Von der Leyen Faces 'Serious Accusations' Over Iran Policy
One 'observes a structural dilemma within the EU in this situation. The political instruments are unequally distributed'. ∽ Linn Selle of the German Council on Foreign Relations
We’ll interrupt our coverage of all things this and that to check in with the Eurotards pretending to be in charge in Brussels. It would seem that ‘Iran’ (the geopolitical bruahahaha, as opposed to the country) might be the proverbial last straw that finally breaks the camel’s back (apologies to camels).
German legacy media now reports™ that Ursula Von der Leyen has come under severe pressure over the EU’s formal positioning in regard to the US-Israeli unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against Iran.
Imagine that.
Who would have thought that something that Ursula ‘Europe is the values of the Talmud’ Von der Leyen, a long-known pro-Zionist diehard, would come under fire for uncompromisingly siding with Bibi Netanyahoo?
Yet this has now happened, and though Ms. Von der Leyen’s failures as a human being, politico™—remember: before she was disposed of to Brussels, she was a serious contender to succeed Angela Merkel (until it was realised, by the chattering classes, that this highly corrupt and incompetent politico™ was too damaged)—and leader (lol, yes, I actually wrote that) are legion, it took her totally unsurprising move to unconditionally side with Mr. Netanyahoo to bring forth dissent.
As you read on, you may marvel about what passes for politicking-as-usual in the Old World: a sight to behold.
Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.
Dispute Over Iran Policy: Serious Accusations Against Ursula von der Leyen
Open resistance is erupting in Brussels against the President of the European Commission. Member-states accuse Von der Leyen of massively exceeding her authority in the Iran conflict.
By Raphael Schmeller, Berliner Zeitung, 9 March 2026 [source; archived]
Resistance against Ursula von der Leyen is growing in Brussels. Several EU states accuse the Commission President—particularly since the beginning of the Iran conflict—of overstepping her mandate in foreign policy [note the absence of any criticism over her equally disastrous economic, energy, and Russia/Ukraine policies]. Sharp criticism is emanating from the European Parliament, diplomatic circles, and now also from the capitals of the member states.
As Politico reported on Monday, citing conversations with nine diplomats, EU officials, and members of parliament, the German EU chief is being accused of exceeding her authority. According to the report, she is venturing into areas that, according to the EU treaties, are primarily the responsibility of the member-states. This is being described as ‘diplomatic overreach’ [this is funny insofar as the Commission was designed to be the ‘protector of the Treaties’, and, logically, if said Commission breaks these Treaties, it should be ended, eh?].
‘Von der Leyen Speaks Without a Mandate’
The conflict became particularly apparent on 28 Feb., shortly after the start of the American and Israeli attacks on Iran, when Von der Leyen issued a statement on the developments in the Middle East. In it, she stated, among other things, that the EU had imposed far-reaching sanctions in response to the actions of the Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guard and had advocated for a negotiated solution regarding the nuclear and missile programs [first of all, no-one gives a shit about what the EU does in foreign affairs; second, by immediately siding with the aggressors before the heads of gov’t had a chance to determine a joint position, Ms. Von der Leyen hasn’t merely ‘overreached’—she’s done things that the Treaties deliberately reserve for the EU Council (the assembly of the heads of gov’ts of member-states), i.e., Von der Leyen has arrogated authority that’s not hers].
French MEP Nathalie Loiseau reacted with demonstrative sharpness [the key word here is ‘demonstrative’, i.e., it’s all pretence]. On Twitter, the former European Affairs Minister and confidante of French President Emmanuel Macron wrote [these ties give away the game: Ms. Loiseau isn’t an intrepid, principled representative of the people but a shill for Mr. Macron]: ‘Once again, Ursula von der Leyen: This is NOT your business. Enough is enough.’ Loiseau now says she wondered if she was ‘hallucinating’ when she saw von der Leyen speaking on the phone with Gulf states. The Commission President has no diplomatic service, speaks without a mandate, and without her own intelligence reports [that is the textbook definition of make-believe and suggestive of a coup d’état-like action].
The core of the dispute is highly sensitive, both institutionally and politically. Formally, foreign and security policy in the EU is the responsibility of the member-states. Article 18 of the EU Treaty [that’s incorrect: art. 18 the EU Treaty (of Maastricht) creates ‘EU citizenship’; the subsequent treaties of Nice and Lisbon’s art. 18 don’t relate to foreign and security policy (see here on EU ‘citizenship’)] assigns the leadership of this policy to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, currently Kaja Kallas [a bimbo before the Lord in her own right]. While the Commission is responsible for representing the Union externally, according to Article 17, this explicitly excludes its role in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is precisely at this dividing line that the conflict is now igniting [and this notion is at the core of the EU’s institutional dilemma, i.e., the tug-of-war between national (sic) interests vs. whatever grand scheme of things the 27-strong bloc could possible muster].
