On February 28, 2026, early in the morning, the Middle East <\/span>woke<\/span><\/a> up to a new reality: the US and Israel launched joint air strikes against Iran \u2014 Washington presented them as Operation “Epic Fury,” while Israel used different code names in public reports. While Israel used different code names in public reports. The first waves of strikes targeted infrastructure and critical military command centers, with the message being clear: this was not a “message,” but an attempt to dismantle capabilities (missile, command, and \u2014 according to the attackers’ claims \u2014 nuclear). Within hours, Iranian state media announced the event that politically sealed the first 24 hours: the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a strike attributed to the start of the operation.<\/span><\/p>\n There is no doubt that the attack by Israel and the US against Iran serves a central political goal: to weaken the regime \u2014 and, in the most ambitious version of the plan, to bring about its downfall. The two allies seem to have concluded that the current situation represents a rare “window of opportunity”: a moment when they can attempt to rid themselves of an adversary that has remained resilient, adaptable, and extremely costly strategically for decades. Their basic assumption seems to be that Iran, under pressure, will be defeated in terms of capabilities and prestige: that it will lose its ability to impose itself regionally, to deter and coordinate \u2014 and that this loss will act as a catalyst for internal political erosion and, ultimately, the collapse of the current system of power. Even the prospect of prolonged chaos within the country does not seem to deter them; on the contrary, it is seen as a manageable cost or even a more favorable development than maintaining an Islamic republic that continues to function as an organized, cohesive pole of resistance to their interests.<\/span><\/p>\n The EU geopolitical twitch <\/p>\n NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte <\/span>stated<\/span><\/a> that NATO “will not get involved” in the war, but at the same time praised the actions of the US and Israel as strikes that limit Iran’s capabilities. Since the start of the war, the EU has <\/span>called<\/span><\/a> for “maximum restraint,” while the Commission and High Representative Kaja Kallas expressed concern and stressed the importance of international law, noting, however, the divided opinion of member states.<\/span><\/p>\n On the political front of European states, in southern European countries\u2014Spain, Greece, Italy, Cyprus \u2013 there is no consensus on geopolitical stance, but rather individualized geopolitical choices depending on the respective interests of each country, defining an ideological axis of response. The governments of southern Europe seem to be trying to walk a tightrope between the US, and therefore Israel, and the rifts created by the unprovoked air strikes against Iran on Saturday, February 28, in violation of international law, in this new reality. At this critical stage, old alliances are being tested, the South is speaking out in its own way, Spain is articulating a new “not in our name,” the Italian government is concerned with its citizens and energy, while Greece and Cyprus are joining forces to shield their role as a stabilizing factor in the eastern Mediterranean.<\/span><\/p>\n The developments in Iran are greatly concerning. We remain in close contact with our partners in the region.<\/p>\n We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to safeguarding regional security and stability.<\/p>\n Ensuring nuclear safety and preventing any actions that could further escalate\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) February 28, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n