Italy didn't join Spain in this: it's just that using the Sigonella airbase for military purpose requires parliament approval, which was not scheduled on time. Meanwhile, five US military flights took off from the other base of Aviano, Northern Italy.
Aviano hosts the 31° Fighter Wing (F-16 jets) and B61-4 nuclear weapons, while Sigonella has Mq-9 Reaper drones and Ep-3 surveillance airplanes.
For context, the other main US bases in Italy are: Ghedi (Lombardia region), Camp Darby (Tuscany region), Camp Ederle (Veneto region), the two harbors of Naples and Gaeta, and some other communications infrastructures. By the way, Camp Darby is the largest US weapons and ammunition warehouse in Europe.
> Someone is trying to get the message across that Italy has decided to suspend the use of bases for U.S. assets.
> Something that's simply false, because the bases are active, in use, and nothing has changed.
> The Government continues to do what all Italian Governments have always done in full adherence to the commitments made in Parliament and to the line reiterated in the Supreme Defense Council as well, in continuity with all previous Councils over the decades.
> International agreements clearly regulate and distinguish what requires specific Government authorization (for which it has been decided to always involve Parliament), without which it is not possible to grant anything, and what is instead considered technically authorized because it is included in the agreements.
> A minister only has to ensure they are respected.
> There is no third option.
> Finally, I want to reiterate that there is no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules that have governed their presence in Italy since 1954 just as well as we do.
> no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules
Not to add to the fake news cycle, but since the US seems fine in abandoning international agreements (at least for climate and nuclear weapons,) this comes across as blue-eyed or disingenuous.
> Aircraft of the United States forces which are deployed in Spain, permanently or on rotation, within the agreed force level, may overfly, enter and exit Spanish air space, and use the bases specified in Annex 2 of this Agreement, with no other requirement than compliance with Spanish air traffic regulations. In order to use other bases, military airdromes and airports, the corresponding authorization shall be requested through the Permanent Committee at least 48 hours in advance.
> Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee.
Interestingly I did a double take when looking this up as there is also an even worse "1976 Cavalese cable car crash" in the same vicinity 22 years earlier, this time the fault of a car operator and a design weakness.
In a twist of fate, the person partially responsible for the 1976 disaster was named Schweizer. The one partially responsible in 1998 was Schweitzer.
So if we are hoping whatever nationality/occupation pair is gone that is responsible for Cavalese car crashes, you'll be hoping to eject more than just Americans (it is not clear to me whether Schweizer was Italian as the last name seems more Germanic and apparently they were a seasonal worker). Maybe instead it is more specific to eject anyone with the name Schweit?zer ...
That is a misleading headline. Italy refused landing to flights outside normal operations without a prior request. We don't know how the Italian government would respond to a request if the US took the time to make one.
I really wish that people would distinguish between "Americans" and "the US government" (and between the latter and the Trump regime) more clearly. I am Turkish and when I am associated with the behaviour of the Turkish government (which happens when I am abroad), it is very unpleasant. I lived in the States for 7 years and have many friends there. I am guessing they would similarly find this association unpleasant.
It should feel unpleasant. I don't believe Americans are a victim of an oppressive regime and I don't think they get to abdicate responsibility for their government's actions by asking the world to make that distinction. Because I certainly don't get a choice of who I trade with and who is threatening my country's existence.
To put simply: the best peaceful tool I feel that I have to protect my children's future is to maximize the embarassment, shame, and personal disgust of those who the U.S Government represents. Those who have a vote and a voice in their town square. Those who can protest or strike. The goal is to make current levels of domestic inaction intolerable. I'm delighted by the No Kings turnout. That's a good start.
If we get to a point where Americans by and large do not believe they have any power over their democracy, and that they're helpless victims of an oppressive government, I think my perspective would change in the same way I don't think Iranians are to be expected to deal with their government.
I should be clear because this is a very pointed perspective: I don't dislike Americans. As a Canadian it's inevitable that I am close friends with countless Americans. There's a number of them in my very close family. But I believe they bear responsibility for their government because I believe the U.S. is, for now, still a democracy.
