Over the years, few members of Congress have supported our relationship with NATO as strongly as Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Yet, during Operation Epic Fury, Spain and France, both NATO allies, have refused overflight to the United States. The UK has refused access to a key base that only exists because of the United States.
Now, Secretary Rubio is suggesting this relationship be re-examined, so everyone needs to sit up and take notice.
One of the most vocal opponents of Operation Epic Fury from the outset has been Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
He has blasted the operation, calling it a violation of international law, and now he is refusing the United States overflight for its missions.
According to a report in The Aviationist, the Prime Minister told Spain’s Congress of Deputies:
“We have denied the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for this illegal war. All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refueling aircraft.”
Spain's Defense Minister Margarita Robles confirmed this stance, stating:
"We don't authorize either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran."
This weekend, France has restricted overflights for weapons cargo, which drew a rebuke from Trump. Trump, among other things, called France “very unhelpful” after having previously hinted that France was being receptive. Trump noted that the United States would “remember” this betrayal when called up, as was reported by multiple outlets.
This was not an unprecedented move, as the United States was denied overflight in 1986 in the operation to take out Libya's Muammar Gaddafi. Because France and Italy blocked US overflight, our bombers were forced to fly a much longer route from RAF Lakenheath (UK), forced to fly around the Iberian Peninsula and through the Strait of Gibraltar to reach Libya.
The United Kingdom has refused to allow the United States to use the joint UK-U.S. base on Diego Garcia for strikes. It has also failed to provide minesweepers to clear the Strait of Hormuz during Operation Epic Fury.
Of course, we cannot forget the response by Germany, which had declared:
“This is not our war.”
Secretary Rubio has been a true standout during this administration, as well as having been a noted supporter of NATO over the years, but now even his loyalty to the organization has been shaken.
Rubio recently spoke with the Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Media Network, and it was, by far, the harshest words I have heard him speak about NATO.
He explained the perceived value of the relationship with NATO, stating:
"One of the reasons why NATO is beneficial to the United States is that it gives us basing rights for contingencies. It allows us to station troops, aircraft, and weapons in parts of the world that we wouldn't normally have bases."
He went on to express his disappointment in Spain, upset over Spain “denying us the use of their airspace and bragging about it.” We are pledged to defend this nation, yet we are being mocked by it in the media over this denial.
Rubio then brought up a very good point about NATO, stating:
"If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they're attacked, but them denying us basing rights when we need them, then that's not a very good arrangement. That's a hard one to stay engaged in and say this is good for the United States."
Rubio again stated that he has been a “big supporter of NATO” in the past, but perhaps all of that needs to be “re-examined” after the United States has been hung out to dry during Operation Epic Fury.
Trump was livid over the denials, and rightfully so. Trump clearly expected our allies to at least provide access to key bases if not participate in the operation, but he is getting neither.
Trump called out NATO nations, saying they have “done absolutely nothing to help” but that he would “never forget this very important point in time.”
With many countries now facing oil shortages, Fortune reported that Trump encouraged the UK to step up, stating:
"You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!"
Trump has also threatened to cut off all trade with Spain over the overflight refusal, reported Al Jazeera. The President stated:
"We're going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don't want anything to do with Spain."
There are benefits to NATO, but only if every nation adheres to the agreement, which is not happening right now.
Having said that, the key benefits are:
While the burden should be spread evenly, historically, it is the United States that does the heavy lifting of NATO nations, often serving as the protector to all, while also providing the most financial support.
As you can see from the table below, it is the United States that absorbs the lion’s share when conflicts arise:
| Conflict/Event | Year | US Role | NATO/Europe Role |
| Korean War | 1950-53 | Bore vast majority of combat | UK, Turkey, others contributed smaller forces |
| Cold War deterrence | 1947-91 | Stationed 300,000+ troops in Europe | Europe largely relied on US nuclear umbrella |
| Bosnia/Kosovo | 1995/1999 | US led NATO bombing campaigns | European forces participated but US bore majority of airpower |
| Libya 2011 | 2011 | Provided majority of precision munitions, intelligence, and refueling | UK/France led politically but ran out of munitions within weeks; US had to resupply |
| Ukraine support | 2022-present | $175B+ in military/economic aid (largest single contributor) | European allies contributed collectively but unevenly; many failed 2% GDP target for years |
| 9/11 / Afghanistan | 2001-2021 | Led 20-year campaign | NATO invoked Article 5; allies deployed but US always bore heaviest combat burden |
The best example of the United States bailing out NATO allies would be in 2011, when the UK and France were begging for NATO intervention. Precision munitions were exhausted within weeks of the conflict, but the United States had to step up to provide the resupply as well as provide the bulk of intelligence, refueling, and suppression of enemy air defenses, reported Military.com.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, it was not our war, but NATO nations called upon the United States to provide the majority of support for Ukraine, even though Ukraine is not in NATO, nor does it have Article 5 protections.
The United States has spent more than $175 billion supporting Ukraine (via Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) because our allies in the region demanded protection against Russia.
We definitely have interests in keeping Ukraine out of the hands of Russia, but not like our European allies. This was not our war, but we stepped up and took on more burden than all other NATO allies combined.
Yet, when we need overflight to carry out Operation Epic Fury, we are not only being denied, but virtually no allied nation has stepped up to help us rid the world of a legitimate terrorist threat.
Long before Operation Epic Fury was launched, Trump had called on NATO allies to increase their GDP spending to 5%, reported the BBC.
That would be a significant increase over the current level of approximately 2% that nations are supposed to be paying now. Spain, of course, rejected the new number, saying it has budgetary constraints that prevent it from raising its contribution to that mark.
Ironically, Britain and France agreed to provide Ukraine with a postwar troop commitment and key security provisions, reported the New York Times.
After the deal was struck, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated:
“This is a huge step forward because one year ago, we couldn’t even think about it. We are each day a little bit closer.”
I cannot get over the irony of our European allies making this committment to a non-NATO nation while at the same time denying the benefits of NATO to which the United States is entitled.
I am not here to make an argument that the United States should withdraw from NATO, but it is broken.
This was supposed to be an alliance that benefited all members, but the United States is, in essence, an ATM for NATO allies, while being refused the benefits it has provided to other nations when called upon.
We need these forward operating bases, but we also need to be able to use them in times such as this. We need shared intelligence, but we surely cannot have it held back during a major conflict.
We should not leave NATO, but Rubio hit the nail on the head; this relationship needs to be reassessed, especially in terms of our troop deployments and financial responsibilities.
NATO was put to the test, and it failed miserably. There have to be repercussions for that.
