Tag: nato

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

Why Is America Bankrolling NATO? Trump Says It’s Time to Rethink the Deal

President Donald Trump on Tuesday sharply criticized NATO allies after several European countries declined his request to assist in maintaining open shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global energy transport.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump raised the possibility of taking further action against the alliance when asked whether he would consider withdrawing the United States from NATO.

“It’s certainly something that we should think about,” he said.

“I don’t need Congress for that decision, as you probably know, I can make that decision myself.”

The comments followed reports that key European allies, including France and the United Kingdom, declined to provide military support for operations aimed at securing the strait.

The administration has been seeking additional naval assets, including minesweepers to detect explosive devices and destroyers to protect commercial vessels moving through the narrow passage.

Trump has long expressed concerns about NATO’s structure and financial commitments, arguing that member nations rely too heavily on the United States.

Keep reading

Trump Says US Doesn’t need NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia in Strait of Hormuz After They Snub Request for Help – “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

President Trump expressed displeasure with other countries for turning down his request to send their militaries to the Strait of Hormuz to protect oil tankers as Israel and the US wage war against Iran, saying that the US will remember the refusal. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump on Saturday claimed, “Many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships, in conjunction with the United States of America, to keep the Strait open and safe.”

He specifically called out “China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint,” saying securing the Strait “should have always been a team effort, and now it will be.”

However, the countries quickly rebuffed his demand and instead called for and instead urged the United States to end the war.

Trump responded to their declination of his proposition on Tuesday during a bilateral meeting with Taoiseach of Ireland Micheál Martin, saying, “We don’t need help.”

Trump further said he was “surprised” that NATO allies, while supportive of the war, “don’t want to help.”

“This was a great test because we don’t need them, but they should have been there,” he said, noting that “we as the United States have to remember that, because we think it’s pretty shocking.”

Keep reading

Article 5 Looming: NATO Shoots Down Iranian Ballistic Missile Fired At Turkey

There’s looming fear that Trump’s Operation Epic Fury is fast spinning into a broader regional war, even a possible WW3 scenario – though large powers like Russia and China are expected to remain on the sidelines. 

Illustrating this potential, on Wednesday a ballistic missile launched from Iran and tracked across Iraqi and Syrian airspace before heading toward Turkish territory was shot down by NATO air defenses, according to Turkey’s Defense Ministry.

NATO Article 5 potential? Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth was quick to downplay the issue, saying in a fresh briefing: “On the matter with Turkey, I’ll have to get back to you on exactly what the intercept looked like,” before adding, “We’re aware of that particular engagement, although no sense that it would trigger anything like Article 5.”  

In a sharply worded statement Wednesday, the Turkey’s Defense Ministry laid out, “A ballistic munition launched from Iran, which was detected passing through Iraqi and Syrian airspace and heading towards Turkish airspace, was engaged in a timely manner by NATO air and missile defense assets stationed in the eastern Mediterranean and rendered inactive.”

No casualties have been reported in the highly alarming incident, though Ankara stressed it “reserves the right to respond” to any hostile act, and urged all sides to show restraint. 

Turkey has reportedly summoned the Iranian ambassador, while Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan lodged a formal protest with FM Abbas Araghchi, warning that “any steps that could further widen the conflict must be avoided,” according to Reuters.

Naturally, NATO quickly lined up behind Ankara, with a command statement condemning Iran’s “targeting of Turkey” while declaring the alliance “stands firmly with all Allies, including Turkiye.”

“Our deterrence and defence posture remains strong across all domains, including when it comes to air and missile defense,” the NATO statement said.

Keep reading

Greenland Gambit: How Trump’s Arctic Ambition Shattered the Atlantic Alliance

A specter is haunting the transatlantic alliance – not from the East, but from within. What began as a seemingly quixotic real estate fantasy has evolved, through weeks of escalating pressure, into the most profound stress test of U.S.-European relations since the Cold War. President Donald Trump’s campaign to acquire Greenland has laid bare a stark reality: the alliance’s most powerful member is willing to wield coercion against its own partners, treating sovereignty as a transactional commodity. While an eleventh-hour tactical retreat has pulled the world back from the brink of immediate conflict, the crisis has illuminated a fatal flaw in the alliance’s foundation.

The Tactical Retreat: A “Framework” That Exposes More Than It Resolves

The immediate crisis abated not with a grand diplomatic triumph, but with a characteristically vague post on Truth Social. On January 21, following a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Trump announced he was withdrawing his threat to impose sweeping tariffs on eight European allies and ruled out using military force. In return, he claimed the two had formed the “framework of a future deal” for Greenland and the Arctic. This sudden de-escalation was less a resolution and more a revelation of pressure points. The threatened tariffs had sent Wall Street into its worst single-day decline since October, demonstrating the economic self-harm of his coercive strategy.

The substance of Trump’s “framework” remains conspicuously absent. Reports suggest discussions may involve the U.S. gaining “total access” to parts of Greenland for military purposes. Crucially, Trump’s language has shifted from “ownership” to “access,” a nod to political reality. Yet, the core ambition persists; he continues to frame Greenland as imperative for missile defense and minerals, bluntly stating the U.S. will achieve “all of its strategic goals… at very little cost, forever.” As Ole Wæver, a professor of international relations at the University of Copenhagen, skeptically notes, this is likely a “pretend” deal. He argues, “NATO can’t negotiate minerals or ownership of territory for bases… Most likely, the main process now goes back… to a bureaucratic committee.”

The Unbreakable Red Line: How European and Greenlandic Resolve Forced a Climbdown

Trump’s tactical pivot was forced by an unprecedented and unified wall of resistance. European leaders had declared they “will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed.” The non-negotiable line was drawn by Denmark and Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated unequivocally, “We cannot negotiate on our sovereignty.” This was echoed by Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who called sovereignty a “red line.” Perhaps more devastating was the visceral rejection from Greenlanders themselves; a new poll finds 85% of residents oppose joining the U.S.

Remarkably, this resistance transcended Europe’s political divides, isolating Trump even among ideological allies. In the European Parliament, typically pro-Trump, far-right figures condemned the threats. France’s Jordan Bardella called them “coercion,” while Germany’s Alice Weidel said Trump had “violated a fundamental campaign promise.” This unanimity was backed by concrete action: Denmark dispatched more troops to Greenland as part of “Operation Arctic Endurance,” making clear that its defense would be a collective endeavor.

Keep reading

Trump Announces ‘Framework’ Of Deal For Greenland With NATO

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland,” a move he said will halt a looming round of tariffs on Europe.

Trump announced the development in a Truth Social post, saying the talks prompted him to scrap punitive tariffs that were set to hit a range of European countries starting Feb. 1.

“Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st,” Trump wrote.

“Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Keep reading