Maximus
A commentary on Europe’s nest of intrigue, denied overflight rights, and the end of a one-way alliance
Opinion Article | kriegsberichterstattung.com
April 2, 2026
When Donald Trump called NATO a „paper tiger“ and openly contemplated US withdrawal, the outcry was enormous. European politicians spoke of „irresponsible rhetoric“ and „an attack on the transatlantic partnership.“ Yet what happened in the weeks that followed confirmed Trump’s thesis more convincingly than any speech: European NATO allies denied the USA overflight rights, closed military bases, and rejected any support in the Iran conflict—while simultaneously expecting America to defend them in any crisis.
What is unfolding in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris since the Iran war is no mere diplomatic misunderstanding. It is a nest of intrigue—a web of scheming, double standards, and strategic betrayal, in which every actor pursues its own agenda and transatlantic solidarity exists only as a rhetorical shell. The European capitals conduct foreign policy intrigues at the expense of the one power that has guaranteed their security for eight decades.
This commentary poses a question that no European capital wants to hear: Why should the USA remain in NATO at all?
1. The Iran War as a Moment of Truth
On February 28, 2026, the USA and Israel began military operations against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.[1] One can debate the wisdom of this war. What cannot be disputed: when Washington asked its European allies for support—not troops, not combat operations, but simple logistics like overflight rights and base access—the answer from nearly all of them was: No.
Spain (NATO + EU) not only prohibited the use of jointly operated military bases Rota and Morón near Cádiz and Seville, but closed its entire airspace for all flights related to the Iran conflict.[2] Trump subsequently threatened to sever all trade relations with Spain.
Italy (NATO + EU) denied US bombers landing rights at the Sigonella air base in Sicily. Flight plans had been submitted while the aircraft were already in the air—Italy’s military rejected them.[3] Defense Minister Guido Crosetto personally took responsibility for the decision.
France (NATO + EU) denied Israeli aircraft carrying American military cargo overflight rights.[4] France’s Vice-Defense Minister (Ministre déléguée) Alice Rufo declared that a NATO operation in the Strait of Hormuz would „not respect international law.“
Germany (NATO + EU)—Europe’s largest economy and supposedly closest US ally—rejected any participation in a naval mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz. Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated explicitly: „We will not participate in the military securing of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.“[5]
Austria (EU, not NATO) denied overflight rights citing its constitutional neutrality.[6] Switzerland (neither NATO nor EU) rejected 7 of 11 US overflight requests—also invoking neutrality laws.[7]
Greece (NATO + EU), the United Kingdom (NATO, not EU), and Poland (NATO + EU) initially rejected the deployment of warships to the Strait of Hormuz.[8] The UK later initiated its own 40-nation coalition under Prime Minister Starmer—but the initial refusal to Washington remains documented.
To be clear: Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz affects 20% of global oil trade. Energy prices in Europe rose by up to 60%.[9] And yet: initially, not a single European warship.
2. Who Rules the Refusers? A Political Assessment
The refusal stance of European states is no accident—it reflects the political composition of their governments. The following table shows who leads these countries, their governments‘ political orientation—and whether they are NATO and/or EU members.
| Country | Head of Government | Coalition / Party | Political Direction | NATO | EU |
| Spain | Pedro Sánchez | PSOE + Sumar | Center-Left | Yes | Yes |
| Italy | Giorgia Meloni | FdI + Lega + FI | Center-Right | Yes | Yes |
| France | Pres. Macron | Renaissance + LR | Center / Center-R. | Yes | Yes |
| Germany | Friedrich Merz | CDU/CSU + SPD | Right-Left | Yes | Yes |
| Austria | Christian Stocker | OVP + SPO + NEOS | Center to C.-L. | No | Yes |
| Switzerland | Federal Council (Coll.) | Magic Formula (4 Parties) | Consensus | No | No |
| Greece | K. Mitsotakis | New Democracy | Center-Right | Yes | Yes |
| Poland | Donald Tusk | KO + PL2050 + PSL + NL | Center to C.-L. | Yes | Yes |
| UK | Keir Starmer | Labour (Single) | Center-Left | Yes | No |
[10][11][12][13][14]
Striking: the refusal cuts across the entire political spectrum. Meloni’s right-wing government in Italy refused just as much as Sánchez’s left-wing government in Spain. Macron’s centrist government in France just as much as Starmer’s Labour in London. The anti-US stance in the Iran conflict is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing phenomenon—it is a European consensus.
