Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Like many, I used to believe that former U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the biggest strategic mistake America had made, at least since the Vietnam War. That is, until now. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel in a war against Iran is a far bigger strategic error, and one with far bigger strategic consequences. The reasons for this are many, ranging from the immediate impact on the region and the global economy to the longer-term upshots for Russia and China, as well as the repercussions for U.S. alliances and America’s global standing. That much is already clear — and we’re only three weeks in. Let’s start with the similarities: Much like the Iraq War, the war against Iran began based on the presumption that the regime in power would swiftly fall and that a new, more moderate and less antagonistic one would take its place. In both instances, the idea was to remove the greatest destabilizing threat in the Middle East — Saddam Hussein’s regime in the initial case, the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran in the latter — through the swift and decisive use of military force. But while Bush understood that defeating a regime required ground forces, it seems Trump simply hoped that airpower alone would suffice. As a result, Hussein’s regime fell swiftly — though Bush did vastly underestimate what would be required to rebuild a stable, let alone a democratic, Iraq in its place. But the Iranian government, as U.S. intelligence officials themselves have testified, “appears to be intact” despite Israel killing many of its key political and security leaders through targeted strikes. Focusing on the region at large, Bush’s misjudgment eventually contributed to a large-scale insurgency, which strengthened Iran’s influence in Iraq and the wider Middle East. In contrast, Trump’s miscalculation has left in place a regime that, aside from assuring its own survival, is now singularly focused on inflicting as much damage on the U.S. and its allies as it possibly can. Iranian drones and missiles have already attacked Israel and the Gulf states, targeted critical energy production facilities and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which hosts one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas export transits. The Salalah oil storage fire in Oman is pictured on March 13, 2026. | Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2026 Less than a month in, the world is now witnessing the largest oil and gas disruption in history. And as the fighting escalates to include gas and oil production infrastructure, the global economic consequences will be felt by every single country for months, if not years, to come — even if the conflict were to end soon. The damage that has already been inflicted on the global economy is far greater than the economic consequences of the Iraq War in its entirety. But that’s not all. Geopolitically, the U.S.-Israel war with Iran will also have far greater reverberations than the war in Iraq ever did. For one, the Bush administration spent a lot of time and effort trying to get allies on board to participate in and support the war. It didn’t fully succeed in this, as key allies like Germany and France continued opposing the war. But it tried. Trump, by contrast, didn’t even try to get America’s most important allies on board. Not only that, he even failed to inform them of his decision. And yet, when Iran responded predictably by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. president then demanded allies send their navies to escort tankers — despite the U.S. Navy so far refusing to do so. And while it’s true that Iraq left many U.S. allies — even those that joined the war, like the U.K. — deeply scarred, Iran has convinced U.S. allies they can no longer rely on the U.S., and that Washington is now a real threat to their economic security. That, too, will have a lasting impact well beyond anything the war in Iraq did. Finally, the fact remains that when Bush decided to invade Iraq, Russia and China were still minor global powers. Russian President Vladimir Putin was only just starting his effort to stabilize the economy and rebuild Russia’s military power, while China had just joined the World Trade Organization and was still a decade or more away from becoming an economic superpower. In other words, America’s blunder in Iraq occurred at a time when the strategic consequences for the global balance of power were still manageable. Trump’s Iran debacle is occurring at a time when China is effectively competing with the U.S. for global power and influence, and Russia is engaged in the largest military action in Europe since the end of World War II. A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in Tehran, Iran on March 15, 2026 after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before. | Majid Saeedi/Getty Images Both stand to benefit greatly. Russia is the short-term winner here. Oil prices are rising, generating more than $150 million per day in extra income for Moscow to feed its war machine. The U.S. is relaxing its sanctions against Russia in a vain attempt to stall prices from ballooning at the pump. All the while, Ukraine is being left to contend with Russia’s missile and drone attacks without the advanced defensive weaponry that’s now being used to protect Israel and the Gulf instead. China, meanwhile, is watching as the U.S. diverts its military forces from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, where they will likely remain for months, if not years. These forces include a carrier strike group, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system from Korea, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan. And while a disruption in oil and gas supply will be a short-term problem for Beijing too, China’s rapid transition to renewables and close alignment with energy-rich Russia will leave it well placed to confidently confront the future. Bush and Trump both came to office determined to avoid the mistaken wars of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they both embarked on military adventures fed by a hubristic belief in American power. But while the U.S. was strong enough — and its adversaries still weak enough — to recoup much of the damage inflicted by Bush’s war, the war unfolding in Iran today will leave behind an America that will have lost much of its global power, standing and influence, destined to confront rising adversaries all on its own.

