Seventy-seven years ago, on April 4, 1949, a landmark defense agreement was signed between 12 countries, laying the foundations of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
In the next seven decades, NATO would emerge as the world’s strongest and one of the longest-lasting mutual defense treaties.
Collective defence is NATO’s most fundamental principle. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against them all.
While the military alliance was initially established as a direct response to the threat posed by Soviet expansionism to democratic Europe, the treaty outlasted the Soviet Union’s collapse.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, many wondered if NATO had lost its relevance and its raison d’être.
However, far from collapsing, NATO emerged stronger.
In the 1980s, there were 16 NATO members. However, by 2024, it had doubled its strength to 32 countries.
While NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union states created new conflicts, such as the Ukraine War, it also led to a new round of expansion for NATO.
In 2023, Finland joined NATO, followed by Sweden in 2024.
However, despite this unprecedented expansion, NATO is going through its most critical phase.
The Ukraine War and the Iran War are testing NATO, the world’s largest, strongest, and oldest military alliance, like never before, to the point that many security experts are questioning whether it can survive this challenge.
NATO might have survived the Soviet Union and the Cold War, but Russia’s war in Ukraine and the US’s war in the Middle East have exposed its many vulnerabilities and the deep-rooted schism within it.
NATO might have expanded to 32 countries and decided to spend an unprecedented 5% of its GDP on defense, yet NATO is also perhaps at its weakest point in history.
Iran War and NATO’s Emerging Faultlines
In the last seven decades, NATO’s Article 5 has been invoked only once, following the 9/11 terror attacks on the US in 2001.
US President Donald Trump expected to invoke NATO’s collective security clause in the Iran War as well; however, he faced concerted pushback from European countries, exposing the emerging fault lines in the transatlantic alliance.
Expressing his frustration with the European countries, Trump said NATO’s refusal to cooperate with US military operations in Iran was a “test” for the security alliance and that he would “remember” their response.
“That’s why I’m so disappointed in NATO. Because this was a test for NATO,” Trump said on March 26 during a Cabinet meeting at the White House. “We’re going to remember.”
Trump further said he specifically asked NATO partners to help open the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial waterway through which nearly 20% of the world’s crude oil and natural gas is transported, which has remained blocked since the beginning of the war.
“They didn’t want to get involved, and I believe that’s going to cost them dearly,” he said.
Recently, Trump has also called NATO a “paper tiger”.
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made Washington’s assistance in the Ukraine War, which many European countries consider an existential battle for their survival and future, conditional upon Europe’s assistance in the Iran War.
Calling out European leaders who said the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz “is not Europe’s war,” Rubio said, “well, Ukraine isn’t our war, yet we’ve contributed more to that fight than anyone.”
He said that the United States has shouldered a disproportionate share of global security responsibilities while its partners have been reluctant to step in when Washington needed support. “The U.S. is constantly asked to help in wars, and we have,” Rubio said. “But when we had a need, we didn’t get positive responses from NATO.”
Together, President Trump’s and Rubio’s statements reflect a deepening wedge across the Atlantic over security priorities and the foremost threats to international peace and stability.
For Europe, it is Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that constitutes a primary and existential threat to Europe, and consequently to NATO; however, the Trump administration does not share this apocalyptic view of Moscow and is eager to cut a deal with President Putin, even at the cost of sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On the other hand, for the US, Iran’s ballistic missile program, its nuclear program, and its support to non-state actors in the Gulf region, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis, constitute the most immediate and urgent threat to international peace and stability.
This differing view of security priorities and threat assessments can unravel the seven-decade-old security alliance, a process already underway and evident in the statements of Trump and Rubio.
NATO’s Article 5, or the mutual defense clause, is the heart of NATO, and it is worthless if the member-states don’t share the same threat assessment or have irreconcilable security priorities.
However, that is not the only challenge NATO is facing. According to defense experts, apart from differing security priorities, the alliance is also suffering from resource exhaustion, strategic overreach, and internal divisions.
NATO’s resource exhaustion and strategic overreach have also been exacerbated by two simultaneous wars: one in Ukraine and one with Iran.
On March 28, it was reported that the US is considering shifting some air defense assets, including Patriot missile systems, from Ukraine to the Middle East.
This can further aggravate the differences between the US and its European NATO allies.
Citing the irreconcilable differences between the US and its European partners, Edward Lucas, senior security journalist at The Times, warned on March 26 that ‘Nato Is Falling Apart Before Our Eyes’.
Douglas Macgregor, retired U.S. Army colonel, former Pentagon adviser to the Secretary of Defense, and military analyst, has repeatedly called the Ukraine war a misuse of NATO that has exhausted and discredited the military alliance.
He also believes that NATO will not survive the Ukraine crisis.
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, ex-U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, and geopolitical analyst, believes that a defeat in Ukraine will unravel the alliance.
“Russia’s victory in the conflict in Ukraine will lead to the actual collapse of NATO” due to the combination of strategic failures in Afghanistan and Ukraine, Ritter warned in January this year.
Prof. John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago political scientist, has made a similar warning.
He argues a Russian victory would be a “devastating defeat for NATO,” as the alliance effectively waged war against Russia via Ukraine, leading to finger-pointing and loss of credibility.
Herbert Wulf, Professor of International Relations and former Director of Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies, in an article last month, ‘NATO is Falling Apart; the EU is Faltering – Good!’ argued that both NATO and the EU “need to reinvent themselves and break free from US influence.”
Like Mearsheimer, Wulf also believes that the Ukraine War will lead to NATO falling apart; however, for Wulf, this is good riddance, as he believes that Europe was overtly dependent on the US and could not have escaped US influence within NATO’s structure.
“It is time to act to achieve European independence by building a European defence alliance. Such an alliance should not be guided by geopolitical rivalries or imperialist ambitions cultivated in various forms by the USA, China, and Russia.”
“Instead of fatalistically looking to Washington and waiting for the next blunder by the chaotic president, European independence or autonomy is essential. This would strengthen Europe’s position vis-à-vis both the Trump administration and Russia,” Wulf said.
Even after the wars in Ukraine and Iran, NATO might still continue as a formal alliance; however, we can already observe that it has lost cohesion and a unified worldview.
A defeat in either Ukraine or Iran could further accelerate this process.
The Trump administration wants to pivot away from Europe and instead focus on the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Europe believes that the US is betraying it in its most critical hour of need.
The Transatlantic alliance no longer has a united purpose.
- Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR.
- He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
