Germany is seeking to move the European response to the Iran crisis beyond emergency diplomacy and consular contingency planning, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz calling on 1 March for a co-ordinated agenda for what comes after the US and Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In Berlin, Merz said Germany wanted to work with the United States, Israel, regional partners and Europe on a “day after” plan, signalling an attempt to place European governments inside the strategic debate over Iran’s future rather than at its margins.
Merz’s formulation matters because it sets out a distinct European foreign policy line at a moment when much of the immediate public discussion has centred on evacuations, aviation disruption and the safety of nationals in the region. The German chancellor said his government shared Washington’s objective of ending Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, but he also cautioned that the consequences of the operation remained unpredictable and that the region could still be drawn deeper into conflict by Iranian retaliation.
According to Merz, the proposed agenda has four broad aims: securing peace and stability in the region, ending Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, contributing to a stable future for Iran, and helping Iranians determine their own fate. That combination is notable. It aligns Germany with the security goals advanced by Washington and Israel, while also attempting to preserve a European emphasis on regional stability and some form of political agency for the Iranian people. It is, in effect, an effort to bridge hard security concerns and a post-conflict political framework.
The wider European position remains cautious. On 28 February, the leaders of Germany, France and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement condemning Iranian attacks in the region, calling for a resumption of negotiations, and making clear that their countries had not taken part in the strikes. They said they remained in close contact with the US, Israel and regional partners, while reiterating their commitment to regional stability and civilian protection. That statement suggested Europe wanted to avoid formal ownership of the military action while retaining a role in whatever diplomatic and political process follows.
France has meanwhile pressed for a multilateral track through the United Nations. President Emmanuel Macron called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council, warning that the outbreak of war between the US, Israel and Iran carried serious consequences for international peace and security. He also spoke with leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan, underlining that any durable “day after” framework will need to involve Arab states directly affected by escalation, energy disruption and regional spillover.
At EU level, foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described Khamenei’s death as “a defining moment” in Iran’s history and said there was now “an open path to a different Iran”, while also stressing the need for practical steps towards de-escalation with regional partners. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen likewise warned of the risk that instability could push the region into a wider spiral of violence. These statements indicate that Brussels sees both danger and opportunity: the weakening of Iran’s ruling order, but also the possibility of succession turmoil, broader war and renewed pressure on Europe’s security and energy interests.
That uncertainty is central to Berlin’s argument. Reuters reported that the US and Israel timed the strikes to coincide with a meeting of Khamenei and senior security aides, and that American officials assessed beforehand that he could be replaced by harder-line elements from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In Washington, Reuters also reported that President Donald Trump had been warned the operation was a high-risk, high-reward move that could trigger major retaliation against US positions and regional infrastructure. For European capitals, that raises the prospect that removing the apex of the Iranian system may not automatically produce a more manageable outcome.
The economic and logistical consequences have already spread beyond the battlefield. Thousands of flights have been cancelled or diverted as airspace closures across the Middle East disrupted travel between Europe and Asia, while oil prices jumped around 10 per cent amid fears over the Strait of Hormuz. Those pressures help explain why Berlin wants a broader political plan: without one, Europe risks dealing only with the symptoms of a crisis whose strategic direction is being set elsewhere.
Merz’s intervention therefore appears designed to achieve two things at once. First, it keeps Germany aligned with the United States at a moment of sharp military escalation. Second, it argues that Europe should help shape the political end-state rather than merely react to events. Whether that ambition translates into a common European strategy is less clear. The continent is united in concern over Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, but less united on regime change, legality, and the degree of association it wants with an American-led military campaign. For now, Berlin has set out the line: Europe should not confine itself to managing the fallout from Iran. It should prepare for the contest over what comes next.
