Why Are US Allies Absent from the Hormuz "Escort Coalition"?

The US and Israel’s military strikes on Iran have lasted over three weeks, with ongoing negative impacts spreading worldwide. Due to the substantial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for oil exports from multiple Middle Eastern oil-producing countries, the global energy supply system has been severely disrupted. Against this backdrop, President Trump recently issued a call to multiple countries to participate in escorting operations in the Strait of Hormuz.

However, this proposal has been met with a collective “cold shoulder” from US allies: European countries are “not helping,” NATO members are “not participating,” and Asia-Pacific allies are also playing a “taiji” (delaying or avoiding commitment).

On March 20, 2026, local time, in the Strait of Hormuz, a road sign with a car icon and the words “Strait of Hormuz” is visible.

Many countries with close security ties to the US have shown reluctance to join the “Escort Alliance” in the Strait of Hormuz. With allies absent, how will the US respond to the worsening energy crisis? What impact will this have on the Trump administration’s Iran policy?

Allies Say “No” Collectively

The Strait of Hormuz is known as a “throat” of global energy transportation, handling over a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil shipments and about one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas transport. Analysts point out that if the Strait remains closed, there are very few alternative oil routes, and their capacity is severely insufficient.

On March 12, the International Energy Agency warned that Middle Eastern conflicts are causing the largest-ever disruption to oil supplies. Saudi oil officials recently forecast that if supply disruptions continue into late April, international oil prices could soar above $180 per barrel.

The turbulence in oil and gas markets is also rapidly affecting the chemical industry chain: rising oil prices push up costs for basic chemicals like naphtha, which in turn drives up prices for key intermediates such as ethylene and propylene, ultimately impacting downstream products like plastics, synthetic rubber, and chemical fibers.

On March 11, a Thai cargo ship was attacked while navigating in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz.

In this context, President Trump’s social media post on March 20 drew attention. Trump stated that as the US “approaches” achieving its set goals in Iran, it will no longer bear the responsibility for guarding and patrolling the Strait of Hormuz, leaving it to the countries that use the strait.

Previously, Trump announced plans to establish a multilateral “Strait of Hormuz Escort Alliance,” explicitly calling on US allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific to join the escort operations. To achieve this, the Trump administration has been pressuring allied countries to “step up” efforts to ensure the safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

As the initiator of this conflict, the Trump administration is calling for the formation of an “escort alliance” while simultaneously claiming that the US will not bear the “responsibility.” What is their true intention?

Chen Jiajun, Deputy Director of the US Studies Program at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, analyzes that Trump’s statements are aimed at pressuring allies to share the burden, avoiding the high costs of unilateral escort duties.

However, many countries have explicitly opposed the proposal: recent statements from France, Germany, Spain, and other European nations indicate they currently have no plans to participate in the Strait of Hormuz escort. The Blue House in South Korea said on the 15th that they would “maintain close communication” and “study carefully.” Japan’s Defense Minister Kono Shinjiro on the 16th said they would “stay in communication” with the US… So far, no country has explicitly committed to joining the “escort alliance.”

Notably, on March 19, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan issued a joint statement expressing their readiness to take appropriate measures to ensure navigation safety in the Strait of Hormuz. Recent reports also indicate that South Korea announced on the 20th that it would join this statement.

This has undoubtedly angered Trump greatly. On March 20, Trump posted on social media, sharply criticizing NATO allies for failing to assist the US, calling them “paper tigers” and “cowards.”

Discontent with the US?

Why are US allies refusing to meet Washington’s demands for escorting in the Strait of Hormuz and choosing to “go their own way”?

Lü Yunmou, head of the Europe Security Project at the China Institute of Modern International Relations, analyzes that the US “escort alliance” proposal has cooled in Europe because more European countries are beginning to see the US’s actions as an “unjust” war: it does not conform to international law and is not in Europe’s interests.

Lü explains that as a third party outside the US-Israel-Iran conflict, European interests have been severely damaged by the war:

From an energy security perspective, Europe’s natural gas reserves are much lower than in previous years, forcing it to compete with other regions in spot markets for energy, increasing storage pressures.

“These issues are deadly blows to Europe’s already strained economic system, potentially fueling inflation, weakening industrial foundations, and significantly slowing economic growth,” Lü says.

He further notes that the diversion of Western, especially US, security resources to the Middle East has objectively put Ukraine at a disadvantage in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and Europe’s “support Ukraine to resist Russia” policy faces major challenges. Additionally, the US easing sanctions on Russian oil has made Europe feel “betrayed.”

He also points out that the ongoing Middle East conflict is increasing social security pressures in Europe, with threats such as terrorism, cybercrime, and violent extremism possibly escalating. Diplomatically, after the US-Israel-Iran conflict erupted, Iran accused Europe of being US accomplices, further diminishing Europe’s influence in the Middle East, especially regarding Iran.

Lü Yunmou concludes that considering these multiple factors, many European countries are shifting their attitudes toward this war, naturally avoiding participation in Trump’s “escort alliance” and even deliberately distancing themselves to avoid giving the impression of “joining the coalition.”

This photo was taken on March 17 in Los Angeles, California, showing a gas station price sign.

Japan’s stance on the “escort alliance” is also noteworthy. Public information shows that over 90% of Japan’s oil imports depend on the Middle East, with the Strait of Hormuz being a “lifeline” for Japan’s oil supply. However, during a recent visit to the US, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, despite strongly condemning Iran’s “blockade” of the Strait and praising Trump for “bringing peace and prosperity to the world,” seemed to avoid directly addressing the escort request.

Zhang Yulai, Deputy Director of the Japan Studies Institute at Nankai University, analyzes that during Kishida’s visit to the US, he appeared to be trying to “appease” Trump through symbolic gestures and economic “smokescreens,” but deliberately avoided participating in US-led escort operations. This approach is related to Japan’s diplomatic policy and domestic politics.

He explains that to ensure energy security, Japan maintains close energy cooperation with Iran, sustaining a “covert” stable relationship. This means that the outbreak of the US-Israel-Iran conflict has actually harmed Japan’s interests.

Zhang Yulai notes that since the beginning of this year, Kishida’s cabinet has seen a decline in approval ratings, and domestic opposition to US efforts to break international law and attack Iran makes it difficult for his government to openly support US escort actions.

“In fact, during Kishida’s US visit, condemning Iran was a ‘big step’ to cater to the Trump administration, which contradicts Japan’s traditional diplomatic logic,” Zhang says. “There are also reports that Kishida plans to propose purchasing crude oil from Alaska during his US visit. These actions can be seen as Japan’s way of catering to and maintaining the Japan-US relationship, in hopes that the Trump administration will ‘give Japan some leeway’ on the escort issue.”

On March 19, 2026, President Trump met with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the White House in Washington, D.C., to discuss Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Lü Yunmou points out that regardless of how the US-Israel-Iran conflict ends, the loosening of US-EU security ties is already quite evident.

He explains that since Trump began his second term, US-EU security bonds have faced continuous challenges. Before the Middle East conflict, the US likely did not fully communicate with Europe, and afterward, it showed little regard for European interests, causing dissatisfaction. Because Europe has not aligned with the US on Middle East issues, the US is also dissatisfied. This further demonstrates differing security perceptions and interests.

Lü predicts that in the future, Europe may expand its naval escort operations in the Middle East while maintaining a defensive stance, and take measures to limit regional energy price fluctuations. Europe might also strengthen diplomatic ties with Middle Eastern energy-exporting countries like Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia to secure energy supplies.

“As for the US, Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with Europe may lead him to ‘play hard’—for example, attacking NATO, threatening tariffs, or restricting security aid to Ukraine—to pressure Europe into aligning with the US,” Lü concludes.