Analysis of: German foreign minister says ‘we will not allow ourselves to be divided’ after Trump-Spain spat – Europe live
The Guardian | March 5, 2026
TL;DR
Europe unites against Trump's economic threats to Spain while scrambling to protect Cyprus from Iranian drones—exposing NATO's internal contradictions. The crisis reveals how inter-imperialist rivalries force European powers to choose between US hegemony and their own strategic interests.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
The US-Israeli military operation against Iran has exposed deep fissures within the Western imperial alliance, as European states simultaneously coordinate military support for the operation while bristling against American coercion. Germany's declaration that 'we will not allow ourselves to be divided' represents a significant shift—Berlin initially refused to defend Spain against Trump's threats, but material pressures have forced a tactical realignment. This unity, however, remains fragile: France authorizes US aircraft on its bases while expanding its own nuclear deterrent, Italy sends naval assets while the Five Star Movement denounces 'fighting the enemies of others,' and Spain dispatches a frigate to protect Cyprus while categorically refusing to let US forces use its bases for strikes on Iran. The contradictions are structural, not merely diplomatic. NATO Secretary General Rutte's careful balancing act—praising Spain's contributions while insisting the US nuclear umbrella remains 'the ultimate supreme guarantor' of European security—reveals the fundamental tension between European strategic autonomy and American hegemonic control. The 20% surge in German fuel prices, the Swedish government advising citizens to stockpile cash, and the chaotic repatriation of tens of thousands of European nationals stranded in the Gulf all demonstrate how the costs of imperial adventurism are socialized across working populations while the strategic benefits accrue to capital. Ukraine's emergence as a potential supplier of drone defense expertise to Gulf states marks a remarkable reversal that illuminates the interconnected nature of contemporary imperialism. The same Shahed drones terrorizing Kyiv now threaten European interests in the Mediterranean, creating unexpected alignments that cut across the supposed divisions between 'Western' and 'non-Western' actors. Meanwhile, the debate over whether to deploy the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument against American trade threats represents a nascent challenge to unilateral US economic power—though one carefully circumscribed by Europe's continued military dependence on Washington.
Class Dynamics
Actors: European political elites and state managers, US executive branch, Military-industrial complexes (US, European, Israeli), Working-class populations facing fuel price increases and evacuation chaos, Oil companies engaging in price gouging, European nationals stranded in Gulf states
Beneficiaries: Defense contractors across NATO states, Oil companies exploiting crisis pricing, Political leaders using crisis for electoral positioning (e.g., Saxony-Anhalt premier), US strategic interests in Middle East resource control
Harmed Parties: European working classes facing 20% fuel price increases, Stranded travelers dependent on state evacuation, Cypriot civilians living near military installations, Iranian civilian population under bombardment, Workers whose wages are eroded by crisis-driven inflation
The crisis reveals a hierarchy within the Western alliance: the US retains ultimate coercive power through both military dominance and economic threats, while European states oscillate between compliance and resistance based on domestic political pressures. Germany's initial refusal to defend Spain, followed by tactical solidarity, demonstrates how intra-European competition can be temporarily subordinated to collective interests when US pressure becomes sufficiently threatening. The Five Star Movement's dissent in Italy shows that cracks exist in the domestic political consensus supporting imperial coordination.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Oil price volatility threatening European energy security, Trade dependency making European states vulnerable to US sanctions threats, Military expenditure debates (NATO's 5% GDP target), Repatriation costs being partially socialized through EU mechanisms, Potential disruption to Strait of Hormuz shipping lanes
The crisis exposes Europe's dependent position in the global capitalist hierarchy: despite significant industrial capacity, European states lack autonomous military capabilities and remain structurally dependent on US security guarantees and Middle Eastern energy supplies. The fuel price gouging by oil companies demonstrates how private capital exploits geopolitical crises to extract surplus from working populations, while state responses (proposed 'fuel price brakes') represent attempts to manage class tensions without challenging underlying property relations.
Resources at Stake: Persian Gulf oil and gas supplies, Mediterranean shipping lane security, European military assets and personnel, US-European trade relations worth hundreds of billions, Strategic military bases (Rota, Morón, Akrotiri)
Historical Context
Precedents: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent energy crisis, 1956 Suez Crisis exposing European subordination to US power, 2003 Iraq War divisions within NATO, Cold War tensions over European strategic autonomy, Previous German 'pump rebate' during Ukraine-related price spikes
This crisis represents a continuation of post-WWII patterns in which European states have traded strategic autonomy for American security guarantees—a bargain now visibly fraying as US priorities diverge from European interests. The debate over Macron's nuclear deterrence proposals echoes de Gaulle's earlier attempts to establish independent French nuclear capability, while the invocation of the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument represents a new institutional mechanism for managing inter-imperialist competition. The crisis occurs within the context of declining American hegemony and the transition toward a more multipolar imperial system, creating both dangers and potential openings.
Contradictions
Primary: European states must simultaneously support US military operations to maintain alliance cohesion while resisting US economic coercion to preserve domestic political legitimacy and economic stability—these imperatives are increasingly irreconcilable.
Secondary: Spain deploys military assets to support the operation while categorically refusing base access—participating in the war it officially opposes, NATO insists the US nuclear umbrella is essential while European states expand independent deterrent capabilities, EU members coordinate military deployment while domestic opposition parties denounce 'fighting the enemies of others', Ukraine—still awaiting Western support for its own defense—becomes an exporter of military expertise to Gulf states, Germany investigates fuel price gouging while the underlying cause (imperial war) goes unchallenged
These contradictions are unlikely to find stable resolution within existing institutional frameworks. Short-term, European states will likely continue tactical solidarity against US threats while maintaining operational support for the war. Medium-term, the crisis may accelerate European defense integration and reduce dependence on US security guarantees, though this process faces enormous structural obstacles. The fundamental contradiction—between Europe's position as a subordinate partner in US-led imperialism and its distinct material interests—will likely intensify as American decline continues and competition over resources sharpens.
Global Interconnections
The crisis demonstrates the deeply interconnected nature of contemporary imperialism, where conflicts rapidly cascade across regions and domains. Iranian drones developed with Russian technology attack European interests in Cyprus, while Ukraine—still under Russian assault—offers to share counter-drone expertise with Gulf monarchies. The threatened disruption to Strait of Hormuz shipping could simultaneously benefit Russia by raising oil prices, funding its war in Ukraine, while harming European economies—revealing how seemingly separate conflicts form a single system of imperial competition. The EU's consideration of anti-coercion measures against US trade threats represents a significant moment in the evolution of inter-imperialist relations. While the post-WWII order was characterized by European subordination to American hegemony, the current crisis reveals the emergence of distinct European imperial interests that increasingly conflict with Washington's priorities. However, this nascent autonomy remains heavily circumscribed by Europe's continued military dependence on the US—a dependency that NATO Secretary General Rutte's emphatic insistence on the American 'nuclear umbrella' clearly acknowledges.
Conclusion
For working people across Europe and beyond, this crisis offers important lessons about the nature of imperial alliances and the distribution of their costs. While political elites debate military deployments and trade agreements, ordinary people face 20% fuel price increases, chaotic evacuations, and the prospect of expanded conflict. The Swedish government's advice to stockpile cash reveals the profound insecurity that imperial competition generates for working populations. The contradictions exposed by this crisis—between European and American interests, between ruling-class unity and domestic political pressures, between participating in imperial wars and bearing their costs—create potential openings for anti-war and working-class movements. The Five Star Movement's denunciation of 'fighting the enemies of others' represents one articulation of this sentiment, though channeled through bourgeois political forms. Building genuine working-class internationalism that can challenge imperial war-making—rather than merely opposing one imperialist bloc while supporting another—remains the essential task.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and the tendency toward war between capitalist powers directly illuminates the contradictions between US and European interests exposed by this crisis.
- The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' and analysis of contemporary imperial competition helps explain the resource dynamics underlying the Iran conflict and Europe's subordinate position.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's documentation of how crises are exploited to advance elite interests illuminates the fuel price gouging and broader political-economic dynamics at play in this situation.