Without Consultation

On Mar. 23rd, 2026, President Donald Trump announced holding off on strikes on Iranian power infrastructure for five days following a “productive conversation’’ with Iran, although Iranian officials deny such dialogue took place. Notably, Iran claims that this conversation never took place and argues the United States is attempting to lower global oil prices while buying time for military planning. This de-escalation marks the first time the US has reduced its aerial campaign on Iran since the major war started on Feb. 28, 2026, after a contentious six-month negotiation over Iran's nuclear capabilities following the 12-day June 2025 strikes. This shift comes even after Trump’s demands weren't met to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The war has prompted varied reactions around the world. In Europe, many NATO countries have non-uniform views, reflected in their disjointed military stances on the war and their decisions regarding the economic impact of rising oil prices. More recently, a two-week ceasefire was declared on Apr. 8th between the US and Iran. As the end of the ceasefire period approaches, there appears to be little movement on more permanent descalation. In fact, the US has deployed 10,000 soldiers supported by warships and warplanes to block sea ports, preventing imports and exports into and out of Iran.

Initially, the United Kingdom restricted access to its Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos Islands when the US initially struck Iran, but it has since relaxed access to its bases. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, is taking a defensive approach, allowing the use of the country's military bases and military support against Iranian strikes, while urging diplomatic actions before the war extends further within the region. France has been more critical of the United States military action in Iran, calling for an emergency discussion at the United Nations Security Council, but at the same time seeking to avoid straining relations with the US, shown through the condemnation of the Iranian retaliation strikes. French President Emmanuel Macron has also positioned the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean to protect French military assets in the Middle East. Germany has taken similar actions to France and the United Kingdom, restraining direct military action but expressing the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz visiting the White House, expressing that Germany was on the “same page’’ as the United States. Italy has expressed concern that US strikes on Iran fall outside of “the rules of international law” but has also deployed military assets to help protect Cyprus and Gulf Countires against Iranian strikes. Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz has closely aligned with the US, describing Iran as a threat to global security, but has refused to send military support to aid in US operations. This is largely due to their focus on having a forward military posture, citing their proximity to the Russia-Ukraine War. By contrast, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has been a hardline critic of US strikes on Iran, condemning the strikes and denying the US access to Spanish military bases. Sánchez has even doubled down despite the US threats of cutting off trade to Spain. The diversity in reaction from many European leaders highlights a lack of communication with the United States and its foreign actions.

These differences in political and military response reveal a drift in NATO response as the US continues to take unilateral actions. In 2024, Germany increased its military spending by 28% to $88.5 billion, putting its military expenditure at the fourth highest in the world. In the same year, Poland’s spending increased by 31% to $38.0 billion, and France increased its spending by 6.1%, reaching $64.7 billion. In Sweden’s first year of NATO membership, it increased military spending by 34% to $12.0 billion. These increases suggest Europe is becoming more militarily autonomous due to rising global instability. Fears that the US will disengage from NATO, as well as concerns about the ongoing Russian threat, have become drivers that appear to be steering Europe away from relying on the United States for military support.

The economic impact of the US-Iran war has stretched across the globe, as the Strait of Hormuz has remained closed, a key route responsible for transporting about 20% of all oil supplies. In Europe, it has brought Brent crude oil prices to over €100 a barrel. This rise in oil prices has hit Europe hard, with natural gas prices rising over 60%, leading to increased electricity and gas bills for Europeans. The European Union failed to create a union-wide strategic response to the crisis of increasing economic pressure on European Governments and citizens, prompting a decentralized response.

In Spain, a €5 billion plan was passed to reduce the value-added tax (VAT) from 21% to 10% on motor fuels, electricity, natural gas, and butane. The emergency relief will reduce electricity bills by 13% and provide a 20-cent/per liter rebate for haulers, farmers, and fishers. Notably, 60% of Spain’s energy infrastructure is from renewable sources, making its energy prices significantly lower (€37 and €57 per megawatt hour) than those of Germany (€90 in Germany) and Italy (€122 in Italy). Germany has yet to offer subsidies, but rather has begun regulating gas stations to only allow one price change per day as petrol prices rise from €1.82 per liter to €2.16 per liter. Italy has temporarily cut duties by €0.25 per liter to help mitigate the cost at the pump. Portugal had a fast response with an automatic reduction of €0.0335 per liter in the automotive diesel tax in place if fuel prices ever passed a €0.10 increase, reducing some burden on consumers. France has allocated €70 million worth of aid to help small and medium-sized road and transport firms, fisheries, and farmers. Poland has issued a price cap on petrol stations, as well as a reduction of 23% to 8% in VAT on fuel. Austria has allowed fuel prices to be increased only three times per week.

While all European economic situations might look different, with some EU members experiencing more challenging price increases, it continues to reveal the lack of cooperation with the United States in preparation for a costly economic war with Iran. The only formal response from the EU was to ask EU members to fill their fuel storage facilities to 80% (down from the normal 90%) capacity to avoid an end-of-summer-rush to store fuel for winter, and to mitigate the recent increase in fuel prices.

As Marcin Zaborowski, who is on the Advisory Council to the Foreign Relations and the European Affairs Committee at the Senate of the Polish Republic, said regarding the US intervention in Iran, “Europe was not consulted. Europe did not help shape the objectives. And Europe is now being asked to absorb both the economic consequences and the military risks of a conflict it did not choose and cannot easily exit.” Trump has recently threatened to obliterate Iranian power stations if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Such escalation risks more economic instability and a greater economic crisis for not only European countries but also the entire globe.