Switzerland said it won’t allow weapons exports to the U.S. as long as Washington is involved in its ongoing military campaign against Iran. The Swiss government said on Friday that it will not sign off on any new licenses for the export of war materiel to countries involved in the conflict, citing Switzerland’s commitment to neutrality. Switzerland said that it has not issued new export licenses to send weapons to the U.S. since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran on Feb. 28. Existing licenses to export weapons to the U.S. can continue as they are not relevant “to the war at present,” but they will be kept under review in case they conflict with Swiss neutrality laws, it said. Exports of other dual-use and military goods, and other goods affected by sanctions against Iran, will also be kept under review, it added. Switzerland has not granted weapons export licenses for Israel or Iran for a “number of years,” the government said.

BERLIN — German Defense Minister Boris Pistorus will spend next week touring the Indo-Pacific with a passel of corporate chiefs in tow to make deals across the region. It’s part of an effort to mark a greater impact in an area where Berlin’s presence has been minor, but whose importance is growing as Germany looks to build up access to natural resources, technology and allies in a fracturing world. “If you look at the Indo-Pacific, Germany is essentially starting from scratch,” said Bastian Ernst, a defense lawmaker from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats. “We don’t have an established role yet, we’re only just beginning to figure out what that should be.” Pistorius leaves Friday on an eight-day tour to Japan, Singapore and Australia where he’ll be aiming to build relations with other like-minded middle powers — mirroring countries from France to Canada as they scramble to figure out new relationships in a world destabilized by Russia, China and a United States led by Donald Trump. “Germany recognizes this principle of interconnected theaters,” said Elli-Katharina Pohlkamp, visiting fellow of the Asia Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Berlin, she said, “increasingly sees Europe’s focus on Russia and Asia’s focus on China and North Korea as security issues that are linked.” The military and defense emphasis of next week’s trip marks a departure from Berlin’s 2020 Indo-Pacific guidelines, which laid a much heavier focus on trade and diplomacy. Pistorius’ outreach will be especially important as Germany rapidly ramps up military spending at home. Berlin is on track to boost its defense budget to around €150 billion a year by the end of the decade and is preparing tens of billions in new procurement contracts. But not everything Germany needs can be sourced in Europe. Australia is one of the few alternatives to China in critical minerals essential to the defense industry. It’s a leading supplier of lithium and one of the only significant producers of separated rare earth materials outside China. Australia also looms over a key German defense contract. Berlin is considering whether to stick with a naval laser weapon being developed by homegrown firms Rheinmetall and MBDA, or team up with Australia’s EOS instead. That has become a more sensitive political question in Berlin. WELT, owned by POLITICO’s parent company Axel Springer, reported that lawmakers had stopped the planned contract for the German option, reflecting wider concern over whether Berlin should back a domestic system or move faster with a foreign one. That means what Pistorius sees in Australia could end up shaping a decision back in Germany. TALKING TO TOKYO Japan offers something different — not raw materials but military integration, logistics and technology.  Pohlkamp said the military side of the relationship with Japan is now “very much about interoperability and compatibility, built through joint exercises, mutual visits, closer staff work, expanded information exchange and mutual learning.” She described Japan as “a kind of yardstick for Germany,” a country that lives with “an enormous threat perception” not only militarily but also economically, because it is surrounded by pressure from China, North Korea and Russia.  The Japan-Germany Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement took effect in July 2024, giving the two militaries a framework for reciprocal supplies and services and making future port calls for naval vessels, exercises and recurring cooperation easier to sustain.  Pohlkamp said what matters most to Tokyo are not headline-grabbing deployments but “plannable, recurring contributions, which are more valuable than big, one-off shows of force.” But that ambition only goes so far if Germany’s presence remains sporadic. Bundeswehr recruits march on the market square to take their ceremonial oath in Altenburg on March 19, 2026. | Bodo Schackow/picture alliance via Getty Images Berlin has sent military assets to the region for training exercises in recent years — a frigate in 2021, combat aircraft in 2022, army participation in 2023, and a larger naval mission in 2024. But as pressure grows on Germany to beef up its military to hold off Russia, along with its growing presence in Lithuania and its effort to keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, the attention given to Asia is shrinking. The government told parliament last year it sent no frigate in 2025, plans none in 2026 and has not yet decided on 2027. Germany’s current military engagement in the Indo-Pacific consists of a single P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, sent to India in February as part of the Indo-Pacific Deployment 2026 exercises.  Germany, according to Ernst, is still “relatively blank” in the region. What it can contribute militarily remains narrow: “A bit of maritime patrol, a frigate, mine clearance.” Pohlkamp said Germany’s role in Asia is still being built “in small doses” and is largely symbolic. But what matters is whether Berlin can turn occasional visits and deployments into something steadier and more predictable. The defense ministry insists that is the point of Pistorius’s trip. Ministry spokesperson Mitko Müller said Wednesday that Europe and the Indo-Pacific are “inseparably linked,” citing the rules-based order, sea lanes, international law and the role of the two regions in global supply and value chains.  The new P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft stands in front of a technical hangar at Nordholz airbase on Nov. 20, 2025. | Christian Butt/picture alliance via Getty Images The trip is meant to focus on the regional security situation, expanding strategic dialogue, current and possible military cooperation, joint exercises including future Indo-Pacific deployments, and industrial cooperation. That explains why industry is traveling with Pistorius.  Müller said executives from Airbus, TKMS, MBDA, Quantum Systems, Diehl and Rohde & Schwarz are coming along, suggesting Berlin sees the trip as a chance to widen defense ties on the ground. But any larger German role in Asia would have to careful calibrated to avoid angering China — a key trading partner that is very wary of European powers expanding their regional presence. “That leaves Germany trying to do two things at once,” Pohlkamp said. “First, show up often enough to matter, but not so forcefully that it gets dragged into a confrontation it is neither politically nor militarily prepared to sustain.”

WARSAW — Poland’s MAGA-aligned President Karol Nawrocki is in a war for control of the country with pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The sharp end of the conflict concerns the European Union’s €150 billion Security Action For Europe program — an EU effort (in part negotiated by the Polish government) to provide cheap loans to finance arms purchases by member countries. Nawrocki last week vetoed a law enabling the allocation of a €44 billion loan to Poland, although the government insists it will still be able to get the cash. But SAFE is just one front in a wide-ranging tussle. Tusk and Nawrocki are sparring over everything from the EU’s social media law to the government’s efforts to restore rule of law, ambassadorial nominations, whether to swear in judges and even the EU’s Emissions Trading System. Both sides are painting the struggle in existential terms as they gear up for next year’s crucial parliamentary election. For Nawrocki and his allies in the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, the EU loan is a misguided effort that would make an independent Poland subservient to Brussels, and especially Berlin, while fraying ties with the U.S. “NO TO THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY,” Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a member of the European Parliament and one of Nawrocki’s top foreign policy advisers, wrote on X. Tusk is warning that the effort to derail the SAFE loan will inexorably lead to a Polexit — a U.K.-style Polish withdrawal from the EU. Polish MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski attends a session of the European Parliament on November 27, 2019 in Strasbourg, France. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images “I think there is a clearly anti-European narrative promoted by the president’s camp and PiS. It’s potentially very dangerous, because we see in this rhetoric an attempt to cast the European Union as an enemy and to blame it for the challenges Poland faces,” Finance Minister Andrzej Domański told POLITICO, calling the president’s approach “extremely irresponsible and contrary to Poland’s national interest.” SUSPICIOUS LOANS SAFE is a flashpoint because Poland’s political divisions are as deep as in Donald Trump’s America. Both sides have their own media ecosystems and are engaged in a winner-takes-all conflict, with social contacts between ordinary people fraying over political differences. In the rest of the EU, SAFE was not controversial. So far 19 EU countries have signed up, and even conservative leaders like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán are on board. While some countries have managed to rub along with power-sharing between presidents and prime ministers from different political groupings, it’s proving very difficult in Poland. A protester holds a trash bin saying “Safe.” Polish opposition groups protest outside the Presidential Palace in Warsaw, Poland, on February 21, 2026. | Marek Antoni Iwaczuk/NurPhoto via Getty Images The core promise Tusk made when he led his coalition to victory in the 2023 parliamentary election was to roll back many of the changes made during the previous eight years under PiS governments. Those governments had clashed with the EU over efforts to bring the judicial system under tighter political control and saw relations with key partners like Germany and France go sour, while top officials were accused by Tusk of misusing public funds. But Tusk’s program set him up for immediate clashes with pro-PiS President Andrzej Duda. The standoff grew even worse after Duda was replaced by the far tougher Nawrocki last year. Now Nawrocki is trying to expand the limited powers of the presidency, while Tusk is trying to hem him in. The prize is next year’s parliamentary election. POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows Tusk’s Civic Coalition is comfortably ahead with the support of 34 percent of voters, while PiS trails at 26 percent. However, the smaller parties that make up Tusk’s coalition aren’t doing well and he’d be unlikely to form the next government. Just behind PiS are two far-right parties, the libertarian Confederation at 13 percent and the antisemitic Confederation of the Polish Crown with 8 percent. However, those parties are in deep conflict with PiS, and it’s unclear if they’d be able to form a stable coalition. That’s forcing PiS to scramble to appeal to conservative voters, making Nawrocki’s SAFE veto a key political move. A survey out this week by the Ibris organization found that 56.9 percent of those polled were opposed to Nawrocki’s SAFE veto while 33.8 percent supported it. While many voters are leery of the effort to block SAFE, the right-wing Republika television denounced the loan program with comments like: “HERR DONALD FÜR DEUTSCHLAND,” and, “A gang of traitors and Volksdeutsches is trying to saddle Poles with billions of euros in debt to Germany” — playing to anti-German stereotypes common among the Polish right. Berlin isn’t taking a SAFE loan as it can borrow more cheaply on its own. Poland’s new President Karol Nawrocki (right) and his predecessor Andrzej Duda wave as Nawrocki takes over the Presidential Palace on August 6, 2025 in Warsaw. | Sergei Gapon/AFP via Getty Images “I understand that blocking the law on realizing SAFE investments is an internal battle among the extreme right,” said Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski, adding that PiS had supported SAFE until it saw the rising danger from rival far-right parties. “It’s a battle for the anti-EU electorate. The danger is real.” PLAYING THE POLEXIT CARD Tusk is hoping to capitalize on the situation by warning of the danger of a Polexit. EU membership is still overwhelmingly popular in Poland — which has for years been one of the bloc’s best-performing economies. However, support is slowly eroding. A CBOS poll last month found that 82 percent of Poles support being in the EU, down from 92 percent in 2002; among conservative voters, only two-thirds back the bloc. Nawrocki and PiS insist they aren’t in favor of quitting the EU, just reshaping the bloc to make it more of a loose grouping of sovereign nation states. That aligns with the thinking of the U.S. administration, which strongly supports Nawrocki. “Tusk’s Polexit claim is utter nonsense and yet another attempt to scare voters for electoral gain — a campaign tactic, plain and simple,” Saryusz-Wolski told POLITICO. “PiS and the president support Poland’s membership of the EU, but with a sovereign role and on the basis of the EU Treaties — without competence creep or the usurpation of powers not granted to the EU, aimed at building a centralized European superstate in place of nation states,” Saryusz-Wolski said. But years of skepticism about the value of the EU can also build momentum to quit — as happened in the U.K. “It may be that they introduce this topic into public circulation somewhat cynically, that is, looking at it exclusively from the point of view of their own political interests, rather than because they genuinely want Polexit,” said Anna Mierzyńska, a disinformation expert. “But the consequences of doing so may be such that they will not be able to control it, and that Polexit might start defining things more broadly so that the 2027 campaign is all about whether you are for the EU or against it,” Mierzyńska added. Bartosz Brzeziński contributed to this report.

