Reactions of Central European States to the U.S.–Israeli Strike on Iran

The U.S.–Israeli strike on Iran has forced Central European states to take clear positions. The prime minister of Slovakia used the occasion to criticize the European Union, while the Hungarian head of government incorporated the potential negative consequences of the intervention into his election campaign and Hunagry’s relations with Ukraine. The Czech Republic, in turn, adopted a consistently pro-Israeli and pro-American stance, although some voices questioned the actions against Iran from the standpoint of international law.

Broad consensus among Czech political elites. The response of Czech politicians to the U.S.–Israeli strike on Iran reveals a high degree of consensus among the country’s political elites on Middle Eastern policy. At the center of the debate is the conviction that Iran’s nuclear program poses a real security threat and that the regime in Tehran destabilizes the international order. Both government representatives and most opposition parties described the attack as justified—or at least understandable—in the context of halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.Prime Minister Andrej Babiš (ANO) framed the Czech position in terms of allied solidarity, emphasizing the risks stemming from Iran’s “uncontrolled” nuclear program and its support for terrorism. He stressed that the Czech government is closely monitoring developments in the Middle East and that its immediate priority is ensuring the safety of Czech citizens in Iran. At the same time, he expressed hope that the region would return to stability and peace as quickly as possible, condemning Iranian attacks on regional states as unacceptable violations of security and sovereignty. Foreign Minister Petr Macinka (Motoristé) indicated that the military operation could be broader in scope and might last several weeks. He also noted that Iranian airspace has been closed and that, for now, the Czech Republic does not plan to organize evacuation flights. According to official figures, three Czech citizens are currently in Iran, while several thousand are present across the wider region.

The parliamentary opposition largely supported the U.S.–Israeli strike as well. ODS leader Martin Kupka stated that if the attacks contribute to the fall of the regime in Tehran, this would benefit both Iranian society and the international community. Former Prime Minister Petr Fiala (ODS) expressed hope that the operation would lead to the downfall of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. TOP 09 deputy leader Marek Ženíšek also described political change in Tehran as a desirable outcome, while KDU-ČSL MP Jan Bartošek voiced hope for the swift neutralization of military targets.

A somewhat different emphasis emerged from the Czech Pirate Party. Its leader, Zdeněk Hřib, considered efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program justified but criticized the United States for potentially violating international law. He also stressed that the Pirates unequivocally condemn Iranian missile attacks on regional states that were not directly involved in the military operation.

President Petr Pavel underlined that the immediate priority remains the safety of Czech citizens and diplomats. He reiterated his critical stance toward the Iranian regime due to its human rights violations, its support for terrorism, and its backing of Russia in the war against Ukraine. At the same time, he cautioned that it is too early to assess the full consequences of the strike and expressed hope that further escalation can be avoided.

Developments in Iran strengthen Orbán’s anti-Ukrainian narrative. The U.S.–Israeli war with Iran was discussed at a special meeting of Hungary’s Defense Council. In a video posted on social media, Viktor Orbán emphasized that events in Iran could indirectly affect Hungary, particularly in terms of energy security. According to the prime minister, a war with Iran could disrupt oil production and transport, effectively “doubling” the importance of the Druzhba oil pipeline.Since the end of January, oil has not been delivered to Hungary via this route, which Orbán claims is politically motivated. In response, Hungary suspended diesel exports to Ukraine and announced that, until oil transit resumes, it will oppose financial assistance to Ukraine and the proposed 20th package of sanctions against Russia. The Ukrainian side maintains that the supply disruptions are linked to technical repairs required after Russian missile strikes.Péter Magyar, leader of the opposition TISZA party—which currently leads in opinion polls—proposed that the prime minister travel jointly to Ukraine to verify the pipeline’s technical condition. Orbán had previously suggested establishing a joint Slovak-Hungarian commission for the same purpose.

In light of the increased risk of terrorist attacks, the Defense Council decided to raise Hungary’s threat level by one step. Until now, the country’s alert status had been at the medium, third level. The newly declared second (high) level is introduced when security services possess verified or partially verified information indicating a specific threat to Hungary or the possibility of a terrorist act.[1]

More than 4,000 individuals in the affected region have sought Hungarian consular assistance. Meanwhile, 16 Hungarian soldiers are serving in Lebanon as part of a UN peacekeeping mission.[2]

Slovak reactions dominated by Prime Minister Fico. In Slovakia, reactions to the U.S. strike on Iran were dominated by a statement from Prime Minister Robert Fico, which effectively shaped the national debate. Fico presented the events as further evidence of the disintegration of the global order and the erosion of international law, emphasizing the UN’s impotence and the structural inequality between “large” and “small” states.In his view, the conflict is not merely a military episode but a symptom of a deeper crisis in the international system, in which multilateral institutions are losing influence and unilateral actions by major powers prevail. The Slovak prime minister also embedded the question og the U.S.-Israeli attack in a broader critique of the European Union, questioning its ability to act as a mediator in global conflicts. He pointed to the EU’s limited effectiveness in Gaza and Venezuela and suggested that, instead of promoting peace, Brussels is “fueling the war in Ukraine.” Fico also criticized statements by the German chancellor, interpreting comments about the prolonged nature of the war and the diminishing prospects for negotiations with Russia as declarations made “in favour of war.” In this way, developments in the Middle East were linked to the Bratislava government’s current foreign policy line and its skepticism toward dominant trends within the EU.

Regarding Iran itself, Fico suggested that the objective of the strike may have been to eliminate the country’s political and spiritual leadership and to attempt regime change, warning of the risk of broader escalation. He stressed that Iran is a strong state capable of retaliatory measures that could destabilize the entire region. The Slovak prime minister also highlighted potential economic consequences for Europe, particularly the risk of rising oil and fuel prices.

Other reactions in Slovakia have so far been limited and largely aligned with the prime minister’s stance. From the ruling camp, Erik Kaliňák defended Fico’s interpretation and suggested that criticism of his position would be politically motivated. Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok (Hlas-SD) focused primarily on the need for diplomatic solutions and expressed regret over the escalation of tensions.

Conclusions. The reaction of Czech political elites to the U.S.–Israeli strike on Iran is consistent with the Czech Republic’s established foreign policy orientation. For years, Czech governments have supported close strategic cooperation with Israel and the United States. Emphasizing the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, highlighting Tehran’s destabilizing role in the region, and invoking allied solidarity all fit within the long-standing paradigm of Czech security policy. The broad consensus across both government and opposition confirms the continuity of this approach regardless of current party divisions.

Potential disruptions in oil and gas imports from the conflict region, along with possible global price increases, may reinforce the Hungarian government’s argument that its cooperation with Russia in securing energy resources is justified. This could become a mobilizing factor for undecided voters, whose engagement may determine the electoral outcome for Hungary’s two leading political forces—TISZA and Fidesz-KDNP—in the parliamentary elections scheduled for 12 April 2026.

In Slovak media, general concerns about escalation and economic consequences dominate. As a result, public debate in Slovakia has focused largely on the interpretation presented by the prime minister, and discussion of the U.S. strike on Iran has become part of a broader dispute over Slovakia’s place within Western structures and over the condition of the contemporary international order.

[1] 1824/2015. (XI. 19.) Korm. határozat a terrorizmus elleni küzdelem feladatainak egységes végrehajtási rendjéről – see https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2015-1824-30-22 (01.03.2026).

[2] See https://unifil.unmissions.org/en/unifil-troop-contributing-countries (01.03.2026).