LONDON — Emergency support to help Brits grappling with rising bills should go to “those who need it most,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said Tuesday — all-but ruling out a Liz Truss-style universal bailout in response to the Iran war. Pledging to “learn the mistakes of the past,” Reeves told MPs Tuesday that, while “contingency planning” is underway for “every eventuality,” the government will be “responsible” with public finances in any new state intervention. Oil and gas prices have soared since the conflict began, leading to higher fuel prices in the U.K. and sparking fears of a sharp increase in family and business energy bills when a regulated price cap period ends in July. Reeves said that, while the full impact of the crisis is not yet known, “the challenges may be significant.” In response to the 2022 energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the government of then-Prime Minister Liz Truss subsidized the bill of every household in the country — a policy backed by the Labour Party at the time. But Reeves today criticized the “unfunded, untargeted” 2022 package, saying it had pushed up borrowing, interest rates and inflation. Between 2022 and 2024, households in the top income decile received an average £1,350 of direct energy bill support, Reeves said, contributing to national debt “still being paid today.” However, the chancellor stopped short of explicitly ruling out a similar approach. She said: “Contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our ironclad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.” The government has already announced a £53 million package of support for households that use heating oil, which are not protected by the energy price cap. The majority of households that use gas and electricity will not see prices rise until July, when the next price cap period ends. The latest expert projections suggest the average annual bill could rise by more than £200 from current levels. On fuel pricing, Reeves said the government would give an update “within the next month,” amid pressure from opposition parties to extend a longstanding five pence tax relief on gasoline and diesel — the fuel duty cut — beyond its expiry date in September. U.K. gasoline prices have have risen by nearly 16 pence per liter since the war began, while diesel has risen by more than 31 pence.

BERLIN — German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for going to war with Iran, calling the conflict a violation of international law and warning of a transatlantic rupture comparable to Germany’s break with Russia. Steinmeier’s role in German politics is largely ceremonial, but his sharp criticism of the war and the U.S. president is likely to put additional pressure on German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has stopped short of other European leaders in calling the war illegal even as he has grown increasingly critical of what he sees as the lack of an exit strategy on the part of the U.S. and Israel. “This war violates international law,” said Steinmeier, who is a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which rules in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives and has been more critical of the ongoing attacks. “There is little doubt that, in any case, the justification of an imminent attack on the U.S. does not hold water,” he added. Steinmeier, speaking in front of an audience of German diplomats in Berlin, criticized Trump for withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term in office. The president, who served as Germany’s foreign minister from 2013 to 2017, had helped negotiate that deal. “This war is also — and please bear with me when I say this, as someone directly involved — a politically disastrous mistake,” said Steinmeier. “And that’s what frustrates me the most. A truly avoidable, unnecessary war, if its goal was to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Despite the president’s largely symbolic role, his strident criticism is likely to fuel a growing domestic debate over Germany’s stance on the Iran war and its relationship with the U.S. Merz and his fellow conservatives were initially far more supportive of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran than many other EU countries, arguing that Germany shares the goal of regime change in Tehran. But as the conflict has expanded and the economic and security effects on the EU’s biggest economy have become clearer, the chancellor has become far more openly critical, saying the war has raised “major questions” about Europe’s security. Steinmeier, who refrained from criticizing Israel directly, also compared the transatlantic rift during Trump’s second term to Germany’s divorce from Russia in the wake of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “Just as I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before February 24, 2022 in our relationship with Russia, so I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before January 20, 2025 in transatlantic relations,” Steinmeier said, referring to the day of Trump’s second inauguration. “The rupture is too deep.” Steinmeier then urged his country to become more independent of the U.S., both in terms of defense and technology, arguing that such autonomy is necessary to prevent Trump administration interference in his country’s domestic politics. The German military “must become the backbone of conventional defense in Europe,” he said. “In the technological sphere, our dependence on the U.S. is even greater. This makes it all the more important that we do not simply accept this situation.”