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stressed since the start of the U.S. and Israeli-led war in Iran that Britain will only contribute to defensive operations, including limiting the U.S. use of British airbases, saying: “We have learned the lessons of Iraq.” The problem as the war continues into its third week is that Starmer is now getting low marks from key allies in the Gulf for how he’s applied those lessons, according to senior military figures and diplomats who spoke to POLITICO. That has left London scrambling to deploy sufficient resources and show that it can provide adequate defensive support in the region as well as protect British assets, including its sovereign bases in Cyprus.  Three people familiar with operational and planning strategies, granted anonymity to speak frankly about sensitive matters, said the U.K. had bungled defensive decision-making and failed to send the necessary resources to the area at the time of the first U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.   Chief of the Defense Staff Richard Knighton has taken flak over delays in deploying HMS Dragon, a guided missile destroyer, to the Mediterranean for more than a week after the war started. But one former military commander familiar with conversations in government about the U.K. response said the greater fault lay in a risk-averse stance from Starmer as well as his National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and Defense Secretary John Healey, whose fears over a domestic backlash to being embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East hobbled the U.K.’s thinking about how to support allies in the Gulf. “No. 10 was determined to downplay any risk or perception of us getting involved and now the government is playing catch-up,” the former commander said. “And that means we are showing up late.” Others POLITICO spoke with said the failure to deploy maritime assets — especially in minesweeper expertise and air defense — has shaken states ranging from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates with longstanding close defense ties to the U.K. This perceived lapse has left Britain on the back foot both in its deployment of assets and in diplomatic relations with partners, visible in the U.K.’s concerted effort last week to demonstrate support for Gulf countries facing retaliatory strikes from Iran, as Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper travelled to Saudi Arabia. The prime minister and defense secretary have highlighted extra resources deployed to the region since widespread unrest erupted in Iran at the start of the year, including fighter jets, air defense missiles and radar systems.  The prime minister and defense secretary have highlighted extra resources deployed to the region since widespread unrest erupted in Iran at the start of the year, including fighter jets, air defense missiles and radar systems. And there are mounting signs that Starmer and Healey have understood the extent of sore feelings among allies and are seeking to assuage any tensions with Gulf allies as well as with the U.S.  In a social post on Sunday, the Ministry of Defense highlighted U.K. Typhoon and F-35 jets flying over Bahrain for the first time in “defense of British interests” and Britain’s role in air protection over the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Cyprus. Christian Turner, Britain’s ambassador to Washington, also issued a video over the weekend noting that British pilots have spent “over 300 hours in the skies above the Middle East shooting down Iranian drones and missiles” as well as drawing attention to the U.S. use of U.K. bases and sharing of intelligence.  “We acted early to protect British people and British interests and to support our allies across the region,” a Ministry of Defense spokesperson said, specifically noting defense patrols with extra Typhoons in Qatar to support that country as well as Bahrain and the UAE. “Those preparations made a real difference, enabling our troops to conduct defensive operations from Day One.” “We acted early to protect British people and British interests and to support our allies across the region,” a Ministry of Defense spokesperson said, specifically noting defense patrols with extra Typhoons in Qatar to support that country as well as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. “Those preparations made a real difference, enabling our troops to conduct defensive operations from Day One.” A Downing Street spokesperson declined to comment further, referring inquiries to the Ministry of Defense.  But a government official, granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak on the record, insisted Starmer and Healey had “followed all military recommendations presented to them throughout the build-up” and hit out at “armchair generals who aren’t seeing the intelligence and information that our military see every day.” Yet a person with knowledge of deployment decisions said that close allies of the U.K. were “deeply disappointed” by the lack of preparation. “There had been knowledge of the preparations for U.S. action on Iran on a large scale from around Christmas and the U.K. had visibility on that,” this person said. “But the response was wholly inadequate.” If a full array of options had been considered, according to this person, a submarine presence from the Royal Navy might have been sent to the region as a deterrent under the terms of Operation Kipion, a long-standing umbrella for British security, intelligence gathering and deterrence to the Gulf. One area of concern has been the decommissioning of ships, some of which were moved for servicing and routine upgrades in recent weeks.  HMS Middleton, which was based in Bahrain, arrived back in Britain on March 1 — the day after the U.S. and Israel opened their attack — for maintenance and a technological upgrade. The vessel, ⁠which is more than 40 years old, was no longer certified to sail, according to the MOD. The U.K.’s only mine-hunting ship was brought back to Britain to save money just as strikes began, according to The Times.  Healey told reporters this week he was still considering “additional options” for protecting the Strait of Hormuz.  The former commander was frustrated by a gap between the prime minister and Healey’s robust language about Britain’s need for war-readiness and the reality of its actions.  “We have the prime minister and defense secretary talking about ‘preparing the nation for war’ on a running basis, which is ironic, as we and our allies ended up not deploying deterrent force and taking a week to deploy a major warship to defend Cyprus in good time to show our strong  defensive intentions,” this person said. A senior Gulf diplomat said the U.K.’s early response to the conflict fell short of what Gulf partners expected given Britain’s longstanding military ties in the region. There were “a lot of phone calls,” the diplomat said, but not much in the way of “serious support.” John Foreman, a former deputy head of the Combined Maritime Forces in Bahrain, said Starmer’s cautious approach was bound to cause continued problems as the conflict continues, particularly amid rising focus on protecting the Strait of Hormuz. “Wiser, less cautious heads would have got ahead of the game,” Foreman said. “It comes from Starmer ultimately and the tone of his government. It’s too late for Powell to be asking for options on the eve of war — and for Healey to still be pondering options now.”