Remarkable: seven of the nine refusers are NATO members. Eight of nine are EU members or closely associated with the EU (Switzerland). The alliance was not sabotaged by outsiders, but by its own core members.
What is visible here is not mere disagreement—it is a nest of intrigue of continental proportions. Each country has its own excuse, its own moral disguise for what is essentially always the same thing: the refusal to stand by the ally who has guaranteed its security since 1945. Spain invokes pacifism, Austria invokes neutrality, France invokes international law, Germany says „this is not our war.“ But the result is identical for all: America stands alone.
Particularly insidious is the timing coordination. The refusals did not happen by chance—they came within days of each other, as if Europe’s capitals had coordinated. What was presented to the outside as independent national decisions bore the fingerprints of collective diplomatic betrayal. The nest of intrigue functions: countries do not openly conspire, but they pursue the same strategy in tacit agreement—maximum distance from America alongside maximum dependence on America’s security guarantees.
3. Historical Ingratitude: What America Sacrificed for Europe
The disloyalty of European allies weighs particularly heavily when one considers what the USA sacrificed for these countries in the twentieth century.
| Country | WWI: US Contribution | WWII: US Contribution | Marshall Plan (1948–52) |
| France | AEF 1917–18: ~53,400 US combat deaths, mostly on French soil | D-Day 1944: ~73,000 US soldiers deployed; ~29,000 US killed in Normandy campaign | $2.30 billion (≈$29.7 billion today) |
| Italy | Allied (Entente) | US invasions Sicily/Salerno/Anzio 1943–45; over 23,000 US killed | $1.20 billion (≈$15.5 billion today) |
| Germany | Enemy nation | Enemy nation—but: USA financed reconstruction, Berlin Airlift 1948/49 | $1.45 billion (≈$18.8 billion today) |
| UK | US entry 1917 saved Western Front; ~53,400 US combat deaths (WWI total) | Lend-Lease: $31.4 billion to UK; joint Normandy invasion | $3.19 billion (≈$41.2 billion today) |
| Greece | No direct US role | Truman Doctrine 1947: $400 million against communist takeover | $366 million (≈$4.7 billion today) |
| Poland | Wilson demanded Polish independence (14 Points) | Polish government-in-exile supported by USA; annexed by Stalin after 1945 | No Marshall Plan (Eastern Bloc) |
| Austria | Enemy nation (Austria-Hungary) | Liberated by US troops 1945; State Treaty 1955 via US diplomacy | $488 million (≈$6.3 billion today) |
| Spain | Neutral | Neutral (Franco)—but: US economic aid from 1953, base agreement | No Marshall Plan (Franco dictatorship) |
| Switzerland | Neutral | Neutral—economically benefited from US postwar order | No Marshall Plan (self-financed) |
Marshall Plan: Purchasing Power Conversion to Today’s Dollars
| Country | Nominal (1948–52) | Share of Plan | In 2025 Dollars | Inflation Factor |
| UK | $3.19 billion | 24.0% | $41.2 billion | ×12.93 |
| France | $2.30 billion | 20.4% | $29.7 billion | ×12.93 |
| Italy | $1.20 billion | 11.4% | $15.5 billion | ×12.93 |
| West Germany | $1.45 billion | 10.5% | $18.8 billion | ×12.93 |
| Austria | $488 million | 5.1% | $6.3 billion | ×12.93 |
| Greece | $366 million | 5.3% | $4.7 billion | ×12.93 |
| TOTAL (17 countries) | $13.3 billion | 100% | $171.9 billion | ×12.93 |
[15][16][17][18][20]
Methodology for Purchasing Power Conversion: The conversion to today’s dollars is based on the US Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The average CPI for 1948–1952 is 24.9 (base year 1983=100). The CPI for 2025 is 321.9. This yields: Inflation factor = 321.9 ÷ 24.9 = 12.93. Thus each dollar from 1950 equals $12.93 in 2025.[19]
The numbers speak for themselves: over 116,000 American soldiers died in World War I, over 250,000 on the European theater of World War II. The Marshall Plan pumped over $13.3 billion (inflation-adjusted $171.9 billion in 2025 dollars) into European reconstruction.[16] Without the USA, the Federal Republic of Germany would not exist. Without the USA, France might still be occupied. Without the Truman Doctrine, Greece would have become communist.
