Making decisions in politics and military has been an art since the early hours of humanity. In Europe, there are no artists left. The task was easy for Europeans during the Cold War: total alignment with the United States in the joint effort to contain Soviet communism. Today, these blessed days for lethargic Western European politicians are gone. Suddenly, Europe is rediscovering that security comes at a price and that the United States is no longer – and rightly so – willing to shoulder all the associated costs, while Europe prospers enjoying the free ride on the NATO train.
Ukraine was Europe’s first real test in the face of war, a test it failed miserably. Merely providing funds and displaying hypocrisy is not enough to win a war. Then came Iran, where we saw the same level of hypocrisy, but without any European funding or support for American efforts aimed at objectives that, in reality, are also in Europe’s interest. These objectives include regime change, the destruction of approximately 440 kg of enriched uranium held by Iran, the blocking of Iranian oil exports to China, and, after the fall of the ayatollahs, the establishment of Israeli and American dominance in the Middle East.
Of course, Europeans view these events from a different perspective, and to some extent they are right. The war was launched by the United States and Israel without even informing them, against American public opinion and its incline toward reducing military engagement abroad. Formally speaking, there are also serious shortcomings: no declaration of war approved by Congress, no UN or NATO resolution authorizing the war, no consultation within existing mechanisms with the closest allies, etc. All of this made it easy for Europeans to refuse their participation and support. But that is where they were mistaken. Despite all of the above, now that the war has begun, it is far more advantageous for all the major powers—with the exception of China and Russia—to finish the job. Allowing Iran to emerge victorious—and for the ayatollahs, the survival of their regime is a major victory—would be a mistake with long-term consequences.
Thus, by remaining neutral, Europe has shot itself in both feet with one bullet. The first foot is “the economy, stupid”; the second is military and security cooperation with the United States. European leaders are once again demonstrating their short-sightedness, paralyzed by the size of the Muslim populations living within their borders.
We already knew that Europe is politically weak and a military dwarf, but it also depends on others for its energy supply. This dependence has led to wasted strategic deliberation and hindered the timely adoption of crucial political decisions.
What lies ahead for them now? The ceasefire between Iran and the United States has never seemed so fragile. President Donald Trump has imposed a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. According to him, this is a response to Iran’s “intransigent” refusal to abandon its nuclear ambitions during the negotiations held in Islamabad last weekend.
The U.S. administration stated that the failure of the negotiations was far worse news for Iran than for the United States. For their part, the Iranians indicated that there was no set timeline for any future negotiations. Neither side has yet commented on a possible resumption of armed conflict. But this cannot be ruled out.
Furthermore, the U.S. military presence is not diminishing. On the contrary, additional reinforcements will soon arrive in the region. However, Iran has the advantage in terms of timetabling. It always plays the long game. Yet time is Trump’s Achilles’ heel. In addition to his well-known personal impatience, he is constrained by a tight political timeline. When the offensive began, President Trump assured everyone that the conflict would be brief. That has not been the case, and he now faces growing economic turmoil at the national level and mounting political opposition. With the midterm elections approaching this November, the loss of seats in Congress and perhaps in the Senate poses his greatest risk.
Since the conflict began, Europeans have avoided getting involved. Lacking a clear strategic vision, they are doomed to remain mere spectators of a conflict that is reshaping the course of history and upending global paradigms. Constantly claiming that they were presented with a done deal when President Trump launched this war no longer makes sense, as they too are among those most affected by the consequences of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in terms of energy supplies. Europeans now say they are ready to participate in a maritime coalition aimed at securing the Strait of Hormuz, but only when the situation allows it, and in a non-offensive manner. However, negotiations are still far from reaching that point and they will eventually be forced to adopt a more proactive stance due to the emerging risk of supply disruptions.
Recently, The Economist magazine published a cover featuring President Trump, with Chinese President Xi Jinping standing behind him at a distance, accompanied by the famous quote: “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake”! You bet that China is closely monitoring every move and every error made by both the United States and Europe.
In reality, Western Europe has taken a firm stand against President Trump, which is a mistake because it fuels Chinese and Russian propaganda, but also gives some fresh air to the Iranian regime. This is clearly nonsense. They seem hesitant when they should be showing resolve—as if they haven’t yet decided what represents the greatest threat to the Middle East and the world: is it President Trump, who launched a military operation against Iran, or the Iranian regime, which for decades has posed an existential threat to Israel and its immediate Arab neighbors?
This raises serious concerns about Western European politicians, especially since most of them expect the United States to play its usual role within NATO in Ukraine. Europeans eagerly emphasize respect for international law, yet show little compassion for the victims of the Iranian regime, which remains the very embodiment of lawlessness. President Reagan relentlessly denounced and fought the Soviet “evil empire.” Europeans are afraid to focus on Iran as the evil of the modern world.
Western Europe, led by left-wing or center-left governments, offers no peace plan, no war plan, but only plans aimed at maintaining the status quo in the region. These are governments that, to a certain extent, show partiality toward the Iranian regime, masking their positions behind general statements, even though they know full well that this regime, earlier this year, killed thousands of its own citizens who were peacefully demonstrating in the streets of Tehran and other cities. This regime is the antithesis of all the principles upon which the major European powers base their efforts to save the Iranian regime from the threat of overthrow by the United States. In this context, they are skipping their meeting with history that could lead to the liberation of the Iranian people from the open-air prison in which they have lived since 1979. This is why the stance of a number of European governments is viewed negatively. This is why European leaders will pay the price when, at the end of the war that America must win, relations are reassessed at various levels, particularly in the economic and financial-strategic spheres.
Continuing the military campaign against the Iranian regime is of vital importance to the Iranian people, to neighboring countries—including Israel—as well as to Europe and the United States in the context of global strategic competition with China. If the United States loses this battle, it is easy to predict that dark times lie ahead. It will be far worse for America than Russia’s tarnished reputation in Ukraine, where, after four years of war, it is still gaining a mere and ridiculous 0.77% of Ukrainian territory per year. Consequently, the United States must win one way or another, and preferably without resorting to strategic nuclear weapons, which, as history has shown, quickly bring fierce military resistance to an end.
President Trump must stay the course on Iran, rethink his domestic communication strategy, and put an end to potential blasphemy. He can afford to cross the Pope, but not God.
Views expressed are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Liberty Sentinel.