ABNA24 - Just a couple of months ago, Trump set the news and social media ablaze by his plan to annex Greenland to the US territory. Though since the beginning it looked that his words were a media game, when Trump said he was ready to deploy forces to the Danish territory, many raised a question despite being highly unlikely: What will happen to NATO if the US attacked Denmark?
In fact, NATO, originally a Cold War mechanism, carries a fundamental principle: an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, in a moment where the US could potentially launch an assault on Denmark, NATO, being the principal military force of the Western front, would essentially unravel due to this contradiction. While that specific scenario did not unfold, such conjectures among experts convey an important message saying that a growing rift has emerged within the Western alliance, and the Ramadan War and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz exemplify this division clearly.
After WWII, Washington, as a rising superpower, positioned itself as the guardian and defender of liberal democracy around the globe against the Soviet Union and communism. For decades, it sought to rebuild and rearm its allies within the Western bloc through military-security programs like NATO and economic initiatives like the Marshall Plan. This strategy served as a free ride to prevent the encroachment of communism into the Western world.
However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc in the early 1990s, this dynamic faded. Gradually, as the political and economic power of the US diminished, new powers like China emerged, which, unlike the Soviets, had no interest in direct confrontation with the US. Instead, they focused their efforts on infrastructure development and economic growth.
It was in these conditions that in recent decade right-wing movements in the US managed to promote a narrative in their country’s foreign policy: The US should no longer spend on European security since it has its own problems. In other words, they argued that the money being injected into NATO to protect Europe should shift course to the American infrastructure projects. Simply put, the Europeans were told free ride was no longer available to them. The climactic point of this narrative presented itself in Trump winning another term. Trump asserted that the NATO members like Germany and Britain should raise their share from the NATO spending. Trump even entertained plans for decreasing American forces stationed in Europe for decades. From another aspect, Ukraine war gave Europe a feeling of fear that Trump neither wanted nor could protect Europe in the face of potential confrontation with Russia.
This precarious backdrop regarding US-European relations was exacerbated by Trump’s aggressive behavior. The imposition of heavy tariffs on European allies and the pressure to distance themselves from China did not sit well with them. On the other hand, they watched as Trump manipulated financial markets, impacting the European economy daily, culminated by the Greenland issue.
It is Europe that can be perceived as suspicious and uncertain regarding its foreign relations. For years, they had followed American directives in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, but during the war against Iran, they chose to take a different approach.
In the first week of the Ramadan War, Western media included claims in their lists about missile attack targets attributed to Iran that also featured the interests and positions of countries like Britain, France, and Turkey. If we add US bases to this list, the Western countries themselves claim that Iran has targeted four NATO member states. Prior to this war, many experts might have described such a move as a complete suicide for Iran and the resistance front, but today we see that NATO has been largely silent in the face of this event.
Moreover, many European leaders, such as those from Spain, have firmly rejected Trump’s demands to participate in this conflict, and Europeans find themselves in a situation where their common interests with the Americans seem to have dwindled to a minimum.
Here some issues raise themselves: First it is the Ukraine war that remains unsettled despite Trump promising during his election campaign speeches he would settle it immediately after comeback to the White House. Europe perhaps was the biggest party suffering pressures from this war as it had to cut off gas imports from Russia because of a war largely provoked by the US. The European countries also had to provide huge amounts of weapons and funds to Kiev and to their frustration, not only they failed to defeat Russia, but also the US today cannot broker a truce in Ukraine. One thing is now before European eyes: Trump who could not end Ukraine war has himself started a war against Iran and demands Europeans to join this largely unjustified aggression. What is particularly painful for Europe is that even today, when Trump and the US need them, he continues to humiliate Europe and jeopardize their interests. A striking example of this is allowing India to purchase Russian oil. For Western Europeans, Russia poses an incredibly close and real threat, yet Trump facilitates Moscow’s power boost solely to manage a situation of his own making.
Another issue that deepens the divide between Europe and the US is Washington’s behavior towards Arab countries. The Iran war revealed that the security product sold to the Arabs for billions of dollars by the US resembles more of a scam, as it ultimately benefits only the Israeli regime under the American security umbrella. This situation terrifies Europeans even further. With the US abandoning the UAE and Saudi Arabia for its own interests, what guarantee is there that such behavior would not be repeated towards London and Berlin? Especially as the US can no longer bring the wars it has started to an end, a reality that Iran war has starkly illustrated.
Trump, with his rhetoric, not only fails to reassure Europe of standing by him but also conveys a sense of confusion and disorientation. Europeans observe Trump’s contradictory behavior; while he strikes a pose of victory against Iran daily, he simultaneously begs other countries to come help in Iran war.
The fact that Europeans sustain serious damage from closure of the Strait of Hormuz is clear to all. Certainly they hope the US can reopen this strait and they will never stand by Iran’s side. But the reason behind Europe standing away from West Asia conflict is that its confidence in the US has largely dwindled and it is extremely worried it could sink in the Trump-made quagmire if it got involved, especially at a time Europe has more options than before, among them choosing to not rely on the US and its promises, and that to protect its borders and future, it should interact with further freedom with emerging powers.
/129
Your Comment