Iran's European threats: Strategic bluff or credible escalation risk?

Tehran's threat against Bulgaria arrived quietly in July, wrapped in diplomatic language but carrying unmistakable weight. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told his Bulgarian counterpart that any nation assisting American military operations against Iran would become a legitimate target for retaliation. The warning came days after Bulgaria's parliament approved the use of Bezmer Air Base—a sprawling airfield in the country's southeast—as a refueling hub for US aircraft conducting operations in the Middle East. For most Bulgarians, the Iran war felt distant, a conflict whose oil-price implications seemed manageable compared to the grinding reality of Russia's war in Ukraine. Yet suddenly, their country had become a potential flashpoint in a confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

The calculus behind Iran's threat is worth examining closely. Southeastern Europe, as analysts note, sits at the soft underbelly of the continent—strategically vital, hosting multiple NATO installations, serving as a crucial supply corridor to Ukraine, and positioned along the Black Sea. Bulgaria, in particular, lacks the institutional muscle to defy Washington while managing its own security concerns. When the Trump administration requested access to Bezmer, Sofia complied. By threatening that base, Iran could hope to raise the political cost of Bulgarian cooperation, perhaps even driving a wedge between Sofia and Washington. The logic is seductive: strike a target that matters to America, on soil that matters less to Europe, and watch the alliance fracture.

But whether Iran will actually follow through remains the central question. Iranian missiles can certainly reach European territory—the distance is no barrier. What remains unclear is whether launching them would serve Iran's actual interests. Ali Bakir, a fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, argues that an attack on Bulgaria would hand Trump a strategic gift. It would force Europe from the sidelines into active belligerence, likely triggering Article 5 of the NATO treaty and unleashing the unified European military response that Washington has struggled to assemble. An Iranian strike could accomplish what months of American diplomacy have failed to do: unite Europe behind the US campaign against Iran. For Tehran, that outcome would be catastrophic.

So perhaps the threat itself is the weapon. By declaring that any base used to strike Iranian territory is fair game, and by extending that threat to European soil, Tehran keeps the possibility alive without pulling the trigger. The threat shapes European politics, keeps attention on a distant conflict, and makes leaders and populations hesitant to support American operations. Iran's stated goal is to prise Europe away from Washington's orbit. An actual missile strike would accomplish the opposite.

Yet several factors keep the risk of escalation above zero. The first is what analysts call the credibility trap. Having made the threat, Iran must convince American allies that it will actually follow through—otherwise the deterrent collapses. Second, Tehran has shown a tendency to distinguish between attacking American assets and attacking European territory, a distinction that Gulf nations have rejected as meaningless. If Iranian missiles land on Bulgarian soil, that semantic argument will carry little weight. Third, and most troubling, is the question of command and control. If decisions about retaliation are made by military commanders rather than political strategists, escalation could spiral unpredictably. A desire to strike at what appears to be a weak point could result in catastrophic miscalculation.

For Europe, the real danger may not be Iranian missiles at all. NATO's air defenses are formidable. The deeper threat is a prolonged conflict that drains resources, diverts attention from Ukraine, and creates economic turbulence that ripples across the continent. As the war between Washington and Tehran settles into a grinding stalemate, Europe finds itself caught between two powers, unable to fully disengage, unable to fully commit, and increasingly uncertain which threat—Iran or America—poses the greater risk to its own security.