Europe: Assemble, Decide, Engage!

Caught between two wars, Europe cannot afford to drift and keep saying it isn’t in either of them. And the alarm bells are ringing louder than ever as of October 2026:

• Both Russia and Iran are escalating their military pressure and posture because they see a divided West without a clear strategy or end-state – only attempts at containment.
• Donald Trump has lifted sanctions on Russian diesel sales, throwing Putin a lifeline at Ukraine’s expense, while threatening to withhold US military intelligence if Ukraine does not stop striking Russian oil infrastructure.

Let’s set aside the fact that Trump’s diesel move is unlikely to achieve his primary goal of lowering US fuel prices, but experts expect the impact to be minimal. So, let’s focus on what Europe can do.

Short-term fuel politics

European governments opposed Trump’s war on Iran from the outset. In retrospect, however, leaving the US to act alone was not in Europe’s interests. Trump may not have consulted European governments before launching the campaign, but that should not have prevented Europe from seeking a role in shaping the conflict’s course and consequences.

The transactional nature of Trump’s foreign policy

Many find this approach appalling as it appears to lack the ideas and values that should underpin a political program. Yet, the reality of international politics is that it is transactional.

Even when states share certain values, their interactions follow a basic equation: we want you to do this, and in exchange, we offer you that. The incentives may take the form of carrots, but they can just as easily be replaced by sticks when cooperation gives way to coercion.

When Donald Trump adopted this scaffolding as the principle of his foreign policy, Europeans rejected this approach as unprincipled and beneath the standards they set for themselves.

Other Topics of Interest

‘A Financial Lifeline’ for Putin: US Senators Say Trump’s Diesel Deal Violates Law

Seven senators urged Trump to reverse the agreement, accusing his administration of giving Putin a financial lifeline while Russia continues its war against Ukraine.

But as Europe is not a hegemon capable of imposing its own rules on the world, shouldn’t it be pragmatic and play the cards it is dealt, using whatever leverage it has to advance its interests?

Europe’s response to the war in Iran was to reject military intervention. Europe announced it was not going to participate and even condemned the US for doing so.

The restraint was seen by Iran, Russia, and Trump

This was yet another sign of European weakness. Why? Because it reflects the same reluctance we have seen in Europe’s response to Russia.

We are not at war with Russia, goes the argument. Never mind that Russia is waging a hybrid war against Europe and a full-scale, brutally kinetic war against Ukraine. Europe, meanwhile, continues to shelter behind the principle that NATO is only a defensive alliance and Europe has not been attacked.

In the case of Iran, the logic is much the same: keep our heads down and hope diplomacy will do the job. But at what cost?

Decades of European diplomatic engagement have failed to stop the Iranian regime from pursuing uranium enrichment to levels necessary for nuclear weapons, supporting armed terrorist groups such as Hamas, and contributing to a regional network of militant organizations that threaten Israel.

Psychology has long recognized that perceived weakness can embolden bullies. And those who stay on the sidelines should not be surprised when they find themselves with no voice and no influence.

Europe has every reason to value diplomacy. But when diplomacy fails to change a regime’s behavior, simply carrying on as before is not a strategy. It is a refusal to confront reality. And it is only attempts at containment.

And when containment has no defined objective, it becomes mere postponement and postponement has a price: giving adversaries time to test limits, adapt, and push further.

The West spent years trying to persuade its adversaries to play by its rules. It failed – never developing a strategy for confronting enemies who had no intention of playing by it.

Strategic failure staring the West in the face

Europe is not as weak as its inactions would suggest. But what could it do? Send troops to Ukraine? To the Strait of Hormuz?

Well it should be prepared to do both and clearly communicate it to Tehran and Moscow. Why? Because both regimes are authoritarian threats to the West.

• Were diplomatic cables to Tehran saying that Europe was ready to support the US in its war, or merely assuring Iran that Europe would not engage in Washington’s war, in other words, that it was hiding behind the US?
• Have diplomatic phone calls to Vladimir Putin ever indicated that Europe is ready to close the sky over Ukraine, or only telegraphing that this war is senseless?

And that is the brutal essence of Europe’s weakness: it does not have a coherent strategy with a clearly defined end goal and a credible deterrent to help achieve it.

To have such a strategy, Europeans must first find courage, assemble, and answer these questions: What kind of Russia does Europe want to live with? What kind of Iran?

Ukraine: Defeat Russia or prevent victory drift?

The West armed Ukraine enough to survive Russia’s invasion, but not enough to change Moscow’s strategic calculations, fearing nuclear escalation and regime collapse. Yet this taught Russia that nuclear threats could prevent its defeat.

The fundamental choice remains: seek accommodation with Moscow or make territorial expansion strategically unviable. Russia’s growing aggression suggests the West cannot pursue both.

Iran: Diplomacy without an end-state

Decades of sanctions, inspections, and diplomacy failed to resolve concerns over Iran’s nuclear program and regional proxies. After Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018, European efforts to preserve it ultimately failed, postponing the problem rather than resolving it.

The 2026 war exposed the consequences. Without a coherent strategy, Western divisions widened, giving Iran opportunities to exploit them and escalate the conflict.

Donald Trump set a new course for US foreign policy, but Europe failed to set a course of its own, falling into the wait-and-see mode.

The West’s enemies see its lack of strategy as a green light to act with impunity. A strategy can be built through dialogue. Recently, Denmark and Greenland have shown that talking to the Trump administration is possible and can produce results.