Hardly a compelling argument considering how far-fetched it is.
. To press that and other arguments, the US can deploy considerable economic and political threats and incentives, including trade terms and US military basing and troop levels.
Threaten them? That's going to get them onboard?
And the US can warn that in a crunch, the US will back Israel against Iran with little consideration as to Europe’s desires and interests.
That's already a given.
Reagan, for example, virtually dragged Europe into a renewed effort to win the Cold War at a time when Europe was close to making a deal with the USSR to go neutral. In one crucial episode, he managed to get European agreement to permit the US to base Pershing II nuclear IRBMs there in spite of massive antinuclear public demonstrations and fierce Soviet opposition.
Once the missiles were introduced, the Soviets agreed to a treaty to limit them, which eased the Soviet nuclear threat to Europe. And at the same time, Reagan spiked the first iteration of a Russian natural gas pipeline to Europe, which infuriated Europe.
In essence, the US holds some strong cards in dealing with Europe -- more so than is commonly credited.
As for Iran, her menace to Sunni and Arab neighbors is already sufficient to impel many of them to align with Israel so as to shelter under her military power. Already, Iran is engaged in military adventures in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories. It is hard to imagine that Iran would be less provocative with a new, modern air force at her disposal.