Strait of Hormuz: Iran crisis and NATO's Future

Editor's note: Jessica Durdu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist and PhD candidate in international relations at China Foreign Affairs University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The latest confrontation between the United States and its European allies over military engagement in the Strait of Hormuz marks more than a tactical disagreement; it reveals a deeper structural transformation within the transatlantic partnership. US President Donald Trump's sharp criticism of NATO allies, accusing them of making a "foolish mistake" and even questioning the utility of NATO membership, signals an inflection point in alliance politics. While transatlantic tensions are not new, the current rift over Iran underscores a widening gap in threat perception, strategic culture, and the very purpose of collective security.

At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental divergence in how the United States and Europe interpret the Iran question. From a realist perspective, Washington's approach is consistent with its long-standing commitment to maintaining maritime dominance and safeguarding global energy flows. The Strait of Hormuz represents a critical chokepoint in the international system, and US efforts to secure it can be interpreted as an attempt to preserve systemic stability, albeit through coercive means. However, European states, while equally dependent on the free flow of energy, make markedly different cost-benefit calculations. Their reluctance to participate in a US-led military mission reflects a preference for risk aversion and strategic restraint, particularly in the absence of a clear multilateral mandate.

This divergence also reflects the enduring relevance of liberal institutionalism, albeit in a fractured form. European leaders' insistence on consultation, multilateral decision-making, and legal legitimacy highlights their continued commitment to institutional norms. Statements from Berlin, London, and Brussels emphasize that the proposed operation lacks collective endorsement and risks escalating into a broader conflict. In this sense, Europe's position is not merely about avoiding military entanglement but about preserving the normative foundations of international cooperation. The absence of prior consultation, a recurring criticism, further exacerbates distrust, suggesting that the United States is increasingly willing to bypass alliance mechanisms in favor of unilateral action.

Yet, Trump's rhetoric introduces a distinctly transactional interpretation of alliances, one that aligns with elements of neorealist burden-sharing debates. By framing NATO as a "one-way street," Trump revives long-standing American grievances regarding unequal defense contributions. However, his argument extends beyond financial burden-sharing to encompass operational reciprocity: If allies benefit from US protection, they should reciprocate in moments of American strategic need. This logic, while not entirely new, is articulated with unprecedented bluntness, raising questions about the durability of alliance commitments under an "America First" paradigm.

The European response, however, suggests that the alliance is no longer anchored in automatic alignment with US priorities. Instead, it reflects an emerging strategic autonomy, particularly within the European Union. The near-unanimous opposition among EU foreign ministers to the Hormuz mission indicates a growing willingness to define European interests independently. As EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas noted, "this is not Europe's war," even if European interests are implicated. This distinction is critical: It signals a shift from alliance-based obligation to interest-based engagement, a hallmark of a more multipolar international order.

The implications for the transatlantic partnership are profound. First, the crisis exposes the limits of NATO as a global security provider. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's assertion that the Iran conflict is "not a matter for NATO" underscores a narrowing interpretation of the alliance's mandate, potentially reverting it to its original focus on collective defense rather than expeditionary operations.

Second, the episode accelerates the trend toward selective alignment within the alliance. Trump's reference to unnamed countries willing to support the US mission suggests the emergence of ad hoc coalitions that bypass NATO structures. Such "coalitions of the willing" may offer operational flexibility but risk undermining alliance cohesion by creating parallel security frameworks. Over time, this could erode NATO's institutional centrality and reduce it to a symbolic rather than functional alliance.

Finally, Trump's suggestion that NATO membership itself should be reconsidered, while likely rhetorical, introduces a level of uncertainty that cannot be easily dismissed. Even the perception of American ambivalence toward NATO can have destabilizing effects, prompting European states to hedge their security strategies and invest more heavily in autonomous capabilities. In the long term, this could lead to a reconfiguration of the transatlantic security architecture, with NATO playing a reduced role.

In sum, the dispute over the Strait of Hormuz reflects the tension between unilateralism and multilateralism, between transactional and institutional approaches to alliances, and between diverging strategic cultures within the West. Whether this rift represents a temporary divergence or a more enduring transformation will depend on both sides' ability to reconcile these differences. What is clear, however, is that the transatlantic partnership is entering a period of profound uncertainty, one that will test not only its resilience but also its relevance in an increasingly multipolar world.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)