Nournews: While European countries are struggling with deep economic and energy crises, they continue to fuel and prolong the war in Ukraine in an effort to cover up their own failures. Their actions—from the seizure of a Russian oil tanker to their biased positions regarding Iran’s right to self-defense against U.S. attacks, as well as their support for Israeli actions in Lebanon and Gaza—alongside repeated human rights controversies within Europe, reflect what critics describe as a destructive role in legitimizing maritime piracy and supporting a U.S.-Israeli strategy to “Lebanize” southern Iran.

Seizure of a Russian Oil Tanker: Piracy Under the Cover of Sanctions

European governments frequently stress the importance of keeping international waterways open for free navigation and often call for restrictions on Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz. However, their recent actions appear to contradict those claims.

In the latest move, which critics have described as an act of piracy, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that French forces, together with the United Kingdom and several allies, had seized a Russian oil tanker, Tagor, in the Atlantic Ocean. The vessel was reportedly under sanctions and accused of helping Russia bypass international restrictions.

Macron defended the operation, saying it was unacceptable for ships to continue violating maritime regulations, evading sanctions, and helping finance Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Critics argue that such justifications are problematic because many sanctions are unilateral and lack broad international legitimacy. They also note that these measures were not authorized by the United Nations Security Council, making it difficult to describe them as the result of a true international consensus.

From this perspective, Europe’s action is seen as an example of maritime piracy that risks normalizing similar behavior. Critics compare it to recent U.S. efforts to impose pressure on Iran through maritime restrictions. They argue that such policies weaken, rather than strengthen, the foundations of international law.

Europe’s Alignment with Pressure and Destabilization Policies Against Iran

According to critics, European actions suggest that concerns about freedom of navigation and global trade are being overshadowed by political alignment with Washington’s strategy toward Iran.

In a recent statement, the European Union condemned Iran’s military response to what Tehran described as a U.S. attack launched from Kuwait and called on all sides to fully respect international law. The EU also expressed support for efforts aimed at reducing tensions and finding a lasting solution to the conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Critics argue that these positions overlook the principle of self-defense under international law and effectively support continued pressure on Iran. They claim that this pressure is increasingly taking the form of maritime restrictions and efforts to create instability in southern Iran.

They also point to what they describe as frequent U.S. attacks on ports and cities in southern Iran, arguing that Western governments and international institutions have remained largely silent. According to this view, such silence contributes to the normalization of military aggression, similar to patterns they associate with Israeli operations in Gaza and southern Lebanon.

Western media outlets are also accused by critics of downplaying or justifying such actions, often framing them as operations against Hezbollah-linked targets while paying limited attention to their broader consequences.

Some analysts believe Washington is seeking to replicate this approach in southern Iran by combining military pressure and maritime restrictions with broader negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz. In their view, Europe’s silence and statements condemning Iran’s responses amount to indirect support for this strategy.

Europe on a Path That Could Turn Into a Nightmare

Observers critical of current European policies argue that the seizure of the Russian tanker, increased military support for Ukraine, and confrontational positions toward Iran are unlikely to restore the West’s declining global influence. Instead, they may accelerate Europe’s political and strategic challenges.

At the same time, the economic and political costs of these policies are expected to fall heavily on Europe itself. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to continue its current course despite pressure, with implications for both the battlefield in Ukraine and Europe’s energy market.

Iran, meanwhile, has consistently stated that it will not yield to threats or pressure and will continue to defend what it considers its legitimate rights while maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Critics further argue that repeated violations of ceasefires by the United States and Israel in southern Iran and Lebanon require a strong and costly response. Proposed measures include keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed until attacks cease and targeting U.S. interests in the region.

According to this perspective, Washington and Tel Aviv continue to undermine diplomacy and ceasefire agreements. As a result, imposing significant costs on the strategy described as the “Lebanization of southern Iran” through pressure on U.S. oil, gas, and commercial interests in the region is viewed by supporters of this approach as part of a broader deterrence policy.

They argue that such measures would affect not only the United States and Israel but also their European supporters, whom they see as playing a role in the development and implementation of this controversial strategy.