Trump's policies should not influence Europe-US relations

Divergences between the US and Europe on two key Middle East issues have cast a long shadow over the 70-year-old transatlantic alliance. Two summits held over the past fortnight - the Iran-focused Warsaw security meeting and the Munich Security Conference - served to highlight the gaps that have appeared since Donald Trump assumed the US presidency in January 2017.

Since Trump has a mind of his own, with even members of his cabinet and Republican allies often unable to make him see reason, it behoves Europe to show wisdom and patience. The stakes for the West in the Middle East's stability are so high, and Europe's vulnerability to conflicts there so many times more than the US, it is clear which side has to make the most compromises in order not to make a bad situation worse.

With regard to Syria, Trump seems inexplicably obsessed - against the advice of almost the entire foreign-policy establishment - with withdrawing the 2,000-strong American contingent anchoring the international anti-Daesh coalition. European allies of the US, who are firmly opposed to the move, have unsurprisingly been cool towards calls to send troops to create a buffer zone along Syria's border with Turkey.

With regard to Iran, it is the European resolve to allow EU companies to continue trading with the oil-exporting country that seems unshakeable, in spite of warnings from Trump administration officials, an alleged Iranian plot to bomb an opposition rally near Paris last year, and a failed Iranian satellite launch that purportedly used technology applicable for building long-range missiles.

Until Trump abruptly announced his decision in December to pull out US troops from Syria, his policy on Iran seemed clear-headed and coherent if too hawkish for European tastes. But now that his own cabinet members and Republican colleagues have failed to convince him that the withdrawal could redound to Iran's advantage, Trump would be deluding himself if he thinks Britain, France and the EU will fall in line and withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Whatever Europe's justification for keeping its part of the deal, the omens for Instex, the new trade mechanism, are not very good. The companies expected to make use of it to bypass US sanctions are unlikely to risk the wrath of Washington. The West's Arab Gulf partners are not pleased either with Europe's stance, even if the stated rationale for continued engagement is to keep Iran's nuclear ambitions in check and preserve some leverage.

Under the circumstances, Europe could use its position on the Iranian accord as a bargaining chip to win concessions from Trump on the Syria withdrawal. Europeans are more conscious than Trump of the moral imperative to stand by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters who have saved "our shared humanity" from Daesh's onslaught. But they are understandably reluctant to take over the heavy lifting from the US contingent for fear of setting a precedent.

However, given Trump's reputation as a transactional politician, he might just agree to revisit the Syrian withdrawal decision if Europe shows willingness to scrap Instex, which allows trade between the EU and Iran without relying on direct financial transactions. In due course, Europe could well discover that Instex's real usefulness lies in its potential for preventing Trump's Iran policy from collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

In any event, Europe would be cutting off its nose to spite its face if it neither ends its commercial dealings with Iran nor agrees to oblige the SDF's requests for extra troops. For one thing, it is not solely Washington's duty to protect the Kurdish-led force from the plots of its regional foes. For another, Europe has been the biggest beneficiary of the SDF's success in rooting out Daesh fighters from their former strongholds and establishing a safe haven that offers millions of Syrians and Iraqis an alternative to seeking asylum in Europe.

European armies may not be able to match the military capabilities and air power of the SDF's US advisers, but an expanded troop presence could go a long in keeping the Kurds' adversaries at bay. As Nato members, France, Britain and Germany are fully aware that a bigger European military footprint in northeastern Syria is bound to act as a deterrent against Turkish incursion plans and help maintain the momentum of the fight against Daesh.

None of this is to give Trump's kneejerk Syria withdrawal plan a pass. There seems to be a lot more to it than meets the eye, or else he would not have stuck to his guns despite losing two senior administration officials and drawing a stinging rebuke from the Republican-controlled Senate. Whether or not the Kurds succeed in striking a deal with Syria and Russia, it would still amount to a colossal Western betrayal of a steadfast partner.

If the disagreements over Iran and Syria lead to a long-term disruption in US-European relations, the principal beneficiaries are likely to be a clutch of self-serving anti-Western autocrats and authoritarian regimes. It is incumbent on Europe therefore to ensure that the transatlantic alliance remains strong and resolute even though the country on which it traditionally depends for leadership is behaving erratically.

Arnab Neil Sengupta is an independent journalist and commentator on Middle East