Shortly after the United States and Israel started a war against Iran, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz issued a statement. He did not condemn the attack on Iran as a violation of international law, as many German and European leaders before him might have done. (French President Emmanuel Macron, for one, it remained true in that familiar style.) Nor did he declare a state of indignation, quite unlike his Spanish counterpart, who immediately. prohibited US forces use Spanish bases.
Instead, Merz used the opportunity to denounce the evil of the Iranian regime and its threats to the region and elsewhere, including Germany. He announced his “relief … that the mullah’s rule is coming to an end” and said that Germany shares the US and Israeli goal that Iran’s “dangerous nuclear and ballistic weapons” are halted. Instead of condemning the bombing campaign, he made a surprising comment about the world situation: “The parameters of international law will have little effect. … Appeals from Europe, including from Germany, condemning Iran’s violations of the law, and even serious sanctions have had little effect … This is also related to the fact that we were not ready to pursue our basic interests with military force.”
Shortly after the United States and Israel started a war against Iran, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz issued a statement. He did not condemn the attack on Iran as a violation of international law, as many German and European leaders before him might have done. (French President Emmanuel Macron, for one, it remained true in that familiar style.) Nor did he declare a state of indignation, quite unlike his Spanish counterpart, who immediately. prohibited US forces use Spanish bases.
Instead, Merz used the opportunity to denounce the evil of the Iranian regime and its threats to the region and elsewhere, including Germany. He announced his “relief … that the mullah’s rule is coming to an end” and said that Germany shares the US and Israeli goal that Iran’s “dangerous nuclear and ballistic weapons” are halted. Instead of condemning the bombing campaign, he made a surprising comment about the world situation: “The parameters of international law will have little effect. … Appeals from Europe, including from Germany, condemning Iran’s violations of the law, and even serious sanctions have had little effect … This is also related to the fact that we were not ready to pursue our basic interests with military force.”
The serious message of Merzian’s reality marks a complete departure from the recent days of his country. Chancellor Angela Merkel, a longtime political opponent of Merz, spent her time touting the supremacy of international law and condemn almost any form of military action. Of course, he had the luxury of doing so not least because the redoubtable American military was visible in the background, allowing Germany and its European friends to enjoy deep security without devoting a large portion of their budgets to defense. He also benefited from the cheap Russian oil and natural gas that stimulated the German economy, even building a large one gas pipe avoiding Poland and Ukraine. His respect for sacred international norms did not prevent him from forcing Kyiv to agree to the unjust Minsk agreements after Russia illegally annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine in 2014—and allowed Moscow to violate the terms of the agreement as it saw fit.
Now, of course, we live in a very changed world. Four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we find ourselves witnessing the US administration show blatant contempt for European power (by threatening to seize Greenland from Denmark) and security (by aligning Ukraine’s peace plan with the Kremlin’s highest demands). US President Donald Trump has stopped providing direct aid to Ukraine, continues to pursue an extraordinary policy of appeasement towards the Kremlin, and regularly undermined US responsibility for NATO’s collective defense. America’s security guarantee to Europe no longer feels like a guarantee. No European leader can now deny the urgency of Europe’s need for “strategic independence”, which must include new armaments and the building of defense capabilities that have been left to weaken due to dependence on Washington. But few Western European leaders state the case as clearly as Merz. At the Munich Security Conference this year, he responded to general concerns about the decline of the international order based on the rules and saying: “I fear we must put it more plainly: This order, though imperfect even in its best, no longer exists in that state.”
This is not just a matter of words. Recently, Merz announced that he has been discussing with Macron about extending France’s nuclear deterrent to its European allies. This week that plan bore fruit. Macron he announced that France is launching a new policy of “forward deterrence,” including the temporary deployment of French nuclear weapons on the territory of other EU countries—the first step in a possible effort to create a new European nuclear umbrella that aims to bolster (or replace) the American nuclear power that has helped keep peace on the continent for the past 70 years. “To be free, we have to be feared,” Macron he said in the event to announce the move. If that sounds like something Merz said, it’s no accident. This new sense of disillusionment about Europe’s impotence is a feeling he and Merz share. But Macron has only one year left in power. Merz is just getting started—if he plays his cards right.
Although drastic, even a French nuclear move could end up being overshadowed by Merz’s signal success so far. A year ago, he could influence Members of the German parliament suspended the constitutional ban on government debt, paving the way for its plan to issue bonds that will finance a major expansion of the German military. Now he is looking to spend $580 billion on defense, bringing the country up to par 3.5 percent of GDP by 2030. Merz has floated 5 percent as the most favorable target on the road. (During Trump’s first term, a German politician visiting Washington dismissed reporters’ questions about whether his country would agree to US demands that it increase defense spending to 4 percent. If Germany spent that much, he sneered, it would have to start buying aircraft carriers it wouldn’t know where to park.)
This huge flow of money will go into the army for a long time reduced by the pacifist spirit of a complacent and political elite with more knowledge of ethics than the reality of power politics. It wasn’t that long ago that there were voluntary Bundeswehr soldiers drilling holes and broomsticks instead of guns. Now, the German defense industry is about to receive a wave that has never happened in modern European history. This will be done in a country that already column fourth in the world in defense spending. It is difficult to emphasize how serious the effects can be. Michael Kimmage, director of the Kennan Institute in Washington, called Merz’s plans “a new social contract between the chancellor and the German people.”
Other European countries are already not worried about how Germany is building up its military and defense spending,” historian Liana Fix recently he noted. The worry, he explained, is less about Germany’s military revival than the possibility that increased funding will simply go to the German arms industry and leave European competitors in the dust. Germany’s closest economic rivals, France and Britain, have been little expectation accelerating due to their intractable financial problems. Fix suggested that Berlin try to cushion the blow by issuing funds from common European debt instruments instead of just German ones—and, by including other European defense agencies in the bidding process, spread the wealth and strengthen the cohesion of the continent’s fragmented defense sector. But there is little indication so far that Merz has such a thing in mind. “Strategic autonomy, senior French, Italian and Polish officials fear, will increasingly have a German accent,” according to the New York Times. recently noted.
Will Merz’s fellow Germans be willing to follow suit? Vote show that most Germans approve of high defense spending. But respondents also expressed a reluctance to take up arms in a national emergency. In a recent one opinion poll59 percent said that they would “probably not be prepared” or “definitely not be prepared” to defend their country if it were attacked. Even before Merz became chancellor, the German government began implementing a program designed to increase enrollment in the armed forces and take measures that may lead to the re-introduction of compulsory registration. But any attempt to revive the draft may face strong opposition.
It is unclear how long Merz will be in a position to impose his realist spirit on the German establishment. He is not world famousthanks to his aloof and unusual behavior. This year, his Christian Democrats will face a a series of bruises state elections that could shake his power. He stands at the head of a baggy grand coalition with the Social Democrats that offers little prospect of long-term reform. The economy remains sluggish. Support for Alternative for Germany, the far-right, continues to grow.
However, in his quest to reorient the foreign policy of Germany and Europe according to the instructions of what he has to be called “principle reality,” Merz can count on two powerful allies. One is Trump, who has made it clear to the Europeans that they can no longer rely on US military support – and may, in fact, find themselves forced to. to oppose Washingtonof royal abuse. Another is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who continues to show that war and coercion remain tools of the state—not only on the basis of the killings in Donbas, but also, increasingly, in the gray area. battlefields of Europe, where Kremlin-organized acts of sabotage and lobbying operations continue. One can only hope that Germany and its allies will be able to face these challenges without abandoning all their hard-won values.
