Click to see the full-size image
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
Donald Trump has again criticized NATO for not backing the United States in the Iran conflict, after a private meeting with the bloc’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, at the White House. Evidently, the relationship between NATO and the US, a traditional pillar of the alliance, is going through a tense period, marked by political, strategic, and economic differences.
In a post shared to Truth Social after the meeting on April 8, the US President said: “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”
For his part, Rutte said in an interview with CNN after the meeting that Trump was “clearly disappointed” that the US’s allies had refused to join its war against Iran, adding that their conversation was “very frank” and “very open.”
“He clearly told me what he thought of what happened over the last couple of weeks,” Rutte said in the CNN interview, declining to answer specific questions about whether Trump expressed a desire to leave NATO. “It is a nuanced picture.”
This meeting also coincided with reports that Trump was considering punishing some NATO members for not supporting efforts against Iran, including relocating some US bases to countries deemed more helpful during the conflict, such as Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and Greece. In addition to relocations, the plan could include closing a US base in at least one European country, possibly Spain or Germany. Although the plan is in its early stages, it is supported by some top Trump officials, and the administration is also considering a range of other options to punish allies.
European countries seem to be realizing that NATO may be coming to an end. French President Emmanuel Macron announced in early March an increase in France’s nuclear arsenal and cooperation with eight European countries to help protect Europe. France remains the only nuclear power in the European Union, with fewer than 300 warheads—a number that, according to Macron, will no longer be disclosed.
Meanwhile, Germany announced it will invest more in its armed forces after approving a new rule that exempts military spending from national debt limits, allowing the country to significantly increase its share of GDP allocated to defense, from about 2% in recent years to a target that could reach 3.5% in the medium term. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the goal is to make the Bundeswehr the strongest conventional army in Europe.
This new era of defense in Europe is due to both the change in US foreign policy — which no longer sees the protection of the European continent as a priority — and the intensification of rivalry between Europe and Russia.
The last few years have provided clear signs: the world is changing in relation to polarization and the interests of the Great Powers, which are ceasing to be centered on the North Atlantic and are shifting toward the Indo-Pacific.
Ironically, Europe’s greatest challenge would be its independence from the US, a scenario that would bring both opportunities and structural obstacles to the continent. It would provide a respite, in that US problems would be US problems, not Europe’s. On the other hand, this separation would also require a profound internal reorganization. Without the direct backing of Washington and NATO, European countries would have to expand their weapons programs, invest in technological independence, and strengthen their own regional security mechanisms—especially by building internal consensus, since the US serves as an alignment factor among Europeans.
Europe has been placed in conflict situations in which it did not directly participate in the decisions, such as the war in Iran, but ends up being pressured to assume political and military costs. This has demoralized Europe because Trump created a conflict in which Europe had no part in the deliberations, yet he now wants Europe to get involved to emerge victorious.
Given this, there are two possible paths: the creation of a truly European defense system or, ultimately, a process of weakening and even dissolving NATO, accompanied by a race among countries, especially France and Germany, for strategic autonomy and military strengthening.
Since the beginning of the conflict, Iran has used the Strait of Hormuz as an instrument of geopolitical pressure, directly affecting European energy and industrial supplies. Iran hopes that by restricting passage through the Strait, the West will fracture to protect its own interests. The strategy is not a total blockade but a selective one. Tehran has not said the Strait is closed to everyone, only to its enemies, i.e., the USA and Israel, which serves as a deterrent to keep Europeans from escalating the conflict.
Washington is a factor of instability. With threats to NATO itself, both to withdraw and to demand reimbursement for all materials sent to Ukraine, the US has become an adversary of Europe itself.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
ifn’tvance and dump had supported orban, orban would probably have defeated peter magyar trump’s support is like a plague. contagious and deadly. peter magyar will send hungarian soldiers to ukraine. same as andrej plenković of croatia and janez janša of slovenia. the death of traitorous russia, which betrayed syrian and armenian catholics and flattered and liked turkey, is in sight. the black cube and israel won the elections in slovenia.
the present chaos is the trumpster fault. it was his decision to go with the lies from the isreali apartheid regime. it was his decision to send in troops who then got bogged down because of isreali intelligence, isis, being out of date. he now wants his nato chickens to go out into the field to save isreali genocide efforts instead of returning home to roost. fat chance.the trumpster believed the nato bullshit too. the salesman got sold and is now holding the shitty end of the tally stick.