EU divided over Israel's right to bomb Iran
Not all EU countries believe Israel’s attack on Iran is legal under international law, and the differences will be on display when ambassadors meet in Brussels on Thursday ahead of a summit of heads of state and government taking place next week.
Divisions over the justification for Israel’s attack on Iran last Friday are set to surface among ambassadors in Brussels on Thursday, stymying EU attempts at finding a common response to the crisis, according to sources Euronews has spoken to.
"It’s definitely an issue that is being discussed - what is the extent to which this right of self-defence is acceptable," one source said.
The EU issued a statement on Saturday calling “on all sides to abide by international law, show restraint and refrain from taking further steps which could lead to serious consequences such as potential radioactive release”.
Sources close to the discussion say a "major" part of the deliberations among member states was whether the EU should state “Israel has a right to defend itself” in the context of its attacks against Iran.
Around 15 member states including Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and the Netherlands wanted to add the line but it was not agreed unanimously.
Several other countries felt there wasn’t sufficient evidence that Israel has the right under international law to launch its offensive against Iran.
Under international law, and the UN Charter, a state may exercise its right to self-defence in case of an armed attack or imminent attack. Any necessary action should also be proportionate.
No consensus on attacks being justified through right of defence
Israel says its series of strikes are pre-emptive moves to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The issue is set to be discussed by ambassadors in Brussels on Thursday and is an agenda item for next week's EU summit of heads of state and government. Draft conclusions for that summit seen by Euronews currently contain no wording in respect of the EU Council's position on the Israel-Iran conflict.
Meanwhile, EU sources told Euronews they were "surprised" by a tweet from the Commission President announcing implicit support for Israel’s attacks against Tehran.
The message from Ursula von der Leyen went further than the agreed statement of the European Council, which is the arm of the EU with the authority to conduct foreign policy.
Ursula von der Leyen tweeted “Spoke with President Herzog concerning the escalating situation in the Middle East. I reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself and protect its people”.
“There was no consensus on saying Israel has a right to defend itself but Von der Leyen said it anyway,” another diplomatic source told Euronews.
“She saw the agreed language and then made her own statement,” they said.
“It was disheartening to be honest,” said the diplomat.
“These countries like Iran – as bad as they are don’t simply submit when they’re attacked like this, and what comes next will be so much worse even if there is regime change in Iran,” said this source, adding: “And then when two or three million Iranians turn up on Europe's door they'll say we can't deal with this migration crisis."
“Member states which are critical of Israel said they thought Israeli attacks on Iran were irresponsible, but a large group is on board with von der Leyen’s statement," said another diplomat.
“We would say that’s a question for legal scholars – there is no judgement on that yet,” the diplomat responded, when asked if their government believed the war against Iran to be within the provisions of international law.
Former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammad El Baradei claimed in a post on X that Israeli “suspicion does not constitute an imminent threat”, and that Israel’s attack on nuclear facilities was illegal under international law.
“The president has made her position clear, her position has already been taken quite clearly by the G7 leaders statement on the developments in the region," von der Leyen's spokesperson said when asked about the difference between the official statement of the EU and that of the Commission president.
“She also communicated on social media stressing the fact that Israel has the right to defend itself and Iran is the main source of tension in the region,” said Stefan de Keersmaecker on Wednesday.
The EU regards Iran as major destabilising influence in the European continent through its military support of Russia.
Iran has been supplying Shahed drones to Russia since the start of Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to the Ukrainian army.
Meanwhile the EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has since reiterated the official EU position for a diplomatic resolution to the Israel-Iran war.
And again called on all sides to “abide by international law, and de-escalate the situation”.
She tweeted on Wednesday that “Israel has the right to defend itself in line with international law.”
Trump Orders ‘Unconditional Surrender’ By Iran: Who’s Listening? – OpEd
Israel's top secret nuclear facility in the southern town of Dimona. Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency
Israel’s blitzkrieg against Iran five days ago is failing spectacularly. The Russian media reported that: i) Israel’s Rafael weapons complex has been destroyed; ii) Haifa oil refinery is in flames; iii) the Iron Dome has been breached; iv) and, Israel’s air dominance is a figment of imagination.
On Tuesday, Iran fired cruise missiles for the first time against Israel. Another wave of Iranian missile and drone attack targeted the Nevatim Airbase in southern Israel, where stealth fighter jets, transport aircraft, tanker aircraft and machines for electronic reconnaissance/surveillance, etc. are stationed.
Some Iranian reports claim that “plumes of smoke were rising from areas near the Dimona nuclear facility,” where an estimated 90 Israeli nuclear warheads are stored. If true, this must be highly embarrassing for Israel which has been maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity in regard to its nuclear capabilities as well as for President Donald Trump who is constantly hectoring Iran while turning a blind eye on Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapon stockpiles right under his nose — apart from exposing the IAEA.
