strikeJul 20, 2026

AMB. GORDON SONDLAND: Europe can’t condemn Iran, then complain when Trump finally acts to stop it

Summary

European leaders have spent years warning that Iran must never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon. They have condemned Tehran’s ballistic-missile program, its financing of terrorism, its use of proxy forces, its attacks on commercial shipping and its serial violations of international agreements. TRUMP'S 60-DAY IRAN DEAL REACHES HALFWAY MARK AS CEASEFIRE COLLAPSES INTO ESCALATING WAR Yet when President Trump concluded that the threat required military action, much of Europe’s response focused not on Iran’s conduct, but on whether European capitals had been sufficiently consulted. That complaint is difficult to take seriously. European governments were not ignorant of the intelligence picture. Their intelligence services have followed Iran’s nuclear program, missile development, terrorist networks and regional proxies for decades. They have reviewed the same broad threat assessments, watched the same enrichment trends and issued many of the same warnings. MACRON UNDER FIRE OVER IRAN, HEZBOLLAH POLICY AS TRUMP ADMIN HOSTS ISRAEL-LEBANON TALKS They may not have possessed every piece of operational intelligence available to the president, but they understood the direction of travel. They knew the danger was growing. They also knew that, eventually, someone would have to act. Europe’s preferred strategy was to play ostrich: acknowledge the threat, avoid the hard decision, wait for the U.S. to take the lead, and then feign surprise at the result. That arrangement is politically convenient. It allows European leaders to benefit from American power while distancing themselves from its use. Washington absorbs the military risk and political criticism. Europe preserves its diplomatic posture and complains about process. AMERICANS ARE NOT GIVING UP ON NATO, BUT THEY EXPECT EUROPE TO DO ITS SHARE But Europe cannot have it both ways. If Iran is a common threat to the democratic world, as European leaders have repeatedly said, then confronting it cannot remain principally an American responsibility. Europe cannot rely on U.S. military power, criticize Washington for acting, and then expect to enjoy the security benefits of the action without accepting any of the burdens. This is not merely President Trump’s war, nor is it solely America’s problem. It is a conflict involving the security of the Western world. Iran’s leaders do not regard the dispute as one between Tehran and Washington alone. They view the U.S., Europe and Israel as parts of the same hostile political and cultural bloc. Iranian intelligence operations have reached European soil. Iranian-backed groups have threatened European citizens and interests. Iranian missiles increasingly place European territory within range. European economies depend on maritime trade routes that Tehran has repeatedly threatened to disrupt. Europe cannot plausibly believe that by doing little more than it is doing today, Iran will somehow spare it. Passivity is not neutrality, and it does not purchase immunity. Tehran is unlikely to distinguish between an American adversary and a European government that quietly benefits from American protection. A regime prepared to use terrorism, hostage-taking, maritime coercion and proxy warfare will not reward European hesitation with safety. The most important contribution Europe can make now does not require firing a shot or spending another euro. It requires political unity. There should be no public daylight between the U.S. and its principal European allies over the strategic objectives. Tactical disagreements are inevitable and can be addressed privately. But public equivocation, procedural complaints and ritual calls for "restraint by all sides" are interpreted in Tehran as evidence that the Western alliance can be divided. That perception encourages Iran to wait out the pressure, manipulate European governments and bet that Atlantic unity will eventually collapse. The greatest strategic gift the West could give Tehran is the appearance of division. The greatest deterrent it can present is the opposite. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer should state clearly that the U.S. and Europe share the same objectives and will remain aligned until they are achieved. Those objectives must extend beyond the nuclear issue. Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is essential. But ending Iran’s reliance on proxy armies is equally important. For decades, Tehran has used Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, Iraqi militias and other armed groups to attack adversaries while maintaining a thin layer of deniability. Proxy warfare has allowed Iran to impose enormous costs on the region without accepting the consequences of conventional state aggression. A strategy that addresses nuclear weapons while permitting Iran’s proxy network to remain intact would solve only half the problem. Tehran could continue destabilizing neighboring countries, attacking shipping, threatening Israel, striking American forces and intimidating European governments without possessing a nuclear bomb. The proper Western objective should therefore be straightforward: no nuclear weapon and no Iranian-controlled proxy network operating with impunity. Europe’s first responsibility is to support that objective publicly and without qualification. Its second is to provide practical assistance. European governments should make allied bases fully available, without political caveats designed for domestic consumption. They should expand intelligence sharing, logistics support, missile-defense cooperation and maritime surveillance. European navies can provide minesweepers, escort vessels, patrol aircraft and other capabilities needed to protect international shipping. Freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is not an American charity project. It is an economic necessity for Europe. European manufacturers, consumers and energy markets all depend on stable global commerce. If Iran can mine waterways, seize vessels or manipulate energy prices without a united response, Europeans will bear a substantial share of the cost. Countries that deny access to bases or obstruct allied operations should face political consequences. Spain, in particular, should not be permitted to benefit from the protection of the Atlantic alliance while frustrating efforts directed at a common threat. Alliance membership entails obligations, not merely benefits. This is the broader meaning of burden-sharing. President Trump has long argued that Europe must assume more responsibility for its defense. The debate has usually centered on military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. But burden-sharing is not simply an accounting exercise. It also means standing with the U.S. when common security interests require difficult action. For generations, Americans have accepted extraordinary commitments to protect Europe. They have stationed troops on the continent, maintained nuclear deterrence, funded military infrastructure and repeatedly made clear that an attack on Europe would be treated as an attack on the U.S. Reciprocity demands more than gratitude. It demands solidarity when America confronts a threat that Europe itself has repeatedly identified. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION Critics will argue that stronger European support risks escalation. But the opposite is at least as likely. Weakness, hesitation and division invite miscalculation. They encourage authoritarian governments to believe that democracies lack the will to defend their stated interests. Deterrence works when an adversary believes its opponents possess both the capacity and the unity to act. For too long, Europe has attempted to separate diplomacy from power. It has treated negotiation as an alternative to leverage rather than as a means of employing it. The result has been years of agreements, sanctions relief, diplomatic outreach and warnings, while Iran continued enriching uranium, improving missiles and expanding its proxy apparatus. Diplomacy remains necessary. But diplomacy unsupported by credible force becomes little more than managed delay. No responsible leader should welcome war with Iran. The objective should not be permanent conflict or regime-change adventurism. It should be to destroy the capabilities that threaten the West and restore deterrence on terms Tehran understands. Europe has already concluded that Iran poses an unacceptable danger. Its leaders have said so for years. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP The question is no longer whether Europe understands the threat. It is whether Europe is finally prepared to act as though it does.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxy

Sources

Gordon SondlandBy Gordon Sondland
European leaders have spent years warning that Iran must never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon. They have condemned Tehran’s ballistic-missile program, its financing of terrorism, its use of proxy forces, its attacks on commercial shipping and its serial violations of in…

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy

UK ‘ready to defend itself’ after Iranian threat over US bases

○ 1 source

The government has said the UK is “ready to defend itself” after Iran’s military warned that any bases being used by the US were “legitimate targets”. The UK has allowed the US to launch “defensive” operations from British bases hosting American planes since the start of its war on Iran but has refused to help in offensive operations.

That policy has not been altered by the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, who was notified last week that a decision had been made to extend the agreement with the US. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Thursday that “any base used for aggression against Iranian territory constitutes a legitimate target for our forces”.

In a statement published on the IRGC-linked Tasnim news agency, the group said American bombing missions had been launched from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire two days earlier. The statement came after the US carried out a 12th consecutive night of strikes against targets in Iran.

The Ministry of Defence has not commented on whether Fairford was used by the US for operations against Iran this week. The IRGC also accused the “British monarchy regime” of causing being the “primary cause of hardships in our region with a black record of partitioning Islamic nations, widespread massacres, imposing despotic regimes, and organising the occupation of Palestine”.

It warned the government “not to weigh down its record any further”. A spokesperson for the British government said: “Our armed forces are ready to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks, whether it’s on our soil or from abroad. The UK stands ready 24/7 to defend itself.

“This includes through operating a layered approach to air and missile defence, provided by Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force assets equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, working closely with our Nato allies. “We are committed to defending our people, our interests and our allies, acting in accordance with international law and not getting drawn into the wider conflict.

” On 1 March a drone struck the RAF base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, hitting a hangar, and prompting a partial evacuation of the facility. On 19 March, Iran fired two ballistic missiles at the UK’s Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands. One reportedly failed mid-flight, while the other was shot down by a US airship.

Iran has launched strikes against countries in the Gulf that house US military bases, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, killing American service personnel in some of the attacks. Donald Trump said Iran would “pay a big price” for killing US troops.

On Thursday afternoon, the US president said he was considering ordering a “massive attack” on Iran. “I am close to making a decision,” he told Axios. “We’re all set for it.” He said he believed Iran’s leaders “want to negotiate”, but aren’t yet ready to make a deal.

In another sign of the conflict potentially escalating, Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels said they attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea on Thursday, as oil topped $100 a barrel.

Hayden Vernon

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxyRussia

Oil Prices Soar as US-Iran Conflict Expands to Red Sea

○ 1 source

September WTI crude oil (CLU26) on Thursday closed up +5.36 (+6.17%), and September RBOB gasoline (RBU26) closed up +0.0793 (+2.44%). WTI crude oil prices (CLU26) rallied more than +6% on Thursday after the Iran-backed Houthis launched a missile and drone attack on two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Red Sea, expanding the oil disruptions beyond the Strait of Hormuz and threatening oil shipments in the Red Sea.

Sep Brent crude oil prices (CBU26) on Thursday rallied above $100 per barrel for the first time since May. President Trump said in an interview with Axios on Thursday that he is considering a “massive attack” that would be “bigger than ever before” and is “close to making a decision on it.

”Don’t Miss a Day: From crude oil to coffee, sign up free for Barchart’s best-in-class commodity analysis. The Houthis have vowed to blockade shipping linked to Saudi Arabia and warned shipowners against calling at the nation's ports. The move threatens Saudi oil exports from Yanbu, a Red Sea hub that the Saudi's are using to ship crude since the war brought shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to a near halt.

Meanwhile, the US and Iran exchanged attacks for the 12th straight day, and the US maintained its blockade of Iranian oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. Global crude oil supplies are tightening due to reduced flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The International Maritime Organization warned last Wednesday that it is too dangerous to cross the Strait of Hormuz at the moment, and visible transit through the strait has fallen sharply as Iran continues targeting tankers attempting to transit it.

Crude prices also have support as Ukraine intensifies drone attacks on Russian oil infrastructure. Russian crude production fell to 8.928 million bpd in June, the lowest in 2.5 years, according to monthly OPEC data. According to EA Analytics, Russian crude-processing rates will average 3.

51 million bpd in July, the lowest in 24 years, amid damage to Russian energy infrastructure caused by drone and missile attacks from Ukraine. According to Bloomberg, Ukrainian forces have attacked Russian fuel-producing facilities more than 50 times this year, hitting at least 24 of Russia’s 34 largest refineries.

As of the end of June, around 90% of Russian regions have imposed some form of fuel rationing or reported supply issues, as refining capacity has plunged following damage to facilities. The strikes have deepened a nationwide gasoline shortage, with several major refineries shut down and the government banning almost all gasoline, jet fuel and diesel exports.

Russia is the world’s number two diesel exporter, after the US, according to Vortexa. Stronger Russian crude exports are also adding to global oil supplies, which is bearish for prices. Data compiled by Bloomberg show the four-week average of Russian crude exports rose to 4.

