National Interest

by Thomas Cavanna

    Despite its criticism of the alliance, the Trump administration still wants Europe to buy US defense tech and host US bases for the Iran War.

    In recent weeks, the Trump administration has renewed its attacks on Europe and threatened to leave NATO because its members refused to support the United States and Israel in their war with Iran. Moreover, on May 1, the Department of Defense announced that 5,000 troops would withdraw from US bases in Germany over the next year.

    Despite its rhetorical outbursts against NATO, the truth is the Trump administration still very much wants to keep Europe dependent on Washington, unhelpfully perpetuating America’s entanglement in the region.

    President Donald Trump has mocked NATO as a “paper tiger” that can’t be trusted, declared that leaving the alliance was now “beyond reconsideration,” said European leaders would “have to learn how to fight for [themselves],” and even revived his claims about Greenland.

    But his fury makes little sense. Indeed, NATO allies have often eschewed participation in their fellow members’ interventions in other countries when they fail to meet the criterion for collective defense. When the United States and Israel initiated hostilities against Iran in late February, the war fell outside the scope of NATO’s Article 5, which can only be invoked in the case of “armed attack” on the alliance. In any case, the article is not an automatic trigger for collective defense since it only requires alliance “to assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

    President Trump has previously threatened to leave NATO. Formally doing so would be nearly impossible given the US Senate’s ratification of the 1949 alliance treaty and the 2023 legislation Congress adopted to prevent any president from “suspending, terminating, denouncing, or withdrawing” without authorization.

    Admittedly, the Trump administration could proceed in other ways, such as by obstructing NATO’s decision-making process, increasing troop withdrawals from Europe, or further eroding transatlantic trust. NATO has weathered other crises before. The alliance did not support the disastrous US interventions in Vietnam and Iraq.

    The Trump administration’s past complaints about NATO have yielded some results, including a pledge that each alliance member (except Spain) would spend 5 percent of its GDP on defense by 2035 and Europe’s growing recognition that it must reduce its defense free-riding on America.

    What’s lacking in Washington is any serious desire to relinquish power over the continent, which is the key factor encouraging our allies to continue their free-riding. The Trump administration, which claims to consider Europe “strategically and culturally vital” to the United States, recognizes NATO’s central role in shaping America’s influence in the region. Moreover, having renounced its noninterventionist credo, the Trump administration now views Europe (as its predecessors did) as a launching pad for power projection across Eurasia.

    This largely explains why the United States will still keep over 70,000 military personnel deployed in Europe, retain ultimate leadership of NATO, and fully participate in NATO’s daily activities. The war in Iran could prolong that pattern as Washington’s war effort depends on its bases in Europe.

    Plans to grade European states and reallocate US troops based on their level of support are reminiscent of the divide-and-rule tactics thatTrump and other American presidents have employed in the region since the early Cold War.

    And although his rhetoric is often aggressive, President Trump also has a pattern of rapidly de-escalating his words when necessary, as illustrated by the end of last year’s Greenland controversy.

    Today’s controversies could prompt Europe’s strategic awakening. Washington did not consult its allies before the Iran War, tried to force them into highly dangerous operations in the Persian Gulf, and delayed arms exports to Europe as the conflict dragged on.

    Combined with the glaring dysfunctions of America’s political system, those moves could prompt European leaders to question Washington’s reliability, especially given the war’s toll on the European economy and its public unpopularity. Yet despite their economic and military potential, European states remain deeply dependent on US weapons and defense-relevant technologies, as well as on other strategic domains, including energy and finance. President Trump has only encouraged this dependence by insisting that Europe buy US defense platforms.

    Beyond Washington’s hegemonic policies, this situation stems from Europe’s inherent political and strategic disagreements, rivalries between defense manufacturers, and financial constraints. Dependence, in turn, compounds weakness. Despite their reservations, European leaders have addressed the Iran War in a disorganized manner. For instance, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others continue to support US operations in some capacity, including logistics and overflights, despite their government’s public criticism of the war.

    More broadly, European leaders, who have responded positively whenever the Trump administration has played the appeasement card with Russia, remain committed to preventing a rift. Thus, some of them might still be tempted to ride out Trump’s term without making any structural changes.

    But the benefits Washington receives from this arrangement are illusory and unhelpful. If allowed to persist, the burden of European defense may prevent Washington from refocusing its resources on domestic priorities, the Western Hemisphere, and the Indo-Pacific.

    Instead of issuing empty threats while clinging to hegemonic ambitions, the United States should engage constructively with Europe, encourage Europe’s strategic autonomy, and—most importantly—take concrete measures to retrench from the region.