Iranian missiles late Saturday hit two southern Israeli towns close to a nuclear facility in what Tehran said was retaliation for Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear site at Natanz. More than 160 people were injured in the strikes, which hit the towns of Dimona and Arad near Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center, according to the Israeli health ministry. The attack came as U.S. President Donald Trump warned that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government in Tehran doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. Tehran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt retaliatory attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities. Iranian state TV said Saturday’s strikes by Tehran were a response to an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility earlier in the day, according to the BBC. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament, said the fact that ballistic missiles evaded Israeli defenses and struck near the nuclear research site appears to signal “a new phase” in the war. “If Israel is unable to intercept missiles in the heavily protected Dimona area, it is, operationally, a sign of entering a new phase of the conflict,” he posted on social media network X. “Israel’s skies are defenseless.” He added that the “time has come to implement the next pre-planned schemes,” without providing further details. Israeli military spokesman Effie Defrin said the strikes did not represent a new threat. “The air defense systems operated but did not intercept the missile. We will investigate the incident and learn from it,” he wrote on X. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it had been a “very difficult evening,” and vowed to “continue to strike our enemies on all fronts.” The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was aware of the strikes near the nuclear research center and has not received any indication of damage to the facility, nor any information from regional states indicating that abnormal radiation levels have been detected.

U.S. President Donald Trump warned late Saturday that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. “If Iran doesn’t fully open, without threat, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 hours from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one first,” Trump said in a post on Trust Social. Iran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities — specifically information technology and desalination operations — in the region, the Associated Press reported, citing a statement by an Iranian military spokesperson carried by state media and semiofficial outlets. The warnings of escalation in the Mideast conflict come after the British government on Saturday confirmed that Tehran launched an unsuccessful attack on Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. Media reports said Iran fired two ballistic missiles at the base but missed. Meanwhile, Israel claimed that Iran has missiles with a range of about 4,000 kilometers, capable of hitting London, Paris and Berlin. “The Iranian terrorist regime poses a global threat. Now, with missiles that can reach London, Paris or Berlin,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a post on X. Iran’s targeting of the base on Diego Garcia occurred before Britain on Friday confirmed that U.S. use of its bases includes defensive operations against “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz,” a permission that includes the Indian Ocean island.

The British government confirmed on Saturday that Iran launched an unsuccessful attack on Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. Earlier reports said that Tehran fired two ballistic missiles at the base but missed. “Iran’s reckless attacks, lashing out across the region and holding hostage the Strait of Hormuz, are a threat to British interests and British allies,” a spokesperson for the U.K.’s defense ministry said in an emailed statement. U.K. Royal Air Force jets and other British military assets are “continuing to defend our people and personnel” in the region, as the U.K. has also given permission for the U.S. to use British bases for “specific and limited” defensive operations, they said. Iran’s targeting of Diego Garcia occurred before the U.K. on Friday confirmed that U.S. use of its bases includes defensive operations against “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” The access to U.K. bases has been granted for RAF Fairford in the U.K. and Diego Garcia. Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other on Saturday, the latest in a string of attacks since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran in late February. The U.S. is sending thousands more Marines to the Middle East, according to media reports, even as U.S. President Donald Trump broached “winding down” American military operations in the region. 

Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other on Saturday, the latest in a string of attacks since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran in late February.  The U.S., meanwhile, was sending thousands more Marines to the Middle East, according to media reports, even as U.S. President Donald Trump broached “winding down” American military operations in the regioin.  Israel’s military said Saturday’s attacks targeted “the Iranian terrorist regime” in Tehran, as well as “Hezbollah targets” in Beruit. Israel also said that it identified missiles fired from Iran at Israeli territory.  Tehran also fired two ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean, but did not hit the base, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. The British government condemned “Iran’s reckless strikes” and confirmed London’s agreement for Washington to use U.K. bases in attacks against Iranian “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” The U.K. “is working closely with international partners to develop a viable plan to safeguard international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” it said in a statement.  Defense ministries in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates said on Saturday that they were responding to incoming missile and drone threats, as the conflict continues to spill over into Persian Gulf states. Trump said in a Truth Social post late Friday that Washington is “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down” the U.S. military campaign against Iran. He listed the objectives being met as “completely degrading” Iran’s missile capability, “destroying” the country’s defense industrial base, “eliminating” Iran’s navy and air force, keeping the country far away from nuclear capability, and protecting U.S. allies in the Middle East. Trump’s statement is at odds with the reports that the U.S. is sending more troops and warships to the region, and has requested another $200 billion from Congress to fund the war. The conflict has caused global oil prices to spike, driven in part by Israeli strikes on Iran’s vast offshore gas field and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical trade passage that facilitates a significant share of the world’s oil and natural gas trade. The U.S. said on Friday that it would temporarily waive sanctions on Iranian oil to help ease the short term shock to global markets, as Trump called NATO allies “cowards” for refusing to join the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and help reopen the Hormuz channel.

LONDON — The U.K. government said Friday that it will allow the U.S. to fly missions from British bases in order to bomb Iranian missile sites that are targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. A Downing Street spokesperson said ministers meeting Friday afternoon had “confirmed” that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s agreement for the U.S. to use British sites for defensive operations includes actions to “degrade the missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” “They reaffirmed that the principles behind the U.K.’s approach to the conflict remain the same: the U.K. remains committed to defending our people, our interests and our allies, acting in accordance with international law and not getting drawn into the wider conflict,” Downing Street added. The spokesperson said the U.K. is still working with partners to develop “a viable plan” to safeguard shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Details on any proposals have been scant so far. Since the beginning of the Iran conflict, Starmer has been keen to stress the U.K. is on its own path, one not dictated by the U.S. This is the first time the U.K. has confirmed that U.S. bombers can use two British bases to hit Iranian missile sites that are targeting commercial shipping in the Strait. Previously Britain had said the U.S. could use its bases to target Iranian missile sites that were attacking the U.K.’s allies in the Gulf, without citing commercial shipping. Downing Street officials insisted on Friday night that defending shipping falls within the existing remit for cooperation with the U.S. that Starmer agreed on March 1. The prime minister has repeatedly called this remit “specific and limited” and stressed it is only for a “defensive” purpose. The two British bases being used by American bombers are RAF Fairford in England and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The decision will put Starmer under renewed pressure from critics of Britain’s involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran as he continues to insist — despite the Friday statement — that the U.K. is not being drawn into the wider conflict.

LONDON — Two people have been arrested after trying to get into the Faslane naval base, where the U.K.’s nuclear submarines are based. A 34-year-old man and a 31-year-old woman were detained after attempting to enter the base at around 5 p.m. on Thursday, Police Scotland said in a statement. A Royal Navy spokesperson acknowledged the arrests and said: “As the matter is subject to an ongoing investigation, we will not comment further.” The Press Association has reported that the man arrested is Iranian. Faslane is one of the U.K.’s largest and most sensitive military sites, and is not open to the public. While it is not known what the pair’s motive was, the incident comes amid heightened concerns about hostile activity from Iran in Britain. Faslane is home to all of the Navy’s nuclear submarines, including the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines which carry Trident nuclear missiles. The site is protected by Ministry of Defence Police and Royal Marine Commandos, which were scrambled to their highest alert yesterday, according to the Sun.