13 million bpd through June 28, the highest since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Russia may be boosting its crude exports as the country’s refining capacity has plunged due to damage at its refining facilities from Ukraine drone and missile attacks.

The outlook for higher US crude output is negative for oil prices. The Department of Energy (DOE) on July 7 raised its US 2026 crude production estimate to 13.78 million bpd from a June estimate of 13.72 million bpd. As a bearish factor for crude, OPEC delegates said on May 14 that the cartel aims to continue a series of oil quota increases over the next few months, completing the return of halted oil production by the end of September.

The group already formally agreed to restore about two-thirds of the 1.65 million bpd supply cutback it made back in 2023 and said it plans to raise output targets further and to revive the final portion in three more monthly stages. On July 5, OPEC+ said it will boost its crude output by 188,000 bpd in August, though that increase might prove difficult due to revived US-Iran military attacks in the region.

OPEC’s June crude production rose by +2.34 million bpd to 18.75 million bpd. Vortexa reported on Monday that crude oil stored on tankers that have been stationary for at least 7 days rose +31% w/w to 90.03 million bbl in the week ended July 17. Wednesday’s weekly EIA report was mostly negative for crude oil and products.

EIA crude inventories unexpectedly rose +2.01 million bbl versus expectations of a -1.95 million bbl decline. Also, EIA gasoline supplies rose by +765,000 bbl versus expectations of a -1.9 million bbl decline. In addition, EIA distillate stockpiles rose by +1.

4 million bbl, a larger build than expectations of +825,000 bbl. On the positive side, crude supplies at Cushing, the delivery point for WTI futures, fell -624,000 bbl. Wednesday’s EIA report showed that (1) US crude oil inventories as of July 17 were -5.

3% below the seasonal 5-year average, (2) gasoline inventories were -7.1% below the seasonal 5-year average, and (3) distillate inventories were -9.6% below the 5-year seasonal average. US crude oil production in the week ending July 17 fell -0.5% w/w to 13.

798 million bpd, just below the record high of 13.862 million bpd posted in the week of November 7. Baker Hughes reported last Friday that the number of active US oil rigs in the week ended July 17 rose by +7 to a 13-month high of 452 rigs, up from the 4.

25-year low of 406 rigs posted in December 2025. However, the number of US oil rigs remains sharply below the 5.5-year high of 627 reported in December 2022. On the date of publication, Rich Asplund did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article.

All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. For more information please view the Barchart Disclosure Policy here. The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Barchart

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran

IDF to deal 'crushing blow' to Iran, if it attacks Israel — Ynet

○ 1 source

TEL AVIV, July 23. /TASS/. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will deal "a crushing blow" to Iran, if it attacks the Jewish state, Defense Minister Israel Katz warned, according to the Ynet portal. "We are ready for any development of events. If Iran attacks Israel, we will deal a crushing blow," he said.

Earlier on Thursday, US President Donald Trump said that he was considering carrying out a massive attack on Iran, and the strikes would be harder than before. According to the American leader, Israel will "join the attack in two minutes" if requested by the United States.

However, he added that Washington "does not need anyone" to launch a new military operation. Trump did not specify a deadline for making a decision. The United States and Israel started a war with Iran on February 28. In June, Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding providing for an immediate cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

However, on the night of July 8, the United States resumed large-scale strikes against Iran, accusing it of violating the terms of the agreements regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

CurrentsAPI

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran

UK 'ready to defend itself' after Iran says bases are 'legitimate targets'

○ 1 source

The British government stated that it stands ready to defend itself following Iranian comments designating UK bases hosting US forces as legitimate targets in response to US military strikes on Iran. Iranian officials described the UK as an accomplice to US operations, while UK policy has allowed US use of bases such as RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia for what the UK has termed defensive purposes.

Permissions for this arrangement, first granted in March, were extended under the current UK government.

Location: Iran

Sean Seddon