Political scientist Linn Selle, head of the Europe Centre at the German Council on Foreign Relations [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, DGAP; yes, that’s what this is—a Globalist™ think-tank, and I’m unsure their core competence is on the thinking or the tank part], explains the situation to the Berliner Zeitung. ‘According to the EU treaties, the foreign and security policy of the European Union is primarily the responsibility of the member-states’, she says. The EU Commission has ‘merely a supporting function’, which is exercised through the High Representative [that would be bimbo-in-chief Kaja Kallas].
Legally, Ursula von der Leyen has ‘no specific role in foreign policy, even though the expectation for the President is always to represent the European Commission politically in all areas’, says Selle [we note, in passing, that there’s also no statutes for ‘high crimes and treason’ in any of the EU Treaties, i.e., there are no consequences for the Treaty-created position-holder to eventually face any troubles for breaching said Treaties]. However, this analysis doesn’t end with a rigid reading of the treaties. Not least because of the financial instruments and the close interrelationship between foreign policy, trade policy, and sanctions regimes, Von der Leyen can certainly play an influential role [this is stupid-by-design: the head of the EU may not speak on foreign policy, but she’s kinda in charge of everything else underpinning this; for extensive background on these shenanigans, see
It’s actually worse than the Berliner Zeitung imagines; incidentally, I submitted the above information to them in their ‘guest contribution’ section, but they deemed it ‘too long’ and ‘too complicated’].
Selle sees a pattern in Von der Leyen’s conduct in office. In recent years, the Commission President has deliberately sharpened her international profile. This has included political statements that fall more into the gray area of ‘what the treaties permit’. This proactive role—for example, in supporting Ukraine—has been less noticeable because the vast majority of member states politically supported the President and benefited from her proactive actions [this is why Von der Leyen got away with essentially the same actions before: because Europe’s élites also hate Russians with a vengeance while the more politically-charged Israeli affairs are, stunningly, even more fraught, hence the resistance™].
But now, says Selle, von der Leyen’s forward-looking approach is visibly reaching its limits [you see, this entire bruahahaha has nothing to do with principles or actual discontent over doing this or that in the Middle East; it’s all about hedonistic navel-gazing within the European élites who realised that support for US-Israeli aggression doesn’t pay politically, hence their reservations™; if siding with Mr. Netanyahoo in his vainglorious expansionist project would appear to convey benefits to the Eurotards, they’d be all-in]. Particularly in Middle East policy, there is a fundamental lack of unity among member states. Where there is no stable consensus, an independent foreign policy stance by the Commission President quickly becomes problematic. Von der Leyen’s statements in this area have been met with criticism in the past—including in Berlin, for example, regarding her positions on Israel, Selle notes.
Her analysis [their words, not mine] thus aligns with the point made by diplomats to Politico: the report paints a picture of an EU that is not speaking with one voice in the Iran war. Several governments are angered because Von der Leyen took positions in the early days of the war that went beyond the consensus of the 27 member states. It was particularly sensitive, according to the report, that she sent signals in favor of a change of power in Tehran, while the official EU line, coordinated by Kallas with the member states, was formulated more cautiously [that happens if one puts the cart before the horse].
Selle observes a structural dilemma within the EU in this situation. The political instruments are unequally distributed [once more, this kerfuffle is not over policy but about its implementation, and for once the tug-of-war has receded and revealed the power-structures in Brussels]:
Classic foreign and security policy lies with the member states, while instruments of economic security, sanctions regimes, and foreign trade lie with the EU.
As long as the Commission leadership and national capitals are pulling in the same direction, this blurring of roles works surprisingly well. However, the system reaches its limits when there is political dissent [it’s amazing to watch these Eurotards learning™ as they muddle along].
The immense power that Von der Leyen has amassed during her term is therefore now being watched ‘with eagle eyes’, says Selle. As soon as the Commission President ventures into controversial areas, member-states want to safeguard their own position [and this is why the EU is so retarded: member-states are o.k. with Von der Leyen (or whoever else) abusing the Treaties as long as dong is perceived as being in their interests, but step outta line, there’s hell to pay]. Institutional credibility is also at stake. Precisely for this reason, she warns, Von der Leyen should concentrate on the areas where she can actually make a difference and where the EU can effectively utilise its instruments. ‘The question of a possible regime change in Iran is not one of them’, the political scientist argues [whose president, Mr. Macron, is seemingly all-in on régime change in Iran though].
This aligns with the criticism that Politico has compiled from capitals and Brussels. According to the report, diplomats are not only bothered by Von der Leyen’s statements on Iran, but also by other initiatives: the Commission’s stance on accelerating Ukraine’s EU accession and its handling of Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’. Behind all this lies the same accusation: the Commission president takes political positions to the outside world and thereby effectively binds the European Union without sufficiently involving the member-states beforehand [so, who’s wagging the dog now?]
The Rift Within the EU is Widening
The Commission rejects these accusations [of course]. A spokesperson said that Von der Leyen is demonstrating ‘political leadership of the Commission’s foreign policy’ in accordance with the Treaties. Contacting other heads of state and government worldwide is, of course, part of her duties. At the same time, the Commission emphasised that the formal EU position on the Iran war was not determined by Ursula von der Leyen, but rather in a declaration coordinated with the 27 member states by Kaja Kallas.