And the answer of these countries when America asked for simple overflight rights? No.
4. The One-Way Street: America Pays, Europe Profits
The transatlantic alliance has always been an asymmetrical relationship. But the asymmetry has reached a level that is no longer sustainable.
The USA spends over 900 billion dollars annually on defense—more than the next ten countries combined.[20] European NATO’s total budget is approximately 482 billion dollars.[21] But the combined economies of Europe generate over 17 trillion dollars in GDP.[22] It is not a lack of money. It is a lack of political will.
Only in 2025—eleven years after the Wales Summit of 2014—did all 32 NATO members reach the 2% target for the first time.[23][24] And even that is a sleight of hand: 16 members spend between 2.0% and 2.1%—barely above the threshold.[25]
Germany’s 2.4% was achieved only through a one-time special fund of 100 billion euros—not a sustainable budget, but a flash in the pan.[26] The new NATO target from the Hague Summit (June 2025) is 5% by 2035 (3.5% core defense + 1.5% security). Europe took 20 years to reach 2%. How is it supposed to reach 5% in 10 years?
5. Europe’s Political Culture: Peace Dividend as Dogma
In much of Western Europe, increased military spending is considered politically toxic. Peace policy is understood as moral superiority, while military strength is denigrated as „militaristic.“
In Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, fewer than one-third of the population is willing to defend their country militarily.[27][28] In Spain, there is a deeply rooted aversion to military operations. France’s left-wing parties—La France Insoumise and the Communist Party—openly demand NATO withdrawal.[29]
The result: an alliance in which the American taxpayer finances the security of peoples unwilling to defend themselves. While Poland spends 4.48% of its GDP on defense and the Baltic states consistently rearm,[25] many Western Europeans view military strength as provocation.
6. Regulation as a Weapon: The EU Against American Companies
The EU has developed an entire arsenal of regulatory instruments targeting American technology companies. GDPR, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the AI Act disproportionately burden US tech firms.[30]
Fines against US technology companies totaled $6.7 billion in 2024—nearly one-fifth of total EU tariff revenues, compared to 6% in 2023.[30] This is effectively a tariff system under the guise of consumer protection.
Simultaneously, the EU enacted a „Blocking Statute“ in 2018 explicitly designed to protect European companies from the effects of American Iran sanctions[31]—a direct sabotage of American foreign policy by the supposed ally.
Add to this retaliatory tariffs on American goods in response to steel tariffs.[32] Allies? That sounds like a trade war.
We must be clear about this: The EU operates a regulatory nest of intrigue against American economic interests. While Brussels speaks of transatlantic partnership on Sundays, it sends the next billion-dollar fine wave against Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon on Mondays. While European politicians beg Washington for military protection, their own authorities systematically undermine the economic foundation of the power that provides that protection.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking: Europe benefits from the American security umbrella, from the dollar as global currency, from the freedom of the seas guaranteed by the US Navy—and repays this with fines, trade tariffs, and sabotage of American sanctions policy. This is not partnership. This is parasitism with a diplomatic wrapper.
