On the eve of the Iranian–American war, US relations with its European allies had not been at their best; tensions were rising, marked by confusion and confrontation, especially after US President Donald Trump decided he wanted to seize Greenland. The war against Iran has only deepened the rift. European leaders declared it illegal, even though they were fully aware that Trump has no regard for international law. Accordingly, when they failed to support him, he called them cowards and threatened to leave them at the mercy of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This rupture is dangerous, and unless both sides move quickly to repair it, they stand to lose a great deal. Britain’s Attorney General, Lord Hermer, warned of “a world emerging without rules, in which states abandon their legal obligations.” Repairing the rift is not possible so long as the two sides proceed from different assumptions and conflicting interests. Europe is pinning its hopes on the next US president, although it recognizes that this prospect is weak given the rise of the far right and the possibility that an even more unilateral president than Trump could emerge.
Europeans also understand that the war against Iran will harm their security, as Russia stands to benefit economically. They are also concerned about Trump’s approach to Putin as a potential partner and his focus on Iran, and they are urging him to link the two issues to safeguard both American and European interests. However, Trump pays them no attention. They were taken aback when he announced the war while they believed Omani mediation was close to success, and they were shocked when the war expanded and he demanded their military involvement without consultation or coordination. They are unprepared for this war militarily, economically, and psychologically, despite their belief that Iran is intervening in the war in Ukraine, spreading terrorism, and moving closer to developing a nuclear weapon that threatens their security and that of the Middle East.
Psychologically, Europeans dislike war after the experiences of the First and Second World Wars. That is why they established the European Economic Community and later the European Union, to resolve disputes, build bridges between their peoples, and achieve lasting peace. This psychology, as Robert Kagan, adviser to President Bill Clinton, argues in his book Of Paradise and Power, has crystallized into a firm belief that any conflict can be resolved through negotiation, aid, and acceptable concessions. Thus, when the conflict between Ukraine and Russia began, they accepted arrangements that involved major concessions, such as Ukraine relinquishing Crimea, in order to avoid confrontation. The chain of concessions continued until Putin, faced with European weakness, decided to invade Ukraine and advance toward its capital, Kyiv. This psychology contrasts with Trump’s, who sees power as the standard: if you have a strong military, it is pointless not to use it to achieve your interests.
Europe is united around economic interests, human rights, and the rule of law, but it remains highly divided in military capabilities and in agreeing on a defense policy, military industries, and a unified foreign policy. Because of this peace-oriented mindset, Europeans did not build strong military capacities; instead, they relied on American protection. When Trump demanded increased defense spending, they were surprised, but under his pressure, harsh rhetoric, and threats, they were compelled to raise their defense budgets. Even so, they failed to unify their defense industries or build a joint European army.
More importantly, Europeans are divided even in their view of their principal adversary, Putin. Some leaders, including, for example, Hungary’s prime minister, do not see Putin as an enemy and call for continued cooperation with him. It has recently been reported that European leaders withhold sensitive information in meetings attended by Hungarian representatives, fearing leaks to Putin. Trump is well aware of this European reality, which contributes to his disdain for European leaders and his accusations of cowardice.
Trump wants them to align behind him to achieve global dominance, while they seek to distance themselves from him, believing he is leading them into wars their peace-oriented societies will not accept and that they themselves do not see as necessary, believing instead that they can be resolved diplomatically. This includes the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program, militia expansion, and ballistic missiles. This mindset is so entrenched that even after Iranian missiles reached the British island of Diego Garcia, indicating a range that could reach European capitals, Europeans continue to insist on diplomacy and peace.
In the United States, a growing political current rallying behind Trump under the slogan “America First” is culturally at odds with Europe. It invokes religion as part of the fabric of Western culture and supports right-wing movements across Europe seeking to overturn liberalism.
European leaders resist, but their societies are gradually becoming more receptive, increasing fears of internal fragmentation, and of that fragmentation worsening if they comply with Trump’s demands. Despite the damage they would suffer from a potential Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and despite the image of weakness their stance projects globally, especially to Gulf states with which they share vital security and economic interests, Europeans are fully aware of their deep predicament with Trump, who has threatened retaliation if they do not join the war after his victory over Iran. Their core problem is that Trump does not perceive the threat of Putin as they do and is not even willing to discuss it. They are therefore in a bind: unable to confront Russia without the United States, yet also at risk whether Trump prevails or fails.
