“NATO is broken,” says Ivo Daalder, bluntly. The former US ambassador to the alliance argues that clashes between Donald Trump and European governments over the Iran war have plunged NATO, now 77 years old, into its worst crisis. Daalder earlier sketched how European members might rebuild NATO to operate without the United States, the country around whose leadership the alliance was founded.
How did we get here?
Daalder, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center, points to multiple factors. It is not only Trump’s insults toward the alliance and its members, which Europeans have grown used to, or his recent claim that NATO is a “paper tiger” that would not support the US in a war with Iran. Nor is it only his periodic threats to withdraw from NATO. More telling, he says, is the concrete refusal by several European governments to be drawn into the conflict: denying the US use of bases and refusing to grant airspace for offensive action. Those moves, combined with Trump’s rhetoric, reveal a deep erosion of trust.
“The European action is a reflection of the fact that NATO is deeply damaged,” Daalder says, “and it reinforces the fundamental reality that Europe no longer trusts the United States, believes the United States is an unreliable ally, and therefore is no longer willing to participate in these kind of operations. That is why this is the worst crisis of NATO.”
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has downplayed the split and backed US-Israeli efforts to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, saying allies share concerns even if views differ.
Can Trump just leave?
Trump frequently muses about quitting NATO, calling the idea “beyond reconsideration.” Whether he would try to withdraw remains uncertain. Senator-turned-Secretary of State Marco Rubio sponsored 2023 legislation requiring two-thirds Senate approval for a US exit, complicating any unilateral move. Daalder and others, however, warn a determined president might provoke a constitutional fight that could favor executive power.
The 1949 Washington Treaty does include Article 13, which allows a party to quit after giving one year’s notice following 20 years in force — a process that has never been used. Even without formally leaving, Trump could still hobble NATO by pulling troops home, withholding personnel from NATO commands, curtailing support for NATO institutions, or refusing to fill senior US-led posts such as Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
How would NATO react?
Absent the US, NATO would struggle to project credible military power. The United States provides the largest and most advanced arsenal and substantial manpower. Yet analysts say the alliance would not necessarily collapse; a transition toward greater European leadership is already under way.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) examined the implications of a NATO without any US role and urged European leaders to assess military, financial, and industrial steps to reduce dependencies. The analysis, carried out nearly a year ago, warned of significant shortfalls in replacing major US platforms and personnel, especially in space and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Europeans would also need to substitute US contributions to NATO command and control and fill many senior positions currently held by Americans. The report estimated the extra cost for Europe at roughly a trillion dollars on top of rising defense budgets.
Voices in Europe are divided. Nick Witney, formerly of the UK Ministry of Defence and now with the European Council on Foreign Relations, says bluntly that Europe does not need America now, though he would prefer more US troops to remain. He doubts that a sudden American withdrawal would mean the end for European security, noting moves by French President Emmanuel Macron to discuss expanded nuclear cooperation with other allies — France’s nuclear forces are not currently pooled under NATO.
Rattled nerves, resolute stance
Estonia’s Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna has been among the few leaders offering support to the US in the Iran conflict, even without a formal request. He says his offer is about reciprocity and reassuring citizens worried about Article 5 — the alliance’s collective-defense guarantee. “Remain cool, let’s focus on what we can do and of course constantly we need to talk to the U.S. administration,” he told DW, adding that the US needs Europe as much as Europe needs the US.
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who has supported US action against Iran, planned to visit the White House hoping to secure a more positive NATO stance from Trump. In public remarks, Trump praised Rutte but again criticized European reluctance to join the Iran war and closed with a cryptic comment about Greenland: “We want Greenland. They don’t want to give it to us. And I said, ‘bye-bye.'”
The debate over NATO’s future reflects both short-term political friction and longer-term strategic questions: Can Europe afford the financial, industrial and military investments needed to compensate for a diminished US role? Or will transatlantic ties be repaired before institutions and capabilities must be fundamentally reconfigured?
Edited by: R. Casey