European rhetoric has long since become disconnected from the reality of its (in)action. The louder its rhetoric, the less real power it has. The so-called geopolitical Europe is, in truth, a Europe irrelevant in foreign policy, humiliated by its traditional ally and in need of reconnecting with a Global South with its own vision of the world and the threats challenging the stability of the Twenty-Seven. Nothing better explains this path toward ineffectiveness than the European reaction to the escalating war in Iran.
The United States attack on Iran's nuclear facilities undermined European diplomatic efforts, with Donald Trump feeling no need to warn anyone other than British Prime Minister Keir Starmer before the operation. However, the trio of Berlin, Paris, and London largely refrained from openly criticizing Washington's actions. Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, and Starmer signed a joint declaration advocating for negotiation, repeating the rhetoric that Iran "can never have a nuclear weapon" and affirming "their support for Israel's security." European institutions have followed suit.
The calls of the new German chancellor for independence from the United States just a few months ago and Macron's proclamations about Europe's "step forward" in continental security have been relegated to the background. Overshadowed by Trump's contempt for the French president because, in his opinion, he "doesn't understand anything," or by Merz's statements on June 17 that "Israel is doing the West's dirty work."
The EU's credibility as a negotiator is under attack. While Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal during his first term and abandoned European arms control regimes such as the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, Europe continued to cling to that discontinued agreement with the diploma of a fragile European foreign policy. But the security blanket that this agreement provided has long since fallen short. Not only has the EU failed to find alternatives in recent years, but now, with its tacit silence in the face of the US military operation against Iran, it is ultimately going against its own interests. Instability in the EU's southern neighborhood continues to grow while its allies flirt with the idea of "regime change," as if recent history hadn't taught us enough lessons from the failure of military operations to force changes of government in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (10) (2001).
The allied invasion of Iraq in 2003 had already divided the EU in two, between what Donald Rumsfeld called the new and old Europe. At the time, France and Germany led the European opposition to an illegal invasion. Today, however, they are toning it down.
Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt has openly denounced the US attack as a clear violation of international law, since the UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an imminent attack or with the authorization of the Security Council, and neither option.
But this is a European Union that has decided that, nevertheless, it cannot do without the United States. The same subordination was seen at the NATO summit. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called for sacrifices to please a Trump who considers NATO an obsolete instrument and Europeans opportunistic. Months of allied diplomacy centered around the totemic figure of 5% seem more aimed at inflating the White House occupant's ego than at improving the coherence of the investments Europe needs to build a credible defense capability.
No matter how hard the EU tries to announce that a phase of reaffirmation is accelerating, Europeans remain incapable of looking at the world through eyes other than those of transatlantic dependence. And if Trump has repeatedly shown them anything, it is that Europe's servility will not earn them respect or reciprocity in the defense of common interests from Washington.
