Europeans are currently occupied with a range of other challenges, including hybrid wars involving cyberattacks, energy security issues, pressures from refugee flows, and maintaining the cohesion of European societies in the face of these crises. This disparity in visions does not mean that Europeans are naive about threats or that Americans act recklessly, but rather it simply reflects the differing geopolitical realities each side faces. For these countries, Russia still represents the most urgent threat, and their focus is heavily concentrated on the security of the European continent and the potential consequences of long-lasting conflicts in the Middle East. In Brussels, the Belgian capital where the alliance's headquarters is located, the general atmosphere does not indicate that NATO is heading toward collapse or disintegration. Berlin is well aware of its structural dependence on the American security umbrella, and therefore sees engaging in direct political confrontation with Washington as an unwise strategic choice. A group of member states may choose to align closely with the global campaigns led by the United States, while another group may prefer to focus on missions to defend European territories and regional stability. Although all countries will remain formally committed to Article 5 of the alliance's charter, which stipulates the principle of collective defense, the scope of joint political action may gradually shrink. The British government views this approach as reflecting a balanced position, though some circles in the White House may interpret it as hesitation or a lack of enthusiasm for supporting Washington. Militarily, NATO continues to carry out its duties as usual, with air defense systems on constant alert, joint intelligence services remaining active, and command-and-control structures functioning through standard mechanisms. However, alliances are built not only on military and technical capabilities but also heavily on the mutual political trust among their members. This consensus and cohesion have already been subjected to a series of tests recently, whether in the context of the war in Ukraine, due to the sharp rhetoric adopted by Washington under the Donald Trump administration, or due to the ongoing difficulties Europe faces in converting its political commitments into tangible military capabilities. One of the most significant reasons for disagreement within the alliance stems from the differing strategic assessments between the United States and European countries. In this context, it has become clear that the increasing overlap between strategic disagreements and economic pressure represents a notable development, as trade threats and the use of economic influence are becoming increasingly prevalent tools in conflicts that were traditionally classified as purely security-related. At the same time, European governments are aware of the influence of domestic public opinion, as memories of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars remain strongly present in European political consciousness. On one hand, London acknowledges that Europe must bear a larger share of the defense burden, a long-standing US demand, while on the other hand, it attempts to maintain a delicate balance in its handling of the crisis. The United Kingdom agreed to some forms of limited defense cooperation but did not participate in initial strikes against Iran, even as it sought to preserve the alliance's unity. Merz reaffirmed his country's commitment to increasing defense spending, enhancing transatlantic cooperation, and did not hesitate to criticize the Spanish position. The United Kingdom, under the Labor government led by Keir Starmer, found itself in a more complex position. For four decades, the strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been based on its internal cohesion and its ability to unite the positions of its member states around the strategic goals it seeks to achieve. The prevailing assumption for all those years was that the United States, as the largest and most influential power within the alliance, when it declares a strategic threat to the security of the alliance or its members, the allied European states would quickly line up behind the American position and support it. For Trump and a number of officials in his administration, Iran represents a long-term strategic challenge, not only because it threatens Israel's security but also because of its potential pursuit of nuclear weapons in the medium term. Such a shift does not necessarily mean the end of the alliance, but it may represent a profound change in its nature and role. Although NATO's military structure remains as it was before, the political consensus has begun to show clear signs of erosion. The level of mutual trust is no longer what it was, and old questions related to sovereignty, independence, and strategic loyalty have returned to the forefront, dominating political and media headlines. In fact, the Iranian war did not lead to the collapse of the Atlantic alliance, but it revealed the scale of the challenges facing its consensus and political cohesion. However, the Iranian war appears to be a real test of the long-held hypothesis that has been considered the foundation of the alliance's strength and cohesion. Although NATO's military structure remains as it was before, without any fundamental changes, the political consensus that formed the mainstay of the alliance has begun to show clear signs of erosion. The United States sees Iran as a strategic threat that requires decisive and strict handling, while many European governments view the matter from a different angle. However, differing assessments of the nature of threats within any alliance often lead to friction among its members, especially when it comes to a broad alliance comprising 32 countries facing varying security environments. European Caution Spain was among the most critical European countries of the war. No member of the alliance expressed a desire to question Article 5 of its charter, which is the article that stipulates the principle of collective defense, i.e., the commitment of all members to defend any member state that is subjected to an attack. Nevertheless, the political climate within the alliance appears to have changed significantly, and the language used in discussions has become sharper than before. The Spanish government, led by Pedro Sánchez, warned that military escalation could lead to further instability in the region, and reiterated its refusal to allow the use of Spanish territory to carry out offensive operations related to the war. France, for its part, adopted a more balanced position, expressing concern about the implications of the conflict, while at the same time emphasizing the importance of keeping diplomatic channels open, reaffirming its commitment to the concept of European strategic independence. Canada also called for wisdom and respect for international law rules. However, none of these positions went so far as to question NATO's collective defense commitments, or to call for a separation from Washington, but these positions clearly indicate a broader pattern, namely that solidarity within the alliance does not necessarily mean supporting every strategic decision made by the United States. In reality, this type of tension is not entirely new, as it evokes the atmosphere of the "with us or against us" phase that emerged during the war on terrorism after the 9/11 attacks, an approach that complicated relations within the Western camp at a time when China was watching the divisions within its largest strategic competitor with caution. Germany and Britain The German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, took a clearer position in affirming his country's commitment to the Atlantic Alliance. From this perspective, decision-makers in Washington believe that a tough deterrence policy is absolutely essential, and any hesitation in facing Tehran could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, a logic that aligns with the traditional direction of American strategic thinking, which tends to use force to manage threats. In contrast, many European countries adopt a somewhat different vision. The alliance's military structures continue to operate efficiently as they always have, and its deterrent systems remain effective. From the perspective of these countries, Russia remains the geographically closest and most urgent security threat, especially given the ongoing war in Ukraine. In this case, NATO may transform from a strategic alliance with a unified global vision into a framework for selective cooperation among its member states. Although NATO represents a strong framework for collective defense, the popular and political enthusiasm for engaging in a new, and perhaps long-term, military intervention in the Middle East remains extremely limited. As a result, a kind of delicate balance emerges within the alliance: continuous military and operational cooperation, accompanied by clear political caution. Javier Villamor**Journalist and Spanish analyst based in Brussels for European Conservative Two different groups NATO may gradually evolve into an informal structure, operating at two different speeds in the wake of recent events.
