I realise the venting at Europe is cathartic, but I'd like to inject a little reality into the discussion: Europe's response to this war has absolutely nothing to do with its muslim population. For several reasons. It also has nothing to do with Trump or the left. Nor is it spite against the US, or wanting to free-ride off of it. As a person from a European country I can say there are real, strategic reasons stemming from national interests for why European countries would not want to join in with bombing Iran. I will outline them, but let me be clear, this is not what I personally think about the war, it is just reasons why Europe specifically would not want to get involved too much.
Why Islam doesn't matter here:
Firstly, and here I am defining Europe as all European countries with a majority of their territory located in the European continent (so excluding Russia, Turkey, Kazahkstan, Georgia and Azerbaijan), the muslim population is about 5% of the total population of Europe. Most of them concentrated in a few big cities in the most wealthy and urbanised nations, with the exception of the Balkan states where widespread indigenous muslim communities exist. I understand this will be hard for people with a particular mental picture of Europe to accept, but it is simply not the case that this 5% muslim population is electorally significant. It is in some specific constituencies, but in national elections, or EU elections, who or what muslims are voting for does not matter. The remaining 95% of the electorate has, as you would expect, the prevailing say in what the policy agenda is going to be focused on.
The fact that France is about 10% muslim and the UK is about 6% muslim does not make France 4% more likely to do what muslims want. The fact that Europe is about 5% muslim and the US is about 1% muslim does not make Europe five times more likely to do what muslims want. In all cases the relatively small muslim population is by itself politically irrelevant. It only manages to influence policy by aligning with other, larger groups where there is a shared policy goal. One example would be aligning with the left to oppose Israel's bombing of Gaza, where there is a shared view of sympathy with the Palestinians, for the same (humanitarian) and different (religious) reasons. Other cases would be aligning with right-wing Christians to oppose issues like gay marriage or abortion, where there is a shared religious opposition. But they can only ever be a small part of a larger coalition.
Secondly, there is also the fact that the current Iran War is not a war against Islam. It is a war against a Shia theocracy which only has significance to Shia muslims. The vast majority of muslims in Europe are Sunni muslims. They despise Shia Islam and the Iranian regime in particular. Most muslims in the world view the Iranian Islamic revolution, which is intended to be a global Shia revolution, as a threat to "real" (Sunni) Islam. Furthermore, they are not exactly happy to see this Shia regime firing rockets and drones against the Sunni countries in the Gulf. Since most European muslims are Sunni, they would absolutely love to see the Iranian regime be destroyed. It weakens Shia influence in the world and would be a liberation for the Sunni minorities (5-10% of the population) who are oppressed in Iran. Iran's regime is their religious enemy, not their muslim "brothers".
What actually does matter here:
Europe has real, tangible reasons to be wary of this war with regards to actual national and broader European interests. The most obvious one is economic - before this war started, oil was flowing freely. After this war started, oil flows are threatened and prices are rising. Europe is both more economically and more politically vulnerable to these price spikes than the US is. We've just had two major crises - the Covid Pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine War - which have damaged growth and caused major inflation. And that has ruffled European politics, which is inherently more unstable than US politics is, because of different voting systems and a more diverse political landscape across the continent compared to America. From Europe's perspective, it is as though we have just gotten over a nasty cold, and the US is now carelessly coughing flu germs in our face.
There are geopolitical considerations as well. Iran is not really viewed as a direct threat to European security. At the very least, it is not high on the threat priority list. Russia is currently the top security concern in Europe. If this Iran War serves to strengthen Russia by diverting air defences from Ukraine and putting more money in the Kremlin's treasury from oil sales, then that is not a desirable strategic trade-off from the European perspective, even if weakening Iran would in a vacuum be desirable for Europe. So it's not that European governments don't want to see the Iranian regime fall - they almost certainly do - they just have other security priorities which could be undermined at the moment.
Then there is the US relationship. The US has made it clear they want to focus on other parts of the world, and for Europe to focus on its own neighbourhood. They've also annoyed Europe with the whole Greenland thing. This new relationship requires a decoupling from US strategic action. And this is not unilateral, it is a mutual thing that was initiated by Trump. It stands to reason that if the US will do less in Europe's sphere of influence, Europe will do less in America's sphere of influence. Europe believes it has a vital interest in Ukraine - the US does not. The US believes it has a vital interest in Iran - Europe does not. So Europe is focusing on Ukraine and the US is focusing on Iran. This is exactly what America has proclaimed that it wants from the European relationship, and it's why they did not even ask Europe to join the US-Israeli strikes in the first place.
