Hormuz Crisis Exposes Fissures in Transatlantic Relations

Currently, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, a key global energy route, remains tense, with regional security risks continuously spilling over. Recently, the U.S. has attempted to rally allies to form a “escort coalition,” but has been met with collective rejection. Germany, Spain, Italy, France, the UK, and other European countries have explicitly stated they will not participate in the U.S.-led escort operations. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell directly said that the conflict between the U.S., Iran, and Israel “is not Europe’s war,” and the EU has no intention of expanding regional escort operations to the Strait of Hormuz. On the 17th, U.S. President Donald Trump posted on social media that the U.S. no longer “needs or expects” help from NATO countries. So far, no country has committed to send warships, and the “escort coalition” the U.S. is trying to build has fallen into an awkward situation of “requests without responses.”

Ironically, while the U.S. urges allies to “step up,” it repeatedly refuses escort requests from troubled ships near the strait, citing “too high risks.” This double standard reveals the true intent behind U.S. escort demands: not to ensure the safety of international shipping lanes, but to shift strategic risks under the guise of collective action, as the conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and driven up oil prices. Naturally, Europe is unwilling to share the costs. Some European netizens commented on social media, “The bill still came to Europe,” but “we’re not paying.” Facing Europe’s collective refusal, Trump continued to pressure and complain, claiming that if NATO allies do not act to help ensure the Strait’s safety, NATO will face a “very bad future,” and then accused allies of being “ungrateful.”

Europe’s rejection of escorting is a proactive moral distancing. The U.S.-Israel military actions against Iran lack UN Security Council authorization, were launched suddenly during diplomatic negotiations, and caused civilian casualties including children, which has sparked widespread public disapproval in Europe. The U.S.-led escort efforts are clearly militarized, contradicting the international consensus calling for a halt to military actions and resolving disputes through dialogue. French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated on the 17th during a defense and national security meeting that France’s position on Iran and the Middle East is to protect French citizens, defend French interests, support regional partners, and promote de-escalation. At this moment, European countries are choosing rational risk avoidance and restraint, both for their own security and regional peace.

From a security perspective, Europe recognizes that escorting the Strait of Hormuz involves extremely high military risks. The narrowest part of the strait is less than 40 kilometers wide. Iran, on the northern shore, can threaten passing ships with missiles, drones, small surface vessels, and mines. The response time for escort ships to defend against attacks is extremely limited, making security risks uncontrollable. Richard Meder, editor-in-chief of Lloyd’s List, estimates that conventional naval escort requires a large number of ships, and even then, shipping volume could only recover to 10% of pre-conflict levels. The Financial Times quotes International Maritime Organization Secretary-General Kitack Lim, stating that deploying warships cannot “guarantee 100% safety” and that military assistance is “neither a long-term nor sustainable solution.”

Notably, even the relatively moderate UK has explicitly stated that the Strait of Hormuz transit is not a NATO mission and that the UK “will not be drawn into a broader (Middle East) war.” This indicates a rethinking among European allies about NATO’s role and security positioning, with a clearer trend toward strategic autonomy.

In recent years, the U.S. has exerted pressure and humiliated Europe across multiple fields—trade, defense, climate, and international organizations—undermining the trust foundation of the transatlantic alliance. From imposing tariffs and threatening to buy Greenland to unilaterally withdrawing from international agreements ignoring European interests, the U.S. has torn apart multilateral systems under the banner of “America First.” This has caused European countries to feel the imbalance and unfairness in the alliance. Europe’s refusal to follow the U.S. on the Hormuz issue again highlights the deepening rift in the transatlantic relationship. An European diplomat involved in negotiations told Politico, “Leaders are aware that relations with the U.S. are one-way; we can’t rely on the U.S. as we used to. But most countries still want to avoid a complete break.”

The “escort controversy” over the Strait of Hormuz exposes the deep fractures in the US-Europe alliance. The U.S. treats allies as “pawns,” international cooperation as “gratitude,” and strategic waterways as battlegrounds, ultimately risking isolation. Once tightly knit, the transatlantic partnership is undergoing profound and irreversible changes amid the contest between unilateralism and multilateralism, hegemonic thinking, and strategic autonomy. Europe is no longer blindly obedient, and the U.S. no longer responds to every call. The old alliance system is experiencing an unprecedented reshaping.