The United States must reevaluate its relationships with NATO allies that deny American soldiers access to military bases or airspace during future operations, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker stated during an exclusive interview at the Euronews Defense and Space Summit, Euronews reported.
Whitaker’s remarks underscore a growing friction within the transatlantic alliance regarding military logistics and sovereignty. Washington is actively reviewing the deployment and stationing of U.S. forces across NATO territory following friction with several European governments during the joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, designated as Operation “Epic Fury.”
Access, Stationing, and the Shadow of Operation Epic Fury
The operational review centers heavily on transit rights, landing permissions, and the physical footprint of American forces stationed in Europe. During the conflict with Iran, multiple European capitals restricted or outright denied access to American assets, complicating deployment timelines and mission parameters.
“We are looking at access, stationing, and overflight issues, some of which were a bit complicated during Epic Fury,” Whitaker told Euronews. He noted that Washington remains engaged in direct talks with nations that restricted access, aiming to establish clear frameworks so that operational bottlenecks do not recur.
“We have these discussions only with a few countries with which we have had problems, to make sure that we understand the situation the next time,” Whitaker added. “Whether that doesn’t happen again or, if it happens, maybe, you know, we may have to reevaluate.”
The current assessment examines both the geographic placement of U.S. troops and the operational clearance granted for military infrastructure across allied soil. U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth initially announced this posture review during a meeting of NATO defense ministers at alliance headquarters in Brussels in June, following pushback from European partners over the Iran operation.
Hegseth criticized nations that opted out of the mission, calling their posture “shameful” and asserting that their decisions placed American service members at heightened risk.
Diverging European Responses and the “America First” Mandate
The operational friction exposed deep divisions among key European allies regarding unauthorized or unconsulted military actions. Spain adopted the most restrictive stance, denying the United States access to its airspace and military facilities for Iran-related operations out of concern over being pulled into an unconsulted conflict.
Italy imposed targeted limitations on military access, while France permitted logistical and operational support elements but barred fighter aircraft from utilizing French bases for aerial refueling. The United Kingdom initially limited Royal Air Force sites to defensive operations before gradually expanding access to support offensive strikes against Iranian targets.
According to Whitaker, the entire review process aligns directly with the “America First” doctrine of the Trump administration.
“America First means that we approach the question based on what is in the interest of the United States of America, its population, and its taxpayers,” Whitaker explained.
Addressing rumors sparked by leaked internal documents suggesting that up to 40,000 troops could be withdrawn from NATO territory, Whitaker dismissed the figures as inaccurate. He maintained that the formal strategy has not yet been finalized by the staff of the Secretary of War’s office, attributing the leaks to external actors seeking to create confusion.
An internal questionnaire circulated among NATO members this summer asked governments to detail their specific responses to the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, including whether they granted airspace and base access during the opening phase. The document also tested allied appetite for a broader restructuring of NATO defense doctrine dubbed “NATO 3.0,” which would shift the primary burden of conventional European defense onto European capitals.
