The National Interest described a possible deal around Iran and Ukraine
The US and European countries may find themselves at a new strategic crossroads, where two fronts of Western policy converge at one point: pressure on Iran and military support for Ukraine.
According to The National Interest on May 6, 2026, a large-scale exchange logic may be discussed in Washington: Europe becomes more actively involved in a naval operation against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, and in response, the US strengthens support for Kyiv, including the possible transfer of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine.
For Israel, such a link seems especially important. It is not only about Russia’s war against Ukraine but also about Iran’s role as a common source of threats — for Kyiv, Jerusalem, Washington, and European capitals.
Why the Strait of Hormuz is at the center of the issue
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the key routes of global energy. Huge volumes of oil and gas pass through it, and any threats from Tehran are instantly reflected in prices, shipping security, and the political stability of the Middle East.
The National Interest writes that European leaders, distancing themselves from the US’s tough actions against Iran, may be missing a rare moment. According to the authors, when America itself needs support, Europe could use this window for negotiations on Ukraine.
The logic of the article is simple: if France, Germany, and Britain are ready to support the US on the Iranian front, they can demand a more decisive line on Kyiv from the Trump administration.
What Europe can give the US — and what Ukraine can receive
Europe’s possible contribution is described as participation in a naval coalition against Iran. This could involve frigates, destroyers, aviation, drones, and a more active presence in the Persian Gulf region.
Such an operation, according to the authors’ plan, should increase pressure on Tehran, limit its oil exports, and show that the West is capable of acting not only with statements but also with force.
For Ukraine, the key part of this scheme could be long-range weapons. The article specifically mentions Tomahawk missiles — weapons that can change the balance of range and pressure on Russian military infrastructure.
NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency draws attention to this very link: Iran has long been helping Russia in the war against Ukraine, which means that pressure on Tehran could have consequences not only for the Middle East but also for the front in Europe.
Why Tomahawks are important for Kyiv
For Ukraine, the issue of long-range missiles is not a symbolic gesture but a tool of deterrence. The more opportunities Kyiv has to strike military targets, logistics, and command nodes of the aggressor, the higher the cost of continuing the war for Moscow.
In this context, Tomahawks appear as a political and military signal. Their possible transfer would mean that the West is ready to stop playing only on defense and move to a tougher model of support for Ukraine.
But that is precisely why such an idea remains complex. Any decision on long-range systems requires not only technical readiness but also political will.
Iran, Russia, and the common risk for Israel
The authors of The National Interest emphasize that a defeat or humiliation of the US in the Persian Gulf would play into the hands of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. This partnership has already become one of the key factors in the current war: Iran supplied Russia with strike drones and helped Moscow expand its capabilities for terror against Ukrainian cities.
For the Israeli audience, this topic is understandable without lengthy explanations. Iran is not an abstract foreign policy problem. It is a regime that supports forces hostile to Israel, threatens regional security, and simultaneously strengthens Russia in its war against Ukraine.
That is why a possible deal between the US and Europe around the Strait of Hormuz and Tomahawks for Kyiv does not look like a diplomatic fantasy but as part of a broader picture.
What could change
If Europe indeed decides to participate more actively in pressuring Iran, it could strengthen the Western negotiating position on two fronts at once. Washington would receive allied support in a critical maritime region, and Kyiv would have a chance for more serious military reinforcement.
However, for now, it is a political construct described by the authors of The National Interest, not a completed deal. Between the idea and the actual delivery of weapons, there is always a path through negotiations, internal disputes, fears of escalation, and allies’ calculations.
But the very framing of the question is already indicative. Iran, Ukraine, Israel, Europe, and the US are increasingly finding themselves in one strategic chain. When Tehran helps Moscow, and Moscow uses this help against Ukrainian cities, the fight against Iranian influence ceases to be only a Middle Eastern topic.
For Israel, this means one thing: events around the Strait of Hormuz and decisions on weapons for Ukraine need to be considered together. Because enemies who act on different fronts today have long been learning to work as a single system.