By Dr Tarh Ntantang
INTRODUCTION
This article analyses the widespread refusal by US allies to join a proposed multinational coalition after Iran effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz in the war against Iran, triggered by coordinated US-Israel strikes. It argues that allies’ resistance was driven by legitimacy deficits surrounding the war, fear of escalation, divergence in strategic interests, and structural shifts in global alliance politics. Rather than signalling alliance collapse, the refusal reflects recalibrated strategic autonomy and declining acceptance of unilateral US leadership under Donald Trump.
The Strait of Hormuz remains central to global energy security, carrying roughly 20% of internationally traded oil. Following military strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran, Tehran responded by disrupting maritime traffic, effectively imposing a blockade. In response, Donald Trump called on allies across Europe and Asia to form a multinational naval coalition to reopen the waterway. However, key partners, including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, largely refused or hesitated. This article interrogates the causes of this refusal within the broader framework of international relations and alliance politics.
1- LEGITIMACY CRISIS: A WAR ALLIES DID NOT ENDORSE
A central factor explaining the refusal lies in the perceived illegitimacy of the conflict itself. The US-Israel military action against Iran was widely viewed by allies as:
- Preemptive rather than defensive
- Conducted without broad international consultation
- Lacking authorization from the United Nations
Many European governments explicitly distanced themselves, emphasizing that “this is not our war” and rejecting participation in military operations linked to regime change. Thus, joining the coalition risked conferring legitimacy on a war they neither initiated nor supported.
2- FEAR OF ESCALATION AND DIRECT RETALIATION
Iran explicitly warned that any state participating in a coalition would be treated as a legitimate military target.
For US allies, this created a high-risk scenario:
Naval participation could trigger direct confrontation with Iranian forces
- Escalation could expand into a regional war involving the Gulf, Levant, and beyond
- Maritime escort missions could quickly evolve into combat operations.
Given these risks, many states preferred strategic restraint over entanglement in a potentially catastrophic conflict.
3- STRATEGIC AUTONOMY AND DIVERGING THREAT PERCEPTIONS
Allied refusal also reflects a widening gap in threat perception. While the Trump administration framed Iran as an existential and immediate threat, many allies:
- Viewed Iranian actions as reactive to US-Israel strikes
- Prioritized de-escalation and diplomacy
- Rejected regime change logic as destabilizing
European powers, in particular, emphasized diplomatic solutions rather than military enforcement, signaling a growing commitment to strategic autonomy from US foreign policy.
4- DISTRUST OF US LEADERSHIP AND COERCIVE DIPLOMACY
The leadership style of Donald Trump played a decisive role. Reports indicate that Trump:
- Pressured allies by warning of consequences for NATO
- Framed participation as burden-sharing for others’ benefit
- Sought post- conflict support after bypassing diplomacy.
This coercive approach undermined alliance cohesion. Rather than fostering collective security, it reinforced perception of: - Unilateralism
- Instrumental use of alliances
- Strategic unpredictability
Consequently, allies resisted being drawn into what they perceived as a US-driven escalation
5- LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
It should be worth mentioning that most allied governments operate under strict constitutional and parliamentary oversight regarding military deployments. Participation in the coalition faced several constraints such as the absence of a UN mandate, NATO’s defensive- not offensive-mandate, and domestic legal requirements for legislative approval. Countries such as Germany explicitly cited these constraints in rejecting involvement. Thus, this outright refusal was not only strategic but also institutional.
6- ECONOMIC RATIONALITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Although the stra of Hormuz is vital to global flows, military involvement poses serious economic risks:
- Potential targeting of commercial vessels
- Disruption of energy supplies and shipping insurance
- Oil price volatility (already surging sharply during the crisis. Some countries pursued alternative strategies such as bilateral arrangements with Iran for safe passage and diplomatic engagement rather than military confrontation. This reflects a rational cost of benefit calculations, securing trade without escalating conflict.
7- DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS
In the geopolitical perspective, domestic opinion across many allied countries strongly opposed involvement in another Middle Eastern war. Historical precedent, especially the Iraq War 2003, continues to shape public skepticism toward US-led intervention. Many Western governments faced, for instance, electoral backlash, parliamentary resistance, and anti-war public sentiment. These internal pressures reinforced external strategic caution.
