Trump finds he needs Europe now that he’s waging war in Iran

WASHINGTON – For years, Europe has endured US President Donald Trump’s complaints that it is a complacent continent hiding under America’s security umbrella.

Now, as he launches the first open-ended military campaign of his presidency, its leaders find themselves holding something he still needs: their bases, airspace and strategic geography.

Mr Trump this week mocked UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “not Winston Churchill,” and threatened to cut off trade with Spain after the two countries put limits on facilitating US military operations in Iran.

Yet both leaders held their ground.

Deeply unpopular across much of Europe – and facing growing political strain at home – a year into his second term, Mr Trump no longer commands reflexive deference.

Mr Trump’s frustration reflects a basic reality: Europe, though still heavily dependent on the US through institutions like NATO, retains leverage.

America projects power into the Middle East most effectively when it can lean on allied geography – logistics hubs in Germany, air bases in Britain, naval facilities in Spain and the overflight permissions that let aircraft move without friction.

Many European governments remain wary of a rupture.

But Mr Trump didn’t seek to build a coalition for the Iran campaign, yet the war still relies heavily on European territory – its bases, ports and airspace.

As the US leader takes a more interventionist turn, his past scorn for allies is becoming a hurdle. 

“It’s a signal of the erosion of trust – the US is paying a price for not having shown solidarity with allies, and now he can be an inconsistent beneficiary of their support,” said Mr Ian Lesser, distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“The US needs strong allies, you never know when you will need them. And the US doesn’t know where this conflict is headed.”

Despite their reticence, Europe is already being dragged into the war.

After a British base on Cyprus was hit by a drone on March 1, France, Britain and Greece moved to defend the tiny EU member.

That’s because European nations sit astride some of the most valuable real estate available to the US military. 

Since World War II, that presence has allowed Washington to project power into the Middle East and North Africa – routing troops through Ramstein in Germany and the UK’s Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That’s why Mr Trump has pressured some European leaders.

Britain controls facilities such as RAF Fairford; Spain hosts key bases at Rota and Morón.

In a sustained operation, those sites can determine how quickly the US moves aircraft, fuel and munitions into theatre – and how long it can sustain the campaign.

On March 5, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested that initial disagreements with European allies had been overcome and US forces positioned at the bases of allied nations would play a bigger role as the campaign continues.

“It was unfortunate that the Brits didn’t from day one say, ‘Hey, go ahead and have access’ – but we got there,” he said at a press conference.

“The amount of firepower over Iran and over Tehran is about to surge dramatically. And part of it is that we’re going to have even more basing. And it’s not just the UK. We’ve had other friends step up and we’re grateful for that.”

European officials say the US also relies on Europe for intelligence-gathering, trade and coordination over Ukraine.

That mutual dependence helps explain why, even after public flare-ups, officials on both sides work quietly to steady the relationship.

“This is a reminder that you cannot defend America from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, or Fort Hood, Texas,” said Mr Ben Hodges, a former US Army commander for Europe who currently serves as NATO’s senior mentor for logistics.

“We depend on these bases. The Air Force will tell you, of course, they need these things. And the Navy will tell you, of course, they need these things.” 

So far, European nations have balked at participating in Mr Trump’s Iran campaign.

Part of the problem is the way Mr Trump launched the war, making little effort to consult with European capitals.

In the early days, governments have made clear they don’t plan to take part – but many have held back from condemning the strikes outright.

While European officials broadly share Washington’s hostility toward Tehran, they worry not just about how the war started, but how it will end.

Even if Europe isn’t participating in the strikes, officials say a prolonged conflict would pull the continent deeper into the war’s logistics, diplomacy and potential repercussions.

The contrast with previous US wars is stark.

Even when Europe was bitterly divided – as in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq – Washington spent months lobbying allies and building a case for war. 

Legal doubts have also been central.

Mr Starmer said any British action must have “a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan.”

President Emmanuel Macron said France couldn’t approve strikes carried out outside international law.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni warned the war reflects a “crisis of international law,” a view echoed by another NATO ally, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in a speech on the night of March 3.

The erosion of trust, from the European view, began as soon as Mr Trump began his second term, with an assault on the post-WWII order.

Mr Trump has spent months picking fights over Greenland, threatening tariffs and publicly belittling allies like the UK’s contributions to the war in Afghanistan.

For leaders such as Mr Starmer, the lesson has been that charm offensives – even an unprecedented second state visit for Mr Trump – buy only temporary calm. The next disagreement still brings a public slapdown.

In Europe, Mr Trump is deeply unpopular and getting too close is politically risky. His threats are also losing their bite. 

British officials say their approach has evolved.

Early on, they sought to avoid open disagreement. Now, they are less concerned about public rebukes, having concluded that the core of the relationship continues behind the scenes.

That was on display March 3.

Asked whether Britain’s refusal to back offensive strikes could damage trade talks, British Chancellor of Exchequer Rachel Reeves dismissed the premise.

“You can’t make a decision about whether to get British armed forces involved in a conflict because it may or may not make it more likely to get a trade deal,” she told Bloomberg. “We judged that there was not a legal basis for offensive action on Iran.”

All of that has made it easier for Mr Starmer and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to hold their ground.

Mr Starmer has stuck to his line that Britain won’t join offensive strikes, even as Mr Trump ramps up the pressure. 

In Madrid, Mr Sanchez has refused to bend, rejecting Mr Trump’s trade threats and insisting Spain won’t be “complicit” in a war he says runs against Spain’s values and interests. 

“The question is not if we are on the side of the ayatollahs – nobody is. The question is whether we are in favour of peace and international legality,” he said in a televised address on March 4, drawing comparisons to the Iraq War.

“You cannot answer one illegality with another, because that is how the great catastrophes of humanity begin.”

A clear European break with Mr Trump is still almost unthinkable: the continent remains deeply dependent on the US for its defence, and most leaders continue to comply and accommodate where they can.

On March 4, a Spanish missile battery in Turkey as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation deployment detected a missile that was intercepted.

Meanwhile, Ms Meloni said on March 5 that Italy was ready to send defensive aid, including air defences, to Gulf countries that request help.

Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his country’s expertise in countering Iranian-designed drones, showing that Kyiv can contribute to regional security capabilities as well as drawing on them. 

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who has been a key player in efforts to hold the transatlantic alliance together, cited the Turkey incident as evidence of European interest in the conflict.

Iran was “close to becoming a threat to Europe, as well,” Mr Rutte told Reuters on March 5.

Still, European willingness to fall in behind Mr Trump is waning.

The pattern, European officials say, is that Mr Trump pockets concessions and moves on.

A new crisis follows – waves of tariffs, demands for Greenland, concessions to Russia, now strikes on Iran – with higher stakes each time.

Europe’s early reluctance to retaliate, starting with tariffs, set a tone of caution that became difficult to shake, officials say.

“It’s becoming harder for Europe to say ‘Yes’ to Trump,” Mr Charles Grant, director at the Centre for European Reform, told Bloomberg. “Greenland was a very important dividing point and made Europe realise that they cannot rely on America to behave in a reasonable way in relation to European security.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz offered a vivid example of Europe’s balancing act.

Seated beside Mr Trump at the White House on March 3, Mr Merz sat passively as the US president threatened to “cut off all trade” with Spain – optics that drew swift criticism in Europe. 

Mr Merz also acknowledged the limits of public pushback against Mr Trump. “I did not want to deepen or perhaps even intensify the discussion publicly,” he said. BLOOMBERG