标签： Europe

In the aftermath of a unilateral U.S. war of choice against Iran launched without prior consultation with global allies, President Donald Trump is now demanding international partners step in to resolve the unforeseen fallout of the conflict, as he signals he is poised to wind down American military operations soon.

The president’s frustration has mounted in recent days over Europe’s refusal to back the U.S.-Israeli war effort, with Trump launching a blistering public attack on two of America’s closest transatlantic allies—France and the United Kingdom—via social media on Tuesday. Even as Iran has effectively choked off most oil traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a development that has roiled global energy markets, Trump has continued to claim Iran’s military and infrastructure have been “decimated.”

In his social media posts, Trump targeted the U.K. first, which had declined to participate in direct offensive operations against Iran. He suggested countries facing jet fuel shortages from the closed strait should turn to U.S. oil supplies, and challenged European nations to “build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT.” Minutes later, he accused France of being “very unhelpful” for denying overflight rights to U.S. military planes carrying weapons bound for Israel.

Trump’s sharp rebuke of NATO members for failing to join the war effort and address its spillover effects has been echoed by top officials in his administration, amplifying longstanding questions about the future of the transatlantic alliance—an institution whose core value Trump has openly questioned since taking office. Top Cabinet members including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have all ramped up anti-NATO rhetoric in recent days, indicating the administration’s skeptical posture toward the alliance is hardening, even as Trump hints at an early exit from the Iran conflict.

Speaking at a Pentagon press briefing Tuesday, Hegseth argued the U.S. had already done the “heavy lifting on behalf of the free world” to counter the Iranian threat. He stressed that securing the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway critical to global oil trade, should not fall exclusively to Washington, noting that other dependent nations, including the U.K. with its historic Royal Navy, must contribute to security efforts. “There are countries around the world who ought be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well,” he said.

Later that day, during an Oval Office meeting with reporters, Trump confirmed the timeline for U.S. offensive operations, estimating that American strikes on Iran would wrap up within two to three weeks. He made clear that securing the strait long-term would be the responsibility of other nations that rely on the shipping lane. “That’s not for us,” he said. “That’ll be for France. That’ll be for whoever’s using the strait.” The president added that while he is not yet prepared to withdraw the thousands of U.S. troops massed near the strait, that move will come soon.

Despite the sharp diplomatic friction between the U.S. and its European allies, U.S. investors reacted positively to Trump’s timeline for ending the conflict. The S&P 500 jumped 2.9% to notch its largest single-day gain since the previous spring, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed more than 2.5%, as Wall Street shifted from uncertainty over prolonged conflict to renewed optimism for a quick de-escalation.

Even so, weeks of sustained criticism of NATO have left European capitals on edge about the alliance’s future, already strained by Trump’s earlier cuts to U.S. military support for Ukraine and his open threat to seize Greenland from Denmark. Multiple NATO members, including France and Spain, have already banned or restricted U.S. use of their airspace and joint military facilities for operations related to the Iran conflict. While these nations have signaled willingness to join an international coalition to secure the strait once the war ends, the details of their participation and the coalition’s overall stability remain unresolved.

On Tuesday, both France and the U.K. sought to downplay Trump’s verbal attacks. A spokesperson for French President Emmanuel Macron expressed surprise at the criticism, noting “France has not changed its position since day one.” British Defense Secretary John Healey acknowledged the U.S. remains a critical ally despite the rebuke, and outlined steps the U.K. is already taking to support Gulf security. During a visit to Qatar, Healey announced the U.K. would deploy additional missile and air defense systems to Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and extend the deployment of Royal Air Force Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar. “The U.S. is a uniquely close ally to the U.K.,” Healey said. “We do things as two nations that no other militaries or intelligence services do.”

Analysts note that while European nations have distanced themselves from the offensive, they have strong incentives to remain engaged and push for a quick end to the conflict to prevent broader regional escalation. More than a decade of civil war in Syria already pushed over 5 million people to flee their homes, with hundreds of thousands seeking asylum in Europe and generating lasting social and political disruption across the continent. More recently, Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi movement launched its first direct missile attacks on Israel over the weekend and has threatened to disrupt shipping through the Red Sea—a major trade artery for European economies.

Yasmine Farouk, Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Project director at the International Crisis Group, argued the moment presents a key opportunity for Europe to cement its role as a regional security partner. “I think this is a true opportunity for Europe to show the Gulf that it can be a partner,” she said. “And I think they have already been showing that in the defense (weapons they’ve provided to Gulf nations), they need now to make it more into the diplomatic side in terms of offering offramps and working on a deal.”

Jeremy Shapiro, U.S. programs director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in a Tuesday analysis that European negotiators can advance their goals by focusing on the war’s economic costs, pushing for a ceasefire tied to a maritime security mission, and crafting an exit that aligns with Trump’s political priorities. “Trump will claim victory no matter how this war ends,” Shapiro wrote. “Europeans should want that to happen sooner rather than later.”

LONDON – After 11 weeks of high-stakes arguments in London’s High Court, the outcome of Prince Harry’s landmark privacy lawsuit against British tabloid publisher Associated Newspapers has boiled down to one critical question: can the court trust the conflicting accounts of private investigator Gavin Burrows?

Duke of Sussex Prince Harry launched the legal action alongside six other high-profile claimants, including music icon Elton John, actors Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley, anti-racism campaigner Doreen Lawrence, former lawmaker Simon Hughes, and David Furnish, Elton John’s husband. The group alleges that Associated Newspapers – owner of the Daily Mail and its Sunday sister title the Mail on Sunday – ran a coordinated, decades-long campaign of unlawful information gathering, targeting them through phone tapping, voicemail interception, and deceptive information-gathering tactics. For Harry, this trial marks the culmination of a years-long personal crusade to hold the British tabloid industry accountable for its intrusive practices and push for reform of what he has repeatedly called a toxic media culture.

On Tuesday, defense lawyers for Associated Newspapers wrapped their closing arguments by centering their entire case on Burrows’ latest sworn testimony. Burrows, a private investigator who previously admitted on a BBC documentary that he had ruthlessly targeted a teenage Harry for tabloid outlets and even apologized to the prince for his actions, has now reversed course under oath. He testified that he never carried out any illegal surveillance or information-gathering work for either of the Associated Newspapers titles. He further claimed that a signed statement attributed to him – which said he “must have done hundreds of jobs” for the Mail between 2000 and 2005, and which formed the foundational catalyst for the entire lawsuit – was a fabrication, with his signature forged by the claimants’ legal team. Defense lead Antony White argued that if Burrows’ disavowal of the original statement is accepted, the entire claimants’ case collapses.

Judge Matthew Nicklin, who is overseeing the bench trial, repeatedly pressed the claimants’ legal team over the course of the proceedings to clarify what would become of the case if the court rejected Burrows’ original statement. The claimants’ lead attorney, David Sherborne, pushed back against the defense’s narrative in his own closing arguments, insisting that the claimants hold a wealth of independent evidence that proves Associated Newspapers’ pattern of unlawful activity, beyond Burrows’ statement. Sherborne confirmed that the claimants are seeking substantial damages, including aggravated damages, for the invasion of their privacy; total legal costs for the high-profile trial have already been estimated at nearly £40 million ($52 million).

Sherborne argued that payment records from the publisher to multiple private investigators align with the publication dates of the controversial articles in question, directly tying the paper to unlawful information gathering. He added that the evidence implicates not just Burrows, but a network of other investigators, staff journalists, and freelance reporters that the paper relied on to obtain private information through illegal means.

Associated Newspapers has forcefully denied all allegations, dismissing the claims as preposterous. The publisher insists that all roughly 50 articles at the center of the case were sourced through lawful channels, including tips from associates, royal aides, and publicists who voluntarily shared information with reporters. It has also argued that many of the claims dating back to the 1990s are time-barred, having been filed far outside the legal statute of limitations.

Defense lawyer White rejected the payment record evidence as pure conjecture, arguing that the claimants’ entire case relies too heavily on unproven inferences rather than concrete proof of unlawful activity. Multiple current and former Mail journalists and editors have also taken the stand to deny using illegal tactics to produce stories about Harry’s personal life, which ranged from his romantic relationships with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy to his role as a godfather and his connection to his late mother, Princess Diana.

Former Mail on Sunday editor Katie Nicholl directly contradicted Harry’s claim that his inner social circle did not leak stories, telling the court: “I had very good sources in the inner circle… They were not all tight lipped.”

When Harry took the witness stand at the opening of the trial in January, he gave emotional testimony about the lasting harm of tabloid intrusion. He told the court that repeated invasions of his privacy left him “paranoid beyond belief,” strained all of his close personal relationships, and caused severe long-term damage to his mental health. During cross-examination, he choked up as he described how relentless tabloid attacks made the life of his wife, Meghan Markle, “an absolute misery.”

Harry has long linked his anger at the British press to the 1997 death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in Paris while being pursued by paparazzi. He has also said that the constant, vitriolic press campaign against Meghan directly led to the couple’s 2020 decision to step back from their senior royal duties and relocate to the United States.

This is not Harry’s first legal battle with the British tabloid industry: he previously won a court judgment in a phone hacking trial against the publisher of the Daily Mirror, and secured a formal settlement and apology from Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun and the now-shuttered News of the World. Unlike the Mirror trial, this case against Associated Newspapers has featured dozens of witnesses – current and former reporters, editors, and investigators – all taking the stand to deny using any illegal methods to gather information on Harry. A written ruling from Judge Nicklin is expected at a later date.