US Threats to Europe Reveal an Imperial Doctrine
Warnings aimed at Spain and the UK say little about NATO’s future — and much about the ideology driving Washington. A commentary by Nathalie Tocci
Washington’s latest threats against Europe — this time directed at Spain and the United Kingdom — reveal little about NATO’s future and much, instead, about the ideology underpinning the Trump administration.
The US Department of Defense, acting on the president’s mandate and at the initiative of deputy secretary Elbridge Colby, has floated a number of options aimed at punishing Europe for its lack of support for the disastrous war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran.
Among the measures under consideration are the suspension of Spain from the Atlantic Alliance and a revision of the US position on sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
After Britain’s victory in the 1982 war against Argentina, which established London’s control over the islands, the United States recognised British sovereignty de facto.
Argentina, however, continues to claim the Malvinas as its own territory. Washington is now threatening to revise its position, dealing a blow to the United Kingdom while offering an unexpected gift to Buenos Aires.
US threats regarding Spain’s continued membership of NATO lack any legal basis.
Each member state is free to leave the alliance, and the United States could do so as well, although there are constraints imposed by Congress that limit presidential autonomy in this area.
What one state cannot do, however, is force another sovereign state to leave an international organisation. This principle applies in particular to NATO, whose founding treaty provides no mechanism to suspend or expel a member, unless it chooses to withdraw voluntarily.
In the European Union, by contrast, there is a procedure to suspend a member state’s voting rights through Article 7 of the EU Treaty, although it is extremely difficult to implement, as demonstrated by the cases of Hungary and Poland. In NATO, by contrast, no such procedure exists.
It is therefore no coincidence that Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez has appeared unfazed in dismissing the Trump administration’s threats as empty.
Less calm appears British prime minister Keir Starmer. The United States, in fact, can recognise — or not — British sovereignty over the disputed Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
Like Sánchez, Starmer is among Trump’s preferred targets. It is significant that London, more than Rome or Paris, is in the crosshairs, despite the United Kingdom having, albeit not immediately, consented to the use of its military bases for the war in the Middle East. It is no coincidence that both the United Kingdom and Spain are governed by centre-left executives.
If one adds that Argentina is now led by the far-right government of Javier Milei, the political-ideological matrix behind Washington’s threats becomes clear.
Trump’s United States is pursuing an imperial design that spans both Europe and Latin America. In empires, there are no institutions grounded in shared decision-making, substantive consultation or the primacy of rules over the brute exercise of power.
This is why the US administration adopts a contradictory stance towards NATO. On the one hand, Trump and his secretary of defence Pete Hegseth like to describe the alliance as a “paper tiger”, as if the United States were not part of it.
On the other, the threats directed at Madrid suggest that Washington treats NATO as a property of its own, reducing the treaty to little more than a scrap of paper. For the White House, in short, NATO is nothing more than a tool in the arsenal of an empire in the making.
To realise Washington’s imperial vision, loyal subjects are needed — ones who share the leader’s ideas and strategies. This explains the bizarre threat to reconsider the position on the Falklands, which hands a success to Milei while dealing a blow to Starmer.
It also explains the desperate attempt to isolate Viktor Orbán in Hungary, with vice-president JD Vance visiting just days before the election ultimately lost decisively by the outgoing prime minister, a pillar of the continental far right.
The bad news is that Washington’s latest threats confirm the persistence of an imperial strategy based on support for the far right. The good news is that such a strategy appears increasingly destined to fail.
A previous version of this article was published by the Italian daily La Stampa
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
