The Trial of the Alliance: NATO Cohesion in the Shadow of the Iran War

Since the beginning of the American-Israeli military operation against Iran on February 28, 2026, the North Atlantic Alliance has faced its most serious test since the end of the Cold War. What began as a regional conflict in the Persian Gulf has expanded within weeks into a strategic dilemma that calls into question the fundamental principles of the alliance. The central question is: How far does NATO's solidarity extend when the United States is waging a war that the European allies largely oppose?

The escalating situation on the southeastern flank of the alliance illustrates this dilemma quite clearly. Since March 4, 2026, NATO air defense systems have intercepted at least three Iranian ballistic missiles fired toward Turkish airspace. The first missile was shot down on March 4 over the Mediterranean near the Turkish coast, followed by a second interceptor missile on March 9 over southern Gaziantep and a third incident on March 13. In response, NATO deployed additional Patriot missile batteries of the PAC-3 type to Incirlik Air Base near Adana, as well as to the central Turkish region of Malatya, where the Kurecik early warning radar facility, operated by U.S. forces, is located and can detect Iranian missile launches.

Turkey, the second-largest military in the alliance and a direct neighbor of Iran, finds itself in a precarious position. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that Ankara is evaluating technical data to assess the discrepancy between Iranian denials and the actual trajectories of the missiles. Tehran has consistently denied the launches and has pointed to Israel as a possible perpetrator. Ankara has emphasized its right to retaliation but has not submitted a formal alliance assistance request under Article 5. This restraint is telling: Turkey seeks to invoke NATO's de facto protective function without accepting the political consequences of a formal assistance request against Iran.

Transatlantic tensions reached a new peak when Spain refused to allow the use of its military bases for the American operation against Iran. Washington responded by relocating 15 aircraft, including refueling planes, from southern Spanish bases. Foreign Minister Marco Rubio described the allies' stance as very disappointing and called for a review of NATO structures. President Trump escalated the rhetoric, calling the European allies cowards while simultaneously threatening trade restrictions against Spain. The strategic irony lies in the fact that Rubio called for a reassessment of NATO on March 30, while at the same time, the alliance's defense systems were actively intercepting Iranian missiles in Turkey.

Norway's announcement on March 27 to increase defense spending by 115 billion kroner, equivalent to about 11.84 billion U.S. dollars, over ten years and to raise the defense budget to 3.5 percent of GDP is an indicator of the fundamental strategic realignment in Europe. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre justified the measure with lessons learned from the Ukraine war and rising equipment costs. Norwegian planning includes new submarines produced in Germany with expected delivery starting in 2029, two frigates manufactured in Britain for 2030 and 2032, as well as enhancements in electronic warfare, short-range air defense, and autonomous systems. At the same time, Defense Minister Tore Sandvik admitted that the procurement of defense systems against ballistic missiles and maritime surveillance drones would be delayed, indicating the limited industrial capacities of Europe in this sector.

The strategic paradox of the current situation is that European NATO states are expanding precisely those defense capabilities that are being demonstrated by the conflict in the Gulf, while simultaneously refusing to participate in the military operation that created this threat. The deployment of Patriot batteries in Turkey demonstrates the alliance's operational readiness for defense. However, the Europeans' refusal to assist the United States in the Iran war reveals a deep strategic divergence over whether the American military operation enhances or jeopardizes European security.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical point. Iran states that the strait cannot be opened due to violations of the ceasefire. The impact on European energy supply is palpable, although alternative supply chains and strategic oil reserves provide short-term stability. The extension of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon by three weeks after mediation in Washington shows that diplomatic channels have not been completely severed. However, for European governments, the core question remains unresolved: how to strengthen the alliance's defense capabilities without getting drawn into a conflict whose strategic logic they do not share.

The current crisis accelerates European efforts for an independent defense capability that goes beyond NATO structures. The Norwegian investments, Turkish air defense measures, and Spain's refusal to support U.S. operations indicate a fragmentation of the transatlantic security architecture. Whether this fragmentation leads to greater European autonomy or permanently weakens the alliance will be determined in the coming months. However, it is already clear: the NATO of 2026 is no longer the NATO that set the two percent benchmark as a new minimum at the Washington summit in 2024. The Iran war has confronted the alliance with a reality that does not allow for a simple answer to the question of shared values and common interests.