In early 2026, amid escalating protests in Iran triggered by economic collapse and a brutal government crackdown, global powers are grappling with how to respond. The demonstrations, which began on December 28, 2025, over the plummeting value of the Iranian rial, have resulted in over 500 deaths and thousands of arrests, drawing international condemnation. While the United States has hinted at possible military action, Europe has steadfastly advocated for diplomatic and economic measures, such as new sanctions, highlighting a longstanding divide in approaches to Tehran.
Europe’s Reluctance Toward Military Intervention in Iran
Europe’s opposition to military intervention in Iran stems from a combination of historical lessons, strategic priorities, and a preference for multilateralism over unilateral force. Leaders across the continent emphasize that armed action could exacerbate instability, leading to broader regional chaos without resolving underlying issues.
One key factor is the fear that intervention would worsen the situation on the ground. For instance, external military involvement might provide the Iranian regime with a pretext to intensify its repression of protesters, rallying nationalistic support and diverting attention from domestic grievances. Instead of force, European figures advocate for balanced approaches like dialogue, raising global awareness, and applying strong economic pressure through unofficial channels to compel the government to ease its crackdown. This view draws from past experiences, such as the 2003 Iraq invasion, where foreign intervention led to prolonged conflict and unintended consequences.
Economically and geopolitically, Europe prioritizes stability in the Middle East to safeguard energy supplies, migration flows, and trade routes. Military escalation could disrupt these, potentially triggering refugee crises or oil price spikes that disproportionately affect European economies. Recent proposals focus on expanding sanctions targeting human rights abuses, nuclear activities, and Iran’s support for external conflicts, such as aiding Russia in Ukraine. Over 230 individuals and 40 entities are already under measures like asset freezes and travel bans, with new rounds being prepared in response to the ongoing deadly repression. This non-military toolkit is seen as a more responsible way to influence behavior without the risks of direct confrontation.
Furthermore, Europe’s approach reflects a commitment to international norms and alliances. Unlike more aggressive postures, it seeks to avoid actions that could undermine global institutions or provoke retaliation, viewing sanctions as a tool to isolate the regime while supporting internal calls for reform.
Key Differences in US and European Policies on Iran
The US and Europe have long diverged on Iran policy, with the US often favoring coercive measures and Europe leaning toward engagement and incentives. These differences have intensified in 2026 amid Iran’s nuclear advancements, regional proxy activities, and the current domestic unrest.
Historically, the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) exemplified this split: Europe worked to preserve elements of the agreement even after the US withdrew in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. The US prefers “sticks” like maximum pressure campaigns, including threats of military strikes, to curb Iran’s influence, while Europe advocates for “carrots” such as diplomatic negotiations to encourage compliance. In recent years, Europe has occasionally aligned more closely with US hawks, such as through “snapback” mechanisms to reinstate UN sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, partly to punish Tehran for supporting Russia and to coordinate on broader security goals.
In 2026, these contrasts are stark. The US, under renewed leadership, has escalated rhetoric, considering strikes on Iranian targets amid protests, viewing them as opportunities to weaken the regime. Europe, however, remains in a “bystander role” on nuclear issues, pushing for coordinated strategies but resisting escalation that could backfire. Factors like Europe’s dependence on US alliances sometimes make it appear subservient, yet it maintains independence by prioritizing de-escalation and multilateral sanctions over unilateral force. This divergence also reflects differing threat perceptions: the US sees Iran as a direct adversary in global power dynamics, while Europe focuses on regional stability and human rights without provoking wider conflict.
Can the US Put Boots on the Ground in Iran?
Deploying US ground troops—or “boots on the ground”—in Iran remains highly unlikely and fraught with challenges, despite discussions of military options. US leadership has explicitly stated that any potential action would avoid such commitments, opting instead for limited strikes.
Feasibility is low due to Iran’s vast size, rugged terrain, and well-equipped military, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. A ground invasion would require massive resources, potentially involving hundreds of thousands of troops, and face fierce resistance, asymmetric warfare, and guerrilla tactics. Iran has warned that any US attack would make American bases and interests “legitimate targets,” risking escalation across the region.
Politically, it’s risky: domestic skepticism in the US, including from lawmakers, highlights legal hurdles, high costs, and the potential for another prolonged Middle East quagmire. Experts note that while air and cyber operations are viable, ground forces would demand clear objectives and exit strategies, which are absent in current rhetoric. Overall, the consensus is that boots on the ground are not a realistic option without overwhelming justification and international support, which Europe is unwilling to provide.
If the US Attacks Iran, What Could Be Its Strategy?
Should the US proceed with an attack, strategies would likely emphasize precision and avoidance of ground involvement, drawing from past operations like the 2025 strikes on nuclear sites. The focus would be on degrading capabilities while minimizing US casualties.
Primary tactics could include airstrikes targeting nuclear facilities, military installations, and oil infrastructure to cripple the economy and regime’s revenue. Cyber operations would disrupt command structures, communications, and repression tools, such as internet blackouts used against protesters. Boosting online antigovernment messaging could amplify internal dissent.
A one-off or limited campaign might aim to “hit hard where it hurts,” such as interdicting oil exports or striking regime leaders, without escalating to full war. However, Iran’s retaliation risks—targeting US assets or allies—would shape planning, potentially involving allied support from Israel. Restraint is advised by some analysts, as strikes could heighten nuclear threats without eliminating them.
Will a US Attack Change the Iranian Regime?
A US attack might not achieve regime change and could even backfire, strengthening the government’s hold. While strikes could undermine repression by disrupting military capabilities, they risk uniting Iranians against external aggression, bolstering the regime’s narrative of foreign interference.
Protests alone show potential for internal change, with economic woes and shifting leadership dynamics weakening the regime. However, military action has historically led to disastrous outcomes in similar contexts, failing to install stable governments. Analysts warn that while a severe strike might topple leaders, retaliation and chaos could ensue, without guaranteeing a favorable replacement. Ultimately, regime change is more likely through sustained internal pressure than external force, which could prolong conflict.
Europe’s aversion to military intervention underscores a broader caution against escalation, contrasting with US assertiveness. Any US action would face significant hurdles and uncertain results, potentially reshaping the Middle East but at great cost. As tensions persist, diplomatic paths remain crucial for long-term stability.
