For years, Europe has endured President Donald Trump’s complaints that the continent is complacent and hiding under the United States’ security umbrella. Now, as he launches the first indefinite military campaign of his presidency, his leaders find themselves in possession of something he still needs: his bases, airspace and strategic geography.
Trump this week mocked UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “not Winston Churchill” and threatened to cut off trade with Spain after both countries imposed limits on facilitating US military operations in Iran. Still, both leaders stuck to their positions. Deeply unpopular in much of Europe — and facing growing political pressure at home — a year into his second term, Trump no longer receives the automatic deference he once enjoyed.
Trump’s frustration reflects a basic reality: Europe, although still heavily dependent on the US through institutions like NATO, maintains influence. The United States projects power in the Middle East most effectively when it can rely on the geography of allies—logistics hubs in Germany, air bases in the United Kingdom, naval installations in Spain, and overflight permits that allow aircraft to move frictionlessly.
Continues after advertising
Erosion of trust
Many European governments remain fearful of a rupture. But Trump did not seek to build a coalition for the campaign against Iran, and yet the war relies heavily on European territory — its bases, ports and airspace. As the US leader takes a more interventionist stance, his past contempt for allies is becoming an obstacle.
“It’s a sign of erosion of trust — the US is paying a price for failing to show solidarity with allies, and now it may be an inconsistent beneficiary of their support,” said Ian Lesser, senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “The US needs strong allies; you never know when you’re going to need them. And the US doesn’t know where this conflict is going.”
Despite reluctance, Europe is already being drawn into war. After a British base in Cyprus was hit by a drone on Sunday, France, the United Kingdom and Greece moved to defend the small European Union member. This is because European nations occupy some of the most valuable territories available to the US military.
Since World War II, this presence has allowed Washington to project power into the Middle East and North Africa — sending troops through Ramstein, Germany, and the British base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That’s why Trump put pressure on some European leaders. The United Kingdom controls installations such as RAF Fairford; Spain hosts important bases in Rota and Morón. In a prolonged operation, these locations can determine how quickly the U.S. moves aircraft, fuel, and ammunition into the conflict zone — and how long it can sustain the campaign.
European officials say the U.S. also depends on Europe for intelligence gathering, trade and coordination on Ukraine. This mutual dependence helps explain why, even after public confrontations, authorities on both sides work discreetly to stabilize the relationship.
Continues after advertising
“This is a reminder that you cannot defend America from Fort Bragg in North Carolina or Fort Hood in Texas,” said Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe and currently a senior logistics mentor at NATO. “We depend on these bases. The Air Force will say, of course, they need these things. And the Navy will say, of course, they need these things.”
I’m afraid to participate
So far, European nations have been hesitant to join Trump’s campaign against Iran. Part of the problem is the way Trump started the war, making little effort to consult European capitals. In the early days, governments made it clear that they did not intend to participate — but many also avoided openly condemning the attacks.
While European officials largely share Washington’s hostility toward Tehran, they worry not only about how the war began but also how it will end. Even if Europe does not directly participate in the attacks, officials say a prolonged conflict would drag the continent increasingly into the logistics, diplomacy and possible repercussions of war.
Continues after advertising
The contrast with previous US wars is striking. Even when Europe was deeply divided — as before the 2003 invasion of Iraq — Washington spent months pressuring allies and building a case for war.
Legal doubts have also been central. Starmer said any UK action must have “a legal basis and a viable, well-thought-out plan”. French President Emmanuel Macron stated that France could not approve attacks carried out outside international law. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni warned that the war reflects a “crisis of international law”, a view also echoed by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in a speech on Tuesday night.
From a European perspective, the erosion of trust began as soon as Trump began his second term, with attacks on the post-World War II international order. Trump spent months stirring disputes over Greenland, threatening tariffs and publicly ridiculing allies such as Britain’s contribution to the war in Afghanistan.
Continues after advertising
The case of England
For leaders like Starmer, the lesson was that charm offensives — even an unprecedented second state visit by Trump — buy only temporary calm. The next disagreement still brings a public reprimand.
In Europe, Trump is deeply unpopular and getting too close to him is politically risky. His threats are also losing strength.
British officials say their approach has evolved. At first, they tried to avoid open disagreements. Now, they are less worried about public reprimands, after concluding that the core of the relationship continues to work behind the scenes.
Continues after advertising
This was evident on Tuesday. Asked whether the UK’s refusal to support offensive attacks could harm trade negotiations, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves rejected the premise.
“You can’t decide to involve the British military in a conflict because that may or may not make it more likely to get a trade deal,” she told Bloomberg. “We concluded that there was no legal basis for offensive action against Iran.”
All of this made it easier for Starmer and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to maintain their positions. Starmer has stuck to his line that the UK will not take part in offensive attacks, even as pressure mounts from Trump.
Spain’s position
In Madrid, Sánchez refused to concede, rejecting Trump’s trade threats and insisting that Spain will not be “accomplice” in a war that he says goes against the country’s values and interests.
“The question is not whether we are on the side of the ayatollahs — no one is. The question is whether we are in favor of international peace and legality,” he said in a televised address on Wednesday, drawing comparisons to the Iraq War. “You cannot respond to one illegality with another, because that is how the great catastrophes of humanity begin.”
A clear European break with Trump is still almost unthinkable: the continent remains deeply dependent on the US for its defense, and most leaders still seek to cooperate and accommodate when possible.
On Wednesday, a Spanish missile battery in Türkiye, as part of a NATO mission, detected a missile that was intercepted. Meanwhile, Meloni said on Thursday that Italy was ready to send defensive aid, including air defense systems, to Gulf countries that request support. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy offered his country’s experience in countering Iranian-designed drones, showing that Kiev can contribute to regional security capabilities.
Transatlantic alliance
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has been a key player in efforts to keep the transatlantic alliance together, cited the incident in Turkey as evidence of European interest in the conflict. Iran was “close to becoming a threat to Europe too”, Rutte told Reuters on Thursday.
Still, the European willingness to automatically align with Trump is waning. The pattern, European officials say, is that Trump obtains concessions and moves on. Then a new crisis emerges — waves of tariffs, demands on Greenland, concessions to Russia, now attacks on Iran — each time with higher stakes. Europe’s initial reluctance to retaliate, starting with tariffs, created a tone of caution that was difficult to shake.
“It’s getting harder for Europe to say ‘yes’ to Trump,” Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, told Bloomberg. “Greenland was a very important dividing point and made Europe realize that it cannot trust America to behave reasonably in relation to European security.”
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz offered a vivid example of European balance. Sitting next to Trump at the White House on Tuesday, Merz remained passive as the American president threatened to “cut off all trade” with Spain — a scene that drew swift criticism in Europe.
Merz also acknowledged the limits of publicly confronting Trump. “I didn’t want to delve into or perhaps even intensify the discussion publicly,” he said.
