Merz says Germany working to end Iran war that has cost Europe $112bn

Friedrich Merz said Germany is coordinating and intensifying diplomatic efforts to bring the Iran war to an end. He also said Germany wants the conflict to end as soon as possible. His central point was that the fighting cannot be resolved militarily, so diplomacy must lead the effort.

Speaking to reporters in Seoul, Merz presented Germany’s role as both diplomatic and practical. Berlin is working with other parties and increasing its diplomatic activity. The aim is to stop the conflict rather than seek a military solution. His remarks connect political action with Europe’s economic concerns.

Merz did not provide specific diplomatic steps, negotiating partners, or a timetable. He did make clear that Germany sees ending the war as urgent. The conflict has increased Europe’s energy costs by more than 100 billion euros over eight months, giving Germany a strong reason to pursue faster diplomatic progress.

The reported increase is more than €100 billion across Europe over eight months. The article also gives a dollar equivalent of $112 billion. This is not the total cost of all European energy, but the additional amount businesses and consumers paid because energy became more expensive during the conflict.

Spread evenly for scale, €100 billion over eight months would be about €12.5 billion per month. The actual monthly costs may have varied, because the article provides only the overall figure. The number shows how a conflict can create financial effects far beyond its immediate region.

Merz used the figure to explain why Germany has an economic interest in ending the war. European companies and households have already absorbed the extra costs. If the conflict continues and energy remains expensive, the added burden could grow, although the article does not offer a forecast.

Higher energy prices raise the cost of running businesses and living in European households. Companies may face larger bills for production, transport, heating, and services. Consumers may have less money available for other purchases after paying more for energy. Merz said businesses and consumers in Europe had already paid more than €100 billion extra.

The main mechanism is a cost increase. When energy becomes more expensive, firms may need to raise prices, reduce spending, or accept lower profits. Households may cut other purchases. These pressures can spread through supply chains, because energy is used directly or indirectly in many economic activities.

The article does not quantify effects on growth, jobs, or inflation. It does show the scale of the existing burden and why Germany links peace with economic relief. If energy costs stay elevated, European businesses and consumers could continue facing pressure; if they fall, some costs may ease.

Germany’s economic interest comes from the war’s effect on Europe’s energy bill. Merz said businesses and consumers across Europe paid more than 100 billion euros extra over eight months. Germany is part of that European economy, so prolonged high energy costs can affect its companies, households, and economic activity.

Its diplomatic interest is shown by Berlin’s stated actions. Merz said Germany was coordinating and stepping up diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to an end. He also said the conflict cannot be resolved militarily. That positions Germany as a supporter of negotiations and other diplomatic efforts rather than a military solution.

The article does not identify specific negotiations or German proposals. It does establish a clear connection between the war, Europe’s energy costs, and Germany’s response. Ending the conflict quickly could serve both Germany’s diplomatic objective and its economic goal of limiting further energy-related costs.

Resolving an international conflict diplomatically generally means the parties seek a political agreement through talks, negotiation, mediation, or other peaceful channels. They may address disputed issues, arrange a ceasefire, or create steps toward ending hostilities. The goal is an agreed settlement or de-escalation, rather than forcing an outcome through battlefield action.

The distinction matters because Merz said the conflict cannot be resolved militarily. In this context, Germany’s stated approach is to coordinate and step up diplomatic efforts. Diplomacy works by bringing relevant parties into communication and searching for terms they can accept, although the article does not describe the specific negotiations.

The current reality is that Germany wants the war ended as soon as possible, partly because of its economic effects. A diplomatic resolution could stop the conflict without relying on further military escalation. However, the article gives no details about the parties’ positions, proposed agreement, or likelihood of success.

When conflict disrupts energy markets, Europe can reduce dependence on one source by using several alternatives. These include liquefied natural gas delivered to terminals, pipeline supplies from other producers, renewable electricity, nuclear power where available, and stored fuels. Countries can also share electricity through cross-border grids.

Transport matters as much as supply. Tankers can use alternative routes when a maritime corridor becomes risky, although longer journeys add time and cost. Gas can move through different pipelines, while electricity can flow through interconnectors from neighboring countries. Expanding these options makes any single disruption less damaging, but infrastructure cannot always be changed quickly.

The article does not name specific replacement supplies or routes. These alternatives are established energy-policy options, not details reported in the article. Their effectiveness depends on available terminals, pipelines, storage, grid capacity, and prices. In the near term, Europe may still face higher costs while suppliers and transport networks adjust.

A war in one region can affect distant countries because energy is traded across borders. If fighting threatens production, shipping routes, pipelines, or ports, buyers may fear shortages. Even before supplies actually fall, uncertainty can push traders and companies to pay more for available energy and safer transport.

The key mechanism is competition for replacement supplies. If one source becomes risky, countries seek energy elsewhere, increasing demand in other markets. Longer routes, insurance costs, and delays can add further expense. Suppliers may also redirect cargoes toward the highest-paying buyers, spreading price pressure across regions.

The article gives the result in Europe: businesses and consumers paid more than €100 billion extra over eight months because energy became more expensive as a result of the conflict. It does not detail the exact supply or shipping disruption. Merz’s warning shows that regional fighting can create broad economic consequences and strengthen the case for ending the war.