Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's visit to the White House did not alleviate the growing tensions between Europe and the United States. With Trump's re-election, Europe faces a wave of uncertainty. The EU is now confronted with historic challenges: reducing its security reliance on the US, asserting strategic autonomy, and redefining its role on the global stage. What Should Europe Do? 1. Security: Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO, coupled with the ongoing war in Ukraine, have exposed Europe's military dependence on the US. It is time for the EU to enhance its defense capabilities. This requires increased national and collective EU spending—an effort already supported by Germany's new Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. 2. Economy: Nearly half of the US imports come from non-free trade partners, including the EU, making European industries vulnerable to tariffs. Europe must diversify its trade—potentially with countries like China—and stimulate internal demand through strategic investments and support for national industries. 3. Global Role: Trump's direct negotiations with Russia regarding Ukraine, which excluded the EU, underscore Europe's declining global influence. Europe needs to clearly define its global role in a changing world order and address major issues, including relations with China, independently yet pragmatically. In Conclusion: With stronger defense, smarter economics, and a clear global vision, Europe can reduce its US dependency and help shape a multipolar world in which it’s a global player, not just an American sidekick. The key question remains: Can the EU demonstrate that “America First” doesn’t have to mean “Europe Follows”?
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, "If Iran seeks a civilian nuclear program, it can possess one—like many other countries—through the importation of enriched materials." -- This condition had been proposed in previous negotiations, where negotiators suggested that Russia supply Iran’s reactors with uranium; however, Iran rejected this offer. This renewed proposition can be interpreted in several ways: 1. Domestic and Israeli Pressure: The shift in the U.S. administration's approach may stem from internal political pressures or lobbying from Israel. Iran is unlikely to relinquish what it views as its sovereign right to nuclear knowledge and uranium enrichment. As a result, this stance could hinder progress in the negotiations. 2. A Negotiation Tactic: The statement may indicate a division of roles within the U.S. administration, serving as a strategic maneuver to exert pressure on Iran and compel the country to make concessions. This approach is plausible and aligns with the negotiation methods usually used by President Trump. 3. Internal Messaging: Alternatively, the statement may target a GOP audience and supporters of Israel, signaling that the administration maintains a hardline stance on Iran and is not being lenient. This interpretation is also likely; however, it is expected that Trump will ultimately act according to his inclinations and overall vision regarding the Iranian deal.
Today's discussions have focused exclusively on the nuclear issue, with the primary objective being to establish trust. The Iranian negotiator was granted full authority, suggesting Iran is keen on advancing the negotiations, while remaining within its defined red lines. After the negotiations, the two lead negotiators briefly met, exchanged a few words, and shook hands (according to Iranian sources). The language used during the exchange was devoid of any threats. In my personal opinion (I mentioned yesterday at the Shamlān seminar): *** Upon resolution of the fundamental issues: 1) The U.S. negotiator may stipulate that American companies be given priority for investment opportunities in Iran and that Iran make purchases from U.S. companies (such as civil aircraft and other related products). 3) The U.S. is likely to demand that Iran contribute to regional stability where it holds influence, which would align with American strategic interests in refocusing efforts on China's containment.
Despite President Trump’s declared intention to resolve the Ukraine issue “on day one” of his return to office, the road to a settlement appears long and filled with obstacles. In contrast, the diplomatic track with Iran is progressing quietly but steadily. So far, discussions have remained focused on the nuclear program, with no contentious issues being presented for negotiation. Which track will advance more quickly? Iran seeks the lifting of sanctions and the opportunity to operate as a normal state, which would allow for development, stability, and prosperity. Trump, on the other hand, aims for personal achievement. He wants to attract investment into the U.S. economy and establish a degree of stability in the Middle East, which will enable him to shift strategic focus toward containing China while ensuring Israel’s security and regional military superiority. On Ukraine: As I mentioned previously, especially during the transition from the Biden to the Trump administration, Russia is not in a hurry to reach a deal regarding Ukraine. It is also evident that Europe is not in a rush either. European powers are encouraging President Zelensky to reject Trump’s peace initiatives. Russia aims to capture more territory, knowing that any future settlement will likely formalize its control over the areas it has seized. Europe, for its part, is interested in draining Russian resources and ensuring it has both a stake and a voice in the eventual resolution of the conflict, particularly given the heavy costs it has already incurred. Ultimately, it is likely that both Russia and the United States will reap strategic benefits. Conclusion: It would not be surprising if the Iranian track progresses more rapidly than the Ukrainian one. Washington and Tehran seem more willing to engage in constructive negotiations—unless Israeli influence and hawkish elements within the U.S. administration impose conditions that could derail the entire process.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's visit to the White House did not alleviate the growing tensions between Europe and the United States.
With Trump's re-election, Europe faces a wave of uncertainty.
The EU is now confronted with historic challenges: reducing its security reliance on the US, asserting strategic autonomy, and redefining its role on the global stage.
What Should Europe Do?
1. Security:
Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO, coupled with the ongoing war in Ukraine, have exposed Europe's military dependence on the US.
It is time for the EU to enhance its defense capabilities.
This requires increased national and collective EU spending—an effort already supported by Germany's new Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
2. Economy:
Nearly half of the US imports come from non-free trade partners, including the EU, making European industries vulnerable to tariffs.
Europe must diversify its trade—potentially with countries like China—and stimulate internal demand through strategic investments and support for national industries.
3. Global Role:
Trump's direct negotiations with Russia regarding Ukraine, which excluded the EU, underscore Europe's declining global influence.
Europe needs to clearly define its global role in a changing world order and address major issues, including relations with China, independently yet pragmatically.
In Conclusion:
With stronger defense, smarter economics, and a clear global vision, Europe can reduce its US dependency and help shape a multipolar world in which it’s a global player, not just an American sidekick.
The key question remains:
Can the EU demonstrate that “America First” doesn’t have to mean “Europe Follows”?