Europe’s Quiet Surrender: How America’s Allies Became Foot Soldiers in Trump’s War

According to Saed News,
When Germany’s Friedrich Merz, Britain’s Keir Starmer, and France’s Emmanuel Macron jointly endorsed the United States’ military strikes on Iran, it was not just a diplomatic gesture—it was an admission. An admission that Europe, far from charting an independent foreign policy course, remains a deferential auxiliary to American power, even at the expense of its own long-term interests and the international norms it so often claims to defend.

The European trio echoed familiar lines: unqualified support for Israel’s “right to security,” and yet again, the refrain that “Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons”—despite repeated confirmations by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and U.S. intelligence that Tehran is not actively weaponizing its nuclear program.

More troubling, however, was the timing. The U.S. strike came just one day after Iran had engaged in diplomatic talks with European foreign ministers and was preparing to resume indirect negotiations with Washington in Oman. Israel’s sudden intervention derailed that process, yet European leaders not only refrained from criticizing the escalation but actively endorsed it. The Orwellian absurdity deepened when these same leaders urged Iran to return to talks—talks that had only just been sabotaged by their closest ally.

This contradiction was not lost on Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posed a pointed question: “How can Iran return to something it never left?” The real issue, he argued, was not Iran’s willingness to negotiate, but the West’s duplicity in pretending that diplomacy is possible while simultaneously supporting preemptive military action.

That action, according to former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, constitutes a clear violation of international law. Under the UN Charter, the use of force is permissible only in self-defense against imminent threat or with Security Council approval—neither of which applied in this case. Yet European leaders, who denounce Russia’s aggression in Ukraine in the name of international law, maintained a conspicuous silence in the face of America’s and Israel’s own violations.

Such selectivity undermines not only Europe’s moral authority but also the very “rules-based order” it purports to uphold. By legitimizing the doctrine of preventive war for its allies, the EU sets a precedent others will be quick to exploit. If preemptive strikes are acceptable for the U.S. and Israel, why not for China, Russia, or any state that claims to feel threatened? And why should nations of the Global South heed Europe’s appeals to defend the UN Charter, when Europe itself condones its breach?

Worse still, Europe gains nothing in return. There is no indication that the Trump administration even consulted its NATO allies before launching the strike—if anything, the operation signaled that America views its European partners less as equals and more as obedient clients. It is a humiliating reality, especially on the eve of a pivotal NATO summit where European leaders are once again expected to profess unity while playing subordinates in Washington’s geopolitical script.

The tragedy is not that Europe is overpowered. It is that it has internalized this subordination. Legal norms are sacrificed not for realpolitik, but out of sheer habit and deference. In doing so, Europe not only erodes its own credibility but emboldens its allies to act with increasing impunity.

The fallout will not be abstract. Escalation in the Middle East risks triggering refugee flows, energy shocks, and new waves of terrorism—threats that disproportionately impact Europe. If European leaders will not assert their interests now, amid such clear stakes, then when? Will they wait for the next unlawful strike, the next war, the next refugee crisis?

For a continent that prides itself on rules and restraint, Europe is perilously close to becoming what it once feared most: a silent accomplice to unbounded power.