SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
europe
Historian Among Those Warning Countries That Have Aided Trump's Iran Assault 'Will Come to Regret It'
"One of the biggest implications of this war is how badly Europe miscalculated," said one analyst.
Apr 07, 2026
As President Donald Trump made his most explicitly genocidal threat yet against Iran on Tuesday, one historian based in Tehran suggested that countries which have aided and abetted the rapidly intensifying US-Israeli assault on the Middle Eastern country are coming face-to-face with the fact that appeasing Trump has been a grave error.
Trump's threat that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again"—referring to Iran's population of 93 million people—was the "textbook definition of genocide," said Narjes Rahmati. "Those who could have intervened but did not will come to regret it."
Trump has lashed out at numerous European countries for being insufficiently supportive of the US-Israeli war, which has killed more than 2,000 people in Iran, nearly 1,500 in Lebanon, and hundreds across the Middle East, but countries including the United Kingdom have provided various support to the US and Israel since they abruptly cut off diplomatic talks and began bombing the country in February.
While UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has attempted to distance his government from the conflict, saying, "This is not our war," the UK has allowed US bombers to use British military bases for "defensive" missions. Late last month the UK also authorized the US to use military bases for strikes against Iranian missile sites that were targeting ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The country has ramped up its military resources in the region in recent weeks.
Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats Party in the UK, said Tuesday that Starmer and his Labour government face "a choice" about continuing to back the US and Israel in light of Trump's latest threat on what the president previously referred to as "Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day."
"The UK must immediately and unequivocally suspend support for the US military," added Zack Polanski, the British Green Party leader. "The government have tried to appease him, then they tried to say they're standing up to him. Words aren't enough—it's time for action."
Philippe Dam, European Union director for Human Rights Watch, also condemned the European Commission for its tepid response to Trump's threat against "a whole civilization."
Anitta Hipper, foreign affairs spokesperson for the commission, said it rejects threats to attack critical civilian infrastructure, warning that "such attacks risk impacting millions of people across the Middle East and beyond, and also may lead to further dangerous escalation."
Dam warned that "international law is eroded by those who flout it as much as by those who fail to speak up."
"Despite renewed threats of attacks on civilian infrastructures in Iran—would be war crimes and possible crimes against humanity—EU leaders still fail to name USA and Israel in their statements," said Dam.
The US has also received varying degrees of military support from Portugal, Italy, Germany, and France, though the French and Italian governments have angered Trump in recent weeks by blocking the US from using certain military bases and barring military flights from French airspace. Spanish President Pedro Sánchez has stood out among North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders, leading the way in refusing to allow the US to use its bases for Iran attacks.
Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said European leaders over the last several weeks "had [a] real chance to help make diplomacy succeed. Instead, they aligned with and enabled Trump’s worst instincts."
Adil Haque, a Rutgers University law professor and executive editor of Just Security, called on "all states" to "immediately condemn Trump's threat; deny the use of their territory and airspace by US forces to attack Iran; demand an immediate, unconditional, and permanent end to the war."
"Hormuz can be dealt with separately," he said, referring to Iran's closure of the strait, a key trade waterway. "Enough is enough."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Go Get Your Own Oil’: Trump Lashes Out at Europe for Not Backing Unprovoked War on Iran
"NATO is a defensive alliance," said one UK military analyst as the president demanded help in his unprovoked war on Iran. "It's not been clear what the legal justification for the war is."
Mar 31, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday lashed out at European countries over the message leaders have been clear about since the US joined Israel in waging an unprovoked war against Iran—an assault that swiftly led Iran to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, sending global oil prices skyrocketing.
The war, Europe has said, is not one the United States' longtime allies have started or that they'll be "dragged into," and the worldwide economic consequences are the responsibility of the countries that chose to attack Iran.
Reports that France over the weekend barred US military planes headed for Israel from flying over its territory appeared to particularly send Trump into a rage, prompting him to call the French government "VERY UNHELPFUL" on his social media platform, Truth Social.
"The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!" said the president Tuesday morning.
