News
Analysis
As Trump
Bombs Iran, America’s Allies Watch Fitfully From Sidelines
Disregarded
by President Trump over Iran, Europe’s leaders are adapting to a world in which
they are little more than bystanders.
Mark
Landler
By Mark
Landler
Reporting
from Paris
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/world/europe/trump-iran-europe.html
March 2,
2026
Updated
7:07 a.m. ET
As
American and Israeli warplanes continue to bombard Iranian cities, European
allies have been left in a familiar place: on the sidelines. President Trump
cut them out of planning for a conflict that has direct implications for their
security.
The
awkward patchwork of responses from European leaders — a mix of guarded
approval and plaintive calls for a return to diplomacy — attest to the
complexities of dealing with a United States increasingly untethered to
post-World War II rules and norms.
Chancellor
Friedrich Merz of Germany suggested on Sunday that Mr. Trump was doing a job
that Europe could not do itself. Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, flatly
rejected the strikes as destabilizing. President Emmanuel Macron of France
tried to keep the focus on Europe’s campaign to defend Ukraine.
“For
Europeans, the dilemma is that they were always defenders of the liberal world
order,” said Vali R. Nasr, a professor of international affairs at the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “But their response to the
war in Gaza, and now their response to the bombing of Iran, underscores the
incoherence of their position.”
Europe’s
inability to control its message is not altogether surprising. From the
president’s capricious tariffs to his open-ended military campaigns, America’s
allies are discovering, to their chagrin, that it’s Mr. Trump’s world and
they’re just living in it.
Whether
it was the targeted killing on Saturday of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, or the nighttime capture in January of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás
Maduro, Mr. Trump has acted without any pretense of enlisting international
support, a stamp of approval from the United Nations, or legal legitimacy.
“I don’t
suppose it ever crossed his mind that he should consult the Europeans,” said
Kim Darroch, who served as Britain’s ambassador to Washington during Mr.
Trump’s first term. “It shows that America First mainly means America Alone.”
It was
not always this way. Mr. Darroch contrasted Mr. Trump’s latest attack with his
missile strike on Syria in April 2018. Back then, the United States was joined
by Britain and France, after the Syrian government carried out a chemical
weapons attack on civilians during that country’s civil war.
Such
collaboration, Mr. Darroch said, is hard to imagine in the second Trump
administration, given the makeup of Mr. Trump’s national security team and
unyielding tone of its language, especially at it applies to the European
Union.
In one
way, he said, Mr. Trump’s brazen disregard of the Europeans has made it easier
for the leaders. Had he asked for European support in the strikes against Iran,
Mr. Darroch said, they would likely have felt obliged to rebuff him, driving an
even greater wedge between Europe and the United States.
While
European leaders were careful to note they were not involved in the strikes,
they endorsed two of Mr. Trump’s ostensible goals: preventing Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon and degrading its missiles, some of which could
theoretically hit Europe. Some also welcomed the elimination of its supreme
leader.
A
spokeswoman for the French government, Maud Bregeon, said Ayatollah Khamenei
was “a bloodthirsty dictator who oppressed his people,” degraded women and
minorities, and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. “We
can only be satisfied with his death,” she told reporters.
Germany
said the White House had notified it in advance of the attacks. On Sunday, Mr.
Merz voiced surprising tolerance for Mr. Trump, given the lack of consultation.
“Now is not the moment to lecture our allies and partners,” Mr. Merz said,
before leaving on a trip to Washington to meet with Mr. Trump. “Despite all
doubts, we share many of their goals without being able to achieve them
ourselves.”
Arancha
González Laya, a former foreign minister of Spain, said Europe’s cautious
response reflected both its skepticism about Mr. Trump’s war aims, and the fact
that the war in Ukraine remains its overriding priority.
“Europe
is looking at this through the eyes of Russia in Ukraine,” said Ms. González
Laya, who is the dean of the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences
Po, a French university. “We’re much closer to the risks than the U.S. is,” she
said, citing Iranian missiles that could hit European targets.
On
Sunday, the leaders of Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement in
which they said they were are “appalled by the indiscriminate and
disproportionate missile attacks launched by Iran against countries in the
region, including those who were not involved in initial U.S. and Israeli
military operations.”
Whatever
their ambivalence about the American operation, the risks of being drawn into
it are real. Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, said on Sunday that he
would allow British bases to be used for “defensive” strikes, hours before a
drone crashed into a Royal Air Force base on the island of Cyprus in the
Mediterranean.
Amid the
fears of escalation in the Middle East, Mr. Macron separately promoted a
military operation in the North Sea in which French Navy helicopters dropped
Belgian forces aboard a tanker carrying Russian oil. He called it a “major
blow” against the so-called shadow fleet, which helps finance the war in
Ukraine.
Mr.
Macron is sticking to a plan to deliver a speech Monday about France’s nuclear
deterrence in Europe, despite the likelihood that it will be overshadowed by
Iran. French officials said the timing of his remarks, at a submarine base in
Brittany, would demonstrate the value of having an independent military force
in dangerous times.
Among
European leaders, only Mr. Sánchez of Spain came out squarely against the
attacks. “We reject the unilateral military action of the United States and
Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and
hostile international order,” he wrote on social media.
Ms.
González Laya recalled that Spain’s support of the American invasion of Iraq in
2003 triggered the fall of a previous Spanish government. She said that
hostility to Mr. Trump in Spain made this a popular position for Mr. Sánchez,
her former boss, to take, at a time when he is facing political problems.
For every
European leader who has struggled to respond to Mr. Trump, there are leaders
elsewhere in the world who are well positioned to profit from him. Indeed, some
already have.
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has succeeded, twice now, in getting the
United States to back a long-sought military campaign against Iran, even though
its rationale for the United States this time is questionable.
Analysts
say President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could use Mr. Trump’s new enthusiasm
for regime change to justify his aggression in Ukraine. The same goes for
President Xi Jinping of China, who seeks to control Taiwan, which China regards
as a breakaway province.
In
Europe, critics say, acquiescing to Mr. Trump’s military adventurism in the
Middle East could exacerbate problems closer to home. He might, for example,
feel emboldened to revisit his designs on Greenland.
“They’re
having trouble navigating this new world because they are caught between these
two positions,” Mr. Nasr said. “If you’re defending the principle that the U.S.
and Israel can bomb everybody they want, you can’t turn around and say, ‘This
doesn’t apply to Ukraine.’ Why wouldn’t the United States take Greenland?”
Ana
Castelain contributed reporting from Paris and Christopher F. Schuetze from
Berlin.
Mark
Landler is the Paris bureau chief of The Times, covering France, as well as
American foreign policy in Europe and the Middle East. He has been a journalist
for more than three decades.


Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário