Arak IR-40 complex, a heavy water reactor and production plant/en.wikipedia.org
Between Two Allies: What the U.S. Strike on Iran Means for Poland
By: Brandon Tranquilli
As a Polish-American, I grew up with a strong sense that the United States and Poland were natural allies. My grandparents spoke often of Poland’s hardships and resilience, and they saw in America both a protector and a partner. That belief shaped my understanding of foreign policy from an early age. But recent events have raised questions that many of us in the diaspora are beginning to ask: Can Poland still rely on the U.S. as its foremost security partner? And what does it mean when America strikes in one region, but seems to be retreating in another?
Source: us.headtopics.com
The recent U.S. strike on Iranian military infrastructure in response to a downed drone was a small but potent action. It was swift, unilateral, and precise—and it disrupted the prevailing narrative that the United States is in retreat. As someone who follows NATO policy and Eastern European affairs closely, I saw it as a reminder: the U.S. may be recalibrating its global posture, but it still has both the will and ability to project force when it sees a threat.
For Poland, this is both a reassurance and a challenge. While we welcome signs that the U.S. has not abandoned its global responsibilities, we cannot ignore the shift toward selective interventionism. The message is clear: America will act, but on its own terms.
A Long Alliance
Poland has long viewed the U.S. as its primary security guarantor. From joint military exercises to missile defense cooperation, the relationship has deepened significantly in recent years. Yet American foreign policy is shifting. Successive administrations—from Trump to Biden to the current one—have increasingly focused on Asia and demanded that NATO allies take on more of the defense burden.
For Polish leaders, this means the old certainties no longer apply. The U.S. will not always be present. It will not always lead. Poland must be prepared for scenarios where it must act first—or act alone.
The war in Ukraine was a wake-up call for NATO, and Poland rose to the occasion. It welcomed millions of refugees, transferred military equipment, and championed Ukraine’s cause on the international stage. This leadership role, once unexpected, is now well established.
But the war also exposed the limits of European military readiness and cohesion. While Poland exceeded NATO’s 2% defense spending threshold years ago, other countries are only now beginning to catch up. At the most recent NATO summit, several member states committed to spending 5% of their GDP on defense—an extraordinary shift that reflects growing awareness of shared responsibility.
Even so, American support remains critical. The U.S. provides the bulk of NATO’s infrastructure and strategic deterrence. But Poland can no longer assume that support will be automatic or eternal.
What the Iran Strike Reveals
The U.S. strike on Iran revealed three key truths:
-
America still leads by force: Despite its recalibration, the U.S. remains uniquely capable of decisive military action.
-
Selective intervention is here to stay: The era of large-scale, long-term military commitments is over. Instead, America will act when its interests are directly threatened.
-
Symbolism matters: In global politics, perception shapes reality. Even a limited strike reassures allies—and warns adversaries.
For Poland, the takeaway is sobering but not bleak. Washington may not be leaving the stage, but it is rewriting the script.
Opportunity and Strategy
Rather than viewing this selective approach with uncertainty, Poland can use it as a strategic opening. American strikes like the one in Iran show that the U.S. is still willing to act when its interests are clear. For Poland, the key is to align its own security posture and diplomatic messaging with those moments of American clarity—so that Polish priorities remain visible and integrated into U.S. strategic thinking.
Poland can also double down on its leadership within NATO. Having long met spending commitments and supported regional defense initiatives, Poland is now in a position to advocate for more agile, rapid-response capabilities within the alliance. The changing nature of American interventionism makes it all the more important that European allies—not just the U.S.—can project force credibly and respond to provocation. Poland must ensure its interests align with American strategic calculations – and be ready to diplomatically advocate for support when „selective intervention” is on the table.
Moreover, this is a time for Polish diplomacy to be bold. Deepening ties with regional partners like the Baltics and Romania, engaging with Western Europe on shared defense infrastructure, and asserting a clear role in EU security frameworks are all steps that will enhance Poland’s standing—whether or not the U.S. is leading from the front.
Moving Forward
Poland is no longer just a recipient of security guarantees. It is a leader in its own right. But leadership brings responsibility. The next phase of Poland’s foreign policy must include deeper ties with European partners, smarter diplomacy, and continued investment in both hard and soft power.
The Iran strike reminded the world that the U.S. can still act when provoked. But the deeper message for Poland is this: it’s a moment to reflect on the difference between American power and American presence—and how Poland can navigate both.
As someone who straddles two nations and two identities, I believe the future of U.S.–Poland relations will depend on clarity, commitment, and shared values.
Brandon Tranquilli is a Polish-American and graduate of American University in International Studies. He is interested in NATO policy and Eastern European affairs.
