The United States is considering a range of measures to pressure NATO allies that it believes failed to support U.S. operations during the war with Iran, according to a Reuters report citing a U.S. official familiar with internal discussions.
An internal Pentagon email outlines potential steps, including suspending certain allies from key NATO roles and reassessing broader strategic relationships.
Spain and Alliance Roles in Focus
Among the most notable options discussed is the possibility of targeting countries seen as “difficult,” including Spain.
The email suggests:
- limiting participation in prestigious NATO positions
- signaling dissatisfaction with defense cooperation
- applying political pressure within the alliance
However, NATO’s founding treaty does not include provisions for suspending member states, making such moves largely symbolic but potentially highly damaging politically.
Dispute Over Access and Military Support
At the heart of the tension is disagreement over access, basing, and overflight rights (ABO)—a key requirement for U.S. military operations.
- some allies declined or hesitated to provide access
- others avoided direct involvement in operations
- NATO support fell short of U.S. expectations
U.S. officials view ABO as a baseline obligation within NATO, making the lack of cooperation a major point of contention.
Trump’s Frustration With NATO Allies
Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO allies for failing to support efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz during the conflict.
In previous remarks, Trump even raised the possibility of withdrawing the United States from NATO, reflecting growing frustration within the administration.
Despite this rhetoric, the Pentagon’s internal discussions do not currently include plans to exit the alliance or close U.S. bases in Europe.
Broader Strategic Signals Under Consideration
The Pentagon memo also explores more controversial ideas, including:
- reassessing U.S. diplomatic support for European territorial claims
- reviewing positions on disputed regions such as the Falkland Islands
- applying symbolic pressure to reshape alliance behavior
Such measures would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy and could have long-term implications for transatlantic relations.
European Response: Concern and Pushback
European leaders have expressed concern over the direction of U.S. policy.
Many argue that:
- joining U.S. naval operations against Iran would have meant entering the war
- support should be limited to post-conflict stabilization
- NATO commitments should not be redefined under pressure
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected the idea of punitive measures, emphasizing that Spain remains a “loyal partner” within NATO.
Strains on a 76-Year-Old Alliance
The Iran war has exposed deeper fractures within NATO:
- differing threat perceptions
- varying willingness to engage militarily
- disagreements over burden-sharing
Analysts warn that even symbolic actions could undermine trust within the alliance and weaken its long-term cohesion.
Military and Strategic Context
Pete Hegseth, U.S. Defense Secretary, acknowledged that the conflict has revealed critical gaps in alliance coordination.
He noted that while Iran’s missile capabilities cannot reach the United States directly, they pose a significant threat to Europe—raising questions about shared security responsibilities.
Conclusion: A Turning Point for NATO Relations
The Pentagon’s internal deliberations highlight a growing reality:
the U.S.-NATO relationship is entering a more transactional phase.
While no final decisions have been made, the options under discussion signal increasing pressure on allies to:
- contribute more actively
- align more closely with U.S. operations
- redefine their role in collective defense
As the fallout from the Iran war continues, the future of NATO cohesion may depend on how these tensions are resolved.
