For years, European leaders have listened to complaints from Donald Trump that the continent relies too heavily on the United States for its security. The American president has frequently accused Europe of hiding beneath Washington’s military umbrella while failing to invest enough in its own defense.
Now, as Trump pursues a prolonged military campaign against Iran, the balance of influence is shifting. The Europe leverage in Trump’s Iran war has become increasingly clear, as the United States depends heavily on European territory, logistics and political cooperation to sustain operations in the Middle East.
Despite Trump’s often combative rhetoric toward European allies, Washington still requires their bases, airspace and strategic geography to project military power. That reality has placed European governments in a delicate position as they weigh support for the United States against domestic political pressure and legal concerns about the war.
The tension was evident this week as Trump publicly criticized Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, saying he was “not Winston Churchill.” At the same time, Trump threatened to restrict trade with Spain after Madrid imposed limits on facilitating American military operations targeting Iran.
Yet both leaders resisted the pressure. Their stance illustrates how the Europe leverage in Trump’s Iran war is shaping diplomatic dynamics across the Atlantic.
Trump’s frustration reflects a broader reality. While Europe remains closely tied to Washington through institutions such as NATO, it still holds significant strategic leverage.
American military operations in the Middle East rely heavily on allied infrastructure across the continent. Logistics hubs in Germany, air bases in Britain and naval facilities in Spain provide the backbone for US deployments. Overflight permissions granted by European governments also allow aircraft to move efficiently between regions.
Without that support, the United States would face far greater challenges sustaining operations far from its own territory.
Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund, said the current tensions highlight a growing erosion of trust in transatlantic relations.
“The US is paying a price for not having shown solidarity with allies,” he said. “Strong alliances matter because you never know when you will need them. And right now the United States doesn’t know where this conflict is headed.”
Even as some European governments remain cautious about direct involvement in the war, the conflict is already affecting them.
After a British military facility on Cyprus was struck by a drone attack earlier this week, European countries including France, the UK and Greece moved quickly to strengthen defensive measures around the island.
Cyprus is a member of the European Union and occupies a strategically important position in the eastern Mediterranean. Any escalation in the region risks pulling European states further into the conflict’s security implications.
European territory has long been central to American military strategy in the Middle East and North Africa. Since the end of the Second World War, Washington has relied on bases and logistical infrastructure across the continent to project power into nearby regions.
For example, US forces have historically routed personnel and equipment through the massive airbase at Ramstein in Germany during military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Facilities controlled by the UK in the Indian Ocean have also played a key role in long-distance military operations.
Those same logistical routes are again becoming essential as the United States expands its campaign against Iran.
Trump has therefore placed pressure on several European leaders to ensure continued access to military facilities.
The United Kingdom controls bases such as RAF Fairford, which can host long-range bombers and surveillance aircraft. Spain hosts major naval and air installations in Rota and Morón, which are vital hubs for moving fuel, aircraft and munitions into the Middle East.
In any sustained military operation, the availability of such sites determines how quickly forces can be deployed and how long they can remain in combat.
European officials say the United States also depends on cooperation in intelligence sharing, trade coordination and diplomatic initiatives, including joint efforts related to the war in Ukraine.
This mutual dependence helps explain why both sides often try to stabilize relations behind the scenes even when political disputes flare publicly.
Retired US Army General Ben Hodges, who previously commanded American forces in Europe, has emphasized how crucial allied infrastructure remains.
“You cannot defend America from Fort Bragg or Fort Hood alone,” he said, referring to major US bases in the United States. “We depend on allied bases, and the military understands that very clearly.”
Still, many European governments have shown little enthusiasm for joining Trump’s offensive campaign against Iran.
Part of the hesitation stems from the way the conflict began. European capitals say they were given minimal consultation before the United States launched strikes, leaving them uncertain about the war’s objectives and long-term strategy.
In the early days of the conflict, several governments made clear they would not participate directly in military operations. At the same time, most stopped short of condemning Washington outright, reflecting the delicate balance in transatlantic relations.
While many European leaders share concerns about Iran’s regional influence, they worry about both the legal basis and the strategic consequences of a prolonged war.
Keir Starmer said any British military action would require a clear legal framework and a carefully planned strategy.
Similarly, Emmanuel Macron of France stated that Paris could not support military strikes that lacked a foundation in international law.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni warned that the conflict risks creating a broader “crisis of international law,” a concern echoed by Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada.
The erosion of trust between the United States and Europe has been building since Trump began his second presidential term.
In recent months, Trump has clashed with European governments over issues ranging from tariffs to security disputes. His threats to impose new trade barriers and his controversial remarks about allies have fueled political tensions.
The dispute over Greenland also created friction, as Trump suggested the United States should gain control of the Arctic territory. European leaders interpreted the proposal as a challenge to the established post-war international order.
For European politicians, the political cost of aligning too closely with Trump is growing. Public opinion across the continent remains skeptical of the US president, making cooperation more politically sensitive.
British officials say their approach to the relationship has gradually evolved.
Initially, London attempted to avoid public disagreements with Washington. Over time, however, officials concluded that open criticism was sometimes unavoidable while still maintaining cooperation behind closed doors.
This shift was visible when British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves dismissed the idea that trade negotiations should influence military decisions.
“You can’t decide whether to send armed forces into a conflict based on the possibility of a trade deal,” she said, emphasizing that Britain saw no legal basis for offensive action against Iran.
The same determination has been evident in Madrid.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected Trump’s threats to restrict trade, arguing that Spain would not become “complicit” in a conflict that contradicts its principles and interests.
“The question is not whether we support the ayatollahs,” Sánchez said in a televised speech. “The question is whether we support peace and international legality.”
He compared the situation to the build-up to the Iraq War two decades ago, warning that responding to one violation of international law with another could lead to greater instability.
Despite the tensions, a complete rupture between Europe and the United States remains unlikely.
European countries still depend heavily on Washington for security guarantees, and many leaders prefer to preserve the alliance even while resisting certain policies.
In practical terms, cooperation continues.
Spain recently deployed a missile defense system in Turkey as part of a NATO mission. The system detected a missile launch that was successfully intercepted, demonstrating the alliance’s ongoing military coordination.
Italy has also indicated it could provide defensive assistance to Gulf states threatened by Iranian attacks, including air-defense equipment if requested.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offered his country’s expertise in countering Iranian-designed drones, highlighting how the conflict intersects with broader security challenges.
Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of NATO, warned that Iran’s actions could eventually pose a direct threat to Europe as well.
Nevertheless, European willingness to follow Washington’s lead appears to be weakening.
Officials say many governments believe Trump often accepts concessions from allies only to introduce new demands later. As a result, leaders are becoming more cautious about offering unconditional support.
Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform said a turning point came during the dispute over Greenland, which raised concerns about Washington’s reliability.
“It made Europe realize they cannot always rely on America to behave in a predictable way when it comes to European security,” he said.
The delicate balancing act was illustrated during a recent meeting between Trump and Friedrich Merz, the chancellor of Germany.
While sitting beside the US president at the White House, Merz remained silent as Trump threatened to halt trade with Spain. The moment drew criticism across Europe, where many observers believed the German leader should have spoken out.
Later, Merz explained that he wanted to avoid escalating tensions publicly.
“I did not want to deepen or intensify the discussion in front of the cameras,” he said.
The episode captured the broader reality of the Europe leverage in Trump’s Iran war. European governments remain essential partners for the United States, yet they are increasingly willing to assert their own political boundaries.
As the conflict with Iran continues, the strategic importance of Europe’s territory, logistics and diplomacy will likely remain central to the outcome — and to the future of the transatlantic alliance itself.