7. The Strait of Hormuz: Europe’s Cowardice in Focus
Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz—the lifeline of global energy trade. Through this waterway flows 21 million barrels of oil daily. Iran demands transit fees up to 2 million dollars per ship.[9]
Europe, which massively benefits from free oil trade, initially refused any military participation in opening the passage.[8] Germany’s argument: „This is not our war.“[5] France’s argument: A NATO operation there would violate international law.[4]
Secretary of State Marco Rubio hit the nail on the head: NATO had become „a one-way street in which America defends Europe—but when we need the help of our allies, they deny us basing rights and overflight rights.“[33]
8. Europe’s Web of Intrigue: Complete Overview
| Country | NATO | EU | Action Against USA (2026) | Government | Direction |
| Spain | Yes | Yes | Bases closed, airspace shut | Sánchez | Left |
| Italy | Yes | Yes | Sigonella denied, bombers rejected | Meloni | Right |
| France | Yes | Yes | Overflight denied, Hormuz rejected | Macron | Center |
| Germany | Yes | Yes | Hormuz mission rejected | Merz | Right-Left |
| Austria | No | Yes | Overflight denied | Stocker | C.-L. |
| Switzerland | No | No | 7/11 overflights denied | Federal Council | Cons. |
| Greece | Yes | Yes | Hormuz coalition rejected | Mitsotakis | C.-R. |
| Poland | Yes | Yes | Patriot deployment rejected | Tusk | C.-L. |
| UK | Yes | No | Hormuz coalition initially rejected* | Starmer | Left |
* The United Kingdom later initiated its own 40-nation coalition under Starmer.
The pattern is consistent across all political leanings: whether left-wing, right-wing, or centrist government—when Washington calls, Europe hangs up.
9. Article 5: The Empty Promise
NATO lives by Article 5: an attack on one is an attack on all. But what happens if „all“ decides it has no interest in helping?
The collective defense clause has been invoked exactly once in NATO history: on September 12, 2001, after the September 11 attacks. European contributions to the Afghanistan mission were modest—with national caveats that often reduced the operational value of troops to zero.[34]
If European nations balk at even logistical support—overflight rights, base access—how credible is the promise to deploy troops when push comes to shove?
10. Europe’s Military Bankruptcy
Even if Europe wanted to help—it could not:
Zero strategic bombers. Not a single European NATO country possesses strategic bombers.[35][36]
No hypersonic weapons. No program, no prototype, no timeline.[37]
Ammunition shortages. Russia produces 4.2 million artillery shells per year. All of NATO produces approximately 3 million.[38][39]
Operational readiness. The Bundeswehr reports 76% average operational readiness; for the NH90 helicopter, it is 20%.[40]
Belgium’s military has fewer tanks than the Berlin police has water cannons. The Netherlands scrapped its entire tank fleet.[41]
11. Strategic Pivot to Asia: Europe Is No Longer Relevant
China’s rise to military superpower status is the central security challenge of the 21st century. China maintains 2.04 million active personnel, nearly 7,000 battle tanks, roughly 3,000 combat aircraft, three aircraft carriers, and a growing hypersonic arsenal.[35] Every dollar the USA ties up in Europe is unavailable in the Indo-Pacific.
The 2025 National Security Strategy no longer treats Europe as a strategic priority but in transactional terms.[42] The logical consequence: the USA must extricate itself from European commitments.
12. Conclusion: It Is Time to Leave
NATO was founded in 1949 to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has not existed for 35 years. What remains is an alliance in which the USA bears the main burden while Europe cashes in the peace dividend and turns its back on America when needed.
The 2026 Iran war has permanently shattered the facade. Not a single European NATO country was willing to provide the USA even logistical support. No overflight rights. No bases. No ships. No solidarity.
The same countries for which over 250,000 American soldiers died in two world wars. The same countries that received over $13 billion in Marshall Plan aid. The same countries that today live under America’s nuclear shield.
The USA should leave NATO. Not out of spite, not out of isolation, but out of rational calculation:
First: European allies have proven they are unwilling to help when it matters. An alliance without reciprocity is not an alliance.
Second: The USA needs its resources in the Indo-Pacific, where the actual strategic threat lies.
Third: NATO withdrawal would force Europe to finally take responsibility for its own security—which would be in Europe’s long-term interest as well.
Fourth: Those who deny their allies overflight rights, use EU regulation as a trade weapon, and sabotage Iran sanctions are no longer allies.
Fifth: The European nest of intrigue has reached a scale that destroys all good faith. Brussels intrigues against Washington while simultaneously claiming Washington’s protection. Berlin preaches multilateralism and means: America must pay but have no say. Paris conducts great power politics backed by American security guarantees while simultaneously obstructing American interests. No alliance functions this way. This is exploitation.
