An unusual event occurred when Donald Trump demanded that U.S. allies help end the war he himself launched against Iran: they answered with a resounding "no."
It was evident already a few days after the start of the American and Israeli attacks in February that Operation Epic Fury would not develop into a quick and easy victory, as the American president had estimated. The regime in Tehran did not collapse, despite heavy bombing and the targeted assassination of its supreme leader. Instead, Iran responded by launching missiles and restricting passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor for transporting oil, gas, fertilizers and other essential goods.
As international markets faltered and already weak public support for the U.S. waned further, Trump called on other countries to send warships to ensure navigation in the region. Through successive posts, he hinted that he could leave NATO if the allies did not comply. However, unlike previous cases, in which European leaders tried to avoid conflict with him, the reactions were immediate and unequivocal.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the war "is not a NATO issue", while the head of European diplomacy Kaja Kallas clarified that "no one is willing to endanger lives in the Strait of Hormuz". Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez appeared even sharper, describing the attack on Iran as "illegal, absurd and cruel war".
Even British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who had sought to maintain the UK's so-called "special relationship" with the US, drew a clear line: "This is not our war and we are not going to be dragged into it," he said, adopting a phrase that quickly spread across Europe.
The fragile ceasefire agreement highlighted the US president's isolation from even his most staunch allies, as well as his diminished ability to impose his will. The cessation of hostilities for at least two weeks did not result from diplomatic initiatives by European powers, but from the intervention of Pakistan, a country whose citizens Trump has excluded from immigration to the United States.
Risks
A central complaint in European capitals was the fact that Trump kept his allies in the dark about his war plans. NATO countries were unwilling to take responsibility for exiting a conflict in the planning of which they had not participated. The question that prevailed was clear: why should they follow a policy they had not even been informed about?
If they knew about it in time, European leaders could list many reasons why they considered starting a war with Iran a wrong choice. The U.S. and Israel presented no evidence that the Iranian regime was close to developing a nuclear weapon or posed a direct threat, and there was not even a clear justification for starting hostilities. Moreover, it was widely foreseeable that Iran would attempt to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a development that would be extremely difficult for the US and its allies to counter.
Confronting Iran's not insignificant military power would put a significant strain on European defence budgets and divert critical resources from Ukraine, which still needs support from Russia. For many NATO countries, the conflict in Ukraine is a priority and they were not willing to exhaust their available means in a war they do not consider their own.
Within the European states, the political leaderships had nothing to gain, while they had much to lose from participation in the war. Public opinion is largely opposed, and any support for U.S. business could prove politically risky, jeopardizing even the very political survival of European leaders.
The American president went so far as to call his allies "cowards" because they remained on the sidelines of the conflict. At the same time, he reiterated the threat of US withdrawal from the North Atlantic Alliance.
It was not the first time that US allies had heard such positions and had already begun to prepare for the possibility of a NATO without American participation. Doubts about whether the U.S. under Trump would honour its allied commitments already existed before the war with Iran — and now trust seems to be waning even further.
Change
Trump himself has hinted that his stance on the Alliance has hardened, citing previous disagreements, such as in the case of Greenland. While he cannot withdraw the U.S. from NATO without congressional approval, he has the potential to weaken the alliance by withdrawing troops from Europe or by refusing to defend member states.
The result is a profound shift in the transatlantic relationship, with the trust that had characterized it for decades now shaken.
The question is not if, but when, Trump will attempt to use new means of pressure to persuade his allies to align with his strategy. However, it remains uncertain whether any form of pressure will prove sufficient to bend European resistance to further military involvement on the Iranian front.
Adaptation – Editing: George D. Pavlopoulos
BloombergOpinion