Lastly, two further relevant details - Europe has large numbers of citizens living in the Gulf states. The UK alone has over 300,000 expats living there. It does cause a headache for them when said expats start getting bombed because a war has broken out. There are also concerns surrounding international law. I know international law as a concept has become a bit of a joke, but European countries remain wedded to the idea because, as smaller states, they benefit from a rules-based system existing. So if any country, be it Russia or America, undermines that concept, it can make them nervous. Of course that is not always the case (UK, Spain and Poland were happy to ignore international law during the 2003 Iraq War). It is also not entirely clear if this war is actually illegal (I personally think a strong legal case in favour can be made given how Iran has behaved with its proxies and nuclear program).
That's the governmental reasoning, anyway. For your average man on the street, wariness stems from the following:
- Prices are going up.
- It's not our war.
- Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya were disasters.
- Iran is not a threat to us.
- Russia is more important.
- What even is an "Iran"?
In short, ordinary people are soured on Middle East wars, worried about Russia, and worried about the cost of living. I don't think Iran was on anyone's mind before this started. I'm sure there are plenty of deranged libtards seething at Orange Hitler too but, this is Europe, not America, and Trump is not at the forefront of everyone's minds here.
Some additional points:
Before people jump down my throat, I am not saying that Europe doesn't have a problem with muslims, or that such problems are not getting worse, or that muslims cannot be relevant in a political dispute in a European country. Islam is a big problem in Europe and if anything people should be more concerned about it. It's just not remotely accurate to suggest that Europe having muslims in it is dictating European foreign policy. At least not today, and certainly not on this specific issue. There are far too few of them and the Shia vs Sunni aspect complicates it further. The problem with muslims at the moment is crime and terrorism, not political influence. We are not there yet, and let's hope we never get to that point.
I also want to be clear that Europe does have reasons to support the war and could stand to benefit from the outcome, assuming the outcome goes our way. Every European would agree that a democratic secular Iran with friendly relations with the West would be good for us. We would all agree that the current regime is abhorrent and an enemy. The complicating factor is that although an enemy, Iran was also viewed as weak and therefore manageable. War however is chaotic, risky and imposes consequences no one wants to deal with. So the question is not so much, this war = good or bad? It's more like, this war = worth it or another mess about to unfold? Leaders care mostly about stability and the oil flowing.
Europe was also frazzled; the different interests at play seem to have confused the European response. Most European countries have given an official response to the war of "we hate the Iranian regime, and we want this war to end quickly". Which is probably an accurate statement. Some were more supportive, some more hesitant. I imagine most European leaders are hoping for a US victory, but a swift one, so we can get a friendly Iranian regime and a resumption of normal shipping flow. Hesitation to allow the use of bases was likely due to a concern of entanglement; Europeans don't want to be drawn into a war they don't need when there is a war ongoing in Europe (Ukraine) against a more important threat (Russia).
Europe has been willing to help in some ways as the conflict has grown. When Iran decided to chimp out and fire missiles at everyone around them, including UK sovereign bases on Cyprus via their proxy Hezbollah, Europe sent warships, fighter jets, AA systems and technical personnel to help with the air defence operation in the Gulf. They have since shot down many Iranian drones and missiles. This helps the US since it frees up their own resources to focus on striking targets in Iran. European bases are now also being permitted for US forces to strike from; in the UK context the wording was "the US can use our bases to defensively strike at Iranian launchers" (this is legal loophole language, the US is being given a greenlight to do whatever it wants). Intelligence sharing has also increased to assist the US operation.
Final point:
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance taking place in some people's heads here. On the one hand, Europe is useless and we don't need their help. On the other, we actually do want their help but Europe is being selfish. Furthermore, people think that Europe and America have been too focused on European affairs (such as Ukraine), and this is unfair for America, so America should focus on its own interests and Europe do likewise. Which is actually a reasonable position with plenty of merit. But then when America pursues its interests (Iran) and Europe pursues its interests (Ukraine), now suddenly we need the old alliance back in action and if America goes to war with some random sand people country, Europe needs to go with them, otherwise they are "bad allies". Even though separate strategic focuses for each half of the alliance was America's idea.
I think if we really are going to have this new direction for the Western alliance, where Europe focuses on Russia and the US focuses on China and the oil states, then fine, let's do that. But if so can we really commit to it, and not backtrack immediately? And not cry about who is doing what? The US doesn't even need Europe for this job. Western allies pursuing their own operational priorities is nothing new. The US opposed the UK-France Suez operation. It did not send troops to help the UK liberate the Falklands, nor did it aid France in Algeria. The UK did not send troops to Vietnam and France did not help invade Iraq. And this did not always mean the reluctant ally did not support the overall goal of the mission. There comes a point where it feels like the frustration towards Europe is not born of strategic asymmetry as much as petty grievance counting.
