作者：摩根·菲利普斯 | 福克斯新闻
发布时间：2026年3月18日 美国东部时间上午10:56
新功能：您现在可以收听福克斯新闻文章了！
收听本文
9分钟
北约盟友拒绝参与重新开放霍尔木兹海峡的潜在行动，令总统唐纳德·特朗普感到沮丧，并引发部分美国官员对该联盟在重大全球危机中可靠性的质疑。
特朗普警告称，与伊朗的霍尔木兹海峡对峙可能对北约造成严重后果，他认为盟友在享受全球安全的同时却不愿分担负担。
“我们大多数北约‘盟友’已告知美国，他们不想卷入我们的军事行动，”总统周二在Truth Social平台上写道。
“我们会保护他们，但他们在需要时不会为我们做任何事，尤其是在危急时刻。”他补充道。
霍尔木兹海峡是全球经济的关键动脉，输送全球约20%的石油供应。即使是有限的中断也可能导致能源价格飙升，加剧全球经济压力。
尽管北约的核心使命是区域防御，但盟友参与海峡安全保障将凸显该联盟是否有能力在欧洲以外投射力量，或是是否主要依赖美国来维护全球商业安全。
这种不满情绪不仅限于白宫。
共和党参议员林赛·格雷厄姆表示，盟友的缺乏支持“让我开始质疑这些联盟的价值”，并警告后果可能“广泛而深远”。
特朗普还质疑北约的未来。
“如果没有回应或回应是负面的，我认为这将对北约的未来非常不利，”他告诉《金融时报》。
盟友犹豫，美国推进石油咽喉要道安全行动
然而，欧洲盟友对美国领导的在霍尔木兹海峡针对伊朗的军事行动参与意愿极低。
霍尔木兹海峡是伊朗与阿曼之间的狭窄水道，是全球约20%石油供应的主要运输路线。
当前对峙源于美以对伊朗目标的升级打击，引发人们担忧德黑兰可能通过水雷、无人机或快速攻击艇破坏海峡航运作为报复。
保险公司已开始拒绝为穿越海峡的船只投保，自美国领导的代号为“史诗之怒行动”（Operation Epic Fury）的任务启动以来，仅有极少数船只通过。
英国已明确排除派遣军舰进入霍尔木兹海峡或附近伊朗水域的可能，表明将避免直接参与作战行动。
相反，英国官员讨论了更有限的支持措施，包括使用扫雷无人机——这种无人系统用于探测和中和伊朗历史上用于威胁商业航运的低成本水雷。虽然此类系统可帮助保持航道畅通，但通常是在水雷部署后才起作用，无法实时阻止攻击。
英国已允许美国使用其两个军事基地——印度洋的迪戈加西亚岛和英格兰的皇家空军费尔福德基地——用于针对伊朗的“特定且有限”防御行动。迪戈加西亚长期作为美国远程轰炸机行动和中东后勤的基地，而费尔福德基地是少数能部署美国战略轰炸机（包括B-52和B-2）的欧洲基地，可用于打击任务或威慑巡逻。
法国同样拒绝参与作战行动，法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙表示，任何护航任务只有在局势稳定后才可能实施。德国立场更坚决，完全排除参与，强调北约是防御性联盟，并非为当前伊朗危机这类冲突设计。
尽管欧洲主要盟友拒绝参与，一些较小伙伴已表示愿意提供支持。
爱沙尼亚外交部长玛格努斯·萨赫克纳表示，若华盛顿正式请求，该国愿讨论援助方式。
乌克兰也表示将提供反伊朗无人机攻击的专业技术，包括低成本拦截无人机和乌克兰与俄罗斯战争中测试过的防空战术。美国和海湾伙伴已请求乌克兰协助，基辅方面表示准备分享系统和人员以防御伊朗空中威胁。
“爱沙尼亚20年前才加入北约，乌克兰甚至不是成员国，但他们都准备行动，”一位欧洲政策分析师评论道，“与此同时，欧洲其他国家仍在讨论如何组建委员会研究此事。”
全球石油流动受威胁
霍尔木兹海峡作为全球能源供应的关键咽喉，因冲突升级出现航运中断，油轮在多次袭击和威胁后减速或停止航行。
该水道输送约20%的全球石油和大量液化天然气，中断已推动原油价格突破每桶100美元。
特朗普政府称可能部署海军护航保护商业油轮，但官员们仍在权衡风险和所需资源，尚未采取行动。
欧洲各国海军能力参差不齐，只有英国和法国等少数国家能部署该地区高风险任务所需的资产。
“只有英国和法国拥有实际可用的海军力量，”定期与海湾国家领导人互动的地缘政治分析师哈雷·利普曼表示，“其他欧洲海军规模太小、能力太弱。”
保卫狭窄水道可能需要海军护航、防空反导和扫雷能力，同时必须在伊朗部队的射程内行动。