BRUSSELS ― Two wars on Europe’s doorstep loomed over a 12-hour summit of EU leaders ― and for very different reasons they found themselves paralyzed rather than able to do much about either. Rarely has the bloc’s inability to take a lead on international affairs been so obvious. Between Germany’s Friedrich Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni ― heads of three of the world’s top 10 economies ― and the other 24 in attendance, they could only look the other way, squabble with each other, or offer little but words as the bombing, missile-firing and killing continued. “In these very troubled moments in which we are living, more than ever it’s decisive to uphold the international rules-based order,” European Council President  António Costa, who chaired the gathering in Brussels, told reporters. “The alternative is chaos. The alternative is the war in Ukraine. The alternative is the war in the Middle East.” And that speech was about as far as it went. As Tehran pounded its neighbors, disrupting Europe’s energy supplies, Kyiv attacked Russian factories repairing military planes, and Donald Trump in Washington joked about the Pearl Harbor attack alongside the Japanese prime minister, European leaders used their talks to tinker with the bloc’s carbon permit scheme, the Emissions Trading System. It’s not a wholly unrelated matter to the global energy shock, but hardly an issue where the continent could demonstrate its geopolitical might. On Iran, leaders found they had little leverage or will to make any significant intervention. On Ukraine, more than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion ― a conflict where they do have leverage and they do have will ― they were unable to overcome internal divisions to approve sending €90 billion Kyiv’s way. There was “no willingness to get involved across the table” on the Iran conflict, said a senior European government official, granted anonymity like others quoted in this article to discuss the talks behind closed doors. German Chancellor Merz even complained that focusing on Iran risked shifting attention away from measures to boost Europe’s flagging economy — the summit’s original raison d’être before would affairs got in the way — according to three officials. “The world looked very different at Alden Biesen,” an EU official said, referring to last month’s competitiveness-focused meeting in a Belgian castle that was meant to set the stage for this summit. That was before Iran’s war and Ukraine’s funding dilemma, brought about by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán going back on his promise to approve the loan, radically reshaped the agenda. NOT OUR WAR That’s not to say Iran was ignored completely. There was some renewed discussion about sending French warships to protect the Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil transit point that Tehran has effectively shut down by threatening to strike ships, potentially with backing from the U.N. Security Council. “We have begun an exploratory process, and we will see in the coming days if it has a chance of succeeding,” Macron said. But the summit’s final statement stopped short of pledging any new mission, referring only to strengthening existing EU naval operations in the region. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a press conference at the end of the European Council summit on March 19, 2026 in Brussels. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images By the end of the talks, the EU’s leaders reached a sobering conclusion: Europe has little power or inclination to shape events. “Middle East impacts us a lot — but are we a player in the game?” an EU official who was party to the leaders’ discussions asked. “They’re trying to find a place in this debate and we have a lot of statements and positions [but] is there a role for Europeans for solving this process?” Evidently not, according to Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, who warned leaders that “starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” according to two diplomats briefed on her remarks. Translation: This is not Europe’s war — and it’s not going to be. The EU was left with doing “what we always do,” an EU official said, writing “nice statements.” BURNING GAS FIELDS Europe already angered U.S. President Trump earlier this week when its top envoys rejected his call to secure the Strait of Hormuz. The summit’s final conclusions leaned heavily on familiar calls for “de-escalation” and “restraint,” without proposing concrete action, sticking to that earlier position. That’s despite Qatar warning Thursday it would not be able to fulfill its liquefied natural gas contracts with Belgium and Italy after Iran directed its wrath — and its ballistic missiles — over U.S.