Questioning AI · Why Have US-Europe Relations Shifted from Closeness to Estrangement?

Author | Gu Xuewu

Editor | Ashu

The epic fury war launched by the US and Israel against Iran has not involved a single European country. This starkly contrasts with the past when US military actions in Europe often received widespread support.

During President George H. W. Bush’s first Gulf War, he drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait; President George W. Bush’s second Gulf War led to Saddam’s execution; and the long-standing Afghanistan conflict, involving multiple US presidents over more than 20 years, saw European coalitions fighting alongside US forces.

But this time, under President Trump, the US appears more isolated than ever. Europeans not only refuse to assist Trump but also criticize his war against Iran as a violation of international law, clearly distancing themselves from him.

01

“Above the Law”

French President Macron criticized Trump for acting “above the law,” and Italy’s Prime Minister Meloni, who has generally maintained good relations with Trump, joined the condemnation, saying his actions “operate outside international law.” The two rarely align in tone, making this a rare consensus.

What further angered Trump was Spain and the UK. Both refused Washington’s requests to allow US military bases on their soil to attack Iran, infuriating Trump, who lashed out at Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez and UK Prime Minister Stamer, losing his presidential decorum.

Sánchez was called “absolutely terrible,” and Stamer was sarcastically compared to Churchill. Trump even publicly criticized Germany’s Chancellor Merkel, threatening tariffs to punish the “disobedient” Spaniards.

Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez / Source: Xinhua

Germany was the last major European power to distance itself from the US. Government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius stated, “This war has nothing to do with NATO; it’s not NATO’s war.” Implying that since NATO isn’t involved, Germany has no obligation to join the US-led conflict.

It took Chancellor Merkel two weeks to clarify her stance. On the 13th, she said Germany currently “has no reason to consider military security issues in the Strait of Hormuz,” emphasizing that Germany is not participating in this war and “we will not join this conflict.”

German Chancellor Merkel / Source: Xinhua

Even after Trump explicitly demanded Germany to send troops to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, Germany responded with a firm rebuff. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock bluntly stated on German TV that “all our efforts are aimed at ending this war, not escalating it.”

She explained that Germany “does not see the need” to participate in escort missions. To save face for the Trump administration and leave room for maneuver, she said Germany hopes the US and Israel will provide more information about their war objectives and plans against Iran.

02

“This Is Not Our War”

Soon, Merkel stopped beating around the bush.

On March 16, after talks with Dutch Prime Minister Jetten, Merkel firmly declared that Trump’s Iran war “is not our war; we have nothing to do with it.”

In fact, one key reason Europeans are reluctant to support and join Trump’s Iran conflict is that the US president has shown blatant disregard for Europe. Before bombing Tehran, European countries discussed and sought help from each other, but Trump’s arrogant approach—expecting Europe to assist—offended European sensibilities.

Accustomed to being “coddled,” Europeans were unprepared for this defiance. They refused to be bullied into compliance. Trump responded with threats, warning that Europe’s “future” within NATO would be bleak if they refused to send troops.

Trump / Photo: Xinhua

Trump’s actions are somewhat impulsive. Traditionally, the US and Europe have had a “strategic disagreement” on how to deal with the Islamic regime in Tehran. The US favors “pressure,” while Europe prefers “diplomacy.”

Europe was instrumental in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Through persistent diplomacy, they advocated “commitment to denuclearization” in exchange for “lifting sanctions,” leading Iran back to negotiations and reaching a promising compromise.

The deal required Iran to surrender all medium-enriched uranium, 98% low-enriched uranium, significantly reduce enrichment facilities, and agree not to produce uranium over 3.67% purity, nor build plutonium reactors or use first-generation centrifuges. Iran also accepted international inspections under the “snap inspection” mechanism. In return, the US, EU, and UN lifted sanctions.

Iran’s Fordow nuclear site / Source: Xinhua

Unfortunately, this was short-lived. In 2018, less than two years after Trump took office, he unilaterally withdrew from the deal. Iran responded rationally; under European persuasion, Iran did not immediately exit the agreement but continued to comply, hoping the US would return, and Europe might lift some sanctions.

However, as US sanctions intensified post-withdrawal, Europe’s influence waned. The US’s targeted killings of Iranian generals and the hardening of Iran’s domestic factions led Iran, in 2021, to suspend some commitments in retaliation, though it did not formally withdraw from the deal, still hoping Europe could bypass US sanctions.