“存在重大操作考量……这不是一个简单的行动环境，”专注跨大西洋关系的德国马歇尔基金会高级研究员克里斯汀·贝尔齐娜表示，“但还有更广泛的政治氛围影响参与决策。”
这一背景包括对升级的担忧，以及对冲突起因和应对方式的分歧。
欧洲官员未参与当前美伊军事行动的最初决策，几个政府强调去军事化和外交接触，而非直接参与。
一些国家正寻求替代方案，包括外交努力确保海峡安全通行，而另一些国家则警惕进入拥挤且不稳定的行动环境，担心误判可能引发更广泛冲突。
国内政治压力和优先事项竞争同样起作用，欧洲政府仍关注本土更紧迫的安全挑战，尤其是俄罗斯和乌克兰战争。
贝尔齐娜表示，这一局势也反映了联盟本身的局限性。
“北约是防御性联盟，”她说，“一旦进入中东，就取决于各盟友的具体能力。”
利普曼认为，欧洲对该地区能源流动的依赖使当前犹豫难以解释。
“他们从霍尔木兹海峡的石油中受益比我们更多，”他说。
虽然美国消费者可能面临更直接的价格飙升，但欧洲因依赖进口天然气和难以快速替代供应，更易受长期中断影响。
即使盟友选择参与，协调也将是主要障碍。
“谁控制交战规则……与是否有足够船只同样重要，”她补充道。
霍尔木兹危机暴露北约裂痕加深
紧张局势恰逢跨大西洋联盟的实力和期望受到更广泛质疑。
特朗普长期批评北约，反复声称美国承担了不成比例的负担，并质疑盟友是否会在危机中为美国防御。
美国在俄罗斯入侵后领导支持乌克兰，这一冲突直接影响欧洲安全，而欧洲盟友提供了大量援助和资源。
但欧洲政府迅速指出，2001年“9·11”事件后，北约首次援引集体防御条款响应对美袭击，欧洲盟友曾与美军并肩部署并承受重大伤亡。
当前对峙可能标志着美欧安全合作方式的重大转变。
“这是重新校准的时刻，”贝尔齐娜表示，“我们将看到关于欧洲盟友愿意考虑的角色的谈判。”
特朗普推动收购北约盟友丹麦领土格陵兰岛的举措，已暴露联盟内部裂痕，欧洲领导人强烈反对，警告此举可能在全球威胁加剧时破坏团结。
这些紧张局势与霍尔木兹海峡危机碰撞，美国寻求盟友支持却面临欧洲主要伙伴有限的意愿。
与此同时，霍尔木兹海峡的中断可能给俄罗斯带来战略优势。全球油价因航运威胁飙升将增加莫斯科能源收入，支持其在西方制裁下的乌克兰战争。
白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·利维特在接受福克斯新闻采访时表示：“我们在它们的领土上派驻数万军队，支付数十亿美元，而总统希望美国纳税人及军队得到公平对待。他认为北约有时对这些义务没有足够重视。”
“他指出这一点是正确的，他要求盟友承担更多责任也是对的。”
北约未立即回应置评请求。
（完）
NATO allies reject Hormuz mission as Trump warns of consequences for alliance | Fox News
By Morgan Phillips | Fox News
Published March 18, 2026 10:56am EDT
Foundation for Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz discusses whether there is room for negotiations with Iran as Operation Epic Fury continues on ‘The Will Cain Show.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
9 min
NATO allies are declining to join a potential effort to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, frustrating President Donald Trump and prompting questions among some U.S. officials about the alliance’s reliability in a major global crisis.
