Even before his return to the White House, US President-elect Donald Trump is casting a formidable shadow over the US’ European allies, forcing them to confront the difficult choices that will arise with his second administration.

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza has highlighted a profound divide between Washington and Europe.

The rift reveals starkly contrasting attitudes towards international judicial bodies, the binding nature of their rulings, and the dangers of coercive diplomacy in global affairs. It also exposes a broader moral conflict: the enduring legacy of American and Israeli exceptionalism, which critics argue undermines the global justice framework designed to prevent atrocities like those witnessed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda during the 1990s.

This growing discord signals the increasing strain on a transatlantic partnership already tested by diverging worldviews.

US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, has threatened to sanction US allies if they enforce the ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

“What they’re doing in Israel is trying to prevent a second Holocaust. So, to any ally, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, if you try to help the ICC, we’re going to sanction you… You’re gonna have to pick the rogue ICC versus America,” Graham said on Fox News a day after the arrest warrants were issued.

“We should crush your economy because we’re next... Why can’t they go after Trump or any other American president?” he added.

Graham also called the ICC “a dangerous joke” and “an irresponsible body,” vowing to work with Trump and the US Congress to formulate “a powerful response.”

Michael Waltz, Trump’s incoming National Security Adviser, also vowed a strong response to what he called the ICC’s “anti-Semitic bias.”

Some Republican lawmakers, including Senator Tom Cotton, have even suggested that the US might consider military measures under the “Hague Invasion Act” to protect American or allied personnel from ICC actions.

Cotton criticised the ICC ruling, calling it a “kangaroo court” and labelling its Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, a “deranged fanatic.”

“Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: the American law on the ICC is known as The Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it,” Cotton warned.

The “Hague Invasion Act,” or the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) of 2002, was enacted to shield US military personnel and officials from prosecution by the ICC.

It prohibits US cooperation with the court, including financial support or intelligence sharing, and authorises the US to negotiate immunity agreements for its citizens and allies. Most controversially, the law permits the president to use “all means necessary,” including military force, to secure the release of Americans or allied personnel detained by the ICC, earning it the provocative nickname.

Even more contentious are the views of Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, one of the most controversial nominees in his upcoming cabinet. Hegseth has not commented publicly on the ICC decision, but his well-known views, expressed in his books and media appearances as a Fox News anchor before his nomination, reveal his deep religious and ideological support for Israel.

“If you love America, you should love Israel,” Hegseth argued in American Crusade, a book he published in 2020, where he presents a vision of US foreign and military policy deeply tied to prioritising Israel and rejecting international norms.

Hegseth frames his support for Israel as a moral and strategic imperative, rooted in Christian nationalist ideals. He portrays Israel as embodying the principles of “Americanism” and positions its defence as central to his worldview.

“We Christians, alongside our Jewish friends and their remarkable army in Israel, need to pick up the sword of unapologetic Americanism and defend ourselves… For us as American crusaders, Israel embodies the soul of our American crusade… Faith, family, freedom, and free enterprise; if you love those, learn to love the state of Israel,” he wrote.

Hegseth views international institutions such as the United Nations and the ICC as inherently biased against Israel and the US, advocating instead a unilateral, aggressive approach to global challenges.

He is sharply critical of multilateral frameworks like NATO, dismissing them as outdated and unnecessary burdens on the US. His stance on international law is even more controversial. In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, he argues that US forces should disregard the Geneva Conventions and embrace a more brutal, unrestrained form of warfare, which he believes would secure military victories and deter adversaries.

This blend of hardline support for Israel, the threat of coercive diplomacy, disdain for global cooperation, and the call for unregulated military force reflects a broader ideological framework that could redefine US relations with allies and reshape its role within the international system.

Before Trump assumes the presidency in January, European nations are bracing for what could be a new wave of “coercive diplomacy,” even towards longstanding allies. The recent threats of economic sanctions against countries complying with the ICC arrest warrants foreshadow a period of transatlantic tension.

For Europe, this comes at a time when relations with Washington are already strained over the war in Ukraine, climate policy, ties with China, NATO’s future, and the Palestinian question.

Caught in a moral and political bind, Europe must navigate between two untenable options: risking transatlantic unity by adhering to international law or undermining the global justice system by bowing to US demands.

Ironically, America undermines its own global standing in this process. Without Europe’s strategic partnership, the US ceases to function as a true superpower. By forcing its allies into an impossible choice between loyalty and principle, Washington erodes the very alliance that bolsters its influence.

Moreover, American threats strike at the heart of European sovereignty. The ability to enforce international law within their own borders is central to European sovereignty and independence. Succumbing to US pressure would set a dangerous precedent, normalising coercion in transatlantic relations as a tool to subvert international norms.

This could weaken the global legal order, erode Europe’s credibility, and leave it vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, especially as it champions the rule of law on issues like Russia’s actions in Ukraine and international resolutions regarding a Palestinian state.

Furthermore, Washington’s threats exacerbate divisions within Europe itself, creating a fragmented Western alliance. While countries like Hungary and Austria have outright rejected the ICC warrants, others, like Germany, remain ambivalent, noting that while it is committed to the ICC’s mandate, it could not arrest Netanyahu because of Germany’s Nazi past.

Other European nations like Britain, France, and Italy hope to sidestep confrontation altogether by quietly discouraging visits from Israeli leaders. However, nations such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are steadfast in their support for the ICC, underscoring a deepening rift within Europe.

Europe stands at a precarious crossroads, grappling with a profound moral and political quandary. On one side lies its commitment to upholding the tenets of international law, enshrined in the Rome Statute, which demands accountability and justice. On the other lies the spectre of diplomatic strife with an incoming US administration led by Trump, a leader whose worldview starkly contrasts with the continent’s ethos.

During his first term, Trump denounced the ICC as a politicised, biased, and ineffective body that infringed upon US sovereignty. In 2020, his administration imposed sanctions, including travel bans on ICC officials and freezing their financial assets. These actions were in retaliation for investigations into alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan and Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

Under Trump’s upcoming administration, Washington’s vehement opposition to the ICC and its apparent dismissal of multilateralism present Europe with a delicate balancing act. To enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant against Netanyahu risks rupturing a fragile transatlantic bond, while ignoring it undermines Europe’s credibility as a bastion of international justice.

This dilemma encapsulates the enduring tension between sovereignty and global accountability, further exacerbated by the unpredictable strain of a leader whose policies often eschew the European consensus.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 28 November, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly