World leaders are converging in the Canadian Rockies for a G7 summit dominated by an unexpected, urgent topic: the rapidly escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. European leaders are planning to use the high-profile gathering to directly challenge US President Donald Trump on his seemingly unsubstantiated claims that a “peace soon” deal is imminent between the warring nations.
Amid worsening military exchanges and a rising death toll, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer are seeking clarity and a definitive response from Trump regarding his overall strategy for the crisis. A central question they intend to pose is whether he will leverage his influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push for a ceasefire, or if he intends to allow the conflict to continue its course.
European Allies Seek Cohesion Amidst Conflict
The European powers, many of whom were closely involved in previous negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program before being sidelined by Trump’s push for a bilateral deal, are finding Washington’s current messaging on the Israel-Iran situation contradictory. This lack of clear direction potentially reflects internal divisions within the Trump administration. While voices within the US political landscape, like Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have advocated for significant American military intervention, including potentially pushing for regime change in Iran and forcibly dismantling its nuclear program, Trump himself has publicly maintained a stance favoring a diplomatic resolution and expressing optimism for a quick peace deal via social media. This contrast highlights differing pressures on the US approach.
European leaders aim to forge a united front and a common stance on Iran that moves beyond general calls for de-escalation and restraint. Germany’s Merz, emphasizing the need for diplomacy, also stressed that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons and called for an end to the bombing of civilian targets in Israel. However, with a packed agenda covering critical mineral supply lines, artificial intelligence, China, and energy security, Europe may be cautious about the extent of political capital they can expend solely on the ceasefire push.
Trump’s “Peace Soon” Confidence Questioned
Trump’s confidence in a swift peace deal appears largely unsupported by the grim reality on the ground. His remarks suggest a belief that a ceasefire is imminent, potentially paving the way for rescheduling US talks with Iran on its civil nuclear program that were cancelled following the recent Israeli assault.
While Trump has publicly expressed optimism, stating after a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin that a deal could “easily” be done, he has offered few specifics. He has simultaneously praised Israel’s offensive while denying Iranian allegations of US participation – denials Iran reportedly finds unconvincing. He has also issued warnings to Tehran against targeting US interests.
This pattern of expressing confidence in swift deals mirrors his past approaches, such as his efforts to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine in early 2025, where he expressed similar confidence in reaching a deal quickly, even suggesting linking US aid to Ukraine’s natural resources as compensation. This history may inform European leaders’ skepticism regarding the basis for his current Israel-Iran peace claims.
The Nuclear Dimension and Escalation Fears
A significant sticking point in any potential negotiations remains Iran’s nuclear program. Iran insists its program is purely civilian despite a rapid increase in its highly enriched uranium stockpile, while Israel claims Iran has a covert military program posing an existential threat. The 2015 nuclear deal, which Iran reportedly wished to revert to, allowed monitored low-level enrichment.
Adding to European concerns is the fear that the conflict is spiraling dangerously out of control. There is apprehension that Israel’s objectives might extend beyond dismantling nuclear sites to attempting regime change in Tehran, potentially targeting political leadership – a goal formally denied by Israel but considered plausible by some experts, like former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove. Such escalation, coupled with Iran’s disrupted strategic positioning and perceived vulnerability, could paradoxically increase pressure on Iran’s leadership to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent, potentially altering the international calculus regarding regime change.
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has stated that Israel’s attacks were intended to derail diplomacy and that Iran’s counterattacks would cease only when Israel’s barrage ends, emphasizing, “If the aggression stops, our reaction will also end.”
Ultimately, the G7 summit serves as a critical moment for European leaders to seek direct clarification from President Trump, not just on his optimistic peace predictions, but on the concrete US strategy for navigating a volatile conflict with profound global implications.
