Europe on the sidelines as Iran War enters its fifth day

The war against Iran has exposed Europe’s strategic limits. Five days after U.S. and Israeli strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and shattered Tehran’s leadership, the European Union finds itself reacting to events it neither shaped nor controls.

The joint Israeli-U.S. operation, “Epic Fury,” killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with dozens of senior Iranian officials, including IRGC chief Mohammad Pakpour and other key defence figures. 

The strikes have triggered a power vacuum in Tehran and accelerated a chaotic political transition whose outcome remains uncertain.

Europe sidelined 

For Europe, the conflict has unfolded largely without consultation. Several officials say the EU was informed only shortly before the first strikes. Hannah Neumann, chair of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Iran, said that very few European policymakers had received advance warning. 

Even German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whose country remains the largest economy in the bloc, reportedly learned of the attack only minutes before it began.

Khamenei’s death—confirmed by Iranian media and by U.S. President Donald Trump—has triggered an urgent succession process inside the Islamic Republic. On Sunday 2 March, Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, announced the creation of a transitional mechanism to select a new supreme leader. 

An interim council composed of President Masoud Pezeshkian, Judiciary Chief Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehei, and Guardian Council jurist Ayatollah Ali Reza Arafi has been tasked with overseeing the process. 

European leaders react

European leaders initially reacted with cautious statements. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa expressed deep concern and reaffirmed the Union’s commitment to regional stability. 

Within forty-eight hours, Brussels also signalled its readiness to protect European interests, including the possibility of new sanctions against Tehran.

Yet the crisis has quickly exposed divisions among European governments. Chancellor Friedrich Merz openly distanced himself from the sanctions approach, arguing that such measures had rarely altered Tehran’s behaviour and suggesting that, under the present circumstances, the use of force could be justified. 

Von der Leyen went further, calling for a credible political transition in Iran that would reduce escalation and reflect what she described as the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. The remark was interpreted by some Members of the European Parliament, particularly on the left, as an implicit endorsement of regime change.

In Berlin, Merz adopted unusually direct language, arguing that Europe had too often failed to defend its strategic interests with military power when necessary and that this was not the moment to lecture American and Israeli allies. 

Washington flexes its muscles without Europe

While acknowledging reservations about the operation, he conceded that many of Washington’s and Jerusalem’s strategic objectives were shared by Europe, particularly the prevention of an Iranian nuclear capability.

In practice, however, the European Union has little capacity to shape the course of the war. One of the few levers available remains the network of U.S. military bases across Europe, infrastructure that remains essential for American operations in the Middle East.

This issue has already generated tensions in the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially refused authorisation for British bases to be used in the campaign before reversing his position on Monday, allowing limited use for defensive strikes against Iranian missile installations. 

The reversal triggered a pointed reaction from President Trump, who told British media that the “special relationship” between Washington and London was no longer what it once had been.

Washington, meanwhile, has framed the killing of Khamenei as a decisive strategic breakthrough. Speaking on Monday, Trump argued that the Iranian regime had been irreversibly weakened and described the moment as the last opportunity to eliminate what he called a long-standing and intolerable threat. 

According to U.S. officials, more than 1,200 targets were struck in the first two days of operations, destroying large portions of Iran’s missile, naval and command infrastructure and allowing U.S. and Israeli forces to establish effective air superiority.

Diplomacy and regional evacuations 

In Brussels, the immediate focus has shifted to managing the fallout rather than influencing the conflict itself. 

European officials are prioritising the evacuation of citizens stranded across the Middle East, where widespread airspace closures and cancelled flights have complicated departures. 

At the same time, the EU is attempting to coordinate with Gulf states to prevent further escalation and protect energy supply chains, particularly after Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on infrastructure across the Gulf.

Despite the turmoil, the European Union continues to emphasise its long-standing strategic objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Officials insist that any outcome must ultimately involve renewed cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and full compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, now co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, has warned that the conflict risks becoming dangerously unpredictable. According to Bildt, Washington’s approach lacks a clear strategic framework and appears driven by decisions taken in real time without clearly articulated political objectives. 

Such uncertainty, he argues, increases the risk of escalation and miscalculation across an already volatile region.

While the conflict has decapitated Iran’s leadership and opened an uncertain transition inside the Islamic Republic, Europe’s role remains largely limited to diplomatic messaging, crisis management and attempts at de-escalation, while the decisive dynamics of the war continue to be shaped elsewhere.