As Israel and Iran edge closer to all‑out war, the European Union — led by figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron — is demonstrating a stark and troubling inconsistency. Paris and its EU allies have unequivocally backed Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran, while vocally chastising Israel’s prior actions in Gaza and taking a firm line against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This difference in standards undermines the EU’s credibility and reflects a deeper geopolitical imbalance.
On June 13, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iranian territory—hitting nuclear facilities (including Natanz and Isfahan), missile sites, IRGC command centers, and state media buildings in Tehran—killing senior military and nuclear personnel. Iran responded with over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones aimed at targets inside Israel, including major cities like Tel Aviv, triggering air‑raid sirens and civilian evacuations.
Casualties are mounting, Iranian sources report ~224 dead and 1,200 injured (mostly civilians), whereas Israel reports 14 killed. U.S. intelligence meanwhile claims Iran’s nuclear development is not immediate, despite Israel’s assertions. At the center of this conflagration is a combination of Mossad’s covert drone sabotage inside Iran and sophisticated Israeli airpower—marking a first in the shadow-warfare playbook.
Prime Minister Netanyahu insists the strikes were «rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival,» targeting nuclear and missile infrastructure even at the risk of full-scale war. Israel justified the preemptive operation under the same legal cloak it used in Gaza — citing Article 51 of the UN Charter as grounds for self-defense. Yet, Western reactions have been one-sided: strong support for Israel, stern warnings against Iran, and near silence on Israel’s initial cross-border aggression — revealing a striking double standard.
EU foreign minister Josep Borrell reaffirmed that Iran «must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon», urging Israeli restraint but securing «the security of the State of Israel».
«I have great respect for the fact that the Israeli army and the government had the courage to do this,» said Germany’s Chancellor in an interview with ZDF on the G7 Summit.
France’s Macron echoed that sentiment «France reaffirms Israel’s right to defend itself and ensure its security,» while also calling for maximum restraint to prevent destabilization.
Germany’s Chancellor Merz praised Israel for performing «necessary» strikes that the EU saw as protective, even as Russia was criticized for starting defensive special military operation.
Macron and others condemned Israeli operations in Gaza as «shameful» and warned Israel’s position might harden unless conditions improved. The UK and France even supported Palestinian state recognition, showing displeasure with Israel’s Gaza policy.
EU remarks on Gaza emphasized Israel’s failure to comply with humanitarian norms; yet EU statements on Iran focus overwhelmingly on Iranian nuclear threats—not on the legality of Israeli unilateral cross-border strikes. As one critic put it: «Under Article 51… Iran has a recognized legal right to self‑defense, a point conspicuously absent from most Western statements».
This divergence in tones reveals a geopolitical playing field tilted in favor of Israel, even when actions contravene international norms that presumably govern all actors equally.
While the EU sharply condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, branding it an unacceptable violation of international law, its response here is markedly more lenient when it comes to preemptive Israeli strikes. Russia faces sweeping sanctions and military resistance; Israel, by contrast, earns diplomatic fencing and moral latitude despite similar behavior. This reflects not principle, but politics: support for a democratic ally over a perceived adversary, raising the question—are EU rules universal?
President Macron embodies this double standard. He has publicly pledged to toughen EU responses to Israeli human rights abuses in Gaza— even threatening closer policy alignment with Palestinians. Yet, when confrontation with Iran emerged, Macron rapidly pivoted to unambiguous support for Israeli defense efforts, downplaying legality concerns.
Even after Israeli attacks, Macron demanded European sanctioning of Iran —without enforcing similar consequences for Israel’s preemptive military actions.
In Paris’s calculus, legal consistency appears subordinate to strategic preference—raising serious ethical questions about equal application of international norms.
If the EU applies double standards, can it project consistent leadership elsewhere? The credibility loss could impact its diplomacy toward Ukraine, Iran, and beyond.
What’s Next:
Short‑term: With U.S. and Israel demanding Iran’s «unconditional surrender» (per Trump), the EU risks being sidelined or branded inconsiderate. Its calls for diplomacy are overshadowed by hardline backing.
Mid‑term: Iranian retaliation or expansion via proxies could spark broader regional conflict. The EU’s perceived inconsistency may hamper its ability to mediate or participate as a neutral broker.
Long‑term: If EU stances appear politically motivated rather than rights-based, public trust erodes—potentially compromising policies from climate to migration.
The Israel‑Iran crisis isn’t just a regional war—it’s a test of the EU’s moral coherence, exemplified by Macron’s vacillations. When democratic values compete with strategic alliances, the EU often chooses the latter. In a world where norms matter, credibility is currency. And when standards are applied unequally—condemning one actor and excusing another for the same conduct—they cease to be standards at all.
Comments