8- FRAGMENTATION OF THE TRANS-ATLANTIC ALLIANCE
The episode reveals deeper structural shifts in alliance politics, including NATO’s limited relevance on non-operations, Europe’s push for independent security frameworks, and reduced willingness to follow US leadership unconditionally. It should be noted that even traditionally, close allies offered only limited or conditional support (e.g., mine-clearing, non combat roles) while rejecting full participation.
9- THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
The refusal by allies can be interpreted through key international relations theories:
Realism: states prioritized national interest and avoided high-risk entanglement
- Liberal institutionalism: weak multilateral legitimacy undermined cooperation
- Constructivism: Divergent narratives about the war shaped policy responses. The case demonstrates that power alone is insufficient to mobilize alliances without legitimacy and shared threat perception.
CONCLUSION
All in all, the massive refusal of US allied to join the proposed naval coalition in the strait of Hormuz was not an anomaly but a reflection of deeper geopolitical transformations. It underscores:
- The declining authority of unilateral US leadership
- The rise of strategic autonomy among allies
- The centrality of legitimacy in coalition-building
The disruption in the strait of Hormuz has impacted Europe’s energy supplies attacks across the Middle East, which have imperiled Europe’s partners in the region and European Union (EU) member states in the Mediterranean. Internal divisions in Europe over the US operation have further sparked trans-atlantic tensions. Ultimately, the episode illustrates a fundamental shift in global order, alliances are no longer guaranteed by asymmetry alone but must be sustained throughout consensus, legality, and shared strategic vision.
Dr. TARH NTANTANG IS FOUNDER/CEO OF NTANTANG RESEARCH AND CONSULTING CENTER,YAOUNDE-CAMEROON. He is a global policy expert and a practitioner in democracy support, peace building, and governance with over a decade of experience across Africa. He holds a doctorate in Political Economy and International affairs from the university of Yaounde 1, and is a certified climate migration scholar at York University,Toronto, Canada.
INTRODUCTION
This article analyses the widespread refusal by US allies to join a proposed multinational coalition after Iran effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz in the war against Iran, triggered by coordinated US-Israel strikes. It argues that allies’ resistance was driven by legitimacy deficits surrounding the war, fear of escalation, divergence in strategic interests, and structural shifts in global alliance politics. Rather than signalling alliance collapse, the refusal reflects recalibrated strategic autonomy and declining acceptance of unilateral US leadership under Donald Trump.
The Strait of Hormuz remains central to global energy security, carrying roughly 20% of internationally traded oil. Following military strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran, Tehran responded by disrupting maritime traffic, effectively imposing a blockade. In response, Donald Trump called on allies across Europe and Asia to form a multinational naval coalition to reopen the waterway. However, key partners, including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, largely refused or hesitated. This article interrogates the causes of this refusal within the broader framework of international relations and alliance politics.
1- LEGITIMACY CRISIS: A WAR ALLIES DID NOT ENDORSE
A central factor explaining the refusal lies in the perceived illegitimacy of the conflict itself. The US-Israel military action against Iran was widely viewed by allies as:
• Preemptive rather than defensive
• Conducted without broad international consultation
• Lacking authorisation from the United Nations
Many European governments explicitly distanced themselves, emphasising that “this is not our war” and rejecting participation in military operations linked to regime change. Thus, joining the coalition risked conferring legitimacy on a war they neither initiated nor supported.
2- FEAR OF ESCALATION AND DIRECT RETALIATION
Iran explicitly warned that any state taking part in a coalition would be considered a legitimate military target.
For US allies, this presented a high-risk situation:
Naval involvement could lead to direct clashes with Iranian forces
• Escalation might develop into a regional war affecting the Gulf, Levant, and beyond
• Maritime escort missions could swiftly turn into combat operations.
Due to these dangers, many states preferred to exercise strategic restraint rather than risk entanglement in a potentially disastrous conflict. entanglement in a potentially catastrophic conflict.