European consumer group Euroconsumers along with Football Supporters Europe have filed a complaint with the European Commission accusing FIFA of abusing its monopoly over World Cup ticket sales to impose excessive prices and unfair conditions on fans. The complaint, obtained by POLITICO, alleges breaches of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits abuses of a dominant market position. “FIFA has a complete monopoly over World Cup ticket sales,” said Romane Armangau, a spokesperson for Euroconsumers. “They are using that power to charge prices that would not exist in a normal competitive market, while hiding information from buyers and manipulating them into rushed decisions.” The groups point to a range of alleged abusive practices, including limited transparency on ticket categories and seat allocation, a “variable pricing” system that can push prices higher over time, and the actual scarcity of tickets advertised from $60. “When you buy that ticket, you don’t actually know what you’re buying,” Armangau said. “It means attending the 2026 World Cup has become financially out of reach for most ordinary supporters,” she added, pointing to tickets to the final that now start at more than $4,000. Fans can also face additional costs, including resale fees of around 15 percent, according to the complaint. The groups further accuse FIFA of using “dark patterns” — design and marketing tactics that create artificial urgency — to pressure fans into buying tickets. The filing lands as pressure on FIFA is already building in Brussels. In an interview with POLITICO earlier this month, EU Sports Commissioner Glenn Micallef warned of the safety risks for fans travelling to the 2026 World Cup, citing concerns linked to the war in Iran. He said FIFA had yet to provide renewed assurances for supporters, stressing that “since one of the hosts of this biggest sporting event in the world is party to a war, it’s only legitimate that assurances are given.” Micallef also criticized FIFA’s partnership with U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” a body widely seen in Europe as an attempt to sidestep the United Nations. The complaint to the EU leans on a December 2023 Super League court ruling, which said FIFA and UEFA can fall under EU competition law when they organize and market competitions as economic activities. The filing argues that reasoning applies here too, because FIFA is the sole seller of World Cup tickets and is allegedly abusing that dominant position. While Brussels has previously scrutinized sports governing bodies, targeting FIFA’s ticketing and pricing practices would open a new front. Euroconsumers and its partners are urging the European Commission to intervene, including by imposing price caps and forcing greater transparency over ticket sales. “We are asking the Commission to act immediately with interim measures,” Armangau said. “Once those matches are played, the harm to fans cannot be undone.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s keeping Britain out of the war in Iran — but he can’t duck the conflict’s grave economic consequences. In a sign of growing fears about the impact of the war on Britain, the prime minister chaired a rare meeting of the government’s emergency COBRA committee Monday night, joined by senior ministers and Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey. Starmer’s top finance minister, Rachel Reeves, will update the House of Commons on the economic picture Tuesday, as an already-unpopular administration worries that chaos in the Middle East is shredding plans to lower the cost of living and get the British economy growing. For Starmer’s government — headed for potentially brutal local elections in May — the crisis in the Gulf risks a nightmare combination of a rise in energy prices, interest rates, inflation and the cost of government borrowing that threatens to undermine everything he’s done since winning office. Economists are now warning that even if Donald Trump’s promise of a “complete and total resolution of hostilities” with Iran were to bear fruit, the effects on the British economy could still last for months. Already there are signs of a split within Starmer’s party over how to respond. Labour MPs want the government to think seriously about action to protect households — but Starmer and Reeves have long talked up the need for fiscal responsibility, and economics are warning that there’s little room for maneuver. Fuel prices displayed at a Shell garage in Southam, Warwickshire on March 23, 2026. | Jacob King/PA Images via Getty Images Jim O’Neill, a former Treasury minister who served as an adviser to Reeves, told POLITICO the government should “not get sucked into reacting to every external shock” and “concentrate on boosting our underlying growth trend.” WHY THE UK IS SO HARD HIT Just before the outbreak of war, there was reason for Starmer and Reeves to feel quietly optimistic about the long-stagnant British economy. The Bank of England had expected inflation to fall back sustainably toward its two percent target for the first time in five years, giving the central bank the space to carry on cutting interest rates.  