European allies are losing hope of keeping America in NATO

THE SUEZ crisis, the Vietnam war, the invasion of Iraq: non-European wars have a way of tearing at the fabric of NATO. America’s month-long bombing of Iran (in partnership with Israel) looks like the worst row yet. Some fear it may lead to a permanent rupture. President Donald Trump has grown increasingly hostile towards European allies, fuming about their refusal to send ships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the reluctance of some to facilitate American operations.

The ceasefire announced on April 7th did not brighten his mood. “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM,” he posted the next day, after receiving Mark Rutte, the alliance’s secretary-general. There was no joint press conference. Mr Rutte later told CNN: “He is clearly disappointed with many NATO allies, and I can see his point.” He claimed there was “widespread support” among allies for degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, noting that many had let America use their bases and were discussing how to help ensure free passage in the strait.

Mr Rutte will have discomfited some Europeans with his praise for Mr Trump (whom he once called “daddy”). But if he could not effect a reconciliation, he may have prevented a quick divorce. Mr Trump did not repeat threats to abandon the alliance, as he had recently hinted.

Long a critic of NATO, Mr Trump has blasted Europeans as cowards. On April 6th he said the rift was caused not by the Iran war but by European resistance to his desire to seize Greenland, a Danish territory: “They don’t want to give it to us. And I said, ‘bye, bye.’” In his latest post, he warned NATO to “remember Greenland”.

Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, was once a staunch defender of NATO. But on March 30th he called it “a one-way street” and said that after the Iran conflict America would “re-examine that relationship”. His shift helped create a funereal mood in Europe. As a senator in 2023, he co-sponsored a law to block a unilateral withdrawal without a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Now he seems to have recanted.

“The last three months have done more damage to NATO than any other three months in the history of the alliance,” says Ivo Daalder, a former American ambassador to NATO. The ceasefire in Iran has forestalled Mr Trump’s threat that “a whole civilisation will die” and may avert more immediate deterioration with Europe, but “the damage has been done.” Indeed, Mr Daalder argues that Europeans’ refusal to facilitate the war undermined pro-NATO Americans who said Europe offers America a launch-pad to project power globally.

Spain has been the most openly confrontational. It barely meets NATO’s old 2% of GDP target for defence spending and rejects the new one of 3.5%. Spain closed its bases and airspace to American forces attacking Iran. Italy, another defence-spending laggard, stopped some American planes from using a base in Sicily. France has sent fighter jets to help the United Arab Emirates shoot down drones, and an aircraft-carrier to help defend Cyprus. Britain, having initially refused to let American forces use its bases, later permitted it, but only to protect neighbouring countries from Iran’s retaliation.

For Kurt Volker, another former American ambassador to NATO, European actions have been “foolish”: “They are responding emotionally against Donald Trump, not rationally.” Mr Volker thinks Congress will block any attempt by Mr Trump to abandon NATO. “It’s a red line for many Republicans—perhaps the only one,” he argues. But Mr Trump need not formally leave the alliance to cripple it: he could withdraw American forces from Europe, or recall its military commander, an American general. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump administration officials were debating a plan to move American troops from European countries deemed unhelpful to more co-operative ones.

On April 8th Sir Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, travelled to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to discuss options to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. His government earlier hosted preparatory meetings by foreign ministers and military officials. The waterway carries about a fifth of global seaborne oil, and similar shares of liquefied natural gas and fertiliser, as well as other commodities. Since the start of the campaign Iran has allowed only a handful of ships to exit, mainly ones carrying its oil or from countries deemed friendly. The current status is uncertain.

Before the ceasefire there were private disagreements, notably between Britain and France, over the conditions for European participation in any naval mission to escort ships through the strait. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, rejected reopening it by force. First there had to be a ceasefire and negotiations for “reassurance missions” to be possible. Those conditions seem to have been met. But diplomats say France had pushed to lead the mission, exclude America and bring in India and perhaps China. Britain had argued that Iran was unlikely to give up trying to control the strait. To protect allied forces, it said America should spearhead the mission.

Even if it gets over the latest row, NATO faces difficult times ahead of its annual summit in Ankara in July. Its best option, says one gloomy Finnish official, would be to redouble efforts to build its European pillar. That might yet convince Mr Trump that allies are willing to take up more of the burden. But more probably, it would start to prepare them for the task of taking over NATO if Mr Trump abandons it. ■