The Iran War and the Transatlantic Fracture: Will the US-Israeli Campaign Against Iran Permanently Divide the Western Strategic Alliance?

Effina Driss, PhD 

Geopolitical Economist — US-China Rivalry, Power, Trade & Strategic Dominance, Rabat, Morocco

ABSTRACT 

The 2026 Iran war, launched by the United States and Israel on February 28 without prior consultation with European allies, has precipitated the most acute transatlantic crisis since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. European governments, caught between deep strategic reservations about the legality and wisdom of the strikes and structural dependencies on the United States that prevent open opposition, have responded with a pattern of reluctant, fragmented accommodation — condemning Iranian retaliation while avoiding endorsement of the American-Israeli campaign. This article examines whether this crisis represents a permanent structural fracture in the transatlantic alliance or another episode in the recurring history of alliance stress that Western institutions have consistently survived. We identify five dimensions of the current rupture that distinguish it from previous transatlantic crises: the absence of prior consultation; the legal contestation of the strikes by major European governments; the direct economic exposure of European economies through the Hormuz closure; the collision between European strategic autonomy aspirations and structural dependency on US security guarantees; and the 2026 US National Defense Strategy’s explicit subordination of European security to Indo-Pacific priorities. Against these fracturing pressures, we assess three structural factors of alliance resilience: the institutional depth of NATO and the EU-US security architecture; the shared threat environment generated by Russia’s war in Ukraine; and the domestic political constraints that prevent any major European government from engineering a clean break with Washington. We conclude that the transatlantic alliance will not be permanently divided by the Iran war, but that it will be structurally transformed — toward a more contested, conditionally cooperative, and strategically differentiated relationship that will persist long after the immediate crisis is resolved. 

Keywords: transatlantic alliance; Iran war 2026; NATO; European strategic autonomy; US-Europe relations; alliance fracture; European strategic independence; Strait of Hormuz; Trump foreign policy; Western unity. 

I. INTRODUCTION: ‘THIS IS NOT EUROPE’S WAR’ 

When European Commission foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters on March 16, 2026 that ‘this is not Europe’s war, but Europe’s interests are directly at stake,’ she captured with rare precision the structural dilemma confronting the continent.¹ The Iran war launched by the United States and Israel on February 28 — without prior consultation with any European ally, following active negotiations that European diplomats had believed were approaching a breakthrough — has placed Europe in a position it has occupied before but never quite so starkly: deeply implicated in the consequences of an American strategic decision it did not endorse, did not sanction, and was not asked to validate. 

The echoes of 2003 are audible in every European capital. Then-German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer’s famous ‘I am not convinced’ — addressed to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the Munich Security Conference in February 2003 — became the signature phrase of a transatlantic crisis that briefly threatened to fracture the Western alliance over the invasion of Iraq. The alliance survived. But it survived in a diminished form, carrying the scar tissue of that rupture into every subsequent negotiation over burden-sharing, intelligence cooperation, and the conditions under which European governments would support American military action. The question this article addresses is whether the 2026 Iran crisis represents a comparable episode — painful but ultimately absorbed by the institutional resilience of a 77-year-old alliance — or whether it marks a qualitatively different kind of rupture, one whose structural determinants are sufficiently novel to produce lasting, irreversible change. 

The article proceeds in seven sections. Section II documents the anatomy of the European response to the Iran war. Section III identifies the five fracturing pressures that distinguish this crisis from its predecessors. Section IV examines the structural resilience factors that constrain the rupture. Section V maps the internal differentiation within Europe. Section VI assesses the long-term transformation scenarios. Section VII concludes with a verdict on permanence and change. 

II. THE ANATOMY OF EUROPEAN NON-ALIGNMENT 

2.1 The Shock of Non-Consultation 

The speed and scale of the February 28 strikes ‘took most European governments by surprise,’ in the assessment of the Council on Foreign Relations.² This is not a trivial detail. Alliance relationships are built on the premise of strategic coordination — the expectation that partners will be informed of, if not consulted on, major military operations that will affect their interests, expose their assets, and implicate their security commitments. The United States had left its European allies in the dark not only about the Iran strikes but, weeks earlier, about the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. The pattern suggested not merely a one-off lapse in coordination but a deliberate approach to alliance management in which allied input is considered an obstacle rather than an asset. 

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s spokesperson articulated the German position with notable directness: ‘The United States did not consult us before this war, and so we believe this is not a matter for NATO or the German government.’³ This formulation — that the absence of consultation relieves allies of obligation — represents a significant departure from the logic of unconditional alliance solidarity that characterized the immediate post-Cold War period and the post-9/11 commitment of collective defense. It draws a clear line between the type of Alliance commitments that are binding (Article 5 collective defense of member territory) and the type that are discretionary (support for US military operations in third countries). 

2.2 The Pattern of Reluctant Accommodation 

European governments have not, however, simply opposed the war. The pattern of responses reveals what the Center for American Progress aptly described as ‘reluctant alignment’: governments distancing themselves rhetorically from Trump’s escalation while quietly accommodating Washington’s belligerence.⁴ Germany’s Merz, while refusing to endorse the strikes and insisting they were ‘not NATO’s war,’ authorized the use of American bases in Germany to coordinate drone and missile strikes against Iran. Britain’s Starmer initially restricted US use of the Diego Garcia base, then reversed course within 24 hours and authorized US B-1 bombers to operate from RAF Fairford for active operations — a reversal that drew Trump’s public rebuke that it was ‘too little, too late.’ France, while describing the strikes as ‘outside the bounds of international law,’ deployed military assets to defend French interests in Lebanon and the Gulf. 

This pattern of rhetorical distance combined with practical accommodation reflects a structural calculation that dominates European strategic thinking in 2026: the costs of open confrontation with Washington — in terms of trade vulnerability, reduced intelligence sharing, and the risk of diminished security guarantees at a moment of acute Russian threat — exceed the political costs of managing domestic criticism of the war. Spain alone maintained a principled position of refusal: Prime Minister Sánchez rejected US requests to use Spanish bases, provoking Trump’s threat of a ‘full trade embargo on Spain’ — a threat that in turn revealed the coercive character of the alliance relationship in its current form. 

III. FIVE FRACTURING PRESSURES: WHAT MAKES THIS CRISIS DIFFERENT 

3.1 The Consultation Breakdown as a Systemic Signal 

Previous transatlantic crises — over Kosovo in 1999, Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, the 2014 Ukraine response — all occurred within a framework in which allied consultation, however imperfect, remained a procedural norm. The decision to launch Operation Epic Fury without consulting European allies is the latest in a systematic pattern of US unilateralism that began with the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 (without prior European consultation), continued with the Maduro operation in 2026, and has now extended to the most consequential military operation in the Middle East since the Iraq War. When consultation ceases to be a norm and becomes an optional courtesy, the practical machinery of allied coordination is progressively dismantled. Allies who are not consulted cannot prepare; allies who cannot prepare cannot support effectively; allies who cannot support effectively begin to question whether the alliance relationship delivers the strategic reciprocity it formally promises. 

3.2 Legal Contestation by Core Allies 

France’s President Macron described the US-Israeli strikes as ‘outside the bounds of international law’ and called for emergency UN Security Council discussions. Spain’s Prime Minister Sánchez characterized the war as an ‘unjustified and dangerous military intervention.’ These are not peripheral voices; they are major NATO members and founding members of the European Union publicly describing a US military operation as illegal. The legal contestation dimension distinguishes the 2026 crisis from the Iraq precedent in one crucial respect: in 2003, France and Germany opposed the Iraq War as unwise and as requiring Security Council authorization, but they did not describe existing US operations as violations of international law while those operations were actively underway. The 2026 characterization of active US military operations as illegal is a qualitatively more serious rupture in the normative fabric of alliance relations. 

3.3 Direct Economic Exposure Through Hormuz 

Previous US military adventures in the Middle East — Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria interventions — had relatively contained economic consequences for Europe. The 2026 Iran war is fundamentally different because Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has imposed direct, immediate, and severe economic costs on European economies that have no good policy responses available in the short term. Europe’s post-Russian-invasion energy diversification had substantially increased its dependence on Qatari LNG — approximately 80 percent of which reaches European terminals through the Strait. Qatar declared force majeure on all gas contracts on March 4. The Soufan Center’s analysis was blunt: ‘For Europe, a high priority is stabilizing energy prices as soon as possible to avoid economic blowback. This is a pressing imperative since Europe’s phase-out of Russian energy was reliant on other energy sources, including access to Qatari LNG.’⁵ 

The energy shock creates a direct economic incentive for Europe to seek the conflict’s rapid resolution — and makes European governments’ interests objectively divergent from Israeli strategic objectives, which favor a prolonged campaign sufficient to achieve regime change. A war that serves Israel’s maximalist security objectives imposes compounding economic costs on European economies that have no institutional mechanism to influence the campaign’s pace or scope. This asymmetric cost-bearing is a structural grievance that will persist beyond the immediate crisis. 

3.4 The Strategic Autonomy Collision 

European strategic autonomy — the project of developing sufficient independent military and diplomatic capacity to act without US approval when European interests require it — has been a stated EU objective since the 1998 Saint-Malo declaration and has gained renewed urgency under the first and second Trump administrations. The Iran war represents the clearest possible test of this project’s current status, and the results are uncomfortable: despite years of rhetorical commitment to strategic autonomy and despite the EU’s December 2025 agreement to a €90 billion joint debt package for European defense, Europe has demonstrated that it remains structurally unable to either prevent or meaningfully influence US military operations that directly affect European interests. 

The Soufan Center’s analysis identified the contradiction precisely: European states are ‘grappling with projecting greater strategic autonomy without widening the transatlantic rift.’⁶ But these objectives are in structural tension: genuine strategic autonomy means the capacity to diverge from US preferences when European interests require, which necessarily implies the risk of widening the rift. A strategic autonomy that is permanently conditional on American approval is not autonomy at all. 

3.5 The 2026 US National Defense Strategy: Europe as a Secondary Theater 

The most structurally significant long-term fracturing pressure is not the Iran war itself but the context in which it has occurred: the January 2026 US National Defense Strategy (NDS), which explicitly subordinates European security to Indo-Pacific priorities. The European Policy Centre’s analysis is unambiguous: the 2026 NDS ‘ends the era of automatic American primacy’ in Europe, describes European allies as ‘rich, capable and therefore responsible for managing the Russian threat themselves,’ and makes clear that ‘US support remains, but it is selective, incentivised, and contingent on performance rather than promises.’⁷ The NDS’s new 5 percent of GDP defense spending benchmark — far above NATO’s existing 2 percent target, which most members still fail to meet — formalizes a conditionality in the security relationship that was previously implicit. Europe is now on notice: its security is no longer guaranteed by US commitment alone; it is contingent on European performance. 

The combination of the 2026 NDS’s relegation of European security to second-tier status and the Iran war’s demonstration that the US is prepared to take major military actions that impose severe economic costs on Europe without consultation or compensation creates a new strategic reality: the transatlantic alliance remains institutionally intact but has been functionally transformed into a conditional relationship whose terms are set unilaterally in Washington. 

IV. STRUCTURAL RESILIENCE FACTORS: WHY PERMANENT RUPTURE IS UNLIKELY 

4.1 The Institutional Architecture of the Alliance 

The transatlantic alliance is not merely a political relationship between governments; it is a dense institutional architecture built over 77 years that would be extraordinarily costly to dismantle even if all parties wished to do so. NATO’s integrated command structure, the European-American intelligence-sharing networks (particularly the Five Eyes), the co-development and interoperability of weapons systems, the deployment of US forces on European soil — these institutional interconnections create dependencies of a different order than political alignment. A European government that wished to ‘break with the alliance’ would face the practical reality that its own armed forces are structurally dependent on US equipment, logistics, and intelligence that cannot be replaced on any realistic timeline. 

This institutional depth is a conservative force in crisis management: it prevents dramatic breaks even when political relationships are severely strained. France withdrew from NATO’s integrated military command structure in 1966 under de Gaulle — an act of dramatic political assertion — yet remained within the alliance’s political structure and was reintegrated in 2009. The institutional depth that makes the alliance difficult to reform is also what makes it difficult to destroy. 

4.2 The Russian Threat as Alliance Cement 

The single most powerful structural argument against permanent transatlantic fracture is Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. For the European states most acutely exposed to Russian military threat — Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Finland, Sweden — the US security guarantee remains existential in a way that makes any scenario of deliberate alliance rupture unthinkable. The Soufan Center’s analysis noted that ‘the perceived lack of US protection for Gulf states may spill over into Europe’s own defense and deterrence considerations’ — suggesting that US unreliability in one theater raises questions about US reliability in others.⁸ But this dynamic cuts both ways: the greater the perceived US unreliability, the greater the European incentive to maintain the alliance relationship rather than risk losing access to the nuclear deterrent and conventional forces that provide the ultimate backstop against Russian escalation. 

The ECFR’s Julien Barnes-Dacey identified the key emerging tension: ‘Western ammunition stocks and missile interceptors are being depleted in the Middle East, while the surge in energy prices — and the Trump administration’s temporary sanctions waiver on seaborne Russian oil — has thrown a lifeline to Russia’s economy. The fact that Trump is not focused on Ukraine and is giving Russia sanctions waivers increasingly weakens the argument that aligning with Trump is a pathway towards securing European interests in Ukraine.’⁹ This analysis suggests a paradox: the very behavior that is fracturing the alliance is simultaneously demonstrating why the alliance cannot simply be abandoned. 

4.3 Economic and Political Dependency as Structural Constraints 

Beyond the security dimension, European governments face structural economic and political constraints on the degree to which they can diverge from US preferences. The Center for American Progress analysis identifies the mechanism clearly: ‘Governments seek to placate Trump today in order to preserve the economic and security relationships that remain critical to their countries tomorrow.’¹⁰ For Germany, whose export-dependent economy remains deeply integrated with US markets and whose defense remains structurally reliant on American technology, an open breach with Washington would carry costs that no German government could sustain. For the United Kingdom, the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ — encompassing intelligence sharing, nuclear cooperation, and the broader defense-industrial partnership — represents a dependency that Starmer cannot simply renounce, whatever the domestic political costs of accommodation. 

V. THE INTERNAL DIFFERENTIATION OF EUROPE 

5.1 The Eastern Flank: Atlanticist Solidarity 

European responses to the Iran war are not uniform, and the internal differentiation within Europe is itself a structural feature of the transatlantic relationship’s evolution. The Eastern flank states — Poland, the Baltic republics, Romania, and others — whose security calculus is dominated by the Russian threat have maintained the most explicitly pro-US postures. Lithuania signaled it could back military operations if asked. The Czech Republic’s Prime Minister declared that Iran’s nuclear program and ‘support for terrorism’ posed a danger to the Czech Republic and to all of Europe, placing the country squarely behind the US-Israeli position. Albania emerged as ‘one of the most outspoken supporters of the US-Israeli military action,’ reflecting its longstanding alignment with Washington and its strained relations with Tehran.¹¹ This Eastern flank solidarity reflects the geographic and historical logic of states that experience the transatlantic alliance primarily through the prism of the Russian threat — for whom US reliability in the Middle East is a signal about US reliability in Europe itself. 

5.2 The Western Core: Tactical Distance, Structural Compliance 

France, Germany, Spain, and Italy — the largest Western European economies — have maintained what might be called ‘tactical distance, structural compliance’: public reservations about the war’s legality and wisdom, combined with practical accommodation of US operational requirements. France deployed military assets in Lebanon while describing the strikes as outside international law. Germany refused to characterize the war as NATO’s business while authorizing US bases on German soil for active operations against Iran. Italy avoided direct involvement while deploying antimissile systems to Gulf partners. This pattern reveals a Western European strategic calculus that is simultaneously principled and pragmatic — maintaining the rhetorical position that the war is illegal and unwise while ensuring that the structural relationship with Washington is not irreparably damaged. 

5.3 The Far Right’s Internal Fracture 

The Iran war has exposed a previously underappreciated division within Europe’s far-right political landscape. In one camp, Atlanticist conservatives — Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, Spain’s Vox, Hungary’s Fidesz, Poland’s Law and Justice — have supported the war in the frame of the ‘free world against Islamism.’ In another camp, sovereigntist conservatives — France’s National Rally, Germany’s AfD, Belgium’s Vlaams Belang — have criticized the strikes as contrary to national interests and international law. Al Jazeera’s analysis noted that ‘this division between geopolitical visions’ reveals one Atlanticist and pro-Israeli branch in liberal conservatism and one ‘sovereignist and anti-Zionist’ branch in traditionalist conservatism.¹² This internal fracture within the European right is significant: it means that even within the political forces most sympathetic to Trump, the Iran war has generated divisions that complicate any straightforward narrative of European right-wing Atlanticist solidarity. 

VI. SCENARIOS FOR TRANSATLANTIC TRANSFORMATION 

Scenario A: Managed Estrangement 

The most probable trajectory is what might be termed ‘managed estrangement’: a transatlantic relationship that maintains its institutional architecture while progressively diverging in strategic culture, political values, and operational practice. In this scenario, NATO survives the Iran war as a legal and military structure; European defense spending increases under the mandate of the 2026 NDS; and Europe develops greater independent capacity for operations in its own neighborhood (North Africa, the Sahel, the Levant) while increasingly declining to provide blanket endorsement for US operations outside the NATO treaty area. This represents a functional division of strategic labor — the US managing the Indo-Pacific and Middle East with selective European support; Europe managing its neighborhood with declining dependence on US leadership. This scenario is stable in the medium term but erodes the shared strategic culture that has historically given the alliance its political cohesion. 

Scenario B: Catalytic Renovation 

A second scenario envisions the Iran crisis as catalytic — the shock that finally drives Europeans to build the defense capacity and diplomatic infrastructure that strategic autonomy requires. In this scenario, the €90 billion joint defense package of December 2025 is the beginning rather than the ceiling; European states reach the 5 percent NDS benchmark through genuine capability development rather than accounting adjustments; and the EU develops an independent diplomatic track for Middle Eastern engagement. The Atlantic Council notes that Germany has attempted to bridge the divide by shifting the debate toward what follows, urging coordination with Washington and European partners on the day after.13 If this forward-looking framing succeeds in generating genuine European agency in post-conflict reconstruction, the crisis could paradoxically strengthen European strategic coherence. 

Scenario C: Fragmented Drift 

The most dangerous scenario is fragmented drift: the progressive erosion of transatlantic strategic coherence without any compensating development of European independent capacity. In this scenario, individual European states pursue bilateral accommodations with Washington that reflect their particular dependencies and vulnerabilities — Germany protecting its economic relationship, Britain protecting its intelligence partnership, Eastern states protecting their security guarantees — while European collective institutions become progressively irrelevant to the actual conduct of Western security policy. This is the scenario that Russia and China have the greatest interest in accelerating. The Greenland tariffs, the Spain trade embargo threat, the UK base access dispute — all of these are instruments of a bilateral coercion that is most effective when it can be applied to individual European states rather than to a unified European response. 

VII. CONCLUSION: PERMANENT DIVISION OR STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION? 

The answer to the question posed in this article’s title — will the Iran war permanently divide the US-Europe strategic alliance? — is: no, but the relationship it produces will be fundamentally different from the one that preceded it. The structural resilience factors are real: institutional depth, the Russian threat, economic interdependence, and the absence of any viable European alternative to the US security umbrella all constrain the degree of rupture that European governments can realistically engineer or sustain. The alliance will survive the Iran crisis as it survived the Suez crisis of 1956, the disputes over Euromissiles in the 1980s, and the Iraq rupture of 2003. 

But survival is not the same as continuity. Each of these previous crises left permanent scar tissue — changes in alliance practice, political culture, and mutual expectations that persisted long after the immediate crisis was resolved. The 2026 Iran war will leave comparable marks. The normalization of US unilateralism in major military operations will force European governments to develop independent crisis management capacities they have hitherto been able to defer. The legal contestation of US operations by core allies will establish a precedent that makes blanket European endorsement of future American military action increasingly politically untenable. The direct economic exposure through the Hormuz closure will generate institutional demand for European mechanisms capable of securing energy supply chains independently of US strategic decisions. 

The most precise formulation is this: the transatlantic alliance is not being permanently divided; it is being structurally transformed from a hierarchical relationship, in which US strategic primacy was accepted by European partners in exchange for security guarantees and diplomatic leadership, into a more contested, conditionally cooperative, and strategically differentiated relationship in which European strategic autonomy — long aspirational — becomes operationally necessary. This transformation may ultimately produce a more durable alliance, one whose European pillar is sufficiently robust to survive the variability of American electoral politics. But it is a more costly, more contentious, and more uncertain partnership than the post-Cold War transatlantic relationship that the 2026 Iran war has definitively brought to an end. 

The Iran war will not permanently divide the West. But it will permanently change what ‘the West’ means — transforming it from a US-led alliance system with European junior partners into something more contested, more conditional, and more genuinely multipolar within its own institutional framework. Whether that transformation is ultimately productive or destructive depends less on the Iran war’s outcome than on the strategic choices European governments make in its aftermath. 

