April 2 2026 - 7:00am
Donald Trump declared this week that he was considering pulling the United States out of Nato, which he labeled a “paper tiger”. The comments follow Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning on Tuesday night that “we are going to have to re-examine whether or not this alliance that has served this country well for a while is still serving that purpose,” in response to a perceived lack of European support for the Iran war.
From an American perspective, it’s a legitimate concern. Italy is denying the US use of an air base; France is denying overflight rights; Spain is closing its airspace to American aircraft involved in attacks in Iran; even Poland is refusing US requests. Trump feels especially let down by the UK, the country that is supposed to be his most trusted partner in Europe.
It looks like the Europeans coordinated their response. Maybe they have concluded that appeasement does not work with Trump. They appeased him on trade, and on the Nato defense spending target. Look where it got them. They resisted him over Greenland and, superficially, they appear to have prevailed. To get anywhere, they may have concluded, one needs to confront Trump and then cut a deal.
European leaders may have also concluded that Trump will invariably lose the Iran war, and that it will be a defeat from which he will never recover. In short, they don’t want to be associated with him.
This is a miscalculation. The transatlantic alliance has already been called into question by Trump’s own actions, but it will not recover from Europe’s coordinated refusal to help the US in this war. It is quite possible that EU leaders have concluded the alliance is already irreparably broken, and that there is no need to pretend otherwise. But if that were the case, would we not see a flurry of initiatives for European strategic autonomy — on energy policy, raw materials and defense? Would Europe not start this process before a formal ending of the relationship?
Trump’s latest comments about Nato, as well as his warning to Europeans earlier in the week that the US “won’t be there to help you anymore”, shows how narratives are built. Europe’s sacrifices in Afghanistan count for nothing politically, but the decision to deny access to air bases to help the US in its war against Iran is the story Americans will be telling each other for years. Indeed, they already are.
The US will not formally leave Nato. In any case, this is not necessary for the White House to cause irreparable damage to the alliance. Beyond casting credible doubt about Nato’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, the US President can also refuse to share intelligence with Nato partners — and with Ukraine. Trump can put a halt on weapons deliveries, and restrict the export of security-related technologies like Joe Biden did with China. Unlike China, Europe is not in a position to invent its own digital technologies.
EU leaders don’t seem to have thought through this course of action. At most, they have notational strategies, but there is a total absence of European-wide strategic thinking, especially in matters of security and energy. Had the EU been serious about strategic autonomy, leaders would have pooled their procurement and developed defense strategies which aren’t driven by industrial interests. They would have adopted a common energy policy, and struck diversified strategic partnerships with raw material importers. None of this is possible without a political and fiscal union. And if this is politically unrealistic, then surely it is also unrealistic for the EU to trigger a split in the transatlantic alliance.
This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Eurointelligence newsletter.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe