Since the start of the war with Iran, Donald Trump’s criticism of European allies has only been exceeded with his rhetoric against Iran itself.  It has been thus, despite the fact that Russia has reportedly supplied Iran with intelligence for targeting American troops.  Now, it has been reported that Hungary offered to help Iran after Israel’s  pager attack on Hezbollah, but is unlikely that Trump will even consider criticizing Viktor Orban, who he has enthusiastically supported for re-election. 

Understandably, NATO countries have been reluctant to dive into the conflict with Iran, given that they were not consulted prior to Trump’s attack on Iran, and due to the erratic actions and statements of the American president.  Trump has swung from bellicose to accommodating when discussing Iran, often within the same day, and sometimes within the same paragraph. It would be difficult for any president to lead a coalition into war without a consistent and rational plan and goal.

Trump has been particularly critical of NATO countries for their failure to commit to opening the Strait of Hormuz.  He has stated that the U.S. has done the hard work, leaving a relatively easy task of opening of the Strait to the Europeans.  Then, he has been enraged when the Europeans have balked at this, repeatedly referring to NATO as a “paper tiger”, and accusing it of failing to be there when America needs it. 

Yet Trump’s position is undermined by the fact that the U.S. has not itself attempted to open the Strait, or escort shipping through it.  Many experts say that attempting to do so would be extremely risky, and could result in large casualties.  If the U.S. is unwilling to undertake this task, why would the Europeans agree to do so?

Trump also has been critical of particular European countries restrictions on launching attacks from NATO bases in their countries.  Spain has been particularly restriction, while Britain has allowed bases to be used for defensive operations, but not offensive ones.

The shaky state of Trump’s position on NATO has many worried about whether he will pull out of the alliance altogether.  Yesterday, Trump met with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO.  It was reported that the meeting was tense, and that Trump repeated his threat to pull out of NATO.  He has not done so as of today. However, he posted the following at the  conclusion of the meeting:

“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN,” … REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”

If Trump withdraws the U.S. from NATO there would be pushback from Congress, even Republicans.  Perhaps this is what has convinced Trump not to take this step.  Increased pressure on Trump to back off from this threat, and tone down his rhetoric against NATO, would be useful in preventing destruction of our most important alliance, leaving Putin ecstatic and America in a much weaker position in the world. Even if NATO is not destroyed, it will be salvageable when and if the U.S. has a new president who values the benefit of having allies.