World about US

In early April 2026, discussions about the United States in France, Germany and Israel are not limited to one or two high‑profile episodes but form a whole tangle of interconnected storylines: war with Iran and the American military presence in the Middle East, Washington's intervention in Venezuela, economic dominance and a productivity gap, internal legal battles inside America, and — especially in Israel — the painful question of who really controls the American‑Israeli alliance. These themes intersect to form a common nerve: the US is simultaneously perceived as an indispensable center of power and as a source of instability that imposes its priorities and ideology on allies.

The main backdrop for the European debate is the US and Israeli military escalation with Iran. German economic and stock market outlets directly link the trajectory of the DAX index and growth forecast revisions to the conduct of the war and statements by US President Donald Trump. In ntv’s trading overview on April 1, it is emphasized that hopes for a swift end to the war with Iran are spurring stock gains, but the report also notes US preparations for a "limited ground operation"; Trump, according to the German press, insists that no "deal" with Iran is needed, because Washington will ensure Tehran does not develop nuclear weapons.(ad-hoc-news.de) For German commentators, this show of hard power is a reminder that Europe is tethered to the decisions of the American administration: war hits energy, inflation and GDP growth, and all Berlin can do is adapt its policy.

The French perspective is somewhat different: Paris pays much closer attention to the legal and political consequences of "Trumpism" inside the United States and what that means for European democracy. In early April French publications gave detailed coverage to US Supreme Court hearings on Trump's initiative to revisit the principle of jus soli — "right of the soil", which guarantees citizenship by birth on American territory. Photo reports of rallies at the court building, where demonstrators defend birthright citizenship, were accompanied by analysis of how an attempt to reconfigure the notion of citizenship fits into a broader trend: the US, long presented as an "immigrant nation," risks becoming a country where citizenship is a tool of political control and exclusion.(franceguyane.fr) French commentators inevitably draw parallels with their own debates on citizenship and migration, but the key tone is this: if America — which Europe for decades cited as a model of constitutional stability — begins to radically change the rules of the game, that is a blow to the established liberal benchmark.

The German debate focuses more on the economic and technological aspects of American influence. Commentaries in the financial and business press note that US employment and inflation data published at the end of March–early April immediately affect expectations for Fed rates and, therefore, European markets: German investors literally "look to Washington" to understand where the DAX will head.(ad-hoc-news.de) At the same time, analysis of the digital economy and artificial intelligence develops another line: the US is consolidating technological superiority, opening an ever‑wider "productivity gap" between the American and European economies. German experts stress that the problem is not only technical — Europe lacks regulatory boldness and political will to allow its companies to act as aggressively and quickly as American ones.(ad-hoc-news.de)

Against this backdrop Germany acts both as a US ally and as a restrained critic. In surveys of international affairs, Germans discuss how Berlin supported American strikes on Venezuela and Iran, stressing that this is part of the West’s broader strategic line of "fighting tyranny", while domestically there is debate over how unconditionally Germany should follow Washington. In response to US intervention in Venezuela, representatives of the conservative CDU/CSU bloc called the fall of the Maduro regime an "encouraging signal", highlighting the value dimension of American actions.(en.wikipedia.org) Yet German economists add immediately: every American military decision returns to Europe in the form of oil price shocks, migration waves and defense spending.

The French political discussion about the US is noticeably polarized. In National Assembly transcripts deputies alternately criticize Washington for turning international institutions into "an instrument in its hands" and acknowledge that without American security guarantees European policy toward Iran, Russia or China simply does not work. In February 2026 debates, the French discussed growing US pressure on Europeans to "do more" — both financially and politically — in joint operations and sanctions regimes.(assemblee-nationale.fr) The fault line runs along a familiar axis: some still see America as the necessary "shield" of the West, others increasingly see a revisionist power acting outside the norms it helped build after 1945.

The Israeli perspective is fundamentally different: there the US is not an abstract superpower but an existential partner on which security, the economy and diplomatic maneuverability depend. But in 2025–2026 two coexisting narratives are audible in the Israeli public sphere: on one hand, the majority of Israelis in polls by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) say the alliance with the US is vital and are ready to make significant concessions to preserve it; on the other hand, on social media and in columns anxiety is growing: has Israel crossed a line by imposing its agenda on Washington.(jppi.org.il)

JPPI reports emphasize that a significant portion of Israeli Jews believe: in a conflict with American policy Israel should "do what it deems right," but the majority still favor "major efforts, including compromises," to preserve the alliance.(jppi.org.il) Yet on Hebrew forums and Reddit threads discussing the US role in the current war, a very different tone can be found. One user, half‑jokingly but tellingly, writes that "Bibi controls Trump like a puppet" and that "אם הדעה שאנחנו כפינו את המלחמה על ארה\"ב תהיה יותר פופולרית זה הולך להשפיע באופן קיומי על היחסים שלנו עם ארה\"ב" — "if the opinion that we forced the war on the US becomes more popular, this will existentially affect our relations with the US."(reddit.com) Beneath the irony lies fear: the image of Israel as a manipulator could undermine the very basis of support in Congress and American society.

