donderdag 2 april 2026

Weak and pathetic’: why is the EU not using its leverage to stop Israel?

 


‘Weak and pathetic’: why is the EU not using its leverage to stop Israel?

Deep divisions on Israel mean the union has failed to act over Lebanon, Gaza, or settler violence in the West Bank

T

he human costs of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon were plain to see when the Irish MEP Barry Andrews visited Beirut last month. He met people who had fled Israeli airstrikes and complied with evacuation orders in southern Lebanon.

At makeshift shelters – converted schools – conditions were even worse than during Israel’s last incursion in 2024, he was told. “There are dirty mattresses, dirty blankets, [people] are getting infections, they are getting rashes,” he said recalling a picture of misery compounded by swingeing aid budget cuts.

Andrews, who chairs the parliament’s development committee, was in Lebanon two weeks after Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, fired rockets into Israel, triggering massive retaliatory strikes by Israeli forces.

On his return from Lebanon, Andrews was one of the first European lawmakers to call for the EU to revive sanctions against Israel. He believes the EU must respond to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, but also state-backed settler violence in the West Bank, attacks on health workers in Gaza, and Israel’s potential reinstatement of the death penalty against Palestinians after a vote in the Knesset this week.

A mother holds her newborn child in a school now used as a temporary shelter for displaced people in Beirut, Lebanon. Photograph: Emilie Madi/Reuters

Yet, one month into the Iran war, the EU – one of Israel’s closest allies and most important economic partners – has not gone beyond words in an attempt to sway Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Critics say the EU can and should use its economic and diplomatic leverage. Andrews said: “When the European Union takes a principled stand on these issues the Israelis do pay attention.”

The EU could exert economic pressure via its association agreement with Israel, a commerce and cooperation accord that underpins a €68bn (£59bn) trading relationship and promotes cooperation in areas, including energy and scientific research.

Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff, the EU representative to the Palestinian territories until 2023, believes the EU should suspend this agreement with Israel, halt all military support and cease trade with illegal settlements. He fears that without action to defend international law in Gaza and the West Bank, the EU’s reputation “will be further severely affected”. He said: “The usual words of concern and condemnation are not enough; they are meaningless when not followed by effective measures to hold Israel to account.”

Andrews said the EU’s response to the war on Iran and Israel’s attacks on Lebanon had been “weak and pathetic”. “It demonstrates that time and time again, Israel has been given a permission slip for endless war crimes.”

For its part, the European Commission condemned the Knesset vote for the death penalty, which would apply to Palestinians but not Jewish extremists, as “very concerning” and “a clear step backwards”. The Council of Europe, the continental human rights body, which has signed 28 treaties with Israel, described the vote as “a legal anachronism incompatible with contemporary human rights standards”.

Israel approves death penalty for Palestinians convicted of carrying out fatal attacks – video

Western leaders have warned Israel against a ground offensive in Lebanon, while condemning Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. In the past four weeks, more than 1,240 people have been killed in Lebanon, including at least 124 children, while more than 1.1 million people have been forced to flee their homes. Away from the headlines, at least 673 people have been killed in Gaza since the October ceasefire, bringing the death toll in the devastated territory to 72,260.

The EU’s reluctance to take measures against Israel is a familiar story. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, last September proposed unprecedented sanctions against Israel, citing the “manmade famine” in Gaza and “a clear attempt to undermine the two-state solution” with settlement plans in the West Bank. Von der Leyen, a German conservative, had previously been accused of being an uncritical defender of Israel.

She was responding to intense public scrutiny of the horrors unfolding in Gaza, where Israel is accused of committing genocide, and the call by a large majority of EU member states to review the bloc’s association agreement. But the sanctions never found majority support in the EU council of ministers and momentum dissipated when Trump announced his Gaza ceasefire plan in October.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has been accused of being an uncritical defender of Israel. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA

EU countries remain concerned about the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza and relentless violence in the West Bank, which the Israeli state has been accused of enabling. “There may come a point when we need to increase the pressure on Israel again,” said one senior EU diplomat in mid-March, describing the situation in Gaza and the West Bank as “highly problematic”.

The EU’s initial response to the war was cautious in part, diplomats suggested, because Israel and the US targeted Iran, a regime strongly condemned by the EU for massacring its own people and sowing bloody mayhem in the Middle East and Ukraine via drone supplies from Russia.

A second EU diplomat, who supported the association agreement review in 2025, emphasised the importance of maintaining contacts with Israeli society, citing an open letter from 600 Israeli security officials calling for an end to the war in Gaza last August – an appeal published as Israel considered intensifying the war on the devastated territory. “These are not peaceniks … these are people from the Israeli security establishment, who are very much concerned about the policies of their own government. The EU has to relate to that in one way or another.”

Moreover, the EU has been historically divided on the its stance towards Israel. Ireland, Spain and Slovenia, for instance, have been staunch defenders of the Palestinian cause, while Germany and Austria, for historical reasons, have been deeply reluctant to criticise Israel. Adding to the complexity, the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, is Netanyahu’s ideological soulmate and has played a crucial role in vetoing otherwise uncontentious measures, such as sanctions on extremist settlers in the West Bank.

A commission spokesperson emphasised this week that diplomatic engagement with Israel was continuing “and this is what we do with our regular partners when we don’t see developments eye to eye”.

Kühn von Burgsdorff, the former EU envoy, argues for a more robust approach. How can it serve Europe to be seen as a sidekick of an erratic, unreliable and apparently megalomaniac US president, or of a warmongering, annexationist Israeli prime minister. That cannot be in Europe’s interest, because it comes at the expense of relations with other parts of the world.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/02/why-eu-not-using-leverage-israel-lebanon-gaza

woensdag 1 april 2026

‘Fossil-fuel imperialism’: Trump’s hankering for Iranian oil runs deep

 





‘Fossil-fuel imperialism’: Trump’s hankering for Iranian oil runs deep

Experts say the US believes it is entitled to resources it desires – a perspective president has supported for decades

Donald Trump said this past weekend he wants to “take the oil in Iran” by seizing control of a key export hub, echoing a refrain he has returned to for over a decade.

It’s a sign of his disregard for international law and belief in “fossil-fuel imperialism”, experts say.

“Trump truly believes that the US is entitled to whatever resource it so desires,” said Patrick Bigger, co-director of the Transition Security Project, a research initiative focused on the climate and geopolitical concerns of militarization. “It’s a real ‘might-makes-right’ logic that is both abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated.”

Trump is due to provide an update on the Iran war on Wednesday. On Tuesday, he said the conflict could end within weeks, leading the stock market to soar in anticipation of the de-escalation.

But Iran has said it would need guarantees against future attacks to halt its counteroffensive. And for now the war is continuing. Iran attacked a fully loaded crude oil tanker anchored at Dubai port on Monday. And earlier on Monday, the president on Monday said that if the strategically crucial strait of Hormuz were not “immediately” reopened and a peace deal not reached “shortly”, the US planned on “blowing up and completely obliterating” Iran’s energy infrastructure. (Iran has effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz to most commercial traffic following the outbreak of war in late February.)

That includes Kharg Island – the five-mile strip through which 90% of Iran’s oil is exported – as well as its electric generating plants and oilwells.

The previous day, Trump told the Financial Times that he wanted US forces to take over Kharg Island and the oil it houses.

“To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran,” he said, “but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘Why are you doing that?’ But they’re stupid people.”

With his Sunday statement, Trump “completely discredited” his war on Iran, said Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer and resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a thinktank promoting military restraint and diplomacy.

“It undermines all of the other reasons Trump has given for waging this war, and makes it look like what everyone always suspects when the US engages in military confrontation, which is a play for natural resources,” said Handjani, who is also a partner at the communications firm Karv Global.

A view of oil facilities on the Kharg island on the Persian Gulf about 1,250km (776 miles) south of Tehran on 23 February 2016. Photograph: Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Trump has voiced interest in seizing that very same export hub for decades, Handjani noted. 

In a 1988 interview while in the UK to promote his book The Art of the Deal, he told the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee that if he ever became president, he’d be “harsh on Iran”.

“I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it,” he said. “It’d be good for the world to take them on.”

It’s not just Iran whose oil Trump has called for the US to take. During his first presidential campaign, he repeatedly suggested that the Bush administration should have seized Iraq’s oil to “reimburse” itself for the costs of the conflict.

Handjani said: “It was an asinine thing to say, because it’s not like the Iraqi people said to the US: please come and invade us and overthrow our government … we’ll repay you with our oil.”

Upon entering the White House, he laid out a similar approach when it came to Syria, saying that since the US had intervened in the region, it had rights to the nation’s oil and suggesting Exxon Mobil could lead the effort to take over those resources. 

And late last year, as he intensified his campaign against the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, he suggested oil seized from the country could be treated as a US asset, telling reporters: “Maybe we will sell it, maybe we will keep it, maybe we’ll use it in the strategic reserves.”

Waging war to obtain another country’s national resources is also illegal, said Handjani.

“There is no legal framework for going to war to take the natural resources of sovereign countries,” he said. “There is no rubric under international law and under the rules of war that allow for that.”

Kharg Island

Actually taking over Kharg Island, or launching a full-scale attack on it, would not be easy. That’s particularly true because Iranian missiles have rendered US bases in the region inoperable.

Marines would probably have to parachute into the region to enter, and upon doing so would be in the line of heavy fire. And because the move would also invite massive retaliation from Iran, it could easily destabilize the global economy, said Handjani.

“For Iran, I expect they’d say, you’ve taken now 90% of our exports offline? Well, we’re going to go level all of the export terminals and oil-producing facilities in the Arab countries, in the Persian Gulf,” he said.

In such a scenario, the price of oil could “easily go to $200 or $300 a barrel”, said Handjani, as huge volumes of global oil and gas are taken offline for years.

“We would be in a brave new world where the ramifications are unthinkable,” he said. “But you have to take the prospect of him doing this seriously, because he’s been acting erratically.”

The escalating conflict has already killed thousands of people, while setting off the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies.

While ordinary people are suffering amid the war and resulting fuel price shocks, fossil fuel companies – such as those who furnished Trump with record donations on the campaign trail – are seeing handsome windfall profits, said Bigger.

“The longer that oil prices stay elevated, the more the oil majors stand to benefit,” he said. “And we’re already seeing is that [the war] is being used as justification to open up more US drilling, so regardless of the success of taking Iranian oil, what we’re likely to see is the exploitation of oil resources because it’s currently profitable to drill.”

That expanded extraction will lock the world into using more planet-warming fuel, making it harder to transition away from oil and gas. But Trump appears to have “no real concern with the future”, said Bigger.

Instead, Trump’s statements underscore his belief in “fossil-fuel imperialism”. Though the US has long been accused of projecting military force to secure resources it deems strategically useful, Trump is now “saying the quiet part out loud”, he said.

“He believes fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy, and that whoever controls the oil controls the world,” he said. “And he believes in using extremely hostile tools to blow up the international order to get what he wants.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/01/trump-iran-oil-fossil-fuel-imperialism