Speaking at the American Academy in Berlin earlier this month, America’s ambassador to Germany Phillip Murphy reiterated some of the many pressing international issues facing President Barack Obama. He then told the audience that America needed assistance from its “extraordinarily strong ally Germany” (emphasis mine throughout).

Mr. Murphy even went so far as to identify the U.S.-Germany relationship as the most important of the past 60 years.

In the wake of the ambassador’s address, Ron Fraser explained how America’s leaders—as they blindly pursue a relationship with Germany—are trashing the truly “special relationship” between Britain and America. If the ambassador’s statement really reflects the thinking in the White House, Mr. Fraser warned, “then it is a staggering admission as to the future direction of U.S. foreign policy!”

One of the most distinct geopolitical trends in 2009 was Europe’s promotion, with America’s blessing, from junior partner to co-leader in global affairs. (If it remains on its current trajectory, Europe could replace America as the dominant world power in 2010.) There were two reasons for Europe’s impressive entrance onto the global stage. First, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty established the European Union as a legitimate superstate, with its own independent foreign-policy arm. Second, America’s abrogation of global leadership throughout 2009, and its eagerness to share and delegate responsibilities, empowered its European “friends.” As Murphy told the Germans in Berlin, “We [Americans] need strong partners—and nowhere are there better or more committed partners than in Europe. And Germany is the centerpiece of the European Union.”

It may be a comforting notion that America has no “better” or “more committed” partner than Europe.

But is it accurate?

Perhaps we’ll find out soon. Many now admit that America has reached the defining moment in its efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The December 31 deadline put forward by Barack Obama for Iran to show itself willing to enter into meaningful negotiations expires next week. And unless Tehran acquiesces to U.S. demands—which is unlikely, considering its perpetual display of utter contempt for deadlines and negotiations—Iran and the rest of the world will expect Washington to articulate the next stage of its strategy for curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Given a choice, the president’s preference would be the imposition of stricter UN sanctions on the Iranian regime by all major world powers. But sanctions are a far-fetched option. To be effective, they would require the approval of Russia and China, both of which thrive on their leverage against Washington via Iran. Washington has discussed sanctions with both countries for years, and both have consistently expressed little enthusiasm for signing on the dotted line. As realist commentators like Charles Krauthammer have observed, the discussion over sanctions is farcical. Sanctions are a sideshow.

This leaves Washington reliant on itself and its Western friends, including Germany—its “extraordinarily strong” ally—for solutions.

And there’s the rub.

Germany simply isn’t the “extraordinarily strong” ally America thinks it is. German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg made this clear last week in an interview with German weekly Welt am Sonntag. On the issue of Afghanistan, Guttenberg explained that Germany simply is not prepared to drop everything and funnel troops into the war as Mr. Obama is asking. It was both interesting and telling that the German defense minister prefaced his remarks with the comment that “one does not have to follow Obama.” Guttenberg’s statement, Stratfor reports, “illustrates the strains in U.S.-German relations” (December 21).

And the tension could get a lot worse.

Over the last week, Washington appears to have disclosed, at least partly, the next stage of its strategy for dealing with Iran. This involves penalizing banks and institutions caught facilitating commerce and trade with Iran. Last week, Credit Suisse, the second-largest Swiss financial institution, agreed to pay $536 million to the U.S. Justice Department after it was accused of helping Iran access American markets and avoid sanctions. Then on Tuesday, British banking giant Lloyds agreed to pay a $217 million fine for its handling of funds for countries under U.S. sanctions such as Iran.

And it appears Washington might be gunning for German financial institutions. “Suisse was meant as a sign of things to come for other European banks working with Iran,” Stratfor continues, “and that some of Germany’s major banking institutions may be next.”

Germany is more involved in Iran than any other European nation. German exports to Iran reached $5.7 billion in 2008 and are expected to be only slightly less this year. The massive volumes of exports flowing from Germany to Iran are greased by cash from German banks and financial institutions. German firms have been involved in insuring gasoline imports into Iran, and German corporations are also keenly interested in developing Iran’s energy infrastructure.

Now America is acting like it’s about to meddle with German interests in Iran. America’s leaders are about to put the “most important relationship” in 60 years to the test!

“Berlin will not take any punitive actions against its banks lightly,” Stratfor writes. “German banks, businesses and government traditionally have been intertwined. U.S. fines on German banks would inevitably strangle capital for Germany’s exporters who do business with Iran. Furthermore, the economic crisis is not yet over for German banks, as the government makes a concerted effort to persuade them to resume lending. There is palpable fear in Germany that a new credit crunch is awaiting in 2010, so Berlin will not appreciate any U.S. moves that could further erode confidence in its banking sector.”

Ever since the financial crash in September 2008, Berlin and Washington have been bickering over the best way to solve the global financial crisis, notwithstanding the fact that America has already signed up to ultimate financial control by the EU-dominated Financial Stability Board. The tension has intensified in recent months, largely because of Washington’s near-constant nagging—sometimes directly, often subtly and indirectly—for more German troops in Afghanistan. Now it appears the United States might be preparing to go after Iran by targeting Germany’s financial institutions—at a time when German leaders and bankers are seriously concerned about another financial crisis.

If this does in fact happen, expect Germany’s response to be rapid and vigorous. The U.S. appears to be taking Germany’s loyalty for granted and assuming that Berlin, particularly under the pro-U.S. leadership of Chancellor Angela Merkel, will fall in line with Washington’s geopolitical interests and ambitions. But as Stratfor concludes: “This assumption ignores, however, that Berlin is no longer trapped in Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union and it is developing a truly independent foreign policy.”

Germany is not America’s lackey, especially not now that it is the obvious leader of a European superstate. Be assured, if America infringes too much on German, or even European, interests—politically, economically or militarily—it will stand up and defend itself. When this happens, as it is sure to do in the coming months, if not weeks, Mr. Murphy and many of America’s leaders will learn that Germany—as pleasant and reassuring as the thought may be—is not the “extraordinarily strong” ally they think it is.

As with so many major events taking place on the world scene today, America’s blind love for Germany—and its soon-coming realization that this is a hollow and ultimately dangerous relationship—was prophesied in the Bible. You can read the prophecy in Ezekiel 23. As “extraordinarily strong” as it might appear to some now, America’s relationship with Germany is, as Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has long forecast, doomed to failure: “The U.S. trusts Germany—our lovers, as Ezekiel calls them (Ezekiel 23:5, 9)—more than we trust God! That could be the worst foreign-policy mistake we have ever made—or ever will make.”