According to the independent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel’s nuclear warheads are capable of being delivered anywhere within a maximum radius of 4,500 km by its F-15, F-161, and F-35I “Adir” aircraft, its 50 land-based Jericho II and III missiles, and by about 20 Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, launched from submarines.
Suffice to say, rational minds among the Israeli elite feel worried. Typically, Danny Yatom, former head of Mossad, is quoted as saying, “Iranians will not kneel; they will not raise the flag of surrender and they will not give in!”
The American broadcast television network NBC has reported that Israel asked Iran, through western mediators, to stop its retaliatory attacks and return to nuclear negotiations. This would probably explain Trump’s bombastic post on Sunday in Truth Social that Israel and Iran will end their violent conflict by “making a deal” through his mediation. Trump wrote, ”We will have peace, soon, between Israel and Iran. Many calls and meetings now taking place.” He even drew the analogy of his success in brokering peace between India and Pakistan recently.
However, the realisation may have since dawned on Trump that Iranians will not forget or forgive the assassinations of their military commanders or the destruction and loss of life of dozens of civilians in the Israeli Blitzkrieg, which targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, and residential buildings in Tehran and other cities.
Trump has a major decision to take in coming days as regards the next move — specifically, how to rescue Israel from the attritional war that lies ahead. Pressure for US military intervention is mounting. Trump is obligated one way or another to all three segments of the Israel Lobby — Zionists, evangelical Christians and wealthy Jewish elites who are kingmakers in American politics.
The pendulum is wildly swinging in Trump’s mercurial mind. He was in an irritable mood at the G-7 summit in Canada on Monday, cut short his trip and picked a nasty public quarrel with French President Emmanuel Macron for simply commenting that Trump hurried back to wrap up a ceasefire.
Trump wrote angrily, “Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a “cease fire” between Israel and Iran. Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!”
Four hours later, he clarified, “I have not reached out to Iran for “Peace Talks” in any way, shape, or form. This is just more HIGHLY FABRICATED, FAKE NEWS! If they want to talk, they know how to reach me. They should have taken the deal that was on the table — Would have saved a lot of lives!!!”
Seven hours later, Trump claimed, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured “stuff.” Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”
But a few minutes later, Trump threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Seven minutes later, another nasty post followed in capital letters: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”
That was 9 hours ago. Presumably, Trump wound up Tuesday by ordering Iran to crawl on its knees. The chances of Iran obliging him are zero. In fact, the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi said on Tuesday that the operations carried out so far have served as a deterrent warning, and the actual “punitive operations” are set to begin soon. The general asked the inhabitants of Tel Aviv and Haifa “to leave these areas for the sake of their lives.”
In fact, an Iranian commentary underscored yesterday that “Israeli strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure and southern ports near the Persian Gulf could shift the nature of the conflict dramatically… This is precisely what Iran identifies as its strategic red line.”
The commentary continues: “What we’re witnessing is a multi-level hybrid conflict, a complex puzzle involving direct warfare, proxy engagement, diplomatic pressure, and a simmering “cold peace”—all unfolding at once… But such a scenario is unsustainable, as Israel… knows it cannot endure a prolonged high-intensity conflict.
The commentary estimates that a ceasefire “would likely be a tense calm or a “cold peace” rather than true stability.” Because, “What’s emerging now is a fluid and brutal new balance of power… The Persian Gulf, Israel, the Axis of Resistance, and the global energy market are no longer separate arenas—but interconnected pieces in a simultaneous, high-stakes game.” (here)
The great dilemma for Trump is that there’s no quick fix solution in sight. On his way back to the US yesterday evening, Trump said he wanted a “real end” to the conflict and that he was “not too much in a mood to negotiate.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also noted that Trump was indeed considering that option. The US is rapidly building up its forces in the Gulf region.
However, US intervention may trigger a continental war that will outlive Trump’s presidency and destroy his presidency, as Bush’s 2003 Iraq invasion destroyed his. And Trump might as well forget about America First, MAGA, Ukraine, Taiwan, tariff wars, immigration, inflation, China, etc.
Even European allies won’t stand by Trump. Macron told reporters on the sidelines of the G7 summit after Trump’s departure, “The biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos.” Macron warned that “no one can say what comes next…We never support actions of regional de-stabilisation.”
Do not forget that the skeptics include Vice President JD Vance also, whose suspicion of foreign entanglements had its origins in his time as a US Marine in Iraq, where he became disillusioned with America’s interventionist regime change projects and ill-fated ‘forever wars’ in the region.
M.K. Bhadrakumar
M.K. Bhadrakumar is a former Indian diplomat.
