Donald Trump’s call for NATO allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz places European governments in a strategic dilemma in which their geopolitical commitments collide with their economic vulnerabilities. Their refusal to join the U.S. operation in Hormuz was a strategic calculation. Whether Europe participates or abstains may lead to similar outcomes, but at different levels of risk and cost. As the adage goes, of two evils one chooses the lesser, and this reflects Europe’s current position. Yet this strategic restraint is conditional rather than indefinite: it depends on both the duration of the conflict and the orientation and success of diplomatic efforts to end it. Should the war drag on or diplomacy fail to secure the reopening Europe expects, military involvement may ultimately become increasingly difficult for Europe to avoid.

As a lifeline for global energy markets and, by extension, for Europe’s fragile economic stability, the Strait of Hormuz is not just a maritime corridor. Its closure amid the U.S.–Israeli war with Iran has pushed Europe to a crossroads where its geopolitical posture toward Russia stands in tension with its economic priorities. The disruption reportedly prompted the Trump administration to temporarily ease sanctions on Russian oil in an effort to stabilize surging energy prices. As reported by Semafor, “high prices have boosted its revenues by $150 million a day, with Urals crude up 40% month-on-month.” Confronted with such a situation, “German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy all denounced the decision to allow the delivery and sale of Russian oil stranded at sea, which will allow the Kremlin to replenish its war chest for the ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine.” Politico Europe reported.

European leaders have been explicit about the risks. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez warned that the war in Iran risks ‘playing Russian roulette’ with the lives of millions. Under pressure from Washington to allow the use of Spanish air bases, Sánchez rejected, in a televised address, participation on the grounds that joining the operation would contradict both Spain’s interests and its broader diplomatic principles. His remarks reflect a broader European concern that involvement could deepen instability rather than limit escalation.

Given the strategic importance of Hormuz for global trade—especially for Europe and major Asian economies—Trump has urged not only European allies but also Asian partners and even China to contribute to securing the Strait. Yet, despite the stakes, Europe has chosen hesitation over alignment. Many critics have labeled their decision as a sign of weakness or described it as a direct reaction to Trump’s threat and criticism of Europe. These interpretations miss the depth of Europe’s decision, overlooking the strategic caution underlying its position. Firstly, Europe seeks to counter Russia’s influence and economic regeneration that the closure of Hormuz is fostering; secondly, it must protect its own economic stability, which depends heavily on uninterrupted energy flows through Hormuz. These competing priorities make any decision difficult.

Therefore, NATO allies’ refusal regarding Hormuz stems neither from division with the U.S. nor from Trump’s rhetoric. Although both accepting and rejecting the call carry advantages, Europe has more to lose by joining than by dismissing it amid the war. French President Emmanuel Macron has made this position clear. While declining immediate involvement in Hormuz, he emphasized that such a decision could be reconsidered “once the situation is calmer.” Speaking at a defense meeting, he stated: “France did not choose this war. We are not taking part in it. We have a purely defensive position. Our objectives are clear: to protect our nationals, our diplomatic and military sites, and our interests in the region.” Yet given France’s economic interests, as well as its geopolitical opposition to Russia over the war in Ukraine, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz is, in a way, as significant as these concerns for France. Therefore, he suggested that there is no reason to engage France—or more broadly Europe—in a war it neither initiated nor controls. This allows Europe to avoid entanglement in a conflict that could escalate further and destabilize the global economy. As for Chancellor Friedrich Merz, he stressed the legal and political constraints on European involvement, noting that Germany “lacks the mandate from the United Nations, the European Union, or NATO.” He emphasized that neither “the United States nor Israel consulted European partners prior to the conflict,” reinforcing the argument that Europe should not automatically assume responsibility for its consequences.

Europe’s position reflects a sober assessment of outcomes. Whether Europe intervenes or........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)