As of April 2026, major European capitals—including Berlin, London, and Paris—face heightened security risks due to their roles in supporting U.S. military operations against Iran. While many European governments have publicly distanced themselves from the conflict, they are quietly providing the logistical and strategic backbone for the U.S. campaign.
Direct Threats to European Cities
Cities like London, Paris, and Berlin have been identified by intelligence reports and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as falling within Iran's expanded 4,000-kilometer missile range. The direct air distance between the closest major point in Iran (Tehran) and Vilnius, Lithuania (where both authors of this WSJ text are from, is approximately
1,814 miles (2,920 km), also in the missile range.
Missile Range Proof: A March 2026 Iranian missile strike targeting the joint U.S.-UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean demonstrated Iran's ability to reach targets thousands of kilometers away.
Soft Targets: Beyond direct military strikes, European capitals are warned of "indirect retaliation," including cyber sabotage, arson, and proxy attacks on sensitive sites such as energy grids and dissidents.
Terrorist Threat: Following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in February 2026, Western intelligence has warned of an escalated risk of state-sponsored terrorism across Europe.
Quiet Support from NATO Allies
Despite political rhetoric emphasizing that this is "not our war," several NATO allies are facilitating U.S. operations:
United Kingdom: London authorized the use of British bases for U.S. strikes on Iranian missile sites in March 2026.
Germany: The Ramstein Air Base remains a vital hub for U.S. logistics and drone-linked operations, despite Berlin's public calls for de-escalation.
Other Supporters: Portugal, France, Italy, and Greece have also allowed the use of their military infrastructure for refueling, munitions transport, and command operations.
Political and Strategic Rifts
The conflict has created a severe rift within the NATO alliance:
U.S. Criticism: President Donald Trump has publicly labeled some allies "cowards" and a "paper tiger" for refusing broader military involvement.
Withdrawal Threats: The Trump administration has signaled a potential re-examination of the U.S. commitment to NATO's collective defense, citing the lack of direct support in the Iran campaign.
Explicit Refusals: Spain has been the most vocal opponent, denying the U.S. access to its airspace and bases for Iran-related operations.
“President Trump has turned the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a political target of his Iran war messaging. "NATO has done absolutely nothing," he said, after earlier calling allied reluctance to help a "very stupid mistake" and warning that "we don't have to be there for NATO." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the line, saying Washington would have to "re-examine all of this" after the operation ends.
That line may prove politically effective, but it doesn't reflect the full picture. Even as many European leaders keep their political distance from the war and continue to press for de-escalation, they are helping to enable the U.S. effort. They have provided the essential operating platform for American power in the Middle East.
Look at the map of operations. London, after some delay, authorized the use of British bases for U.S. strikes on Iranian missile sites targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Portugal reaffirmed its decision to allow the U.S. to use Lajes Air Base in the Azores. Germany has kept Ramstein Air Base available under standing agreements -- a vital U.S. hub for logistics, force projection, and drone-linked operations beyond Europe -- even as Berlin insists this isn't NATO's war.
Italy still allows U.S. base access and overflights, although it says any Iran-related offensive use must be cleared by Rome first. Even France has allowed U.S. aircraft presence on French bases for missions supporting Gulf partners, while barring those planes from taking part in strikes on Iran.
Spain was the clear exception. The leftist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez seemed eager to pick a fight with Mr. Trump. Last year Madrid alone refused to commit to NATO's 5% defense-spending target. Now it has denied the use of Naval Station Rota and Moron Air Base for Iran-related operations and closed its airspace to U.S. military flights linked to the war. Yet when Spain blocked some routes and facilities, flights were simply rerouted elsewhere in Europe, including through Germany.
The effect of allied support isn't merely symbolic. Access, basing rights, overflight permissions, maintenance, refueling and logistics are the skeleton of military power. Without them, American operations would become slower, costlier and riskier. Souda Bay on the Greek island of Crete served as a working port for the USS Gerald R. Ford to resupply, refuel and undergo repairs before the carrier moved on to Split, Croatia, for further maintenance after a fire aboard the ship.
No one has made that point more clearly than U.S. Air Force Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's top commander in Europe. In a March statement to the Senate, he wrote that the Continent's geography and posture allow the U.S. European Command to support other combatant commands with "critical logistics, ready forces, and lethal capabilities," and that U.S. power projection depends on European allies. In the hearing itself, he also said the "vast majority" of European allies had been "extremely supportive."
That is the paradox at the heart of the current trans-Atlantic debate. Politically, the war with Iran has widened the gap between Washington and many European governments. Operationally, it has underscored how heavily the U.S. still relies on Europe -- and how cooperative most European governments are.
We have been here before. Certain elements of the Iran operations echo war in Iraq. Especially during the later stages of that war in 2007-09, support had faded across much of Europe. Washington wanted to show it wasn't acting alone. In that atmosphere, the political symbolism of backing the U.S. often mattered as much as real military help. That was also the backdrop to the 2003 "Vilnius 10" episode, in which Central and Eastern European countries supported Washington. French President Jacques Chirac, a strong opponent of the effort in Iraq, rebuked them for having "missed a great opportunity to shut up."
Back then, the U.S. seemed to need more supporters' flags. The more, the merrier. And everyone's flag counted. This time, Washington likely needs both flags and capabilities. Yet a striking gap has emerged: While some allies quietly provide the capabilities, there is a visible lack of political backing. This is a product of short memories. In 2010 NATO was already clear that Iran's and North Korea's nuclear and ballistic-missile programs threatened the allies -- meaning Europe, too.
For various reasons, the political stance is unlikely to change. Yet it shouldn't obscure the reality of practical cooperation. Four years into events in Ukraine, the risks of public passions taking over and damaging NATO as a whole are too high. NATO's eastern flank would bear the greatest cost, living as it does in the shadow of conflict and unable to afford any weakening of the American role in Europe's security architecture.
That is why allies should resist tit-for-tat rhetoric and focus on examples of working together. This is the backdrop to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's trip to Washington this week.
The core message should be simple: Europe isn't only a consumer of U.S. security. It is part of the machinery of American power projection, hosting roughly 80,000 U.S. troops and some 40 bases that both deter enemies and support operations far beyond the Continent.
Europe may not want political responsibility for another Middle East war. But it remains strategically indispensable to Washington. Mr. Trump's own campaign has made that plain.
---
Mr. Kojala is CEO of the Geopolitics and Security Studies Center, based in Vilnius, Lithuania. Mr. Leskevicius is a senior policy analyst at the center and a former Lithuanian ambassador to NATO.” [1]
Mr. Kojala and Mr. Leskevicius are idiots. Overflight permissions and flights don't defeat Iran in a war of swarms. What America needs is Western Europe's ground troops at least showing some guts, going into Iran's mountains and dying there in kill zones of drones. Everything else doesn't move the needle. Western Europe is a useless balast for America.
1. NATO Allies Are Quietly Helping the U.S. in Iran. Kojala, Linas; Leskevicius, Vytautas. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 07 Apr 2026: A15
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą