The Strait of Hormuz has become the latest point of friction between Europe and the USA, after EU foreign ministers made clear on Monday, 16 March, that there is no support at this stage for sending European forces to help Washington reopen the strategic waterway during the war with Iran. The message from Brussels was blunt: Europe wants de-escalation, not a direct role in a conflict it did not start.
Why Europe is refusing a military role in Hormuz
The clearest message came from EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who said after the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels that “this is not Europe’s war” and that Europe has “no interest in an open-ended war.” She added that member states had “no appetite” for changing the mandate of Operation Aspides, the EU naval mission in the Red Sea, so that it would cover the Strait of Hormuz.
That does not mean the EU is ignoring the risk. Kallas said restarting shipments of food, fertilisers and energy through the strait is an urgent priority, and she confirmed that ministers discussed ways to better protect shipping. But the political line was clear: for now, governments do not want to send European naval forces into an active war zone without a defined end goal.
That caution was echoed by several national leaders and ministers. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin would not take part in the war against Iran, arguing that Germany lacks a mandate from the UN, the EU or NATO. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius was even more direct, asking what a few European frigates could do that the USA Navy cannot, before adding:
“This is not our war, we have not started it.”
What European leaders said about Trump’s request
Across Europe, the response was broadly similar, even if not identical in tone. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK would not be “drawn into the wider Iran war”, while still working with allies on what he called a credible plan to reopen shipping. He also stressed that any such effort would not be a NATO mission.
In Italy, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said diplomacy remained the right path and noted that Italy had no naval mission that could simply be extended to Hormuz. Spain also ruled out taking part in military operations there. Greece, which leads Aspides, said it would keep its military role limited to the Red Sea.
Denmark offered the main nuance inside Europe. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said Europe should keep an open mind about contributing to freedom of navigation, especially given Denmark’s role as a major maritime country, but only with a view towards de-escalation. In other words, even one of the more flexible European voices did not endorse joining the current war.
Why the Strait of Hormuz matters for Europe’s economy
Europe’s refusal is not based on indifference. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints, and the disruption has already raised concerns over oil, gas and fertiliser flows. Reuters reported that the waterway normally carries around a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas traffic, making any prolonged closure a direct economic risk for Europe and for countries across Asia and Africa.
That is why the EU is trying to separate two issues that Washington has increasingly merged: protecting navigation and joining the war effort. Kallas said Europe’s interests are directly at stake, but she also argued that maritime safety cannot be secured by military means alone while the war is still expanding. Her remarks suggested that Brussels sees diplomacy, contact with regional actors and a broader political understanding with Iran as necessary conditions for any lasting reopening of the route.
This distinction matters politically. European governments are not saying that freedom of navigation in the Gulf is irrelevant. They are saying that sending ships now, without a shared political strategy and while bombing continues, would risk making Europe a co-belligerent.
A wider transatlantic rift is shaping the response
The Hormuz dispute also reveals a broader shift in Europe’s relationship with Washington. Trump has framed the issue in alliance terms, warning that a refusal to help could have consequences for NATO. Yet that pressure appears to have had limited effect.
Part of the reason is immediate: several European governments say they were not consulted before the war began and still do not know what the final objective is. But part of it is also structural. Trust in the USA has weakened across Europe after months of pressure on NATO allies, disputes over trade and growing uncertainty over Washington’s long-term reliability.
That wider mood was visible even outside the Hormuz debate. At the Nordic-Canadian leaders’ meeting in Oslo on 15 March, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said “the old world order is gone and will probably not come back,” a remark that captured how many European governments now see the transatlantic relationship: still important, but no longer politically automatic.
For now, the European position is therefore a conditional no. The EU wants the Strait of Hormuz reopened, and some governments may still support measures linked to maritime security later on. But without a clearer plan from Washington, and without signs of de-escalation, Europe is not prepared to enter a war that its leaders insist is not theirs.