Underlying the current tensions is a fundamental problem: while global conflicts are increasing daily, the rift within the EU is growing ever wider.
Bottom Lines
As always, one should not believe things (no matter how much one wishes for them) before they actually materialise.
The Eurotard élites aren’t done supporting whatever shitty interests that work, ceaselessly, against the European peoples.
But they clearly see the cracks, and they can no longer pretend that a shit sandwich isn’t a shit sandwich.
That said, what the above piece(s) indicate seems to run roughly along these lines:
Unconditional US-Israeli vassalage is rapidly turning into both a (geo)political and a domestic liability, albeit for different reasons, and we’ll probably discuss them separately in due time; for now, I submit that the two aspects look like this:
In (geo)political terms, since 1945/48, essentially, European interests were subordinate to US and later Israeli interests; the marker may not even be the 1956 Suez Crisis or the 1953 overthrow of the Iranian gov’t at the request of the British gov’t; it’s the un-ending, still-expanding, and essentially ceaseless weaponisation of WW2 atrocity agit-prop vs. the Axis powers, especially (West) Germany, that provides the foundation for most political trends since spring 1945.
Need to ‘contain the Soviets’ (who had ‘only’ become a threat as the USUK alliance lined up with Moscow in the first place)? Blame ze Germans, but realise that the USUK expeditionary forces can never-ever credibly block any hypothetical Soviet assault w/o Germany leads to (drum roll) the rearmament of West Germany and the creation of NATO.
This was never without domestic problems (dissent), most notably in France (due to delusions of grandeur) and West Germany (that had just suffered the greatest defeat in history); nevertheless, re-armament and, in France’s case, nuclear ambitions, were placed above whatever national interests; in effect, by hitching a ride together, Bonn (later: Berlin) and Paris pretended for generations that their interests are, essentially, identical. While this may or may not be true in some respects, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Warsaw Pact in the early 1990s, these interests clearly diverged, yet the agit-prop continued, if not ramped up.
In terms of domestic politicking, then, generations of politicos™, journos™, and experts™ grew up in a security environment that didn’t discuss, in honest terms, the benefits and disadvantages of sustained US-Israeli vassalage.
And now, essentially, the Eurotards are learning™ that having foreign bases comes with price tags—in terms of subsidies for US troops here and there (it’s a protection racket anyways), problems with young military personnel that is practically exempt from local laws (see Chalmers Johnson’s The Sorrows of Empire for a harrowing account focusing on US troops on Okinawa).
With the UK and France, as well as potentially Germany, too, joining the US-Israeli aggression vs. Iran, the latter warned that in so doing, US installations within NATO territory will become valid targets.
It’s a ‘doh’ moment reeking of Homer Simpson qualities, if there ever was one.
With the Eurotards’ stupidity reaching fever-pitch, some befuddled morons in Bruxelles aren’t fully retarded (see the above piece), if only because everybody knows what happens should (if/when, pick your choice) Iran strikes US installations in, say, Italy or Germany, the rather quite likely course of action in European capitals will be—to renounce NATO rather than ‘show solidarity™ with the attacked EU country’ and go to war vs. Iran, which has the potential to destroy both feet (of clay, that is) of the US stranglehold over Europe, the EU and NATO.
And that latter paragraph, of course, is indicative as to the real motives that we must discuss at some point: while neither the EU nor NATO is hugely popular across Eurotard territory, the apparent unwillingness and inability of the US to protect its military bases in the Middle East indicates a comparable outcome across NATO territory.
This is certainly known in Mons (NATO’s HQ) and in Bruxelles, hence these retards may actually be pushing towards those ends to a) reduce US-Israeli influence over the Eurotards’ freedom of action (such as it exists) and b) to declare a kind of force majeure in regard to the present institutional set-up of the EU and push through a new régime.
The main obstacle here is, apart from virtually the entire politico™-journo™-expert™ apparatus, that the Eurotards who brought us this far wish to remain in charge.
I do think that such a new régime may actually be desirable to just a big enough share of some EU member-states; if they can achieve this without an 1848-style springtime of peoples remains to be seen.
I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.
I'm laughing at it (not the war, the diplo-dumbing).
Take a look at the origins of the Iranian nuclear programme.
USA, France, Germany all were involved, including in getting Iran enrichment-facilities, when the Shah and his SAVAK were in power.
Then, take a look at the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programmes.
Spot the difference:
Pakistan and India are in compliance with the global banking cabal (or whatever we are to call capitalism-cum-corporatism); Iran is not.
And that is the only difference in how a state is judged: non-compliant states are assigned Bad Guy-status, compliant states can have concentration camps and perform ethnic cleansing and bombing campaigns against their own citizens with abandon. Just compare Iran and Burma in that regard.
Hang the bankers.