‘Nobody considered this a European problem’: Is Europe ready to stand up to Iranian threats?

Iranian officials warned that European countries could face missile strikes if they allowed the United States to use their bases against Iran. The threat specifically mentioned bases in Italy and Germany. It also raised fears that NATO facilities could become targets. This matters because European governments had not previously treated a direct Iranian missile attack as a likely continental danger.

The threats were public and specific. Iranian parliament member Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani said missiles would be fired toward Europe if American forces used European bases. Tehran’s Hamshahri newspaper published a map marking 15 possible targets from Portugal to Romania. RAF Fairford in Britain was among the military sites marked, alongside German and Italian bases.

Iran has also threatened broader consequences for European support. The article describes cyberattacks and other suspected subversive activity across Europe. A 2,000-kilometer missile could reach parts of southeastern Europe, while a missed strike on a NATO base could create an even wider crisis.

A ballistic missile is a guided weapon that receives most of its speed early in flight, then travels along a high, arcing trajectory before descending toward its target. It can carry different warheads. Its range and intended battlefield determine its category. This matters because missile reach affects which countries can be threatened.

A theater ballistic missile is generally built for regional or battlefield targets. It may travel hundreds or a few thousand kilometers. An intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, is designed to travel between continents, commonly over 5,500 kilometers. The article describes Iran’s missile as a theater system carrying a stripped-down high-explosive warhead toward Diego Garcia.

The article quotes Lynette Nusbacher saying Iran has no ICBMs. Iran nevertheless demonstrated a long-range capability. One missile failed, while another was intercepted after traveling beyond Iran’s declared 2,000-kilometer limit. That capability could still threaten southeastern Europe without reaching the entire continent.

A missile with a 2,000-kilometer range could reach some European territory from Iran. The article identifies Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania as southeastern European countries within that potential range. This changes the discussion from a distant threat to a direct concern for several European states.

The range was highlighted after Iran launched two long-range ballistic missiles toward the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia. The island is about 4,000 kilometers from Iran. One missile failed in flight. A US warship intercepted the other with an SM-3 missile after it traveled beyond Iran’s self-declared 2,000-kilometer limit.

The demonstration did not establish that Iran could strike every European country. It showed that Iran could send a theater ballistic missile most of the way to Diego Garcia. European military sites within roughly 2,000 kilometers could therefore face risk, especially if they support US operations against Iran.

A missile aimed at a US base in Europe would not become harmless if it missed. It could land in a nearby civilian area, damage another military facility, or cross into a different country. The article highlights this danger because missile accuracy is never perfect and European bases may sit near populated areas.

Lynette Nusbacher said the main concern was not only an intentional attack on Europe. It was that Iran might fire at American bases and miss. The article does not identify a specific expected impact site. It does, however, note that European NATO targets could provoke an Article 5 response.

Article 5 is NATO’s collective-defense principle: an armed attack on one member is treated as an attack on all, although each ally decides what assistance to provide. A missed strike could therefore cause casualties, trigger retaliation, and widen the conflict beyond Iran, the United States, and Israel.

Iran’s stated reason for targeting European military bases is their possible support for US operations. Iranian officials warned that if America used bases in Europe, including Italy and Germany, Iran would fire missiles toward Europe. This turns logistical support into a potential military target and places European governments under pressure.

The threat also reflects the bases’ connection to NATO and the United States. Hamshahri marked British, German, and Italian bases on a map of 15 potential targets. RAF Fairford was included and had reportedly been targeted in an Iranian plot in recent months. Iran’s parliament members described European assistance to America as something that would not go unanswered.

The article says Europe had not expected Iran to attack European or NATO targets. Such attacks could damage Iran’s relationships across Europe and risk an Article 5 response. Iran has also used warnings about cyberattacks, sabotage, arson, and other hybrid activities against European states and partners.

Cyberattacks are attempts to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to computer-controlled systems. Hybrid activities are broader campaigns that can combine cyberattacks with sabotage, arson, violent plotting, and other pressure. The article groups these methods under Iranian subversion and activities sponsored or supported by Iran.

One recent incident disrupted refrigerators in Carrefour, Intermarche, and Ikea branches in Belgium. Similar disruptions affected Coop and ICA in Sweden, Delhaize in Luxembourg, Kesko in Finland, SuperValu in Ireland, and shops in Estonia. The article gives no confirmed perpetrator. No group had claimed responsibility when it was published.

The incidents followed a joint statement from more than 30 countries, including Britain, France, and Germany. Those governments condemned Iran’s alleged lethal plotting, arson, sabotage, cyberattacks, and other hybrid activities. European officials already recognized this subversion threat, but Nusbacher said they must also consider possible ballistic-missile attacks.

NATO’s Article 5 is the alliance’s collective-defense commitment. When one member suffers an armed attack, the other members regard it as an attack against the whole alliance. Each country decides what action it considers necessary. That assistance can include military support, but Article 5 does not require every ally to respond identically.

The article connects this principle directly to Iran’s threats. Nusbacher said nobody expected Iran to attack European targets, particularly NATO targets where it might provoke an Article 5 response. A missile aimed at an American base could therefore involve the host country and its allies, even if Iran’s immediate dispute was with the United States.

The danger becomes greater if a missile misses and causes unintended damage or casualties. European governments could face pressure to respond, while the United States and NATO could become more directly involved. The article presents this possibility as a reason Iranian missile threats now matter beyond the Middle East.