In a Financial Times interview, Donald Trump warned that NATO could face serious consequences if members decline to join his proposed naval coalition in the Strait of Hormuz. He said a negative response “will be very bad for the future of Nato,” arguing that the US helped allies with Ukraine and now expects reciprocal support to “knock out some bad actors that are along the [Iranian] shore.”
Trump’s threat implied he could reduce US support for Ukraine — for example by limiting arms transfers — if NATO won’t participate. That puts the alliance in a bind. NATO’s current policy aims to sustain pressure on Russia until a US administration favorable to Kyiv returns, yet few members want to risk direct military losses confronting Iran. A mass-casualty incident at sea would be politically explosive at home and could imperil the careers of leaders who greenlighted involvement.
Refusing to join also carries costs. Keeping the strait effectively closed to coalition operations would likely keep oil prices elevated, aggravating domestic political pressures in Europe. It might also encourage Washington to extend temporary waivers that allow Russian oil flows the EU opposes. In short, NATO must weigh military and political risks of aiding the US in Iran against economic and reputational risks of saying no — including weakened ties with Washington and a higher chance of a Russian victory in Ukraine.
The likelihood of the US completely withdrawing military forces from Europe if NATO rejects Trump’s plan is low, making the security cost manageable. The greater challenge would be mustering European political will to reverse anti-Russian energy policies by buying more Russian oil or reopening pipelines to blunt price shocks. Even that might not prevent a strategic setback in Ukraine.
Trump may be willing to tolerate or even accept a Russian advantage in Ukraine if Moscow helps him achieve objectives in Iran or if he aims to punish NATO for noncompliance. Russian President Vladimir Putin could sweeten a post-conflict détente with terms attractive to Washington, making such a scenario plausible.
NATO should therefore prepare for both outcomes. If it declines Trump’s coalition, it risks economic fallout and a potential Russian victory in Ukraine; if it joins, the diversion of Western arms and attention to Iran could accelerate pressure on Kyiv and increase the chances that Putin secures more of his demands, by force or diplomatically.
This article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished here with edits for clarity, fluency and updates on Trump’s response.
