Trump’s strikes on Iran are an illegal war of choice—and Europeans should say so

An escalatory logic

The US and Israel have jointly launched an unprecedented military campaign against Iran, in violation of international law. President Donald Trump’s announcement of the war leaves no doubt that his end-goal, at least for now, is regime change. He has left no off-ramps but complete surrender for Iran’s leadership. A cornered Iran is now fulfilling its threats to respond with widespread counter-strikes on targets across the Middle East. This is Trump’s war of choice. But that does not mean he controls how it ends.

This is the most existential moment for the Islamic Republic of Iran’s rulers since its foundation in 1979. It follows the mass nationwide protests last month that ended in the deaths of thousands at the hands of the regime. Iran’s security and ideological cadres are now prepared for a sustained war against the US and Israel. They view a maximum escalatory response as necessary for the survival of both the Islamic Republic of Iran and its network of armed groups across the region: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Shia militias in Iraq. These have vowed to go on the offensive, despite their evident weaknesses, for the same existential reasons. 

Iran’s immediate and widespread counter-strikes show that Tehran maintains command-and-control capabilities, and is determined to fulfil its pledge to regionalise a war that America started. As the US and Israel have air superiority, Iran will also be keen to use its offensive assets before the ongoing bombing campaign depletes them. Tehran likely wants to rapidly increase the cost on the US and Israel—including through political pressure from Arab Gulf states now under fire—to force them to back down before they succeed in destabilising the regime. 

As things stand, however, a quick end to the war looks unlikely. This could be the beginning of a new long conflict for the US in the Middle East, one that could itself prompt a deep and painful civil war within Iran. It could also provoke significant security, economic and migratory consequences for Europeans. Yet for the moment, they have been conspicuously timid in responding to the attacks. The joint statement by France, Germany and the UK did not even dare to specify which states conducted them.

Do prepare, don’t prevaricate

It is urgent that Europeans and their international partners mobilise in reducing the damage from this fast-spreading war and in halting the fighting as soon as possible. They should:

• prioritise the safety of their nationals, diplomats and military personnel across the Middle East, including their safe passage out of the region
• communicate clearly that this is a war of choice by America, in contravention of the same UN charter the Europeans have themselves invoked to condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and insist on Greenland’s sovereignty
• reject being pulled into the US offensive operations, including through the use of European bases such as Diego Garcia
• resist the temptation to stay silent or ambivalent, which would only signal weakness to the US, Russia and China and encourage further such behaviour
• make this position clear in upcoming UN meetings
• work urgently with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar and Turkey to strongly push Trump and Tehran to find a diplomatic way out—using the contours of the possible deal glimpsed during recent negotiations brokered by Oman—before events pull them all into an intractable bloodbath
• form a coalition-of-the-willing to put pressure on the White House, asserting that this military campaign is unlikely to force an Iranian capitulation and rather risks leaving the US responsible for yet another broken Middle Eastern country
• thus seek to persuade Trump that his high-pressure diplomacy succeeded and that he can still secure a win without getting sucked into a regional quagmire
• provide defensive military assistance to Arab partners who have come under Iranian retaliatory attacks and work actively with them to prepare for energy disruption as a result of attempts by Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz
• assess the implications of a sustained US military campaign against Iran, and thus a prolonged increase of American defence support to Israel and the Gulf Cooperation States, for assistance to Ukraine (given its acute need for US-made air munitions)
• continue to focus on the needs of the Iranian people by condemning indiscriminate attacks on civilians, as well as providing necessary aid and continued access to information channels
• work with Turkey to assess the potential for a major refugee influx out of Iran (population: 93 million) in a scenario of a sustained conflict and internal destruction
• focus on establishing safe and legal passage, and humanitarian assistance, to those seeking to depart Iran

The spectre of Iraq

It was clear from the rare public intervention on the eve of US strikes by Badr Albusaidi, Oman’s foreign minister who mediated the recent US-Iran talks, that Tehran was prepared to make significant concessions on its nuclear policy. Some may have doubted the sincerity of this offer, but their doubt deserves to be tested. Albusaidi urged Trump to give diplomacy more time, arguing that a historic breakthrough was in sight. In the wake of the strikes, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, stated the country remains open to diplomacy with the US if the attacks halt. But the US president, who promised his voters an end to US “forever wars”, has seemingly turned his back on that core pillar of the MAGA agenda to join with Israel in a war that risks escalating in dangerous and uncertain ways. Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington may turn out to have been a significant factor in his decision-making.

It will be a turbulent journey from this initial shock-and-awe campaign to Trump’s desired outcome of regime change. For now, Iran’s conventional military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remain united, in control of the security apparatus and determined to resist until they exhaust the US and Israel—or go down fighting. 

Despite Trump’s call on the Iranian people to use this moment to rise up and topple the regime, ordinary Iranians are likely to prioritise safety and shelter rather than storming the streets. Even if the US succeeds in toppling Iran’s leadership, years of chaos probably lie ahead for the country and its people. Trump’s offer of an amnesty to the Iranian security establishment utterly fails to grasp both the nationalist and ideological motivation of this base. The multi-pronged security networks loyal to the Islamic Republic’s doctrine of resistance to the US will likely fight on through similar insurgency warfare to that which plagued Iraq after the American invasion in 2003.