order” has effectively been simplified to a harsh principle — power justifies actions, as long as that power is Western.
The joint declaration issued by the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — serves as an exemplary display of avoidance. They claimed, “We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel.” The statement reiterates common accusations held by Iran hawks: “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”
Noticeably absent is any mention of international law explicitly forbidding aggression. It is deeply Orwellian that European leaders “urge the Iranian leadership to seek a negotiated solution,” when Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was actively doing exactly that just the day before in Geneva.
By refraining from condemning these strikes, the E3 has effectively handed a blank check to the Trump administration and Israel’s Netanyahu government. They portray the crisis not as a military assault on a United Nations member, but as an inevitable result of Iran refusing to surrender utterly. The reasoning is twisted: the victim is blamed for the attack, while the aggressors are deemed enforcers of order.
To grasp this political and strategic withdrawal, it’s essential to explore what motivates European leaders—not to justify their stance but to reveal the calculating cynicism behind their inaction.
First on the list is Ukraine. Eager to maintain U.S. involvement in Europe’s own security concerns, Brussels and most European governments have decided that engaging in confrontation with Washington over the Middle East or any other part of the Global South is a risk they’re unwilling to take. This aligns with the EU’s equally timid response to the U.S. strike on Venezuela less than two months ago.
Moreover, several European figures seemed almost encouraged by how readily the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, fostering hopes this might be repeated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Indeed, as Stimson Center’s Emma Ashford suggested, the Venezuela operation significantly influenced Trump’s belief that regime change in Iran would be comparably easy.
Second, genuine hostility toward Iran’s government plays a role—and not without reasonable cause. The harsh crackdown on January 2026 protests, backing for Russia in the Ukraine war, and the ongoing detention of dual nationals as diplomatic hostages have earned the Islamic Republic scant sympathy in Europe’s capitals.
However, here lies an unsettling reality European leaders avoid facing: disliking a government does not justify approving an illegal war against it. International law is not a reward system for compliance. Instead, it serves as a framework precisely for moments like these—when powerful nations convince themselves that a despised target is exempt from standard rules.
A Belgian left-wing European Parliament member put the point far more bluntly than most diplomats: “The EU condones the US-Israeli illegal and unprovoked war of aggression on Iran. European failure to stand up for basic principles of international law legitimizes rogue state behaviour and endangers lives throughout the world. Shameful. Dangerous.”
Refusing to define the U.S.–Israel strikes as what they are—illegal, unprovoked acts of war—means the EU is far from impartial. Instead, it actively undermines the legal order it claims to defend, which ultimately secures its own safety. This attitude signals to Tehran and the Global South that diplomacy is merely a tactic to lull them into complacency, to be discarded once the hegemon chooses military force.
In a stark parallel to the 12-Day War last June, these attacks ignited while U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, brokered by Oman, were reportedly advancing. The implication is clear: efforts to engage with the U.S. are futile because it does not bargain in good faith, and its European allies will reliably shield Washington politically.
However, one notable European exception provides a glimpse at an alternative approach. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez alone among top European leaders condemned the “unilateral military action of the U.S. and Israel,” warning it contributes to “a more uncertain and hostile international order.”
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide also correctly asserted that so-called preventive strikes violate international law unless an attack is “imminent.” Such voices recognize that international legal standards are mandatory, not optional; neglecting them weakens Europe’s position, especially on its most critical security challenge: Ukraine.
Yet Spain and Norway remain outliers. The predominant stance, embodied by the E3 and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, focuses on managing the fallout of the aggression. They have utterly failed to secure a diplomatic resolution between Washington and Tehran and have intensified tensions by reimposing the snapback of UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. Von der Leyen’s reaction is to arrange a “special Security College” meeting to address Iran’s “unjustified attacks on partners,” effectively casting Iran’s response as the source of instability.
Veteran European foreign policy analyst Nathalie Tocci, responding to von der Leyen’s weak statement, remarked: “Any views on the illegal military attack by the US/Israel? I guess it can’t even be defined as hypocritical. In hypocrisy there’s at least the pretense of considering norms important. The only consolation is that on the Middle East we’ve become totally irrelevant.”
This harsh assessment of European foreign policy is difficult to refute. Hypocrisy itself has been discarded, leaving mere irrelevance. As the Middle East approaches the brink of a broad new conflict, history will judge harshly those who failed to pursue diplomatic solutions and then endorsed actions that delivered the final blow to the so-called “rules-based international order.”
Original article: responsiblestatecraft.org
About the Author
