Jono Maryono
United States President Donald Trump’s deep-seated skepticism towards NATO allies predates his first presidential term, manifesting in consistent criticism of their defense spending and, more recently, in the audacious proposal to acquire Greenland, a territory of fellow NATO member Denmark. This persistent friction has left the alliance in a state of perpetual unease. However, the unanimous decision by NATO allies to abstain from joining the United States in its military engagement in Iran has precipitated a fracture within the alliance to an unprecedented degree, according to seasoned analysts. President Trump, in a pointed rebuke this week, characterized their refusal to participate as a "stain on the alliance that will never disappear." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed this sentiment, articulating the escalating tensions with stark clarity just hours later, stating that the conflict "has become a trans-Atlantic stress test."
The Iran Conflict: A Catalyst for Alliance Scrutiny
The recent diplomatic and military divergences, particularly concerning the Iran conflict, have thrust a fundamental question into the spotlight that experts contend NATO can no longer defer: can the transatlantic alliance endure, especially in the face of potential American disengagement? "There will be no return to business as usual in NATO, during neither this US administration nor the next one," asserted Jim Townsend, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. He further warned, "We are closer to a break than we have ever been."
While President Trump lacks the unilateral authority to withdraw the United States from NATO on a whim – a move requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate or an act of Congress, both unlikely scenarios given the alliance’s bipartisan support among many legislators – his actions can nonetheless significantly undermine its cohesion. The North Atlantic Treaty, while outlining a collective defense obligation in Article 5, does not mandate an automatic military response, fostering a pervasive skepticism among allies regarding the certainty of U.S. intervention in times of crisis.
Potential U.S. Actions and Their Implications
Beyond formal withdrawal, President Trump possesses considerable leverage to weaken NATO’s operational capacity and symbolic strength. This includes the potential relocation of approximately 84,000 U.S. troops stationed across Europe. Reports from The Wall Street Journal indicated that the President was contemplating the reassessment of U.S. base locations, potentially shifting assets from countries deemed unsupportive during the Iran conflict to more amenable partners. Such a move could involve the closure of U.S. military installations and the cessation of vital military coordination with allies.
The implications of such disengagement are profound, given that U.S. security guarantees have been a cornerstone of NATO since its inception. "He doesn’t need to leave NATO to undermine it; by just saying he might, he has already eroded its credibility as an effective alliance," observed Stefano Stefanini, former Italian ambassador to NATO and senior advisor to the Italian Presidency. This sentiment highlights a critical point: the perception of U.S. commitment, more than the legalistic mechanisms of withdrawal, is paramount to NATO’s effectiveness.
European Defense: A Slow but Steady Ascent
Despite the challenges, NATO allies are not entirely without agency. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine starkly illuminated the vulnerabilities within European defense industries and their considerable reliance on American support. This realization, coupled with a series of diplomatic crises within the U.S.-NATO partnership – including President Trump’s earlier proposal to purchase Greenland – has spurred increased defense investment among European members. Between 2020 and 2025, defense expenditures by NATO member states have seen a significant increase, exceeding 62 percent, according to data from the Council of the European Union.
However, critical areas of European dependence on the U.S. persist. A report by the International Institute for Security Studies (IISS) identifies significant shortfalls in Europe’s capabilities for deep strikes into enemy territory, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), space-based assets such as satellite intelligence, logistics, and integrated air and missile defense systems. Addressing these deficiencies presents a formidable challenge. Estimates suggest it could take over a decade and require approximately $1 trillion to replace key elements of U.S. conventional military capabilities within Europe. Furthermore, European defense industries are reportedly struggling to rapidly scale up production, and many European armies are failing to meet their recruitment and retention targets, according to the IISS assessment.
The Enduring Value of NATO: A European Perspective
Notwithstanding these considerable hurdles, some experts posit that a viable "European NATO" remains within reach. Minna Alander, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, suggests that over the years, NATO has evolved into a crucial framework for military cooperation among European nations. "NATO can therefore survive the Iran war – and even a US withdrawal – as European members have an incentive to maintain it, even if in a radically different form," Alander stated. This perspective underscores the inherent strategic interests of European nations in maintaining a robust defense architecture, irrespective of U.S. direct participation.
The Russian Threat: A Looming Deadline
For some strategists, the future of NATO’s European dimension is intrinsically linked to the evolving threat posed by Russia. Estimates from Germany’s Chief of Defense, General Carsten Breuer, suggest that Russia may have reconstituted its forces sufficiently to pose a credible threat to NATO territory by 2029. "But they can start testing us much sooner," Breuer cautioned last May, ordering the German military to achieve full operational readiness by that date. Other assessments, from institutions like the IISS, project a potentially earlier timeline for such a threat, as early as 2027. These projections underscore the urgency with which European allies are approaching defense modernization and strategic self-reliance.
Re-evaluating the U.S. Interest in NATO
The ongoing debate surrounding NATO’s utility often frames the alliance’s raison d’être solely through the lens of European security against Russia, presenting it as a unilateral American favor to the continent. However, historical context and strategic realities paint a more complex picture. NATO was forged during the Cold War as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism, with the United States actively seeking to broaden its membership to consolidate a united front.
The post-9/11 era saw NATO invoked for the first and only time in its history when Article 5 was triggered in solidarity with Washington following the terrorist attacks on the U.S. This led to a significant deployment of allied troops to Afghanistan, where thousands of servicemen, including nearly 500 from the United Kingdom and dozens from France, Denmark, and Italy, lost their lives. Furthermore, during the recent Iran conflict, European bases served as indispensable staging grounds for U.S. military operations, even as many European nations publicly distanced themselves from the conflict.
"NATO served U.S. interests and Trump comfortably overlooks these aspects," noted Stefan Stefanini. "Europe has its own responsibility by not investing in defense and creating strong dependence, but thinking that NATO serves only European strategic interests is simply not true." This perspective highlights that NATO’s utility has always been reciprocal, serving as a critical component of U.S. foreign policy and security strategy, not merely a charitable endeavor for Europe. The current challenges, therefore, represent not just a test of European resolve but also a fundamental re-evaluation of the transatlantic bargain and its enduring benefits for all parties involved. The alliance’s future hinges on its ability to adapt to these evolving geopolitical realities and to reaffirm its shared strategic objectives in a world increasingly characterized by uncertainty and shifting power dynamics.