> the best peaceful tool I feel that I have to protect my children's future is to maximize the embarassment, shame, and personal disgust of those who the U.S Government represents. Those who have a vote and a voice in their town square. Those who can protest or strike. The goal is to make current levels of domestic inaction intolerable. I'm delighted by the No Kings turnout. That's a good start.
And I’ll vote for the people that prevent and/or limit the damage you wish to cause to the current administration and its supporters. Especially if it means using privacy laws to prevent doxxing of such individuals or any adverse action against them.
The majority could have voted for a different government if they didn't want this one. I could understand this argument somewhere else, but the US has fair elections and voted for this twice.
Apparently Usians living in sweden have been complaining that swedes assume they aren't trump supporters.
edit: also it's the USA doctrine to oppress people whose government you dislike in the hope that they might rebel, so in their case it's completely fair.
History is full of such incidents. Isn't US have been using EU air space to conduct strikes in other countries? Is not EU kept silence for the election stolen in Pakistan? Is EU kept silence when hundreds of people were killed by Pakistan Army in 2024 and 2025? Is not EU kept Pakistan 2024 election report unpublished for 2 years? Why do EU support Pakistan Army's illegal rule? Oh, and Isn't NATO has been killing in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan?
> As these were not logistical flights, they were not covered by the bilateral treaty governing U.S. military bases in Italy which allow for logistical and technical use; that led Defense Minister Guido Crosetto to deny the planes the use of the Sigonella base since permission in this case would need approval from the Italian parliament.
> their flight plan was not communicated in advance to the Italian air force general staff, nor had the American aircraft received authorization to land,
Sounds like they might have gotten authorization if they had just told them in advance.
More intentionally misleading propaganda. Just like France's supposed ban of its airspace to US aircrafts claimed by Trump which is, needless to say, wrong. Think about what countries benefit from spreading this misinformation through media channels.
On the one hand the US has pushed for this by weakening NATO. On the other hand what's interesting is that the EU's primary defense focus is Ukraine whose primary adversary's primary defense partner is Iran, including creator of the dominant drone that Russia uses to attack Ukraine. So while it makes sense that European countries are doing what they can to avoid being targeted by Iranian retaliation, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for Europe to not be able to do much to defend its interests (in Ukraine or the Gulf). All of this will lead to a newly muscular Europe, presumably. Which is what the US has been pushing for. But the US will have to get used to getting less red carpet treatment in Europe.
I'm sure Europe would in theory prefer to be unified against Iran (for the reasons you mention, namely Russia), but the way this war was started was just too colossally stupid. It (entirely predictably) jacked up oil prices, so Iran is making more money on their exports, and Russian sanctions are being lifted. The immediate consequences of this war are directly funding our (both the US's and EU's) adversaries. I don't think fear of Iranian (para)military retaliation is much of a factor, but certainly not the main one.
There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily. So you had a choice: be permanently deterred or take action and bear the pain. Sure Europe would like to avoid that pain for obvious reasons, but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe. If you feel Iran and Russia are strengthened by this you're over-focusing on one key thing: oil revenue, when Iran is weakened by countless other things and Russia is weakened having their entire middle eastern strategic allies including the gulf players they've pandered up to now hostile.
> There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily
Agreed, but
> but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe
I don't think this is a sure thing at all.
The fact is that the US and Israel kicked a hornets nest that everyone is stuck in the room with, and everyone else in that room is understandably upset. And (to belabor the metaphor) the only ones who those hornets were eyeing had themselves been causing trouble for the past 80 years.
To continue the metaphor, there are some that are comfortable having a hornet's nest in their bedroom and others that will take the initiative to remove it
How is Iran weakened, in what sense? It suffered economic damage and casualties for sure, but I don't think there is anything it cannot recover from. It's just a pure destructive rage from US side without thinking of any long-term strategic results.
They have put all of their resources into military technology over the last 30 years and now much of that is destroyed or degraded. They have lost their deterrence and the lawn will continue to be mowed if they do decide to attempt to rebuild it. Because the people resent the regime it's just a matter of time before things change on the ground and when that does happen assistance and economic opportunities will emerge. But until then Iran will be in this extremely degraded state
This is a silly claim; they're still sending missiles and drones all over the area, and the strait is functionally closed.
We spent twenty years trying to tame Afghanistan and it went right back to the Taliban within days of withdrawal from the area. Iran has a lot more capacity to bounce back than they did.
Before the war, the regime was facing the threat of imminent collapse. But if the war ends without regime change, they may use it as an excuse to eliminate organizers and other key opposition figures. If they have not already done so. If no other options exist, the regime will remain in power, despite the lack of popular support.
As for deterrent, Iran will probably stop being a significant threat to Israel. But cheap drones have changed the situation closer to Iran. The military power required to close the Strait and hobble the economies of the Gulf states is orders of magnitude smaller than the military power needed to stop it.
The US government were surprised that they closed the strait btw. Let’s not rewrite history to make this all sound planned and foreseen when it clearly was not.
Also currently Iran is looking stronger not weaker tbh. The Americans have really fucked it all up.
I have heard numerous people make this assertion when every single wargaming exercise has always predicted the closing of the straight. I don't understand where this is coming from.
When you say Iran is looking stronger I think you mean in some kind of relative expectation game in the media sense rather than a real hard power sense.. I would encourage you to look at the latter instead
Weakened Iran is not a given outcome. It's a possible outcome. As for Gulf players, the feel suckered by Trump now. The saudis are begging for Trump to finish the job exactly because they are afraid he won't.
I had heard that Iranian exports had increased. This [0] is the best source I can find commenting on their output either way, and it says they're exporting about 50% more. That part might be untrue, but the lack of reporting suggests that at worst that their output hasn't decreased. Whatever the change though, the price of oil has increased significantly, which makes them more money. So at present they're making anywhere from 50%-100% more money, depending on whether their exports have increased.
Iran's relationhip to Russia is in no way strategic to EU. Overall trade between Russia and Iran is 1/400th of that of Russia <-> China trade. Breaking the relationship now would not lead to any noticeable effect on Ukraine war. Russia manufactures geran drones itself. And you will not bomb technology/knowledge transfers away anyway. Vast majority of the materials for Russia's war come from China and the rest of the world, incl. USA and Europe.
What is a complete strategic failure though is EU's support for Israel's impunity that created this war, which will negatively effect all of the EU. There should have been severe sanctions and travel bans on all Israelis long time ago, to force their government to act better. Economic losses this shithole country caused to the EU, will not be offset by any benefits Israel's<->EU trade could create for a looooong time.
The EU should have attacked Iran the moment Iran started providing defensive assistance to Russia. Initially it wasn't know how that they gave them but explicit shipments of drones. That would have been the moment to pounds but of course the EU did not have the strength to act in that moment. That weakness unfortunately persists but it will not forever. And in time, oncr strengthened again, the EU will be able to act where needed.
If you think this war is somehow negatively impacting the EU you're being very short sighted. Do you realize the level of impunity the IRGC has traditionally operated with in europe? Only the mass murderer of the Iranian civilians in January initiated a slow wake up call for europe. Still only a service level wake up call unfortunately
Italy didn't join Spain in this: it's just that using the Sigonella airbase for military purpose requires parliament approval, which was not scheduled on time. Meanwhile, five US military flights took off from the other base of Aviano, Northern Italy.
Aviano hosts the 31° Fighter Wing (F-16 jets) and B61-4 nuclear weapons, while Sigonella has Mq-9 Reaper drones and Ep-3 surveillance airplanes.
For context, the other main US bases in Italy are: Ghedi (Lombardia region), Camp Darby (Tuscany region), Camp Ederle (Veneto region), the two harbors of Naples and Gaeta, and some other communications infrastructures. By the way, Camp Darby is the largest US weapons and ammunition warehouse in Europe.
Yeah. From the Italian defense minister:
> Someone is trying to get the message across that Italy has decided to suspend the use of bases for U.S. assets.
> Something that's simply false, because the bases are active, in use, and nothing has changed.
> The Government continues to do what all Italian Governments have always done in full adherence to the commitments made in Parliament and to the line reiterated in the Supreme Defense Council as well, in continuity with all previous Councils over the decades.
