An internal Pentagon email, the existence of which was revealed by sources cited by Reuters, has introduced a new source of friction in NATO. The document explores possible pressure measures against European allies who, in Washington's opinion, did not sufficiently support its operations in the war against Iran. Among the most striking proposals are the suspension of Spain from the alliance – or at least from certain roles within it – and the review of the US position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. If we move forward, will they be achievable measures or with legal limits? We address it.

First modification: 04/24/2026 - 19:14 Last modification: 04/25/2026 - 00:20

To display this YouTube content, you must allow advertising and audience measurement cookies.

An extension on your browser appears to be blocking the video player from loading. In order to view this content, you must disable it on this site.

The United States is considering how to respond to its frustration over limited support from allies in its war against Iran.

The origin of the tensions lies in the refusal or caution of several European partners to facilitate access to bases, airspace and overflight rights - the so-called ABO agreements - during the offensive against the Islamic Republic. According to the Pentagon email provided to Reuters, attributed to political advisor Elbridge Colby, these permits constitute an “essential minimum” within the logic of the alliance.

Countries such as Spain, France or the United Kingdom avoided becoming directly involved in offensive operations, arguing risks of escalation and the need to comply with international law. This position has been interpreted in Washington as a lack of reciprocity in an alliance that, from the American perspective, cannot work in a single direction.

Donald Trump himself has intensified this criticism, questioning the European commitment and even suggesting the possibility of reconsidering the permanence of the United States in NATO.

And already on April 24, 'Politico', citing European and American sources, reported that the White House has prepared a list to evaluate the degree of commitment of NATO member countries and study possible pressure measures against those who, according to President Donald Trump's criteria, do not contribute enough to the alliance or have avoided supporting the offensive undertaken by the United States and Israel against Iran.

Read alsoTrump evaluates sanctions and rewards for "good and bad" NATO allies: 'Politico'

The case of Spain: symbolic impact and with legal limits?

The possible “suspension” of Spain emerges as one of the most controversial elements. The email suggests that this could be an exclusion from relevant positions within the NATO structure rather than a formal expulsion.

However, the North Atlantic Treaty does not provide for mechanisms to suspend or expel a Member State, making this option legally complex and politically sensitive.

“As a political declaration it is important, it is a political blow within the structure and cohesion of NATO”

Several analysts agree that its effect would be mainly symbolic, aimed at sending a warning signal to all allies.

The defense analyst, Juanjo Fernández, declared in an interview with the local channel 'La Sexta' that NATO's guidelines do not depend on what a single person decides or declares, so, if Washington decided to move forward, its military consequences would be null. “As a political declaration it is important, it is a political blow within the structure and cohesion of NATO,” stressed the expert, who insisted that it would not represent changes in the military framework.

In Madrid, the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, downplayed the information, highlighting that his Administration is guided by official positions and reaffirming the commitment to NATO within the framework of international law.

"We do not work on e-mails, we work on official documents and positions issued by, in this case, the Government of the United States. The position of the Government of Spain is clear, absolute collaboration with allies, but always within the framework of international legality," declared Sánchez.

To display this content from X (Twitter), you must allow audience measurement and advertising cookies.

Malvinas: diplomatic pressure in a geopolitical key

Another of the most sensitive points of the text is the possibility of reviewing the historical support of the United States for British sovereignty over the Malvinas.

This approach introduces a broader geopolitical dimension, directly affecting the relationship with the United Kingdom and opening the door to a rapprochement with Argentina.

The conflict over the islands—which had its climax in the Falklands War—continues to be an issue with a high symbolic and political charge. London has reiterated that sovereignty is not in dispute and that the principle of self-determination of the islanders prevails.

But the eventual review of the US position, although only raised as an option, is interpreted as a tool of diplomatic pressure rather than an imminent change in policy.

"The Falkland Islands have previously voted in favor of remaining a British overseas territory and we have always positioned ourselves alongside the right of the islanders to self-determination," responded the British Government spokesperson.

For her part, Conservative Party legislator and opposition leader in the United Kingdom, Kemi Badenoch, assured that the discussion “makes no sense.”

"We must ensure that sovereign British territory is firmly protected. This includes the Falkland Islands and the Chagos Islands," he added.

Also read Trump vs. NATO: How the war in Iran deepens the gaps with the alliance and European nationalists

NATO structural limitations

The episode highlights a structural reality: NATO operates by consensus, which limits its ability to act in conflicts that do not directly affect the collective defense of its members. The war with Iran, as it does not involve a direct attack against allied territory, is outside the organization's automatic action framework.

Furthermore, the absence of formal mechanisms to sanction members reinforces the political—rather than legal—nature of the current tensions. Discrepancies, therefore, are channeled through diplomatic pressures and internal debates, such as the one reflected in the email.

Although it is a non-binding internal exchange, the content of the email is significant due to the harshness of the measures contemplated and the political context in which it emerges: a growing mistrust between the United States and some of its traditional partners.

It is undoubtedly a symptom of transformation in the transatlantic relationship. Beyond the specific measures proposed, the content of the message reveals a deeper change in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Mutual trust, one of NATO's historical pillars, shows signs of erosion in a context of divergent strategic interests.

The war between Israel and the United States against Iran has acted as a catalyst, but tensions respond to longer-term dynamics: disagreement on geopolitical priorities, debates about burden sharing, and a growing European desire to define a more autonomous foreign policy.

Read also"Putin's dream plan": NATO reacts to Donald Trump's threat to leave

Trump and the “unbalanced alliance” narrative

The immediate antecedent of this crisis is the unequal response of European countries to the US military campaign against Iran. According to the email, several allies were reluctant to grant access to bases, airspace and overflight rights – known as ABO agreements –, considered by Washington as a basic requirement for cooperation within NATO.

The Pentagon's political advisor, Elbridge Colby, would have expressed his frustration with this situation in the communication, describing logistical access as the “absolute starting point” of the alliance. The refusal or caution of countries such as Spain, France or the United Kingdom was interpreted as a sign of strategic distancing.

From the European perspective, however, reluctance responds to a combination of factors: the risk of regional escalation, doubts about the international legality of the intervention and the desire to avoid direct involvement in a conflict of high political and military cost.

However, the political background of the episode is marked by the real estate magnate-turned-twice-president's views on NATO. From their perspective, the alliance has led to a system in which the United States takes on a disproportionate burden without receiving equivalent support.

Their criticism has intensified following the refusal of several allies to get involved in protecting the Strait of Hormuz during the conflict with Iran. Trump has even openly raised the possibility of withdrawing the United States from NATO, an idea that, although not directly reflected in the email, is part of the political climate in Washington.

The Pentagon, for its part, insists that it is developing “credible options” to ensure that allies meet their commitments, suggesting a more structured pressure strategy.

Read alsoTrump returns to the charge against NATO: can the allies defend themselves if the US leaves the organization?

Rhetoric vs. action

For now, there is no indication that the proposals contained in the email will be translated into concrete policies. However, its mere existence suggests that scenarios in Washington that were until recently unthinkable are being considered.

The future of NATO will depend largely on the ability of its members to redirect these tensions and redefine the terms of their cooperation. In an increasingly volatile international environment, alliance cohesion faces one of its most complex tests since the end of the Cold War.

With Reuters and local media

Related keywords

The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.