Trump has warned the Hormuz standoff with Iran could have serious consequences for NATO, arguing that allies benefit from global security without sharing the burden.
“The United States has been informed by most of our NATO ‘Allies’ that they don’t want to get involved with our Military Operation,” the president wrote on Truth Social Tuesday.
“We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need,” he said.
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for the global economy, carrying about 20% of the world’s oil supply. Even limited disruption can send energy prices soaring and strain economies worldwide.
Though NATO’s core mission is regional defense, allied involvement in securing the strait would demonstrate whether the alliance can project power beyond Europe — or whether it relies primarily on the U.S. to safeguard global commerce.
The frustration is spreading beyond the White House.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said the lack of allied support “makes me second guess the value of these alliances,” warning the repercussions could be “wide and deep.”
Trump also has questioned the future of the alliance.
“If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO,” he told the Financial Times.
Allies hold back as US moves to secure oil choke point
European allies, however, have shown little willingness to join a U.S.-led military effort against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that serves as the primary transit route for roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply.
The current standoff follows escalating U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, raising fears Tehran could retaliate by disrupting shipping through the strait using naval mines, drones or fast-attack vessels.
Insurance companies have begun refusing to insure ships traversing the strait and a very limited number of ships have passed since the start of the U.S.-led mission against Iran known as Operation Epic Fury.
The United Kingdom has ruled out sending warships into the Strait of Hormuz or nearby Iranian waters, signaling it will avoid direct involvement in combat operations.
Instead, British officials have discussed more limited support, including the use of minesweeping drones — unmanned systems designed to detect and help neutralize naval mines, which Iran historically has used as a low-cost way to threaten commercial shipping. While such systems can help keep sea lanes open, they are typically used after mines are deployed and do not deter attacks in real time.
The U.K. has permitted the U.S. to use two of its military bases — Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and Royal Air Force Fairford in England — for “specific and limited” defensive actions against Iran. Diego Garcia has long served as a staging ground for U.S. long-range bomber operations and logistics in the Middle East, while RAF Fairford is one of the few European bases capable of hosting U.S. strategic bombers, including B-52 and B-2 aircraft, which can be used for strike missions or deterrence patrols.
France similarly has declined to participate in combat operations, with French President Emmanuel Macron saying any potential escort mission would only take place once the situation stabilizes. Germany has taken an even firmer stance, ruling out involvement entirely and emphasizing that NATO is a defensive alliance not designed for intervention in conflicts like the current Iran crisis.
While larger European allies have declined to participate, some smaller partners have signaled a willingness to contribute.
Estonia’s foreign minister, Margus Tsahkna, said the country is prepared to discuss how it could assist if Washington makes a formal request.
Ukraine also has moved to provide expertise and technology to counter Iranian drone attacks, including low-cost interceptor drones and battlefield-tested air defense tactics developed during its war with Russia. U.S. and Gulf partners already have requested Ukrainian assistance, with Kyiv signaling it is prepared to share both systems and personnel to help defend against Iranian aerial threats.
“Estonia joined NATO barely 20 years ago, Ukraine isn’t even a member, and they’re both ready to roll,” one European policy analyst said. “Meanwhile, the rest of Europe is still debating how to form a committee to form a working group to study the matter.”
Global oil flows threatened
The Strait of Hormuz — a critical choke point for global energy supplies — has seen shipping disrupted amid the escalating conflict, with tanker movements slowing or halting after repeated attacks and threats from Iran.
