View from Lebanon: Trump has become, in the eyes of many Europeans, “more dangerous” than Iran

The notion that Europe prefers a Trump defeat in the war, without an Iranian victory, seems plausible. Europe doesn't hope for this because it likes the Iranian regime, but rather because it fears the "monster" that an absolute Trump victory might create, writes ‘An Nahar’ from Lebanon.

The US-Israeli "Epic rage" operation against Iran represents not only a fundamental turning point in the history of the Middle East, but also in the structure of transatlantic alliances since the end of World War II. The sharp divergence in positions between Washington and major European capitals reveals a structural rift in the strategic vision of the international order.

Since the start of military operations, France and Germany have tried to strike a delicate balance between preserving the alliance and avoiding being drawn into a full-blown regional conflict. Meanwhile, a "critical European bloc" has formed, including countries like Spain and Italy, which refuse to support the US president in this war.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has emerged as one of the most vocal European opponents of the war. His country has not only issued political condemnations but has also taken practical measures to hinder the American war effort, including prohibiting the use of the Morón de la Frontera and Rota air bases to support any offensive operations against Iran and closing its airspace to US fighter jets participating in the airstrikes. This has angered Washington to an unprecedented degree, especially since Madrid has argued that joint defense agreements do not apply to "unilateral" actions lacking the backing of the United Nations or NATO.

Atlantic shifts

Europeans do not see Iran as an existential threat to them. Rather, they see it as a country with which agreements can be reached to curb its ambitions, especially since Europeans do not believe everything Trump says about the Iranian nuclear program. On the other hand, these European elites see Trump’s approach as a direct threat to the foundations of European stability. Its danger lies in its systematic dismantling of a rules-based global order upon which a weakened Europe relies to protect itself and its interests.

When Trump tells the New York Times that he doesn't need international law, he is intimidating Europe. If Trump succeeds in changing the regime in Iran by force and without international legitimacy — a second precedent after Venezuela — what would prevent him from applying the same logic to Greenland, or imposing his economic and political will on the entire European Union?

Trump's defeat in Iran is a first step — from a European perspective — to restoring the transatlantic balance, because it reaffirms the importance of prior coordination with allies and a return to international institutions. This gives Europe diplomatic weight that it lost under Trump's approach, especially on the Ukrainian issue.

Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, one of the main sources of European anxiety is the "Ukrainian-Iranian axis": Europe sees a war on Iran as a "strategic gift" to Russia, rising oil and gas prices are funding the Russian war machine, and Washington's preoccupation with the Middle East means a decline in military support for Kyiv.

In this context, glaring European contradictions emerge: Germany, which used to "lecture the world" on international law concerning Ukraine, now remains silent, supporting an American operation that violates the very principles it has long championed. This "strategic hypocrisy" makes Europe nothing more than a follower of Washington.

The deep trust gap

Opinion polls show that European populations are ahead of their leaders in opposing this war and in questioning American intentions.

In Germany, 58% of citizens describe the war as "unjustified," and trust in the United States as a "reliable partner" has plummeted to just 15%.

In Britain, 59% of those polled opposed the US-Israeli airstrikes, and 47% believed that Prime Minister Keir Starmer mismanaged the crisis, divided between those who saw him as "a puppet of Trump" and those who saw him as "failing to protect national security."

In Italy, 48% of those polled preferred to remain neutral and play a mediating role, rejecting direct military involvement.

This popular sentiment reinforces the analysis that European societies now view "Trumpism" as a threat to the values of "liberal democracy" and international cooperation, particularly Western cooperation.

In France, a significant current sees the war as a "stress test" of the concept of independence.

A risky support

The crisis also revealed that Europe remains “humiliatingly” dependent – as described by Greek economist and politician Yanis Varoufakis – on the American security umbrella, rendering it incapable of truly saying “no” to Trump.

In this arena, Central European countries – where illiberal politicians have consolidated their power – have played a pivotal role. Before the 2024 election, Trump repeatedly expressed his admiration for Viktor Orbán, often seen as the "European Trump." After returning to the White House, Trump exempted Hungary from sanctions for importing Russian oil.

When Washington supports right-wing parties and leaders ideologically aligned with its president, it risks losing traditionally "pro-American" forces in key European countries that form the cornerstone of American influence on the continent.

Looking ahead, the Chinese conviction that there is a European inclination to prefer a Trump defeat in the war, without an Iranian victory, seems realistic. Europe doesn't hope for an American defeat in the war because it likes the Iranian regime, but rather because it fears the "monster" that an absolute Trump victory might unleash.

A Trump victory in this "Epic rage" would mean enshrining the principle of "might makes right" globally, giving Washington free rein to impose tariffs and unfair trade agreements on Europe, expanding its annexation policies—Greenland being a prime example—and ultimately undermining the European Union as a competing political and economic entity.

Therefore, Trump has become, in the eyes of many Europeans, "more dangerous" than Iran. Spain's steadfastness, Italy's hesitation, and Britain's difficult maneuvering are merely expressions of the European instinct for survival in the face of an ally that no longer resembles itself, and in a war that everyone says "is not our war."

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs