The war in Iran forces all actors to lower their flags and show where their loyalty lies. While European leaders reserve themselves and draw boundaries, both Donald Trump and NATO’s Secretary General remind us of an uncomfortable reality: Europe cannot defend itself without the USA. The question is whether the USA will always defend Europe.
«We have never gotten anything out of NATO. It is always a one-way street.»
That was what President Donald Trump said at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, according to several international media. In interviews in the same period he followed this up by questioning whether the alliance would in fact come to the USA’s assistance if the situation were such.
The statements were met with rolling eyes in Brussels and indignation in European editorial offices. Once again, Trump was portrayed in the media as ignorant of the alliance’s significance and potentially the failing party when it comes to it.
But then came the test.
Immediately after the war in Iran broke out, Starmer’s Labour government refused the USA permission to carry out attacks from bases such as Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford. Like Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, the British referred to international law. According to Reuters, Starmer made it clear that British bases can be used for «defensive strikes» against Iranian missiles, but that the United Kingdom does not take part in offensive operations.
Principles and far-reaching visions notwithstanding: Already on Sunday Starmer made a U-turn, without this seeming to impress the Americans. «Too little and too late», thought the critics. Shortly after Starmer gave the USA permission to use the bases, an Iranian Shahed one-way attack drone struck the British RAF Akrotiri base on Cyprus.
On 27 January, NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte stood before EU parliamentarians and said it outright, as NPR quoted him:
«If anyone here thinks that the EU or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the USA, then just keep on dreaming. You can’t.»
Keep on dreaming. You can’t. It is difficult to formulate Europe’s dependence more clearly. Rutte is fully aware of the realities, and expressed them clearly and plainly, even though he knows it irritates NATO members. Europe has no real military capacity for action without the USA.
Nevertheless, the same Rutte today brought another indisputable clarification: NATO will not assist in the Iran war.
«There are absolutely no plans for NATO to be drawn into this or to be a part of it, beyond the fact that certain member countries are doing what they can to facilitate what the Americans are doing together with Israel.»
That is in itself a legitimate assessment. NATO is a defensive alliance. But seen in the light of the Davos statements, a mismatch arises that is difficult to overlook. European leaders reacted strongly when Trump in Davos said that the USA «never got anything» back from NATO. But when a concrete conflict arises, European governments immediately draw up national reservations. Defensive yes. Offensive no. Limited access. Political clarifications. Reservations. The alliance is political, not mechanical.
Thus the USA and Israel go into the heat of battle together. In a major war in the Middle East, without their European allies. And American voters follow attentively who pays, who bears the burden, and who withdraws when it really matters.
At a press briefing from the Pentagon, formulated the USA’s war minister Pete Hegseth himself as follows:
«Capable partners are good partners unlike some of our traditional allies who ring their hands and clutch their pearls».
Traditional allies who display a theatrical combination of paralysis, dismay, and moral indignation. No one is in any doubt whom Hegseth was aiming at. One wonders what the war veteran feels about his Norwegian ancestry these days.
NATO’s Article 5 is the cornerstone of the defence alliance and states that an armed attack against a member state is considered an attack against all. The treaty is clear. On Saturday, Iran bombed the American Al Udeid base (Abu Nakhlah Airport). What would have happened if the USA had used Article Five to call for help from European allies?
It is difficult to predict. Meanwhile, Europe has lived with the threat of an impending war against Russia. How realistic this scenario is is, of course, one of many questions to which we do not know the answer. Another question is whether Europe at all is equipped for this war – or any other war, for that matter. Rutte has already answered this. Now it is time for Europe to ask itself a third question, and think thoroughly about the answer:
How confident should Europeans be with regard to American support in a future direct confrontation with Russia?