3- STRATEGIC AUTONOMY AND DIVERGING THREAT PERCEPTIONS
Allied refusal also reflects a widening gap in threat perception. While the Trump administration framed Iran as an existential and immediate threat, many allies:
• Viewed Iranian actions as reactive to US-Israel strikes
• Prioritised de-escalation and diplomacy
• Rejected regime change logic as destabilising
European powers, in particular, emphasised diplomatic solutions rather than military enforcement, signalling a growing commitment to strategic autonomy from US foreign policy.
4- DISTRUST OF US LEADERSHIP AND COERCIVE DIPLOMACY
The leadership style of Donald Trump was crucial. Reports indicate that Trump:
• Pressured allies by warning of consequences for NATO
• Framed participation as burden-sharing for others’ benefit
• Sought post-conflict support after bypassing diplomacy.
This coercive approach undermined alliance cohesion. Instead of promoting collective security, it strengthened perceptions of:
• Unilateralism
• Instrumental use of alliances
• Strategic unpredictability
As a result, allies resisted being drawn into what they saw as a US-driven escalation.
5- LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
It should be noted that most allied governments operate under strict constitutional and parliamentary oversight of military deployments. Participation in the coalition faced several constraints, such as the absence of a UN mandate, NATO’s defensive, not offensive, mandate, and domestic legal requirements for legislative approval. Countries such as Germany explicitly cited these constraints as reasons for rejecting involvement. Thus, this outright refusal was not only strategic but also institutional.
6- ECONOMIC RATIONALITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Although the Strait of Hormuz is crucial to global flows, military involvement presents significant economic risks:
Potential targeting of commercial vessels
Disruption of energy supplies and shipping insurance
Oil price volatility (already rising sharply during the crisis)
Some countries have adopted alternative strategies such as bilateral agreements with Iran for safe passage and diplomatic engagement rather than military confrontation. This demonstrates a rational cost-benefit analysis, aiming to safeguard trade without escalating conflict. conflict.ting conflict.
7- DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS
From a geopolitical perspective, domestic opinion across many allied countries strongly opposed involvement in another Middle Eastern war. Historical precedent, especially the Iraq War of 2003, continues to shape public scepticism toward US-led intervention. Many Western governments, for instance, faced electoral backlash, parliamentary resistance, and anti-war public sentiment. These internal pressures reinforced external strategic caution.
8- FRAGMENTATION OF THE TRANS-ATLANTIC ALLIANCE
The episode reveals deeper structural shifts in alliance politics, including NATO’s limited relevance on non-operations, Europe’s push for independent security frameworks, and reduced willingness to follow US leadership unconditionally. It should be noted that even traditionally, close allies offered only limited or conditional support (e.g., mine-clearing, non-combat roles) while rejecting full participation.
9- THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
The refusal by allies can be understood through key international relations theories:
Realism: states prioritise national interests and avoid high-risk entanglements
• Liberal institutionalism: weak multilateral legitimacy undermines cooperation
• Constructivism: Divergent narratives about the war shape policy responses. The case illustrates that power alone is not enough to mobilise alliances without legitimacy and a shared perception of threat.
CONCLUSION
All in all, the massive refusal of the US allies to join the proposed naval coalition in the Strait of Hormuz was not an anomaly but a reflection of deeper geopolitical transformations. It underscores:
• The declining authority of unilateral US leadership
• The rise of strategic autonomy among allies
• The centrality of legitimacy in coalition-building
The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has impacted Europe’s energy supplies, with attacks across the Middle East, which have imperilled Europe’s partners in the region and European Union (EU) member states in the Mediterranean. Internal divisions in Europe over the US operation have further sparked transatlantic tensions. Ultimately, the episode illustrates a fundamental shift in the global order; alliances are no longer guaranteed by asymmetry alone but must be sustained through consensus, legality, and a shared strategic vision.
Dr TARH NTANTANG IS FOUNDER/CEO OF NTANTANG RESEARCH AND CONSULTING CENTER, YAOUNDE, CAMEROON. He is a global policy expert and a practitioner in democracy support, peacebuilding, and governance, with over a decade of experience across Africa. He holds a doctorate in Political Economy and International Affairs from the University of Yaounde 1 and is a certified climate migration scholar at York University in Toronto, Canada.
