The escalation of the U.S.-Iran-Israel conflict in March 2026 has done more than merely destabilize the global energy markets and geopolitical landscapes. Indeed, it has become a critical test for NATO's cohesion. Based on long-term information tracking, ANBOUND's founder Kung Chan points out that as hostilities persist, NATO, the world's most influential post-Cold War military alliance, is exhibiting internal divisions, operational fragmentation, and strategic distancing. These symptoms point to deep-seated structural contradictions that may pose a genuine risk of the alliance's dissolution.
The vitality of NATO is rooted in the principle of collective defense and synchronized allied action. However, this core tenet has been shattered by the current conflict, plunging the alliance into unprecedented fragmentation. On March 2, 2026, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte explicitly stated that NATO would not involve itself as a collective entity in U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran, acknowledging only the right of individual allies to provide support independently. This move draws a sharp line between NATO and unilateral U.S. military actions, and it is a stark departure from the alliance's post-Cold War precedent of following the U.S. lead into conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
The positions taken by core European member states have brought NATO's divide into the spotlight. Spain led the public opposition, refusing the U.S. use of the Rota Naval Base and Morón Air Base. Despite facing trade pressure from Washington, Madrid has remained firm, becoming the first core NATO nation to actively disallow U.S. military operations. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK would not participate in offensive strikes against Iran and would not give the U.S. permission to use bases in the Chagos Archipelago for such missions. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated bluntly that the U.S.-Israeli actions lack legitimacy as they were not authorized by the UN Security Council, clarifying that France would only provide defensive assistance and would strictly avoid active involvement in offensives. Germany and Italy have also followed suit, signaling their refusal to bear the cost of America's Middle East strategy and emphasizing their desire to prevent Europe from being dragged into a pointless conflict.
According to the latest statistics from ABC News, out of NATO's 32 member states, only five, namely Canada, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, have explicitly supported the U.S.-Israeli actions. This represents less than 16% of the alliance. With over 84% of members remaining neutral or opposed, the collective "non-cooperation" from core European powers like France, Germany, Spain, and Italy has effectively shattered U.S. attempts to mobilize NATO involvement in the conflict.
NATO's internal fractures are far from accidental; they are the inevitable outcome of long-standing structural contradictions. The U.S.–Israel conflict against Iran has merely accelerated the full eruption of these tensions. Deep-seated differences between the U.S. and Europe, from strategic objectives, defense burden-sharing, to security priorities, have existed for years.
The fundamental cause lies in the misalignment of strategic objectives between the U.S. and Europe. Washington regards the Middle East as essential to sustaining its global dominance. By supporting Israel in confronting Iran, it seeks to contain anti-American forces in the region and control critical energy routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, thereby reinforcing the supremacy of the U.S. dollar and its military deterrence. Europe, on the other hand, prioritizes domestic security and energy stability. Following the outbreak of conflict, European natural gas prices surged by more than 57% intraday, while crude oil prices jumped 12% in a single day. The resulting risks of an energy crisis, refugee influxes, and the spread of terrorism have all directly impacted European interests. From Europe's perspective, U.S. actions in the Middle East are benefiting the U.S. at Europe's expense. This has also made Europe increasingly aware that NATO's notion of a shared threat has effectively become a pretext for U.S. hegemony. The alliance cohesion once maintained after the Cold War by positioning Russia as a common adversary has now lost its foundation, leaving the U.S. and Europe out of sync in their perceptions of security threats.
Tensions over defense burden-sharing continue to escalate, further fracturing the alliance. Since the 2014 NATO Wales Summit set a target of allocating 2% of GDP to defense spending, European member states have struggled to meet this benchmark, prompting repeated pressure from the U.S. and even threats of withdrawal. According to NATO's latest member state defense expenditure report released in March 2026, only 11 of the 32 member states consistently meet the target, while six barely manage to do so. The U.S. share of total NATO defense spending has reached as high as 68.2%, an increase of 2.2 percentage points from 2025.
What is even more unsettling for Europe is that NATO's summit in the Hague in June 2025 has just adopted a new resolution raising the defense spending target to 5% of GDP, including 1.5% allocated to "strategic resilience". This target has triggered strong backlash in countries such as Italy and Belgium. Italy's defense minister described the 5% goal as "unthinkable", while Belgium's foreign minister bluntly stated that even a 3.5% defense spending benchmark is "not feasible" in the short to medium term for the country.
The U.S. complains about bearing an excessive share of defense costs, while Europe accuses Washington of leveraging its military spending advantage to dominate alliance decision-making. In the recent U.S.–Israel conflict against Iran, the U.S. demanded that Europe cover 30% of the logistical and military expenses for operations in the Middle East, a request that was unanimously rejected by European countries, further intensifying tensions over burden-sharing.
