Back
World News

US President Considers NATO Withdrawal Amid Iran Conflict; Allies Assert Defensive Mandate

Generated on: Last updated: 34 sources
View source

Tensions Rise as Trump Considers NATO Withdrawal Over Iran Conflict

A breakdown of the alliance rift, legal hurdles, and what comes next.

"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." — Stefano Stefanini, former Italian ambassador to NATO

Tensions between the United States and its NATO allies have escalated following the U.S.-led military operation against Iran, which began in late February. U.S. President Donald Trump has stated he is considering withdrawing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), citing a lack of support from allies during the conflict. NATO members have responded by reaffirming the alliance's defensive purpose and noting they were not consulted on the operation's initiation.

Background: NATO's Purpose and Structure

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a defensive alliance established in 1949 to ensure the security of its members—the United States, Canada, and European nations—through political and military means. The alliance was formed in the aftermath of World War II. It has expanded from its original 12 members to 32, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.

A central principle of the alliance is Article 5, which stipulates that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members. This provision has been invoked once, following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, leading to allied participation in operations in Afghanistan.

U.S. Stance on NATO and Iran Conflict

Presidential Statements

President Trump has stated in multiple interviews that he is considering withdrawing the U.S. from NATO. He described the alliance as a "paper tiger" and said U.S. membership was "beyond reconsideration" following the Iran conflict.

The President's consideration follows what his administration describes as a lack of support from NATO allies during the military operation against Iran. Specific grievances include:

  • NATO allies declining to participate in the U.S.-Israeli military campaign
  • Some allies denying the U.S. permission to use their airspace or airfields
  • Allies resisting calls to deploy ships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Secretary of State's Position

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has echoed these concerns. While acknowledging his past support for NATO as a senator, Rubio stated that if the U.S. cannot utilize European military bases during conflicts like the one with Iran, the value of U.S. membership would need to be reexamined.

NATO Members' Positions

Alliance's Defensive Mandate

Turkish Trade Minister Ömer Bolat stated in an interview that NATO allies are not obligated to assist the United States and Israel in the conflict with Iran. He said NATO's presence is "primarily as a deterrent force to maintain peace and security on the European continent, but also globally."

NATO members have rejected initial U.S. calls for support in the military campaign, noting they were not consulted ahead of the strikes. Members have reaffirmed the alliance's defensive mandate and rejected claims that they had a duty to intervene alongside the U.S.

Specific Allied Actions

Several European nations have taken independent stances during the conflict:

  • Spain: Reportedly denied U.S. military aircraft permission to use airspace and joint military bases for operations related to Iran. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called for diplomacy and adherence to international law.
  • France: Blocked Israeli military planes from its airspace and criticized the war's initiation, citing a lack of consultation. French authorities indicated a case-by-case approach for the use of joint bases and airspace.
  • Italy: Reportedly denied U.S. military aircraft permission to use an air base in Sicily for Middle East operations.

UK Position

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stated that the UK will not be drawn into a war that is not its own. He initially declined to permit the use of British bases for offensive strikes, later authorizing their use for what he described as defensive actions against Iranian missiles.

Starmer has advocated for closer partnership with European allies, stating that the UK's long-term national interest requires stronger ties with Europe in defense, security, energy, and the economy. He has affirmed the UK's commitment to NATO, calling it "the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen."

Diplomatic Meetings

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte met with President Trump in Washington, D.C., on April 8. Following the meeting, Rutte acknowledged that President Trump was "clearly disappointed with many NATO allies" and stated he could see the President's viewpoint.

During his Washington visit, Rutte also met separately with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The State Department reported that discussions covered the Iran conflict, efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war, and coordination among NATO allies.

Rutte stated in a speech that European members are increasing defense spending and providing support to the alliance. He noted that some allies were initially slow to provide logistical support, partly because the U.S. chose not to inform allies in advance to maintain operational surprise.

Legal Framework for Withdrawal

U.S. Law

In 2023, the U.S. Congress passed legislation prohibiting a president from unilaterally withdrawing the U.S. from NATO. The provision, included in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024, requires either:

  • The advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of senators present concurring
  • An Act of Congress

The legislation was co-sponsored by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine and then-Senator Marco Rubio (now Secretary of State).

NATO Treaty

NATO's Article 13 allows any member country to withdraw one year after providing notice of denunciation.

Assessment of Legal Constraints

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, stated that President Trump is unlikely to fully withdraw the U.S. from NATO due to congressional opposition, characterizing the President's rhetoric on the matter as "pure showmanship."

Analysts have noted that while a formal withdrawal faces legal hurdles, other presidential actions—such as adjusting troop deployments, reducing participation in military exercises, or signaling reduced commitment to Article 5—could affect the alliance's operational capacity and political cohesion.

Congressional Responses

Republican and Democratic Support for NATO

Several U.S. senators from both parties have expressed support for NATO:

  • Senators Thom Tillis (R) and Jeanne Shaheen (D), co-chairs of the Senate NATO observer group, issued a joint statement highlighting NATO's support after the September 11 attacks and warning that withdrawal would undermine U.S. national security.
  • Senators Mitch McConnell (R) and Chris Coons (D) issued a statement emphasizing the sacrifices of NATO troops alongside American forces and stating that Americans are safer with a strong and united NATO.
  • Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) stated that the Senate would not vote to leave NATO.

Thorn Tillis and Mitch McConnell are in the final months of their current Senate terms.

Strait of Hormuz Security

U.S. Request for Commitments

Following his meeting with President Trump, Secretary-General Rutte informed several European capitals that the U.S. is requesting concrete commitments within days for assistance in securing the Strait of Hormuz.

Allied Willingness to Contribute

European diplomats have indicated that while NATO as an organization would not participate in the conflict against Iran, allied nations are willing to explore long-term solutions for the Strait of Hormuz.

Rutte confirmed that NATO and other U.S. allies would participate in securing the Strait following a ceasefire agreement. He specified that this effort would include non-NATO nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

  • Australia: Chief of Defence Admiral David Johnston confirmed the Royal Australian Navy's capability to deploy a warship to the Strait if requested.
  • Germany: Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed Germany's willingness to assist once a long-term ceasefire was established.
  • United Kingdom: PM Starmer detailed discussions with Gulf leaders on a "practical plan" to restore freedom of navigation. The UK is convening a meeting of 35 countries to explore diplomatic and political measures for restoring access. The U.S. has reportedly not been invited.

Ceasefire

A two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran was announced on April 7, which includes provisions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The reopening plan was still being developed.

European Defense Considerations

Defense Spending

European NATO members have increased combined defense spending by more than 62% between 2020 and 2025. All NATO members met the 2% of GDP defense spending target last year and agreed to increase that benchmark under U.S. pressure.

Capability Gaps

A report by the International Institute for Security Studies (IISS) identified European dependencies on U.S. capabilities in several areas, including:

  • Deep strike capabilities
  • Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
  • Space-based capabilities
  • Logistics
  • Integrated air and missile defense

The IISS estimated it would take over a decade and approximately $1 trillion for Europe to develop equivalent conventional military capabilities. European defense industries face challenges in rapidly increasing production, and some militaries struggle with recruitment and retention.

European Initiatives

European countries are taking steps to develop independent security arrangements:

  • Germany published its first military strategy since WWII, aiming to become the strongest conventional army in Europe by 2039
  • France opened talks with seven non-nuclear nations on extending its nuclear deterrent
  • EU ambassadors conducted a tabletop exercise to test implementation of the mutual assistance pact

Implications for Alliance Cohesion

Expert Assessments

Analysts have offered varying assessments of the alliance's future:

  • Jim Townsend (Center for a New American Security): "There will be no return to business as usual in NATO... We are closer to a break than we have ever been."
  • Stefano Stefanini (former Italian ambassador to NATO): "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."
  • Minna Alander (Swedish Institute of International Affairs): "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."
  • Jörn Fleck (Atlantic Council Europe Center): Advised European leaders to avoid being drawn into provocations over NATO and Article 5.

Potential U.S. Troop Repositioning

The Wall Street Journal reported, citing administration officials, that the Trump administration is considering a proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from NATO member countries that did not contribute to the U.S.-Israeli military operation. This plan is distinct from a full withdrawal but could include closing military bases in some countries and repositioning troops to countries considered more supportive, such as Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and Greece.

The U.S. has approximately 84,000 troops stationed across Europe, including 36,436 in Germany, 12,662 in Italy, and 3,814 in Spain as of end of 2025.

UK's Broader Diplomatic Response

PM Starmer has stated he will act in Britain's national interest regardless of external pressure. The UK government has maintained a policy of limited public commentary on the U.S. action, aiming to avoid diplomatic friction while pursuing bilateral interests including trade negotiations and cooperation on Ukraine.

The UK has also expressed support for the Danish position against U.S. statements regarding Greenland, with Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper affirming that Greenland's future is solely a matter for its inhabitants and Denmark.

"There will be no return to business as usual in NATO... We are closer to a break than we have ever been." — Jim Townsend, Center for a New American Security