-Israeli strikes at the Gulf country, knocking out almost a fifth of its LNG export capacity. Yet rather than grapple head-on with the rapidly expanding energy shock, Europe’s leaders spent hours debating the bloc’s climate policy, including its ETS, which a group of countries are eager to reform. “To say ETS is the biggest issue when big gas fields are burning is a bit weird,” an EU official said. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the consequences of the war extended far beyond the Middle East, adding its most “immediate impact” was on energy supply and prices. She announced a slate of emergency measures to lower costs, from lowering taxes to boosting investment in ETS. ‘JUST CRAZY’ If anything, the summit exposed where the wars in Iran and Ukraine overlap. In what could be his final EU gathering after 16 years if he loses next month’s election, Hungary’s Orbán slammed Europe’s approach to the unfolding energy crisis. “The behavior and the strategy that the Europeans have here is just crazy,” he said — adding the EU needed to buy Russian oil to “survive.” Orbán has blocked a €90 billion EU loan to Kyiv because of a dispute about a damaged pipeline carrying Russian oil through Ukraine to Hungary and other central European countries. For that reason, the bloc was similarly unable to offer much more than assurances on the Ukraine war either. Orbán maintained his opposition on Thursday and even won the sympathy of Meloni, who told leaders she understood his position. As frustration inside the room boiled over, many leaders sharply criticized the Hungarian premier, according to Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. “I have never heard such hard-hitting criticism of anyone, ever,” he told reporters during a break in the talks. Merz concurred that leaders were “deeply upset” at Orbán. “I am firmly convinced that this will leave a lasting mark,” he said. But the pressure from his peers failed to sway Orbán and questions of the EU loan will roll on to another summit next month ― by which time Hungary could have a new leader, or at least an old one not desperate for votes. On Iran and on Ukraine, the EU didn’t get anywhere. Earlier predictions by diplomats that leaders might continue discussions through the night or even reconvene for a second day as the urgency of a world in turmoil forced them to face up to the challenges before them failed to materialize. Things were done and dusted before midnight. After 12 hours of few decisions, leaders were left with little new to tell people back home. “There are many things worrying about this war” in the Middle East, while Orban’s veto of the loan to Kyiv “is still there and we are extremely unhappy about this, and so of course is Ukraine,” Sweden’s Kristersson told reporters upon leaving the summit. And that was that. Zoya Sheftalovich, Nette Nöstlinger, Nicholas Vinocur, Gerardo Fortuna, Gabriel Gavin, Hans von der Burchard, Sonja Rijnen, Zia Weise, Seb Starcevic, Giorgio Leali, Hanne Cokelaere, Ferdinand Knapp, Milena Wälde, Aude van den Hove, Gregorio Sorgi, Koen Verhelst, Victor Jack, Ben Munster, Jacopo Barigazzi and Bartosz Brzezińksi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — NATO chief Mark Rutte on Thursday said he was “confident” allies would find a way to restart traffic through the Strait of Hormuz blocked by Iran after it was attacked by the U.S. and Israel. “Allies … are intensely discussing amongst each other [and] with the United States … the best way forward to tackle this huge security issue,” Rutte told reporters in Brussels. “I’m confident that allies as always will do everything in support of our shared interest as we always do — so we will find a way forward.” The U.S. president has called on European partners to help secure the trade artery — a request most have flatly rejected. As a result, Donald Trump has slammed NATO allies, warning he could reconsider the U.S. role in the alliance, even while some members like Estonia have volunteered equipment. On Tuesday, the U.S. president claimed he no longer needed European support for the operation. Rutte, who has previously come under fire for claiming Trump’s war has “widespread support” among allies, on Thursday again praised the U.S. for weakening Iran’s military, including its ballistic missile and potential nuclear capabilities. “What the U.S. is doing at the moment is degrading that capability of Iran and I think that’s very important,” he said. “This is important for European security, for the Middle East, it is vital for Israel itself.”

