Iran war opens new rifts between Washington, Europe, the Vatican, and Israel

These developments are not isolated episodes. They are part of a compressed sequence in which military incidents on the ground, diplomatic exchanges, and public political messaging have begun to overlap and reinforce one another. To understand the significance of the current moment, each of these layers needs to be read not individually but as part of a broader recalibration unfolding in real time.

When Israeli warning fire struck an Italian UNIFIL vehicle, the incident immediately crossed from operational risk into political sensitivity. Italy, which maintains a significant presence in the mission, could not treat the episode as routine.

Meloni’s response - describing the incident as “completely unacceptable” - signaled a shift from cautious positioning to open criticism. Her additional statement that “Israel’s continued attacks in Lebanon … must cease immediately” further broadened the scope of the critique, moving beyond the specific incident to the overall conduct of Israeli operations in the area.

This initial reaction was followed by a second layer of political escalation. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani publicly described Israeli bombardments of civilians in Lebanon as “unacceptable,” reinforcing the message that Rome’s concerns were no longer limited to force protection but extended to broader humanitarian and legal considerations.

Israel’s decision to summon the Italian ambassador in response mirrored Italy’s earlier move to summon the Israeli ambassador, creating a reciprocal diplomatic dynamic that marked a transition into open friction.

Only after this sequence did Italy decide not to automatically renew its bilateral memorandum on defense cooperation with Israel.

The agreement itself, signed in 2003 and in force since 2006, serves primarily as a framework for military collaboration, covering procurement, joint activities, and defense industry exchanges. Its renewal mechanism is procedural rather than political, typically occurring automatically every five years.

In operational terms, its immediate suspension does not significantly alter the existing level of cooperation. Israeli officials themselves sought to minimize the impact, saying it would have “no practical effect.”

Yet this limited operational significance is precisely what gives the decision its political weight. By interrupting a largely symbolic agreement, Italy is signaling a shift in political alignment rather than dismantling a concrete military structure. The move, therefore, needs to be read as part of a broader repositioning shaped by both domestic and international pressures.

Leo Goretti, head of the Foreign Policy Program at the Istituto Affari Internazionali, told The Media Line the move was mainly political.

“In reality, I don't even have direct knowledge of the merits of the agreement," said Goretti. "My impression is similar to what you have expressed, that in this case, it is a bit like Sigonella's speech a while ago, that is, these positions are above all positions that want to send a signal to public opinion. This is my impression, beyond what may be the concrete and specific consequences of these initiatives.”

“This is in line with what we said before, that is, the awareness that a change of pace is necessary on the side of the Italian position at the international level," he added. "However, it will not be easy, in the sense that we are so out of time in taking a stance, compared to other European countries.”

From an Israeli analytical perspective, the same move reflects a longer trajectory rooted in domestic political dynamics in Italy and, more broadly, across Europe.

“The decision by Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister of Italy, to suspend the defense agreement with Israel is not surprising at all," Dr. Esther Lopatin, director of the Center for European Studies at Reichman University, told The Media Line.

"Over the last few years, Meloni has become increasingly critical of Israel," she continued. "While in the past she claimed that the Likud party inspired her, in reality, criticism of Israel and of Benjamin Netanyahu has grown steadily over time, in line with the rising criticism within Italy itself.”

She pointed to a public opinion poll from May 2025 showing that about 70% of Italians are highly critical of Israel. Only 18% hold a positive view of Israel, and just 9% express support for Israel’s policy in Gaza. The gap between public opinion and the policy of the Italian government is eroding its support for Israel.

“Meloni wants to be liked and admired by her public, and one way to achieve this is by expressing criticism of Israel," Lopatin added. "For example, after October 7, 2023, Italy decided to impose an arms embargo on Israel due to the war in Gaza. It is politically more convenient to be critical of Israel, as this also earns her support from the left - or at least reduces criticism from the left.”

“The decision to suspend the agreement is also related to the fact that Italian soldiers, who are part of the UNIFIL force in Lebanon, have been involved in several incidents with Israel along the Lebanese border," continued Lopatin. "In short, the position of Meloni and the Italian government is not surprising at all, and reflects the broader mood among the European and Italian public.”

The disagreement between Washington and European capitals over Iran is not a product of the current crisis alone. It reflects long-standing differences in strategic culture, threat perception, and political capacity that the war has brought into sharper focus.

European governments have largely maintained a preference for diplomatic engagement, even as tensions with Iran have escalated. This approach is often described as “soft power,” but in practice it combines normative commitments with structural limitations.

Lopatin said Europe’s reliance on diplomacy reflects both strategy and constraint. “Europe - and especially the European Union - has long believed that the best way to manage international conflicts is through diplomatic means - what is often referred to as soft power,” she said.

“In contrast to the Americans, Europeans have traditionally argued that they do not believe in relying primarily on military force, and that the best way to handle conflicts is through negotiations and diplomacy,” she added.

This approach has historical roots in the EU’s engagement with Iran during the 1990s, when economic ties were maintained alongside attempts to influence Tehran’s internal behavior.

“In the case of Iran, for many years - especially during the 1990s - they promoted what was called a ‘critical dialogue’: continuing trade with Iran while at the same time trying to encourage it to respect human rights, including the rights of women and the LGBTQ,” Lopatin said.

“In practice, this approach did not fully succeed, but many Europeans still believe we should not abandon the diplomatic track,” Lopatin added.

At the same time, she said Europe’s position is shaped by hard constraints. “Most EU countries are relatively small, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg - countries that do not have the military capacity to fight a country like Iran. Even those that do have significant military capabilities, such as Germany, France, and Italy, lack the desire to engage in a war with Iran,” she said.

“The average German or Italian is not willing to die so that Iran becomes a democracy," she added. "After all, this is not an existential war for Europe.”

Trade between the European Union and Iran remains limited compared with pre-sanctions years, but it still exists, and European governments continue to weigh the economic consequences of escalation. Lopatin cited an approximate annual EU-Iran trade of €5 billion, with Germany and Italy among the main European commercial players.

Germany earns about €1.2 billion from exports to Iran and imports roughly €200 million in Iranian goods, while Italy exports around €700 million to Iran and imports about €170 million.

“These figures show that economic considerations play a role - Europe benefits economically from its relations with Iran. In conclusion, unlike Israel, this is not an existential war for Europe,” Lopatin said.

“Iran seeks to destroy Israel, not Italy or Germany," she continued. "Looking at the economic benefits of trade with Iran, it is easier to understand the European approach.”

From Washington’s perspective, European restraint is not interpreted as strategic caution but as a failure to meet alliance expectations. The Trump administration has framed the issue in terms of burden-sharing, arguing that European allies have benefited from American security guarantees while declining to support US-led efforts in the current conflict.

“The president speaks candidly to world leaders when he disagrees with them," a White House official, speaking anonymously, told The Media Line. "This is nothing new.”

More formal messaging has made the underlying frustration explicit. “President Trump has made his disappointment with NATO and other allies clear," Anna Kelly, principal deputy press secretary at the White House Press Office, told The Media Line.

"The United States has thousands of troops stationed in Europe - yet requests to use military bases in order to defend American interests were denied," said Kelly. "The president has effectively restored America’s standing on the world stage and strengthened relationships abroad - but he simultaneously will never allow the United States to be treated unfairly and taken advantage of by so-called ‘allies.’”

Olivia Wales, the White House assistant press secretary, was even more direct. “NATO was tested, and they failed. The United States doesn’t need help from any other country - the blockade is working perfectly, implemented by the greatest Navy in the world, while Iran’s navy is at the bottom of the ocean,” she told The Media Line.

Lopatin said this perception shapes President Trump’s expectations. “Trump really expected Europe to assist him in the conflict with Iran, especially given that the United States has contributed to Europe’s security since the establishment of NATO in 1949, so there is a clear possibility that NATO could weaken or even begin to fall apart,” she said.

The tensions reached their most visible point in the overlapping confrontation involving President Trump, Meloni, and Pope Leo XIV. What might otherwise have remained a policy disagreement expanded into a symbolic and ideological clash. The crisis escalated sharply when the president turned his criticism not only against Europe in general but also against Meloni personally and against Pope Leo XIV.

In an interview published in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, President Trump replied to Meloni’s condemnation of his comments about the pope, saying, “She’s unacceptable. She’s unacceptable because she doesn’t mind that Iran has a nuclear weapon and would blow up Italy in two minutes if they had the chance.”

