Not only does Europe not support Trump, it even wants him to lose. The reason is simple.
After Trump launched the war against Iran, some European countries not only condemned the US-Israeli bombing raids, but also refused the US to use their military bases. Obviously, European allies did not "fight side by side" with the US as expected, but instead showed obvious alienation and opposition.
What is the reason for this change in attitude? How will it affect US-EU relations? How should Trump, who has lost the support of his allies, end his campaign in Iran? Observer.com spoke with Song Luzheng, a scholar in France and a researcher at the China Institute of Fudan University, to bring the latest interpretation.
Observer Network: After the undeclared war between the United States and Israel against Iran, Europe, as an ally, once again showed its disagreement with the United States. Why is Europe no longer willing to follow the United States? Especially when they realize that the United States pursues "Israel first", what further impact will it have on the US-European alliance?
Song Luzheng: There are several main reasons why Europe is no longer willing to follow the United States.
First, relations between Europe and the United States have been severely damaged during Trump's one year in office, and Europe is no longer able to support the United States as it did in the past.
Second, Europe believes that it is facing a threat from Russia and does not want the United States to disperse its power. What's more, the winner of the US-Iran conflict is Russia: it has diverted the attention of the international community and the West from Russia. At the same time, rising oil prices have enhanced Russia's strength and status, while Europe, which relies on energy imports, has weakened its power. Just 10 days after the war began, natural gas prices rose by 50%, and oil prices rose by 27%, which has cost Europe an extra 3 billion euros to import energy.
Von der Leyen’s speech
In response to the United States easing sanctions on Russian oil and gas due to high oil prices, von der Leyen said in the European Parliament on the 11th that it would be a strategic mistake for the EU to abandon its long-term strategy or even return to relying on Russian fossil fuels.
Third, Europe's development depends on the current international order. Although it does not agree with Iran, the international order is more important than Iran. Trump has severely disrupted this order since he came to power for more than a year. Now, without the United Nations or domestic authorization, he has launched a war against a sovereign country. His actions are equivalent to proving the legitimacy of Russia's war against Ukraine. It cannot rule out the possibility of a similar threat to Greenland.
Fourth, there are a large number of immigrants from the Middle East in Europe, and the situation in the Middle East often affects its internal stability. Most of these immigrants were uprooted by war and instability in the Middle East, and they have deep emotional and family ties with their homeland. Once the United States takes military action in the Middle East and the situation worsens, it will not only trigger a new flow of refugees, putting huge pressure on Europe's reception and resettlement capabilities, but also cause strong emotional fluctuations among the Middle Eastern immigrant groups who have settled in Europe because they are worried about the safety of their relatives and friends back home, triggering social riots and political differences, seriously disrupting normal social order and policy formulation.
Therefore, the US-Iran conflict is another impact and disruption to transatlantic relations.
In my opinion, Europe not only does not support the United States, it even hopes that the United States will defeat the war. The reason is simple: Iran is not a threat to Europe, but the United States under Trump is. Although Europe also opposes Iran, the US approach is a serious disruption and impact on the international order – which is also the focus of the biggest differences and confrontations between Europe and the United States today.
If Iran wins, it will not only restrain Trump, but also affect the U.S. midterm elections. Europe has been suffering from Trump for a long time. It especially hopes that the United States will have domestic power to check and balance. The only hope at the moment is the mid-term elections. Otherwise, if Trump wins the mid-term election after winning the general election, we still don’t know what actions he will take to threaten Europe and the world in the next three years. Especially if he points to Greenland, it will create more complex and thorny geopolitical problems within Europe and between Europe and the United States.
In fact, if Iran wins, it will play an objective role in maintaining international order just like China's counterattack against the US trade war and Europe's defense of Greenland.
Observer Network: In addition to the divisions between the United States and Europe, we have also seen differences within Europe. Starmer's government eventually gave in under pressure from Trump, while Spain steadfastly refused to allow the United States to use bases on its territory. Why did the UK and Spain make completely different choices based on the same concerns about international law? What deep dilemmas does this incident expose the EU faces when seeking "strategic autonomy"? Are the foundations of the EU's common foreign and security policy being shaken?
Song Luzheng: Spain and the United Kingdom are two extreme representatives within Europe. Spain has taken a firm opposition stance since Trump returned to the White House. It not only opposes Trump forcing European allies to increase military spending, but also openly opposes Trump's tariffs. This is completely different from other European countries appeasing or avoiding direct criticism of the United States. The same is true this time in the face of the US attack on Iran.
There are four main reasons why Spain does this: First, Prime Minister Sanchez comes from the left, not the traditional right wing of other major European countries. He places great emphasis on opposing illegal wars and adhering to the international order. He himself is also trying to build the leader of the European left-wing resistance front.
Second, Spain learned a painful lesson in the 2003 Iraq War. Supporting the illegal war of the United States did not bring national security, but suffered serious terrorist attacks, leading to rising anti-war sentiment among the people.
Third, the domestic public is strongly opposed to Trump, with up to 77% of the public having a negative view of Trump. Standing on the side of public opinion not only helps to achieve unity in the left camp, but also diverts domestic pressure. Spain has been unable to pass a budget for a long time and faces governance difficulties.
Fourth, Spain is relatively less dependent on the United States economically. Trade with the United States only accounts for 4.4% of GDP, and it has strong independence. What's more, after the diplomatic conflict between Spain and the United States, the EU quickly expressed support for Spain and became an important backing for Spain. Or the EU uses Spain to express its true position of dissatisfaction.