With the Iran war in full flow, it was forced to rewrite those forecasts at the Monetary Policy Committee’s meeting last week — and now sees inflation at around 3.5 percent by the summer. The U.K. is a big net importer of energy and also needs constant imports of foreign capital to fund its budget and current account deficits. That’s made it one of first targets in the financial markets’ crosshairs. The government’s cost of borrowing has risen by more than half a percentage point over the last month. That threatens both the real economy and Reeves’ painstakingly-negotiated budget arithmetic. Higher inflation means higher interest rates and a higher bill for servicing the government’s debt: fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates a one-point increase in inflation would add £7.3 billion to debt servicing costs in 2026-2027 alone. The effect on businesses and home owners is also likely to be chilling. Britain’s banks are already repricing their most popular mortgages, which are tied to the two-year gilt rate. Hundreds of mortgage products were pulled in a hurry after the MPC meeting last week, something that will hit the housing market and depress Reeves’ intake from both stamp duty and capital gains. Duncan Weldon, an economist and author, said: “Even if this were to stop tomorrow, the inflation numbers and growth numbers are going to look materially worse throughout 2026. “If this continues for longer… it’s an awful lot more challenging and you end up with a much tougher budget this autumn than the government would have been hoping to unveil.” DECISION TIME The U.K.’s economic plight presents an acute political headache for Starmer, as he faces a mismatch between his own party’s expectations about the government’s ability to help people and his own scarce resources. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has promised to keep looking at different options for some form of assistance to bill-payers hit by an energy price shock. A pain point is looming in July, when a regulated cap on energy costs is due to expire and bills could jump significantly. One left-leaning Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said: “They [ministers] need to be treating this like a financial crisis. They need plans for multiple scenarios with clear triggers for government support.” A second MP from the 2024 intake said “it’s right that a Labour government steps in, particularly to help the most vulnerable.” Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves at the first cabinet meeting of the new year at No. 10 Downing St. on Jan. 6, 2026 in London, England. | Pool photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images This demand for action is being felt in the upper echelons of the party too, as Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy recently argued Reeves’ fiscal rules — seen as crucial in the Treasury to reassure the markets — may need to be reconsidered if prices continue to rise and a major support package is needed.  One Labour official said there are clear disagreements with Labour over how to go about drawing up help and warned “the fiscal approach is going to be a massive dividing line at any leadership election.” The same official pointed to recent comments by former Starmer deputy — and likely leadership contender — Angela Rayner about the OBR, with Rayner accusing the watchdog of ignoring the “social benefit” of government spending. Despite the pressure, ministers have so far restricted themselves to criticizing petrol retailers for alleged profiteering, and have been flirting with new powers for markets watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority. The government said Reeves would on Tuesday set out steps to “help protect working people from unfair price rises,” including a new “anti-profiteering framework” to “root out price gouging.” But Starmer signaled strongly in an appearance before a Commons committee Monday evening that he was not about to unveil any wide-ranging bailout package, telling MPs he was “acutely aware” of what it had cost when then-Prime Minister Liz Truss launched her own universal energy price guarantee in 2022.  O’Neill backed this approach, saying: “I don’t think they should do much… They can’t afford it anyhow. The nation can’t keep shielding people from external shocks.” Weldon predicted, however, that as the May elections approach and the energy cap deadline draws nearer, the pressure will prove too much and ministers could be forced to step in. The furlough scheme rolled out during the pandemic to project jobs and Truss’s 2022 intervention helped create “the expectation that the government should be helping households,” he said. “But it’s incredibly difficult. Britain’s growth has been blown off-course an awful lot in the last 15 years by these sorts of shocks.” Geoffrey Smith, Dan Bloom, Andrew McDonald and Sam Francis contributed to this report.

ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

HOUSTON — Oil companies and the world’s largest energy consumers face a significant challenge to rebuild global petroleum supply chains and inventories once the critical Strait of Hormuz bottleneck opens, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Monday. “We’ve got a lot of oil and gas now that is not flowing into the market,” Wirth said at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston. “Physical supply chains don’t respond immediately, so even if the strait opens at some point, it will take time to rebuild inventories of the right grades of crude and the right types of fuel.” Wirth cautioned that Iran’s attacks on oil tankers and the broader damage of the Middle East war did greater damage to oil and gas markets than the Russia-Ukraine war. Asian nations are running low on diesel and jet fuel. The war has held up deliveries of LNG, fertilizer and other products. Part of the challenge, Wirth said, will be taking a read of the damage. It’s unclear how much production has been shut in, Wirth said, and how badly some facilities were damaged. At the same event, Energy Secretary Chris Wright reiterated to oil executives that he anticipated the global disruption to oil and gas flows would be “short-term,” but he encouraged companies to ramp up production. “Markets do what markets do,” Wright said. “Prices went up to send signals to everyone that can produce more: ‘Please, produce more.’”

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen hailed Hungary’s Viktor Orbán for blocking a €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine. “I’d prefer it if we didn’t have to wait for other countries to take good decisions,” Le Pen told reporters on a trip to Budapest for a meeting of the Patriots for Europe group, of which her National Rally and Orbán’s Fidesz are members. Le Pen argued that France could no longer afford to support Ukraine’s war effort due to its high deficit and debt levels. “France is ruined, our public finances don’t allow us today to make loans we know won’t be reimbursed,” she said. “France has to become reasonable … and keep the money for French citizens.” Also in Hungary for the meeting are Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders and Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini. Hungary goes to the polls on April 12, and the National Rally leader lent Orbán her firm backing on Monday on X, saying she was “very honored” to support him. On Saturday, Hungary held a European edition of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), which included a video message from U.S. President Donald Trump, who reiterated his “complete and total” backing for Orbán. Le Pen was not present at the CPAC gathering and said she wanted France to stay at a “distance” from the world’s great powers. “It doesn’t mean we don’t respect them, it just means we defend our interests and they defend theirs,” she said, adding that Trump’s tariff war against Europe proved why she needed to take this stance.

HOW TWO WARS ARE PULLING EUROPE AND THE US APART The EU is worried President Trump could abandon Ukraine if the bloc doesn’t support him in the Middle East. By NICHOLAS VINOCUR in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO  The biggest fear of European leaders is that Donald Trump’s war in Iran will lead him to abandon Ukraine. Governments are terrified that the U.S. president could retaliate against America’s European allies for spurning his appeals for assistance in the Middle East, primarily by cutting off what’s left of U.S. help for Kyiv, according to four EU diplomats with knowledge of their discussions. As they scramble to avoid a permanent break in the transatlantic relationship, leaders hope their offer of limited support for his action against Tehran will suffice to convince Trump to stay the course in the conflict with Russia. The war in Iran “must not divert our attention from the support we give Ukraine,” French President Emmanuel Macron said at the end of last week’s EU summit in Brussels. It’s easy to see why EU leaders are so anxious. In recent days Trump has repeatedly blasted them for failing to do more to help him unblock the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping route used by about 20 percent of the world’s oil that has effectively been closed by Iran. He has also explicitly linked continued U.S. involvement in NATO to the Middle East conflict. “NATO IS A PAPER TIGER!” he railed in a Truth Social Post over the weekend. “They complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz … COWARDS,” he concluded. “[W]e will remember.” At the same time, further deepening fears about the transatlantic alliance, Moscow offered Washington a quid pro quo under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence with Iran if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia, POLITICO revealed on Friday. While the U.S. declined the offer, according to two people familiar with the U.S.