We cannot just say we're fighting one war and not the other.
On the eve of a pivotal NATO summit, a delegation of European conservative lawmakers traveled to Washington carrying a message older than any single alliance: that security is indivisible. With American frustration over European reluctance on Iran colliding with ongoing strain over Ukraine, the visitors argued that Tehran and Moscow are not separate problems but two faces of the same threat — and that the West's response must be equally unified.
- US-Europe tensions cracked open after American strikes on Iran, with Secretary Rubio publicly rebuking allies who withheld bases and logistical support for the operation.
- European lawmakers pushed back against the framing that Ukraine and Iran represent competing priorities, pointing to Iranian drones fueling Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities as proof the two fronts are one.
- The delegation moved through Washington's power centers — White House, Pentagon, State Department — signaling European openness to deeper military integration, including a permanent US base in Poland.
- Analysts warn the NATO summit risks being consumed by Iran-related grievances, potentially overshadowing hard-won progress on defense spending and Ukraine commitments.
- Despite the political turbulence, NATO's military and intelligence foundations remain intact — and the mutual dependency between Europe and America may ultimately be what holds the alliance together.
A delegation of senior European conservative lawmakers arrived in Washington this week with a pointed message for the Trump administration: the choice between Ukraine and Iran is a false dilemma. The timing was deliberate, with NATO leaders set to gather for a summit the following week and the alliance showing unexpected fractures.
The rupture traces back to recent American military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. President Trump's frustration with European allies who declined to provide bases or logistical support has layered new tension atop the existing strain of Russia's war in Ukraine. Secretary of State Rubio made the irritation explicit in Bahrain, declaring Iran an 'even graver threat to Europe' than to the US, and warning that the disagreements could damage NATO. 'I hope it can be fixed,' he said. 'We'll see.'
The European Conservatives and Reformists delegation — including Assita Kanko, Patryk Jaki, and Adam Bielan — spent the week making their case across Washington. Kanko pointed to Iranian proxy networks operating inside Belgium, financing radical groups and conducting attacks. She drew the line further: Iran supplies the Shahed drones Russia fires at Ukrainian cities. These are not separate wars, she argued, but different fronts of the same conflict.
The delegation also addressed deeper anxieties within the administration, acknowledging European progress on defense spending and signaling openness to closer military integration. Bielan spoke positively about a potential permanent US base in Poland and reported cautious American optimism about a ceasefire in Ukraine by 2026.
Analysts remain uncertain whether the effort will hold. The Atlantic Council's Kristen Taylor warned the summit risks being overshadowed by Iran frustrations, while CSIS's Max Bergmann drew parallels to the 2003 Iraq War divisions — a reminder that transatlantic rifts over military intervention have precedent, even if today's stakes feel higher. Many European governments, drawn into the Iran conflict without prior consultation and facing skeptical publics at home, are likely to swallow their grievances publicly to preserve alliance unity.
Beneath the political turbulence, NATO's military foundations remain intact. Intelligence cooperation continues, and Europe's dependence on American conventional and nuclear capabilities has not changed. That underlying reality — the recognition that neither side can afford to treat the other as expendable — may be what the summit ultimately rests on.
A delegation of senior European conservative lawmakers arrived in Washington this week with a carefully calibrated message for the Trump administration: the choice between supporting Ukraine and confronting Iran is a false one. The timing was deliberate. NATO leaders gather for a summit next week, and the alliance is fracturing along an unexpected fault line.
The rupture began with recent American military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. President Trump's frustration with European allies who resisted providing military bases and logistical support for the operation has created new tension atop the existing strain of Russia's war in Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the administration's irritation explicit during a visit to Bahrain, declaring that Iran represents "an even graver threat to Europe" than to the United States, and criticizing allies who "gave us a hard time" over the request. When pressed on whether these disagreements could damage NATO, Rubio acknowledged the risk. "I hope it can be fixed," he said. "We'll see."
Into this moment stepped the European Conservatives and Reformists Group. The delegation—Assita Kanko, Patryk Jaki, Adam Bielan, Gheorghe Piperea, and Stephen Bartulica—spent the week moving through Washington's power centers: the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, conservative think tanks. Their central argument was that Europe does not treat Iran as a secondary concern. Kanko, the group's deputy chair, pointed to Iranian proxy networks operating inside Belgium itself, financing radical organizations and conducting attacks. She connected the dots further: Iran supplies the Shahed drones that Russia uses against Ukrainian cities. These are not separate wars, she argued. They are different fronts of the same conflict.
The delegation also sought to address a deeper anxiety within the Trump administration. They acknowledged that European pressure for greater defense spending had already yielded results, and they signaled openness to closer integration with American military capabilities. Bielan spoke positively about discussions on establishing a permanent U.S. military base in Poland. On Ukraine itself, he reported that American officials expressed cautious optimism about achieving a ceasefire in 2026, and that Trump's recent meeting with President Zelenskyy had been viewed favorably. The message was consistent: Europe remains committed to the transatlantic alliance and to American leadership within it.
But whether this diplomatic effort will succeed remains uncertain. Analysts at the Atlantic Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies see genuine structural tension. Kristen Taylor, from the Atlantic Council, warned that the NATO summit "threatens to be overshadowed" by Trump administration frustration over Iran, potentially eclipsing progress on defense spending and Ukraine support. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte faces the difficult task of keeping both priorities visible. Max Bergmann, from CSIS, drew a parallel to the divisions over the 2003 Iraq War—a reminder that transatlantic disagreements over military intervention are not new, though the current stakes feel higher.
Bergmann also noted that many European governments felt politically exposed. They were drawn into the Iran conflict without prior consultation from Washington, while domestic public opinion in much of Europe opposed involvement. European leaders will likely avoid airing these grievances publicly at the summit to preserve alliance unity, but the frustration is real.
Yet beneath the political tensions, the military foundations of NATO remain intact. Intelligence services continue to cooperate closely. The threat posed by Russia's long-term military recovery means European nations still depend on American conventional and nuclear capabilities for their security. This underlying reality may be what saves the alliance from fracture—the recognition that neither Europe nor the United States can afford to treat the other as expendable. The question facing the NATO summit is whether that recognition can be made explicit, whether both sides can acknowledge that Ukraine and Iran are not competing priorities but interlocking pieces of a single security challenge.
Notable Quotes
Iran is actually having proxies in Europe, attacking also in my country, in Belgium. We cannot just say we're fighting one war and not the other.— Assita Kanko, deputy chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group
The summit threatens to be overshadowed by a Trump administration more frustrated by European reluctance to engage in US conflict in Iran than summit priorities.— Kristen Taylor, Atlantic Council's Transatlantic Security Initiative
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did these European conservatives feel they needed to make this trip at all? Couldn't they just send a statement?
Because statements don't move the Trump administration. These lawmakers needed to sit across a table from people in the White House and Pentagon and say: we understand your frustration, and we're not dismissing Iran. It's about presence and credibility.
But isn't it true that Europe has been more focused on Ukraine? Geographically, it makes sense.
Yes, and the delegation acknowledged that directly. Bielan said Ukraine is naturally higher on Europe's list because of proximity. But his point was that allies don't have to choose. They cooperate on different issues in different regions. That's what alliance means.
The Secretary of State said Iran is a graver threat to Europe than to the US. Do these lawmakers actually believe that?
They believe Iran is a serious threat to Europe—proxy networks, drone supplies to Russia, financing of radical groups. Whether it's "graver" than to America is a different question. What they're pushing back on is the implication that Europe doesn't care about Iran. They do. They just also care about Ukraine.
What's the real risk here? What happens if this message doesn't land?
The NATO summit becomes a confrontation instead of a coordination. The Trump administration goes in frustrated with European reluctance on Iran. Europe goes in defensive about being pressured into a conflict they didn't choose. And the alliance fractures not over principle but over resentment.
Is there any chance these two priorities actually are incompatible?
Not militarily or strategically. But politically, yes—if one side feels the other isn't listening. That's what the delegation was trying to prevent. They were saying: we hear you on Iran. Now hear us on Ukraine.
What should we watch for at the NATO summit?
Whether Rutte can keep both issues on the table without one overshadowing the other. Whether the Trump administration reaffirms Ukraine support. Whether European leaders publicly signal backing for Iran operations. If any of those fail, the alliance enters a new phase of tension.