The waterway carries roughly 20% of the world’s oil and significant volumes of liquefied natural gas, and the disruption has pushed crude prices above $100 per barrel.
The Trump administration has said the U.S. could deploy naval escorts to protect commercial tankers, but so far has not done so as officials weigh the risks and resources required.
Naval capability across Europe is uneven, with only a handful of countries — particularly the United Kingdom and France — able to deploy the kind of assets required for a high-risk mission in the region.
“Only England and France really have any type of naval power that could be helpful,” said Harley Lippman, a geopolitical analyst who regularly engages with Gulf leaders, adding that other European navies are “too small and too weak.”
Securing the narrow waterway likely would require naval escorts, air and missile defense, and mine-clearing capabilities, all while operating within range of Iranian forces.
“There are significant operational considerations.… It is not a simple operating environment,” said Kristine Berzina, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, a Washington-based think tank focused on transatlantic relations. “But there’s also an overarching political climate” shaping decisions about involvement.
That broader context includes concerns about escalation, as well as differences over how the conflict began and how it should be handled.
European officials were not involved in the initial decision-making around the current U.S.–Iran military operation, and several governments have emphasized de-escalation and diplomatic engagement rather than direct participation.
Some countries are pursuing alternative approaches, including diplomatic efforts to secure safe passage through the strait, while others are wary of entering a crowded and volatile operating environment where miscalculation could trigger a wider conflict.
Domestic political pressures and competing priorities also play a role, as European governments remain focused on security challenges closer to home, particularly Russia and the war in Ukraine.
Berzina said the situation also reflects the limits of the alliance itself.
“NATO is a defensive alliance,” she said. “Once you get to the Middle East, you’re looking at the capabilities of individual allies.”
Lippman argued that Europe’s reliance on energy flows through the region makes the current reluctance difficult to justify.
“They benefit from the oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz more than we do,” he said.
While U.S. consumers may feel more immediate price spikes, Europe is more exposed to longer-term disruptions due to its reliance on imported natural gas and limited ability to quickly replace supply.
Even if allies chose to participate, coordination would be a major hurdle.
“Who controls under what rules of engagement… is as important as whether participants have enough ships,” she said.
Hormuz crisis exposes growing cracks in NATO
The tensions come amid broader questions about the strength and expectations of the transatlantic alliance.
Trump long has been critical of NATO, repeatedly arguing that the United States bears a disproportionate share of the burden and questioning whether allies would come to America’s defense in a crisis.
The U.S. has played a leading role in supporting Ukraine following Russia’s invasion — a conflict with direct implications for European security — while European allies have contributed significant aid and resources.
But European governments are quick to note that after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, NATO invoked its collective defense clause for the first time in response to an attack on the United States. European allies also deployed forces to Afghanistan alongside U.S. troops and sustained significant casualties over the course of the war.
The current standoff may signal a broader shift in how the U.S. and Europe approach security cooperation.
“This is a moment of recalibration,” Berzina said. “We’ll see negotiations over the roles Europeans would be willing to consider.”
Trump’s push to acquire Greenland, territory of NATO ally Denmark, has already exposed fault lines within the alliance, with European leaders pushing back forcefully and warning the move risked undermining unity at a time of rising global threats.
Those tensions are now colliding with the crisis in the Middle East, as the U.S. looks for allied support in the Strait of Hormuz and finds limited appetite among key European partners.
At the same time, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could hand a strategic advantage to Russia. Any sustained spike in global oil prices — driven by threats to shipping through the waterway — would boost Moscow’s energy revenues as it continues its war in Ukraine under Western sanctions.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” on the matter, “We’re paying these countries billions of dollars, in our troops on their soil, (serving) as a deterrent for them. And the president wants the American taxpayer and our American military to be treated fairly. He feels sometimes with NATO, they are not.”
“And he’s right to call that out, and he’s right to call on them to step up and do more,” she said.
NATO could not immediately be reached for comment.