03

Bold Attempts

Europeans did try to chart their own course, encouraging Iran to continue honoring the deal. They even created a “Trade Settlement Support Instrument” (INSTEX) to facilitate trade between European and Iranian companies without using US dollars or the SWIFT system, aiming to bypass US sanctions.

INSTEX was launched by Germany, France, and the UK. It responded quickly: after Trump’s 2018 withdrawal, INSTEX was announced in January 2019 to counter US sanctions.

But European companies, wary of secondary US sanctions, refused to use INSTEX. They preferred to abandon business with Iran rather than risk losing access to the US market. By 2023, due to minimal usage, INSTEX was dissolved.

EU headquarters / Source: Xinhua

The failure of INSTEX was a European tragedy. It was the first time Europe united to “break out” of US-led sanctions, but it failed. It exposed Europe’s harsh reality: its security depends on the US, and its economy is tied to the dollar.

The collapse of INSTEX also dashed Iran’s hopes of bypassing US sanctions through Europe. For Tehran, continuing to comply with the deal unilaterally became pointless, especially since Trump’s government demanded exorbitant prices for rejoining the JCPOA, leaving Iran with no choice but to resist.

04

Hopelessness

Desperate Europeans, unable to turn the tide, reverted to old sanctions tactics. Ironically, the UK, Germany, and France, which had tried to help Iran bypass sanctions via INSTEX, on August 28, 2025, demanded the reinstatement of sanctions, citing Iran’s non-compliance with the JCPOA. Russia and China’s proposals to delay sanctions were rejected, and on September 27, 2025, Iran was fully sanctioned again.

But sanctions are one thing; military solutions to Iran’s nuclear issue are another. “Decapitating” Iran’s religious leaders, destroying nuclear facilities, and bombing military sites are not options in Europe’s “toolbox” for resolving Iran conflicts.

Now Trump has resorted to all these extreme measures, which Europe fundamentally rejects both legally and psychologically. Despite occasional double standards, Europeans are now clear-headed—they do not defend Trump’s violations of international law, from politicians to media.

In other words, international law still holds some weight in Europe. Compared to Trump’s reckless acts of “kidnapping” or “assassinating” national leaders, Europe, as the birthplace of modern international law, still respects and fears it.

According to a UK media report on March 3, 2026, US President Trump expressed dissatisfaction that the UK did not participate in the Iran strike, claiming US-UK relations are “completely different from the past.” Trump (left) with UK Prime Minister Stamer / Source: Xinhua

Trump claims his attack on Iran was a “preemptive” and “legitimate self-defense.” Europeans demand evidence that Iran was actively preparing to attack Israel and US forces before any US or Israeli strikes. Without such evidence, attacking Iran is “illegal,” and collusion is out of the question.

But Europeans’ refusal to join the fight stems from deeper reasons. The US’s efforts to destroy Iran threaten European interests far more than they do US interests. Compared to the US and Israel’s “zero” investment in Iran, Europe has extensive economic ties with Iran—though these have been severely curtailed by sanctions.

Inspired by the 2015 JCPOA, European companies like Total and Siemens entered Iran’s market in large numbers. After sanctions were reinstated, these firms had to withdraw to avoid US financial sanctions, suffering heavy losses.

Despite the blow, the core remains. Germany’s trade with Iran never stopped; in 2024, bilateral trade reached €1.5 billion. Supporting US efforts to attack Iran would only deepen Europe’s losses. Even the most idealistic Europeans can calculate this.

On April 29, 2024, in Bushehr, Iran / Source: Xinhua

Trump complains that Europeans don’t understand why he acts against Iran, but Europeans also have reasons to tell Trump why they won’t support another Middle East war. According to the EU, escalation or out-of-control conflict in Iran could lead to an unprecedented influx of refugees into Europe.

This is not alarmism. Europe has yet to fully recover from the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis. About 1 million Syrians fled to Europe then, out of a population of 24.5 million. If Iran’s conflict escalates and spirals out of control, based on Syria’s experience, 3 million refugees flooding Europe is not impossible—something Europeans fear deeply.

Trump’s persistent demand for Europe’s “assistance” in Iran ignores Europe’s pain. Legally and practically, the US and Europe are no longer aligned. Even if Europe makes some superficial compromises due to power disparities, it will only be to appease Trump temporarily.

-END-

Chief Editor | Zhang La

Layout | Feifei