Vienna joins growing list of allies—including Spain and Italy—refusing to support American military infrastructure for operations against Iran, as Washington struggles to build coalition.

By The South Asia Times

VIENNA - Austria has formally rejected a United States request to use its airspace for military operations against Iran, citing the country’s constitutionally enshrined policy of permanent neutrality, the Austrian Defense Ministry confirmed Thursday.

The decision adds Austria to a growing list of US allies that have refused to facilitate potential American strikes on Iranian territory, underscoring Washington’s diplomatic isolation as it continues military operations in West Asia.

A spokesman for the Austrian Defense Ministry confirmed that Washington had submitted “several requests” but declined to specify the exact number, according to Austrian public broadcaster ORF. The ministry said it has not imposed a blanket ban on US overflights but is reviewing each request on a case-by-case basis—and has so far rejected those related to offensive military action against Iran.

“Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner should not have approved a single US military flight to the Gulf. She should also not have approved any transport flights or other logistical support,” said Sven Hergovich, leader of the opposition Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) in Lower Austria, calling on the government to maintain its firm stance.

Austria’s neutrality is enshrined in its 1955 Constitutional Law on Neutrality, which prohibits the country from participating in wars or allowing foreign troops to transit its territory for belligerent purposes. The law was a condition for the withdrawal of Allied occupation forces after World War II and has remained a cornerstone of Austrian foreign policy.

Unlike NATO members, Austria is not bound by collective defense obligations. The country has used its neutral status to position itself as a diplomatic hub, hosting the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and numerous UN bodies—including key venues for past negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

“Austria’s neutrality is not a symbolic gesture—it is a hard legal constraint on what the government can permit,” said Dr. Markus Körner, a Vienna-based international law scholar. “Allowing US military overflights for strikes on Iran would be a clear violation of that constitutional commitment. The government has no legal wiggle room.”

- Growing List of Refusals

Austria is not alone in pushing back against US requests for military infrastructure to support operations against Iran. In recent weeks, several other allies have refused American demands, dealing a blow to Washington’s operational planning.

Spain reportedly denied the US access to the Naval Station Rota in southern Spain for combat missions against Iran. While Spain has allowed the US to station destroyers at Rota for missile defense purposes, Madrid has drawn a red line at using the base for offensive strikes. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares was quoted as saying that Spanish territory “will not be used for any war of aggression.”

Italy also refused a US request to use its airbases, including the strategically located Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, for launching strikes on Iran. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government reportedly cited both legal restrictions and concerns about escalation, though Italy remains a committed NATO ally.

Turkey, a NATO member with the alliance’s second-largest military, has denied the US overflight rights for strikes on Iran, according to multiple diplomatic sources. Turkey maintains complex relations with both Washington and Tehran and has positioned itself as a mediator—hosting its own track of diplomacy alongside Pakistan’s efforts.

Qatar, which hosts the massive Al Udeid Air Base—the largest US military installation in the Middle East—has also reportedly placed restrictions on the use of its facilities for offensive operations against Iran, though Doha continues to allow logistical and support functions.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both key US security partners, have allowed some US military operations from their soil but have privately expressed concerns about being drawn into a wider war, according to regional officials.

- US Forced to Rely on Regional Assets

The cascade of refusals has forced the US military to rely more heavily on its own regional assets, including aircraft carriers deployed to the Arabian Sea, bases in the Gulf nation of Bahrain (home to the US Fifth Fleet), and Diego Garcia, a British-controlled island in the Indian Ocean where the US maintains a strategic bomber base.

However, Diego Garcia’s use is also constrained: the UK government has historically required that any offensive strikes launched from the island be conducted under a legal framework acceptable to London. British officials are reportedly reviewing current requests.

“The United States is discovering that its traditional allies are far less willing to be pulled into another major Middle Eastern war than they were two decades ago,” said Dr. Fawaz Gerges, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. “The political costs are too high, and there is little public appetite in Europe or the Gulf for being seen as co-belligerents against Iran.”

The refusals stand in stark contrast to Pakistan’s active offer to host US-Iran peace talks in Islamabad. While European and some Gulf states have distanced themselves from facilitating US military action, Pakistan has positioned itself as a diplomatic bridge—a role the Foreign Ministry reiterated Thursday.

“Pakistan has a certain satisfaction that both Iran and the US have expressed their confidence in Pakistan to facilitate these talks,” Foreign Office Spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said at his weekly briefing in Islamabad, adding that Islamabad remains “honored to host and facilitate meaningful talks” between the two sides.

In Austria, opposition lawmakers are demanding that the government not only reject offensive military requests but also scrutinize any US flights that could be interpreted as logistical support for combat operations.

Hergovich of the SPÖ warned that “transport flights or other logistical support” could be used to sustain military operations and should also be denied. His comments reflect broader concerns among neutral European states that being indirectly complicit in hostilities—even without direct combat involvement—could violate both domestic law and international obligations.

The Austrian Defense Ministry said it would continue to review all US requests “in strict adherence to Austrian neutrality law,” without providing further details on pending applications.