Germany is a “broken country”. Italy “has not offered at all”. And Spain is judged as “unacceptable”. The aforementioned comments belong to the American president and clearly describe the phase in which the relations between Washington and the most important European capitals are, against the background of the war in Iran but with deeper causes.
Acidity
Trump’s threat to withdraw US troops from Italy and Spain did not go down like a bolt of lightning after a similar warning was issued to Germany on Wednesday (04/29), amid a public spat between the German chancellor and the US president over US strategy in Iran. Finally, on Friday the Pentagon announced that approximately 5,000 US troops would be withdrawn from Germany within a year. “The withdrawal will be completed in the next six to twelve months,” US Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell said.
Previously, the confrontation had also taken on an economic dimension, with the imposition of 25% tariffs announced by the US president on cars and trucks, citing non-compliance with a trade agreement concluded between the EU and the US. Given that 70% of passenger cars in Europe are produced in four countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain) and the sector occupies USA. To date, Stellantis, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo have announced investments in the US from European car manufacturers.
Data
Returning to US troops, a reminder of the geographic dispersion of these forces is useful. According to data from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and estimates from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), more of the US armed forces are based on the European continent, under the “double hat” of the US European Command (USEUCOM) and NATO’s Allied Operations Command (ACO). More than 36,400 are based at all kinds of military bases in Germany, about 13,000 in Italy, 3,600-.3800 in Spain and 10,000 in the United Kingdom. The rest are distributed among the remaining countries of the Alliance (Turkey, Greece, Belgium, Poland, Romania, Belgium, Iceland, Denmark).
It is this extensive network of troops scattered across military outposts, naval, air force and aerospace bases that makes it doubtful whether Trump’s threat will be carried out. Defense analysts, most Democrats as well as Republicans, oppose it, arguing that a reduction in the US military presence in Europe would deprive the US of the ability to project power on a global scale. “Continued attacks against NATO allies … are hurting Americans,” Don Bacon, a Republican congressman and former military officer, commented on social media. “The two major airports in Germany give us excellent access to three continents. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we leave there,” he added. German military officials speaking to Reuters expressed optimism, noting that similar threats were made during Trump’s first term but never carried out.
Europe vs. Trump
It is no secret that Mertz’s comment that “the US is being humiliated by the Iranians” and that “they do not have an exit strategy from the war” was the beginning of the last Euro-Atlantic crisis. However, the fact that the “fires” came from that European leader who until recently seemed to be investing in smooth coexistence with the American president is an alarming difference. Typical of this approach was the chancellor’s silence on Trump’s insulting comments about Spanish and British prime ministers Pedro Sanchez and Keir Starmer during their Mertz meeting at the White House in early March. But also Berlin’s consent to the use of military facilities for aggressive actions on Iranian soil. In both cases, Mertz was criticized for “indignity” by the entire opposition, but also the co-ruling Social Democratic Party (SPD).
The contrast with Berlin’s current rhetoric is obvious, but not inexplicable. “The war is hurting the German economy and has cost Merz politically. Drivers and manufacturers have been shocked by fuel price increases due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The government has cut its forecasts for economic growth this year. Merz’s party, the center-right Christian Democrats, is lagging behind the far-right AfD in the polls by a few percentage points. notes New York Times correspondent Jim Tarkensley in an article. It is worth noting that the American president is extremely unpopular in Germany, with a series of polls showing the overwhelming majority of public opinion (60-70%) negative towards him. Similar are the motivations behind the conversion of the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, for whom the economic effects of the war combined with Trump’s verbal confrontation with Pope Leo make the US president synonymous with political risk. As for Pedro Sánchez, he seems to have based the political survival of his government and his legacy as a figurehead of global social democracy on his confrontation with the occupant of the White House.
Optics
Be that as it may, the relationship between the European leaders and the American president seems to be entering a new phase of deterioration, after the de-escalation of the tension in Greenland. The elimination of unilateral action in Iran by Washington, without prior notification of the allied countries and without taking into account the multifaceted costs they will suffer, is perceived in the eyes of European leaders as a solemn confirmation that the Trump administration treats NATO member states through the lens of servitude. Accordingly, for Trump’s transactional understanding of international relations, the reluctance of the Europeans to immediately send naval forces to the Straits of Hormuz is seen as circumstantial evidence that NATO and the EU are not only useless but harming American interests.
“Examples abound, from punitive tariffs to his desire to restore ties with Moscow at the expense of Ukraine, not to mention threats to annex Greenland.” emphasized relatively recently the French in its article, trying to interpret the refusal of the Europeans for active involvement in the new Middle Eastern conflict. “Mistrust has led Trump to retreat, after first making a series of disparaging comments to his allies,” the same forum notes, warning that “the continuation of this aggressive and unbridled unilateral approach should push Europeans to deepen their commitment to achieving a military autonomy that has now become necessary.” As far as the commercial dimension of the crisis is concerned, it is no coincidence that at this stage voices are resurfacing calling on the EU to use the infamous , which includes a range of measures capable of creating serious problems for the American economy, especially in the corporate world of “Big Tech”.
