NATO leaves Trump alone: ​​How does Europe’s rejection limit US options in Hormuz?

On Tuesday, trump He published a message on the Truth Social platform where he criticized his partners. “The majority of our NATO ‘allies’ have informed us that they do not want to be involved in our military operation against the terrorist regime of Iran.”he stated.

SEE ALSO: The Sejil missile and Iran’s most powerful weapons: which ones has it used and which ones not in the war against the US and Israel?

“Given the fact that we have had so much military success, We no longer ‘need’ or want help from NATO countries: WE NEVER NEED IT!”, Trump added.

trump went further and maintained that “The same goes for Japan, Australia or South Korea. In fact, speaking as president of the United States of America, by far the most powerful country (…), WE DON’T NEED ANYONE’S HELP!”he concluded.

It all started on the weekend, when Trump requested, in a tone of pressure, that NATO countries send warships to operate in the area. They had to escort oil tankers and commercial vessels to ensure safe transit. That would be one US-led international naval coalition to unlock the Strait of Hormuz.

If the allies do not help, NATO will face a “Very bad future,” Trump warned.

He even mentioned the use of minesweeper ships and special forces to neutralize Iranian threats.

trump He also insisted that countries that depend on the crude oil that passes through Hormuzboth from Europe and Asia, must actively contribute to protecting the route. He mentioned nations like the United Kingdom, France, Japan, South Korea and even China.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz after the United States and Israel started a war against it on February 28. That day, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in a bombing in Tehran.

Through the Strait of Hormuz, the 20% of the world’s oilso its closure is generating a global energy crisis and a rise in the crude oil barrelwhich exceeded $100.

“NATO is not at war”

However, the main European powers They refused to send ships or military forces to the strait Hormuz and refused to be part of the coalition proposed by trump.

Even German government spokesman Stefan Kornelius went so far as to say on Monday that Israel and the United States’ war against Iran “has nothing to do with NATO.”

“NATO is an alliance for the defense of the territory of its members and, in the current situation, there is no mandate to deploy NATO”he declared.

Later, trump responded and criticized the countries for their lukewarm response to his call.

“We have been protecting them for 40 years and they do not want to get involved”he declared. “We strongly encourage other nations to join us, and to do so quickly and with great enthusiasm,” he added.

Besides, Trump said he hopes France and the United Kingdom will help in the mission.

But this Tuesday, the French president, Emmanuel Macronresponded and said that France will not participate in the operations.

“We are not part of the conflict and therefore France will never participate in operations to open or liberate the Strait of Hormuz in the current context”Macron declared.

NATO’s reasons

For the international analyst Francesco Tucciprofessor of Political Science and International Relations at the Peruvian University of Applied Sciences (UPC), the rejection of the allies of the NATO It responds to a combination of strategic caution, economic costs and fundamental differences on how to confront Iran. In his opinion, This refusal not only limits Washington’s margin of action, but also exposes a structural fracture within the Atlantic alliance.

According to Tucci, European countries consider that the conflict “is not theirs” and that escapes NATO’s defensive mandate, Therefore, they refuse to get involved in an operation that could escalate into a major confrontation.

Added to this is the fear of economic impact of a prolonged crisis in the Gulf. In this context, Tucci maintains, Powers like Germany insist that the Alliance is not designed for offensive operations, as unease grows over Trump’s unilateral approach and his previous questioning of European partners.

The refusal also reflects, the analyst warns, a deeper strategic divergence. While the United States prioritizes the military neutralization of Iran – including its missile capacity, its nuclear program and its network of regional allies – Europe bets on diplomacy and containment to avoid a larger scale conflict. This difference translates into a more cautious Europe, that seeks to preserve its internal stability, avoid massive flows of refugees and reduce the risk of collateral or terrorist attackscompared to countries more aligned with Washington, such as Poland or the Baltics, which maintain a tougher stance.

For his part, the international journalist and analyst Carlos Novoa indicates to this newspaper thatNATO allies avoid getting involved not only out of strategic calculation, but also because of the high human and political cost that direct intervention would imply. In his opinion, the main European powers seek to stay out of a war that they perceive as being initiated unilaterally by the United States.

Novoa warns that The memory of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to weigh on Europe. Countries like the United Kingdom and Spain—which accompanied Washington in those campaigns— Years later, they faced attacks in cities such as London and Madrid, with a high cost in civilian lives..

““This precedent explains why today they do not want to expose themselves to reprisals again or assume human losses in a conflict of this nature.”he points out.

In this context, the request for trump collides with a refusal based both on internal security and on the refusal to escalate militarily.

The options left for Trump

In this scenario, Trump’s options are reduced, says Tucci. Without NATO backing, the United States could opt for more unilateral actions—such as air and naval strikes against Iranian capabilities in the area—or try to form an ad hoc coalition outside the Alliance, although with uncertain support.

“Another route is to form a non-NATO coalition — with limited interest from Japan and Australia, and vague allusions by Trump to ‘numerous countries.’ Additional options include coercive diplomacy or a limited ground operation, although the latter would be highly risky and it is sought to be avoided so far“, precise.

For Novoa, the refusal of the NATO leaves Washington with a narrower margin of action and reinforces the idea that the most viable solution is through negotiation. “Trump has opted for pressure and the threat of the use of force, but the situation in Hormuz shows that Iran still retains the capacity to maneuver”he points out, remembering that Tehran maintains certain commercial flows, such as shipments to China.

The analyst considers that An eventual exit channel could involve key players such as China.in a scenario where neither party has clear incentives to prolong the war. While Iran seeks to show resistance without ceding internal power, it also faces damage to its military infrastructure; The United States, for its part, is dealing with the economic impact and international pressure.

Can Hormuz decide the war?

For Tucci, the decisive factor of the war may lie precisely in Hormuz. The closure of the strait not only affects the global energy flow, but also becomes a powerful pressure tool by Tehran.

“If it lasts more than 30 days, it would aggravate the internal Iranian crisis, but would allow Tehran to sustain an asymmetric warraising costs for the US, Israel and allies, and pushing towards a negotiated end to the conflict”explains Tucci.

Novoa maintains that The Strait of Hormuz has established itself as a critical point in the conflict. Its closure has raised oil prices and generated tensions in the economies of the Persian Gulf, highly dependent on energy exports. Countries like Qatar or the United Arab Emirates are beginning to feel the effects of the disruption, which increases pressure on Washington and its regional allies, he describes.

For Novoa, this economic factor could be decisive. “The development of the war can be defined by internal pressure in the United States and in the Gulf countries, which are already facing an export crisis,” explains. If the price of crude oil continues to rise—with significant increases over pre-conflict levels—the global impact could accelerate a negotiated outcome. In that scenario, Hormuz is not only a strategic geographical point, but a lever capable of tilting the course of the warhe concludes.