By Dr. Dritan HOTI / Tiranë
The contemporary international system is once again confronted with a moment in which war acts not merely as an instrument of coercion, but as a catalyst for structural transformation. The ongoing conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran—already the most consequential military development in the Middle East since the aftermath of the First World War—has begun to reshape not only regional balances but also the deeper architecture of alliances that have underpinned global order for decades.
The Euro-Atlantic alliance, now extending across nearly eight decades, has historically differed in both substance and purpose from earlier alliance systems. Unlike the fluid and often transactional coalitions of nineteenth-century Europe, which were governed by shifting balances of power and narrow dynastic interests, the Euro-Atlantic framework emerged from a convergence of philosophical and institutional principles. It rests upon a shared, though not identical, commitment to forms of governance anchored in the rule of law, pluralism, and constitutionalism. This normative substratum distinguishes it as more than a mere military pact; it is, in effect, a community of political systems that recognize a degree of mutual legitimacy.
Even in comparison with the wartime alignment of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union during the Second World War, the Euro-Atlantic alliance reflects a deeper coherence. The former was an alliance of necessity, forged under existential threat, and dissolved as soon as its strategic imperative receded. The latter, by contrast, evolved within a logic of sustained global rivalry, particularly during the Cold War, where ideological cohesion reinforced strategic cooperation.
Yet the present conflict reveals that this cohesion, long assumed to be resilient, is neither immutable nor uniformly interpreted. The war against Iran—directed at a theocratic regime that seeks to revise the regional order of the Middle East—aims at a profound reconfiguration of interstate relations within the region and, by extension, within the broader Muslim community, the Umma. Its implications transcend military objectives; it challenges the interpretative frameworks through which allies understand both legitimacy and necessity.
Two defining characteristics emerge from the positions adopted by the principal actors. For the administration of Donald Trump, the confrontation with Iran represents a continuation of a geostrategic posture that has evolved over the past two decades. Successive American administrations have viewed Iran not merely as a regional adversary, but as a systemic challenger to the existing order. In this sense, the current war does not constitute a rupture, but rather an intensification.
However, the same administration simultaneously exhibits elements of ideological inconsistency. Its foreign policy appears influenced by domestic political currents that privilege certain forms of populist governance, as reflected in its support for figures such as Viktor Orbán on the eve of critical parliamentary elections in Hungary. This alignment can be interpreted through the lens of political sociology: a convergence not of traditional strategic interests, but of shared narratives about sovereignty, identity, and resistance to supranational constraints. In this framework, foreign policy becomes partially an extension of domestic ideological affinities, blurring the boundary between geopolitical calculation and internal political validation.
Israel’s position, on the other hand, is defined by a different set of imperatives. The preservation of the legitimacy of its foreign policy objectives requires a careful calibration. While confronting Iran is perceived as essential to its security, Israel must simultaneously avoid the radicalization of certain extremist elements within its own political spectrum. The long-term stability of the region—and the maintenance of a workable relationship with the Muslim world—necessitates a gradual and credible approach toward the delineation of a Palestinian state with a secular orientation. Such an outcome is not merely desirable; it constitutes a sine qua non for sustaining regional equilibrium.
What the war has exposed with particular clarity is the fragmentation within the Euro-Atlantic alliance itself. This fragmentation, though abrupt in its manifestation, is not without historical precedent. The notion of a unified Western stance toward the Muslim world has always been more aspirational than real. The Suez Crisis of 1956 offers a salient example, when the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower opposed the military intervention undertaken by Britain, France, and Israel. That episode underscored the divergence between an American vision aimed at accelerating the end of colonialism and European efforts to preserve residual influence.
Today, a different but equally significant divergence is evident. The reluctance of key European states to align themselves with the American-led military effort against Iran stems from a complex interplay of historical experience, strategic culture, and contemporary political calculation.
For Great Britain and France, both former colonial powers that once shaped the Middle East through agreements such as Sykes–Picot, the Iranian question is approached through a diplomatic prism. Their historical engagement with the region has instilled a preference for negotiated solutions, particularly in light of the long-term consequences of external intervention. Moreover, their positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often diverge from those of the United States, reflecting distinct assessments of how regional stability can be achieved.
Germany’s stance is shaped by an entirely different set of constraints. Lacking the colonial legacy of its Western European counterparts in the Middle East, Germany approaches the region without the same historical entanglements. Nevertheless, its strong and consistent support for Israel’s existential security concerns coexists with a deeply embedded post-Second World War political culture that imposes strict procedural and ethical conditions on any military engagement. Participation in a rapidly unfolding conflict, particularly one initiated with such speed, cannot be undertaken without extensive internal deliberation and justification grounded in deontological reasoning.
Italy’s refusal to grant the United States access to certain military bases represents an additional and noteworthy development. As a country traditionally influenced by American political and geopolitical priorities, its decision signals a broader shift within Europe. It suggests that even states with historically close ties to Washington are increasingly willing to assert a degree of strategic autonomy when confronted with decisions of profound consequence.
The cumulative effect of these positions is the emergence of a more differentiated Euro-Atlantic landscape. The conclusion that imposes itself is that the form of unanimity that once characterized the alliance will not survive this conflict unchanged. The reticence displayed by European states is unlikely to dissipate entirely, even after the departure of the Trump administration.
Future American engagement with Europe will likely adopt a more selective and pragmatic character. Cooperation will increasingly depend on assessments of reliability, both at the level of state institutions and societal orientations. Regions within Europe where pro-American sentiment remains strong may become focal points for deeper collaboration, while relations with others may evolve along more transactional lines.
At the same time, the trajectory of European integration will play a decisive role. Should Europe succeed in constructing what it has historically struggled to achieve—a coherent and compact concept of continental security—it may attain a level of structural autonomy that enables it to function as a unified strategic actor. If, however, such an endeavor remains incomplete, American cooperation with European states on critical foreign policy issues will continue to be differentiated and selective.
From the American perspective, the concept of credibility will assume increasing importance as a criterion for partnership. Convergence of interests will no longer be sufficient; it must be accompanied by confidence in the consistency and predictability of allies. In this regard, the diversity of political traditions and operational cultures within Europe becomes a decisive factor.
Finally, for future American administrations, the restoration of ideological coherence in foreign policy emerges as both a necessity and a challenge. Such coherence serves not only as a source of strategic clarity but also as a foundation for trust. Without it, even the most powerful state risks appearing erratic, thereby undermining the very alliances upon which its global influence depends.
In sum, the war with Iran is not merely a regional conflict; it is a transformative moment that compels a reassessment of alliances, identities, and strategic priorities. It reveals that alliances, however deeply rooted, are not static constructs. They are living arrangements, subject to the pressures of history, ideology, and power. And in times of war, their true nature—along with their latent fractures—becomes unmistakably visible.
Note to the author
The author completed a PhD dissertation in the history of international relations at the University of Vienna, Austria; an MA in Geopolitical Studies at the University of Toulouse, France; and a degree in International Relations from the University of Graz, Austria.
