President Donald Trump and Israel Launch Major Strikes on Iran, Opening War With Tehran

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, President Donald Trump and Israel have launched a new joint military operation against Iran that has opened a broader war with Tehran.

“Matthias Matthijs is senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations”

Council on Foreign Relations

The CFR describes a coordinated U.S.–Israeli action in the Middle East that prompted a wide range of international responses and raised fears of a wider regional conflagration.

Council on Foreign Relations

The articles portray the strikes as a major escalation that has forced NATO partners and other Western governments to take rapid, often divided, positions toward Washington and Tel Aviv.

European governments reacted in markedly different ways: Britain initially restricted use of its Diego Garcia base but later reaffirmed U.S. access to defend allies and provide for Israel’s security; France publicly questioned the legal basis for strikes and moved naval assets to protect French interests; Germany signalled support for U.S. and Israeli goals while urging restraint.

These divergent positions — from Spain’s refusal to allow U.S. strikes from its bases to Poland’s explicit political backing — illustrate a fractured European approach that ranges from legal criticism to full strategic alignment with Washington.

Council on Foreign Relations

Legal and diplomatic tensions ran high: French and Italian officials raised concerns that strikes outside international law could undermine global stability and prompted calls for UN Security Council discussion, while Germany emphasized the security threat posed by Iran and defended cooperation with the United States.

“Matthias Matthijs is senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations”

Council on Foreign Relations

These diplomatic fault lines reflect competing priorities — legal norms and multilateral oversight versus immediate security cooperation to deter further Iranian capabilities and regional influence.

On the military side, France moved carrier and surveillance assets to protect its Camp de la Paix base in Abu Dhabi and to safeguard regional interests, while the United Kingdom, Germany, and other NATO partners debated force posture and logistical support.

The CFR notes that these asset movements and base-access decisions were intended both to defend allies and to prepare for the uncertain aftermath of a wider conflict whose trajectory remains unclear.

Council on Foreign Relations

The CFR concludes that the episode exposed a changing European posture toward the United States: after a period described as appeasement in 2025, many European governments showed both reluctance and renewed resolve — reluctant to be drawn into unilateral military action while also anxious about the security challenges posed by Iran.

“Matthias Matthijs is senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations”

Council on Foreign Relations

The material highlights deep divisions within Europe and stresses that Europe’s limited strategic weight in the immediate conflict constrains its ability to shape outcomes, leaving much of the military and diplomatic burden to the United States and Israel.

Council on Foreign Relations