The predominant tone of statements by European leaders indicated that they did not favor the outbreak of this war in the first place, but instead looked toward a peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the various aspects of the US-Iranian dispute, one that would address concerns related to the Iranian nuclear program and perhaps also the ballistic missile program. However, what further fueled and publicly exposed the disagreement were statements by US President Donald Trump criticizing a number of allies across the Atlantic, specifically mentioning British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and accusing him of not permitting the use of British military bases for US attacks on Iran.

These criticisms directed at London were notable for several reasons. The first is the strategic nature of the long-standing Anglo-Saxon alliance between Washington and London, which has endured for decades without being negatively affected by changes in US administrations or British governments. The second reason is that the British Prime Minister had, early in the war, allowed the US military to use British bases, yet still faced harsh criticism from Trump. The third reason is that Washington had not consulted London in making its decision, but instead expected compliance with its demands without any prior discussion.

However, the US president’s criticisms did not stop at the British Prime Minister but extended—albeit less directly—to other heads of state and government in NATO and Europe. He reminded them that the United States was fighting Iran on behalf of all of them, and for global stability, peace, and security, as he claimed. He warned that without the war on Iran, or if it had been delayed, a nuclear war would have erupted and Iran would have initiated it—a scenario that, in his view, would have led to the outbreak of World War III.

Although European leaders, including the British Prime Minister, chose not to respond to or comment on the US president’s statements in order to preserve the transatlantic partnership with Washington, which they rely on, the US president—unlike on other issues where he has revised his positions since the start of the war—continued to direct criticism at NATO allies, particularly the Europeans. When Britain, France, and other European countries announced the deployment of troops, even symbolically, near the battlefield, Trump declared that Washington did not need other NATO countries and that the United States would win alone, even claiming that it had already triumphed.

These statements were clearly not welcomed by European leaders, although they once again exercised restraint in their responses to avoid damaging their relations with Washington.

In conclusion, each side presents arguments it considers valid. Washington reminds its NATO allies, particularly in Europe, that it has provided them with a security umbrella since its decisive contribution to defeating the Axis powers in World War II, then defended them during the Cold War between the Western and Eastern blocs, and again during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. From this perspective, expressions of gratitude would entail that European and other Western allies respond promptly to US requests.

For their part, European and other Western leaders argue that they were not consulted by Washington before the war was launched, and that the American administration underestimated their weight and role at its outset. They also operate within democratic systems that hold them accountable to their publics, requiring them to pursue policies aligned with their national interests. Accordingly, they maintain that the current dispute should be resolved through peaceful and diplomatic channels.