The Masks Are Off: How Europe Betrayed the Trump Administration

Europe has betrayed President Trump. For years, EU leaders and key national governments have undermined the White House's agenda quietly, working to remove pro-Washington figures from power. We recently witnessed this in Romania, where Cătălin Georgescu -- a clear frontrunner who favored closer ties with the U.S. -- was effectively sidelined in the presidential race. In Hungary, there was a concerted effort to defeat Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party in April. Now, anti-Trump Europe has stepped out of the shadows and is openly distancing itself from the administration, leaving it to face its challenges in Iran alone.

This isn't allyship; it's more like the antics of teenagers going through political puberty. Many Europeans, basking in what they perceive as setbacks for Trump, seem oblivious to the consequences if he reevaluates his relationship with them and stops extending courtesies based on shared transatlantic ties. It appears the time for that reckoning is now upon us.

The strikes against Iran created a clear before-and-after moment in U.S.-European relations. Setting aside the debate over the necessity of such an operation, President Trump demonstrated his role as a predictable partner and reliable ally by reaching out to Europe for assistance. Even strong nations sometimes need support.

But Europe demurred. Their response ranged from a flat "no" from Berlin to vague preconditions for potential aid.

Lithuania is a perfect example of the increasingly transactional relationship that Europeans have with the United States. Its barely audible leadership expressed a willingness to help Washington -- but only if formally asked. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė shamelessly requested that U.S. Special Envoy David Hale resolve Lithuania’s domestic issues -- specifically, cigarette smuggling and the detention of a transport vehicle -- during his upcoming visit to Minsk.

It could do, but there is no obligation in the alliance.

Article 4 (Consultation): If a member feels its territorial integrity or security is threatened, they can request consultation, which has been used in regional conflicts in the past. In effect, the only obligation EU-NATO has is to participate in a consultation if the USA wants.

Article 5 (Collective Defence): This can only be invoked if a member state is attacked. If a conflict in the Middle East spills over and affects a NATO member—such as Turkey, which borders the region, or if NATO military assets in the area are attacked—Article 5 could be invoked.

Article 6 (Geographic Limitation): Traditionally, Article 5 would only be valid for attacks on members in Europe, North America, or Turkey, on their forces in the Mediterranean Sea, or in the Atlantic (north of the Tropic of Cancer).

So, Nato Article 5 was legitimately triggered in 2001 only because America, a NATO member, was directly attacked. EU countries in NATO at the time (as well as several NATO partners outside of the geographical limitation) answered the call from the USA. As long as action in the Middle East could reasonably be linked to the Article 5 trigger (and with Iraq and Libya, that argument was tenuous to say the least), the USA could count on continued support from NATO members, partners, and allies.

The problem with the current action in Iran is, there never was an Article 4 or 5 trigger. Trump himself made a conscious decision not to initiate an Article 4 consultation, and there was no mechanism for the USA to invoke Article 5 on Israel’s behalf.

Like Ukraine, Israel is north of the Tropic of Cancer, and like Ukraine it is in a partnership forum (Ukraine’s in the Partnership for Peace, Israel’s in The Mediterranean Dialogue.)

There were strong moral arguments that NATO members should’ve rendered assistance to Israel after an egregious assault by a neighboring country, but the key thing is no NATO country was obligated to respond. The same applies with Ukraine - for years, despite obvious proof (including the admissions from Wagner chiefs, Strelkov, and Denisov) that the Russian military and security services were behind the conflict in the Donbas and the land grabs since 2022, many European countries as well as the USA were reluctant to do anything that might risk “poking the bear”.

Well, sorry my American chums, but for the sake of consistency, if “don’t poke the bear” was a good enough excuse for Europe and the USA to dither for years before finally deciding to back Ukraine over Russia in the wake of all moral equivalence collapsing post-Bucha, then “don’t poke the bear” was obviously going to apply as regards Iran.

President Trump has been calling for a US President to take Iran out since the mid 80s, and he’s always had a good point, but he was a total bloody idiot for thinking he could just kick off a military operation on Iran with EU-NATO behind him, after he

(a) froze them completely out of all planning for it,
(b) didn’t even attempt to invoke Article 4,
(c) never reminded anyone that Israel was a NATO partner,
(d) never asked Bibi to publicly ask for NATO help,
(e) even after realising America and Israel would find it tough going without other allies, carried on insulting the people he was hoping would render assistance.

In my humble opinion, because it’s right to support Ukraine after Ukraine was invaded (because has been a reliable NATO partner for years) then it’s right to support Israel too on the exact same basis. By Trump repeatedly arguing that Ukraine’s plight was entirely self-inflicted, NATO mustn’t be putting boots on the ground over Russia-Ukraine, he inadvertently reinforced the argument that the same principle should apply to Israel-Iran.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.