U.S. President Donald Trump did not commit to a definitive timeline for the war in Iran, saying in a Friday interview that the fighting would end when he feels it “in my bones.” Trump told Fox News Radio that he didn’t think the war “would be long.” But he suggested that only he will know when it will be over, saying the conflict will end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” The Trump administration has sent mixed signals on the length of the war, with senior administration officials suggesting at times that the war could last anywhere from days to months. Trump on Friday said he expected the conflict to end soon but added that it could also continue indefinitely if necessary. The president dismissed reports that the U.S. was facing a munitions shortage. “Nobody has the technology or the weapons that we have,” Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade. “We’re way ahead of schedule. Way ahead.” He later said the U.S. had “virtually unlimited ammunition. We’re using it, we’re using it. We can go forever.” While the president suggested the decision to end the war will ultimately be based on his personal judgment, he said he was consulting with senior advisers, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. “Operation Epic Fury will continue until President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, determines that the goals of Operation Epic Fury, including for Iran to no longer pose a military threat, have been fully realized,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement when asked for comment. Earlier on Friday, Hegseth suggested victory was a certainty and attacked the press for what he viewed as unfriendly media coverage about the war. Trump also sought to downplay any economic ramifications of the conflict, saying the U.S. economy was the greatest in the world and would “bounce right back, so fast.” The Trump administration has sought to quell concerns over rising oil and gas prices after U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran began in February. The war triggered the largest oil supply disruption in history and cost $11 billion in its first week, according to the Pentagon. The president’s messaging around the run-up in crude prices has caused a potential public relations nightmare for the oil industry. “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” Trump wrote Wednesday on Truth Social.

The war in Iran is tearing through the Pentagon’s budget at nearly $1 billion a day, but lawmakers are in no rush to approve more money for the Trump administration’s expanding Middle East conflict. Top Republicans say the White House hasn’t made the case that it’s facing any financial difficulties with the war, so don’t feel pressure to boost the Pentagon’s $1 trillion budget. And Democrats are unlikely to support the plan at all, which would make securing the votes to pass a supplemental package an uphill climb. That leaves the White House with a difficult task, particularly in a fraught midterm election year. Administration officials will have to spend significant time and political capital to push through a hugely expensive supplemental spending bill — for a war that’s largely unpopular with the American people — even as the administration tries to burnish its affordability bona fides. And the sluggish timetable means any extra Iran war money likely runs into the president’s plans to supersize the defense budget next year. “I don’t think there is any urgency at this moment,” said Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel. “The urgency is in starting to educate Congress as to why we need a supplemental at all. Once we do that, it’ll make passing it easier.” Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said the supplemental package “is still coming together” and won’t arrive on Capitol Hill until the end of the month at the earliest. But Congress won’t act on it right away, he said. And key appropriators said it could take weeks — or months — to get the funding request passed. Fellow appropriator Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said he is anxious to get lawmakers reviewing the supplemental request, but predicted that passage “will not happen quickly.” He pointed to the Pentagon’s massive funding package approved last year as evidence that the military won’t face financial problems anytime soon. “Even if the department doesn’t need the money right away, it would be good for Congress to have oversight on how it is being spent there,” Moran said. Acting Pentagon budget chief Jay Hurst said Thursday that $11 billion is a “ballpark number” for just the first week of the military campaign against Iran. Once Congress does begin to weigh the proposal, Senate Democrats have a veto of their own on the legislation — if they can stick together. At least seven Democratic senators are needed to reach the chamber’s 60-vote threshold to advance major bills, meaning a unified caucus can block additional funding. And at least one Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, said he would oppose any Iran supplemental. He said he is hearing from farmers in his state impacted by rising oil costs that stem from the war — and thinks Congress should be focused on domestic issues. “I’m against borrowing money from China to finance the war in the Middle East,” Paul said. “We’ve got a lot of problems in our country that we need to fix.” Paul’s opposition means Senate Majority Leader John Thune would need at least eight Democrats to cross party lines on the issue. But most Democrats say they’re not going to endorse more money for a war they oppose, particularly after the Pentagon received an extra $150 billion last year as part of the GOP-passed budget reconciliation measure. “There will be broad resistance in the Democratic Caucus to allowing a supplemental to serve as a back door authorization of war, because the president has still never given an address to the nation explaining this conflict,” said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, the top Democrat on the panel that controls Pentagon spending. But time may not be on the administration’s side. Recent polls show Americans are skeptical of the war. President Donald Trump’s MAGA base is concerned about taking the focus off domestic issues. And the costs are mounting at a blistering pace as American forces use high-priced munitions and engage in thousands of hours of strikes with gas-guzzling aircraft. Senate Armed Services ranking member Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said the chances for passing a multibillion-dollar supplemental depend on the war’s economic impact and battlefield success at the time of the vote. “A lot of it depends upon the environment,” he said. “If we’re still seeing incredible increases in gas prices and we’re seeing the conflict getting more costly, particularly in terms of casualties, I think people will be very reluctant.” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) acknowledged the potential for a political fight, but also said Congress can’t simply push a supplemental bill for Iran off indefinitely. “We’re there, and we have to sustain it,” he said. “The last thing we want to do is not have the resources to keep the region as settled as possible when you have 40,000 personnel there on a full-time basis.”

American allies are watching in disbelief as the Pentagon reroutes weapon shipments to aid the Iran war, angry and scared that arms the U.S. demanded they buy will never reach them. European nations that have struggled to rebuild arsenals after sending weapons to Ukraine fear they won’t be able to ward off a Russian attack. Asian allies, startled by America’s rate of fire, question whether it could embolden China and North Korea. And even in the Middle East, countries aren’t clear if they will get air defenses from the U.S. for future priorities. Nearly a dozen officials in allied nations in Asia and Europe say they can’t win. The Trump administration has put them under extreme political pressure to raise defense budgets and buy American weapons — from air defense interceptors to guided bombs — only to quickly burn through those munitions in a war of its own. “It shouldn’t be a secret to anyone that the munitions that have been and will be fired are the ones that everybody needs to acquire in large numbers,” said one northern European official. Weapons production is a complex process that takes years of planning and runs through a supply chain riddled with bottlenecks. Trump’s reassurances that the U.S. has a “virtually unlimited supply” of munitions to fight Iran has done little to soothe allies’ fears. “It is very frustrating, the words are not matching the deeds,” said an Eastern European official, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “It is pretty clear to everyone that the U.S. will put their own, Taiwan’s, Israel’s, and hemisphere priorities before Europe.” The joint U.S.-Israel war, officials warn, could accelerate the distancing between America and its allies when it comes to defense. The European Union already has approved rules to favor its own arms-makers over American contractors — risking tens, if not hundreds of billions in future U.S. sales. Even major companies, such as the German drone-maker Helsing are touting “European sovereignty.” Poland, a longtime American ally, has bought tanks and artillery from South Korea instead of U.S. contractors such as General Dynamics. It’s been a wake-up call for officials in Asia and Europe who once took Pentagon arms sales for granted. “The Europeans still live in a dream world in which the U.S. is a gigantic Walmart, where you buy the stuff and you get it immediately, and that is simply not true,” said Camille Grand, a former top NATO official who now heads the Brussels-based Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe. Allies in the Pacific — where China has built the world’s largest Navy and now has missiles that can attack American troops on Guam — are worried that the Pentagon will run out of ammunition in Iran and won’t have any left to deter a war in Asia. “It’s natural that the longer the conflict, the more urgent the supply of munitions and its inevitable for the U.S. to mobilize its foreign assets to maintain the operation,” said a Washington-based Asian diplomat, who warned it would affect “readiness” in the region. The fears of depleted weapons stockpiles extend to the U.S., where some Pentagon officials are warning about the state of the military’s munitions stockpiles, according to a congressional aide and two other people familiar with the dynamic. Defense Department officials warned Congress this week that the U.S. military was expending “an enormous amount” of munitions in the conflict, according to two of the people familiar with the conversations. The congressional aide briefed by the Pentagon said the U.S. was using precision strike missiles and cutting-edge interceptors in “scary high” numbers despite the Iranian military’s relative weakness. The weapons also include Tomahawk land-attack missiles, Patriot PAC-3 and ship-launched air defenses fired by the Navy. “The idea of doing a larger campaign with Iran was not on anyone’s mathematical bingo card as we were looking at munitions implications,” said a former defense official. “I struggle to see a way that layering on the Iran element makes the math problem get any better.” The Pentagon referred questions to the White House. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile attacks had fallen by 90 percent because of U.S. strikes. “President Trump is in close contact with our partners in Europe and the Middle East, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies,” she said. But some defense hawks in Congress are worried. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Wednesday on the Senate floor that the military is “not prepared” to deter aggression from both Russia and China at once due to the munitions shortfall. McConnell did not reply to a request for comment. Trump said in a social media post that he met with defense executives on Friday, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and Lockheed, who agreed to quadruple their production of “Exquisite Class” weapons. He did not explain which systems that entailed or how the U.S. planned to rapidly build factories, hire workers and increase weapons production. Some allies worried about weapons are hoping that’s more than an empty promise. “It seems that U.S. defense primes are still challenged to produce at the speed of demand,” said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a Lithuanian member of Parliament who is also a former deputy Defense minister. “We welcome any effort by the administration to incentivize defense companies to get into war mode of production.” Others cautioned that the defense industrial base can’t be turned on with a switch to start mass producing the sophisticated missiles and air defenses that the U.S. and its allies desperately need. “There’s always this idea that there is a world in which we just have to go World War II,” said Grand, the former NATO official. “But [in] World War II, producing Sherman tanks was pretty close to producing tractor engines. Producing a Patriot is not pretty close to producing a Tesla.” Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

