Introduction
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is facing serious challenges regarding its collective defence identity amid the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict and growing US dissatisfaction over its burden-sharing commitments among its allies. While the Russia-Ukraine war resulted in strong unity in the West against Russia in support of Ukraine, US‘s backing for Israel’s actions against Iran has created significant security concerns and intensified calls among European allies for greater strategic and defence independence.
Article 5 of the NATO states that “an armed attack against one member shall be considered an attack against them all”. Formed in 1949, this Collective Defence Alliance was bound to ensure mutual protection among its members “in a spirit of solidarity”. However, the recent escalation in West Asia arising from the Israel-Iran conflict has not only eroded the political foundation of NATO but also shattered its longstanding model of collective security for the protection of Europe. At a time when Europe is already confronting persistent security challenges resulting from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the emergence of another source of friction within the alliance has created significant strategic and political difficulties for collective defence cooperation.
The Iran War and Trump
The United States (US) together with Israeli forces, launched a military attack and a series of strike against Iran on 28 February 2026, killing the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In response, Iran retaliated by striking US military base in the West Asian region, further deepening geopolitical complexities. The situation worsened after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20 percent of global oil supplies pass, heavily impacting economies worldwide. Europe, under the Trump administration faced growing uncertainty because of its actions regarding Greenland, and the Iran war has exposed transatlantic divides. Trump accused European allies of not supporting him in the war and threatened to withdraw US troops from NATO, which would destabilise the alliance. On social media platform, President Donald Trump, said “NATO wasn’t there when we needed them and they won’t be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland, that big, poorly run, piece of ice!!!” calling the alliance “a paper tiger.”
Europeans allies refusal, particularly from Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK, to participate in Trump’s Iranian port blockade, grant access to their airspace and military bases for operation against Iran or participate in efforts to pressure Tehran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz reflects a significant strategic and diplomatic choice. This stance directly translates that the conflict is viewed primarily as an American war rather than a European one especially given the serious economic and security consequences such involvement could impose on Europe. British Prime Minister’s stated that “whatever the pressure, and there’s been some considerable pressure, we’re not getting dragged into the war”. Despite NATO maintaining approximately 80,000 troops across Europe, the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany marked an initial step toward a broader drawdown in Europe and signalled a willingness to risk European security commitments.
Shift in the US Security Posture in Europe
The US move in shifting the geopolitical structure is impacting Europe’s defence and security framework. Europe has long relied heavily on the US, through NATO for hard power, but it is now reconfiguring itself to act more independently, which has led to an increase in defence spending to reduce reliance on the US. The shift has produced a move toward strategic autonomy, with greater investment in building defence capacity to respond effectively. Thus, the Middle East escalation has triggered a transitional shift for Europe to seek strategic liberation from the US, which has long been viewed as a reliable guarantor of Europe’s defence, and to build its own defence industry. EU Defence Commissioner, Andrius Kabilius favoured Europe’s own independent military force, including the creation of an EU army. Previously, in the late January this year, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte remarked that “the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming. You can’t”. This has increased speculation of disintegration within the alliance amid escalating internal divides and external conflicts, prompting called for a new European defence bloc as this shift in the US strategic priorities has suddenly turned Europeans “from a strategic ally into a security burden”.
EU’s Rearmament and Defence Architecture
There is a growing perception in Europe that the EU is incapable of defending itself, which making it increasingly dependent on the US-led security and defence framework to protect its strategic interests. In the current geopolitical complexities, the EU needs a reassessment of its European security strategy. In the midst of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Trump’s threats over Greenland, and pressure on allies regarding support for his attack on Iran, there is a sufficient basis for Europe to move away from American-led collective security. Moreover, NATO’s push to raise defence spending commitments from 2 per cent to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035 has further encouraged the EU to develop independent defence capabilities and strategic autonomy in order to protect its status quo and interests in international politics. For this reason, the EU needs a post-NATO Europe approach to defence and security, because the future of Europe and the reliability of US behaviour remain an open question. Therefore, Europe must not only undergo a systematic transition but also develop readiness to “fight tonight” without the US.
In the redesign of Europe’s defence architecture, the EU remains caught between shared ambitions and Member State control. Although the EU presents itself as a normative actor for peace and security, it often struggles to defend its common foreign, security, and defence interests when Member States prioritise national interests during crises and periods of instability. Through its next-generation defence strategy, “ReArm Europe” 2030, EU seeks to mobilise up to €800 billion in defence investment, strengthen strategic autonomy, and boost Member State spending through a combination of national flexibility, joint procurement, and EU-level financial support, reflecting the Union’s growing role in the defence sector. After the UK’s exit from the EU in 2020 and amid recent friction within NATO, the EU has increasingly relied on France and Germany as its major defence actors for European security, creating a challenge in balancing power among Member States.
Prospect: Not Anymore a Wake-up Call, it’s Time to Act Now
In the changing geopolitical landscape of Europe, shaped by the disruption of the international order, unpredictable US actions, and NATO’s weakening identity, the EU needs a renewed strategic approach to reshape its defence framework. Such an approach is necessary to ensure peace and security internally and maintain stability externally in its neighbourhood, while preserving the coherence of its common foreign, security, and defence policy. The adoption of the Strategic Compass in 2022 after the Russia-Ukraine war reflected a strategic shift from a normative to a realpolitik approach in addressing the crisis, but it also requires more practical action on the ground. Especially in the current geopolitical turmoil, the EU needs a more consistent, coherent, and collaborative approach among its Member States, as well as increased defensive partnerships with its neighbourhood and non-European countries like India, Japan, China, Australia, South Korea, and others, to boost its actorness and its capacity to act autonomously in defending, securing, and protecting its identity and status quo in the global order.
