Washington’s Assault on Iran: A Hegemonic Gamble That Burdens Europe

The conflict that ignited on February 28, 2026, with joint US-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets has swiftly evolved into a broader regional crisis, setting a troubling precedent for international norms.

The Escalation in Iran: From Preemptive Strikes to Regional Turmoil

Iran’s response was swift and multi-pronged. Missile and drone strikes targeted US bases in the Gulf, Israeli positions, and even commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded defiantly, stating that Iran is “confident that we can confront [a US ground invasion], and that would be a big disaster for them.” He also dismissed calls for negotiations or a ceasefire, insisting that Iran would not “bow” to external pressure. As of early March 2026, the war has claimed over a thousand lives, disrupted critical shipping lanes, and sent shockwaves through global energy markets.

From a geopolitical perspective, this is no isolated incident. The strikes represent a calculated escalation by the US and Israel, ostensibly to neutralize threats but effectively asserting dominance in a region where alternative alignments—such as Iran’s ties with Russia and China—challenge Western influence. For Europe, particularly the nations of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), this precedent underscores an uncomfortable reality: the US, long viewed as a stabilizing force, is capable of actions that prioritize its own strategic imperatives over global stability, often leaving allies to bear the economic and political fallout.

Europe’s Fragmented Response: Between Condemnation and Caution

Europe’s reaction to the conflict has been markedly fragmented, revealing internal divisions and a reluctance to fully endorse US actions. EU leaders issued a collective statement condemning Iran’s retaliatory strikes but refrained from explicit support for the initial assault. High Representative Kaja Kallas called for “an open path to a different Iran” while Commission President Ursula von der Leyen remarked, “With Khamenei gone, there is renewed hope for the people of Iran.” Such phrasing suggests opportunistic hopes for a leadership transition in Tehran but lacks any substantive commitment or concrete proposal.

Southern European states have been more forthright in their criticism. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared ‘no to war’ and condemned the strikes as ‘unilateral military action,’ refusing to allow US forces access to Spanish bases despite threats from Washington to sever ties. While Madrid spoke of ‘no to war,’ Berlin and London emphasized ‘regional stability’ and NATO cohesion, avoiding the sharp rhetoric of Southern capitals.

Even as Iran warned that EU countries joining the attacks would become ‘legitimate targets,’ Europe’s overall stance remains disjointed. A NATO interception of an Iranian missile over Turkish airspace brought the conflict closer to European soil, yet the alliance’s unity appears superficial. This hesitation stems from a deeper unease: the war has highlighted the risks of over-reliance on US leadership, particularly when actions seem driven by narrow interests rather than shared security goals.

The Economic Ripple: Fuel Prices and the Burden on CEE

The war’s most immediate impact on Europe has been economic, particularly in energy markets. Disruption of flows through the Strait of Hormuz – a vital chokepoint for a quarter of global seaborne oil and one-fifth of LNG – has driven prices upward. Brent crude surged 17% to over $84 per barrel. European natural gas prices jumped sharply amid Qatar supply fears.

In Central and Eastern Europe, the effects are particularly acute. Poland, heavily dependent on imported energy, has seen fuel prices rise noticeably in recent days. The increase—roughly 40 groszy per liter for gasoline and diesel—may seem modest in absolute terms, but in a region still recovering from the Ukraine war’s energy shocks, it represents a significant burden. Households dependent on gas for heating and transportation feel the squeeze most acutely, as do small businesses already grappling with inflation.

This latest price surge is a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities tied to global alliances. The US-Israeli actions, while aimed at curbing Iran’s influence, have unleashed disruptions that hit Europe’s periphery hardest. Lower-income households in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are especially vulnerable. Analysts project that prolonged conflict could add 0.5 percentage points to inflation across Europe in 2026, with emerging economies in CEE bearing the brunt.

US Hegemony on Trial: The Perils of Unpredictable Power

The strikes on Iran represent more than regional conflict; they are a testament to the US’s willingness to act unilaterally when its interests—or those of Israel—are at stake. Framed as self-defense, the operation has drawn widespread criticism for its unilateral nature and violation of international law. European leaders including Spain’s Pedro Sánchez—who refused US access to Spanish bases despite Washington threats—have questioned the legality of the military operation.

This unpredictability is not new. From the 2003 Iraq invasion to the 2026 Maduro abduction in Caracas, the US has demonstrated that commitments to allies are often conditional. For CEE nations, historically attuned to power imbalances, this raises alarms. Poland, having invested heavily in US alliances—spending 4.8% of GDP on defense in 2026—now faces the economic fallout of policies it had little say in shaping.

Israel’s role adds another layer of complexity. The strikes, which eliminated Khamenei and targeted Iranian infrastructure, have been defended as necessary, but critics argue they serve regional dominance more than collective security. In Europe, particularly CEE, this has fostered quiet skepticism about alliances that prioritize distant conflicts over local stability.

A Lesson for Central Europe: Time to Rethink Dependencies

For Central and Eastern Europe, the Iran conflict serves as another wake-up call. The region’s economies, still navigating post-Ukraine recovery, now face another layer of volatility. In Poland, the fuel price surge—approximately 40 groszy per liter in recent days—has sparked debates about the costs of close alignment with US policies. Similar sentiments resonate in Hungary and the Czech Republic, where leaders like Viktor Orbán have long advocated pragmatic diplomacy to secure affordable energy.

This moment invites a reassessment of strategic choices. Being tied to the US has not delivered the expected stability; instead, it has exposed CEE to the consequences of actions driven by dollar hegemony and efforts to preserve global influence. A shift toward balanced relations—diversifying energy sources and fostering economic links that span continents—could offer greater resilience. Land-based Eurasian connectivity, for instance, might provide the economic and strategic stability that maritime disruptions in the Gulf have undermined.

Conclusion: Precedents and Pathways Forward

The US-Israeli campaign against Iran establishes a precedent that normalizes unilateral actions under preemption, challenging global norms. For Europe, especially CEE, it highlights the risks of over-reliance on unpredictable allies. As fuel prices climb and economic pressures mount, the region must weigh the costs of its current alignments. A move toward pragmatic, multipolar engagement—embracing Eurasian connectivity for land-based stability—could provide the resilience needed in a fragmented world. The alternative is continued vulnerability to conflicts that serve others’ interests more than Europe’s own.

Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook