The U.S. threatening to withdraw from NATO is just a compliance test.

“ If NATO simply means that we station troops in Europe to defend Europe, but when we need to use their military bases, their answer is ‘no’—then why should we keep staying in NATO? ”

This is what U.S. Secretary of State Rubio recently asked in an interview: a “soul-searching question.”

Although “the final decision will be made by President Trump,” Rubio emphasized that, including NATO member states, “everyone knows that without the United States there would be no NATO. If one day the United States decides to withdraw its troops from Europe, NATO will end right there.”

Rubio’s view is by no means isolated. Recently, a British media outlet’s revelations from an interview with Trump showed that Trump is seriously considering leaving NATO; U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth also said that, considering that some allies refuse to provide help, Trump will make a decision about NATO’s future after the conclusion of military actions against Iran.

With the Iraq-Iran war situation lasting more than a month, the United States is, on one hand, claiming it has achieved “fast, decisive, overwhelming victory,” and on the other, denouncing NATO allies as “paper tigers” who do not cooperate with the action. Beyond the U.S. narrative of “winning by learning,” can it be that this NATO political and military organization—already 77 years old—really has to face a historic turning point?

One

Since the United States and Israel began striking Iran, NATO European allies such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have一直“kept their distance.”

Reports from overseas media show that France refused to allow Israel’s weapons to be transported through its airspace to strike Iran; Italy refused to let U.S. military aircraft flying to the Middle East land at its air force bases; the United States demanded that Poland deploy “Patriot” air and missile defense systems to the Middle East, but was refused; Spain announced it would close its airspace to aircraft participating in military actions against Iran and also refused the United States’ request to use military bases within its territory to strike Iran…

With allies undermining them like this, the White House is furious. Trump called NATO a “paper tiger,” said he wants to withdraw from NATO, and singled out and criticized the “non-cooperation” by countries such as the UK and France: “The U.S. will remember.”

Last month, as the fighting escalated and caused bottlenecks in the Strait of Hormuz and a surge in oil prices, the White House, under pressure both at home and abroad, wanted to bring allies together for “joint escort,” but European countries responded lukewarmly. The High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, Kallas, said: “The U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran is not Europe’s war.” At that time, Trump also warned that if NATO allies do not take action to help the United States ensure the strait remains open, NATO would face a very bleak future.

Is the U.S. threat to withdraw from NATO truly a serious idea, or just an outburst of emotion?

Cui Hongjian, director of the Center for EU and Regional Development Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, believes that threatening to withdraw from NATO is a typical “Trump-style” emotional statement, and it also reflects the U.S.’s view of NATO over the past nearly 10 years—namely that Europe “uses” the United States on security issues, while not fulfilling corresponding obligations.

But from the perspective of European countries, this time’s U.S.-Israel military action against Iran does not fall under the NATO framework. The U.S. did not notify allies in advance or coordinate actions before the outbreak of hostilities; after the war started, it demanded cooperation. This violates NATO’s principles of “unanimous consultation and collective defense.” Europe clearly is unwilling to accept NATO becoming a tool dominated by the United States, with Europe unconditionally following its lead.

What’s more, the war has already created tangible impacts on Europe. According to reports from the Euronews website, in just over a month, the fighting has increased Europe’s fossil fuel import costs by about 14 billion euros. Data from the EU’s statistics office show that in March, the euro area’s inflation rate rose from 1.9% in the previous month to 2.5%, the first time since last November that it has surpassed the European Central Bank’s 2% inflation target.

Two

Actually, it is not news that the United States wants to “exit” NATO. Previously, the White House had repeatedly criticized NATO allies for insufficient defense spending and repeatedly used “exit” threats to pressure member states to increase the proportion of military spending.

Cui Hongjian believes Trump’s stance toward NATO across his two terms has remained consistent and continued to escalate. In his first term, he focused on “NATO is useless,” arguing that NATO hinders the United States and constrains its absolute leadership position in the Western world. In his second term, criticism shifted from words to real action: on the one hand, he pushed Europe to increase defense spending so Europe would take on more security responsibilities and reduce the burden on the United States; on the other hand, he frequently issued threats to “exit NATO.”

This is also the pressure tactic commonly used by this U.S. administration: first present conditions that the other side will find difficult to accept, create fear, and then force the weaker party to cooperate proactively.

In essence, it is a “compliance test” imposed on allies, aimed at reshaping NATO rules and decision-making processes, forcing Europe to unconditionally follow the will of the United States. In this Middle East conflict, the United States carried out unilateral action but demanded that allies cooperate and share the costs and consequences—this is precisely the logic behind it.

Europe has also become unfazed by U.S. threats to “exit NATO.” British Prime Minister Starmer said that, on issues such as defense and security, energy, emissions, and the economy, long-standing national interests require the UK to build closer partnerships with European allies, and that “the UK won’t choose between the United States and Europe.” German Federal Government spokesperson Könüllius said this is a recurring phenomenon, and people outside can judge how it affects things.

Cui Hongjian analyzes that behind Europe’s general unwillingness to accept Trump’s demands are multiple considerations. Today’s core security issue in Europe is still the Ukraine crisis, and Europe lacks the capacity to handle two major neighboring conflicts at the same time. If Europe becomes involved in the Middle East fighting, it would not only divert Europe’s strategic and fiscal resources, but could also intensify internal disagreements in security demands and trigger new fragmentation.

Europe also has clear resistance to the U.S.’s approach of “not informing in advance, dumping the burden afterward.” If Europe were to comply passively with U.S. demands this time, the foundation of transatlantic relations would be fundamentally changed; afterwards, Europe would be forced to accept a “master-servant” relationship with the United States, which Europe cannot tolerate.

In addition, Europe wants to preserve independent diplomatic space and a mediation function in the Middle East to safeguard its long-term interests in energy, trade, and regional security.

Prime Minister of the UK said, “We won’t be drawn into the war.” Source: Xinhua International Headlines video account

Three

So, will the United States really withdraw from NATO?

At the level of technical procedures, the United States will pass a law in 2023 stating that “the president may not suspend, terminate, repeal, or withdraw the United States’ position in the NATO treaty,” but there is also a loophole: unless the Senate agrees by a 2/3 majority vote, or Congress passes a new law.

Cui Hongjian points out that whether the United States will “exit NATO” is deeply intertwined with U.S. domestic politics and party competition. If Republicans hold advantages in both the Senate and the House, the law described above would be difficult to form an effective constraint on the White House’s intent to “exit NATO.” The midterm elections in November are crucial: if, after the election, control of both chambers shifts to different parties, the legal constraint on the president would be significantly strengthened.

Judging by intent, the White House is still repeating the old playbook of exerting maximum pressure—using troop withdrawal and “exiting NATO” to create panic and forcing Europe to compromise on defense spending and geopolitical positions. Even if it does not “exit NATO,” the United States may still take steps such as reducing troop deployments, weakening military cooperation, and lowering political commitments.

Europe is also gradually seeing that the “big brother” is unreliable. Some European media have said that current transatlantic relations are at the lowest point in history, and that continued U.S. threats would only further deepen the divide between the U.S. and Europe.

Cui Hongjian analyzes that the U.S.-Israel war against Iran further highlights contradictions within NATO. The uncertainty of the Trump administration’s policies and the long-term nature of changes in U.S. policy have become facts that Europe must accept. The United States is changing from a partner for Europe into an adversary—this trend is set in stone. This will push Europe to develop more strategies for engaging with the U.S. at the institutional level, and force Europe to accelerate the building of independent strategic capabilities. To escape security dependency on the U.S., Europe has already started addressing key issues such as nuclear reliance, truly placing security and defense matters on its own interests and capabilities.

By/Zimu

Edited by/Dian Cang

A wealth of information and precise analysis—find it all in the Sina Finance APP