Vice President JD Vance then added another layer to the dispute. Speaking first on Fox News and then at a Turning Point USA event, he said it would be “best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality” and “let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.”

He also said it was “very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.” AP separately reported that Leo, while avoiding a direct back-and-forth, continued speaking about peace, dialogue, and the need for unity across religious and political differences.

Meloni’s response to the US president was politically significant because it marked a rare public break with President Trump, saying that Italy will always be a partner of the US but not its “subject,” siding also firmly with the pope. That mattered not only because Italy is home to the Vatican, but because Meloni had for years been treated as one of the US president’s closest ideological partners in Europe.

She was the only EU leader invited to the president’s second inauguration and had been widely seen as his key European ally.

Goretti said the rupture was not surprising. “The only gluing element between the right-wing and European nationalists like Meloni is an ideological glue, but if you look at the concrete interests, they are divergent, so in any case, this relationship would have been tested in the long run,” he said.

“Returning to the theme of the Trump attacks on the pope, the first response of Giorgia Meloni was a very generic response to the limits of ambiguity, not to have a direct confrontation with Trump, but after a few hours, she had to address this again and condemn what had been said,” he added.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s Holocaust Remembrance Day speech belongs in this same story because it shows how the Israeli leadership is now framing European hesitation not as prudence, but as moral decline.

In his address at the official opening ceremony for Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Day, Netanyahu said Europe today was suffering from “deep moral weakness” and was “losing control over its identity, its values and its commitment to protect civilization from barbarism.” He said Europe had “forgotten so much since the Holocaust” and that Israel, alongside the United States and other allies, was defending not only itself but “the entire world.”

Those remarks are not incidental rhetoric. They are an attempt to place current European criticism of Israel - whether over Lebanon, Gaza, or the Iran war - inside a much larger historical indictment. In Netanyahu’s framing, Europe has not simply chosen a different strategy; it has failed a civilizational test.

This framing reflects a fundamental divergence in how the conflict is perceived. Lopatin said that was the core meaning of Netanyahu’s speech. “Iran seeks to destroy Israel, not Europe; this is the meaning behind the speech of Netanyahu,” she said.

The feud with the Vatican is not just another Trump spectacle. It matters because the Holy See occupies a distinctive place in international politics: it is one of the few actors that can still speak in explicitly moral language while maintaining diplomatic channels across ideological blocs and across conflict lines.

Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Trinity College Dublin, told The Media Line that President Trump’s posture reflected political self-legitimization. “It is the picture of a presidency that sees itself with a religious function… it is covered with a messianic cloak. Trump believes he is the savior of America, the savior of the Middle East, the savior of the world.”

“It is a salvific vision of himself and therefore does not recognize the moral authority of anyone else who can act on what is being done in the United States,” he added.

By contrast, Faggioli said the Vatican’s role is stabilizing. “The pope is not interested in humiliating the United States or Trump, but in having a more stable and responsible America in its international policy and in respecting democracy and peace,” he said.

Goretti added a geopolitical dimension. “The Vatican… is also an important diplomatic actor… which tends to try to bring conflicts to some kind of business resolution and thus to peace. If you politicize it… you also burn bridges to those third actors who could help you to find a path to get out of this situation,” he said.

Taken together, these developments point to a broader transformation rather than a temporary rupture.

Goretti said the shift is structural. “The US strategic interest… is progressively moving toward the so-called Asia-Pacific… This means that NATO loses importance. You can have the maximum of values, visions, everything we want, but if the interests are divergent, notoriously, nationalists of different signs tend to clash,” he said.

“In the contemporary world, the transatlantic relationship… is destined to be resized,” he added.

At the same time, he cautioned against viewing the current moment as definitive. “If the day after tomorrow there are again talks in Pakistan and there is some kind of agreement, Trump will go around saying that he defeated Iran and made the most beautiful peace in the world and returns to be on good terms with Meloni as if nothing had happened. So let’s not believe word-for-word what he states in these circumstances,” he said.

The alliances remain formally intact. But their internal balance - between strategy, politics, and legitimacy - is increasingly unstable. The Iran war did not create this shift. It exposed it.