TRUMP'S TURMOIL: the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran and continued transatlantic tension
This is the slightly revised and expanded English version of an essay first published in the German daily newspaper 'Koelner Stadtanzeiger' in German on March 2, 2026.
International politics is once again experiencing a period of considerable turmoil – particularly with respect to Washington’s relations with both the Middle East and Europe. The cautious reaction of many EU states to the U.S. and Israeli air strikes on Iran and the targeted killing of Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, was met with great displeasure in the White House.
During his election campaign, Trump had promised to keep the United States out of military conflicts. And his claims to have ended various wars around the world and his ambition to win the Nobel Peace prize are well known. Nevertheless, with the massive attacks on Iran, Trump has now ordered the seventh military operation of his second term in office. After the brutally suppressed protests in Iran in January 2026, in which more than 30,000 people were deliberately murdered by the clerical regime in Tehran, Trump apparently decided to embark on regime change.
A new nuclear agreement, which he had sought at the beginning of his second term, no longer seemed sufficient to him. In 2015, an international coalition—the five Security Council members plus Germany, the EU and Iran —had succeeded in concluding an agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA). In 2018, however, the US under Trump withdrew from the treaty, claiming it contained too many loopholes.
Tehran subsequently showed limited interest in new negotiations and vehemently refused to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile program entirely. It also was disinclined to stop supporting its allies in the Middle East, such as the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups in Iraq and Syria. In June 2025, Israel and the US responded by bombing numerous underground nuclear facilities in Iran for twelve days. The damage was considerable, but the complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations and uranium deposits was not achieved.
Is the U.S. as militarily superior as the Trump administration believes?
These operations – as well as the targeted killing of Iranian General Qassemi Soleimani in January 2020 and the recent kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro – seem to have reinforced Trump’s conviction that militarily no country in the world is a match for the U.S. But Iran is almost four times the size of California and three times the size of Iraq, has a population of around 93 million, and, despite years of severe Western sanctions, continues to possess considerable military capabilities. In addition, Tehran can still rely on regional allies, above all the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, is said to have warned Trump that a war with Iran could quickly engulf the entire region. The U.S. would have to expect considerable losses – especially since several of the allied Gulf states in the Middle East initially refused to grant overflight rights and are only reluctantly resorting to military counteraction to Iran’s missile attacks. Added to this are ammunition shortages and the only limited availability of modern air defense systems such as Patriot and THAAD. A prolonged war beyond a couple of weeks would pose considerable military and political challenges for Washington.
What are Trump’s long-term strategic objectives in Iran?
Trump’s long-term strategic goals remain unclear. What would Iran look like after a regime change? Who would assume political responsibility? How could the country be prevented from sinking into chaos or disintegrating along religious and ethnic lines? And how can regime change actually be brought about without the infusion of U.S. ground troops in Iran? Is it realistic to expect that a popular uprising of the Iranian people, if it occurred in the first place, would do the job for the U.S. and miraculously lead to the emergence of a pro-American government in Tehran?
In particular, the disastrous experiences of the 2003 Iraq War give pause for thought. At that time, the aim was to establish a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad – instead, years of instability, violence, and the birth of new terrorist organizations followed.
Transatlantic tension continues
Trump can hardly hope for substantial European support in the Middle East. Transatlantic relations remain in deep crisis. Washington criticized British Prime Minister Keir Starmer heavily for initially refusing to put two British bases at the disposal of the U.S. forces attacking Iran. He refused to give the U.S. access to Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands in the Indian ocean and Fairford in the English Gloucestershire though he quickly had a change of mind. Likewise, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s reserved statements regarding the U.S. attack on Iran, which clearly did not indicate support for Trump’s strategy, will make his imminent visit to Washington difficult.
Already at the World Economic Forum in Davos in mid-January 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke of a permanent rift in transatlantic relations. Although the heads of government present managed to dissuade Trump from his idea of an American takeover of Greenland, tensions remain.
At the Munich Security Conference a few weeks ago, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said is his speech that Europe must overcome its feelings of guilt and once again be proud of its Christian civilization and proud history. Only then, he proclaimed, the transatlantic allies could work together to reform and renew the international order – otherwise Washington would go it alone. The politicians present responded with much applause, not least because Rubio’s tone was significantly more moderate than Vice President Vance’s rather bold speech the previous year.
But somehow, the assembled politicians seemed unwilling to recognize that the Trump administration has become the gravedigger of a liberal-democratic transatlantic alliance. At the various events of the Munich Security Conference which I attended I heard some clear criticism of Trump’s policies, but this was often coupled with the rosy illusion, propagated not least by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, that things weren’t really all that bad. Ultimately, he said, the transatlantic allies could still rely on Washington.
Domestic Political Tension in the U.S.
Still, domestic political tensions in the US are increasing global uncertainty. The Supreme Court recently declared key parts of Trump’s tariff policy to be unlawful, further plunging his economic policy into chaos. Trump’s latest State of the Union address, which lasted almost two hours, was also marked by numerous untruths and sharp attacks on political opponents, including members of the Supreme Court.
The publication of millions of documents relating to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is causing additional turmoil in the U.S. Numerous prominent Americans – including Elon Musk, Bill Gates, entrepreneur Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon, Bill Clinton, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, scholar Noam Chomsky and former Secretary of the Treasury and Harvard President Larry Summers – have been discredited, even though they do not appear to have committed any criminal offenses.
Trump himself initially seemed to remain unscathed. However, it has since emerged that documents relating to a young woman who made serious allegations against him in the 1980s and was questioned several times by the FBI have strangely disappeared. The sudden eruption of yet another war in the Middle East has pushed this affair to the sidelines. But the question remains as to how long the foreign and domestic policy crises can be kept separate.
The absence of any clear strategic thinking in Washington
The current turmoil and the war in Iran show one thing above all: there is hardly any clear strategic line in Washington. Instead, short-term decisions, stubborn personal convictions and relationships, and domestic political pressure are shaping political decision making in Washington, DC. For the Middle East, Europe and the rest of the world, this means one thing above all else – continued uncertainty and unpredictability and in all likelihood continued military violence.