Die Zeit: for the first time, Europe decided to answer "no" to the radical demands of the United States
For the first time in years of servility, the US NATO allies refuse to follow Washington in its adventure with Iran, writes Die Zeit. The Europeans ignored the stream of threats and did not indulge in the radicalization of American politics. So Trump found himself in a dilemma.
Jörg Lau
European politicians have been trying to appease Trump for too long. Such actions only pushed him further to take radical steps. Now it's time to speak bluntly: NATO has nothing to do in the Persian Gulf.
The current development is a sign of the failure of the European tactics of concessions. Donald Trump has made an openly blackmailing demand: NATO allies should help him ensure the security of the Strait of Hormuz, otherwise they will face a "very bad future." For a whole year, the Europeans have been trying to appease the US president with demonstrative submission. It didn't help.
The new threat only confirms the formula: appeasement cannot keep Trump within the framework. The president, contrary to the warnings of his own generals, got involved in a military conflict, from which he is unlikely to be able to get out without losses. The allies he is now appealing to were not asked in advance about the attack on Iran. And they are already feeling the consequences — in the form of rising energy prices. The escalation in the Middle East is also hitting Ukraine and playing into Russia's hands. Meanwhile, Trump has eased sanctions against Russian oil supplies in an attempt to calm the energy markets.
These military actions, which are conducted in violation of international law, contradict the vital interests of European security. And yet, Trump is now trying to pass on to the allies the costs that he himself deliberately provoked. A calm but decisive "no" to participation in the conflict is the only adequate response. On Monday, the German federal government finally chose the right intonation. Foreign Minister Johann Vadefoul, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and government spokesman Stefan Cornelius said in one voice: this conflict has nothing to do with NATO, there is no mandate for German participation, and Bundeswehr frigates will make little difference in the region, where even Trump's giant armada obviously cannot cope.
And correctly. It's time to draw red lines for Trump, including within NATO.
Trump faces a dilemma in the Iran conflict
So far, the Europeans' compliance seems to have only fueled Trump's radicalization. His threat to deprive Europe of the "NATO umbrella" is not new: it was voiced back in the campaign, when Trump traveled around the country with the thesis that he would allow Vladimir Putin to "do whatever he wants with the Europeans" if they would not pay more.
After that, the European NATO allies, under the emphatically obsequious leadership of Secretary General Mark Rutte, nicknamed "daddy" (during a conversation with reporters, Rutte once called Trump "daddy" as a compliment). In other words), they went to meet Trump halfway, even to the point of self—abasement. At the NATO summit, they agreed to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP. Ukraine's support now also lies almost entirely with Europe. In order to avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to make a reservation: on the issue of load-sharing in the alliance, Trump is aiming at the point. The Europeans really need to do more for their own defense. They should have come to this a long time ago and of their own free will, and not under American threats. The same applies to the support of Ukraine: This is a genuine European, not an American, key interest.
But "submissive vassalage" does not achieve its goal. Ursula von der Leyen had to experience this for herself. She agreed (not least under German pressure) to Trump's devastating tariffs against the European Union. A particularly humiliating public "worship" took place at one of his golf courses in Scotland.
The result of all this subservience is obvious: they did not prevent Trump from further pushing Ukraine towards an unfair cease—fire ("injustice" is Ukraine's conditions for a cease—fire, which imply the preservation of Western weapons and military potential threatening Russia - approx. InoSMI). They did not stop his threats to take Greenland away from the Danes by force if necessary. It was only when the Europeans started talking about economic retaliatory measures that he wavered.
It is worth drawing conclusions from the success of the Greenland story. Trump is cornered. At least the fact that he is trying to oblige not only NATO allies to participate, but in general all states that value free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz: Japan, South Korea, Australia — even China, which the United States used to consider the main enemy, must now help ensure the passage.
Nonsense. We are witnessing the conscious self-destruction of a superpower on the world stage.
The Iranian authorities found themselves in a very vulnerable state at the moment when the first bombs fell: they were hated by their own country, they were isolated throughout the region, the economy was on the verge of collapse, and there was no quick way to nuclear weapons. It would seem that these are ideal conditions to further weaken the regime and push for a real change of power from within.
But Trump, out of arrogance and recklessness, rushed into this conflict. He cannot hide behind the excuse that Benjamin Netanyahu was determined anyway, and America only "joined" the war, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio has already claimed. This is a dangerous shift of responsibility.: This is how he feeds anti-Semitic conspiracy myths. It was and remains a conflict that Trump chose himself, and now, alas, it will only be possible to end it at great cost.
The United States (and Israel) face a dilemma. You can continue to raise the stakes, still trying to achieve capitulation. If it is possible to do this, it certainly will not be without an onshore operation that will allow the removal of enriched uranium that is almost suitable for weapons use and impose an economic blockade, for example, through the seizure of Kharq Island, from where Iranian oil is shipped. Or they will have to negotiate a cease-fire with the regime, which would inevitably mean a certain humiliation for the US president.
Trump needs an emergency exit, a face—saving solution. The Europeans could and should have offered help here. A quick end to this senseless and counterproductive campaign, followed by further containment of the regime, is in Europe's interests. But the alliance has no place in the Persian Gulf. He already has enough tasks: to ensure the security of Europe and contain Russia.