-Russia negotiations, the fact it was proffered in the first place points to a possible tradeoff between U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East. “There’s a crack right now emerging between, you know, Europe and the U.S., which, again, as an avid pro-American and transatlanticist, I lament,” Finnish President Alexander Stubb said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph. “But it’s a reality that I have to live with. And I obviously try to salvage what I can.” MISSILES LIKE CANDIES Governments are concerned that the war in Iran is using up missiles and air defense munitions that Kyiv needs to protect itself against Russia, the four EU diplomats, who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic exchanges, told POLITICO. “When you see what Trump did on Greenland, how he cut off intelligence-sharing with Ukraine on a whim, there’s always a risk [that Trump could remove U.S. support for Ukraine],” one of the diplomats said. “The concern is obviously that the Middle East is taking attention away from Ukraine,” added a second diplomat from a mid-sized EU country. “The Emiratis are shooting out Patriot [air defense missiles] like candies, whereas Ukraine desperately needs them. It can’t become an either-or situation” in which the U.S. only has enough bandwidth for one conflict and abandons Ukraine, the diplomat added. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been explicit about the risk of such a tradeoff, telling the BBC on Thursday that he had a “very bad feeling” about the impact of the Middle East war on Ukraine. He lamented the fact that as the war goes on, U.S.-led peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are being “constantly postponed” in what the Kremlin calls a “situational pause.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is pictured at Moncloa Palace in Madrid, Spain on March 18, 2026. | Alberto Gardin/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Ukrainian negotiators traveled over the weekend to the U.S. for talks with Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The latter praised the talks as “constructive” in a post on X, but gave no hint of when negotiations with Russia would resume. DAMAGE CONTROL European leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, are ramping up efforts to show they support the U.S. president’s goal of freeing up the Strait of Hormuz. In a now familiar role, Rutte has been outspoken in praising Trump’s efforts. The former Dutch prime minister last week called the destruction of Iran’s military capacity by the U.S. and Israel “very important,” linking it to “European security” at a time when some EU leaders, like Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, have criticized the war as “illegal.” Macron has been more circumspect in public, but active behind the scenes. In two separate calls with Trump before last Thursday’s gathering of EU leaders, the French president assured his U.S. counterpart that France would help clear the Strait when conditions allow, according to comments from Trump himself and a third EU diplomat who was briefed on the calls. “This is about managing the man,” the diplomat said. In the early hours of Friday, Macron — who has otherwise pledged to send a naval detachment to the Strait of Hormuz after the hot phase of the war dies down — said France was pursuing the aim of freeing it up via the United Nations. In response to a question from POLITICO at the European Council on Thursday, the French leader said Paris intends to “sound out its main partners” about tabling a resolution in the Security Council on securing freedom of navigation in the vital waterway. Trump is no fan of the United Nations, but he could see an advantage to a U.N. Security Council resolution that forms the basis for a broader coalition to free up the Strait, a fourth EU diplomat said. The southern suburbs of Beirut after an Israeli airstrike on March 10, 2026. | Fadel Itani/AFP via Getty Images The U.K.’s Starmer is also doing more to help Trump in the Middle East. Following reports that Iran had fired a ballistic missile at the Diego Garcia U.S.-U.K. base in the Indian Ocean, Starmer gave the U.S. a green light to use British bases to launch strikes on Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz. Previously he had only granted permission for the bases to be used for defensive strikes. Starmer was also the main organizer of a statement signed by seven EU and allied countries (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan) in which they expressed their “readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.” Asked about the intent of this statement, which doesn’t promise any immediate material help, the third diplomat said: “It’s part of the same effort. We need to show Trump we are active in the Middle East. It’s in our interests, but also in Ukraine’s.” Such pledges remain vague for now. Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have both asserted they have no intention of being drawn into the war in Iran. But as far as Trump is concerned, “appearances matter — sometimes more than substance,” said the same diplomat.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Like many, I used to believe that former U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the biggest strategic mistake America had made, at least since the Vietnam War. That is, until now. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel in a war against Iran is a far bigger strategic error, and one with far bigger strategic consequences. The reasons for this are many, ranging from the immediate impact on the region and the global economy to the longer-term upshots for Russia and China, as well as the repercussions for U.S. alliances and America’s global standing. That much is already clear — and we’re only three weeks in. Let’s start with the similarities: Much like the Iraq War, the war against Iran began based on the presumption that the regime in power would swiftly fall and that a new, more moderate and less antagonistic one would take its place. In both instances, the idea was to remove the greatest destabilizing threat in the Middle East — Saddam Hussein’s regime in the initial case, the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran in the latter — through the swift and decisive use of military force. But while Bush understood that defeating a regime required ground forces, it seems Trump simply hoped that airpower alone would suffice. As a result, Hussein’s regime fell swiftly — though Bush did vastly underestimate what would be required to rebuild a stable, let alone a democratic, Iraq in its place. But the Iranian government, as U.S. intelligence officials themselves have testified, “appears to be intact” despite Israel killing many of its key political and security leaders through targeted strikes. Focusing on the region at large, Bush’s misjudgment eventually contributed to a large-scale insurgency, which strengthened Iran’s influence in Iraq and the wider Middle East. In contrast, Trump’s miscalculation has left in place a regime that, aside from assuring its own survival, is now singularly focused on inflicting as much damage on the U.S. and its allies as it possibly can. Iranian drones and missiles have already attacked Israel and the Gulf states, targeted critical energy production facilities and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which hosts one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas export transits. The Salalah oil storage fire in Oman is pictured on March 13, 2026. | Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2026 Less than a month in, the world is now witnessing the largest oil and gas disruption in history. And as the fighting escalates to include gas and oil production infrastructure, the global economic consequences will be felt by every single country for months, if not years, to come — even if the conflict were to end soon. The damage that has already been inflicted on the global economy is far greater than the economic consequences of the Iraq War in its entirety. But that’s not all. Geopolitically, the U.S.-Israel war with Iran will also have far greater reverberations than the war in Iraq ever did. For one, the Bush administration spent a lot of time and effort trying to get allies on board to participate in and support the war. It didn’t fully succeed in this, as key allies like Germany and France continued opposing the war. But it tried. Trump, by contrast, didn’t even try to get America’s most important allies on board. Not only that, he even failed to inform them of his decision. And yet, when Iran responded predictably by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. president then demanded allies send their navies to escort tankers — despite the U.S. Navy so far refusing to do so. And while it’s true that Iraq left many U.S. allies — even those that joined the war, like the U.K. — deeply scarred, Iran has convinced U.S. allies they can no longer rely on the U.S., and that Washington is now a real threat to their economic security. That, too, will have a lasting impact well beyond anything the war in Iraq did. Finally, the fact remains that when Bush decided to invade Iraq, Russia and China were still minor global powers. Russian President Vladimir Putin was only just starting his effort to stabilize the economy and rebuild Russia’s military power, while China had just joined the World Trade Organization and was still a decade or more away from becoming an economic superpower. In other words, America’s blunder in Iraq occurred at a time when the strategic consequences for the global balance of power were still manageable. Trump’s Iran debacle is occurring at a time when China is effectively competing with the U.S. for global power and influence, and Russia is engaged in the largest military action in Europe since the end of World War II. A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in Tehran, Iran on March 15, 2026 after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before. | Majid Saeedi/Getty Images Both stand to benefit greatly. Russia is the short-term winner here. Oil prices are rising, generating more than $150 million per day in extra income for Moscow to feed its war machine. The U.S. is relaxing its sanctions against Russia in a vain attempt to stall prices from ballooning at the pump. All the while, Ukraine is being left to contend with Russia’s missile and drone attacks without the advanced defensive weaponry that’s now being used to protect Israel and the Gulf instead. China, meanwhile, is watching as the U.S. diverts its military forces from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, where they will likely remain for months, if not years. These forces include a carrier strike group, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system from Korea, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan. And while a disruption in oil and gas supply will be a short-term problem for Beijing too, China’s rapid transition to renewables and close alignment with energy-rich Russia will leave it well placed to confidently confront the future. Bush and Trump both came to office determined to avoid the mistaken wars of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they both embarked on military adventures fed by a hubristic belief in American power. But while the U.S. was strong enough — and its adversaries still weak enough — to recoup much of the damage inflicted by Bush’s war, the war unfolding in Iran today will leave behind an America that will have lost much of its global power, standing and influence, destined to confront rising adversaries all on its own.

LONDON — Donald Trump has berated Keir Starmer over the Iran war. But the U.S. president might just have bought the British leader a little more time in the job. Trump blasted Starmer as “no Winston Churchill” for his limits on the U.S. launching offensive attacks from British bases — and has helped stoke criticism from opposition parties at home about an indecisive U.K. administration. But the global tumult from the U.S.-led war in the Middle East has had one counter-effect: strengthening, for now, Starmer’s precarious domestic position. Numerous errors and climbdowns — plus voter frustration at not seeing the “change” promised in the 2024 election — has left Starmer one of the most unpopular British prime ministers on record. Missteps and a failure to bring political troops with him on a host of controversial issues have also left Starmer sorely lacking support among his own MPs. Whether he will survive past a difficult round of local elections on May 7 is an open talking point at Westminster. Would-be replacements, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and former Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner, have made little secret of their hope to stand if a contest arises. But external events have a habit of changing the course of politics. And a sense is growing that the crisis in the Middle East is dampening the chatter about removing the prime minister. “Iran has bought him time,” said one Labour official, who like others in this piece spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party tensions. A Labour frontbencher, who in the past predicted Starmer would be out after the spring elections, said the war is “making colleagues think again about changing leader,” adding: “It focuses minds on who we want leading the country at a time of crisis. Would we really want Angela or Wes sitting around the NATO table?” Britain’s involvement entered a new stage on Friday, when the U.K. said the U.S. could use British bases to bomb Iranian missile sites attacking commercial shipping the Strait of Hormuz. Downing Street insisted this fell within the existing scope of “defensive” action that Starmer approved on Mar. 1. There is broad agreement among Labour MPs that Starmer has taken the correct approach to the conflict — refusing to let jibes from Trump rile him while sticking to his position that the initial U.S.-Israel offensive action was wrong but that allies need defending from Iranian blowback. “Most other potential prime ministers, Labour or otherwise, wouldn’t have had the backbone to stand firm, and would now be explaining to a furious British public how we were disentangling ourselves from Trump’s war and all the ensuing economic challenges we will face,” said one senior government official. The same person sensed that even among rival leadership camps “there is an acknowledgement that this war changes things. It would be a terrible time to be seen to be playing politics by any contender.” Health Secretary Wes Streeting speaks to the press at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England on March 19, 2026. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Indeed, one of Streeting’s allies accepted that there won’t be a leadership challenge while the war continues, adding that being a statesman on the world stage is “what Keir is good at.” Even disgruntled MPs have been telling each other “there’s no way there could be a challenge at a time like this,” one noted, while Conservative MPs have also discussed how the war has shored up the Starmer position.  But the calculation among plotters is still likely to come down to weighing the state of the war against how bad the verdict is from voters at the May local elections. “He’s played a blinder and is exactly where most of the country is,” one Starmer critic said. “But if it’s a bloodbath in May it would still be tricky. And it feels like everyone is on maneuvers in Westminster.” That is acknowledged even in government. One minister said the outcome will be difficult to predict if election results are “catastrophic,” while another said: “There is still a feeling that things are untenable and could come to a head quite quickly.” Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves have been contacting junior ministers in recent weeks encouraging them to rally round the prime minister, said one of those on the receiving end. They described the outreach as one of the “save Keir calls.” Some note, too, that those arguing that a leader cannot be changed during a war have forgotten lessons from the past. “The center [of government] will argue people shouldn’t move at a time of war, but we changed leaders during two world wars,” said another government frontbencher. “If things are really bad in May, I don’t think it will be the argument that stops people.” Even the ongoing Ukraine war serves as a lesson. There was murmuring among Conservative MPs that it would be wrong to oust their then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson amid war in Europe. But he was gone six months after the BBC reported it in 2022.  The opposition is also not giving Starmer the grace he afforded to Johnson as the Ukraine crisis mounted. “Starmer is in office but not in power and that is making Britain’s response to this conflict confused and incoherent,” a Conservative spokesperson said. In the end, it could be Starmer’s response to bad election results, not his reaction to a war beyond his control, that really seals his fate. “Clearly we are working hard to secure success in the May elections. However, following any election, it is right that there is a full assessment of the outcome,” said Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has called for Starmer to quit in the past.  “There are always circumstances where a case can be made that ‘now is not the right time’ but what is important is that there is recognition of the outcome, the reasons why and the remedy that is required. “Let’s see where we get to in seven weeks’ time,” she added.