NATO's Absence: Trump's Iran War Exposes the Fracturing West

Middle East - Ekhbary News Agency

NATO's Absence: Trump's Iran War Exposes the Fracturing West

The United States has initiated military action against Iran, a conflict being waged primarily with Israel's backing but notably devoid of any direct European participation. This development is historically significant, representing the first major war in decades where the US is acting without substantial European involvement. Unlike previous interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or the coalition against the Islamic State, which either saw NATO leadership or individual European state participation, a new strategic paradigm appears to be emerging.

The shift is starkly illustrated by the United Kingdom, a nation historically proud of its "special relationship" with America. Even the controversial Iraq War in 2003 saw British participation. Now, the UK government initially denied the US access to its bases for operations against Iran. While Prime Minister Starmer eventually granted permission, this decision does little to alter the broader picture: America is embarking on another war in the critical Middle East region, this time with Israel, but not with Europe – and this conflict is unfolding on Europe's doorstep.

Some analysts attempt to put a positive spin on these events, suggesting that the debate over US base usage in Europe demonstrates Trump's need for allies. They point to the fact that President Trump even requested assistance from Ukraine, a country he has treated with ambivalence, in defending against drone attacks in the Gulf. However, this interpretation is misleading. Trump initiated this conflict without consulting European partners, and America has proven it can proceed unilaterally. The "America First" doctrine has, in practice, evolved into "America Alone," at least concerning transatlantic relations. The concept of a shared Western project, particularly one grounded in international law, appears to be dissolving.

This situation creates a paradoxical scenario where some European nations, notably France, are attempting to shield their regional partners from the consequences of a potential American war against Iran. Furthermore, the conflict could inadvertently benefit Russian President Putin, who faces pressure in Ukraine, by driving up oil prices and bolstering Russia's budget. The risk of a new refugee crisis for Europe is also considerable, a lesson learned from recent conflicts in the Islamic world. On the geopolitical upside, the threat posed by Iran's nuclear and missile programs might be reduced, an outcome of significant relevance to European security.

Weighing these factors, it is highly improbable that any European nation would have opted for military intervention in Iran. The continent can ill afford the economic stimulus for Russia or the potential for renewed instability and civil conflict in its neighborhood. While President Trump may have been driven into this conflict by personal vanity or the influence of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the situation reflects a harsh strategic reality: American and European interests are no longer aligned, neither in the Middle East nor globally.

A counterargument might be that their interests were never perfectly aligned. Historically, this is true. However, even during the Cold War, disputes across the Atlantic were largely about the means, not the end. The overarching goal – containing the Soviet Union – was clear. Such a unifying objective is absent today; Trump seems more inclined to strike deals with Putin's Russia. While the threat of jihadism has been curtailed, it remains potent enough to endanger both America and Europe, but apparently not sufficiently to invigorate the NATO alliance.

The question of NATO's continued relevance was posed long before Trump, even after the Cold War. Efforts were made to define it culturally, as a community of liberal democracies committed to defending their values globally. This very foundation is now crumbling. Trump's America holds significantly more right-wing ideological positions than Europe, despite Europe's own rising right-wing populist movements. When consensus breaks down on fundamental issues like freedom of speech, gender equality, or societal composition, the ability to jointly defend shared values is severely compromised.

During the Biden administration, European policymakers explored establishing a new purpose for transatlantic relations in Asia. Tentative military engagements were intended to signal support for the US strategy of containing China, though the practical implications in a potential conflict over Taiwan remained ambiguous. Trump, however, shows little interest in this, just as he disregarded Europe's stance on Iran. Honesty dictates acknowledging that Europe can pursue its own interests in Asia, primarily economic ones, but NATO cannot be the vehicle for its security ambitions there.

The US President has hinted at a plan to conclude the Iran conflict, suggesting the military is ahead of schedule. However, his messaging remains contradictory. Meanwhile, Europe's populist right is divided on the Iran war; few openly endorse it, yet they are reluctant to criticize Trump. European states are presenting themselves as mere observers of the US-Israeli war, but they will inevitably bear the consequences should Iran collapse.

Ekhbary News Agency