The bottom line? Europe should stay out of Iran’s illegal war

“Law is stronger than force”. So said EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in January, referring to US threats against Greenland.

On 24 February, the EU rightly stressed once more the illegality of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its wish for peace “based on the principles of the UN charter and international law”.

Four days later, the US and Israel attacked Iran and the EU forgot about international law. It only mentioned it in relation to the conduct of the war, not the attack.  

There is little disagreement that the war against Iran violates international law. The Iranian regime is awful and it is a serial violator of international law — but one violation doesn’t justify another violation.

The idea is easy to understand.

If every violation triggered more violations, nothing would be left of the law. If we only talk about international law when it affects Europe, it’s not international law. It’s bad Realpolitik.

Some people seem to feel that it is nevertheless right to attack Iran. I don’t. Donald Trump encouraged protesters in January and promised “help will come”.

But no help came and tens of thousands were killed. 

Do the air strikes now help Iranians? They certainly do not help innocent Iranians who are being killed, and it is a very open question whether it will liberate Iranians from its oppressive regime and pave the way for freedom and peace.

That outcome is far too unlikely to support such a war, even emotionally. There is no plan and no strategy for that outcome, it is no more than one of many possible results.

More likely Iranians will be even worse off. And it is not even an outcome that Trump cares about. He didn’t in Venezuela.

So, it would seem the case against this war is clear. This should be even clearer because the US acted like a hostile power to the EU and to many EU member states (does somebody remember the “Greenland crisis”, which can erupt again at any moment?).

We have no interest at all in supporting a trigger-happy Trump administration that “has taken a further, major step in unhinging the global order”, according to the Chatham House think-tank.

And yet, across Europe many governments and opinion makers have made strange statements.

First, there are the old reflexes. Analysts talk about a “transatlantic crisis” because Europeans are not part of the attack, as if we are not in that crisis ever since Trump started his second mandate.

When ‘being a bystander’ is rational

Or, they worry that Europe is a mere ‘bystander’ or ‘sitting on a fence’ instead of shaping history.

In 2003, German foreign minister Joschka Fischer told the US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that he was not convinced by the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 

Germany and France did not join the US invasion. Rumsfeld made much noise about tired “old Europe” that did not support his plans, similar to Hegseth’s invectives against “hand-wringing” governments today.

Old Europe had made the right decision. Sitting on the fence or bystanding are rational choices when you cannot prevent a war but do not want to be part of it either.

After so many “Trump shocks”, many European states are serious now about re-arming themselves.

But Europe is not that strong yet and will always suffer from being a not very cohesive assortment of small and middle powers. 

In this situation, the hard assessment of Realpolitik dictates that Europe should defend international law. It is in our interest.

Right without might is weak, but might without right is not tenable either. Even the Trump administration, which loves to flaunt might, gave lengthy and varying explanations to justify the attack: nuclear weapons, old grievances, regime change, a direct threat to US territory.

Some of these justifications were directly contradicted by US intelligence and earlier statements by Trump.

Two justifications — both weak

Let’s briefly look at two of the most interesting justifications, the most damning and the most credible one.

US secretary of state Rubio said: “There absolutely was an imminent threat, and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked — and we believe they would be attacked — that they would immediately come after us, and we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow.” 

In other words, the Iranian threat was generated by Israel and the US could not do anything about that.

There was one justification on which a more convincing case could have been built. The renewed missile build-up by Iran, which over time could numerically overwhelm the defences of states in the region and the US, a threat even without nuclear warheads (see this analysis of the insights of the war last summer).

Trump did not mention it. Probably because it sounds like the weakness that it is. And it would have required a systematic build-up of pressure and building a case that could have been in line with international law.

But that is not the Trump way.

Signal disagreement, support Ukraine

Europe should signal that it does not agree, the way Fischer did. It should send a signal that it has found its own footing and emancipated itself from the fixation on the US.

There are more reasons of Realpolitik not to get involved. Europe’s problem is Russia. The arsenal of defensive weapons that Ukraine desperately needs (and needed this winter) is being depleted now to fend off Iranian missiles and drones.

Sure, Iran is an enemy of Europe and supported the Russian aggression. But attacking Iran is an overstretch of resources that should be invested to force Russia to end its war against Ukraine.  Europe should not divert any of its badly needed equipment away from supporting Ukraine.

Lastly, there is a more ominous concern. A triumphant Trump could easily return to his Greenland fixation, planning the next military operation. Supporting an aggressor is not a good choice.

The bottom line should be clear. Stay out of this illegal war.