An internal Pentagon memorandum has laid bare the depth of American fury at Nato allies deemed unwilling to support the United States and Israel in the widening war with Iran, floating punitive steps that include suspending Spain from the alliance and reviewing Washington’s long-standing recognition of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The email, described to Reuters by an unnamed US official, expresses acute frustration over what it calls the failure of certain member states to grant access, basing and overflight rights—referred to in military shorthand as ABO and characterised as “just the absolute baseline for Nato”.

Seen from Washington, the leaked document crystallises a White House conviction that the alliance has become a one-way security guarantee rather than a collective fighting force. The email explores relegating “difficult” countries from prestigious command posts and places Spain at the centre of the storm. Madrid has steadfastly refused to allow American forces bound for Iranian targets to use the joint bases at Rota and Morón de la Frontera or to traverse Spanish airspace. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has repeatedly called the US-Israeli campaign illegal, and when asked about the memo at a European Union summit in Cyprus he was dismissive. “We do not work with emails,” he told reporters, adding: “The position of the government of Spain is clear: absolute collaboration with the allies, but always” within the bounds of international law. He insisted Madrid enjoys “absolute tranquillity” as a reliable Nato partner.

In Brussels, officials moved swiftly to pour cold water on the idea of suspension. A Nato spokesman told multiple outlets, including the BBC and El Mundo, that the North Atlantic Treaty contains no provision for suspending or expelling a member state. The departure of any country—including the largest—can only be voluntary. Analysts in London note that the legal impossibility has not prevented Washington from signalling its displeasure through other symbolic channels, however, notably the suggestion that the United States might “review” its position on Britain’s sovereignty over the Falklands, a move that would delight Buenos Aires and represents a barely coded threat to a London government whose initial hesitation to join the Iran operations already drew presidential scorn.

From Moscow, the spectacle of Nato’s internal fracture is watched with barely concealed satisfaction. The Russian-language press highlights the discord as evidence that Washington’s grip on the alliance is slipping. Meanwhile, in Western capitals beyond Madrid, the episode reinforces a broader anxiety: that President Trump views military solidarity as a transactional ledger, with the Iran war serving as the immediate ledger-book test. Britain has affirmed that Falklands sovereignty “rests with the UK”, but the very fact that such a statement is necessary after decades of settled policy underscores how far the ripple effects of the Middle East conflict have travelled.

The memo’s emergence is itself a form of pressure, a deliberate or inadvertent exposure of the hardline thinking circulating inside the Pentagon at a moment when Washington is demanding not just rhetorical backing but operational sacrifice. Yet the firm Nato reply from Brussels suggests that any attempt to coerce behaviour by threatening membership will hit the brick wall of treaty law. The coming weeks will reveal whether the White House pivots to quieter arm-twisting or escalates its public campaign against allies it regards as free-riders. Either way, the transatlantic cracks opened by the Iran war are now structural, and the most powerful member’s loyalty to the founding principles of collective defence is no longer something smaller allies can take for granted.