Israel-Iran - Europeans Playing Out on the Field?

Since the Israeli strikes of October 2024, which destroyed most of Iran's defense systems, a sword of Damocles has been hanging over Iran. At any moment, Israel could resume its offensive, notably by potentially targeting the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

The Spiral Towards the Current Conflict

Despite the negotiations starting well, Iranian decision-makers made the mistake of adopting a "hard line" in discussions with the Americans, particularly with regard to their ability to enrich uranium.

This gave Mr. Netanyahu the opportunity to claim-despite recent statements to the contrary by US intelligence services-that Iran was dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear bomb. In the hours leading up to the attack, the Israeli prime minister convinced the White House that Israeli action was justified. While Mr. Trump had given Tehran "60 days" to reach an agreement, with the deadline having expired, the US president, who just a few days earlier had still been calling for more time for negotiations, rallied behind the idea that the time had come to let his Israeli ally take action.

Nevertheless, part of the MAGA movement strongly disapproves (as does Tucker Carlson), while what remains of the neoconservatives are jubilant (see Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies). As for the nature of the strikes carried out by Israel, the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz was hit. The Fordo site, which was also attacked in a second wave, is considered out of reach because it is underground. This is where heavy American "penetrating" bombs would be needed to really make a difference.

However, everything suggests that reducing the Iranian nuclear threat is only one aspect of the offensive launched "out of the blue" by Israel. The offensive began with an impressive threat to the Iranian military leadership, both in the Revolutionary Guards and in the army high command. In comparison, the operations against Hezbollah (the "beeper" episode, or the assassination of Nasrallah in September 2024) appear to be a mere dress rehearsal for the Rising Lion operation on June 13. Thousands of targets-both civilian and military-are being targeted by the IDF, often with little connection to the nuclear program.

At the same time, Netanyahu's repeated calls for a popular uprising against the mullahs' government reveal another objective of the Israeli attack, which is a regime change in Tehran. The mapping of Israeli targets across Iran is indicative in this regard. It should be noted that many observers in the region believe that if, as is likely, the conflict drags on, the mullahs' regime will only be able to hold out for a few weeks.

And thus restore an alliance that would "embark" the West on an anti-Iranian crusade, at a time when some Western countries-including France-seem to be resolving to take the opposite stance as Israel on the Palestinian question?

Finally, will we see the conflict spread to the entire region, or even beyond? This would be the case, for example, if the Iranians decided to compensate for their strategic inferiority vis-à-vis Israel by attacking their neighbors' oil installations or closing the Strait of Hormuz. Israel, for its part, has so far avoided destroying the terminal on Kharg Island, through which 90% of Iran's crude oil exports pass. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Islamic Republic will be forced to exhaust all its options, which would also provoke US intervention.

The Paradoxical Attitude of the Europeans

Mr. Trump's reversal on this issue may be due to his desire to be on the winning side (for which he does not hesitate to take some of the credit). The Russians and Chinese are on the lookout for any opportunity to exploit the situation. The immediate European support of Mr. Netanyahu-even if it is not unreserved, especially in the case of the UK-seems more surprising. It is described as "paradoxical" by the newspaper Le Monde.

In the words of President Macron, this support is justified by Israel's "right to defend itself." But did defending Israel necessarily mean striking Iran first? We remember that it was on the basis of refusing to strike first that General de Gaulle denounced Israel in 1967 and that it was also in the name of the same principle that France refused to support the US-British operation against Iraq in 2003. Gérard Araud refers to the current situation as a "reverse 2003 moment." The date of the launch of the Iranian operation appears all the more troubling given that Iranian and US negotiators were due to resume talks in Oman on the evening of Sunday, June 15. Could the Israeli attack on Iran not have waited a few days, long enough to verify that these negotiations were truly doomed to fail?

How can we not suspect that the Israeli leader either mistrusts Donald Trump's instincts and wants to preempt an Iranian-American "deal," or is seeking a domestic political gain at a time when the possibility of early elections is becoming increasingly likely in Jerusalem? Or perhaps both motivations are at play? In any case, the events unfolding in the Middle East will be seen by the rest of the world as further proof of the West's double standards. The Europeans’ counterproductive attitude risks backfiring on them, especially since a sudden 180 by Donald Trump is always possible. Finally, if the Israeli attack does lead to regime change in Tehran, there is no guarantee that the post-Khamenei era will be anything other than chaos, as was the case in Iraq and Libya.

Copyright image : Ahmad GHARABLI / AFP
Smoke billows from a site in the city of Haifa on June 16, 2025.