BRUSSELS — Mark Rutte’s tried-and-tested approach to dealing with Donald Trump is coming under strain as the U.S. president’s war in Iran opens up fresh fault lines inside NATO. On Tuesday, Trump branded NATO allies “very foolish” for snubbing his demands for military support in securing the critical Strait of Hormuz trade artery. As a result, reconsidering the U.S. role in the alliance was “certainly something we should think about,” he warned. In response, NATO’s secretary-general is reaching for his usual Trump playbook: Avoid criticizing the president in public and work behind the scenes for a solution. “He’s calculating there’s little to gain by now speaking up,” said one NATO diplomat, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to speak freely. “I don’t see how he could please [Trump’s] desire. So better to lay low — publicly at least.” But the war is putting Rutte in a bind. Despite Trump’s demands, NATO has few powers to act in Iran, while allies’ distaste for the war makes it hard to find needed consensus for any alliance involvement. Yet the longer the conflict drags on, the more it saps resources from the alliance’s core tasks of supporting Ukraine and preparing for a potential war with Russia. “It’s very clear that whatever is being used in the Middle East right now, in particular air defense systems, will most likely have to be replaced,” said Pieter Wezeman, a senior arms researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute think tank. “All that comes on top of the already very high demand for arms in Europe.” NATO declined to comment on the record. MAKING A MARK Until now, Rutte has succeeded in keeping Trump from blowing up the alliance by handing the U.S. president wins in key areas like getting allies to boost defense spending and finding an off ramp that allowed Trump to drop his campaign to annex Greenland. “When there are debates between allies, I always try to stay a bit muted, and therefore being able, if necessary, to help a bit,” Rutte said last week, referencing feuding between Trump and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez over Madrid’s refusal to allow U.S. planes to use its airfield to attack Iran, and Trump’s wrath at low Spanish defense spending. While the alliance hasn’t collapsed, Rutte has come under fire for being obsequious toward Trump and for siding with him against other allies. “In the European Parliament … we have openly questioned whether we were hearing the representative of NATO or the representative of the United States,” said Lucia Yar, a liberal Slovak lawmaker on the Parliament’s defense committee. “I hope that Mr Rutte will continue to engage regularly with both sides of the Atlantic.” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has sparked a feud with President Donald Trump over his refusal to allow U.S. planes to attack Iran from his country, with Rutte during the NATO Summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. | Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images He’s trying the same play during the Iran crisis. In one of his first comments, Rutte claimed there was “widespread support” among the alliance’s members for the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran — a claim that drew a fierce rebuke from Spain. After days of lying low, Rutte was faced with a direct question on Wednesday about Trump’s threat of a “very bad future” for NATO over the reluctance of allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The former Dutch prime minister didn’t take the bait, instead pointing to talks happening behind the scenes. “What I know is that allies are working together discussing how to [reopen the strait],” he said. “Rutte’s job is to keep NATO together, and it’s hard to see how a rhetorical battle with Trump can help him do that,” said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson who now works as a senior research fellow at London’s Royal United Services Institute think tank. OUT OF AREA Yet there are limits to how much Rutte can do to assuage Trump over Iran. That’s partly down to a lack of consensus among allies on the war — with many having slammed the conflict that was initiated without consulting them. While NATO has shot down Iranian missiles directed at Turkey, the U.S. cannot convince allies to join on the basis that its own territory is under threat, said a second alliance diplomat. The alliance’s mutual defense clause, “Article 5, applies in the case of an armed attack against an ally, so it’s not directly relevant to situations like this,” the diplomat said. The Middle East lies outside the alliance’s military “area of responsibility,” according to two other alliance diplomats, further complicating a collective response. Finally, Washington has not made any formal demands of NATO. At a closed-door meeting of ambassadors on Tuesday, the U.S. repeated its pleas for allies to help, but did not make any specific requests to the alliance, the two diplomats said. Yet with the war already in its third week, doing nothing comes with its own risks for NATO. Washington has already withdrawn equipment, including F-35 fighter jets, from a NATO exercise in Norway, while the U.K. has diverted its HMS Dragon destroyer away from activities linked to the alliance’s new Arctic mission to the eastern Mediterranean. HMS Dragon, which the U.K. diverted from an Arctic mission, sets sail from Portsmouth Harbour on March 10, 2026 for its deployment to Cyprus. | Leon Neal/Getty Images Defending against Iranian drone and missile counter-attacks has also forced European countries to burn through air defense missiles, depleting stockpiles and hampering NATO’s aim to bolster air defenses, said Wezeman, the analyst. France has already warned its stockpile of air-to-air MICA missiles is running low. It may be only a “matter of weeks” until European countries are forced to decide whether to earmark future deliveries of air defense systems for their Gulf allies or Ukraine, he said.  “Over a longer period of time, it will put a dent in the planning for how to build up the European defences,” he said. “And it has an immediate effect on the capacity of Ukraine to defend itself.” “We’re not starting from a place of surplus … we’re going to get stretched even more thin,” the third NATO diplomat acknowledged.