Europe and Iran – The Cost of European Passivity
When Israel was attacked by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and tensions in the Middle East eventually escalated into a direct confrontation involving Iran, Europe once again chose the safety of the sidelines. While European leaders frequently speak about international security, human rights, and defending the democratic world order, the reality is that Europe often expects others to pay the price. This attitude has not only placed further strain on relations with Washington, but could also have serious consequences for the future security of the continent.
The harsh reality is that Belgium and the rest of Europe may ultimately pay the highest price for their own hesitation and for obstructing requests for support from the United States and Israel, two of their most important democratic partners.
This is not because European cities are directly threatened by missiles from Iran, but because Europe is steadily losing credibility as a strategic partner. The United States has spent years growing increasingly frustrated with allies who benefit from American protection while showing little willingness to contribute at a comparable level themselves.
Following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Europe failed to present a united front. Many governments hesitated to offer unequivocal support to Israel, while several Western European governments allowed themselves to be intimidated by far-left movements and Islamist groups within their own societies. When the confrontation involving Iran escalated further this spring, those divisions became even more apparent. Most European countries sought to remain as detached as possible, while others, including Spain and Italy, imposed restrictions on the use of their airspace or American military facilities. From Washington’s perspective, this is viewed as a fundamental problem within the alliance.
These concerns are not limited to President Donald Trump. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance have also made it clear that the United States cannot indefinitely bear responsibility for the security of allies who underinvest in their own defense while simultaneously limiting their support for American strategic objectives. The message is straightforward: those who seek protection must also be willing to assume responsibility.
This criticism did not emerge overnight. For decades, American presidents have urged European NATO members to invest more heavily in defense. Yet many countries did precisely the opposite. Under the leadership of Mark Rutte, large portions of the Dutch armed forces were cut back, and at one point ammunition stockpiles had been severely depleted. Germany followed a similar path under Angela Merkel. Belgium has only recently begun, under the new government of Bart De Wever (N-VA), to increase defense spending from below 1% of national income toward 2%, even though NATO discussions have already moved toward targets of 3.5% to 5%, while 2% remained the benchmark until last year. It is worth remembering that Belgium hosts NATO headquarters and benefits significantly from NATO investments made by other member states, particularly the United States.
While Russia became increasingly aggressive from 2005 onward, from Georgia to Ukraine, much of Europe continued to assume that peace was a permanent condition.
The warnings were abundant. Vladimir Putin never concealed his ambition to expand Russia’s sphere of influence. Yet many European governments chose to reduce defense budgets, dismantle military capabilities, and become increasingly dependent on American protection. The result is a continent that is economically powerful but militarily vulnerable.
The debate surrounding Europe and Iran exposes that weakness in a particularly painful way. When a major international crisis emerges, Europe lacks the military capabilities necessary to act independently. At the same time, Europe still expects the United States to respond immediately whenever European interests or security are threatened. This asymmetry is no longer acceptable in Washington.
This leads to an even more important question: what happens if China decides to attack Taiwan? Will Europe once again limit itself to issuing statements while the United States carries the military and financial burden? Or will Europe finally be prepared to take its role as a geopolitical power seriously?
For American policymakers, Taiwan has become a crucial test. If Europe is unwilling to support allies in Asia, why should American taxpayers continue indefinitely to finance Europe’s defense? This question is increasingly common in both Republican and Democratic circles.
The truth is uncomfortable. Europe cannot simultaneously demand that the United States continue guaranteeing European security, refuse to invest adequately in defense, remain detached from major international conflicts, and still expect Washington to act indefinitely as the world's policeman without conditions.
That is why the recent NATO policy shift, initiated by President Trump and implemented by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, is so significant. The commitment to substantially increase defense spending is not a gift to Trump, but a necessary correction to years of strategic self-deception and contradictory behaviour toward Europe’s most important ally. Security begins with European responsibility.
The crisis surrounding Europe and Iran has once again demonstrated that geopolitical influence does not arise from eloquent speeches, but from credible military capabilities and reliable alliances. If Europe fails to learn that lesson, the continent risks becoming even less influential in the world order it claims to defend.
The United States and Israel have increasingly emerged as the leading partnership in defending the values of free Western democracy around the world. If Europe wishes to remain relevant, it must rapidly and openly support the United States, Israel, and Taiwan.
The challenge concerns the aggression of Islamist movements, Russia, and China, threats that also directly affect Europe.
The choice is ultimately simple. Europe can once again become a mature strategic partner for the free world, one that assumes responsibility for its own security and that of its allies. In Washington, the aftermath of the conflict involving Iran has reinforced the belief that America has paid the bill for Europe’s strategic passivity for long enough.
In the end, Europe itself will bear the consequences. This strategic mistake can still be corrected today, but perhaps not in a few years. Under a future president, whether Democrat or Republican, the United States is unlikely to reverse its direction on this issue. The debate over Europe and Iran may therefore prove to be a defining moment in determining whether Europe remains a serious geopolitical actor or continues its gradual decline in strategic relevance.
Image credits: Christian Lue via Unsplash
