Reza Zabib
Iranian Ambassador to Spain
In the early hours of February 28, the Israeli-American axis of aggression once again openly imposed, without any reason or justification, a chosen war against the people of Iran. How should this conflict be understood? Why was the option of aggressive war activated? What is really at stake? Where does Europe stand in this scenario? Who will be the ultimate victor and who the ultimate loser? In short:
Let us not forget that this same logic already led to a similar aggression in June 2025 by this same axis. Iran, demonstrating maximum restraint in its defense, ended up accepting an unofficial ceasefire to avoid further deterioration of international and regional peace and security, as well as the destabilization of the global economy. However, this positive approach led to a miscalculation among the war’s proponents in Washington and Tel Aviv, who decided to resume the conflict. The true victim of this war of aggression, even before the Iranian people -like the 168 elementary school girls in Minab- is international peace and security. Because allowing such aggression means that any nation could become the next victim. In Europe, especially after Trump’s recent threats against Europe and NATO, one has to wonder: could Denmark or Greenland be the next targets?
Was the war avoidable? From the Iranian perspective, diplomacy has always been the first, second, and third priority. That’s why it negotiated on the nuclear issue until reaching an agreement in 2015. However, in 2018, Trump withdrew from that agreement, and Europe was either unable or unwilling to fill the void. Iran, with its peace-oriented vision, remained at the negotiating table throughout Biden’s presidency, in June 2025, and again in February 2026. According to an interview the Omani Foreign Minister gave to NBC in February, an agreement was within reach. But the axis of aggression launched the wars of June 2025 and February 2026 in the midst of a diplomatic process, because its sole objective was war.
Although the aggressors have yet to offer a clear explanation for this aggression -oscillating between nuclear facilities they claimed to have destroyed in June 2025, democracy, and other shifting justifications- anyone who thinks this aggression is limited to a specific country like Iran is gravely mistaken. One need only look at the global economy: a 30% increase in the price of oil, disruptions in the supply chain, increased fertilizer prices, etc., all of which affect the lives of citizens in every corner of the planet. Undoubtedly, this is also being felt at European gas stations. Thus, two of Europe’s allies have embarked on an aggressive adventure that directly impacts the lives of European citizens, without even consulting or informing their partner.
Beyond the economic aspect, from a strategic and diplomatic perspective, one must ask: what kind of alliance is this, in which one ally initiates a war of aggression that generates enormous security and economic challenges for the other, without even informing them? Can we still speak of a transatlantic alliance? Let’s be clear: if we consider the new US national security document, this alliance has passed into history with a premature death. And this is no small matter: the European ally, left in a vacuum, continues to be pressured to participate in the war under the pretext of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, that is, to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers, its financial resources, and its security in a war of aggression, so that the aggressor ally can declare victory.
What is at stake? Are there truly common transatlantic interests? Was any European interest threatened that justified this war? The reality is that there are no common transatlantic interests at stake, nor was there any threat to Europe that warranted a war of aggression. Beyond the politicized accusations regarding human rights, the nuclear concern was not only resolved in 2015 with the agreement, but Iran, throughout the Biden administration until June 2025 and February 2026, was willing to compromise within the framework of limiting its peaceful nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of illegal sanctions- in reality, a form of economic terrorism -that have even prevented the purchase of bandages for children with rare diseases. However, the United States destroyed the agreement in 2018 and has shown no willingness to engage in a new compromise, insisting solely on the unworkable option of “unconditional surrender,” which has inevitably led to a war of aggression. Therefore, what is at stake is an intent illusory notion of saving a worn-out and declining superpower, which has chosen to do so by destroying the most fundamental norms of the international order -such as the prohibition of the threat and use of forcé- and discrediting the institutions of international relations based on law or, at least, rules, is a misguided attempt. But this strategy has produced, and will produce, nothing but the destruction of peace and security. Thus, although Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran may suffer significant damage and losses initially, the ultimate losers will be everyone.
However, much is at stake for the European Union. Public opinion has not forgotten that Brussels, after two years of genocide in Gaza, continues to witness the humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine without even being able to suspend its trade agreement with an apartheid regime whose genocide has been recognized by two international courts. At the same time, it has not only advanced -through all manner of unfounded accusations- in the demonization of the victims of illegitimate aggression, including Iran, but, in the face of the aggressions of June 2025 and February 2026 against Iran, instead of issuing even the slightest condemnation of the use of force in the form of a war of aggression, it has preferred to immediately take refuge behind the discourse of human rights and impose sanctions on dozens of Iranian institutions and officials. This may be interpreted as a gesture of symbolic affirmation, but unfortunately, it does not contribute to strengthening this entity’s position in promoting a positive influence on the course of world events or in supporting international peace and security. These are not merely elegant diplomatic formulas; as has been explained, this institution has actually failed to safeguard the interests of its citizens and member states by promoting international peace and security as common goods of humanity. But the matter does not end there. The EU, with this passive attitude, finds itself in a position where it sanctions others under the pretext of the war in Ukraine, only to wake up to discover that its Atlantic ally has suspended those same sanctions in order to avoid the devastating consequences of military aggression against Iran. In such circumstances, the European taxpayer might well wonder what has become of the credibility and effectiveness of the European institution.
It is regrettable that it has been unwilling or unable to consider repeated proposals to improve its approach to the Middle East for the benefit of its citizens and common interests. We must accept that, in today’s interconnected world, security and well-being are indivisible: either everyone benefits, or everyone loses. Modern life must be understood as a win-win situation; otherwise, it quickly becomes a losing battle. No one is perfect, and no one has the right to lecture, but shared prosperity requires interaction, because demonization -which leads to confrontation and war- brings nothing but collective defeat and jeopardizes peace, security, and well-being.