WARSAW — The EU’s €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program was supposed to boost Poland’s rearmament, but instead it’s fueling a political war between the president and the prime minister. While the pro-EU government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk wants a €44 billion SAFE loan, aiming to continue the country’s rapid military buildup in a way that doesn’t worsen already strained public finances, nationalist President Karol Nawrocki is hunting for an alternative that involves financing armaments expenditures through the National Bank of Poland (NBP). The two men are sparring ahead of a crucial parliamentary election next year, where the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party aligned with Nawrocki hopes to unseat Tusk’s liberal coalition. The president and prime minster are battling over everything from ambassadorial nominations to undoing PiS’s judicial reforms, economic policy, foreign affairs, Ukraine, the EU and how to approach Nawrocki’s ally Donald Trump. Now the Polish president is turning on SAFE. Nawrocki this week met with central bank chief Adam Glapiński — who is sympathetic to PiS — to put forward a “concrete Polish alternative that will not involve interest payments or loans lasting until 2070,” to create a program worth around 185 billion złoty — equivalent to the SAFE cash the government is aiming for. Nawrocki faces a political decision over the next two weeks on whether to sign off on government legislation laying out rules for spending the Security Action For Europe money or to veto it. The spat in Poland is dismaying the European Commission, which wants member countries to rapidly boost defense spending to fend off the threat from Russia and to continue supporting Ukraine. “Who will lose if Poland doesn’t approve SAFE? Saying no to SAFE is saying no to jobs for Polish people,” Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius said in Warsaw on Friday. “If Poland decided to use taxpayers’ money to buy weapons from somewhere else, that will mean Polish taxpayers money will create jobs elsewhere.” Nawrocki and PiS claim that euro-denominated SAFE loans will saddle Poland with decades of debt, create an exchange rate risk and could see Brussels imposing political conditions on the money’s availability. They also warn that contracts funded by SAFE could benefit Western European defense firms — especially those from Germany — rather than domestic producers, despite the government insisting 80 percent of the cash will stay in Poland. Embracing SAFE could also anger the U.S., Poland’s main ally and arms supplier, which has expressed displeasure at the program’s provisions limiting participation of non-EU countries. Nawrocki is allied with Donald Trump while Tusk has voiced doubts over Washington’s reliability and predictability. “Part of it is about signaling to the U.S. that they still have allies in Poland, part about stirring tensions with Germany, and part about creating difficulties for Donald Tusk ahead of the election,” said Ben Stanley, a political scientist at the SWPS University in Warsaw. PiS has been trending lower in POLITICO’s poll of polls since September, not long after Nawrocki won the presidential election, which was supposed to give the party a new powerful momentum. Nawrocki and PiS claim that euro-denominated SAFE loans will saddle Poland with decades of debt. | Jakub Porzycki/Anadolu via Getty Images Trailing by 9 percentage points to Tusk’s Civic Coalition, PiS also has to fight challenges from the far-right Confederation and the even more extreme antisemitic Confederation of the Polish Crown. However, polls do show that Tusk’s party and the other members of his coalition currently would fall short of winning another term in power. “My suspicion is that President Nawrocki will eventually sign, but not before making a great deal of noise and trying to frame the government as having blocked a more pro-Polish solution,” Stanley said. However, Nawrocki could also go for broke and try to block the SAFE loan by pushing his domestic alternative, wrote political scientist Marek Migalski. “The president’s initiative on ‘Polish SAFE’ is politically astute. It justifies the veto and gives his supporters an argument against the government, which not only wants to burden us with debt, but also wants to do so through the evil and deceitful EU,” he wrote on social media. Glapiński said Thursday he intends to propose “measures” that would not cut the country’s foreign currency reserves while securing “tens of billions of złoty” each year for the state-run Armed Forces Support Fund, a vehicle to finance military modernization. Glapiński is hemmed in by legal restrictions limiting the central bank’s ability to finance the budget, but his messaging suggests the NBP is readying a large-scale gold selloff. With 550 tons of gold stored in domestic and foreign vaults, the NBP is one of Europe’s top gold hoarders. “[The NBP] signals a sell–buyback operation involving the central bank’s gold reserves. Although it would formally comply with central bank accounting rules, it could in practice be viewed as risky from the perspective of Poland’s credibility in financial markets,” ING Bank wrote in an analysis of the proposal. “There’s nothing else [the NBP] can do,” a high-ranking government official told POLITICO, speaking on condition of anonymity, when asked if the plan involves selling gold.  Tusk on Thursday called on Nawrocki to sign the SAFE law without delay. “Poland, Polish companies, the employees of those companies and Poland’s security are waiting for money from the SAFE program … There is no room for any political games,” the PM said in a video on X.

