Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: The United States’ and Israel’s military actions against Iran have caused supply chain disruptions and infrastructure destruction. As the conflict continues, there is growing friction between the White House and American allies and partners, who remain non-committal to President Trump’s request for support. 

Introduction 

President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has provided both opportunities and challenges for traditional American allies as they try to navigate their relations with the current Administration. The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) and the 2026 National Defence Strategy (NDS) both outline that the strategy under the current Administration is ‘…to ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come…’.^[i] The NDS further states that America will support peace through strength. It will no longer be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change and nation building.^[ii] The Trump Administration has made it clear that ‘The United States will prioritize commercial diplomacy to strengthen our own economy and industries, using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools.’ ^[iii] Its foreign policy approach will lay emphasis on convergences in economic and security interests with other countries. 

This ‘America First’ outlook has reversed the notion that allies and partners are assets to the United States. The view now is that latter have taken advantage of the United States to build their own nations. To correct this imbalance, the Trump Administration has applied a transactional approach to foreign policy through tariffs on partners and competitors alike and a push to (re)negotiate trade agreements bilaterally. Arguing that foreign assistance programmes need to better align with American national security priorities, President Trump paused or halted most U.S. foreign assistance, instructed the State Department to conduct a full-scale review of multilateral institutions, and initiated the withdrawal from international organisations and agreements, that are valued by American allies and partners, such as the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organisation. 

In the past, allies and partners, along with the United States worked together to identify differences and find solutions to preserve the long-term relationships. However, President Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of these relations over the past year, with allies indicating that the ‘fundamentals of the relationship’ have change making it unlikely that they will maintain the same level of partnership with the U.S., as in the past. The constant rhetoric and derogatory remarks, have further contributed to negative public opinion of the United States, shrinking the space among allies and partners to cooperate with the United States on key issues. As a result, many countries are reassessing long-standing assumptions about the alliance system and the security guarantees provided by the United States. They acknowledge that the United States remains important for them, both in trade and security, but they have also recognised that this dependence needs to be reduced in the future.   

Alliance And Partnership Endurance being Tested 

Enduring alliances are not the norm in international relations and the post war alliance system led by the United States is an exception. This is not to say that the U.S. led alliances have not faced disagreements. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has experienced differences among its members, nevertheless, it has not only continued to function but also expanded its membership. However, President Trump’s repeated questioning of the value of American alliances, frequent change in his policy positions, contradictory statements from the White House and various cabinet members has meant that allies and partners have limited understanding of its foreign policy objectives. They are questioning the validity of America’s commitment to their security and deterrence postures. As a result, many are adopting a strategy of ‘hedging’ to protect their interests, as can be seen from a recalibration of relations with China by American allies such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Like the United States, allies and partners are prioritising their interests leading to a state where alliance commitments may no longer be sacrosanct. 

The Iran Conflict and Rift in Partnerships

The ongoing conflict with Iran has further widened the rift between America and its allies and partners. Countries, who supported the United States in the past, now appear increasingly reluctant to bear security risks under the Trump Administration. Both allies and partners point to the fact that they were neither consulted nor informed of the U.S.-Israel actions, yet they are now facing the consequences in the form of rising energy costs, possible rerouting of ships along with deployment of naval assets to ensure their safety. These developments have also led to higher insurance prices and disruptions in global supply chains. With the Trump Administration being unable to clearly outline its objectives of the operation or it’s the means to bring peace, allies and partners remain reluctant to contribute to American efforts. 

European allies have expressed their reservations on the trajectory of the conflict, which they state is ‘not their war’. Spain has closed its airspace to U.S. military planes involved in the conflict. President Trump has threatened Marid with full trade embargo. France and Italy have reportedly begun exploring direct discussions with Iran to secure safe passage for their commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Although such talks remain tentative,^[iv] the fact that American allies are negotiating directly with Iran at a time when the United States has called for their support shows a shift in the alliance relationship. France has also declined to permit the use of its airspace to transport military weapons to Israel for use in Iran. Italy has stated that it will allow the use of its bases on a case-by-case basis. Germany has stated its military will not be involved in the conflict, while Poland has stated that, as a ‘bordering State’ to Ukraine, it cannot relocate its missiles to the Middle East due to its own security concerns. The United Kingdom has limited its support to allowing access to American military to use its bases in the region for defensive missions to protect British interests in the region. 