Running in parallel is a more technocratic storyline: Israel’s inclusion in the US visa‑waiver program. Israeli media present Washington’s recent decision as a long‑awaited success in bilateral relations and a practical relief for travelers: instead of the classic visa one can now obtain an electronic ESTA authorization for 90 days.(chabad.info) But behind this everyday facade lies asymmetry: it is the US that sets admission rules, lengths of stay and even how dual‑citizens must behave. Israeli lawyers and bloggers cautiously remind readers that visa‑free travel is not a right but a privilege that Washington can adjust at any moment depending on the political conjuncture.

A notable shift in Israeli analysis is the emergence of works describing a "transformation of the US into a revisionist autocratic hegemony." In one recent Hebrew research paper, American policy in recent years is described as "turning national security into justification for direct control over rare earth resources, sea lanes and critical territories," and as reconfiguring the legal status of those who assist migrants in the spirit of "enemy‑fighters."(debugliesintel.com) The tone is clearly critical, but the important fact is that even in a country that for decades has seen the US as a guarantor of survival there is now an academic vocabulary to describe America as a force undermining stability and international law rather than protecting them.

In the German and French press the topic of war with Iran and American military build‑up in the Middle East is intertwined with another conflict — between the US and Spain. Spain’s decision to deny Washington use of the joint Rota and Morón bases for operations against Iran, and Trump’s sharp reaction threatening to "completely stop trade with Spain," are perceived in Berlin and Paris as a worrying signal: the US is ready to punish even NATO allies if they do not follow its lead.(en.wikipedia.org) For Europeans, especially Germans who depend on the American security umbrella, this underscores the fragility of "transatlantic solidarity": legally the alliance exists, but politically the White House increasingly acts in a logic of transactions and pressure.

It is interesting that reactions to US intervention in Venezuela are colored differently in Europe and Israel. For many European politicians, the change of power in Caracas is "hope for Venezuela", as German Christian Democrat Jürgen Hardt put it, but at the same time it is a potential precedent legitimizing Washington’s use of force: if today it is an authoritarian regime in Latin America, commentators ask, where will the line be drawn tomorrow between defending human rights and neocolonial intervention?(en.wikipedia.org) Israeli analysts are primarily concerned whether the new front line will divert US resources from the Middle Eastern theater, where Israel’s fate, in their view, depends on American aircraft carriers and missile‑defense systems.

A common motif in all three countries remains dependence on the economic and financial power of the US. French macroeconomic reviews closely track Federal Reserve forecasts and how US inflation and employment will affect ECB decisions. One recent bulletin emphasizes that an expected Fed rate cut in May 2026 will be a key factor for the euro exchange rate and for the financing conditions of French debt.(latribune.lazardfreresgestion.fr) German authors add that US growth or decline sets the tone on European exchanges "faster and more strongly than any domestic decisions in Berlin or Paris."(ad-hoc-news.de)

If one attempts to synthesize these disparate voices, a complex but coherent portrait emerges. For France, the US is still the main external referent for democracy and the rule of law, but now with an anxious caveat: American internal battles over citizenship, migration and the rule of law become a mirror in which the French see their own fears and debates. For Germany, America is both an indispensable economic and military anchor and a factor of instability: every Washington move on Iran, Venezuela or trade is felt as DAX fluctuations, forecast revisions and a new wave of debates about Europe's strategic autonomy. For Israel, the US remains the axis around which the logic of national security is constructed, but everyday conversation increasingly raises the question: where is the boundary between an alliance and a dangerous, existential dependence — and is America turning from a "patron" into a revisionist power capable of as easily changing the rules of the game as it is today changing ESTA conditions or legal definitions of citizenship at home?

That is why contemporary French, German and Israeli texts about the US read not as peripheral commentaries on American policy but as an attempt to rethink their own place in a world where Washington remains a center of power — but one that is increasingly unpredictable and increasingly prone to unilateral decisions.

❮ ❯