Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has frequently criticized and alienated many of America’s traditional allies. Now, as tensions escalate over Iran and the strategic Strait of Hormuz, he finds himself seeking support from those very partners—only to encounter widespread reluctance and skepticism. This marks a significant shift in dynamics, as Trump’s confrontational approach has left many countries hesitant to join any US-led initiatives in the region.
Throughout the past year, Trump has not shied away from openly disparaging allied nations, imposing tariffs, and even making unusual threats such as proposing the purchase of Greenland. These actions have strained diplomatic ties and created an atmosphere of mistrust. Despite this, the 79-year-old Republican president has recently demanded that these same allies assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime passage through which a substantial portion of the world’s oil supply flows. His frustration was evident when several countries declined to participate in efforts to secure the waterway, prompting an angry response from the US leader.
Experts have described Trump’s expectations as extraordinary, especially given the history of his antagonistic rhetoric. Philip Gordon, a former national security advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris and now a scholar at the Brookings Institution, pointed out the difficulty of convincing allies to risk lives for a cause championed by a president who has spent much of the last year insulting them. This sentiment reflects a broader diplomatic challenge: how to maintain international cooperation when trust has been eroded.
Trump has also warned that the NATO alliance itself could be jeopardized if member states fail to contribute to securing the Strait of Hormuz. He argues that since many nations depend heavily on oil passing through this chokepoint, they have a responsibility to share the burden. However, his messaging has been contradictory. While asserting that the US can handle the situation alone, he simultaneously insists that allies owe Washington for decades of military protection and must step up their involvement. This dual stance has left many foreign governments uncertain about how to respond.
Adding to the complexity, Trump has criticized China for not offering assistance, further highlighting the global dimensions of the crisis. Yet, in capitals around the world, there is palpable skepticism about joining a conflict that the US president initiated without prior consultation. Many countries are already grappling with economic disruptions caused by the ongoing tensions, making them cautious about deepening their involvement. The reluctance stems not only from practical concerns but also from a sense of being sidelined in decision-making processes.
The strained relations are compounded by Trump’s past actions, including imposing tariffs on allies, criticizing NATO members for their defense spending, and promoting political parties aligned with his ideology in Europe. His dismissive comments about the sacrifices made by allied soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his controversial claim that the US single-handedly won World War II, have further alienated partners. The recent episode involving his threat to invade Greenland triggered an unprecedented show of unity among NATO members, particularly Denmark, forcing Trump to retreat from the idea.
Erwan Lagadec, an expert at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, highlighted the irony of the situation. The US launched a conflict without consulting its allies and now expects them to clean up the aftermath. He emphasized that NATO is unlikely to reach a consensus on any major mission in the Strait of Hormuz, reflecting the alliance’s internal divisions and the limits of collective action under current circumstances.
Historically, the US has sought to build broad coalitions before engaging in military conflicts. For example, prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion, President George W. Bush spent months assembling a “coalition of the willing” comprising over 40 countries. In contrast, Trump, who has consistently criticized previous US military engagements as costly mistakes, has not managed to form a similar alliance for the Iran crisis, despite his belief that the conflict would be short-lived.
European nations, already burdened by the war in Ukraine and their own economic challenges, face difficult policy decisions regarding involvement in Iran. Liana Fix of the Council on Foreign Relations notes that their hesitation is not about repaying past favors but rather about navigating real constraints and balancing competing priorities. This pragmatic approach underscores the complexity of international diplomacy in an era marked by shifting alliances and domestic pressures.
While US allies remain cautious about antagonizing President Trump over the Strait of Hormuz issue, there is a growing sense that they may resist being coerced into action. Philip Gordon warns that if allies acquiesce to Trump’s demands, it could reinforce a pattern of bullying and blackmail that has characterized much of his first year in office. However, recent events, such as the Greenland episode, suggest that the era of unchecked pressure may be coming to an end, with consequences for future US foreign policy strategies.