COMMENT: Four scenarios of how the Israel-Iran conflict might play out from Capital Economics
“The outcome of this conflict will shape regional dynamics and global market sentiment for months, if not years, to come,"
As the conflict between Israel and Iran continues to unfold, the geopolitical uncertainty has prompted wide-ranging assessments of how it might play out. Analysts at Capital Economics have outlined four plausible scenarios, each with markedly different implications for the Middle East, global energy markets and international financial systems.
“The key takeaway is that even in the event of escalation, the range of outcomes remains wide — from short-term military engagement to regime change or prolonged conflict,” the firm said in a note published on June 18. “We may not know the endgame for some time.”
Scenario one, their current working assumption, envisions the conflict de-escalating within weeks. Israeli officials have signalled this possibility, suggesting that once military objectives are achieved, hostilities may subside. In this case, Iran’s regime would remain in place but with a weakened military posture, while sanctions would continue. “Oil prices would return to pre-conflict levels — around $65 per barrel — and safe haven flows in financial markets would unwind,” Capital Economics noted.
Scenario two assumes a more intense military escalation. If Israel expands its operations and Iran retaliates — potentially targeting US forces or threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz — the economic fallout could be sharp but short-lived. “Oil prices could feasibly spike to $130–150 per barrel, equities would fall, and the dollar would strengthen,” the analysts said. “However, these moves would subsequently reverse if a peace deal is reached, possibly paving the way for a new nuclear agreement.”
Scenario three explores posits a regime change in Iran, triggered by intensified conflict and mounting domestic pressure. In its most optimistic form, reformist elements within Iran’s establishment could gain power and seek rapprochement with the West. “Such a shift could ultimately lead to the lifting of sanctions and a return of foreign investment,” the firm said, adding that this outcome would likely be positive for risk assets and energy prices could stabilise at lower levels.
However, Capital Economics also flagged less favourable permutations — from hesitant leadership transitions to disorderly change — that could still reduce Iran’s ability to sustain hostilities. “In any of these situations, we suspect Iran would seek to extricate itself from conflict with Israel or the US,” the analysts wrote.
Scenario four, the most disruptive, involves a protracted conflict with no diplomatic exit. The Iranian regime would suppress domestic dissent and continue hostilities, while regional security deteriorates. “This scenario might result in a long-lasting higher oil price in the range of $130–150 per barrel,” Capital Economics warned. “It could lift inflation in advanced economies by 2–2.5 percentage points by the end of 2025 and would be a major risk-off event in markets.”
In all scenarios, Capital Economics says that energy markets will bear the brunt of instability.
“The outcome of this conflict will shape regional dynamics and global market sentiment for months, if not years, to come,” they concluded.
The Israel-Iran Conflict And Turkey’s Long-Term Energy Security: A Gathering Storm – OpEd
As the Israel–Iran conflict intensifies across the Middle East, Turkey faces a new test of its long-term energy security. The war’s consequences may not yet have disrupted supply chains, but price volatility, infrastructure risks, and geopolitical uncertainty are already shaking regional markets and prompting urgent strategic reassessments in Ankara.
A Strategic Crossroads for Turkey
Turkey, an energy-import dependent country that meets nearly 72% of its energy demand through imports¹, sits at the intersection of several high-risk energy corridors. With its dual identity as a consumer and a key transit nation, Turkey’s exposure to shocks from Middle Eastern instability is profound.
The Strait of Hormuz: Choke Point Under Threat
In recent developments, Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian energy infrastructure—including the critical South Pars gas field²—prompting retaliatory missile and drone attacks by Iran. Tehran’s subsequent threats to shut down the Strait of Hormuz³, through which roughly 20% of global oil passes, have fueled anxiety in global markets.
Brent crude prices surged to $74 per barrel⁴, and although Turkey’s Energy Minister assured that current oil and gas deliveries remain stable⁵, the long-term outlook is uncertain. Turkey, while no longer heavily reliant on Iranian oil, continues to import crude from Gulf nations via the strait⁶.
Pipeline Security and Supply Disruption Risks
Key infrastructure such as the Iran–Turkey natural gas pipeline and the Kirkuk–Yumurtalık oil pipeline are vulnerable to potential sabotage or collateral damage in the conflict zone⁷. Any disruption would threaten Turkey’s power generation capabilities and industrial continuity.
Furthermore, Turkish LNG imports from Qatar and the U.S., while geographically distant from the war theatre, are susceptible to shipping and insurance costs in an escalated global conflict environment⁸.
The Economic Toll of Rising Energy Prices
Should Brent oil prices stabilize above $100/barrel, as some analysts predict⁹, Turkey’s current account deficit will widen significantly. Gas-fired electricity generation costs will rise, pushing inflation higher and potentially triggering an industrial slowdown.