Europe's desire for strategic autonomy is fundamentally undermining the very foundation of NATO's existence. In recent years, "America First" unilateralism of the U.S., marked by its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the imposition of trade tariffs on Europe, and the launching of Middle East conflicts without regard for European interests, has severely eroded the trust of its allies. A March 2026 public opinion report by the UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies shows that European trust in the U.S. has dropped by 47% compared to 2024; only 16% of respondents consider the U.S. a reliable ally, while 72% support reducing NATO's dependence on Washington. At the same time, the Russia–Ukraine conflict and instability in the Middle East have compelled Europe to accelerate its pursuit of strategic autonomy. France has advocated for a "European army", while the German-led European Sky Shield Initiative has already attracted 17 participating countries. Europe is pushing forward with defense integration in an effort to reduce its reliance on U.S. security guarantees. At the EU summit in March 2026, European Council President António Costa explicitly identified strengthening European defense integration and strategic autonomy as core agenda items. This latest conflict has further reinforced Europe's determination to act independently. It is no longer willing to sacrifice its own interests for U.S. hegemonic strategies, an evolution that directly calls into question the very basis of NATO's continued existence.
As things stand, although the U.S.–Israel's war on Iran conflict has exposed NATO's structural contradictions, the alliance is unlikely to disintegrate in the short term. That being said, the risk of its fragmentation will rise sharply over the long run. Some European countries continue to view Russia as their primary security threat and remain dependent on NATO's military protection. Poland and Lithuania, for instance, allocate 4.81% and 4.1% of their GDP to defense spending respectively, above NATO's 2% benchmark, and they actively align with the U.S., making them key pillars in sustaining the alliance. Furthermore, NATO possesses well-established institutional mechanisms, an integrated military coordination system, and extensive transnational cooperation networks, making it difficult to dismantle in the short run. Moreover, Europe's pursuit of strategic autonomy is still in its early stages and has yet to produce a fully viable alternative security framework. Therefore, European countries continue to rely on NATO as a fundamental security backstop.
However, in the medium to long term, the trajectory toward NATO's weakening, even its eventual potential dissolution, will become increasingly evident. The strategic divergence between the U.S. and Europe is unlikely to be reconciled. The tension between the U.S. ' Middle East policies and Europe's energy security priorities will only intensify as conflicts persist. Meanwhile, Europe's continued push for strategic autonomy will lead core countries such as France and Germany to gradually reduce their reliance on NATO, redirecting more resources toward defense cooperation within the framework of the European Union.
In all likelihood, NATO's military and political functions will continue to erode. Joint military exercises may become largely symbolic, intelligence-sharing mechanisms could be implemented selectively, and collective decision-making processes may be undermined by unilateral actions. At the same time, frustration with what it sees as a lack of cooperation from its allies may cause the U.S. to scale back its commitment to NATO and instead focus on alliances such as AUKUS (the U.S., UK, and Australia) and the QUAD (the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia). Against this backdrop, NATO could ultimately be reduced to a hollow structure with largely symbolic significance. A March 2026 report by the BCA Research institute estimates that the probability of NATO's dissolution over the next decade has reached 38%, an increase of 26 percentage points compared to the period before the Russia–Ukraine conflict, with the U.S.-Israel conflict against Iran serving as a key catalyst accelerating this trend.
From Secretary General Mark Rutte's statement of "absolutely no plan", to the collective resistance of core member states such as France, Germany, Spain, and Italy, and the fundamental divergences between the U.S. and Europe in strategic objectives, defense burden-sharing, and security priorities, all point to a weakening of NATO's functions. Should even greater geopolitical divergences emerge in the future, Europe may move beyond U.S. influence, and this military alliance, which has endured for more than seventy years, could ultimately head toward disintegration.
Final analysis conclusion:
With the full escalation of the U.S.–Israel conflict against Iran in March, core European member states collectively refrained from participating and even denied the U.S. access to their military bases, bringing NATO's internal divisions into the open. This is by no means accidental, but rather the inevitable result of long-accumulated structural contradictions between the U.S. and Europe. It points to a severe misalignment in strategic objectives, intensifying disputes over defense burden-sharing, and Europe's drive for strategic autonomy. However, while NATO is unlikely to undergo a substantive breakup in the short term, its military and political functions are expected to continue weakening over time, with the risk of a genuine dissolution rising sharply in the long run.
______________
Xia Ri is an Industry Researcher at ANBOUND, an independent think tank.
