When the Gulf came under fire, Europe looked away

For decades, the Gulf did more than invest in Europe. It helped sustain confidence in it. Gulf capital flowed into London real estate, Paris markets and major European industries. It supported economies through downturns and fueled growth during expansion. These were not passive investments. They were long-term commitments grounded in trust.

That trust implied partnership. Today, that assumption is being tested. And Europe’s initial response has been revealing. Embarrassingly so.

As the Iranian regime escalates its attacks, Gulf countries are facing sustained and direct threats. Missiles and drones have targeted civilian areas, energy infrastructure, airports and commercial hubs. This is a direct challenge not only to regional stability but to the global economy that depends on it.

Iran even attempted to strike the joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia with missiles that traveled about 2,500 miles. The regime is clearly developing capabilities that place Western Europe within reach and, in time, could extend further. Analysts warn sustained disruption could push oil prices toward $180 per barrel in the months ahead, directly threatening European households, industries and economic stability. Even leaders unwilling or afraid to support Gulf partners should act now, if only out of naked self-interest.

Across major European capitals, the initial response was caution, distance and deflection

Jason D. Greenblatt

In moments like this, partnerships are not measured in statements. They are measured in action.

The US has acted. President Donald Trump has made clear that long-standing threats cannot be managed indefinitely. They must be confronted. He has acted where others hesitated, confronting a threat with short-term costs, which may be significant, but with long-term benefits for the Gulf, Israel, the US and the global system.

Europe did not.

Across major European capitals, the initial response was caution, distance and deflection. Leaders hid behind calls for de-escalation and restraint, choosing avoidance over action and behaving as if ignoring the threat would make it disappear.

The message from parts of Europe was unmistakable. This was not a fight they were prepared to join.

Only later, after sustained pressure from Trump, did the tone begin to shift. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged the imbalance, emphasizing that European allies must “do more” and take greater responsibility for shared security.

Now, some European governments, including the UK and France, are signaling a willingness to contribute more, saying they are prepared to support “appropriate efforts” to help ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The ambiguity of that formulation reflects how reluctant this shift has been and suggests these countries still may not be prepared to do what is actually required to help protect the Gulf.

This shift did not come naturally. It came under pressure. Trump forced the issue.

By making clear that the US will not carry the burden alone, he changed the calculus. Countries that initially resisted are now recalibrating. They understand that standing aside is no longer a viable option.

They are stepping forward because they have to. Not because they chose to. That distinction matters.

Because when the Gulf first came under sustained attack, Europe’s instinct was not solidarity. It was to turn away.

For decades, the Gulf has been a reliable partner to Europe, contributing to its growth, stability and prosperity. That relationship created expectations. This moment has tested them.

They are stepping forward because they have to. Not because they chose to. That distinction matters

Jason D. Greenblatt

And the sequence is clear. First came reluctance. Then pressure. Only then came movement. That is not leadership. That is reaction.

The US, under Trump’s leadership, has taken a different approach. It acted decisively to confront a threat that has shaped regional instability for years, reinforcing Gulf partners and Israel, and contributing to the broader security of the global system. That is what partnership looks like when it matters.

Not every European country has responded the same way. Some are moving faster than others. But the broader pattern is difficult to ignore.

When the Gulf faced sustained attack, the US stepped forward. Europe chose to stand aside, but is now being pulled forward by pressure from Trump.

This is not the collapse of a relationship. But it is a moment of clarity. Because partnerships are not defined by years of cooperation alone. They are defined by what happens when standing together carries real cost.

The Gulf has consistently shown that it is willing to invest, engage and support its partners. This moment raises a simple question. Who does the same when the Gulf is under pressure?

When missiles and drones are hitting your homes, airports, hotels and energy infrastructure, it becomes clear who stands with you and who does not. The US has stepped in to reinforce Gulf countries that have already defended themselves with remarkable effectiveness and is working to remove this threat to the Gulf, Israel and beyond. In the other corner are European countries that looked away until pressure forced their hand and embarrassment pushed them into action.

That distinction should not be forgotten.

• Jason D. Greenblatt was the White House Middle East envoy in the first Trump administration. He is the author of “In the Path of Abraham: How Donald Trump Made Peace in the Middle East — and How to Stop Joe Biden From Unmaking It” and the founder of Abraham Venture LLC. X: @GreenblattJD