The truth is uncomfortable, but clear: Europe has transformed NATO into a self-service store where America stocks the shelves and Europe takes the goods without paying. The European elites conduct a diplomatic nest of intrigue that mocks the sacrifices of American soldiers, taxpayers, and families. They take for granted the security America provides—and forget that 366,000 young Americans lie buried on European battlefields.
„They were not there for us,“ Trump said.[43] He is right. And the consequence must be: The USA has been there for Europe long enough. It is time to turn away from this nest of intrigue. Let Europe see how it fares without America’s shield.
Endnotes & Sources
[1] NBC News / Al Jazeera – USA and Israel begin military operations against Iran, February 28, 2026. nbcnews.com / aljazeera.com → Source
[2] Euronews / Washington Times / Military.com – Spain closes airspace for US military flights in Iran conflict; bases Rota and Morón closed. Foreign Minister Albares: „Spain should do nothing to escalate the conflict.“ euronews.com / washingtontimes.com / military.com → Source
[3] Newsweek / Defense News / Washington Post – Italy denies US military aircraft access to Sigonella base in Sicily. Defense Minister Crosetto responsible. newsweek.com / defensenews.com / washingtonpost.com → Source
[4] Anadolu Agency / Al-Monitor / Xinhua – France denies overflight rights; Ministre déléguée Alice Rufo: NATO operation in Strait of Hormuz would „not respect international law.“ aa.com.tr / al-monitor.com / xinhua.net → Source
[5] gCaptain / Middle East Eye / Daily Sabah – Merz: „We will not participate in the military securing of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.“ gcaptain.com / middleeasteye.net / dailysabah.com → Source
[6] Euronews / Newsweek / Anadolu Agency – Austria denies US overflight rights citing neutrality law. Colonel Michael Bauer: „Any request involving a belligerent nation is rejected.“ euronews.com / newsweek.com / aa.com.tr → Source
[7] swissinfo.ch / Blue News – Switzerland rejects 7 of 11 US overflight requests (March 5–23, 2026), approves 4, withdraws 1. Neutrality law. swissinfo.ch / bluewin.ch → Source
[8] Al Jazeera / Middle East Eye – UK, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Poland initially reject naval coalition for Strait of Hormuz. Later: UK initiative for 40-nation coalition under Starmer. aljazeera.com / middleeasteye.net → Source
[9] CNN / Bloomberg – Iran blocks Strait of Hormuz: oil prices surge up to 60%; Brent price highest monthly increase since 1980s. Iran demands up to $2 million transit fee. cnn.com / bloomberg.com → Source
[10] Wikipedia / Euronews – Spain: PSOE (Center-Left) + Sumar (Left) under Pedro Sánchez. euronews.com → Source
[11] Wikipedia / Euronews – Italy: Fratelli d’Italia + Lega + Forza Italia (Center-Right) under Giorgia Meloni. euronews.com → Source
[12] Euronews / Al Jazeera – Austria: OVP + SPO + NEOS (Center/Center-Left) under Chancellor Christian Stocker (since March 2025). euronews.com / aljazeera.com → Source
[13] Wikipedia / Bloomberg / New Statesman – UK: Labour single government (Center-Left) under Keir Starmer. bloomberg.com → Source
[14] Wikipedia / GreekReporter – Greece: New Democracy (Center-Right) under Kyriakos Mitsotakis. greekreporter.com → Source
[15] National WWII Museum / US Dept. of Defense / Library of Congress – US casualty figures: 53,402 combat deaths + 63,114 other deaths = ~116,500 (WWI); ~250,000 on European theater (WWII); ~29,000 US killed in Normandy campaign alone. nationalww2museum.org / loc.gov / britannica.com → Source
[16] Statista / US National Archives – Marshall Plan 1948–1952: $13.3 billion to 17 European countries. UK: $3.19 billion (24%), France: $2.30 billion (20.4%), Italy: $1.20 billion (11.4%), West Germany: $1.45 billion (10.5%), Greece: $366 million (5.3%), Austria: $488 million (5.1%). statista.com / archives.gov → Source
[17] US State Department / Britannica – Truman Doctrine 1947: $400 million emergency aid to Greece and Turkey against communist expansion. history.state.gov / britannica.com → Source