LONDON — Donald Trump’s German grandparents may have known the word for what some European officials now feel, as they watch him complain that America’s traditional allies have let him down: Schadenfreude.  Having spent a year criticizing, insulting and threatening European leaders, Trump now sees the value of having friends in strategically important places — if they have military assets he can use, anyway. The U.S-Israel war against Iran would have been a lot easier in its opening days if British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hadn’t denied American bombers permission to take off from U.K. airbases, Trump complained this week.  Starmer, however, is standing his ground, refusing to authorize anything more than “defensive” operations from Royal Air Force facilities in the U.K. and overseas.  Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is also playing hardball with Trump, condemning what he regards as a law-breaking operation in the Middle East and similarly refusing to let American planes take off from airfields under his control. Sánchez incurred Trump’s rage as a result.  And French President Emmanuel Macron — ever the critical friend — called the Iran war dangerous, warning it doesn’t comply with international law and couldn’t be supported.  Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez leaving an International Women’s Day event in Madrid. Sánchez is also playing hardball with the U.S. president, incurring Donald Trump’s rage as a result. | Cesar Vallejo Rodriguez/Europa Press via Getty Images The rift now threatens to escalate into a major trade confrontation between the United States and the European Union, while the mythologized “special relationship“ between the U.K. and America is on life support, as the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence approaches.  “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said, as he explained his particular frustration with Starmer.  On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said “the President expects all Europe — all of our European allies, of course — to cooperate in this long-sought-after mission, not just for the United States, but also for Europe, to crush the rogue Iranian regime that not only threatens America, but also threatens our European allies as well.” She told reporters that Spain had now “agreed to cooperate” with the U.S. military — but the Spanish government immediately hit back with a denial. The hardening position of European leaders on Iran marks a watershed moment, just as U.S. President George W. Bush’s doomed and divisive invasion of Iraq in 2003 undermined transatlantic trust for years. The tensions over such a consequential new conflict in the Middle East may even prove existential for the Western alliance, after 12 months that had already strained U.S.-European relations to the breaking point.  “I presume President Trump hasn’t tried to get NATO support for the war in Iran — perhaps he didn’t think it was worthwhile,” Emily Thornberry, chair of the U.K. Parliament’s foreign affairs committee and a member of Starmer’s Labour Party, told POLITICO. “I suspect he may now be learning a lesson about the value of having a broad base of allies.” GHOSTS OF IRAQ Trump’s belligerent approach since returning to office in January 2025 has been hard for many officials in Europe to swallow. He has slashed U.S. support for Ukraine and moved to push Kyiv toward an unwelcome and unbalanced peace deal; castigated “weak” EU leaders for failing to get a grip on immigration; demanded Greenland be handed to America; and is now attacking Iran without so much as consulting key NATO allies.  Now that those allies are alarmed and unwilling to join in, Trump and his MAGA lieutenants are clearly no more forgiving than Bush’s Republicans were when France refused to back the Iraq War two decades ago.  On Tuesday night the president slammed Sánchez’s government as “terrible” and “unfriendly” over its decision to bar U.S. military planes from using Spanish air bases to attack Iran, before threatening to cut all trade with the EU’s fourth-biggest economy. Sánchez hit back on Wednesday, insisting he would not budge.  “We are not going to take a position that goes against our values and principles out of fear of reprisals from others,” Sánchez said during a televised address to the nation.  American air-refueling tankers that had been stationed in Spain left for other military bases in Europe after the Iran war began, according to Reuters. One official told POLITICO that some U.S. tankers had been moved to France on a temporary basis.  U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent piled on against Spain Wednesday morning during a TV interview. Madrid’s “highly uncooperative” attitude toward American use of the bases would affect the U.S. military’s ability to carry out operations against Iran, he said. “The Spanish put American lives at risk.”  A U.S. Navy ship docked at Naval Station Rota in Spain on March 4. Trump has criticized Spain for refusing to allow American forces to use jointly operated military bases in Rota and Morón to launch attacks on Iran. | Juan Carlos Toro/Getty Images Some Europeans remain in Trump’s good books. During a visit to the White House this week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz received a glowing review from the U.S. president after the Ramstein airbase in Germany was made available to U.S. forces. “Germany’s been great. He’s been terrific,” Trump said. “They’re letting us land in certain areas, and we appreciate it.”  Trump stressed that Washington didn’t want direct German participation in the fighting. “We’re not asking them to put boots on the ground or anything,” he said. WHAT ABOUT UKRAINE? Even if Sánchez, Starmer and Macron — three of Europe’s leading centrists — maintain their stand in the face of American anger, European officials know that ultimately they still need the United States for their security.  Without the president’s pressure, Russia is unlikely to come to the negotiating table to strike a peace deal with Ukraine; without American-made weapons, Ukraine will be in danger of defeat on the battlefield anyway.  A European diplomat from another country said they hoped more EU leaders would follow Spain’s example. “If we want international law, rule-based order and any form of multilateralism to prevail, we must be able to express worry about the American actions,” the diplomat said. “What will our leverage be for Putin’s war in Ukraine if Europe cannot express any objections over the U.S. war on Iran? We would lose credibility.” In the U.S., some saw the risks coming. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly warned Trump that going to war with Iran would be more dangerous without the support of key allies, according to the Washington Post. In private, EU government officials agreed. “Trump needs Europe for this,” one said.  Before the military offensive began, America’s allies in the Gulf were also reported to have urged Trump not to go to war against Iran. He ignored them too.   NOT WORRIED According to a senior White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about diplomatic relationships, Trump’s expectation of full European support is not as unrealistic as some Europeans believe. That’s because the U.S. is still critical to NATO.  “They acknowledged that he was right about the spending,” the official said, referring to last year’s pledge by NATO members to boost defense budgets, driven largely by pressure from Trump. “We still do a lot for Europe.” The official also downplayed the impact of Trump’s Greenland gambit on the broader transatlantic relationship, stating that “it’s no longer an issue for us.” But European reliance on America has not been in doubt. What may be new is an appreciation in Washington that America is not as strong without its traditional alliances.  HMS Dragon docked in Portsmouth, England, on March 4 ahead of deployment to Cyprus. Britain is among several European nations now sending military assets towards the Middle East. | Peter Nicholls/Getty Images “A power that is secure in the reality and legitimacy of its own power does not treat people or other powers like that,” said Constance Stelzenmüller, an expert on Germany and transatlantic relations at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. “What Europeans are really worried about when we look at all this is American bluster and overstretch,” Stelzenmüller said. “The thought that we might be witnessing the self-destruction of American power — that is what I think is really putting fear into the minds of even the most critical of allies.”  And there is plenty to be afraid of. Britain, France and Germany are among the European nations now sending their warships and other assets toward the Middle East. Their motive is to protect their own interests, for example by reinforcing the defense of Cyprus, where an Iranian drone hit a British airbase.  But any military deployment to the edge of an escalating war carries the risk that even “defensive” forces could be drawn into the shooting. Then it won’t just be American or Israeli lives on the line, one European diplomat said. “And that’s a big decision.”  Laura Kayali, Chris Lunday and Clea Caulcutt contributed reporting.  

WARSAW — Polish President Karol Nawrocki proposed Wednesday that the country’s military build-up be financed with the help of the National Bank of Poland instead of tapping the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe loans-for-weapons program. The move comes amid a standoff with Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s pro-EU government over nearly €44 billion in SAFE loans earmarked for modernizing Poland’s armed forces, repayable by 2070.  “We have a concrete, Polish, safe and sovereign alternative to the SAFE program that will not involve any financial interest,” Nawrocki said, speaking alongside NBP President Adam Glapiński. The idea would be to work with the central bank to secure 185 billion złoty — equivalent to the amount Poland plans to borrow under SAFE. The president, and the opposition nationalist Law and Justice party which backs him, have both criticized SAFE, arguing it saddles Poland with decades of debt, creates an exchange rate risk because the loan is denominated in euros and not Polish złoty, and could see Brussels imposing political conditions. They also warn that contracts funded by SAFE could disproportionately benefit Western European defense firms rather than domestic producers — something the government rejects, insisting 80 percent of the cash will stay in Poland. There is also concern over angering the United States, Poland’s main ally and arms supplier, which has expressed displeasure at SAFE’s provisions limiting participation of non-EU countries. “The war in Iran and recent U.S. operations also show … above all, the effectiveness of American equipment,” Nawrocki said. Nawrocki’s announcement follows parliamentary approval of a law detailing how SAFE funds would be spent. If president vetoes the legislation, Tusk’s coalition doesn’t have enough votes in parliament to override him. However, the government insists that even with a Nawrocki veto, it would still be able to access the EU cash. But Nawrocki stressed that the SAFE money comes with strings attached. His idea, he says would mean “a concrete and secure alternative for SAFE that will not involve any interest … without credit, without changing Poland’s situation in the EU, and with the flexibility our armed forces need in selecting equipment.” Glapiński hinted that the central bank would step in with its annual profit for the purpose. Any central bank profits are channeled to state coffers, although that hasn’t happened in recent years. The NBP has also amassed 550 tons of gold, with plans to boost that to 700 tons. However, Polish law limits the ability of the central bank to finance budget expenditures. Adam Glapiński hinted that the central bank would step in with its annual profit for the purpose. | Mateusz Wlodarczyk/NurPhoto via Getty Images “We cannot use any part of the reserves in the sense that a portion would be transferred, because that would be against the law,” Glapiński said. Nawrocki said he would present further details, which would include new legislation for the parliament to work on, to Tusk and Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz as soon as Wednesday. Kosiniak-Kamysz pushed back, saying on X: “The SAFE program provides the fastest and most concrete funding for modernizing the Polish army, which is why the military, the defense industry, and all those committed to strengthening our armed forces are calling for the president to sign the [SAFE] law.” “If additional financing instruments for the army appear, the Polish Armed Forces will only benefit — not as an alternative to SAFE, but as extra resources enhancing security,” Kosiniak-Kamysz added.