President Trump’s appeal to European and Asian allies as well as China, to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz elicited no commitments. China has not formally responded to the request. European nations have aligned with the European Commission and endorsed the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) call for a coordinated safe-passage framework in the strait, following escalating threats to commercial shipping.^[v]In an interview to media outlet, President Trump warned that no response would be ‘bad for the future of NATO”^[vi] and has threatened to withdraw from the alliance. Despite such pressures, U.S. allies have largely remained non-committal. 

For America’s partners in the Middle East, the conflict provides limited positive outcomes. Iran has targeted American military and diplomatic facilities and damaged key infrastructure such as energy depots, desalination plants, in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). By ensuring that there is limited movement of ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a major artery for global oil and gas supplies, Tehran has limited its Arab neighbour’s ability to export energy freely, while exposing the vulnerabilities in their key port infrastructure. 

After the death of key moderate leaders, there is a growing speculation that if the current Iranian regime survives, it will likely adopt a more radical and hard-line approach to handling both domestic dissent and its relations with neighbouring States. However, if the regime were to collapse, it could have a spill over effect in the region that will lead to more instability. While the United States’ regional partners continue to maintain defensive postures, they are also actively engaging in diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions. 

America’s partners in Asia, such as India, Indonesia, and Philippines, have called for restraint and emphasised the need for dialogue to restore peace. As economies that depend on exports, the rise in energy prices and disruption to global commerce pose significant challenges to their economies. The region is also home to a significant Muslim population and countries will be monitoring the fallout of the conflict and its possible impact on domestic stability. At the same time, the redeployment of United States military assets from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East theatre has raised concerns among Asian allies about the credibility of American commitments in the region, despite assurance from the Trump Administration that it will ‘prioritise deterring China’^[vii]. 

For American allies and partners, de-escalation and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is of primary interest. In a joint statement, close to 30 nations have expressed their “deep concern about the escalating conflict” while calling on Iran to cease attempts to block the Strait. The statement states that “interference with international shipping and the disruption of global energy supply chains constitute a threat to international peace and security….”^[viii] with the most vulnerable people feeling the effects disproportionately. The joint statement which includes American allies and partners indicates actions that are driven less by alliance system interests, but through an alignment of common interests among likeminded nations. This comes even as allies and partners continue to take measures to insulate their economies and security interests from the Trump Administration through diversification of their external relations. As stated above, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom have taken steps to recalibrate their relations with China in the past year. Australia and Germany are exploring joint defence cooperation, while Japan and South Korea have agreed to upgrade defence cooperation to address emerging threats and improve their bilateral ties. These developments point to an alliance system in a state of flux. 

Conclusion 

The American alliance system has faced challenges in the past and survived. Both the United States and its allies continue to uphold the tenants of collective security. Nonetheless, the situation changes when alliance members negotiate independently with adversaries or start hedging outside the alliance system to protect their own interests. Added to this is the fact that the most powerful member of the alliance, the United States, has raised questions about the value of the collective systems. Together this has contributed to a growing a trust deficit. 

Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the American led alliance network will collapse abruptly or that the Trump Administration, despite its criticism of the system, will allow it to collapse. However, the growing fragmentation within the America led security architecture is an indication of stress in the relationships and a growing lack of trust within the alliance. It is for the American policymakers to determine if these developments are in the national interest of the United States.

*****

*Dr. Stuti Banerjee, Senior Research Fellow, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal.

Endnotes

^[i] The White House, “National Security Strategy of the United States of America November2025 ,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf,  Accessed on 25 March 2026

^[ii] US Department of War, “2026 National Defense Strategy,” https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF, Accessed on 25 March 2026

^[iii] Op Cit 1, The White House NSS

^[iv] Carla Norrlöf, “American Hegemony Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes”, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/iran-war-american-alliance-network-beginning-to-crumble-by-carla-norrlof-2026-03, Accessed on 27 March 2026.

^[v]Abdennour Toumi, “France’s measured approach in the Strait of Hormuz 23 March 2026.” ,Accessed on 27 March 2026

^[vi] AFP, “Trump says NATO faces ‘very bad’ future if allies don't help open Hormuz 16 March 2026,” The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/trump-says-nato-faces-very-bad-future-if-allies-dont-help-open-hormuz/article70748462.ece, Accessed on 27 March 2026

^[vii] US Department of War, “National Defence Strategy 2026,” https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF, Accessed on 04 April 2026

^[viii] Government of UK, “Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and others on the Strait of Hormuz: 19 March 2026,” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-leaders-of-the-united-kingdom-france-germany-italy-the-netherlands-and-japan-on-the-strait-of-hormuz-19-march-2026 , Accessed on 27 March 2026