Does being an European "ally" of America even mean anything anymore? That's a valid question after several NATO nations not only initially denied the use of their military bases during Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing attack on Iran, but also offered tacit support for the Islamic regime.
Perhaps the most public betrayal came from Spain, whose left-wing prime minister claimed the United States was violating "international law."
🇪🇸 Spain's far-left Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on the US and Israel military operation in Iran:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 2, 2026
"Today more than ever, it is essential to remember that one can be against a hateful regime and at the same time be against an unjustified, dangerous military intervention outside… https://t.co/SbqKaWVxNQ pic.twitter.com/jpRs7whfht
Given Spain's history over the last century or so, it wasn't exactly surprising that they'd take the side of Islamic fascists over the country that pays for their defense. The Western European country once again fell woefully short of its NATO spending requirements in 2025 while continuing to expand its welfare state, a dynamic that has been allowed to exist for far too long.
You'd expect better from the United Kingdom, though. Well, at least up until fairly recently. After all, the Brits are supposedly America's closest, most reliable ally. Yet, in a stunning move, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer denied the use of his country's military bases for logistical support. Further, he refused to mobilize any forces for defensive operations in the weeks before Iran's missile and drone barrages began.
Related: Gulf States Draw Lines, More Countries Now Ready to Combat Iran Directly
That proved disastrous, with several Gulf allies lambasting Starmer for hanging them out to dry, even as hundreds of thousands of British nationals were coming under attack.
This time the NSC agreed that the basing request be granted. Downing Street’s official line is that the situation changed when Iran began firing missiles at hotels and other civilian sites in Dubai and Bahrain. An attack on the Bahraini capital Manama narrowly missed killing British military personnel stationed there. But it is also the case that Starmer and his ministers were shocked by the undiluted fury of their Middle East allies that more had not been done to protect them. Jordan was “fucking furious,” a former minister with friends in Amman says. “The Emiratis, Kuwaitis, and even the Canadians are all asking, ‘What the fuck are you doing? Whose side are you on?’” The Emiratis pointed out that Britain was failing to help protect the 240,000 British citizens living in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
As the above excerpt notes, the British NSC did eventually reverse its decision, though it all appears to be too little, too late. Iran's missile and drone launches have already been reduced to a trickle by American and Israeli airpower. It's what happened before that, though, that is truly disturbing.
According to newly revealed details about the British NSC's deliberations, the initial requests for base usage and the deployment of defensive assets (two destroyers, in this case) were denied for political reasons. Even when Starmer finally got in line, his fellow Labour members were more concerned with spiting Trump than stopping Iranian ballistic missiles.
Starmer was supported by John Healey, the Defense Secretary, but “Reeves and Miliband made it quite difficult for the Prime Minister.” The discussion came down to the legality and whether “a positive relationship with the United States of America was a good thing right now for the party. And many people concluded that it was not.” When asked what role the Labour defeat in the Gorton and Denton by-election played, because the Green party mobilized Muslim voters, a close aide of Starmer says: “Zero.”
But security sources are clear that Miliband, in particular, took a “petulant, pacifist, legalistic and very political” approach, questioning why the UK should support the US. “He fundamentally doesn’t like Trump, and he doesn’t like this Iran thing,” one says. As Labour leader in 2013, Miliband thwarted attempts by David Cameron to bomb Syria after the Assad regime used chemical weapons; many in Westminster regard this as a shameful episode. “He probably thinks it was a success,” the source adds.
At the center of the UK's obsession with "international law" over protecting its own people and helping its long-time allies is Richard Hermer, the country's far-left attorney general.
Ministers, officials and military officers all regard Hermer as an impediment to Britain’s national security – both because of his doctrinaire approach to international law and because he reinforces Starmer’s legalistic instincts. “Bring back Suella!” says a member of the National Security Secretariat – a reference to the former attorney general Suella Braverman, who asserted parliamentary sovereignty over international treaties.
“Every senior minister receives legal advice,” says the former defense secretary Ben Wallace. “It is advice, it is not direction. However, under this government, Lord Hermer has become the power in the land where his advice becomes the rule.” A former mandarin adds: “There’s a lot of frustration in the professional national security gang because they feel that Hermer is essentially running the entire policy.”
I'm going to be frank. The United States can not have a "closest ally" that can't even be counted on to provide defensive support from ballistic missiles because they are too busy arguing over the finer points of something as irrelevant as "international law." At no point did the Trump administration ask Starmer to participate in the offensive attacks on Iran. All that was requested was help in suppressing the Islamic regime's attacks on civilians. That the UK didn't immediately oblige and instead spent days playing politics, even as the missiles fell, is a damning indictment of a once special relationship.
Never mind that the Brits have allowed their once world-leading navy to waste away into a mostly dry-docked, ineffectual fleet. To the extent that they could even launch defensive assets, such as destroyers with anti-ballistic missile systems, that ability remains severely restricted.
This isn't complicated, in my view. If you're a NATO nation that suckles at the teat of the American taxpayer for your defense needs while you blow all your money on social programs, there should be an expectation that you do the bare minimum when we ask for assistance. If that's not going to happen, then it's time to start reassessing some of these alliances.
Editor's Note: For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.
Help us report the truth about the Trump administration’s decisive actions to keep Americans safe and bring peace to the world. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member