It has long been understood that the purpose of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was to bring American military might into the picture if Europe was attacked. There really wasn’t much point in bringing European military might into the picture if America was attacked because Europe doesn’t have a lot of military might. So America was the big brother ready to fight off the bully. Under President Trump, European nations have done better at paying their share of their defense, but generally America has footed the bill. You would think that they might appreciate the protection. Obviously, they do not.
On March 6th, Red State reported:
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.
The article includes an X post that includes a statement from Spain’s Prime Minister:
Spain’s far-left Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on the US and Israel military operation in Iran: “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 of international law. […] That is where Spain will be, and that is where I believe the whole of the European Union should be.”
The article notes:
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.
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.
The article concludes:
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.
Western civilization is on its deathbed in Europe and England.