Although Britain is also governed by the left, the traditional special alliance between Britain and the United States is a heavy burden. Britain is dependent on the United States not only in terms of military, security, and economy, but also in terms of international status. Therefore, after experiencing initial uncooperation, the Starmer government finally had to side with the United States.
The different performances of Britain and Spain also reflect the EU's dilemma: on the one hand, it does not agree with the United States' actions, but on the other hand, it lacks the strength to say no to the United States. The so-called strategic independence is difficult to achieve.
As NATO Secretary-General Rutte publicly admitted in his speech to the European Parliament this year: "If there are still people here who think that the EU, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the United States, then keep dreaming. It can't be done. We can't do it. We need each other." If security cannot guarantee itself, how can we have strategic autonomy?
The EU's internal position is also highly divided. Eastern European countries, Baltic countries, and Nordic countries are adjacent to Russia and strongly rely on the United States to provide security guarantees. Therefore, they oppose all measures to worsen relations with the United States.
Due to the operating mechanism of the EU, diplomacy and security are determined by each sovereign state. Therefore, even in the context of Trump's disregard for Atlantic relations, and despite France and other Western European countries' repeated assertions of strategic autonomy, their internal divisions have prevented them from taking action.
File photo of NATO Secretary-General Rutte
Observer Network: Germany’s performance this time is also worth pondering. On the one hand, Mertz emphasized that Israel’s security is Germany’s core interest. On the other hand, he rarely “clearly condemned” Israel’s annexation plan in the West Bank and restricted arms exports to Israel. At the same time, Mertz publicly supported the United States and Israel in attacking Iran. Does this seemingly contradictory attitude indicate that Germany's Middle East policy based on "Holocaust responsibility" formed after World War II is undergoing a fundamental shift?
Song Luzheng: There are special reasons for the divisions and contradictions in Germany's foreign policy.
As one of the origins of World War II, Germany brought huge disasters to the world. In particular, the genocide against the Jews has placed a heavy burden on it. Therefore, successive German governments have made it clear that Israel’s security is Germany’s core interest. In addition, Germany is opposed to war and aggression and annexation of sovereign countries because of historical lessons. Israel's annexation plan in the West Bank violates United Nations resolutions and the United Nations Charter. For this reason, Germany finds it difficult to agree with the plan based on historical lessons and values.
After World War II, Germany's security was provided and monitored by the United States. The United States has 100,000 troops stationed in Europe, 40,000 in Germany. But Germany is also on the front line of a confrontation with Russia or China, which reflects the United States' distrust of it. If the UK still has room to say no to the US, Germany has none. This is different from the 2003 Iraq War, when France took the lead and Germany followed. Germany does not dare to stand alone on the front line against the United States. Germany's move has little direct relationship with its Middle East policy, but is a manifestation of Germany's vassalage of the United States.
Germany's Middle East policy based on "Holocaust responsibility" has not changed, but it has to compromise or persist when it comes to German-US relations and United Nations principles.
Observer Network: In France, Iranian President Pezhiziyan warned Macron that any support for the United States and Israel will be regarded as "direct participation in the war." On the one hand, Macron actively mediates and expresses regret for the casualties of Iranian civilians, saying that the attack "violates international law"; on the other hand, he dispatches warships and aircraft carriers near Cyprus and reiterates his "concern" about Iran's nuclear program. Does this "hedging your bets" approach exactly reflect the awkward situation of France and even Europe's influence in the Middle East: It wants to act as an independent mediator to safeguard its own interests (such as energy security, citizen safety), but it is unable to break away from the military alliance framework with the United States. In the end, it may lose both sides, and may even be regarded as a potential hostile force by Iran?
Song Luzheng: First of all, as a core power of the EU, the most important thing for France is to show its presence in this conflict. First, French President Macron had a phone call with the Iranian President, showing his diplomatic presence. This also makes him the only person in a major Western country who can speak to the president of Iran, which also shows the difference between his position and that of the United States. In diplomacy, words are actions.
The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is heading towards the Middle East
The second is to send an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean to show its military presence. That is to say, France is not lacking in the Middle East and has actual military capabilities. But this does not mean that France will enter the war on the side of the United States.
Secondly, if France, as a medium-sized country, wants to exert global influence, it lies in its ability to play a unique balancing role among major countries. The same is true for the current conflict between the United States and Iran. He not only criticized the United States for violating international law and had a phone call with the president of Iran, but also expressed concerns about the nuclear issue. This model is France’s traditional way of demonstrating its status as a great power. At a time when the United States and Iran are fighting, France's position can be divided into two directions, and it has the right to speak to either side.
It should be said that the EU has long lost its voice in the Middle East, but France still has a place: first, it has military bases, second, it sells weapons to Middle Eastern countries, and third, it is far less dependent on external energy than the EU. 70% of its energy consumption comes from nuclear energy, and it has a certain degree of autonomy.
But generally speaking, from the perspective of strength, Israel and the United States can completely ignore the existence of France and the European Union and carry out arbitrary unilateral military intervention. France's approach is just trying to maintain a sense of presence and has no substantial influence on the US-Iran conflict. Iran's need for France is just to show that diplomacy is not isolated, while the United States prevents France from directly standing on the front line of the opposition camp.