A Renewed Push for Diversification and Resilience
The current crisis may accelerate Ankara’s efforts to diversify both suppliers and supply routes. Options include:
• Expanding LNG procurement from the U.S., Algeria, and Nigeria¹⁰
• Fast-tracking offshore gas development in the Eastern Mediterranean¹¹
• Increasing imports from Azerbaijan and potentially Turkmenistan through swap deals¹²
• Accelerating domestic gas production from the Black Sea¹³
Meanwhile, investments in renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass) and the commissioning of nuclear units at Akkuyu are vital for long-term energy independence¹⁴.
Storage infrastructure is also a key pillar. Facilities like Tuz Gölü and Silivri must expand, while strategic oil reserves are overdue for structural modernization¹⁵.
The Risk of Conflict Spillover into Turkey
Experts warn of proxy confrontations via Iran-backed groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, which could indirectly target Turkish interests. A resurgence of PKK or YPG activity, potentially supported by Tehran, remains a latent threat¹⁶.
Turkey’s NATO ties may also complicate matters. Should Turkish airspace be used for Israeli or U.S. operations, Iran could designate Ankara as a “hostile actor,” placing pipelines, terminals, and storage facilities at risk¹⁷.
Adding to this complexity is the humanitarian angle. Early signs of an exodus from Iranian Kurdish regions and parts of Iraq signal potential new refugee waves, increasing Turkey’s socio-economic and energy consumption burden¹⁸.
Policy Recommendations for Ankara
To navigate this strategic storm, Ankara should:
• Deepen geopolitical energy diversification
• Accelerate investments in domestic and renewable resources
• Expand gas and oil storage capacities
• Harden energy infrastructure against cyber and physical threats
• Pursue a balanced, multilateral energy diplomacy
• Integrate energy planning with border security and defense policies
Conclusion
While no energy crisis has yet fully materialized, the Israel–Iran conflict is a warning shot. Turkey must treat energy security not merely as an economic issue but as a critical dimension of national security. Long-term planning, investment, and diplomatic agility are essential to weathering the geopolitical turbulence ahead.
Dipnotes
1. International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2023, Paris, 2023.
2. Economic Times, “Israel Strikes Iran’s South Pars Field”, June 16, 2025.
3. Reuters, “Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz”, June 17, 2025.
4. Barron’s, “Oil Prices Surge on Middle East War”, June 17, 2025.
5. Reuters, “Turkey Sees No Immediate Energy Supply Issues”, June 17, 2025.
6. T.C. Energy and Natural Resources Ministry, Energy Statistics Report, 2024.
7. RAND Corporation, Iran’s Strategic Infrastructure, California, 2022.
8. BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, London, 2023.
9. Atlantic Council, Middle East Energy Forecast, Washington D.C., 2024.
10. BOTAŞ, LNG Import and Storage Strategy, 2023.
11. Atlantic Council, Eastern Mediterranean Gas and Turkey’s Future, 2022.
12. Energy Intelligence, “Turkmenistan Gas Swap Potential”, March 2025.
13. Turkish Petroleum (TPAO), Black Sea Gas Development Plan, 2024.
14. TEİAŞ, Electricity Capacity Report, 2024.
15. BOTAŞ, Natural Gas Storage Operations, 2023.
16. ORSAM, Turkey’s Border Security and Regional Threats, 2023.
17. NATO Defense College, NATO-Turkey Relations in Conflict Zones, Rome, 2022.
18. UNHCR, Türkiye and Regional Refugee Trends Report, Geneva, 2024.
References
• International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2023, Paris, 2023.
• BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2023, London, 2023.
• T.C. Energy and Natural Resources Ministry, Energy Statistics 2024, Ankara.
• BOTAŞ, Corporate Strategy Reports, 2023.
• RAND Corporation, Iran’s Energy Infrastructure Vulnerability, Santa Monica, 2022.
• Atlantic Council, Turkey’s Energy Diplomacy, Washington D.C., 2022.
• ORSAM, Middle East Security Review, Ankara, 2023.
• NATO Defense College, Southern Flank and Geopolitical Challenges, Rome, 2022.
• TEİAŞ, Electricity Generation and Investment Reports, 2024.
• UNHCR, Türkiye Refugee Movements Report, Geneva, 2024.
Haluk Direskeneli
Haluk Direskeneli, is a graduate of METU Mechanical Engineering department (1973). He worked in public, private enterprises, USA Turkish JV companies (B&W, CSWI, AEP, Entergy), in fabrication, basic and detail design, marketing, sales and project management of thermal power plants. He is currently working as freelance consultant/ energy analyst with thermal power plants basic/ detail design software expertise for private engineering companies, investors, universities and research institutions. He is a member of Chamber of Turkish Mechanical Engineers Energy Working Group.
No comments:
Post a Comment