Donald Trump has long questioned the value of the United States’ military and security alliances – at least as far back as 2016, when, not yet president, he dismissed NATO as “obsolete.”
But the sense, among many officials and analysts, is that the Iran war fallout is different this time—less a rocky patch and more a rupture that may be hard to mend.
For weeks now, Trump’s derision of alliances, especially NATO and European partners, has stopped sounding like campaign-style provocation and started landing like a real policy threat. In the wake of his Iran war, officials say a divide is forming that could be impossible to reverse. On one recent afternoon in Brussels, the air outside NATO’s headquarters had that cold, metallic feel—partly from the weather, partly from the mood—while questions kept circling back to whether the alliance can withstand a president who treats it as negotiable.
Over that same period, Trump has dismissed NATO as a “paper tiger” and described European partners as weak, lacking the fortitude to take up arms alongside the longtime U.S. protector. His criticism has turned into sharper rage after NATO members from Britain to France and Spain denied airbase access to U.S. aircraft undertaking missions in the war. In a televised address on Wednesday evening, he admonished Europe to “build up some delayed courage” and take action to open up the vital Strait of Hormuz on their own. He said the U.S. has “plenty of oil” and as a result is not affected by Iran’s closure of the strait – a dubious claim according to many economists. He also said European nations depend on the oil that passes through it, so they should “take it.”
Misryoum newsroom reporting describes how that argument has not landed well. Europeans say they aren’t wavering from their decision not to get involved in a war they believe was not necessary, that they were not consulted on, and which is now triggering an avoidable global economic crisis. “The Europeans are fed up. There’s an exasperation, but there’s also a growing sense that Trump is pushing the limits that make this something of a different order,” Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Misryoum.
A different kind of conversation is now running under the public one. Sven Biscop, director of the Europe in the World program at Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels, described a bitterness across Europe tied to Trump’s posture toward Ukraine. He pointed to the perception that Trump is disengaging from the war in Ukraine—where Western Europe faces its primary adversary, Vladimir Putin’s Russia—even as he pursues a war that is enriching Russia, easing the pressures on Mr. Putin to end his conflict.
There are also growing private worries that the way the Iran war is being fought is moving further from the international rules of engagement and values that underpin the NATO alliance. Misryoum analysis indicates that European officials are alarmed by the kinds of statements Trump has made about attacking Iran—threats to blast Iran “back to the stone ages” and obliterate the country’s power plants and other civilian infrastructure. They note those descriptions resemble the approach Mr. Putin has used ruthlessly in Ukraine, where accusations of war crimes have risen.
This week may offer a small hinge point, at least in timing. President Trump will have an opportunity to discuss his deepening doubts about the alliance when NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte visits the White House for a long-scheduled meeting. Trump has developed a warm relationship with Rutte, who courted the president at last June’s NATO summit with effusive flattery and commitments to boosting European members’ “fair share” of alliance spending. But Europeans have faced mounting political pressure at home—pressure not to “roll over” for a deeply unpopular American president and his equally unpopular war.
Even as transatlantic tensions sharpen, other parts of the map are reacting too. Misryoum editorial desk noted that some experts say the Iran war—and the way it may have accelerated a U.S. turn away from alliances—should prompt fresh thinking among America’s Arab partners in the Gulf about their strategic dependence on the U.S. President Trump’s statement in his televised address that “we don’t need the Middle East” should be heeded, they say. One of the
things [the Gulf states] could do … is to become better integrated in their defense capabilities,” says retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of U.S. Central Command. “They are still focused on defending themselves and not thinking of themselves as a bloc.” The Gulf states could “use this example” to “do more to tie themselves together,” General Votel added, calling for more integrated air defenses, maritime capacity, and intelligence sharing.
For Europe, the bigger worry is less about tactics and more about faith. Bergmann said Europe has stepped up and replaced U.S. funding in Ukraine, for example, but taking more responsibility is one thing—and the part about approaching the U.S. “on bended knee” is another. Whether that gap becomes a lasting fracture, or whether allies find a way to live with a changed alliance, is the question officials say they can’t shake. And honestly, the answers aren’t coming fast.
Americans push back as insurers delay or deny care
With left-wing star power, could AOC run for president in 2028?
Nationwide boom in AI data centers sparks resistance in Pennsylvania