Analysis of: Nato refusing US permission to use bases is ‘a problem’, says Rubio after Meloni meeting – Europe live
The Guardian | May 8, 2026
TL;DR
US threatens NATO unity over allied refusal to support Iran operations, while peace talks with Russia stagnate. The contradictions of American imperial overreach are fracturing the Western alliance built on Cold War foundations.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's Rome press conference reveals deep fissures within the NATO alliance, as the US confronts the contradiction between maintaining European bases for 'power projection' and European allies who refuse to participate in American military adventures. Spain's denial of base access for Iran operations—described by Rubio as having 'impeded the mission' and 'created unnecessary dangers'—exposes the fundamental tension between NATO's purported defensive purpose and its actual function as an instrument of US imperial reach. The situation illustrates a broader historical pattern: alliances forged under one set of material conditions (Cold War containment) becoming inadequate or contradictory under changed circumstances (unilateral US interventionism in the Middle East). Italy's Meloni, once Trump's closest European ally, now finds herself at odds with Washington over the Iran war, demonstrating how national bourgeois interests can diverge from imperial center demands when the costs become too apparent. The Vatican's emergence as a peace advocate adds another layer, as the Catholic Church—historically aligned with Western power—positions itself against American militarism. Meanwhile, the Ukraine situation remains 'stagnated,' with Rubio admitting US mediation has 'not led to a fruitful outcome.' This paralysis serves American interests in a prolonged conflict that weakens Russia while European workers bear the burden through energy price increases—the article notes airlines seeking fuel surcharges and the EU scrambling to maintain passenger protections. The material consequences of these imperial competitions fall not on the decision-makers but on working people across multiple continents.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US state apparatus (Rubio, Trump administration), European state leaders (Meloni, Tajani), NATO military bureaucracy, Energy corporations, Working-class consumers (airline passengers, citizens facing energy costs), Military-industrial complex, Vatican as institutional actor
Beneficiaries: Defense contractors profiting from prolonged conflicts, Energy companies extracting higher prices, US imperial interests seeking Middle East dominance, Political leaders using nationalist rhetoric for domestic consolidation
Harmed Parties: Working-class populations facing energy price increases, Civilian populations in war zones (Iran, Ukraine), European workers bearing costs of US military policy, Soldiers deployed in imperial conflicts
The US attempts to discipline NATO allies through threats of troop withdrawal, leveraging military dependency to extract compliance for operations beyond Europe. European leaders face contradictory pressures: domestic populations opposing war versus American demands for solidarity. The power asymmetry within NATO is laid bare—nominally equal partners are expected to subordinate their interests to Washington's strategic priorities.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Control of Strait of Hormuz oil shipping routes, Jet fuel price increases affecting transportation sector, Military base infrastructure as economic and strategic asset, Energy market disruptions from Middle East conflict, European economic vulnerability to energy supply chains
The struggle centers on control of global energy circulation—the material lifeblood of capitalist production. The US frames Iran's potential control of Hormuz as 'unacceptable' precisely because it threatens the free flow of commodities essential to Western capital accumulation. Military bases represent fixed capital investments that bind European economies to American strategic priorities, creating dependency relationships disguised as alliance.
Resources at Stake: Persian Gulf oil transit routes, NATO military base infrastructure, European energy security, Geopolitical influence in Middle East, Arms contracts and military expenditure
Historical Context
Precedents: NATO's post-Cold War expansion and mission creep, 2003 Iraq War divisions within NATO (France, Germany opposition), US use of European bases for Middle East operations since 1991, Historical pattern of imperial powers demanding allied participation in colonial ventures, Suez Crisis 1956 as precedent for US-European divergence
This represents a recurring contradiction in hegemonic decline: the imperial center demands ever-greater contributions from subordinate allies while delivering diminishing benefits. NATO, constructed to contain Soviet power, now serves primarily as a vehicle for American power projection into regions irrelevant to European security. The current phase of financialized, crisis-prone capitalism generates more frequent military interventions to secure resource access and market dominance, straining alliance structures built for a different era.
Contradictions
Primary: NATO's stated purpose as a 'defensive alliance' contradicts its actual function as an instrument for US offensive operations, creating legitimacy crises when members refuse to participate in wars of choice.
Secondary: US demands for European military burden-sharing while simultaneously demanding European subordination to US strategic priorities, Trump's transactional nationalism versus the institutional requirements of alliance maintenance, European leaders' need to appear sovereign domestically while remaining dependent on US security guarantees, Peace rhetoric from all parties while all pursue strategies that prolong conflicts
These contradictions may resolve through either NATO's transformation into a more explicitly US-dominated command structure (requiring European capitulation) or gradual fragmentation as European powers develop independent security capacities. The more likely short-term trajectory is continued tension management through rhetorical compromise while material divergences deepen. Economic crises or direct military threats to European territory could temporarily reunify the alliance, but the structural contradictions will resurface.
Global Interconnections
The NATO tensions cannot be understood separately from the broader reconfiguration of global capitalism. US hegemonic decline creates pressure to use military force more frequently to maintain dominance that economic means alone can no longer guarantee. The Iran conflict, Ukraine war, and European energy crisis form an interconnected system: Middle East instability disrupts energy markets, benefiting US LNG exports while punishing European industry; Ukraine serves as a proxy war bleeding Russian resources while binding Europe to American security frameworks. The article's mention of Bulgaria's new 'Moscow-friendly' prime minister and questions about European unified negotiating positions with Russia hint at the centrifugal forces pulling at Western unity. Rising powers and regional actors increasingly exploit these divisions. The core-periphery dynamics of imperialism are being contested not only by the Global South but within the imperial core itself, as European states question whether American priorities serve their interests.
Conclusion
For working-class observers, this intra-imperial squabbling offers both dangers and opportunities. The danger lies in escalation—Rubio's bellicose rhetoric about 'shooting back' normalizes permanent warfare while costs fall on ordinary people through inflation, conscription risks, and social service cuts to fund military spending. The opportunity lies in the exposed contradictions: when ruling-class alliances fracture, space opens for anti-war movements and class-based politics that reject the false unity of 'national interest.' The EU Commission's scramble to prevent airlines from passing costs to passengers shows even capitalist states must sometimes restrain capital when legitimacy is at stake. Building on these cracks requires connecting opposition to specific wars with broader critique of the system that generates them.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how capitalist powers compete for spheres of influence and how alliances shift based on material interests directly illuminates NATO's current fractures over Iran and resource control.
- The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' and analysis of how military force secures capitalist expansion explains the US insistence on controlling the Strait of Hormuz and maintaining global base networks.
- Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti (1997) Parenti's examination of how Western powers have historically used anti-communist and now 'anti-terrorist' framing to justify interventions provides context for understanding the ideological justifications deployed in these conflicts.