[18] Britannica / HISTORY – D-Day June 6, 1944: 73,000 US soldiers land in Normandy. Berlin Airlift 1948/49: 2.3 million tons of supplies. britannica.com / history.com → Source
[19] Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis / US Bureau of Labor Statistics – Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), all items: CPI average 1948–1952 = 24.9; CPI 2025 = 321.9; Inflation factor = 12.93. minneapolisfed.org / bls.gov → Source
[20] SIPRI Military Expenditure Database 2025 – USA defense budget >$900 billion. sipri.org → Source
[21] NATO – Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries 2014–2025: European NATO budget ~$482 billion. nato.int → Source
[22] SIPRI MILEX 2025 – Combined GDP of European NATO states >$17 trillion. sipri.org → Source
[23] NATO – Wales Summit Declaration (2014): Defence Investment Pledge (2% of GDP). nato.int → Source
[24] NATO / Euractiv – For the first time in 2025, all 32 NATO members meet the 2% target. nato.int / euractiv.com → Source
[25] ICDS / Atlantic Council – 16 NATO members spend between 2.0% and 2.1%; Poland 4.48%, Lithuania 4%, Latvia 3.73%. icds.ee / atlanticcouncil.org → Source
[26] Atlantic Council – Germany’s 2.4% achieved via 100 billion euro special fund. atlanticcouncil.org → Source
[27] Gallup World Poll / WIN International – Willingness to fight: Western Europe <30%, Eastern Europe >60%; Germany 18%. gallup-international.com → Source
[28] WIN/Gallup International – Global Survey: Willingness to Fight (2023–2024). gallup.com → Source
[29] Pew Research Center 2024 – 54% of French view NATO positively; LFI and PCF demand NATO withdrawal. pewresearch.org → Source
[30] ITIF – EU Regulatory Actions Against US Tech Companies Are a De Facto Tariff System (April 2025): Fines 2024 = $6.7 billion = ~1/5 of EU tariff revenues (vs. 6% in 2023). itif.org → Source
[31] EU Commission / EEAS – EU Blocking Statute protecting European companies from effects of US Iran sanctions, in force since August 7, 2018. ec.europa.eu / eeas.europa.eu → Source
[32] EU Commission / European Parliament – EU retaliatory tariffs on US steel and aluminum. europarl.europa.eu → Source
[33] Euronews / Brussels Signal / Newsweek – Rubio: „NATO is a one-way street in which America defends Europe—but when we need the help of our allies, they deny us basing rights and overflight rights.“ euronews.com / brusselssignal.eu → Source
[34] IISS – The Military Balance 2025: Afghanistan mission with national caveats (caveats). iiss.org → Source
[35] Global Firepower Index 2025 – Military strength rankings: China 2.04 million personnel, ~6,800 MBTs, ~2,989 combat aircraft. globalfirepower.com → Source
[36] IISS – The Military Balance 2025: Zero strategic bombers among European NATO states. iiss.org → Source
[37] CSIS – Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues; Europe: no program, no prototype. csis.org → Source
[38] RFE/RL – Russian weapons production: ~4.2 million artillery shells/year (2025). rferl.org → Source
[39] Rheinmetall AG – Production capacity up to 700,000 shells/year; NATO total ~3 million 155mm. rheinmetall.com → Source
[40] BMVg – Operational readiness report: 76% average, NH90 at 20%. bmvg.de → Source
[41] ECFR – European military capabilities gap: Belgium, Netherlands scrapped tank fleets. ecfr.eu → Source
[42] Defense One / NSS 2025 – National Security Strategy treats Europe in transactional terms. defenseone.com → Source
[43] Salon / Time / CBS – Trump: „They were not there for us“; considers NATO withdrawal (April 2026). salon.com / time.com / cbsnews.com → Source
Editor’s Note: This article is an opinion commentary presenting an intentionally sharpened position. All cited facts and figures are sourced via endnotes from publicly available sources (2024–2026). NATO/EU memberships, government coalitions, and historical data were researched from current official sources. A comprehensive evaluation of transatlantic relations requires consideration of additional factors including political cohesion, shared values, trade relationships, and the strategic interests of all parties involved.
37 
