Trump's war on Iran is causing NATO's worst crisis yet by Lt. General Konstantinos Loukopoulos (Ret).
Trump's war on Iran is causing NATO's worst crisis yet
By Lt. General Konstantinos Loukopoulos (Ret).
President Trump's idea of a "rupture" between the US and Europe is not new. He has shown it many times since his very first term. The American President has an indisputable intolerance if not disgust towards the network of US Alliances and Strategic Partnerships worldwide and especially NATO because, as he widely claims, everyone else is exploiting America. From trade disputes to defense spending and the operation of NATO, the transatlantic relationship was perceived as an "unequal" agreement rather than a Strategic Alliance. However, until recently, this stance remained at the level of pressure and negotiation.
The war in Iran started by Washington without any consultation or even briefing of the Allies and Trump's demand, after the strategic failure so far to achieve the war goals, to actively participate or even supportively in it creates a turning point. Now in the difficulties he remembered the Alliances. The European Allies primarily but even those of the "Indo-Pacific" refused, while several made it clear that this war of choice is not theirs.
Washington has pushed for the direct involvement of the Allies in naval operations to ensure free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has de facto closed, as well as the provision of wider military facilities. The response of European states has been zero to limited even from the United Kingdom of the so-called "special relationship" with America.
The European stance was based on two main axes: first, the absence of prior consultation, which was considered a violation of the principle of alliance understanding; and second, the fear that direct involvement could drag Europe into a protracted and uncertain conflict in the Middle East. President Trump's advisers, since he himself fails to understand the nature and operation of NATO, they should have informed him about this as well, but above all about what the famous Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides for! And for the record, let us emphasize that this article was invoked and activated only once in the 77-year history of the Alliance after the terrorist attacks of September 11 in the USA in 2001.
The so-called collective defense clause provides for assistance in the event of an attack against a member state of the Alliance. Not when one member state attacks another as America did, starting a war of choice as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wished, in the middle of a negotiation process and even outside NATO's area of responsibility! This crisis highlights a wider strategic rift. For Washington, the refusal of the Europeans to help confirms the Trump administration's perception that the US is shouldering a disproportionate burden in ... global security and in any case, Europe should follow it. For Europe, on the other hand, the unilateral action of the US undermines the very logic of the Alliance. The refusal of European states to allow the use of bases, to provide military assistance or to engage operationally was not just a tactical disagreement. It was a political message of distrust towards Washington that decides alone and demands collective support after the fact!
With... "Epic Fury" at the European Allies who refused to support his war and rejected requests for help in opening the Strait of Hormuz after calling them "cowards", President Trump is becoming increasingly threatening. "I have never been influenced by NATO. I always knew it was a paper tiger," he told the British newspaper "The Telegraph", implying that he is seriously considering withdrawing the US from it. Perhaps these statements are the pretext for a deeper rearrangement of relations, as at least the mild US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pointed out harshly but also diplomatically.
The transatlantic relationship is entering an intense crisis, with NATO facing one of the most serious tests in its history. Previously, President Trump described NATO as obsolete with threats to withdraw. At that time, however, he had some prudent associates in his Administration who "braked" him, such as Vice President Pence, Secretary of Defense General Mattis, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. For Washington, European reluctance confirms an old suspicion that allies benefit at no cost. For Europe, the American stance proves that the US no longer functions as a reliable partner, but as an unpredictable actor that absolutely requires alignment.
NATO may not yet be collapsing, but it is turning into something different. With a lack of confidence and a lack of trust. Alliances do not necessarily dissolve with a spectacular rupture. They are gradually eroded, through small accumulated cracks. The war in Iran did not create this crack, it just made it visible. "This is by far the worst crisis NATO has ever faced," writes Ivo Dalter, former U.S. Permanent Representative (Ambassador) to the Alliance during the Obama presidency!
For Washington, beyond the largely justified complaints of many Presidents about the indifference of the European Allies to increase their defense spending with NATO, this has always been the cornerstone of the American Security Strategy, a mechanism that ensures influence, stability and military superiority at the global level. Trump, on the contrary, approached it through a purely transactional prism. For him, the main question was not "what does NATO offer to the West", but "what does NATO offer to the US and whether it is worth the cost"!
The United States continues to derive significant benefits from NATO: military bases, geopolitical influence, the ability to project power quickly, and a network of allies that strengthens its international position. A complete withdrawal is not easy either politically or strategically. The Trump administration does not operate in terms of traditional diplomacy, emphasizing values, historical ties, or abstract concepts such as "allied solidarity." As mentioned above, it thinks in terms of cost, benefit and immediate strategic profit. And this cannot be overlooked beyond the threats to leave. Let us remind you in parenthesis that it is not easy for a President to leave the North Atlantic Alliance. The US Congress, on the initiative of the current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, voted at the end of 2023 that withdrawal from NATO can only be done with the approval of a two-thirds majority of the Senate or an act of Congress.
In conclusion, we will point out once again that as much as Europe, the USA, the US needs Europe, beyond any geopolitical shift caused by Trump. The American President may question NATO, but he cannot easily abandon it. He pushes it but at the same time he needs it! It weakens it rhetorically, while benefiting from its function. NATO offers the US something that no other alliance can offer to the same extent, such as strategic depth, access to critical bases, operational flexibility and political legitimacy for international interventions. The NATO we have known in the decades of its existence is over. Not with an official dissolution, nor with a spectacular departure. But with something much more substantial: the loss of trust and the tacit refusal to cooperate!
**The original document was in Greek, so any problems with the translation lie solely with Michael Slobodchikoff.
