By Suhaib Farooq | Personal geopolitical analysis | 30 October 2026
There is one important factor in the relationship between Europe, Russia, the United States and Iran that I think gets overlooked when people talk only about military power. That factor is energy. A country needs gas and fuel to heat homes, operate factories, produce goods and keep its economy functioning. Even if a country is not directly fighting a war, the cost of that war can reach it through energy supplies.
That is why I think European countries have a difficult calculation to make when tensions rise between the United States, Israel and Iran.
Europe reduced its dependence on Russian gas
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, European countries have tried to reduce reliance on Russian energy. My first thought was that Europe must be getting much of the replacement gas directly or indirectly from the Middle East. On checking the figures, I found the picture is more complicated. Norway, the United States and North Africa account for much more of the EU’s gas supply than Qatar, and Russian gas imports have not yet fallen to zero.
But this does not remove my main concern. Europe still participates in an international energy market. If gas shipments from the Gulf are interrupted, buyers elsewhere compete for supplies that would normally go to other markets. Even countries that import little Gulf gas directly can face higher prices.
Why the Strait of Hormuz matters to Europe
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow shipping route connected to the Persian Gulf. Large amounts of oil and liquefied natural gas ordinarily pass through it. I think its importance is easy to underestimate if we look only at the countries immediately beside it.
Imagine that a military confrontation threatens the route or damages facilities producing and exporting gas. A shipment expected in Asia might not arrive. Asian companies might then look elsewhere for replacement supplies. European buyers would have to compete with them. Prices could rise even before a direct shortage reaches Europe.
The US Energy Information Administration reported that about one-fifth of global LNG trade crossed the Strait of Hormuz in 2024, with most of those shipments going to Asia. That helps explain why I see the strait as a global economic pressure point rather than a problem affecting only one region.
Europe’s possible dilemma over a war with Iran
My interpretation is that some European governments may see competing risks. On one side, a major war involving Iran could damage energy facilities, shipping and the wider economy. On the other side, European governments also have security concerns about Iran’s military activities and nuclear program, and may support diplomatic or economic pressure intended to reduce those risks.
I originally described this as a fifty-fifty gamble. I do not mean that there is a calculated 50% probability. I mean that governments may see serious costs on both sides of a decision and may not be able to control the final outcome.
I also wonder whether some policymakers think that a less hostile Middle East might eventually improve access to energy. But that is a possible incentive, not a proven European intention to encourage an American or Israeli victory. A war could destroy production capacity instead of making energy more accessible.
Where Russia fits into the picture
Russia is an important energy producer and has a strategic partnership with Iran. I wonder whether Moscow sees value in preserving its relationship with Tehran, both because of shared opposition to parts of American policy and because events in the Gulf can affect global energy markets.
But I would not say that Russia controls the Strait of Hormuz through Iran. Iran is a separate government with its own priorities, and the route is an international waterway. Cooperation does not automatically mean control.
The economic chain that worries me
My main point is simple: a war does not have to reach a country physically to weaken it. A disruption in the Gulf could increase energy prices in Europe. Higher costs could affect factories, household bills, transport and political decisions. If European economies become weaker while they are already spending heavily on defense, their choices about other conflicts may become more difficult.
That is how I think a regional war can gradually become a wider international problem. The missiles may remain in one region, but the economic consequences travel much further.
My conclusion
I don’t think we should look at Europe as simply supporting or opposing the United States in every situation. Governments can oppose Russian actions, disagree with Iran, value their American alliances and still fear the economic damage of another regional war. Energy security helps explain why those positions can exist together.
Sources and context: Council of the EU: where European gas comes from; US EIA: LNG passing through the Strait of Hormuz; US EIA: world oil transit chokepoints.
Editorial note: Verified trade data are separated from the author’s speculation about government incentives. This essay is not financial or energy-trading advice.
More in this series
Browse all World Affairs & Civilizational Ideas essays.
Mindful Truth Hub publishes practical, research-informed guides on mental wellbeing, relationships, fitness, sleep and healthier everyday habits.