> International agreements clearly regulate and distinguish what requires specific Government authorization (for which it has been decided to always involve Parliament), without which it is not possible to grant anything, and what is instead considered technically authorized because it is included in the agreements.
> A minister only has to ensure they are respected.
> There is no third option.
> Finally, I want to reiterate that there is no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules that have governed their presence in Italy since 1954 just as well as we do.
https://x.com/GuidoCrosetto/status/2038945070833897586
> no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules
Not to add to the fake news cycle, but since the US seems fine in abandoning international agreements (at least for climate and nuclear weapons,) this comes across as blue-eyed or disingenuous.
> Meanwhile, five US military flights took off from the other base of Aviano, Northern Italy.
This may be permitted under the agreements.
I can't find the Italian version, but Spain's agreement (https://es.usembassy.gov/agreement-on-defense-cooperation/) differentiates between aircraft already based in Spain versus ones transiting through.
> Aircraft of the United States forces which are deployed in Spain, permanently or on rotation, within the agreed force level, may overfly, enter and exit Spanish air space, and use the bases specified in Annex 2 of this Agreement, with no other requirement than compliance with Spanish air traffic regulations. In order to use other bases, military airdromes and airports, the corresponding authorization shall be requested through the Permanent Committee at least 48 hours in advance.
> Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee.
We'll see what Italy does if asked next time.
I really hope someday no US troops will be stationed in Italy.
I'm still livid about the Cavalese disaster in which I lost few distant friends (close friends of my Veneto uncle's):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash
Interestingly I did a double take when looking this up as there is also an even worse "1976 Cavalese cable car crash" in the same vicinity 22 years earlier, this time the fault of a car operator and a design weakness.
In a twist of fate, the person partially responsible for the 1976 disaster was named Schweizer. The one partially responsible in 1998 was Schweitzer.
So if we are hoping whatever nationality/occupation pair is gone that is responsible for Cavalese car crashes, you'll be hoping to eject more than just Americans (it is not clear to me whether Schweizer was Italian as the last name seems more Germanic and apparently they were a seasonal worker). Maybe instead it is more specific to eject anyone with the name Schweit?zer ...
That is a misleading headline. Italy refused landing to flights outside normal operations without a prior request. We don't know how the Italian government would respond to a request if the US took the time to make one.
> […]if the US took the time to make one.
Is it normal for the Americans to behave this way or is this new procedure?
I really wish that people would distinguish between "Americans" and "the US government" (and between the latter and the Trump regime) more clearly. I am Turkish and when I am associated with the behaviour of the Turkish government (which happens when I am abroad), it is very unpleasant. I lived in the States for 7 years and have many friends there. I am guessing they would similarly find this association unpleasant.
It should feel unpleasant. I don't believe Americans are a victim of an oppressive regime and I don't think they get to abdicate responsibility for their government's actions by asking the world to make that distinction. Because I certainly don't get a choice of who I trade with and who is threatening my country's existence.
To put simply: the best peaceful tool I feel that I have to protect my children's future is to maximize the embarassment, shame, and personal disgust of those who the U.S Government represents. Those who have a vote and a voice in their town square. Those who can protest or strike. The goal is to make current levels of domestic inaction intolerable. I'm delighted by the No Kings turnout. That's a good start.
If we get to a point where Americans by and large do not believe they have any power over their democracy, and that they're helpless victims of an oppressive government, I think my perspective would change in the same way I don't think Iranians are to be expected to deal with their government.
I should be clear because this is a very pointed perspective: I don't dislike Americans. As a Canadian it's inevitable that I am close friends with countless Americans. There's a number of them in my very close family. But I believe they bear responsibility for their government because I believe the U.S. is, for now, still a democracy.
> the best peaceful tool I feel that I have to protect my children's future is to maximize the embarassment, shame, and personal disgust of those who the U.S Government represents. Those who have a vote and a voice in their town square. Those who can protest or strike. The goal is to make current levels of domestic inaction intolerable. I'm delighted by the No Kings turnout. That's a good start.
And I’ll vote for the people that prevent and/or limit the damage you wish to cause to the current administration and its supporters. Especially if it means using privacy laws to prevent doxxing of such individuals or any adverse action against them.
Who said anything about doxxing? It's no surprise you support that administration given you make up fake threats in your head like this.
>And I’ll vote for the people that prevent and/or limit the damage you wish to cause to the current administration and its supporters.
Be honest and say you wish to abolish the First Amendment instead of this weaselly nonsense.
Americans should stop voting in governments like this then.
Majority of them didn't want this government, but US elections can be gamed.
The majority could have voted for a different government if they didn't want this one. I could understand this argument somewhere else, but the US has fair elections and voted for this twice.
In fairness America doesn't work like Europe. The president can just start a war without asking for permission from the people nor parliament.
Apparently Usians living in sweden have been complaining that swedes assume they aren't trump supporters.
edit: also it's the USA doctrine to oppress people whose government you dislike in the hope that they might rebel, so in their case it's completely fair.
So, EU members will keep preaching peace and humanity and still keep doing contrary to that.
Which ones were that?
History is full of such incidents. Isn't US have been using EU air space to conduct strikes in other countries? Is not EU kept silence for the election stolen in Pakistan? Is EU kept silence when hundreds of people were killed by Pakistan Army in 2024 and 2025? Is not EU kept Pakistan 2024 election report unpublished for 2 years? Why do EU support Pakistan Army's illegal rule? Oh, and Isn't NATO has been killing in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan?
> As these were not logistical flights, they were not covered by the bilateral treaty governing U.S. military bases in Italy which allow for logistical and technical use; that led Defense Minister Guido Crosetto to deny the planes the use of the Sigonella base since permission in this case would need approval from the Italian parliament.
And:
> their flight plan was not communicated in advance to the Italian air force general staff, nor had the American aircraft received authorization to land,
Sounds like they might have gotten authorization if they had just told them in advance.
What is a logistical flight?
Cargo, passengers?
Versus combat operations.
(Joining Spain and France.)
and they can't fly over Switzerland. [1]
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-bars-us-overflights...
Edit: I'm wrong! Yoink!
this is not true
Uh, what? They very much did not.
Retracted. Not sure where I heard that. Likely confused with Sweden
It is a war, military operation, or an aggression?
3-days special operation.
Call it what you want. Just don't use accurate terms like apartheid, genocide or war crime.
More intentionally misleading propaganda. Just like France's supposed ban of its airspace to US aircrafts claimed by Trump which is, needless to say, wrong. Think about what countries benefit from spreading this misinformation through media channels.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/03/31/f...
Unironically there are currently multiple US military aircraft transitting over France and Italy as I type.
On the one hand the US has pushed for this by weakening NATO. On the other hand what's interesting is that the EU's primary defense focus is Ukraine whose primary adversary's primary defense partner is Iran, including creator of the dominant drone that Russia uses to attack Ukraine. So while it makes sense that European countries are doing what they can to avoid being targeted by Iranian retaliation, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for Europe to not be able to do much to defend its interests (in Ukraine or the Gulf). All of this will lead to a newly muscular Europe, presumably. Which is what the US has been pushing for. But the US will have to get used to getting less red carpet treatment in Europe.
I'm sure Europe would in theory prefer to be unified against Iran (for the reasons you mention, namely Russia), but the way this war was started was just too colossally stupid. It (entirely predictably) jacked up oil prices, so Iran is making more money on their exports, and Russian sanctions are being lifted. The immediate consequences of this war are directly funding our (both the US's and EU's) adversaries. I don't think fear of Iranian (para)military retaliation is much of a factor, but certainly not the main one.
There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily. So you had a choice: be permanently deterred or take action and bear the pain. Sure Europe would like to avoid that pain for obvious reasons, but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe. If you feel Iran and Russia are strengthened by this you're over-focusing on one key thing: oil revenue, when Iran is weakened by countless other things and Russia is weakened having their entire middle eastern strategic allies including the gulf players they've pandered up to now hostile.
> There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily
Agreed, but
> but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe
I don't think this is a sure thing at all.
The fact is that the US and Israel kicked a hornets nest that everyone is stuck in the room with, and everyone else in that room is understandably upset. And (to belabor the metaphor) the only ones who those hornets were eyeing had themselves been causing trouble for the past 80 years.
