Washington studies punitive measures within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization over the war with Iran
The Pentagon is considering suspending Spain’s membership in NATO due to its position on the war with Iran.
A U.S. official said that an internal email from the U.S. Department of Defense (the Pentagon) outlined options for the United States to punish NATO members believed not to have supported U.S. operations in the war with Iran. These options include suspending Spain’s membership in the Alliance and reviewing the U.S. position regarding the United Kingdom’s claim to the Falkland Islands.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the policy options were detailed in a memo expressing disappointment over what is seen as reluctance or refusal by some allies to grant the United States access rights, basing rights, and overflight permissions in the context of the war with Iran.
He added that the message described such access, basing, and overflight rights as the “absolute bare minimum” expected within NATO, and that these options were being discussed at high levels within the Pentagon.
According to the official, one of the options mentioned involves suspending “difficult” states from important or prestigious positions within the Alliance.
He stressed, however, that the email does not indicate that the United States will actually implement these measures. It also does not include a proposal to close U.S. bases in Europe. The official declined to say whether the options included withdrawing some U.S. forces from Europe, a move many expect.
Summarizing the email, he said the outlined policy options aim to send a strong signal to NATO members in order to “reduce the sense of entitlement among Europeans.”
He emphasized that suspending Spain’s membership would have limited impact on U.S. military operations but would carry significant symbolic weight.
Responding to a request for comment, Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson said: “As the president said, despite everything the United States has done for its NATO allies, they have not stood by our side.”
She added: “The Department of Defense will ensure the president has credible options to make sure our allies are not merely paper tigers, but that they do their part. We have no further comment on these internal deliberations.”
Differences between NATO and Donald Trump have deepened in the context of the war with Iran, reflecting one of the most sensitive crises within the Western alliance in years.
Since the outbreak of the conflict, clear divergences have emerged among member states. Several European capitals have expressed reservations about direct military involvement alongside the United States, preferring diplomatic channels to avoid escalation. This stance has drawn sharp criticism from Trump, who believes allies failed to provide the support Washington expected at a critical moment.
In a notable escalation, the U.S. president suggested reconsidering his country’s commitments to the Alliance, including the possibility of not defending certain member states if they did not support the United States in the war. He also revived the idea of reducing the U.S. role within NATO, repeatedly describing the Alliance as ineffective, raising broad concerns about the future of the collective defense principle.
Tensions have gone beyond rhetoric, as the U.S. administration adopted a new approach of categorizing member states based on their level of support, whether in military spending or their stance on the war. This classification, dividing allies into “supporters” and “hesitant,” has deepened divisions and weakened internal cohesion.
Meanwhile, these developments have prompted some countries within the European Union to reconsider the structure of collective security, exploring options to strengthen defense cooperation outside the American umbrella and reduce dependence on Washington. Officials have warned that transatlantic relations are experiencing an unprecedented level of fragility.
Additionally, NATO countries are moving to reduce reliance on U.S. aerospace industries when modernizing their surveillance and early-warning capabilities, according to sources within the Alliance.
Preliminary plans to renew the airborne early warning and control fleet point to acquiring Canadian-made aircraft produced by Bombardier, to be equipped with the advanced “GlobalEye” system developed by the Swedish company Saab.
These trends reveal a notable shift in the Alliance’s technical choices. The expected contract could include the purchase of up to 12 “Global 6000” or “Global 6500” aircraft in a deal worth billions of dollars, reflecting the scale of investment in upgrading NATO’s aerial surveillance capabilities.
