...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
For decades NATO has been defined by a single principle: collective defense. An attack on one member is supposed to trigger a response from all. But as the conflict with Iran escalates, President Donald Trump appears increasingly skeptical that the alliance will fully back the United States when war breaks out.
In recent weeks, Trump has been mocked with the label "TACO"—short for "Trump Always Chickens Out." But as the war with Iran escalates and NATO allies hesitate to join the fight, while administration figures also argue European allies should stand up to Russia more aggressively, Trump could easily flip the acronym back on the alliance itself: "NACO"—NATO Always Chickens Out.
The phrase captures a frustration Trump has voiced for years. During his first presidency he repeatedly accused European allies of relying too heavily on American military power while failing to contribute enough themselves. His complaints often focused on defense spending, but the deeper issue was political will. He questioned whether NATO countries would actually fight alongside the United States in a major conflict.
Read More on Analysis
The war with Iran is now putting that question to the test.
What Have NATO Countries Done So Far?
So far, NATO countries have largely limited their involvement to defensive support rather than joining the U.S.-led war against Iran. Britain has reinforced air defenses and deployed aircraft to help intercept Iranian drones and protect bases in Cyprus. NATO surveillance and missile-defense systems in the eastern Mediterranean have been used to track and intercept threats approaching allied airspace, including missiles headed toward Turkey. A French facility in Abu Dhabi has been targeted, and a base hosting Italian troops in Kuwait has been hit.
European governments have also increased naval patrols and intelligence sharing to protect shipping routes and regional bases hosting Western troops. In short, NATO allies are helping police the skies and defend installations against Iranian retaliation, while stopping short of participating in offensive operations against Iran.
Reluctant Allies Versus Israel
Since the United States and Israel began striking Iran, the conflict has widened rapidly—and NATO countries are finding themselves pulled in whether they want to be or not.
The result is a growing group of reluctant allies. Countries that insist they are not part of the war are already helping defend against its consequences and the political calculation is increasingly difficult.
Refusing Washington risks a rupture with Trump. Supporting the effort more openly, however, could spark domestic backlash from voters wary of another Middle East war.
"Allies are in a position where they can’t support it and they can’t not support it," Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations told Bloomberg. "They hate it, but they can’t not support it because the United States is too wound up in their defense and the Iranian regime is too odious."
The contrast with Israel is stark. Israel is fully committed to the fight with Iran, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has spelled out the contrast between Israel and what he described as America's hesitant allies.
"Israel has clear missions as well, for which we are grateful. Capable partners, as we've said since the beginning. Capable partners are good partners, unlike so many of our traditional allies, who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force," Hegseth said.
'No To War'
Spain has emerged as one of the most outspoken European critics of the expanding war with Iran, prompting an angry response from Trump. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez delivered a televised address rejecting the war and defending Spain’s refusal to allow the United States to use joint military bases at Morón and Rota for strikes against Iran. Sánchez framed the stance as part of a broader commitment to international law, declaring the Spanish government’s position simply: "No to war."
Trump reacted angrily, threatening sweeping economic retaliation.
"Spain has been terrible," the president said during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, warning that Washington could impose a full trade embargo. "We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain."
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Berlin "will not join a war against Iran" and instead intends to focus on diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict.
France has taken a similarly cautious approach, even as it strengthens its military posture. President Emmanuel Macron has ordered France’s nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean and deployed Rafale fighter jets, air-defense systems and airborne radar assets to the Middle East. But he paired the move with caution. Reflecting France’s traditional emphasis on a rules-based international order, Macron said France "cannot approve" of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran because they were carried out outside the framework of international law.
Together, the responses highlight Europe’s balancing act: reinforcing security and protecting regional interests while resisting deeper involvement in the conflict itself.
Britain in Line of Fire
Britain has found itself directly in the line of fire as the war with Iran escalates. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is attempting to balance alliance commitments with domestic caution about another Middle East war.
A British Royal Air Force base in Cyprus was struck by an Iranian drone, prompting the U.K. to reinforce air defenses and deploy fighter jets to protect installations and help intercept incoming threats. British forces have also assisted in monitoring and defending regional airspace as Iranian missiles and drones target facilities linked to U.S. operations.
The situation puts Starmer under pressure from Washington. Trump has repeatedly urged allies to show greater resolve against Iran, and angrily said of Starmer that he is "no Winston Churchill."
Britain’s response reflects the broader NATO dilemma—helping defend allied assets and territory while stopping short of fully joining Trump’s offensive campaign against Tehran.
Trump Demands More From NATO
Trump has been demanding far more from NATO allies across three fronts: Iran, Russia and defense spending. As the war with Iran escalates, Trump has pressed European partners to move beyond defensive support and back the U.S. campaign more openly, criticizing governments that hesitate to join strikes or allow bases to be used for operations.
At the same time, Trump has continued to pressure allies over the war in Ukraine, urging them to shoulder more of the burden in confronting Russia while maintaining sanctions and military support for Kyiv.
And for many years, Trump has pushed NATO countries to dramatically increase defense spending, raising the target from the long-standing 2 percent of GDP to 5 percent, arguing that the United States has carried too much of the alliance’s security burden for too long.
The Iran war may ultimately force a reckoning over Trump’s long-running doubts about NATO. For now, allies are helping defend bases, intercept missiles and contain the fallout of the conflict, while carefully avoiding full participation in the war itself. That middle ground may be sustainable in the short term.
But if Iranian retaliation intensifies or the conflict widens further, NATO governments could face a starker choice between deeper military involvement and an open break with Washington. The longer the war drags on, the harder it may become to maintain the current balance, leaving Trump to argue that the alliance still struggles with the question that has long defined his view of it: whether NATO truly fights together when it matters most.
Hey gang, Carlo Versano here. I hope you enjoyed this article. As Newsweek's Director of Politics and Culture and editor of the 1600 newsletter, I'm keen to hear what you think. Now, Newsweek is offering a new service to allow you to communicate directly with me in the form of a text message chat. You can sign up and get a direct line to me, as well as the reporters who work for me. You can shape our coverage.
As a Newsweek member, we're offering this service to you for free. You can sign up below, or read more about how it works here. Let's talk!
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines