Experts: Europe refuses to engage in a 'ground adventure' against Iran and fears energy and migration repercussions

Experts in international and political affairs believe that European capitals will not be drawn into any direct ground confrontation against Iran, despite the increasing pressure exerted by the administration of US President Donald Trump. This assessment comes at a sensitive time with the approaching deadline set by Trump for Tehran regarding the Strait of Hormuz, amidst fears of a military escalation that could go beyond airstrikes to a ground intervention.

Professor and researcher at the Sorbonne University, Mohamed Hneid, explained that there is a categorical European rejection of participating in what he described as 'the unilateral American adventure'. He pointed out that some countries have taken strict sovereign stances by refusing to allow their airspace to be used for the passage of military aircraft or to carry out landing operations, expressing their unwillingness to engage in a conflict in whose details they were not consulted.

Hneid considered that the deteriorating economic situation in the old continent, and the depletion of resources in the Russian-Ukrainian war, makes it impossible for Europe to open a new front. European countries believe that their interest lies in stopping current wars and addressing their internal problems, such as the rise of the far-right and fierce trade competition with China and the United States.

In the context of analyzing American policy, Hneid pointed out that Washington has historically involved its NATO allies in its ground wars to reduce human and material costs on itself. He cited what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where allies bore the consequences of military interventions that were primarily aimed at strengthening American hegemony over resources and international decision-making.

Regarding economic threats, the researcher noted that Trump's attempts to entice Europe by controlling Iranian oil on 'Kharg' island will not succeed in changing the European position. Trade relations between the two sides are already strained due to the tariffs imposed by Trump, and any military escalation will inevitably lead to a cut in energy supplies and an exacerbation of the living crisis in Europe.

For his part, the former advisor to the Tunisian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Manar Mohamed Al-Skandrani, affirmed that Europe has learned lessons from its bitter past experiences with American administrations. He explained that Europeans feel that Washington abandons them as soon as its interests are achieved, and sometimes even blames them for failures, as is currently happening in the Ukrainian file.

Al-Skandrani noted the radical shift in American decision-making during the Trump era, where it moved from a cumulative institutional framework to an erratic individual decision. This shift makes it difficult for European countries, which rely on established institutions and strict international law, to follow a leadership whose next steps or ultimate goals cannot be predicted.

Al-Skandrani warned that any ground war on Iran would open the doors to regional chaos wide open, leading to unprecedented waves of migration towards European shores. He considered that geography imposes a different reality on Europe than the distant United States, as any disturbance in the Middle East immediately reflects on the security and stability of the old continent.

Regarding the Israeli role, the former advisor pointed out that Tel Aviv seeks to dismantle major regional powers such as Iran, Turkey, and Egypt to impose its full hegemony. He believes that the 'Greater Israel' project does not require direct geographical occupation as much as it requires transforming surrounding countries into weak and warring entities, which Europe realizes the danger of to its interests with the Arab world.

Al-Skandrani stressed that the battle with Iran is not only military, but an existential battle related to global energy security and the vital Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption in navigation in this strait would mean an economic catastrophe for Europe, which is already suffering from an unprecedented energy crisis, making participation in the war a completely irrational step.

He explained that the current European position is not due to military weakness, but rather a precise rational calculation of supreme strategic interests. Europe realizes that being drawn behind the American-Israeli vision at this time would mean economic and political suicide, especially in light of the existing tensions with Russia on its eastern borders.

Experts also pointed out that lobbies associated with major companies may try to pressure some European governments, but political elites have begun to realize the extent of the damage. Absolute support for American projects no longer benefits European peoples, but rather increases their isolation and exacerbates their internal and social crises.

The analysis concluded that the geographical and political gap between Washington and Brussels is widening regarding the Iranian file, as Europe sees diplomacy and de-escalation as the only way to maintain its security. In contrast, the American administration continues to pressure through the language of threats and sanctions, which puts the historical alliance between the two sides of the Atlantic to a real and unprecedented test.

Finally, the question remains about Europe's ability to withstand these pressures if the spark of confrontation actually ignites. However, current indicators confirm that the major capitals of the continent will not provide a 'blank check' for any ground military action that could end in a humanitarian and economic catastrophe for which only the European peoples will pay the price.

Europe realizes that this war is not its war, it has no stake in it, and entering a conflict of this magnitude does not serve its strategic interests.