NOTES 

¹ Kaja Kallas, EU foreign policy chief, press statement, Brussels, March 16, 2026; Time, ‘Countries Respond as Trump Threatens Very Bad Future for NATO,’ March 16, 2026. 

² Matthias Matthijs, ‘Europe’s Disjointed Response to the War With Iran,’ Council on Foreign Relations, March 6, 2026. 

³ Stefan Kornelius, spokesperson for Chancellor Merz, press briefing, Berlin, March 16, 2026; quoted in Fortune, Al Jazeera, and multiple wire services. 

⁴ Center for American Progress, ‘Iran Spotlights How Trump Is Fracturing the Transatlantic Alliance,’ March 13, 2026. 

⁵ The Soufan Center, ‘The Iran War Serves as a Stress Test for European Strategic Autonomy,’ March 10, 2026. 

⁶ Ibid. 

⁷ European Policy Centre, ‘America’s New Defence Strategy and Europe’s Moment of Truth,’ March 2026; US Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy 2026, January 2026. 

⁸ The Soufan Center, ‘Iran War Stress Test,’ March 10, 2026. 

⁹ Julien Barnes-Dacey, ECFR Middle East and North Africa Program, quoted in CNN, March 16, 2026. 

¹⁰ Center for American Progress, ‘Iran Spotlights How Trump Is Fracturing the Transatlantic Alliance,’ March 13, 2026. 

¹¹ Wikipedia, ‘Reactions to the 2026 Iran War,’ updated March 17, 2026; Al Jazeera, ‘Albania emerges as one of the most outspoken supporters of the US-Israeli military action,’ March 2026. 

¹² Al Jazeera, ‘Europe’s Hard Right Fractures Over US-Israel War on Iran,’ March 11, 2026. 

¹³ Atlantic Council, ‘Experts React: How the World Is Responding to the US-Israeli War with Iran,’ March 3, 2026. 

REFERENCES 

Al Jazeera. ‘European Leaders Reject Military Involvement in Strait of Hormuz.’ March 16, 2026. 

Al Jazeera. ‘Europe’s Hard Right Fractures Over US-Israel War on Iran.’ March 11, 2026. 

Atlantic Council. ‘Experts React: How the World Is Responding to the US-Israeli War with Iran.’ March 3, 2026. 

Center for American Progress. ‘Iran Spotlights How Trump Is Fracturing the Transatlantic Alliance.’ March 13, 2026. 

CNN. ‘US Allies Balk at Trump’s Appeal to Help Secure Strait of Hormuz.’ March 16, 2026. 

Council on Foreign Relations. ‘Europe’s Disjointed Response to the War With Iran.’ Matthias Matthijs. March 6, 2026. 

European Policy Centre. ‘America’s New Defence Strategy and Europe’s Moment of Truth.’ March 2026. 

Fortune. ‘The Iran War Is Not NATO’s War: EU Allies Demand Clarity from Trump.’ March 16, 2026. 

Gavin, Francis J. ‘History, Security Studies, and the July Crisis.’ Journal of Strategic Studies 33, no. 4 (2010): 607–620. 

Howorth, Jolyon. Security and Defence Policy in the European Union. 3rd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. 

Kupchan, Charles A. The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Knopf, 2002. 

Matthijs, Matthijs and Kathleen McNamara. The Future of the Euro. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. 

NATO. ‘2026 National Defense Strategy Summary.’ Brussels: NATO Secretariat, March 2026. 

Ringsmose, Jens and Mark Webber. ‘NATO After Afghanistan.’ Journal of Strategic Studies (2025). 

The Soufan Center. ‘The Iran War Serves as a Stress Test for European Strategic Autonomy.’ March 10, 2026. 

Time Magazine. ‘Countries Respond as Trump Threatens Very Bad Future for NATO Amid Strait of Hormuz Fallout.’ March 16, 2026. 

Tocci, Nathalie and Matthias Matthijs. ‘How Europe Lost.’ Foreign Affairs, 2026. 

Trends Research & Advisory. ‘Trump and the Transatlantic Alliance: Greenland, Tariffs, and NATO Under Strain.’ February 2026. 

US Department of Defense. ‘National Defense Strategy 2026.’ Washington, DC: DoD, January 2026. 

Wikipedia. ‘Reactions to the 2026 Iran War.’ Last modified March 17, 2026.