US strike on Iran exposes fragile security for Poland, Ukraine, and NATO’s eastern flank

Europe is reduced to calling for talks from the sidelines, while Warsaw and Kyiv are exposed as never before.

When U.S. B2 Spirit stealth bombers levelled Iran’s nuclear sites early Sunday morning, the shockwaves were felt not just in Tehran, but across Warsaw and Kyiv, where leaders now face a hard truth that security on NATO’s eastern flank now depends less on treaties and more on the unpredictable moods of Washington.

For Poland and Ukraine, this attack confirms the signal from earlier this year that automatic American or NATO protection can no longer be taken for granted. Washington’s support is now conditional, shaped by shifting US priorities, its Middle East ally and the political battles inside the White House.

This is not the first warning. Earlier this year, when the Trump administration signalled that Europe was no longer a top priority, officials in Warsaw and Kyiv began preparing for the possibility that US protection could be withheld in a future crisis.

“Europe should not expect that the United States will guarantee its security forever,” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said at the Munich Security Conference in February this year.

With Trump acting outside NATO channels and launching the strike without consulting or informing European partners, Europe is reduced to calling for talks from the sidelines, while Warsaw and Kyiv are exposed as never before.

Immediate shock: drones, oil, and new risks

Within hours of the U.S. strike on Iran’s three most heavily fortified nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Istfahan, officials in Kyiv and Warsaw were weighing the fallout. The first effect was military. Ukrainian sources welcomed the blow to Tehran, whose drones and missiles have become a staple of Russia’s campaign against Ukraine.

“The Iranian regime is Russia’s ally, so the more they lose, the better,” one senior Ukrainian official told AFP, pointing out that Israeli and US attacks had left Iran’s military capacity diminished.

But the relief was tempered by new anxieties. Although Brent crude rose only modestly from $76 a barrel on Friday to $77 on Monday, officials and analysts across the region warn that oil prices could surge if the crisis deepens.

This risk would quickly add pressure for countries already funnelling budgets into defence across Central and Eastern Europe.

For Ukraine, the stakes are even sharper: every increase in the price of oil puts more money in the Kremlin’s war chest, helping fund Russia’s assault.

Ukrainian commentators warned that any celebration could be short-lived. “Fighting in the Middle East will inevitably lead to higher oil prices,” noted analyst Sergiy Sternenko, while others feared that shifting global attention might leave Ukraine isolated on the battlefield.

The Trump–Netanyahu axis: how US priorities shifted overnight

The path to the U.S. strike began not in Washington, but in Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear his government would escalate against Iran with or without American support.

Faced with this, President Trump moved from cautious talk of negotiations to fulfilling Israel’s demands: that the US use its special bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear sites and prevent Tehran from developing a usable nuclear warhead.

As political analyst Jędrzej Bielecki observed, “Trump, who came to power on ‘America First’, ultimately gave in to pressure from a foreign leader.”

Meanwhile, Scott Lucas speaking on TVP Wold put it bluntly: “Netanyahu has pulled Trump into war… Israel sets the pace, the US follows.”

NATO and EU capitals were left on the sidelines, learning of the attack only after the fact. For Warsaw and Kyiv, the message was hard to miss: key decisions about war and peace are now made in Washington and Jerusalem, not Europe.

In this new reality, European governments are left reacting to events, not shaping them.

Fallout for Poland and Ukraine: no more automatic protection

For Poland and Ukraine, the US strike against Iran made an old worry suddenly real. NATO’s Article 5 states that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all, obliging a joint response.

In reality, this guarantee only works if the United States, as NATO’s main military power, is willing and able to act.

After the Iran strike, Polish officials chose their words carefully, with Polish officials speaking of “close consultations with allies” and “alliance unity,” while senior ministers stayed largely silent.

Kyiv has been more candid. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, “We would like to see that the aid to Ukraine would not be reduced because of this.”

A senior Ukrainian official was even blunter: “If the US is distracted by other wars, Europe’s security comes second.”

For both countries, the idea that Washington’s protection is automatic has been replaced by a cold awareness that it now depends on American priorities, and attention.

Inside Trump’s administration, that future remains uncertain. “There’s a battle going on between two camps. The camp, including J.D. Vance, that wants to restrict the aid. The camp led by Keith Kellogg, that wants to maintain it,” as Scott Lucas told TVP World.

For Warsaw and Kyiv, the outcome of this internal struggle could decide the reality of support on the ground.

Europe’s powerlessness and the limits of diplomacy

After U.S. and Israeli jets struck Iran, European leaders fell back on familiar appeals for restraint and a return to diplomacy.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for “a credible diplomatic solution,” warning that “stability must be the priority.”

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged “all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation.”

Council President Antonio Costa and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot each repeated the message that only dialogue can resolve the crisis.

But in Tehran, Iran’s foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, dismissed these calls. “How can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up?” he asked, pointing out that diplomatic talks collapsed only after Israeli and US bombs began to fall.

For Brussels, the reality is hard to ignore. While Europe calls for negotiations, the real power to shape events now sits in Washington and Jerusalem, not in the EU’s capitals.

New precedent for NATO and the global order

Earlier this year, President Trump and his administration made clear that Europe was no longer their top security priority.

The strike on Iran confirmed this shift. The United States acted alone, launching the operation without meaningful consultation or warning to its European allies.

Polish security expert Roman Kuźniar called the operation “a brazen breach of international law,” warning that “the alliance’s leading power acts unilaterally and may drag partners into needless wars, undermining its own credibility.”

This episode signals to Russia, China, and others that America is willing to move alone when it suits its interests, even at the cost of alliance unity.

For NATO’s eastern members, the risk is that if Washington can ignore its partners in one crisis, there is no guarantee it will act in another.

The lesson will surely not be lost on Moscow or Beijing, where leaders will now question whether the alliance’s promises are as solid as they once appeared.

Living with uncertainty

In Warsaw, officials talk of strengthening Poland’s own defences and deepening EU security cooperation. Kyiv, forced by necessity, is already investing in domestic arms production and calling on European states to take more responsibility.

Behind closed doors, leaders across the eastern flank are pushing for reforms within NATO and the EU to reduce dependence on American decisions alone.

In Warsaw, Vilnius, and Prague, officials are arguing for greater European investment in air defence, joint weapons procurement, and the creation of rapid-reaction forces that can act independently of US command.

There are also calls for more binding EU defence commitments, streamlined decision-making in Brussels, and stronger security ties among frontline states themselves.

The aim is simple: to make sure Europe is never again left waiting for a decision from Washington when its own security is at stake.

For Warsaw and Kyiv, every new crisis now brings the same calculation: will American power come through, or will Europe be left making plans in the dark?

With every new shock, the anxiety spreads. In Tallinn, Estonia’s capital on NATO’s Baltic flank, in Chisinau, Moldova, just beyond the alliance border, and all around the Black Sea, leaders are already asking what happens when the next crisis erupts.

Whether it is Russian pressure in the Baltics, destabilisation in Moldova, or renewed fighting along the Black Sea coast.

A version of this article first appeared at TVP World