He then took aim at countries across Europe, writing, "Go get your own oil!" in a separate missive.
Trump repeated previous suggestions that US allies are "cowards" for not offering their assistance in the unprovoked war, demanding that they "build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE" the oil by force.
"You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us," he added.
France denied the reports that it had prevented US planes from flying over its airspace, but it is one of a number of longtime US allies that have reportedly taken action to avoid complicity in the US-Israeli war, which experts say is a clear violation of international law, including the United Nations Charter, and which has killed nearly 2,000 Iranians and over 1,000 people across the Middle East as the conflict has widened.
Italian officials have denied the US military the use of an airbase in Sicily, saying the Trump administration had not gone through the required authorization procedure. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has been most vocal about refusing to help the US war effort, saying Trump had embarked on an "illegal war" as his administration announced the US military would be barred from Spanish airspace after an earlier statement that the US could not use Spain's military bases for operations involving the Iran war.
One senior European government official told Politico last week that Trump's demands for help have been “absurdly incoherent to put it mildly," considering the White House has also demanded that countries in Europe step up their efforts to defend Ukraine without relying on the US.
“The big picture is: The US has asked us to take care of and defend our own countries, take care of supporting Ukraine... and now [the] Middle East and global supply chains,” the official said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday reiterated Trump's message, saying that "there are countries around the world who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well."
"It's not just the United States Navy," said Hegseth, who has attempted to rebrand the Department of Defense as the Department of War. "Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big, bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well."
Hegseth: "The president was clear this morning in his Truth that there are countries around the world who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well. Last time I checked there was supposed to be a big bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like… pic.twitter.com/WTVurKV2jQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 31, 2026
On Sky News in the UK on Tuesday, military analyst Sean Bell issued a reminder after Hegseth's and Trump's comments that "it's not a [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] war."
"NATO is a defensive alliance," said Bell. "It's not been clear what the legal justification for the war is."
Iran's closing of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the worldwide oil supply flows, has sent oil prices soaring in the US and around the world. In the US, gas prices hit an average of $4 per gallon on Tuesday, and Europe has seen prices go up by about 70% since the war began.
European leaders on Tuesday were meeting to discuss the growing energy crisis, with the European Commission urging governments to consider a public call for people to reduce their use of energy, particularly in the transport sector.
As the global community faces the economic consequences of the war, Trump's comments on Tuesday bolstered the previous day's reporting by The Wall Street Journal that the president is "willing to end the US military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, administration officials said, likely extending Tehran’s firm grip on the waterway and leaving a complex operation to reopen it for a later date."
At Drop Site News, journalist Murtaza Hussain joined co-founder Ryan Grim for a discussion on Tuesday about Trump's latest comments.
While noting that Trump has "engaged in deception" and could actually "be gearing up to launch some operation intended to open the strait" by force, Hussain said that the suggestion that the US will no longer ensure global shipping routes are flowing could be a a "fall of the Berlin Wall moment."
"The entire basis of the American empire is that it's a maritime empire," said Hussain. "So if now, very perfunctorily, the US is saying, 'We're not going to defend one of the most important shipping lanes on the entire planet,' where 20% of the world's energy comes out of... It's kind of like the Suez crisis, which put the nail in the coffin of the British empire."
Drop Site is live this morning here https://t.co/AIp76rl3yR
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) March 31, 2026
Grim added that despite Hegseth's claim that the US has "set the conditions for success" in the Strait of Hormuz, the Trump administration actually "took an open strait, made it closed, and are now going to walk away."
The end result of the US and Israel's decision to attack Iran could be the further isolation of the two countries, said Grim.
"If the US decides it doesn't have the military capacity or willingness to open the strait violently, the idea that France is going to do it is preposterous," he said. "What France would more likely do is call up Iran and say, 'What's the price?'... If you're Israel and you're calling Iran, you're probably not going to get the same deal... You would imagine Iran would say, 'Here's what it costs, and it gets a little cheaper if you cut ties with Israel...' All of a sudden, they're a global player now, because they have this leverage."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As the US and Israel Escalate in Iran, Europe Trades Alignment for Strategic Autonomy
Europe is no longer prepared to be drawn, by default, into an open-ended military operation in the Middle East.
Mar 23, 2026
What is unfolding across European capitals is not merely dissent over a particular conflict; it is the quiet reconfiguration of alliance behavior under conditions of escalating risk. The refusal voiced in Madrid—most starkly articulated by Spain’s Transport Minister, Óscar Puente, who declared that his country would not go “even around the corner” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—signals something more consequential than diplomatic disagreement.
Delivered in unusually blunt terms, his remark crystallized a broader political reality: Europe is no longer prepared to be drawn, by default, into an open-ended military escalation against Iran. It marks, in effect, the visible boundary of a strategic threshold the continent is no longer willing to cross.
For decades, transatlantic alignment functioned on the presumption of convergence: that when Washington moved, Europe would calibrate—but ultimately align. That presumption is now under strain. The prospect of a US-Israeli military aggression against Iran has exposed a widening gap between American strategic impulses and European risk tolerance.
The divergence is not ideological. It is structural. European governments are confronting a scenario in which escalation offers limited strategic clarity but immediate systemic exposure. They are being asked, in effect, to underwrite a conflict defined by uncertain objectives, fluid escalation dynamics, and a disproportionate economic burden—without corresponding influence over its conduct or conclusion.
The era of automatic convergence is giving way to one of selective alignment, where interests are weighed more carefully, risks are more openly acknowledged, and participation in conflict is no longer the default expression of alliance.
Spain’s position, far from anomalous, crystallizes this dynamic. The refusal to facilitate or politically endorse escalation reflects a broader European instinct toward insulation. Berlin’s caution, Paris’s distance, and the European Union’s emphasis on deescalation all point in the same direction: a deliberate effort to decouple European stability from the volatility of a conflict it neither initiated nor controls.
At the center of this recalibration lies energy vulnerability. The Strait of Hormuz—through which between 17 and 20 million barrels of oil pass daily—remains the most immediate point of systemic exposure. Any disruption, even partial, would transmit shockwaves through European economies already navigating inflationary pressures and fragile growth trajectories. Oil prices hovering around $115 per barrel, with credible projections reaching $150-$175 under sustained disruption, are not abstract indicators; they are policy constraints.
This economic dimension has begun to reshape strategic language. Where earlier discourse emphasized deterrence and enforcement, current formulations increasingly prioritize stability, containment, and the avoidance of escalation spirals. The postponement of strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure, following what Washington described as “productive” engagement, underscores the extent to which strategic decisions are now bounded by economic risk.
Equally significant is the absence of decisive outcomes on the ground. The escalation has yet to produce the structural breakthroughs that would justify its expansion. Assertions of operational success coexist with the persistence of institutional continuity within Iran, where governing structures remain intact and operationally coherent. In strategic terms, the conflict has generated pressure without resolution—a condition that complicates both escalation and exit.
Under these circumstances, Europe’s posture begins to take on a different meaning. It is not hesitation, nor is it disengagement. It is a recalibration of agency. By declining automatic alignment, European states are asserting a form of strategic autonomy that had long been subordinated to alliance cohesion. The message is not framed in declarative terms, but its implications are unmistakable: Participation is no longer assumed; it is contingent.
This shift does not dissolve the transatlantic relationship, but it does redefine its operational boundaries. It introduces friction where there was once fluidity, and conditionality where there was once reflex. Most importantly, it signals that the costs of alignment—economic, political, and strategic—are now subject to explicit calculation rather than implicit acceptance.
The significance of Spain’s stance, therefore, lies not in its rhetoric, but in what it reveals about the evolving architecture of Western power. The era of automatic convergence is giving way to one of selective alignment, where interests are weighed more carefully, risks are more openly acknowledged, and participation in conflict is no longer the default expression of alliance.
In that sense, Europe’s refusal to go “even around the corner” is not a momentary divergence. It is an early indicator of a deeper transformation—one in which the boundaries of Western cohesion are being redrawn in real time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular