Tag: nato

Trump’s Iran Fiasco’s Silver Lining – The End of NATO

The one great big positive that has come out of the Donald’s Iran fiasco is that he has not held back in blackening the name of NATO in a manner that has heretofore been unthinkable:

“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!!!”

The Donald also described NATO as a “paper tiger” and stated he is “strongly considering” pulling the United States out of the alliance, citing its failure to support his reckless war on the Persian Gulf:

“They weren’t there. None of them. They weren’t there.”

The Europeans, of course, had good reason not to sign up for America’s latest Forever War. They are being reminded of that at the petrol stations every day, but there is more to be said than, well, finally Washington called a War Party and no one sent an RSVP.

What is actually transpiring on the fraught world stage at the moment is powerful demonstration that allies and alliances are a profound detriment to the Homeland Security of America, not a fundamental necessity.

That’s obviously true with respect to Israel, which lured the gullible Trump into attacking Iran for no good reason of Homeland Security, but it’s also true on a universal basis. In fact, NATO is every bit as much of an albatross for the reasons that we amplify at length below; it’s very existence 35 years after the Cold War ended demonstrates why it is long past time to revert to the wisdom of the Founders and anchor America’s national security posture on –

… peaceful commercial relations with all, entangling alliances with none.

Keep reading

Russian security chief issues drone attack warning to four NATO states

Russia has the right to retaliate if Finland and the Baltic states are found to be deliberately allowing Ukrainian drones to pass through their airspace, Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu warned on Thursday.

“Recently, there has been an increase in Ukrainian drone strikes against Russia via Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia,” Shoigu told journalists. “As a result, civilians are suffering and significant damage is being caused to civilian infrastructure.”

Either Western air defenses are proving ineffective, or these four countries “deliberately provide their airspace, thereby becoming open accomplices in aggression against Russia,” he added. In the latter case, Moscow has the right to self-defense in response to an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the security chief stressed.

In recent weeks, Kiev has intensified drone strikes on Russia in what Moscow has characterized as “terrorist attacks,” with the Russian military regularly reporting hundreds of UAVs downed in a single night.

Late last month, Kiev attacked Russia’s Baltic Sea ports of Ust-Luga and Primorsk with swarms of UAVs. The raids resulted in fires in both towns, which house extensive petrochemical infrastructure.

Keep reading

NATO Allies Adopt Evasive Policies on US War in Iran

Trump administration officials are discovering that a daunting number of longstanding U.S. allies and security clients are adopting hedging policies or even openly opposing Washington’s decision to wage war against Iran.  That sobering reality has become even clearer over the past week than it was during the earlier stages of the armed conflict.  On April 12, the president called upon NATO members to join U.S. naval forces in blockading Iranian ports. The proposed move was in response to Tehran’s continuing efforts to selectively close the vital Strait of Hormuz to foreign shipping.

However, most of Washington’s alliance partners refused to join the retaliatory blockade. British prime minister Keir Starmer was especially blunt and negative. The U.K. is “not supporting” the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, Starmer stated, insisting that the country would not get “dragged in” to the Iran war.  Starmer, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, instead proposed intensified international efforts, including a conference, to secure an effective agreement to reopen the strait.

The extensive allied refusal regarding Washington’s blockade plans reflects growing European dissatisfaction with overall U.S. policy toward Iran and, indeed, with Trump’s entire approach to world affairs. Concerned longtime proponents of close transatlantic security cooperation are expressing mounting worries that disagreements between the United States and its principal European allies about Iran policy could lead to a fatal breach in NATO.

European leaders and their publics clearly are getting restless. Serge Schmemann, the Moscow bureau chief for the New York Times, emphasizes the extent of the change.  “Mr. Trump’s war on Iran, about which NATO allies were not consulted and in which they subsequently declined to participate, has made clear that Europeans no longer defer to Mr. Trump as the de facto “‘leader of the free world.’”

At the same time, European leaders have tried to avoid directly antagonizing President Trump.  Achieving such a balance is not easy.  Trump expressed fury at NATO allies who have failed to support Washington’s intervention against Iran. Even before the latest intra-alliance spat over establishing a blockade, the president denounced such allies as “cowards.” Administration officials also are examining ways to punish uncooperative Alliance partners.  Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed and amplified Trump’s earlier doubts about the continuing value of NATO to America’s security. “Why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question. Why do we send trillions of dollars and have all of these American forces stationed in the region, if in our time of need, we won’t be allowed to use those bases?” Rubio said during an interview with Fox News in early April.  The refusal of most NATO members to authorize U.S. airstrikes and other offensive operations against targets in Iran has especially irritated administration officials.

However, as Wall Street Journal columnists Linas Kojalaand and Vytautas Leškevičius point out, with the notable and ostentatious exception of Spain, the most significant and influential Alliance members, including Britain, France, and Italy, have all quietly assisted the U.S. war effort in other ways.  The outcome has been a bit of a muddle. “Politically, the war with Iran has widened the gap between Washington and many European governments. Operationally, it has underscored how heavily the U.S. still relies on Europe – and how cooperative most European governments are.”

Keep reading

NATO and the Bar Fight: A Bar Tab Europe Expects America To Pay Forever

I’ve been in bar fights. Real ones. The kind where you find out very quickly who your friends actually are.

Here’s the code every veteran, every operator, every person who has ever had to make a split-second decision about loyalty understands at a bone-deep level: you show up. Whether your buddy started it or not. Whether he’s right or wrong. Whether the odds are good or bad. You get off your barstool, you stand beside him, and you sort out the details after the fists stop flying. That’s not bravado. That’s the foundational contract of any alliance worth the name.

For seventy-five years, America has honored that contract with NATO. Every time. Without conditions. We showed up in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Libya, and most recently Ukraine, where I personally and so many other Americans helped integrate supply chains, equipment, and logistics after Russia came across the border. Not as a government official. As an American who understood what the moment required and had the relationships to act.

Europe, now, has largely watched from the barstool.

The frustration is not new. And it is not partisan. I remember standing aboard Air Force One, waiting for President Trump to board, with Secretary James Mattis shortly after he returned from a NATO meeting where he had delivered the Trump administration’s blunt message: pay your fair share. I asked him, “What did you say to them?” He looked at me and said simply: “I asked them, who is going to care more about your kids than you?”

Keep reading

How Russia and China became the winners of Trump’s Iran war… with NATO, Europe and US losing out

After 40 days and 40 nights of fighting in the Middle East, both sides claimed victory as they entered into a fragile two-week ceasefire, the durability of which is still highly uncertain.

‘Total and complete victory,’ Trump insisted in a telephone interview with AFP after the ceasefire was announced on Tuesday. ‘100 per cent. No question about it.’

‘Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield. A capital V military victory by any measure,’ defence secretary Pete Hegseth chimed in, adding: ‘Iran begged for this ceasefire, and we all know it.’

But as the dust begins to settle, it is not entirely clear that the United States or Israel have accomplished their military objectives in Iran, or emerged better off since before the war.

The Islamic Republic, while severely militarily weakened, still retains a large quantity of undamaged missiles, and the regime has been destabilised but is still intact.

And despite Trump’s repeated demands for Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or a ‘whole civilisation will die’, the vital waterway through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil and gas is transported is still shutdown.

The two sides are also arguing about the terms of the accepted 10-point peace deal, with the White House insisting it bars Iran from having enriched uranium – a key tenet the regime denies. 

So amid this shaky pause in hostilities, which countries have emerged truly victorious, and who are the losers?  

Keep reading

Report: Trump Considers Pulling Troops Out of NATO Countries Deemed ‘Unhelpful’ to Iran War Effort

The Trump administration is considering a plan to “punish” NATO countries that the president has deemed “unhelpful” to the US-Israeli war effort against Iran, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The potential plan would involve withdrawing US troops from those NATO countries and placing them in the territory of other allies that the administration believes were helpful to the US-Israel war, far short of President Trump’s suggestion that he may leave NATO altogether.

The most notable NATO member opposing the US war with Iran was Spain, which took steps to block the use of its territory and airspace for any military activity related to the Middle East conflict.

Italy also blocked a US aircraft from landing at an airbase in Sicily before it headed to the Middle East, and officials from several NATO countries were very critical of the war, including in Germany. The largest opposition party in Germany, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), recently called for the removal of the tens of thousands of US troops stationed in German territory.

The Journal report said that Trump’s plan could involve closing a military base, either in Germany or Spain. It could also lead to the US placing more troops in countries closer to Russia, such as Poland, Romania, and Lithuania.

Trump was unhappy that no NATO allies heeded his call to help the US military open the Strait of Hormuz and was expected to discuss the situation with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Wednesday.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if the president would bring up the idea of the US leaving NATO and said, “It’s something the president has discussed, and I think it’s something the president will be discussing in a couple of hours with Secretary-General Rutte.”

Keep reading

What Exactly Is the Purpose of NATO in the Year 2026?

One month into Operation Epic Fury against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a long-overdue conversation has finally broken into the open: What, exactly, is the enduring rationale for NATO? For decades, this question has been treated in Washington foreign policy circles as heretical. But it isn’t. And to their credit, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are now saying so plainly.

As Trump recently put it, “They haven’t been friends when we needed them. We’ve never asked them for much. … It’s a one-way street.” Rubio has been similarly blunt: “If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked but then denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement. … So all that’s going to have to be reexamined.”

They’re spot-on.

At best, America’s European “allies” have spent decades free-riding on the U.S. security umbrella. Despite repeated commitments to meet baseline defense spending targets, many NATO members still under-invest in their militaries and outsource their national defense to American taxpayers. The imbalance is staggering: The United States accounts for the overwhelming majority of NATO’s military capabilities, logistics, and strategic lift. Overall, American taxpayers contribute about 60% of total spending on NATO defense.

At worst, some of these same European allies actively undermine U.S. operations at critical moments. Major Western European countries such as Spain and France have restricted or complicated U.S. use of their airspace during Operation Epic Fury. That is farcical. A so-called alliance in which members obstruct one another’s ability to wage war is not actually an alliance — it is a liability.

This raises the core question: Why, exactly, does NATO exist in the year 2026?

Let’s recall its origins. NATO was founded in 1949 with a clear and urgent mission: to contain and, if necessary, defeat the Soviet Union. That mission was compelling — indeed, existential. Western Europe lay devastated after World War II, and the Soviet threat was real, immediate, and hegemonic.

But that world quite literally no longer exists.

The Soviet Union collapsed three and a half decades ago. The Berlin Wall fell the year I was born. The Cold War is now a relic of history. By any reasonable metric, NATO achieved its raison d’etre by the early 1990s. But instead of declaring victory and recalibrating, the alliance drifted. It expanded ever further into Eastern Europe and shifted its ostensible mission into… well, something.

Simply put, NATO is today an organization in search of a purpose.

Keep reading

Trump Says He ‘Strongly’ Considering Withdrawing From NATO

President Donald Trump said that NATO is a “paper tiger” and he was considering pulling the US out of the Cold War-era alliance. This week, multiple NATO states declared that the US could not use their airspace for attacks on Iran. 

“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” the President said in an interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday. He added that he was seriously considering leaving NATO. 

NATO was created after WWII to prevent the USSR from further expanding into Europe. After the fall of the USSR, NATO expanded eastward into several former members of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. After the bloc attempted to add Ukraine as a member, Russia invaded and demanded that Kiev agree to neutrality. 

The bloc has used Ukraine as a proxy force to weaken Russia. 

While Trump has floated the idea of exiting NATO throughout his political career, he has been irked by the bloc’s response to the war against Iran. Several NATO countries have refused to assist the US and Israel in the conflict, and others have barred US warplanes from their airspace. 

“Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey’, you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic.” The President continued in his remarks to The Telegraph. “We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.”

Keep reading

Israel retaliates against France

Israel’s Defense Ministry has announced retaliatory steps against France after US President Donald Trump openly criticized the European NATO member for refusing to allow access to its airspace for arms shipments being delivered to the Middle East.

Posting on Truth Social on Tuesday, Trump described the French decision as “very unhelpful” to the US-Israeli war on Iran, adding that Washington “will remember” the move. France’s restriction on facilitating weapons transfers to Israel came alongside a broader embargo on arms sales to West Jerusalem introduced more than a year ago.

Israeli Defense Ministry Director-General Amir Baram stated in a Channel 12interview on Tuesday that he and Defense Minister Israel Katz aim to curb reliance on foreign arms suppliers, especially from countries such as France that Israel does not view as “friendly.”

Keep reading

Trump Administration To ‘Re-Evaluate’ NATO Membership After Europe Declines To Assist War In Gulf

 President Donald Trump has signaled a major potential shift in U.S. foreign policy, stating he is strongly considering withdrawing the United States from NATO after alliance members declined to support American military operations against Iran, including efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph published Wednesday, Trump described NATO as a “paper tiger” and said a U.S. exit from the 77-year-old defensive alliance is now “beyond reconsideration.”

“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” Trump told the British newspaper.

The comments come as the U.S.-led military campaign against Iran, which began on February 28, continues. Trump had pressed NATO allies to contribute naval forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint carrying roughly 20% of global oil and gas supplies — but most declined to participate in what they viewed as an offensive operation rather than a defensive one under NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause.

Trump framed the lack of support as a key test of alliance reliability. In recent speeches, he warned that failure to back the U.S. would not be forgotten, adding: “If the ‘big one’ ever happened, I guarantee you they wouldn’t be there.” He also expressed doubt about future U.S. commitments, saying, “We are always going to be there — at least we were; I don’t know anymore, to be honest with you.”

Keep reading