Tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated under President Donald Trump’s administration, amid rapidly unfolding military and diplomatic actions that raise the possibility of a military confrontation in the Middle East. While Washington and Israel seek to intensify pressure on Tehran, major European countries, led by France, Germany, and the UK, have adopted a different approach focused on containing the crisis through diplomatic channels.

Recent European ministerial meetings on April 3 in Paris, particularly the meeting of Foreign Affairs Council in its Defence configuration, have revealed growing concern over the possibility of a US-Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomatic efforts to reach a new agreement limiting Tehran’s nuclear activities fail. This growing concern coincides with Washington bolstering its military presence in the region, amid an ongoing escalation of US military operations against the Houthis in Yemen. European analysts are now questioning the extent to which these actions are linked to preparations for a potential strike on Iran.

In light of these developments, a key question arises: Can Europe uphold its independent policy on Iran, or will it find itself forced to align with the United States’ hardline approach toward Tehran?

These concerns come on the heels of the Pentagon’s announcement on April 2, that the United States has bolstered its military capabilities in the Middle East with additional fighter jets, amid an ongoing US bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. A senior European official stated that European strategists are questioning whether this campaign is a prelude to a potential American strike on Iran in the months ahead.

Ministers from France, the UK, and Germany, all signatories of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, are looking to discuss the Iran dossier with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a NATO ministerial meeting. The deal, abandoned by President Donald Trump, imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program while offering sanctions relief in return.

Nevertheless, European countries are still pushing for a diplomatic pathway to secure an agreement curbing Iran’s uranium enrichment activities by summer, ahead of the October 2025 expiration of UN sanctions tied to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. European countries argue that Iran’s nuclear program is a covert effort to develop an atomic bomb, while Iran has long denied any intention of pursuing nuclear weapons.

European Calls for De-escalation and Rejection of Military Intervention

France believes a military confrontation seems inevitable if a new nuclear agreement with Iran is not reached in 2025, the year the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is set to expire. Since the United States withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 under Trump’s first administration, the agreement has been on life support. Efforts to revive it or secure a longer, stronger deal have failed due to eroded trust, the US “maximum pressure” policy, and geopolitical and regional crises, particularly the war in Gaza. With the JCPOA’s expiration, the few remaining tools to pressure Tehran, including the “snapback” mechanism allowing any UN Security Council member to automatically re-impose sanctions, will also vanish.

It won’t be easy for the three European powers (E3) and the EU to muster the political will needed for this task, as they are preoccupied with Trump’s negotiations with Russia to end the Ukraine war, his reshaping of Europe’s security architecture, and his tariff-based trade policies. However, inaction could lead to a worse security challenge: a US policy toward Iran without European involvement, possibly relying on Russia as a mediator. Meanwhile, Iran has already begun separate talks with China and Russia to discuss nuclear issues.

Notably, Tehran has not held direct negotiations with US officials since Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and Trump’s public attempt in March 2025 to engage Iran’s Supreme Leader for a new deal, while threatening military strikes, was met with an equally public rejection due to the ongoing “maximum pressure” policy.

France’s Proactive Stance

On April 3, French President Emmanuel Macron convened a meeting at the Elysee Palace with senior defense ministers and officials to discuss Iran’s security situation. The meeting, held amid escalating tensions between Iran and the United States, focused on the possibility of a joint US-Israel strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

This step reflects growing unease among America’s European allies about the rising risks in the region. Diplomatic sources have warned of the potential for a unilateral or joint US military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites if negotiations for a new nuclear deal between the United States and Iran yield no progress. These concerns have intensified following increased US military activity in the region, including the deployment of an additional US aircraft carrier to the Middle East and targeted US strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

In this vein, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot cautioned that the window for securing a nuclear agreement with Iran is rapidly closing, warning that a military confrontation is “almost inevitable” if talks with Tehran fail. In a parliamentary hearing, Barrot said, “our confidence and our conviction remain intact; Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons. Our priority is to reach an agreement that verifiably and durably constrains the Iranian nuclear programme. We only have a few months until the expiration of this [2015] accord. In case of failure, a military confrontation would seem to be almost inevitable.”

