EU rejects Trump call to guard Hormuz as energy costs hit €3 billion

European Union foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday closed the door on a naval deployment to the Strait of Hormuz, ignoring pressure from Washington to help keep the waterway open after Iran halted most tanker traffic in retaliation for US and Israeli strikes. Kaja Kallas, the bloc's top diplomat, opened the session by insisting it was in Europe's interest to keep the strait flowing, but she concluded the talks with a blunt assessment: there is "no appetite" among member states to extend the EU's existing maritime mission to the Gulf "for now."

Trump leans on NATO as energy prices spike

The refusal comes after a weekend of escalating rhetoric from Donald Trump. In an interview with the Financial Times, the US president argued that countries benefiting from Hormuz shipments, which carry roughly 20 per cent of global crude, should contribute to its security. "If there's no response, or if it's a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO," he said. The threat, delivered while the alliance is already strained over defence spending and Ukraine, was widely read in Brussels as an attempt to drag Europeans into a conflict they have no desire to join.

Charles Hecker, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, described the logic plainly. "We have yet to see what kind of threat the president is making against NATO and how he would carry it out. But he's doing everything he can to try to exercise leverage against the countries that he'd like to bring into the conflict," he said. The calculation in European capitals is that any military presence would place their forces directly in Iran's crosshairs without a clear mandate or exit strategy.

Germany rules out NATO role; France keeps distance

Germany's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, was the most direct. He told reporters before the meeting that he did not see a role for NATO in securing the strait and that the alliance's bodies would need to address any such proposal formally, which they have not. He added that Europeans expect to be informed of US and Israeli objectives and plans, a courtesy he implied has been lacking. France struck a slightly different tone. President Emmanuel Macron said Paris would be willing to help secure the waterway "once the hottest phase of the conflict is over," effectively postponing any commitment until the shooting stops.

The reluctance is not merely political. Hecker noted that both Paris and London are unclear about the strategic endgame of the US-Israeli campaign. "They're not ready to join in the United States military efforts in the Strait of Hormuz and probably won't be for the foreseeable future," he said. That uncertainty, combined with the risk of becoming targets, has kept European capitals on the sidelines.

A €3 billion bill in ten days

While ministers debated military options, the economic damage was already mounting. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, told the European Parliament that gas prices have risen 50 per cent and oil prices 27 per cent since the conflict began. In just ten days, European taxpayers have paid an additional €3 billion for fossil fuel imports. "Europe is neither an oil nor a gas producer. For fossil fuels we are completely dependent on expensive and volatile imports, putting us at a structural disadvantage to other regions," she said. "The current Middle East crisis gives a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities this creates."

In response, a group of European governments, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom among them, backed a coordinated release of emergency oil stocks alongside other G7 members. The International Energy Agency has called for 400 million barrels to be made available from strategic reserves to dampen the price surge. Brent crude touched €87.20 a barrel during the meeting, its highest level since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Russia pockets the windfall

The price spike has handed an immediate financial boost to Moscow. "The only winner really out of the war on Iran right now is Russia," Hecker said. With oil at multi-year highs, the Kremlin has been quick to present itself as a reliable alternative supplier. Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin's spokesman, declared that "Russia was and continues to be a reliable supplier of both oil and gas," while Kirill Dmitriev, a senior Kremlin aide, denounced Europe's decision to wean itself off Russian energy as a strategic error. Washington has inadvertently reinforced the dynamic: Trump temporarily lifted some sanctions on Russian oil purchases, including a 30-day exemption for India, in a bid to cool global prices.

European officials are acutely aware of the paradox. Von der Leyen warned against reversing the policy of phasing out Russian fossil fuels, yet the bloc's dependence on volatile imports means every supply shock fills Moscow's war chest. The additional revenue could allow Russia to prolong or intensify its war in Ukraine at a moment when Kyiv is already short of critical air defences.

Patriot missiles diverted from Kyiv to the Gulf

The most immediate military consequence for Ukraine is the diversion of Patriot interceptors. Kallas acknowledged a "direct impact" on Ukraine as "defence capabilities that are needed in Ukraine" are "moving to the Middle East." Volodymyr Zelenskyy put the scale in stark terms: the Gulf has consumed more Patriot missiles in the first few days of Iranian strikes than Ukraine has used in four years of Russian bombardment. The claim, if accurate, illustrates the voracious appetite of modern air defence in a theatre where ballistic and cruise missiles are fired in salvos.

Kyiv has responded with a pragmatic proposal. Ukraine is offering its indigenous counter-drone technology, developed against Russian Shahed-type drones, the same family Iran deploys, to Gulf states. The aim, explained Rafael Loss of the European Council on Foreign Relations, is to "lessen the demand for Patriot interceptors in the Gulf so that Ukraine may receive more going forward." Ukraine's defence industry has battle-tested systems that can engage cheap drones at a fraction of the cost of a Patriot missile, preserving the expensive interceptors for high-value targets.

Why this matters

How we got here

What happens next

The essentials