Suspicions that the Trump family will benefit financially from this war!!
Afrasianet - Dina Abi Saab - The Iran war, which began on February 28, is putting Europe to an existential test related to its military and energy security and political cohesion, amid divisions over reliance on the U.S. umbrella.
French politician François Aslino warns of deadly dependency and calls for building European strategic independence that includes the development of defense industries and ensuring sovereignty in decision-making.
When wars erupt in the periphery of the world, Europe rarely remains unscathed, but Iran's war, which is about to enter its second month, has not only plunged the old continent into its repercussions, but has also pushed it to face deeper questions about the nature of its position in the international system.
Since the outbreak of the war on Feb. 28, Europeans see it as not only remapping influence in the Middle East, but also revealing the fragility of an equation that has been based for years on three overlapping pillars: security dependence on the U.S. umbrella, economic dependence on endangered energy corridors, and an internal division that limits the ability to make a unified decision.
Amid concerns about Iran's missile program and the prospect of disruption to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a debate is escalating in European capitals that goes beyond the immediate event to a more fundamental question: Is the partnership with Washington still a guarantee of stability, or has it become a strategic concern?
However, Iran's war represents an existential test for Europe, putting under pressure its military and energy security and political cohesion, according to French politician François Aslino, who previously ran in the presidential elections in 2022 and is preparing to run again in 2027.
Recalling former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's quote: "Being an enemy of America is dangerous, but being a friend of it is deadly," Aslino concluded that the war is likely to continue, and could lead to a U.S. geostrategic defeat that would push Washington to reduce its military presence in the Middle East and possibly Europe.
"From this point of view, the question in Europe is no longer whether the continent needs American protection, but what will happen if Washington suddenly decides to withdraw?".
"Withdrawal of the American umbrella"
This view intersects with the warnings of Richard Le Bevier, a French energy and geopolitical analyst, who argues that Europe's military deficit holds the continent hostage to the White House's decisions in every major crisis.
Christoph Stockelberger, professor of global and economic ethics and founder of the Geneva-based Globethics.net Network, describes the scene as an internal European conflict between economic values and interests.
Michael Fakhri, a professor of international law at the University of Oregon and the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, criticizes a European model that directs its resources toward military spending at the expense of social welfare.
Europe is watching the latest developments cautiously, as fears mount about the crisis's repercussions on energy markets and inflation, amid continued calls for de-escalation and a return to the diplomatic track.
Europe is following the developments of the Iran war cautiously, amid growing fears of its repercussions on energy markets and inflation, with continued calls for de-escalation and a return to the diplomatic track.
From this angle, the war in Iran appears to be a mirror that reveals the depth of the European divide rather than just an external crisis. Aslino emphasizes that what is happening is not a new war so much as an extension of a series of military operations against Tehran, but this time the Iranian response surprised Washington and Tel Aviv, and showed the limits of America's ability to impose decisive results from the air without changing the balance of power on the ground.
This reality is reopening a sensitive European debate about the nature of an alliance with a superpower capable of igniting wars, but less able to end them in the interests of its allies, Aslino said.
Fears of Trump's Twists
This debate is intensifying with what is seen as a fluctuation in the positions of US President Donald Trump, whose shifting statements are seen as a destabilizing factor in themselves, switching between threat and negotiation in a short time, while Tehran denies any negotiations.
Aslino offers three explanations for this behavior: first, the adoption of a negotiating style based on escalation and bargaining, and second, the president's influence on the opinions of changing advisers.
The third explanation, which is the most dangerous, according to the French presidential candidate, is that "every sudden change in Trump's position leads to the accumulation of enormous wealth in the financial markets, including the president's son, Baron Trump, taking advantage of these fluctuations, which opens up the possibility of committing crimes of exploiting insider information at the expense of the stability of global energy markets."
For Europe, Aslino pointed out, the seriousness of these fluctuations is not limited to its political dimension, but extends to its direct impact on the economy, as it practically means linking energy prices and market decisions to a volatile political mood.
Gold price rises after Trump extends deadline for talks with Iran
Gold prices rose after US President Donald Trump again extended the deadline for reaching a deal with Iran to end the war in the Middle East.
Data cited by French energy analyst Richard Le Bevier and Michel Fakhry, the UN rapporteur on the right to food, indicate a 20% rise in European gas prices to reach 50 euros per megawatt hour, and Brent crude approaching $100 per barrel, with an inflationary shock of up to 0.9% expected as a result of the energy sector, while gas stockpiles remain at limited levels.
Le Beauvier adds that the EU effectively lacks a unified military structure, which means that any abrupt withdrawal of the U.S. umbrella would leave a significant strategic vacuum.
Aslino moves on to a deeper critique of the structure of the union, arguing that the slogan "union is strength" loses its meaning when the interests of states conflict, as bringing them together within a single framework without real consensus leads to paralysis rather than integration.
He goes further by pointing to the roots of this model, considering that the idea of the European Union crystallized in an American strategic context during the era of former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, within what he called the "Chains Strategy", which is based on bringing different countries together under one umbrella despite their conflicting interests.
In his description of the European map, Aslino argues that the continent is divided between countries that fear Russia and adhere to an alliance with Washington, such as Poland and the Baltic states, and others that seek a wider margin of independence, while major countries such as Germany and Britain are in a position closer to the United States economically and strategically.
A Divided Europe
In a parallel reading, Marc Loeux, a Belgian thinker and political expert, points out that the imbalance is not limited to policies, but extends to the EU's institutional structure, as the European Commission has become a powerful decision-making center without sufficient democratic oversight, necessitating the re-establishment of the European model through a new treaty or a more flexible formula.
In this context, French presidential candidate François Aslino believes that Paris itself is trapped in a system that does not fully reflect its interests, whether at the level of a single currency, foreign policy, or association with NATO structures. He asserts that the absence of a unified European foreign policy reflects the imbalance of power within the Union, and leads to the erosion of the role of states as independent actors.
EU calls on U.S., Israel to end war with Iran
This discrepancy explains the current European divide between one camp that adheres to the alliance with Washington and another that sees this dependence as a strategic risk.
Christoph Stockelberger, a professor of global and economic ethics, sums up this divide as a struggle between those who defend the independence of decision and the social model, and those who prefer to align themselves with the United States even at the expense of the economic cost.
"An existential question"
In light of this, the war is re-raising a fundamental question: Is the relationship with Washington a guarantee or a burden? While some countries see the U.S. umbrella as a necessity, others warn of dependency that could become a long-term burden.
Aslino offers two clear choices: either to continue what he calls "deadly dependency," or to move toward building independent diplomacy that regains room for maneuver with other international powers.
Michael Fakhri, the UN rapporteur on the right to food, links this option directly to Europe, warning that the escalation of military spending comes at the expense of social welfare in light of increasing living pressures.
Ultimately, the war not only poses external challenges to Europe, but also confronts an existential question about its future and role in the world.
For Aslino, this war represents a real test of the continent's independence, between dependence that may turn into a burden and independence that may be costly but gives it the ability to control its own destiny.
In the search for practical alternatives, Aslino raises the issue of military independence, calling for a rebuilding of a national defense policy based on an advanced industrial base, citing companies such as Airbus, Dassault and the Rafale fighter, in contrast to Europe's growing reliance on U.S. fighter jets.
He warns that buying U.S. weapons means accepting the possibility of disrupting them in the event of a conflict of policies with Washington, which restricts the sovereign decision.
It also calls for building strategic autonomy based on the development of defense industries, securing critical supply chains, and maintaining nuclear deterrence as an independent sovereign option. It points to shifts in the nature of war, with the rise of sophisticated weapons and drones, that call for a reformulation of defense strategies.
According to the French presidential candidate, these changes reinforce the need to adopt an approach based on independence of decision and reorient international relations in the interests of Europe.
Ultimately, Europe appears to be at a critical crossroads between continuing to rely on an external umbrella, or embarking on a strategic independence that will give it greater resilience in the face of a rapidly changing world.
