The war in Iran today is like someone opening the stopper of a tightly sealed bottle, allowing the genie trapped inside to escape. In this case, the genie takes the form of thorny questions that have imposed themselves without anyone possessing the answers that might return the genie to the bottle and seal it shut once again. The most prominent of these questions concerns the objectives of the war.
That a war begins suddenly is part of the nature of wars, since surprise is an important element of victory in the calculations of military commanders. The problem does not lie in the decision to start a war, but rather in who possesses the ability, once it begins, to control its course. The current war against Iran is a clear example.
The year 2026 has not yet completed its first quarter. Yet since its beginning we have already witnessed dramatic events: US forces abducting the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from his fortified bedroom and placing him in prison. Now the year has sharply shifted the course of its events toward Iran. In the first strike, the Americans and Israelis succeeded in assassinating Iran’s spiritual leader and a large number of the country’s leadership. But Iran in this war differed from Iran during last June’s war: Tehran was prepared to receive the first blow, absorb it, and then respond.
Delving into the details of the reasons that led the United States to join Israel’s plans to attack Iran — aiming to bring down the regime by exploiting the opportunity presented by Iran’s internal exhaustion, along with the effects and repercussions of the American-Israeli airstrikes last June — may not seem important now to outside observers, given the accelerating pace of events. Developments during the first week of the war have already affected several neighboring Arab countries and quickly led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a rise in oil and gas prices worldwide.
More important than that, Washington has demonstrated beyond any doubt that its rift with Europe is irreversible, by deliberately choosing to go to war against Iran without consulting its European allies. This means that America’s European allies were left in the dark. Germany may have been an exception. The day after the war began, a spokeswoman for the German Foreign Ministry stated that Washington had informed Berlin of the strike in advance.
In his war against Iraq in 1991, US President George Bush (the father) devoted his efforts to forming an international coalition before embarking on the adventure of war. George Bush (the son) did the same later in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and in the war against Iraq in 2003.
European leaders have taken differing positions on the war, and it has become clear that they are unable to formulate a unified stance among themselves. Some Western commentators attribute this to doubts about Trump’s objectives in the war, as well as to the Europeans’ insistence that Ukraine remains their priority.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially barred American fighter jets from using British bases in military operations against Iran, on the grounds that such a decision would violate international law. He later reversed the decision, granting permission but stipulating that the bases could be used only for defensive purposes. This exposed him to openly angry criticism from Trump, who described the reversal as “late.”
Meanwhile, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the United States and Israel have undertaken a task that Europe would not carry out. He explained that it is entirely inappropriate to lecture allies and partners and emphasized that doubts about the goals of the war do not negate the fact that there is agreement on its ultimate aims — and on Europe’s inability to achieve them. French President Emmanuel Macron, for his part, called for focusing efforts on the war in Ukraine, while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was the only leader to criticize the war, describing it as “Russian roulette,” and banning American forces from using military bases in his country.
What is striking in the European statements is their insistence on emphasizing that they are not involved in the attacks, while at the same time expressing support for Trump’s objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and undermining its ballistic missiles. Iran, for its part, paid no heed to this distinction, as evidenced by its targeting of a British military base in Cyprus with a drone.
The Spanish position represents the clearest European stance. Spain may also prove to be the most affected if the US president carries out his threat to sever trade ties with it as punishment.
Between the “Russian roulette” warned of by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and the cautious German pragmatism reflected in Chancellor Merz’s statements, Europe finds itself divided and incapable of adopting a unified position in one of the most dangerous wars in the region — one that directly affects its own security. In short, the war against Iran amounts to an American manifesto declaring a rupture with Europe.
