Europe’s Refusal to Fight Trump and Netanyahu’s war: NATO in Crisis

By Elijah J. Magnier –

The war in Iran has exposed one of the deepest fractures in transatlantic relations in decades. What began as a joint military campaign led by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu has quickly turned into a geopolitical standoff between the United States and its European allies. At the centre of this divide is a simple but consequential reality: Europe has largely refused to participate in the war.

This refusal is not just about military hesitation. It reflects deeper disagreements over legality, strategy, economic risk, and the future of global alliances. As tensions have escalated, Trump has gone further, openly threatening to withdraw the United States from NATO, raising questions about the future of the Western security order. He expresses his ‘disgust’ with NATO and is ‘absolutely’ considering withdrawing the US from the alliance.

A war with Arab Consensus but Without European Backing

Donald Trump has openly framed the war as a full-scale regional operation, making clear that the United States is drawing on its entire network of military bases across the Middle East to sustain strikes on Iran. With assets spread across the Gulf and beyond, this is not a limited campaign but a coordinated use of long-established U.S. military infrastructure in the region, enabling continuous and wide-ranging attacks on Iranian targets. 

At the same time, Benjamin Netanyahu—who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for war crimes—has claimed that Israel is operating with quiet political backing in the region. He has pointed to ongoing contact and alignment with Arab leaders, not only over confronting Iran but also over expanding ties with Israel itself. 

What is striking is the absence of direct public pushback. Not a single major Middle Eastern government has clearly and explicitly denied these claims. In a region where official statements are often carefully calibrated, that silence matters. It suggests a space filled with ambiguity: part caution, part strategic calculation, and possibly, in some cases, quiet alignment.

That silence does not automatically confirm agreement or disagreement. It may reflect the difficult position many governments find themselves in, balancing domestic opinion, regional tensions, and their relationships with both Washington and Israel. But it does underline a key point. The war is not unfolding in a vacuum. It is happening within a regional environment where opposition is muted, responses are measured, and clear lines are deliberately avoided.