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The EU Navigating the US-Iran Divide

Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA has made the world more dangerous. Current tensions in the Gulf threaten to spark a military conflict in an already unstable region, potentially leading to a confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping lane. Such an escalation could severely disrupt international trade.

Washington is pushing to deploy warships to the Gulf to secure freedom of navigation against Iran’s will, while the new British government, unlike its predecessor, has opted to join a US-led maritime operation. This move aims to strengthen the Anglo-American alliance but undermines prospects for future security cooperation with the EU. Britain is eager to secure a swift free trade deal with the United States, despite remaining legally bound by EU regulations. However, Trump’s “America First” doctrine could backfire on Britain, as Prime Minister Johnson seems to overestimate his influence and rapport with the US president.

The EU has made significant efforts to maintain trade with Iranian companies but with little success. Medium-sized German firms that invested in Iran have suffered heavy losses due to US sanctions, with Germany’s already modest exports and investments in Iran plummeting further. No company wants to risk violating US sanctions, as many exported products contain American components, making them subject to the embargo. Additionally, German business leaders also fear that these sanctions could restrict their ability to travel and conduct business in the United States in the future.

From the outset, the European Commission’s efforts to address financing challenges for European firms dealing with Iran have fallen short. Despite promises to find ways to circumvent US sanctions, these initiatives have yielded no results. Both the EU’s INSTEX mechanism and its Iranian counterpart, the “Special Trade and Finance Institute,” have remained ineffective due to the sanctions.

For its part, Iran seeks more than symbolic gestures from the EU but is unlikely to secure the economic reparations it demands. As ties with Europe fray, Tehran finds reliable partners in China and Russia, with China capitalizing heavily. German firms hold out hope for better days post-Trump, but for now, it is advisable for these companies to keep connections with Iranian counterparts intact without fully cutting them off.

Europe’s Chance to Mediate between Iran and the United States

The E3 (Germany, France, and the UK) could take a central role, having already held multiple meetings with Iranian officials from November 2024 to February 2025 to explore the scope and level of direct negotiations. Leveraging decades of experience with Tehran and finding common ground with Washington, Europe could initiate talks for a revised nuclear agreement. Strong ties with Israel and Gulf Arab states might also help secure regional support, avoiding past mistakes and building a more sustainable deal.

A new round of E3-led negotiations is set to begin. To break the current deadlock, Europe must establish a clear and strict timeline for reaching an agreement before the snapback mechanism expires, while defining the scope of talks and available incentives. The E3 will not permit Iran to pit them against the United States. While Russia and China, major importers of Iranian goods and raw materials, have not abandoned the nuclear deal, Trump has imposed punitive tariffs on them. So far, there are no signs of de-escalation between the Unites States and Iran.

US President Donald Trump continues his “maximum pressure” policy against Iran. In early February 2025, he imposed sanctions on commercial and shipping companies, as well as individuals involved in exporting Iranian oil despite US restrictions. This marks the second sanctions package against Iran during his short time in office.

Previously, the EU imposed “restrictive measures” on Iran, some tied to human rights violations like the execution of protesters, others linked to Russia’s war on Ukraine and support for armed groups in the Middle East. Reports indicate that revenue from Iran’s sanctioned oil sales go straight to the state, allowing Tehran to continue funding groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen in their fight against Israel, even amid Iran’s acute economic turmoil.

Future Outlook

• Clearly, the European and US positions on Iran diverge significantly. Germany, France, and several European states have dismissed the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy, opting instead for a more balanced strategy rooted in dialogue and diplomacy.
• Europe is likely to persist in opposing US calls to send naval forces to the Gulf, aware that such actions could trigger unforeseen military clashes with serious repercussions.
• European countries, especially France, could act as mediators, though they are increasingly worried about the collapse of nuclear talks and the risk of a joint US-Israeli military operation against Iran.
• Europe may face greater challenges in maintaining unity on its Iran policy, particularly if the Trump administration continues to pressure European countries and threaten economic sanctions, such as imposing tariffs on European cars. Despite Europe’s efforts to keep communication channels open with Iran, its ability to prevent military escalation will be severely limited due to the EU’s lack of significant military influence in the region compared to the United States. Additionally, Europe’s weak economic leverage over Iran, following the failure of the INSTEX mechanism to bypass US sanctions, has led to the collapse of European-Iranian trade.
• Should the United States and Israel decide to carry out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Europe’s role would likely be confined to diplomatic mediation and managing the conflict’s fallout rather than preventing it.
• The European economy, particularly Germany’s, has a vital interest in keeping maritime shipping routes open. However, US President Donald Trump is insistently demanding that European, including German, warships be deployed to the Gulf, deliberately placing the German government and other European countries in a precarious position. Trump is known for his erratic and uncoordinated decisions, posing a significant risk of a military incident that could spark disputes over responsibility. For this reason, Germany’s government is wary of being pulled into such a conflict.
• US and European policies toward Iran differ substantially. Berlin and several European countries explicitly reject the U.S. “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran, advocating instead for a European-led maritime monitoring mission. This approach is supported by Germany’s ruling parties and even the Green Party. France also backs a European solution, though convincing other European partners remains a challenge.
• Maintaining open channels of dialogue with Iran is crucial for the European Union, as without them, there would be no hope of achieving a diplomatic solution to salvage the nuclear deal. In this context, Europe views the United States as part of the problem rather than the solution.
• President Trump is likely to seize on Germany’s and some European countries’ rejection of his demands as a new pretext to cast blame on them, questioning their loyalty to the Western alliance. Trump’s repeated dismissal of German and European policies is often accompanied by threats of economic sanctions, such as imposing tariffs on German cars as a punitive measure.
• Europe is currently navigating one of the most precarious times since World War II. The United States has long been the ally providing a “security umbrella” against potential Russian threats, but it is now transforming into a trade competitor and, potentially, even an adversary.
• Geopolitical developments following Trump’s return to the White House for his second term have widened the transatlantic divide, prompting Europe to reassess its policies, particularly in security and defense, and recognize the need to independently take responsibility for its national security.
• The greatest challenge now lies in how Europe can chart a course for its interests independent of the United States and its ability to achieve this. American pressure on Europe is immense, and Trump appears intent on “dragging” the Old Continent into any potential confrontation with Iran, and possibly other conflict zones like China, viewing it as the price Europe must pay for the “defensive umbrella” provided by the United States since World War II, as well as its role in liberating Europe from Nazism.
• Europe today finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place amid the US escalation toward Iran. This has driven major European powers, particularly the E3, to adopt a stance starkly different from that of the United States in dealing with Tehran. European countries are reluctant to engage in a new war with Iran, given the potential losses to their interests and the threats to maritime routes, which could lead to adverse economic consequences. This is especially critical at a time when Europe is already grappling with worsening economic crises stemming from the war in Ukraine. Consequently, Europe is expected to maintain an “observer” role, prioritizing the protection of its interests over being drawn into new conflicts alongside Washington.
• The E3 must act swiftly, as the alternative is sliding into nuclear or military escalation, which would further complicate Europe’s already tense security landscape, making it more perilous and unstable.
• Regarding the dynamics between Iran and the Trump administration, the current phase appears characterized by US “escalation of pressure” to push Iran toward negotiations and force it to scale back support for the Houthis, especially after Iran’s involvement in backing various regional armed groups has become evident.  This has sparked several challenges for Western states, with the United States now aiming to diminish Iran’s influence during this period.
• Developments suggest this strategy is starting to bear fruit, as Iran has recognized the gravity of Trump’s threats and turned to diplomacy by announcing the withdrawal of support for the Houthis in an attempt to defuse the crisis. This shift could open the door to direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran, suggesting a reshaping of international relations and power balances, moving away from the traditional frameworks that have governed the global order for decades.