President Trump may be frustrated by the apparent lackluster response he has received from his European allies in the conflict with Iran. But retaliating by withdrawing the US from NATO – as he suggested he might do in an interview with The Telegraph – could ultimately prove to be a defeat for him in his efforts to reassert American dominance in world affairs. No one seriously questions America’s position as the world’s undisputed military superpower. The sheer scale and range of military capabilities deployed against Iran over the past month have demonstrated the overwhelming firepower the US can bring to the battlefield.
Despite the eventual end of the conflict, it is now clear that Iran has suffered a devastating defeat, one that will severely limit Tehran’s ambitions to be the dominant force in the Middle East for years to come. World leaders will no longer need to worry about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or perhaps even its malicious support for Islamist terrorist groups around the world. Whoever leads Iran after hostilities end—regime change remains a viable option—will find it difficult to rebuild the war-torn country, let alone pursue grandiose plans for regional dominance.
For that, world leaders owe Trump a great deal of gratitude, regardless of how they feel about the way his administration has acted to neutralize the threat that Iran has posed to Western security — for four decades or more. They should also be grateful for the clear message that Trump has sent to other hostile powers, such as Russia and China: that they risk underestimating his resolve to defend America’s interests. There has been a tendency in Moscow and Beijing, since Trump’s first term as president, to think that Trump is only a loudmouth when it comes to using military action. I doubt anyone in Russia or China would say that after the devastation inflicted on Iran, a country that is supposed to be a close ally of both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
But while Trump has every right to appreciate the extraordinary military achievement achieved by the US military and its Israeli allies in the fight against the ayatollahs, he would be wrong to conclude that America no longer needs its European allies – even if their contribution to the conflict has been less than impressive. From denying American warplanes access to their bases to their lack of enthusiasm for defending their interests in the Persian Gulf, European leaders have not behaved in the manner expected of reliable allies. However, preserving the NATO alliance remains in Washington’s broader military and economic interests.
As a businessman, Trump will at least recognize the importance of the transatlantic trading partnership between the United States and Europe, which accounts for about a third of global trade. It is highly doubtful that this profitable relationship would survive if the United States were to withdraw from NATO, thereby encouraging Europeans to become even more anti-American in their attitudes. The Trump administration should also not ignore the important contribution that Europeans continue to make to the NATO alliance, both in terms of military capabilities and intelligence gathering. From the United Kingdom’s perspective, Britain’s involvement in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance provides Americans with access to areas of the world that would otherwise be difficult to penetrate. And while Europe’s military strength remains unmatched by America’s superior firepower, it can nevertheless make a valuable contribution to defending Europe against Russia, which allows Washington to focus on other priorities, such as Asia and the Pacific.
Before the conflict with Iran, it is worth remembering that Europe has responded positively to Trump’s demand that more be done to defend the Arctic from Russia and China, with the United Kingdom offering to deploy an aircraft carrier to the region later this year as part of a NATO mission to boost security. However, European leaders still have much more to do if they are to convince the Trump Administration that it is still in Washington’s broader interests to maintain NATO membership. This is particularly true for Britain, a country once considered America’s most important ally in Europe but which, thanks to more than a decade of drastic defense cuts, now risks becoming militarily irrelevant. As the president made clear in his scathing comments to The Telegraph, he has a particularly low opinion of the UK’s combat capabilities, particularly the Royal Navy and its two new six-billion-pound [6.9 billion euros] aircraft carriers, which he claimed were “not working.”
While previous Conservative administrations deserve some of the blame for the sorry state of our Armed Forces, Keir Starmer has not helped matters by repeatedly insisting that he is increasing defence spending without actually providing any additional funding. When the government declares that repairing potholes should be included in future defence spending – on the grounds that functional roads are necessary for the movement of military equipment – it is clear that the Prime Minister has no real interest in improving the strength of our Armed Forces. And as long as this remains the case, European leaders will find it difficult to counter Trump’s argument that the European contingent of NATO is nothing more than a “paper tiger”.