Trump’s Lonely War

What It Covers

NYT correspondent Mark Landler analyzes why all European allies have refused to join the US-Iran war that began February 28, examining the diplomatic breakdown across NATO, the Strait of Hormuz blockade cutting off one-fifth of Europe's oil supply, and whether the transatlantic alliance can survive the rupture.

Key Questions Answered

• •Alliance fracture scale: Mark Landler rates US-European tension at 8-9 out of 10, the highest in recent history. This is the first time the US has gone to war with zero European participation. Understanding this baseline matters for interpreting every subsequent diplomatic signal — European restraint is not ambivalence but a deliberate, coordinated refusal.
• •NATO Article 5 misapplication: Trump invokes NATO solidarity to demand European military support, but Article 5 only obligates members to respond when another member is attacked. Since the US launched the first strikes against Iran, European leaders have legal and historical grounds to refuse — a distinction that defines the entire diplomatic standoff.
• •European leverage shift via Supreme Court: The Supreme Court ruled many Trump tariffs illegal, removing one of his two primary pressure tools against Europe. With tariff threats weakened and Ukraine aid as the remaining leverage, European leaders are calculating they have more room to resist Trump's demands than at any prior point in his presidency.
• •Strait of Hormuz military reality: European navies possess minesweepers and frigates capable of escorting oil tankers through the strait, but deploying them during active conflict exposes ships to Iranian drones and short-range missiles. European leaders assess the operational risk as too high mid-war, leaving post-conflict escort missions as their most viable contribution.
• •Historical precedent — Suez 1956: NATO has never required unanimous participation in every military operation. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the US actively opposed a British-French-Israeli military operation, establishing the precedent that alliance members can reject another member's military campaign without violating NATO obligations — directly undermining Trump's argument.