To continue the metaphor, there are some that are comfortable having a hornet's nest in their bedroom and others that will take the initiative to remove it
Did you mean: will take the initiative to knock the nest over, retreat into a corner of the room and declare that it’s someone else’s problem now.
How is Iran weakened, in what sense? It suffered economic damage and casualties for sure, but I don't think there is anything it cannot recover from. It's just a pure destructive rage from US side without thinking of any long-term strategic results.
They have put all of their resources into military technology over the last 30 years and now much of that is destroyed or degraded. They have lost their deterrence and the lawn will continue to be mowed if they do decide to attempt to rebuild it. Because the people resent the regime it's just a matter of time before things change on the ground and when that does happen assistance and economic opportunities will emerge. But until then Iran will be in this extremely degraded state
> They have lost their deterrence…
This is a silly claim; they're still sending missiles and drones all over the area, and the strait is functionally closed.
We spent twenty years trying to tame Afghanistan and it went right back to the Taliban within days of withdrawal from the area. Iran has a lot more capacity to bounce back than they did.
Before the war, the regime was facing the threat of imminent collapse. But if the war ends without regime change, they may use it as an excuse to eliminate organizers and other key opposition figures. If they have not already done so. If no other options exist, the regime will remain in power, despite the lack of popular support.
As for deterrent, Iran will probably stop being a significant threat to Israel. But cheap drones have changed the situation closer to Iran. The military power required to close the Strait and hobble the economies of the Gulf states is orders of magnitude smaller than the military power needed to stop it.
The US government were surprised that they closed the strait btw. Let’s not rewrite history to make this all sound planned and foreseen when it clearly was not.
Also currently Iran is looking stronger not weaker tbh. The Americans have really fucked it all up.
I have heard numerous people make this assertion when every single wargaming exercise has always predicted the closing of the straight. I don't understand where this is coming from.
When you say Iran is looking stronger I think you mean in some kind of relative expectation game in the media sense rather than a real hard power sense.. I would encourage you to look at the latter instead
For how long can the US maintain its current posture? What is it, more Patriots spent in 4 days than in 4 years in Ukraine?
Russia is shipping drones to Iran now.
Weakened Iran is not a given outcome. It's a possible outcome. As for Gulf players, the feel suckered by Trump now. The saudis are begging for Trump to finish the job exactly because they are afraid he won't.
What makes you think Iran is making more money exporting oil than they were before the war?
I had heard that Iranian exports had increased. This [0] is the best source I can find commenting on their output either way, and it says they're exporting about 50% more. That part might be untrue, but the lack of reporting suggests that at worst that their output hasn't decreased. Whatever the change though, the price of oil has increased significantly, which makes them more money. So at present they're making anywhere from 50%-100% more money, depending on whether their exports have increased.
[0] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260326-iran-says-oil-exp...
Iran's relationhip to Russia is in no way strategic to EU. Overall trade between Russia and Iran is 1/400th of that of Russia <-> China trade. Breaking the relationship now would not lead to any noticeable effect on Ukraine war. Russia manufactures geran drones itself. And you will not bomb technology/knowledge transfers away anyway. Vast majority of the materials for Russia's war come from China and the rest of the world, incl. USA and Europe.
What is a complete strategic failure though is EU's support for Israel's impunity that created this war, which will negatively effect all of the EU. There should have been severe sanctions and travel bans on all Israelis long time ago, to force their government to act better. Economic losses this shithole country caused to the EU, will not be offset by any benefits Israel's<->EU trade could create for a looooong time.
The EU should have attacked Iran the moment Iran started providing defensive assistance to Russia. Initially it wasn't know how that they gave them but explicit shipments of drones. That would have been the moment to pounds but of course the EU did not have the strength to act in that moment. That weakness unfortunately persists but it will not forever. And in time, oncr strengthened again, the EU will be able to act where needed.
If you think this war is somehow negatively impacting the EU you're being very short sighted. Do you realize the level of impunity the IRGC has traditionally operated with in europe? Only the mass murderer of the Iranian civilians in January initiated a slow wake up call for europe. Still only a service level wake up call unfortunately