Iran Conflict Puts Trans-Atlantic Ties to the Test
The NATO summit will force Western leaders to confront an emerging and increasingly unavoidable reality.
By: Antonia Colibasanu
The meeting offers a chance to assess how trans-Atlantic relations are adapting to a U.S. administration whose worldview diverges from that of most of its European allies.
More broadly, it will gauge how united the West still is and whether it can agree on priorities and collective action.
With Europe backing the United States’ weekend strikes on Iran and the Trump administration linking Iran and Ukraine, the future of NATO and the West may hinge on how far Russia is willing to support Iran.
Before Iran, Ukraine
Europe has welcomed Donald Trump’s return to the White House with diplomatic courtesy and skepticism.
European capitals remain committed to cooperation with Washington on shared priorities, such as supporting Ukraine and addressing economic challenges, while hedging against U.S. unpredictability, particularly on trade and defense.
Statements by European leaders signal a recalibration – not a rupture – of the partnership in response to what they see as a more transactional U.S. approach.
At the G7 summit, the U.S. allayed European fears by reaffirming its commitment to a “strong and sovereign Ukraine” and joining calls for Russia to implement an immediate, unconditional ceasefire.
Behind the scenes, however, Trump conveyed ambivalence.
On May 19, he said he would decide “within the next two weeks” whether to continue military aid to Ukraine.
The delay would not only leave space for diplomacy, as Trump said, but it was also meant to help the White House manage a strong bipartisan push in Congress for tougher sanctions on Moscow.
One month later, no decision has come.
In the meantime, however, Trump said Ukraine and Russia might need to “fight for a while” before peace can be brokered.
Then he spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin about Iran and Israel, with Ukraine mentioned only in passing.
Washington has since told its allies that it has greater security priorities in the Indo-Pacific and at its southern border.
Trump shocked fellow leaders at the G7 by calling for Russia’s readmission to the group – effectively seeking to rehabilitate Putin.
(The next day, Russia launched a mass drone attack on Kyiv.)
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who had traveled to Canada for the summit in hopes of meeting with Trump, was rebuffed.
Expecting that Trump would refuse to sign on, officials made no effort to draft a joint statement on Ukraine.
Other G7 leaders met privately with Zelenskyy to offer reassurances.
The outlook for the NATO summit is equally grim.
Though Zelenskyy will attend, he was not invited to the leaders’ session, and according to unnamed NATO diplomats, Ukraine will receive only a brief mention in the summit’s five-paragraph statement.
Washington’s message so far has been clear: The U.S. is stepping back, and Ukraine is increasingly on its own.
The Iran Connection
Several days after the G7, Trump ordered strikes on Iran’s Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan nuclear facilities.
He said the preemptive strikes were necessary to stop Iran from reaching weapons-grade uranium enrichment levels, which intelligence suggested was imminent.
Iran’s foreign minister traveled to Moscow to coordinate a response.
The two countries signed a strategic partnership agreement in January 2025, and although it does not cover military assistance, Tehran was eager to see whether Moscow would offer it military or diplomatic support.
Russia now has a difficult decision to make.
After all, the Trump administration has tied its Ukraine policy to developments in the Middle East in the hopes that a breakthrough – or at least deescalation – with Iran could create space for a strategic shift in Ukraine.
Moreover, the strikes on Iran followed a breakdown in backchannel negotiations in which Trump had previously signaled Putin might serve as a mediator.
European allies, meanwhile, have been troubled by Washington's attempt to link Ukraine and Iran.
This link suggests that Ukraine’s fate may be shaped less by the situation on the battlefield and more by Washington’s broader calculus, which is for them especially concerning given the president’s transactional approach to most global crises.
The situation has tested Europe’s diplomatic resolve.
European governments have had to balance condemning Iran’s nuclear ambitions and defending Israel’s security needs with preventing a military escalation in an already volatile Middle East.
The result has been a mixture of public expressions of support for U.S. and Israeli security concerns, and calls for deescalation and a return to diplomacy.
In the days leading up to the U.S. strikes, Europe made its position clear: all sides should “refrain from taking steps which lead to further escalation” and return to talks, as stated in a joint press release by the top diplomats from France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
The statement reaffirmed Israel’s right to protect its people, warned Iran against withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and urged Tehran to reengage in negotiations.
Following the strikes, European leaders were mostly united in their support of Washington’s decision, revealing only slight divergences.
Germany viewed the strikes as a last resort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz said not taking any action wasn’t an option given clear evidence of the progress in Iran’s nuclear program.
Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul cautioned that the U.S. would defend itself if attacked and urged Iran and others not to draw the region into a wider conflict.
In France, though President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed Israel’s right to security and did not condemn the U.S. strike, he did call for immediate deescalation.
The French government’s official statements have stressed that while Iran’s nuclear program far exceeds what would be necessary for civilian purposes, the solution lies in bringing the country back to the negotiating table.
Behind the scenes, it has reportedly extended an olive branch to Iran (even floating the idea of a new nuclear deal) and has offered to be an intermediary between Washington and Tehran.
The U.K. has publicly aligned closely with the U.S. and Israel but has also urged caution.
The prime minister’s office affirmed Britain’s commitment to Israeli security and noted Iranian provocations, but London has also called on all parties (including the U.S.) to avoid actions that could lead to further escalation.
It has emphasized the economic consequences – specifically on oil prices – of a wider conflict, and thus is pushing for intense diplomatic efforts.
The foreign secretary has reportedly spoken with U.S. and European counterparts to formulate a deescalation plan, which could be presented at the NATO summit.
Italy has also been supportive of Israel but remains focused on the need for regional stability.
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni noted the potential global economic impact of the conflict.
Rome has also called for emergency EU consultations on implications for energy supplies and refugee flows.
The governing coalition, while firmly pro-NATO, knows the Italian public will not support a military intervention abroad.
Meloni thus must walk a fine line between supporting the U.S. and avoiding any direct or indirect military involvement.
Then there’s Brussels.
The EU released a statement expressing concern about the U.S. strikes and pushing for a diplomatic path forward. (Oman and Qatar have been suggested as potential intermediaries.)
It called on Iran to exercise “maximum restraint” and on the U.S. to refrain from additional strikes.
The bloc has also signaled that it would provide humanitarian assistance to the region if needed.
Thus, the EU has publicly maintained a united front, avoiding any outright criticism of Israel or the U.S. and careful not to veer too far from the U.S. line.
While frustration has been simmering over Washington’s limited consultations with European governments before launching the attack, any doubts about the operation have been kept behind closed doors.
The bloc has no desire to clash with Washington over this matter – in contrast to 2003, when most European governments opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Its cautious response is due in part to the growing war fatigue among European electorates, as well as fears about the reactions some Muslim communities in Western countries would have to deeper engagement.
In some ways, however, the European public has been divided over the Iran issue.
In Germany, peace activists and the Green Party have staged small protests in Berlin and Munich calling for “no war with Iran.”
Meanwhile, Iranian diaspora groups in Europe have held rallies thanking Western countries for standing up to the regime in Tehran.
What’s Next
The U.S. and European governments are now bracing for the next steps.
Iranian reprisals are a serious threat, despite Trump’s announcement late Monday of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
European countries have raised the alert levels for military personnel in places like Iraq and Lebanon.
European energy ministers are meeting to discuss contingency plans if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of Europe’s oil imports flow.
All eyes at the NATO summit are on how trans-Atlantic ties will fare in the face of the latest geopolitical test.
Should Russia choose to deepen its support for Iran – diplomatically, economically or militarily – it could signal the emergence of a more active anti-Western axis stretching from Moscow to Tehran.
Such a development would not only complicate Washington’s strategic posture in the Middle East but also force NATO to rethink its eastern and southern threat assessments.
The question now for European allies is how prepared they are to manage the fallout of hostilities between major global adversaries.
The situation has forced Europe into a delicate balancing act.
The EU wants to defend the U.S. strikes but remains deeply aware of the dangers a full-scale war in the Middle East would pose – including energy shocks, refugee flows and spillover of the fighting, potentially onto European soil.
Member states are exploring their options, as they attempt to defend their interests not only through close coordination with Washington but also by expanding their own defense capabilities.
In this evolving context, European strategic autonomy is no longer just a slogan – it is becoming a practical imperative.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario