The president of the United States, Donald Trump, has once again shaken the pillars of NATO with new attacks directed at its partners for what he considers a scarce involvement in the war in Iran, especially regarding ensuring free circulation through the Strait of Hormuz. This verbal offensive has reached the point that Washington has hinted that it is studying abandoning the military bloc, a mere insinuation that already represents a direct blow to the raison d'être of an organization based on collective deterrence.
After pushing the relationship with its allies to the limit over its aspirations for Greenland, the American leader has reactivated alarms this week with a new barrage of reproaches to the members of the Alliance for not backing the campaign against Iran. That escalation has led to the threat of a possible exit from the organization that the United States promoted in 1949 to articulate a military front against the Soviet Union.
The discrepancies between Washington and the main European capitals over the strategy in Hormuz, a key corridor for global crude trade, led Trump to chain criticisms against these countries, whom he went so far as to brand as "cowards" and ungrateful. In his opinion, the United States assumes an effort in Iran that primarily benefits third parties, whom he reproaches for not contributing military resources to a "minor" naval operation, especially when, as Trump insists, the Iranian Navy would be very weakened after weeks of continuous attacks.
In this context, the American president urged his partners to be the ones to extract "their own oil" from the unstable Gulf region without Washington's umbrella. Faced with this stance, the alternative led by France and the United Kingdom involves a 'roadmap' focused on the diplomatic and political path to reopen the passage that, 'de facto', Tehran keeps blocked.
Despite the fact that Trump emphasizes that he does not need NATO's support for the campaign in Iran nor to control the strait, he maintains that the Alliance should get involved in scenarios of this type. All this despite the fact that NATO is, by definition, a defensive coalition and reluctant to get involved in unilateral military operations promoted by any of its members.
The role of the organization was limited in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan initiated by the United States under the mandate of George Bush, although subsequently missions were indeed deployed to provide security and support local authorities in the control of the territory and in reconstruction tasks.
Beyond the doctrinal debates, the occupant of the White House emphasizes the supposed weakness of its partners for not committing more and stresses that the Atlantic Alliance "is a paper tiger" without American participation. Furthermore, he went a step further by demanding that the allies "learn to defend themselves on their own." "The United States will no longer be there to help them," he warned, in a message that directly questions the mutual defense clause of Article 5 and, with it, the deterrence capability that sustains NATO.
THREAT TO ABANDON NATO
The most tense moment arrived days later, when he again charged against the Alliance in an interview in which he assured that he is "more than considering" Washington's exit from the bloc, in a full cascade of reproaches for the partners' refusal to back the American Army in the war in Iran.
With these words, Trump increased the pressure on the message previously launched by the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who warned that the White House will have to "re-evaluate the value of NATO" after several governments have restricted the use of their bases by the United States, among them Spain, Italy, or Germany. In a more nuanced tone, but along the same lines, the head of American diplomacy pointed out that it is necessary to examine whether the Alliance "continues to fulfill its purpose, or if it has now become a one-way street," alluding to the fact that Washington "is in a position to defend Europe," "but when we need the help of our allies, they deny us base and overflight rights."
RESPONSE OF THE ALLIES
In the face of these warnings, European leaders have tried to maintain serenity and avoid overreactions in the face of the changing and, at times, contradictory positions of the American president. The head of the Élysée, Emmanuel Macron, called for "living up to" the commitments assumed in NATO and warned Trump that this type of questioning by itself "empties of content" the organization.
The French president stressed that alliances like NATO "are worth what is not said" and highlighted that the essential element of the bloc is "the trust behind it." "When an agreement is signed, when one enters an alliance, when it is believed that it is important to defend the security of allies, one must live up to the commitments made," he insisted.
In the same vein, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned that Trump's threats, coupled with decisions such as the relaxation of sanctions on Russian oil, constitute the "dream plan" for Russian President Vladimir Putin, considered the main threat to security in the Euro-Atlantic space.
From Berlin, Foreign Minister, Johann Wadephul, admitted "concern" over Trump's allusions to a possible withdrawal. However, Germany, one of the firmest defenders of the transatlantic link, believes that the United States' departure from the Alliance "can still be avoided" and that the "commitment and determination" of the rest of the partners should make Washington reconsider its stance.
The crisis opened by Trump is shaping up as one of the most serious, by striking the very core of the organization, although it is just one more chapter in the long list of frictions that the magnate maintains with the bloc since his arrival at the White House. He himself boasts of never having been a great defender of NATO, but he takes credit for having promoted a new military spending commitment so that allies allocate 5% of their GDP to defense.
After months of tensions, the president took Washington's traditional pressure to raise defense budgets to a new level and achieved at the Hague summit the figure that the 32 allies, Spain with nuances, accepted to reach within a decade.
In this scenario of deep deterioration of ties with Europe, the figure of NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, takes on special relevance, criticized in some countries for systematically aligning with Trump's positions, but who in practice has room to modulate US demands or even achieve their freezing.
Facing the strategy of permanent confrontation and negotiation to the limit of the American president, the former Dutch prime minister has opted to take the policy of appeasement to the extreme, backing almost all of Washington's demands to neutralize some of the ultimatums launched by the White House. Along these lines, and claiming NATO as a forum to channel tensions between allies, Rutte reached a pre-agreement with Trump on Greenland that, in practice, allows diplomatic channels to remain open with Denmark and the island's authorities to update relations and explore new forms of security cooperation without questioning Danish sovereignty over the Arctic territory.
In this context, and embarked on a new high-risk mission, Rutte will travel next week to Washington to meet with Trump with the aim of reducing tension between the United States and its partners. NATO maintains that the meeting had been scheduled for some time, but the truth is that it comes at the most opportune moment to try to freeze the threats and contain, at least temporarily, the new crisis unleashed by the American president.