The conflict seems to be not only reshaping geopolitical relations in the Middle East, but also accelerating the widening of the rift in Euro-Atlantic relations. What initially appeared as European reticence about a military operation they were not consulted about now appears to be developing into open political and strategic divergence from Washington.
The relationship of the US with its traditional NATO allies is being tested not only by the choices on the field, but also by the rhetoric of the American president.
Washington is pushing
for more than a month, has been escalating his criticism of the Europeans, accusing them of a lack of support and unwillingness to take military risks. In his public interventions, he called them “cowards”, calling on them to “take their own oil” from the .
Recently, according to the Financial Times, he even threatened to end military support to Ukraine in an attempt to pressure European allies into joining a “coalition of the willing” to open the Straits.
At the same time, he brought back—albeit hinted at—the possibility of the US withdrawing from NATO, leaving doubt as to whether Washington will continue to guarantee the security of its allies.
European disobedience
On the other hand, the European response, although careful in wording, proves to be more substantial in terms of actions.
A more recent example of “European disobedience”, as the New York Times describes it, is Austria, which rejected a US request to use its airspace for military flights related to the war against Iran.
“We want nothing to do with Trump’s politics of chaos and his war, which will bring us the next energy crisis,” Austrian Vice Chancellor Andy Bübler wrote in a post. “Neutrality is a valuable asset of our country. Not in war.”
Spain was the first to close its airspace to US military aircraft headed for Israel and involved in the conflict, Italy rejected a request to use a base in Sicily, while France set strict conditions even for non-operational landings. The United Kingdom, although more conciliatory, limited its cooperation to “defensive” missions, having initially refused the use of two of its bases.
These decisions reflect a deeper disagreement over the legitimacy, strategy and consequences of the war. European officials point out that the operation is not authorized by the United Nations, nor does it fall within a clear framework of self-defense — and, crucially, was not consulted within NATO.
This dimension emerges even more strongly in the political positions of top leaders.
Since the beginning of the conflict, the Spanish prime minister has taken one of the clearest and sharpest lines of opposition, rejecting not only military involvement but also the facilitation of the American operation.
Accordingly, French President Emmanuel Macron has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the American stance, abandoning his previously balanced approach to Trump. His public interventions — with spikes for inconsistency, lack of seriousness and undermining of NATO — reflect a broader European malaise that is now being expressed more openly, as the NYTimes notes.
Predictably, both Sanchez and Macron were on the receiving end of aggressive and derisive comments from Trump.
Italy, whose government is considered politically close to the American president, with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni maintaining a close relationship with him, has also chosen to move in line with international law and European balances, without however adopting sharp rhetoric.
Even more cautious countries — such as Poland or the Baltic states — appear reluctant to weaken their defenses in Europe, refusing to move critical systems, such as Patriot arrays, to the Middle East.
Europe’s “line” for Hormuz
The result so far is an image of a Europe that does not openly clash with the United States, but at the same time does not align with — and above all, does not follow.
This differentiation is strongly reflected in the issue of the Straits of Hormuz, a critical energy artery. While Trump is pushing for immediate action, even a military seizure of the crossing, to ensure the smooth flow of energy, the Europeans are insisting on a more restrained, defensive approach, tying any engagement to de-escalation of the conflict.
The initiative of European countries to establish a multinational scheme for the protection of navigation after the end of hostilities is a typical example of this strategic diversification.
