Washington, D.C. – The ongoing conflict involving the US and Israel in Iran is creating deep rifts within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), potentially signaling a significant weakening of the alliance. Concerns are mounting in Europe regarding the reliability of US security guarantees and the economic consequences of the escalating conflict.

Growing European Dissatisfaction

General de Gaulle famously stated that treaties are only as durable as the circumstances that create them. Recent events suggest NATO may be facing such a turning point. Tino Chrupalla, federal spokesman for Germany’s Alternative For Germany party, recently called for the withdrawal of all US troops from Germany, asserting that Germany cannot be truly sovereign while hosting foreign bases without control.

Spain Sets a Precedent

Chrupalla praised Spain’s decision to close its bases and airspace to support the Iran War effort, noting that Spain’s neutrality allowed its ships to pass the Strait of Hormuz unhindered. This action has become a point of contention, with President Trump criticizing countries like the United Kingdom for refusing involvement and suggesting they “Go get your own oil.”

Economic and Strategic Concerns

Tehran does not consider European nations hosting bases used in attacks against Iran to be neutral. Continued conflict and potential energy shortages are likely to intensify calls for other European countries to follow Spain’s lead. The situation highlights the risks associated with hosting foreign military forces without direct control.

France and Italy Distance Themselves

France and Italy are beginning to distance themselves from the US-led campaign. Italy has denied refueling permissions for US planes involved in the war, while France has closed its airspace to related flights. President Trump responded with anger, warning France and Britain that the US “won’t be there to help” if they don’t support the effort.

US Re-evaluation of NATO

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated a potential re-evaluation of US engagement with NATO if allies deny basing rights during times of conflict. He questioned the value of an arrangement where the US defends Europe but is denied support when it needs it.

Historical Precedents and Current Differences

NATO has faced crises before, including disagreements over Suez, Vietnam, and the Iraq War. However, this situation differs significantly. Previous conflicts did not directly threaten the vital interests of Europe or involve the same level of economic risk.

Lack of Consultation and Public Opposition

Unlike the Iraq War, the Trump administration launched the attack on Iran without consulting NATO allies and based on justifications widely considered incoherent and false. Public opposition to the conflict is strong across Europe, fueled by Trump’s personal unpopularity and perceived insults towards European nations. Even right-wing populist movements, like AfD in Germany, are distancing themselves from the war.

Growing Anti-Israel Sentiment

Unfavorable views of Israel are increasing in Europe, particularly among younger generations, further complicating the situation. This sentiment, combined with concerns about the economic impact of the war, is driving a wedge between Europe and the US.

The Ukraine Factor and Future Threats

While fears of Russian aggression have historically encouraged European reliance on US military support, the perceived threat from Russia is now viewed by some as exaggerated compared to the immediate economic threat posed by the Iran War. Speculation about potential future actions by Trump, including a possible attempt to seize Greenland, raises further concerns about the future of the alliance.

Ultimately, if the US no longer defends or even attacks Europe, and Europe ceases to serve as a base for US military operations, the fundamental reasons for NATO’s existence will be undermined.