The real transatlantic divide is about more than Trump
Source · Geopolitics desk
— Summary
In a Financial Times opinion column, Nadia Schadlow — deputy national security adviser for strategy in the first Trump administration, now senior fellow at the Hudson Institute — argues that the transatlantic rift opened by the Iran war is deeper than Trump's style. Washington and European capitals, she writes, operate from different assumptions about risk, responsibility and the value of multilateral institutions.
The US under Trump judged that acting against Iran was worth the short-term disruption to weaken Tehran long-term; Europe preferred to preserve stability, uninterrupted energy flows and diplomatic channels. Schadlow traces the divergence to the July 2015 JCPOA, from which Trump withdrew in 2018 after concluding that Iran had used the deal to build the region's largest ballistic missile arsenal and enrich uranium to near weapons-grade levels, per the IAEA. Ursula von der Leyen's line that "the negotiating table is the only place to end this crisis" captures Europe's faith in dialogue; Trump views a theocratic regime as beyond persuasion.
Schadlow also flags Europe's own strategic complacency: Nord Stream 2 and deep dependence on external energy suppliers, warnings Washington had issued for years. Bridging the gap, she concludes, requires less outrage and more clarity about the underlying differences. Source: Financial Times, 22 April 2026, Nadia Schadlow.
The story in one line. A former Trump White House strategist argues the US-Europe split on Iran reflects fundamentally different assumptions about risk and multilateralism — and won’t heal when the Oval Office changes hands.
Key numbers
July 2015 — signing of the JCPOA, which Trump exited in 2018
“Largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East” built by Iran since the deal
Near weapons-grade uranium enrichment reported by the IAEA
Nord Stream 2 cited as the symbol of Europe’s ignored strategic weaknesses
“The negotiating table is the only place to end this crisis” — Ursula von der Leyen
Why it matters
Schadlow reframes the Iran crisis as a revelation rather than an anomaly. If she is right, the cycle of European outrage at Trump is beside the point: the underlying disagreement is over whether rules-based institutions or power projection should govern hard security. That disagreement predates Trump and will outlast him, which means the alliance needs rebalancing rather than restoration.
Takeaway
The Iran war is less a break in transatlantic trust than an X-ray of it. Europe’s “stability first” reflex and the US’s “weaken decisively” reflex are both grounded in decades of strategic culture. Fixing the alliance starts with admitting the two sides want different things from it.
Source: Financial Times, 22 April 2026, Nadia Schadlow.