Puzzle for Europe

Trump’s strikes on Iran pose a puzzle for Europe’s far right

From Paris to Berlin, party leaders face the uncomfortable choice of whether to back American and Israeli bombing — or remain faithful to their sovereignty-first principles.

By Marion Solletty

The U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran is exposing a fault line at the heart of Europe’s far right.

Across the continent, leaders aligned with the MAGA agenda are being forced to choose between their anti-interventionist instincts and embracing an offensive against an Islamist regime they have long cast as a threat to Western security. 

The escalation lays bare a long-standing contradiction within Europe’s nationalist parties. Many define themselves in opposition to what they describe as the Islamization of the Europe and see Israel as a natural ally. Yet they also campaign against what they portray as American imperial overreach and costly foreign entanglements. 

At the same time, they fear a fresh Middle East conflict could destabilize the region and trigger new migration flows.

In France, the far-right National Rally — which is polling in first place ahead of a presidential election next year — had taken a principled stand against the U.S. intervention in Venezuela in January, casting the capture of the country’s leader Nicolás Maduro as a violation of national sovereignty.

The response to the U.S.-Israeli campaign in Iran has been far more cautious, erring on the side of supporting the strikes.

“We support the actions taken by the United States, even if, frankly, we do not like the unilateral aspect of them,” Sébastien Chenu, vice-president of France’s National Rally, said on Tuesday. 

In recent months, the National Rally has sought to present itself as a staunch supporter of Israel, with its president Jordan Bardella casting the “Islamist threat” as a common enemy for France and Israel.

Bardella traveled to the country in a historic first last year, in a move widely seen as a way to further distance the party from the antisemitic and Holocaust-minimizing remarks of its late founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

French pivot

That positioning makes outright opposition to an offensive against a fundamentalist Islamist regime that has pledged to destroy Israel politically difficult.

Marine Le Pen, the party’s de facto leader, responded cautiously as the bombs began to fall. While campaigning for local elections on Saturday, she initially limited herself to noting the strikes, waiting until Sunday to issue a formal statement on X expressing solidarity with France’s allies in the region hit by Iranian counterstrikes. “France must meet the moment: alongside its allies and fully mobilized to protect its citizens,” she said. 

Notably absent was any condemnation of the unilateral offensive against Iran — a sharp contrast with the forceful language she used after the U.S. operation in Venezuela just a month earlier.

National Rally vice-president Sébastien Chenu, who said “we support the actions taken by the United States, even if, frankly, we do not like the unilateral aspect of them.” | Telmo Pinto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

“The sovereignty of states is never negotiable, regardless of their size, power, or continent,” she wrote at the time, in a statement that was widely praised across her party, which traditionally opposes what it sees as American imperialism. “To renounce this principle today for Venezuela, or for any other state, would be to accept our own servitude tomorrow.” 

Seemingly aware of the bind, Bardella sought to strike a careful balance, stressing in a press release that any “legitimate and sustainable” regime change must come from the Iranian people. He quickly pivoted to the domestic impact of the conflict, urging the EU and the French government to shield citizens from an expected surge in energy prices.

Chenu on Tuesday sought to explain the apparent contradiction between the party’s stance on the Iran attacks and his party’s previous position on Venezuela.

“It is different here because there is imminent danger, because a nuclear [threat] is at stake and Israel is in a situation where they can be annihilated by Iran,” he said in the same radio interview. 

German split

Across the Rhine, the issue has proved similarly delicate for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).

The party’s co-leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla expressed “great concern” over the attacks during the weekend, warning that “renewed destabilization of the Middle East” was “not in Germany’s interest” and “must be ended.”  

That stance did not sit well with senior party figures who believe the offensive against Iran’s Islamist regime should be supported. 

After the party leadership’s statement, AfD MP Andreas Bleck wrote in a Telegram group chat that he felt “not represented in terms of content” and that the party line needed to be clarified, reported Welt, which is a sister publication of POLITICO in the Axel Springer Group.

Others publicly voiced their dissent, accusing the party leadership of echoing calls for restraint coming from center-left figures such as former Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, a prominent member of the Green party. 

The AfD, which is challenging the Christian Democrats as the country’s most popular party, has traditionally backed Israel. In recent months, however, that support has softened. Chrupalla has called for an end to German arms deliveries following civilian deaths in Gaza and for a broader reassessment of Berlin’s relationship with Israel.

The repositioning reflects the growing influence of a pro-Russian, anti-American wing rooted in eastern Germany, where the AfD is expected to perform strongly in upcoming regional elections.

Internal divisions

The timing is delicate. Both parties are riding high in the polls, with France’s National Rally leading ahead of next year’s presidential election and the AfD vying to become Germany’s dominant political force. A new international crisis risks exposing their internal divisions just as they seek to convince voters they are ready to govern.

Foreign policy has already proven a fault line, particularly over defense policy and the war in Ukraine — vulnerabilities their centrist opponents are eager to exploit. 

France’s 2027 presidential election “will largely be decided on international matters,” Gaspard Gantzer, formerly a communications advisor with Socialist President François Hollande, said ahead of the attack on Iran. “One won’t want to send to the Elysée someone who can’t stand up to [Donald] Trump or Xi [Jinping].”

Not all European parties are so conflicted. 

George Simion, leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians, told POLITICO: “In Iran, Venezuela and other places in the world the Trump administration is doing what is needed for the safety of the free world and democracy.”

Dutch far-right firebrand Geert Wilders on Sunday cheered the death of “Islamic Devil” Ali Khamenei, while Trump ally Nigel Farage slammed Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s response to the crisis as “pathetic,” criticizing his initial refusal to allow the U.S. access to U.K. bases for missions against Iran. 

The difference in clarity was visible on Monday as Farage doubled down on his position in a press conference, saying Starmer’s slow decision-making threatens the U.K.’s “special relationship” with the U.S., and poses a “major threat to NATO.” 

Bardella, by contrast, canceled a press conference meant to focus on local elections scheduled for the same day, citing the international situation.

He did not immediately announce a new date.