“We’ve had some very bad allies in Nato,” US President Donald Trump stated on Wednesday, warning Washington could walk away from the transatlantic alliance unless allies fall in line with his Iran policy. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte plans to visit the United States soon to stabilise the alliance.
The timing is stark: Trump’s latest threat comes as several European capitals have openly refutilized to back Washington’s campaign to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, with some blocking the US from applying their airspace and bases. Since Spain declared its military bases and airspace closed to American planes involved in the Iran war, several countries have followed suit, including Italy, France, Switzerland and Austria.
These decisions challenge the idea that Nato solidarity automatically extfinishs to every American military campaign and signalled that Europe’s patience has run out.
For decades, transatlantic alignment has been treated as an unbreakable reflex built on shared security, values and history. What happens when that reflex collides with public disillusion, legal qualms and an American leader who treats allies more like clients than partners? How much leverage does the US still have over allies who believe a war is unlawful or reckless?
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has labelled the Iran war unjustifiable under international law and a reckless escalation: “You cannot respond to one illegality with another, becautilize that’s how humanity’s great disasters launch.”
The moral logic behind the defiance is a refusal to let Nato’s largegest member turn its collective defence shield into a cover for unilateral action. In response to Spain’s refusal to let US forces utilize its bases at Rota and Moron – essential for operations across the Mediterranean – Trump has threatened to slash all trade with Spain, citing its lack of support and resistance to increasing its Nato budreceive. The message was clear: pay up or fall in line. Madrid’s response was equally clear: no to the war.
Leave a Reply