The conflict between Iran and Israel escalated sharply in June 2025, marked by Israeli strikes, Iranian retaliation and US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. The confrontation culminated in a 12 day war that ended with a ceasefire announced on June 24, 2025. This escalation has heightened tensions across the region and beyond, prompting the EU to reassess its role — though the bloc is often sidelined by the dominance of the United States.
The EU quickly voiced alarm as the 12 day Israel–Iran war unfolded. After Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on June 13 and Iranian missile barrages into Israel, Brussels called for restraint. On June 14, the EU high representative stated that the EU was “deeply concerned at the dangerous escalation” while reaffirming Israel’s security and urging all sides to “show restraint” and avoid steps — such as actions risking radioactive releases – that could spiral into wider war.
Despite playing a secondary role as a junior partner to the Trump administration during the crisis, Brussels attempted to provide a platform for de-escalation considering the new situation following the US strikes. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the Trump brokered ceasefire as “an important step towards restoring stability” and stressed that the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program could only be resolved through talks. Since then, the EU has aligned itself with Washington’s zero-enrichment policy on Iranian soil. However, the EU’s updated position also reflects a broader call for a comprehensive diplomatic solution — one that goes beyond the issue of enrichment to include Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities and its regional posture.
This shift in the substance of the EU’s stance has not translated into support for a military solution. Instead, it underscores continued European backing for a long-term diplomatic resolution to the crisis. The EU has adopted a clear stance favoring diplomacy and de-escalation. The EU’s message regarding US participation in the conflict was cautious. Brussels did not explicitly condemn US strikes, but EU officials clearly favored diplomacy over further military action. The European Council, in its conclusions on June 26, emphasized its commitment to peace, security and stability in the Middle East, welcoming the cessation of hostilities and urging all parties to abide by international law, show restraint and refrain from actions that could lead to further escalation. It insists that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon and must comply with its legally binding nuclear safeguard obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), reflecting concerns about Iran’s expanding nuclear program, which the EU deems is a violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provisions.
Additionally, Iran faces potentially crippling restrictions if it fails to halt its nuclear program, following the UK prime minister’s disclosure that snapback sanctions against Iran are under consideration. From the Iranian perspective, this prospect signals the end of any meaningful EU role in a future US-Iran diplomatic process aimed at resolving the nuclear issue. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned his European counterparts that triggering the snapback mechanism would be Europe’s greatest historic mistake, permanently undermining its role in the Iranian nuclear file. “You would lose your role entirely,” he reportedly told them. According to Araghchi, the European foreign ministers requested a follow-up meeting to further discuss the matter. This stance aligns closely with Iran’s longstanding strategy of dividing the Western bloc by playing a calculated “good cop, bad cop” game.
Leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and von der Leyen have called for restraint, reaffirming Israel’s right to defend itself while pleading for maximum de-escalation, as highlighted in recent diplomatic discussions. However, the EU felt “completely sidelined” during the 12 day war, with the United States taking a central role, including bombing Iranian nuclear sites and announcing the ceasefire, which marginalized European efforts.
While French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot expressed his “concern” on June 22, his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, stated that “the Americans have assumed their responsibilities in the region.” “What matters most, in my view, is that a major threat has been eliminated.… This is good news for the Middle East …but also for Europe,” said the Social Democrat, a prominent figure in the coalition government led by Friedrich Merz. The German chancellor had already remarked on the sidelines of the G7 that Israel was doing “the dirty work” of curbing the Iranian nuclear threat.
Germany’s pro-Israel stance contrasts with France’s more balanced approach and the UK’s recent critical tone, weakening the EU’s ability to act cohesively. Moreover, Germany’s opposition to suspending the EU deal with Israel, as stated on June 23, highlights these tensions. Overall, in response to Israeli intervention, the three European countries that had led efforts to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions from 2003 to 2008 — France, Germany and the UK — failed to present a unified stance.
Moreover, on June 20, the foreign ministers of the E3 and EU High Representative Kaja Kallas met with Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi in Geneva, aiming to avoid a prolonged war and relaunch diplomacy, particularly on Iran’s nuclear program. The EU activated diplomatic channels to develop a sustainable strategy on Iran’s nuclear program, including convening a swift meeting at the foreign ministerial level. However, the EU’s efforts are hampered by its inability to coordinate effectively with the United States, especially under the Trump administration, which has a different approach. According to US sources and despite Iran’s denials, Washington and Tehran may soon resume nuclear negotiations. However, neither side has shifted its stance on key issues, complicating the EU’s diplomatic efforts.
After the ceasefire, the EU’s role could involve facilitating dialogue between Iran and the United States or coordinating with other international actors to push for a peaceful resolution. The E3 has significant economic leverage and military capabilities but its direct influence on Iran and Israel’s national security remains limited. Under the first Trump administration, EU efforts to revive the JCPOA without US support failed, and coordination with the current Trump administration is even more challenging. The EU’s role appears to be primarily diplomatic, focusing on de-escalation and negotiation. It aims to contribute to reducing tensions and finding a lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations. A strategy that proves more effective when Democratic administrations are in power in Washington.
Eventually, Iran’s decision to prevent inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from operating in the country will complicate the prospects for any nuclear agreement based on verification. Nevertheless, even though the key decisions to reverse this nuclear diplomatic standoff lie in Washington, the EU could still play an intermediary role once the issue of the snapback mechanism is resolved. Indeed, the snapback clause in the JCPOA is set to expire in October 2025. In other words, the potential activation of this clause by France or the UK remains crucial in determining the EU’s future role in the diplomatic process aimed at resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. In any scenario, if the EU wishes to play a more substantial role, it will need to overcome its internal differences and coordinate effectively with Washington — a daunting challenge under the current circumstances.
